D&D Next SHOULD Be Simpler, More Streamlined, More "Old School", here's why...

As gamers, we already have 3 systems (3.5, Pathfinder and 4e) that are super detailed, fleshed out, take a long time to resolve combats and have many broken combinations for the min/maxxer.  If I want to play a combat simulation with thousands of combinations of abilities and spells and fights that take an hour each, the market already has those games, three of them in fact.

Making 5e the same old thing as above (Oh look, Im in heavy plate, shooting fireballs and healing with this week's broken combination of 101 feats) where combat takse forever and role playing goes by the wayside will just add another game to this mess.

This street already has 3 pizza places (3.5, Pathfinder and 4e), don't make another one out of 5e, give us something different please.   
I agree, and people also forget that 5e is meant to be built on a 'module' idea.  I am inclined to agree with calls for more love for shields, more combat options for fights, a DR based armor system etc. but then I remember that this is the base model of a system which specifically designed itself for add-ons. 

This, in addition to your very good point that it is already competing with complex systems, makes me have a lot of faith in D&D Next so far.  It is pretty streamlined and simple, and yet still a blast. 
Oh god...I understand the purpose here, but you are really just begging for an edition war here. Try not to bring the words "old school" into the argument or else others will see it as a sign of campaigning for 1/2e.

On the topic, I've said many, many times that 5e should be its own edition, with it's own feel and goals. All these people trying to inject favorite mechanics from past editions, ANY PAST EDITON, are just hampering that growth. Let 5e be its own beast, and not just a mish mash of rules people want to make a return.

Let 5e fly free!!!
My two copper.
It's simple, remove backgrounds and specialties. The game is designed for it anyways. The key resolution system is simple and elegant.
As gamers, we already have 3 systems (3.5, Pathfinder and 4e) that are super detailed, fleshed out, take a long time to resolve combats and have many broken combinations for the min/maxxer.  If I want to play a combat simulation with thousands of combinations of abilities and spells and fights that take an hour each, the market already has those games, three of them in fact.

Making 5e the same old thing as above (Oh look, Im in heavy plate, shooting fireballs and healing with this week's broken combination of 101 feats) where combat takse forever and role playing goes by the wayside will just add another game to this mess.

This street already has 3 pizza places (3.5, Pathfinder and 4e), don't make another one out of 5e, give us something different please.   



You ever stop to think that 3.5E, Pathfinder, and 4E were what they were because that is what the modern RPG gamer wants? It makes sense to build a 4th pizza joint when nobody wants sushi.

@GEBELL

They keep saying modular, but what we are seeing is a stand alone system. I take a look at the current playtest and I don't see where the modularity is supposed to go.l
...whatever
As gamers, we already have 3 systems (3.5, Pathfinder and 4e) that are super detailed, fleshed out, take a long time to resolve combats and have many broken combinations for the min/maxxer.  If I want to play a combat simulation with thousands of combinations of abilities and spells and fights that take an hour each, the market already has those games, three of them in fact.

Making 5e the same old thing as above (Oh look, Im in heavy plate, shooting fireballs and healing with this week's broken combination of 101 feats) where combat takse forever and role playing goes by the wayside will just add another game to this mess.

This street already has 3 pizza places (3.5, Pathfinder and 4e), don't make another one out of 5e, give us something different please.   


Ironically, 0E and Chainmail -- you know, the predecessors of AD&D, 2E, 3E and 4E -- literally were combat/world simulations where you told stories in.  In fact, that's still probably the most "correct" way of playing D&D, given how most solutions to things like the five minute workday involve world simulation, and how non-combat is often better done via roleplaying (given how ability/skill/non-weapon proficiency checks can be cumbersome and inhibiting at times, especially with failure involved, until you add roleplaying to let the DM consider giving you a bonus or an auto-success).

That said, 5E gives players only 3 feats, maybe 6 feats if you're allowed to take another specialization at level 11.  While the eladrin chainmail of pre-3E might be considered an exception to the normal spellcasting rules on heavy armor, it's still allowing casters to use heavy armor while casting spells.  And in the current packet, spellcasters have a lot less options than just about any edition, 0E included, while martial classes now have a lot more options than they had prior to 4E.

