|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 8:29AM
#111
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
I'll put my own two cents in later, but for now I'll skip the preamble and get to the point: Some prople have said they find Next boring thus far. Do you agree or disagree and why?
It's impossible to tell at this point. A small fraction of a still rapidly changing game is not something any rational person can use to make a determination about the fun factor of 5e.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 8:35AM
#112
|
|
|
We have to games going on right now, one I am running and one that I am a player in. The game I am playing in is going great, and is already turning out to be one of the better rpg games I have played. We have had three sessions so far and the first two were great. Each had perfect balance between the three pillars, and player exchanges were excellent. The group is also well honed, figher, cleric, and wizard. All Dwarfs and all pretty much min/maxed. I'm playing the trickster cleric. The last session was not so great though, the Dm wanted to really dive into the suggested rythem of 4-5 encounters in a 5 hour session (3 average and 2 tough), and it was way too much. Not enough time to do any of the other pillars. It would have been a TPW, had not the dm saved us (we only played the last encounter as test also...).
So the funny thing is that I think the game is NOT boring, but that's only because we don't play it exactly as it's laid out. We shoot for about 3 encounters in 6 hour session and focus a lot of time on Roleplaying interaction and exploration. These are some of the great things about Next, ie. emphasis on exploration and roleplay and what drew us into the playtest. Wizard definately needs more to stay afloat right now, but conversely our fighter was over joyed with his potential. I think if mearl's last L&L proves accurate then we will be much happier.
Boring, no. Perfect, no. Great potential, absolutely.
I don't know how to tell you this, but no edition of D&D has focused more or less on role playing. That's what the DM and players bring to the table. Now maybe in 4E you got caught up in all the rules and long combats and just had a mental block that said you couldn't role play, but factually you can role play equally in all editions...
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 8:37AM
#113
|
|
|
I'll put my own two cents in later, but for now I'll skip the preamble and get to the point: Some prople have said they find Next boring thus far. Do you agree or disagree and why?
It's impossible to tell at this point. A small fraction of a still rapidly changing game is not something any rational person can use to make a determination about the fun factor of 5e.
I haven't seen people say 5E isn't fun. I have seen people say play test packet X is not fun...
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 9:56AM
#114
|
|
|
I don't like calling it boring, just because it's skeletal and incomplete at this point, but playing it is certainly more of a labor of playtest love and a desire to watch it develop than because it offers any reasons whatsoever to prefer it to PF or 4e. Next is like watching a movie with the director's commentary turned on in place of the normal audio. It's not anything like a compelling movie any more, I would never see it theaters and it's not going to win awards for best picture, but it's interesting in its own way.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 9:59AM
#115
|
|
|
I'll put my own two cents in later, but for now I'll skip the preamble and get to the point: Some prople have said they find Next boring thus far. Do you agree or disagree and why?
It's impossible to tell at this point. A small fraction of a still rapidly changing game is not something any rational person can use to make a determination about the fun factor of 5e.
Bull, its perfectly possible to tell.
It being a changing game hasnt stopped the people in our RPGA, Encounters, and Pathfinder Society groups from being bored to tears by the playtests the table. It has gotten the point where people have refused to play it going forward and we can't run public playtests anymore because nobody will show up. Determinations have been made about the fun factor of 5E, and the determination has been that 5E is inferior to staying home and not gaming.
...whatever
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 12:49PM
#116
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2004
|
I haven't been able to convince any of my group to set aside our rather compelling campaign story line for a session to even try a playtest.
That's not to say Next is boring per se, but rather our group meets infrequently enough that no one wants to divert attention.
That said - none of the playtests so far _read_ as compelling in any way. Expertise Dice is the most exciting thing in the rules so far. Everything else just seems so .. bland. A retread of the past. Even when 4e came out, and we all were reacting with "err.. what ? These magic items suck. What the hell is with Fly being 16th level? Huh?" at least we could see something new coming .. something different and exciting. "Check out the power format -- much easier to read than those old spell blocks. .. and hey .. look- monsters can do interesting things, instead of just using spells-like-abilities."
Next doesn't seem like "next" it seems like "previous".
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 2:34PM
#117
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
I'll put my own two cents in later, but for now I'll skip the preamble and get to the point: Some prople have said they find Next boring thus far. Do you agree or disagree and why?
It's impossible to tell at this point. A small fraction of a still rapidly changing game is not something any rational person can use to make a determination about the fun factor of 5e.
Bull, its perfectly possible to tell.
It being a changing game hasnt stopped the people in our RPGA, Encounters, and Pathfinder Society groups from being bored to tears by the playtests the table.
Then wait for the finished game.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 5:23PM
#118
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
We have to games going on right now, one I am running and one that I am a player in. The game I am playing in is going great, and is already turning out to be one of the better rpg games I have played. We have had three sessions so far and the first two were great. Each had perfect balance between the three pillars, and player exchanges were excellent. The group is also well honed, figher, cleric, and wizard. All Dwarfs and all pretty much min/maxed. I'm playing the trickster cleric. The last session was not so great though, the Dm wanted to really dive into the suggested rythem of 4-5 encounters in a 5 hour session (3 average and 2 tough), and it was way too much. Not enough time to do any of the other pillars. It would have been a TPW, had not the dm saved us (we only played the last encounter as test also...).
So the funny thing is that I think the game is NOT boring, but that's only because we don't play it exactly as it's laid out. We shoot for about 3 encounters in 6 hour session and focus a lot of time on Roleplaying interaction and exploration. These are some of the great things about Next, ie. emphasis on exploration and roleplay and what drew us into the playtest. Wizard definately needs more to stay afloat right now, but conversely our fighter was over joyed with his potential. I think if mearl's last L&L proves accurate then we will be much happier.
Boring, no. Perfect, no. Great potential, absolutely.
I don't know how to tell you this, but no edition of D&D has focused more or less on role playing. That's what the DM and players bring to the table. Now maybe in 4E you got caught up in all the rules and long combats and just had a mental block that said you couldn't role play, but factually you can role play equally in all editions...
It wasn't built into 4th ed with the less role playing part but the lenght of combat combined with healing surges mad it hard to challenge the PCs in an average session. You either spent most of the time grinding through their hit points or not fighitng. D&DN you can have say 10 comabts in a few hours, 2.5 3-6, 4th ed you might gt 3-4 and they took longer so proportionally more time was spent in combat than RP or exploraiton/whatever.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 5:43PM
#119
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
I think what a lot of people aren't getting is that we aren't playtesting for fun at this point. We're playtesting the functionality of basic systems. Once those are refined, the "fun" parts of the game will be tied to those systems.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 5:50PM
#120
|
|
|
I think what a lot of people aren't getting is that we aren't playtesting for fun at this point. We're playtesting the functionality of basic systems. Once those are refined, the "fun" parts of the game will be tied to those systems.
functionality of basic systems matters little if those basic systems are lame.
...whatever
|
|
|
