Community

I agree completely. You are correct that the goal appears to stripping the game down to the fundamentals so you can buy additional modules to create the game you want. I really do not think this will work in practice in terms of uniting people who like different play styles at the same table, modules or not the PF /4e schism was more than just which mechanics they liked better, the systems represented entirely different attitudes towards how the game should be played and what the game should fundamentally be. No combinations of modules will allow people who disagree on those issue to play in the same game and its foolish to think otherwise.

Jun 19, 2012 -- 9:58PM, Quellist wrote:

I agree completely. You are correct that the goal appears to stripping the game down to the fundamentals so you can buy additional modules to create the game you want. I really do not think this will work in practice in terms of uniting people who like different play styles at the same table, modules or not the PF /4e schism was more than just which mechanics they liked better, the systems represented entirely different attitudes towards how the game should be played and what the game should fundamentally be. No combinations of modules will allow people who disagree on those issue to play in the same game and its foolish to think otherwise.

You are correct.  But your actually missing the true goal.

See, while WoTC might talk about everyone being able to play together, that (even if it were possible) really doesn't matter. 
Because what they're really interested in doing is selling the game to all of us. 
They want the 4e players $.  They want the 3x/PF players $.  They want the OD&D/1e/2e players $.  And they want the complete newcomers $ as well.
Right now?  All they have is the 4e players $.  And maybe the newbies.  And that's not working for them.
So they have to design 1 product that can mimic 3-4 others depending upon what options you plug into it.

Will I buy it?  I don't know.  Depends upon how it turns out.  But I am interested in watching it form....    

Depends on what you mean by "performance."  Will DDN utterly change your rpg paradigm the way the OP seems to want?  Not likely.  But, then, that's not its design nor commercial purpose.  Its stated design purpose is to provide a basic platform into which people can plug in their favorite mechanics or thematic elements.  Even that goal isn't particularly new...2nd edition did something similar with its endless parade of expansions, gazeteers, and sub-games from Planescape to Spelljammer.
The economic goal is to save the brand from extinction by mollifying enough edition warriors and bringing in enough new blood to justify Hasbro's investment.

That's it.  Looking for some purpose outside of those goals is self-defeating.

Ultimitely there were great things in 2E with the precurser for skills in the form of Non Weapon Proficiencies, 3E had some great levels of versatility for multiclassing and feats, 4E gave a levels of new gameplay with tactics, skill challenges and rituals.

I'm not intent on starting a war but there were issues with all these systems, 3E lost cohesion as it got into mid-late teen levels and became almost unusable( I managed to get a campaign to 27th level but most of it was with my own modifications), 2E had no multiclass (duel classing was insane and multiclass was non-humans only), 4E is for many a bit too buttoned down in what a player can do in a round, rituals seem too expensive and skill challenges are for some impossible to implement.

Wotc is trying to bring the elements that make each fo the different groups back into D&D whilst recognising what has come in that is getting in the way of fun and roleplay. They want to make money of course but this same arguement is petty and tiresome, lets face a fact....THEY ARE A BUSINESS, no different from Microsoft but just like with Microsoft do you have to go to Windows 7 immediately on it's release? No...of course not and many don't but that is a personal choice.

What I've seen so far has learnt on the issues of the previous(for the most part) and stripped down the unnecessary to what is required. Vancian was an issue due to characters not memorising spells that were needed for the adventure something that IMO has been dealt with by the Ritual option, spellcasters running out of spells has been partly addressed by At-Will spells( I'd like to see some spell that are defined as Encounter and refreshed after a short rest).
Finally they are offering what options they are considering to the gaming audience (definitely not something that Bill Gates ever did) and allowing them to try and comment on their experience with the options, whether what they have gathered together is fun for players or too painful to be fun.
If you've got something constructive to propose then crack on, playtest and make your comments.

Jun 19, 2012 -- 10:35PM, Quellist wrote:

Jun 19, 2012 -- 10:24PM, Maxperson wrote:

Jun 19, 2012 -- 9:58PM, Quellist wrote:

I agree completely. You are correct that the goal appears to stripping the game down to the fundamentals so you can buy additional modules to create the game you want. I really do not think this will work in practice in terms of uniting people who like different play styles at the same table, modules or not the PF /4e schism was more than just which mechanics they liked better, the systems represented entirely different attitudes towards how the game should be played and what the game should fundamentally be. No combinations of modules will allow people who disagree on those issue to play in the same game and its foolish to think otherwise.

So you go with the majority or find another game to play.  Seriously, how is the above problem any different from a game with no modules that people at the game table disagree with?  At least with modules you can tailor the game to the majority of the table and they can have more fun than if it wasn't tailored.

But what are the odds they will ceate a core system and modules that are truly as they claim modular that will preform superiorly for a groups tastes than something designed holistically for the same purpose? Speaking as an engineer that is very low, to me modularity means "Easy to manufacture" not "the best product for the end consumer".

That's the million dollar question

If it is done right, it will be an amazing game.  If it isn't, it will be a load of trash.  I'm not going to assume load of trash, though, and will just adopt a wait and see attitude watching closely as 5e developes.