And overall, some receive 5E as actually mundane and boring for the first 10 levels.  Frankly though, with the way D&D Next already offers an entire slew of mix-and-match pregens, combined with how (when removing "optional" components such as backgrounds and specialization) it's easy to generate a 5E character in probably just slightly more time than a pre-2E character, you're probably not seeing it but D&D Next is giving you exactly what you're asking for. 
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
D&D Next SHOULD Be Simpler, More Streamlined, more old-school...

One of those things is not like the others.  I'm sorry, but I can't just stand by and let my fellow old timers mis-represent our hobby's past.  Old School was never simple.  Never even close.  It was a mess.  A glorious mess we had a lot of fun with, but a mess.  The difference between the complexities of classic (0D&D, BECMI, 1e/2e AD&D) and modern (3.x/Pathfinder, 4e/Essentials) D&D is not in how complex they were - they're all pretty complex - but in what you got out of that complexity.  3.x/Pathfinder actually delivers tremendous customizeability  and no small amount of 'rewards for system mastery' to its players in return for its complexity.  4e actually delivers the semi-mythical holy grail of class balance in return of its.  Classic 'old school' D&D's complexity wasn't to deliver anything, it was just primitive, confused, inefficient and self-contradictory.  Sure, we got a lot out of it - because we put a lot into it, back in the day - but it was never, ever simple.  You or your DM may have paired away or re-built large amounts of whichever flavour of D&D you played in the previous millennium  and /made/ it simple, or you may have just gotten used to its complexity so it seems simpler, to you, compared to the unfamiliar complexity of the modern systems.  

As gamers, we already have 3 systems (3.5, Pathfinder and 4e) that are super detailed, fleshed out, take a long time to resolve combats and have many broken combinations for the min/maxxer. 

This street already has 3 pizza places (3.5, Pathfinder and 4e), don't make another one out of 5e, give us something different please.   

I'm sorry, but don't we already have 0D&D, BECMI, 1e AD&D (and recent re-prints there of), Rule Cyclopaedia D&D, 2e AD&D, Arduin, OSRIC, Hackmaster, and a host of other clones and retro-clones out there doing (or trying to do) both what classic D&D actually did, and what your rose-colored hind-sight glasses think it did?  Do we really need yet another game trying to cater to your old-school nostalgia?


Something different would mean something that isn't DM-centric old-school classic D&D, and isn't modern D&D in either the 3.5/Pathfinder player-centric powergamer mode, nor the 4e player-centric balanced mode, but some third 'new vision' of D&D that's none those.  I can't imagine what that might be (I certainly couldn't have imagined 4e in 2007), but it's surely not what 5e is at this point in the playtest.




5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Actually I agree with thecasualoblivion on this one: nothing in the system appears modular, especially in the latest packet.  Not the levels 11-20, not the skill die (the Rogue is irrevocably tied to it due to Skill Mastery at the very least), not the backgrounds (since it's the only way to shore up on Fighter over-specialization on combat).

I see no reason as to why levels 11-20 should be anywhere else but a splatbook.  Rogues shouldn't be tied to skills (rogues as skill monkeys should be a campaign consideration, not the default of rogues).  Fighters should be able to handle non-combat scenarios even without backgrounds. 
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
I feel the same way in a lot of regards. After playing the D&DN playtest, I actually realize how much I like the idea of just keeping the game moving instead of spending a ton of time looking up rules. It's definitely something I miss from the older editions. It gets people thinking more outside the box.

I don't want D&DN to become another game that has a big mountain of rules.
I feel the same way in a lot of regards. After playing the D&DN playtest, I actually realize how much I like the idea of just keeping the game moving instead of spending a ton of time looking up rules. It's definitely something I miss from the older editions. It gets people thinking more outside the box.

I don't want D&DN to become another game that has a big mountain of rules.




Many of us often laughed about how 4e was supposed to streamline and simplify the game but had so many rules.  

 
Many of us often laughed about how 4e was supposed to streamline and simplify the game but had so many rules.   



But it doesn't. It has many items, like powers, feats, but that's content not rules. The rules are quite few and simple indeed.
1e D&D may have less total numbers and bloat than later editions, but it is in NO WAY streamlined
My two copper.
I feel the same way in a lot of regards. After playing the D&DN playtest, I actually realize how much I like the idea of just keeping the game moving instead of spending a ton of time looking up rules. It's definitely something I miss from the older editions. It gets people thinking more outside the box.

I don't want D&DN to become another game that has a big mountain of rules.


Sadly, it already is a mountain of rules, assuming you confuse content with rules.

Backgrounds & Skills: 11 pages (6 of which is actual rules and not just samples)
Classes: 28 pages (all are actual rules, and we're talking about *JUST* the core four + monk; we're still missing at least five more classes [warlord, sorcerer, warlock, ranger, paladin])
Creating a Character: 5 pages (all rules)
Equipment: 11 pages (all rules)
How to Play: 24 pages (all rules)
Maneuvers: 4 pages (all rules)
Races: 8 pages (all rules)
Specialties and Feats: 11 pages (6 of which is actual rules)
Spells: 35 pages (all rules)

Total: 137 pages of player-related material, 127 of which involve rules.

And this is the playtest mind you.  By comparison, 13th Age in its last, pre-publishing itineration has more than 336 pages, but that includes campaign setting, introductory adventure, bestiary, monster creation rules and other necessary publishing details aside from player materials (which has 9 classes mind you, as opposed to just 4 as seen in the playtest).  And they're going to cut that down to keep to publishing costs and releasing the rest as free downloadable content.  Which means with starting player content alone, D&D Next would certainly be "another game that has a big mountain of rules."
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
The most simple and steamlined version of D&D ever was the May playtest packet.

And that was because it was mostly void of any detail and you had to invent rules as go.

Then, if your group was creative, it became the most complex and inconsistent version of D&D ever as you all make up (and forget) all those rulings.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!


Sadly, it already is a mountain of rules, assuming you confuse content with rules.


Yeah, it saddens me that the game gets more and more rules as things go on.  Especially when I see rules for things like a rogue taunting a monster. The game is just descending into the 3E/4E problem of having rules for everything, and when that happens, it kills the improvisation aspect of the game.

The more I played 3E and 4E, the more I realized that having more rules for things generally only told you what you can't do, instead of allowing you to do more.

Case in point.

Once the rogue has a taunt ability, now rogues who don't choose that ability can't taunt people. Now fighters can't taunt people, unless you want to make a fighter manuever to let them do the same thing. If you never write a taunt mechanic, then anyone can try taunting someone. By writing the rule, the list of potential taunters is reduced to just rogues who took a specific ability.
Case in point.

Once the rogue has a taunt ability, now rogues who don't choose that ability can't taunt people.


Why is this true?  What evidence do you have to back this up?  And please cite your sources.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Case in point.

Once the rogue has a taunt ability, now rogues who don't choose that ability can't taunt people.


Why is this true?  What evidence do you have to back this up?  And please cite your sources.



It's simply how rules work.

If you write a mechanic for power attack for instance, then to use that ability you need to take the feat. If there is no mechanic for it, then the DM may let you improvise it. But once the rule becomes something ironclad, then you either have that ability by the rules or you do not. And if you don't have it, then you can't perform that action.



Sadly, it already is a mountain of rules, assuming you confuse content with rules.


Yeah, it saddens me that the game gets more and more rules as things go on.  Especially when I see rules for things like a rogue taunting a monster. The game is just descending into the 3E/4E problem of having rules for everything, and when that happens, it kills the improvisation aspect of the game.

The more I played 3E and 4E, the more I realized that having more rules for things generally only told you what you can't do, instead of allowing you to do more.

Case in point.

Once the rogue has a taunt ability, now rogues who don't choose that ability can't taunt people. Now fighters can't taunt people, unless you want to make a fighter manuever to let them do the same thing. If you never write a taunt mechanic, then anyone can try taunting someone. By writing the rule, the list of potential taunters is reduced to just rogues who took a specific ability.

It's sad, really. This is exactly why I prefer 13th Age's approach, because just about every "power" that a complex class has is something definitely beyond what a skill check would do; for example, the 13th Age Rogue's Slick Feint pulls off a bluff and an attack in one turn, which means that while any other character - rogue or not - can try to mimick this power sequentially (bluff one person, then make an attack another), only those that have the power have the speed to utilize both in one turn... and those who would want to duplicate the power can still do so, but without the benefits of the power.  In other words, the system isn't stepping on itself when it comes to both rules and improvisation.

In defense of 4E however, it's actually quite strange that you stated that 4E has the problem of having rules for everything. Most people actually complain that 4E is severely lacking in non-combat rules, and the only game element that tries to address that (Martial Practices) appeared only once and was never heard from again in 4E.

Unless you're talking about skill challenges and the like, in which case I do have to point out that skill challenges were considered broken even by the devs themselves supposedly, given how Baker supposedly had custom rules about skill challenges which he never had inserted anywhere in the published rules, and while the Rules Compendium polished the appearance of skill challenges (not sure about the more subtle nuances of the system), overall skill challenges were basically useful for challenges and not for the more lighthearted sort of skill use.
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
Case in point.

Once the rogue has a taunt ability, now rogues who don't choose that ability can't taunt people.


Why is this true?  What evidence do you have to back this up?  And please cite your sources.



It's simply how rules work.

If you write a mechanic for power attack for instance, then to use that ability you need to take the feat. If there is no mechanic for it, then the DM may let you improvise it. But once the rule becomes something ironclad, then you either have that ability by the rules or you do not. And if you don't have it, then you can't perform that action.


Oh, see that's where you're getting confused.  Who gets yo use the rogue skill trick of taunt?  Just the rogues who select it.  Who can actually taunt enemies?  ANYONE.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Really they should just group half the stuff as Basic/Advanced/Master.

Let us have the level of detail we want.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Really they should just group half the stuff as Basic/Advanced/Master.

Let us yu the level of detail we want.


Which is completely doable if they just finish making the core as if it was core, and not adding every module into the core and making it appear as if everything is core.

Seriously, they could simply develop each class from levels 1-10, have everything rules-lite yet balanced at the core module, then proceed to develop an entire ZIP file entitled "MODULES" where everything from levels 11-20 to legacy modules to healing modules to backgrounds to specializations to prestige classes to whatever would be included.

Just to note: my favorite edition in D&D is 4E, and while modularity never the song of the day with that edition, the fact that everything was pretty modular in design already -- you could remove class features and powers will still make the class feel like the class it's supposed to represent, remove feats and everything still worked more or less (minor adjustments perhaps), remove healing surges and make adjustments to accommodate the removal and the system would still function [although given how healing worked in 4E, probably not a good idea], replace the default weapons with something like Gamma World 7E's weapons and it'd work no problem, alignment was already modular, and although magic items were mathematically part of the expected checks & balances to the point where they had to introduce Inherent Bonuses a DM could simply make appropriate adjustments on his side (by throwing in lower-level monsters, which actually does help in combat resolution as well) and run the game completely magic item-free, etc. -- was a good start in terms of both streamlining and complexity-tweaking.
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging

In defense of 4E however, it's actually quite strange that you stated that 4E has the problem of having rules for everything. Most people actually complain that 4E is severely lacking in non-combat rules, and the only game element that tries to address that (Martial Practices) appeared only once and was never heard from again in 4E.


Well yeah, I should probably actually elaborate. Rules for everything was probably the wrong term to use. 4E's rules for exploration are actually pretty good. I liked the rules lite nature of it. I hated skill challenges, because they were stupid, but the overall system wasn't bad.

The main issue with 4E was the combat (and given how long combats were, you're going to spend a lot of time in combat). And the combat in 4E was highly technical, like you could hardly take any action without requiring you to express your intent in rules terminology. Now I'm not saying that was necessarily a bad thing. 4E had a very well-balanced, interesting tactical combat system. It was just a horrible system to try to teach to newbies, because it was very complicated. Learning combat was like learning a new board game. You had to understand how the action system worked, you had to understand opportunity attacks, then you had to figure out how powers worked. I saw several new players and old players of the AD&D age, just overwhelmed at how technical the rules were.

Like I said, it's not really that 4E was bad. I actually found it a very well designed game at doing what the designers wanted to achieve. My only issue was that it wasn't the kind of game that anyone could sit down and play, it was the sort of game that required study.
I hated skill challenges, because they were stupid, but the overall system wasn't bad.


Which version of skill challenges?  Because they got a lot better after the online article that became part of the DMG2.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.


Oh, see that's where you're getting confused.  Who gets yo use the rogue skill trick of taunt?  Just the rogues who select it.  Who can actually taunt enemies?  ANYONE.



Well that's the problem though. If the DM lets anyone taunt like a rogue, then the rogue feels ripped off. If the DM lets people do a crappy watered down taunt, like taunt with disadvantage, then it's crap for anyone but a rogue to do it.

By having disarm as a fighter manuever, you now prevent anyone who doesn't have that manuever from doing that effectively.

Adding mechanics to mundane actions everyone should be able to attempt is highly problematic, because it becomes less about giving people new options and more about excluding people from doing things. Another example, Hide in shadows in AD&D. It wasn't a skill, it was a rogue ability. Which means that anyone who isn't a rogue can't hide, because they don't have that ability.

My only issue was that it wasn't the kind of game that anyone could sit down and play, it was the sort of game that required study.

Which was basically the same message 3E had, and to a certain degree, 2E as well.  In fact, I'd argue that 0E was pretty difficult to work with on the fly due to how that edition was also tied to Chainmail, and unless you were playing as a Fighting Man you would've needed a lot of studying just to make sure that you were doing stuff -- like survival -- "right".  Of course, that's assuming you remember all those times when you needed an entire backpack filled with all sorts of mundane gear (don't forget the 11-foot pole!) just to make sure that your PC got to live to level 5, when it would earn its right to have a name) with great fondness.
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging

Oh, see that's where you're getting confused.  Who gets yo use the rogue skill trick of taunt?  Just the rogues who select it.  Who can actually taunt enemies?  ANYONE.



Well that's the problem though. If the DM lets anyone taunt like a rogue, then the rogue feels ripped off. If the DM lets people do a crappy watered down taunt, like taunt with disadvantage, then it's crap for anyone but a rogue to do it.

By having disarm as a fighter manuever, you now prevent anyone who doesn't have that manuever from doing that effectively.


There is another way to handle it that lets the rogue be the best at it while not making it exclusive to them.  Let anyone do it but only allow the rogue to spend skill dice to enhance it.

Adding mechanics to mundane actions everyone should be able to attempt is highly problematic, because it becomes less about giving people new options and more about excluding people from doing things. Another example, Hide in shadows in AD&D. It wasn't a skill, it was a rogue ability. Which means that anyone who isn't a rogue can't hide, because they don't have that ability.


Actually, there's nothing there that prevented the DM from allowing Dex checks to hide.  Rogues would just always be the best at it because theuir percentage was better.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

It is possible they are testing different levels of modularity with each packet. The early was core and felt very 0e, the next felt kinda 2e with essentials, the latest seems 3e. could they work together?

As to non rogues attempting taunt, as a DM I can attest players usually only attempt what is listed on the character sheet. I have found even our group of experienced players were more prone to kick a goblin into a fire pit or try to talk their way out of a fight before the maneuver system tied their imaginations down.

But I really dig the XD concept... 

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

It is possible they are testing different levels of modularity with each packet. The early was core and felt very 0e, the next felt kinda 2e with essentials, the latest seems 3e. could they work together?

As to non rogues attempting taunt, as a DM I can attest players usually only attempt what is listed on the character sheet. I have found even our group of experienced players were more prone to kick a goblin into a fire pit or try to talk their way out of a fight before the maneuver system tied their imaginations down. 


Did the maneuvers tie their imaginations down or did it provide them with enough cool things to do that they didn't feel the need to improvise just to do cool stuff?  I ask because I've never had a problem with maneuvers making players less creative.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Case in point.

Once the rogue has a taunt ability, now rogues who don't choose that ability can't taunt people.


Why is this true?  What evidence do you have to back this up?  And please cite your sources.



It's simply how rules work.

If you write a mechanic for power attack for instance, then to use that ability you need to take the feat. If there is no mechanic for it, then the DM may let you improvise it. But once the rule becomes something ironclad, then you either have that ability by the rules or you do not. And if you don't have it, then you can't perform that action.


Oh, see that's where you're getting confused.  Who gets yo use the rogue skill trick of taunt?  Just the rogues who select it.  Who can actually taunt enemies?  ANYONE.



Kender
Really they should just group half the stuff as Basic/Advanced/Master.


Let us have the level of detail we want.



Bingo. While I think what we're seeing in the playtest is a combination of a number of modules, I really hope that when they release the game, they do present it with a few books with modules kind of preset (I'd go with classic/advanced/tactical, but tomayto tomahto).


While I've been gaming for 25 years now, I can't imagine 8 year old me, trying to build a coherent game with different modules when I first started the hobby.

Hmmmmmm. As opposed I am to 'old school' and a more simplified/streamlined game, I wonder what a simplified version of AD&D or D&D would be like.

I agree with Tony Vargas- AD&D was not simple- it was pretty rules heavy. However- I think the OP wants D&D Next an updated, revamped version of AD&D. Well- it appears your wish is coming true. That is exactly what Mearls & Co are doing.
It is possible they are testing different levels of modularity with each packet. The early was core and felt very 0e, the next felt kinda 2e with essentials, the latest seems 3e. could they work together?

As to non rogues attempting taunt, as a DM I can attest players usually only attempt what is listed on the character sheet. I have found even our group of experienced players were more prone to kick a goblin into a fire pit or try to talk their way out of a fight before the maneuver system tied their imaginations down. 


Did the maneuvers tie their imaginations down or did it provide them with enough cool things to do that they didn't feel the need to improvise just to do cool stuff?  I ask because I've never had a problem with maneuvers making players less creative.

Maybe I perceived them as being less imaginative. But honestly how often do your players perform an action that they do not have a mechanical advantage with? I have heard players say "not trying diplomacy because I don't have the skill." In 4e would your players have pushed someone into something if they didn't have an "at will" power to do so? Would you as a DM made the task more difficult because the maneuver was for certain classes? I am sure this is a common experience.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

It is possible they are testing different levels of modularity with each packet. The early was core and felt very 0e, the next felt kinda 2e with essentials, the latest seems 3e. could they work together?

As to non rogues attempting taunt, as a DM I can attest players usually only attempt what is listed on the character sheet. I have found even our group of experienced players were more prone to kick a goblin into a fire pit or try to talk their way out of a fight before the maneuver system tied their imaginations down. 


Did the maneuvers tie their imaginations down or did it provide them with enough cool things to do that they didn't feel the need to improvise just to do cool stuff?  I ask because I've never had a problem with maneuvers making players less creative.

Maybe I perceived them as being less imaginative. But honestly how often do your players perform an action that they do not have a mechanical advantage with? I have heard players say "not trying diplomacy because I don't have the skill" I am sure this is a common experience.


The diplomacy example you give is something that I've seen too.  Often, someone has the skill, and they get pushed forward as the party's face.  However, when no one has the skill, they still use it because "rawr! kill stuff!" isn't an acceptable solution to every problem (note that I'm not saying that you said or believe that it is).  Mechanical advantage is sought, because everyone wants to be as effective as possible, but it often comes as the secondary concern.  It ususally goes 1) "what should I do here?", then 2) "how do I make that action as effective as possible?"

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

It was just a horrible system to try to teach to newbies, because it was very complicated.


As someone who started with 4e, I don't see it. Me, and the few players who joined my group after I did who also never played D&D, never had any problem with the rules. Sometimes we slipped up, got corrected, then never did it again, but I don't see the learning difficulty.
Um, sorry, but "rawr, kill stuff" is always acceptable!

I get frustrated when the players look at their character sheet before they react to a situation. The more complexity in the character creation process the more likely that will occur.

My problem may be that I have not been a player character in over 10 years... 

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

Um, sorry, but "rawr, kill stuff" is always acceptable!

I get frustrated when the players look at their character sheet before they react to a situation. The more complexity in the character creation process the more likely that will occur.

My problem may be that I have not been a player character in over 10 years... 


That does tend to color the outlook.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
My problem may be that I have not been a player character in over 10 years... 


IDK.  That could be part of the problem.  In the group I played in (it has since disbanded, though we did play though a lot of 3e and much of 4e), we took turns DM'ing.  Two of us were experienced DMs, and when we played we brought our usual creativity to our character's actions.  It may have helped the other players to see us behaving in ways not listed on our sheets.  Or that may just be coincidence.  I cannot say one way or the other.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

There already is a streamlined and simple old school game and it's called Castles and Crusades.  


@ Vic: I didn't have trouble teaching 4E to the handful of people I met that were 1st time gamers. People picked it up pretty quickly from my experience. However I'd always start at 1st or 2nd level with them as do not shove the multitude of options down their throat and I'd always help with suggestions.
 
As someone who started with 4e




Ah, finally an explanation.


I really don't get what this has to do with anything.
4e is hands-down easier to teach people than 3.5/PF is. Both are very hard systems to teach people, in the grand scheme of things, but 4e is a bit more approachable. Its ground rules are a hair simpler, its options are a hair easier to understand, and it has far fewer "Oh, right, I forgot to mention this random rule" situations. But they're both still pretty hard compared to truly simple systems. Not as hard as stuff like HERO, which is all but unapproachable and you just have to kind of slog through with not nearly enough knowledge of how anything works to make anything like reasonable decisions until you're able to bootstrap up, but still pretty tough.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.