|
1 year ago ::
Jan 15, 2012 - 9:36PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2006
|
Legends and LoreLooking at the Past and the Futureby Monte CookSo, now you have a little better idea what I've been working on. For many of you, what you already suspected has simply been confirmed. In any event, I can't tell you how exciting and challenging it’s been getting this project off the ground—and how thrilling it will continue to be as we move forward. Talk about this column here. 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 15, 2012 - 9:39PM
#2
|
|
|
"we're designing the game so that not every player has to choose from the same set of options. Again, imagine a game where one player has a simple character sheet that has just a few things noted on it, and the player next to him has all sorts of skills, feats, and special abilities. And yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced. Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need. Or vice versa. It's all up to you to decide. "
If they can actually pull this off, saying 'I'm surprised' would be a significant understatement.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 15, 2012 - 10:46PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Feb 27, 2010
|
Different players in combat using different rules to effect the same creature well ummmm balancing that will be a neat trick (when I say trick I mean miracle).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 15, 2012 - 10:53PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2002
|
Making the different methods balance out, while difficult, can be done, for a given set of assumptions, as with Essentials. It comes down to being able to survive X and win Y at a certain universal rate.
The problem is that the various editions have very diffierent balance assumptions that are mutually exclusive. They COULD produce material for both sets, and give you information on how to deal with the different balances, but that basically means they'll have to factor in a number of different balance assumptions into their products.
Say, adding a 3E wizard instead of a 4E wizard doubles the assumed EL of the party.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 15, 2012 - 11:45PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2010
|
I was actually having a discussion with a friend of mine the other day whether all of this customization was going to be a sort of "DM picks what bits to use and that's the system" or whether a THAC0 player could be playing alongside a more modern additive hit DC player. He was under the assumption that the former, which is apparently what they're doing, would be relatively impossible because it's just so hard to pound all of that stuff together while maintaining any semblance of "balance" (after all, a level 1 PC today would be a god by 1st edition's standards).
I was inclined to agree with him on the difficulty, but not necessarily on the premise that there was no way WotC would even consider doing it the other way. Turns out they're, indeed, doing it the "other way" - which is an exciting proposition if they nail it, but nailing it will be... challenging... to say the least.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 12:36AM
#6
|
|
|
It'll be a miracle if they can pull it off.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 2:35AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
"we're designing the game so that not every player has to choose from the same set of options. Again, imagine a game where one player has a simple character sheet that has just a few things noted on it, and the player next to him has all sorts of skills, feats, and special abilities. And yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced. Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need. Or vice versa. It's all up to you to decide. "
If they can actually pull this off, saying 'I'm surprised' would be a significant understatement.
QFT. The 'we want to be all things to all players' aspect is what is worrying me most about the new edition (or whatever it's being called) - because that's next to impossible. There are players who have completely antithetical views about basically all aspects of game design in general, and D&D in particular (cf debates on daily powers, healing and healing surges, AEDU vs E-Class design, vancian spellcasting, . Trying to satisfy all of them equally means you basically need to write three or four separate games (probably more, actually), and integrate them all, in a way which makes all of the players feel equally able to play, AND all works together at the same table.
This is an insanely difficult task.
I wait in terrified anticipation for some actual news on game rules.
High hopes, low expectations.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 2:55AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Oct 22, 2007
|
Low hopes, low expectations. Cordell is the only name on that roster I trust, let alone like.
I miss Wyatt and Noonan. They designed games that made sense.
Cook can talk big all he likes. I have only one thing to say: Prove it. So far, I'm not impressed.
What I said in the article comments bears repeating here: I don't want "best of" D&D, I want something NEW. If all the new edition is going to give me is a watered-down 4e and a bunch of other drek I'm never going to use, then I see no reason to upgrade. I have enough 4e material to play for just shy of all of eternity.
The only question left then is: what am I going to spend all the money on that I'd normally spend on D&D books? Oh, the possibilities....
-m4ki; one down, one to go "Retro is not new.
Retro-fit is not new."
--Seeker95,
on why I won't be playing DDN
| DDN Metrics (0-10) | enthusiasm: 1 | confidence in design: -3 | desire to play: 0 | Sticking with 4e?: Yep. | Better Options: IKRPG Mk II |
The Five Things D&D Next Absolutely Must Not Do:
Show
1. Imbalanced gameplay. Any and all characters must be able to contribute equally both in combat and out of combat at all levels of play. If the Fighters are linear and the Wizards quadratic, I walk.
2. Hardcore simulationist approach. D&D is a game about heroic fantasy. I'm weak and useless enough in real life; I play RPGs for a change of pace. If the only reason a rule exists is because "that's how it's supposed to be", I walk. I don't want a game that "simulates" real life, I want a game that simulates heroic fantasy.
3. Worshipping at false idols (AKA Sacred Cows). If the only reason a rule exists is "it's always been that way", I walk. Now to be clear, I have no problem with some things not changing; my issue is with retaining bad idea simply for the sake of nostalgia.
4. DM vs. players. If the game encourages "gotcha!" moments or treats the DM and players as enemies, adversaries, or problems to be overcome, I walk.
5. Rules for the sake of rules. The only thing I want rules for is the things I can't do sitting around a table with my friends. If the rules try to step on my ability to roleplay the character I want to roleplay, I walk. Furthermore, the rules serve to facilitate gameplay, not to simulate the world.
NOTE: Items in red have been violated.
Chris Perkins' DM Survival Tips:
Show
1. When in doubt, wing it.
2. Keep the story moving. Go with the flow.
3. Sometimes things make the best characters.
4. Always give players lots of things to do.
5. Wherever possible, say ‘yes.’
6. Cheating is largely unnecessary.
7. Don't be afraid to give the characters a fun new toy.
8. Don't get in the way of a good players exchange.
9. Avoid talking too much.
10. Save some details for later.
11. Be transparent.
12. Don't show all your cards.
Words to live by.
Quotes From People Smarter Than Me:
Show
"Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging..." -Foxface on Essentials
"Servicing a diverse fan base with an RPG ruleset - far from being the mandate for 'open design space' and a cavalier attitude towards balance - requires creating a system that /works/, with minimal fuss, for a wide variety of play styles, not just from one group to the next, but at the same table." -Tony_Vargas on design
"Mearls' and Cook's stated intent to produce an edition that fans of all previous editions (and Pathfinder) will like more than their current favourite edition is laudable. But it is also, IMO, completely unrealistic. It's like people who pray for world peace: I might share their overall aims, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them to succeed. When they talk in vague terms about what they'd like to do in this new edition, I mostly find myself thinking 'hey, that sounds cool, assuming they can pull it off', but almost every time they've said something specific about actual mechanics, I've found myself wincing and shaking my head in disbelief and/or disgust, either straight away or after thinking about the obvious implications for half a minute." -Duskweaver on D&D Next
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 5:41AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2011
|
This article left me with a funny feeling in my stomach. It officially conformed modularity, which isn't exactly what I want, but whatever. It is nice to be able to create a Vatican wizard and a 4e wizard at the same time. Or maybe a mix. This is kind of what I have been thinking all along: make a class that is Vatican and a class that does it 4e style. Also, being able to have a simple 1e character, but with feats would be cool. However, I don't know if they can actually pull this off.
holydoom.weebly.com: Holydoom! A lighthearted RPG in progress. Loosely based on 3.5. 4, and GURPS. Very, Very, Very loosely. Seriously, visit it now. http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/ … s_Handbook An attempt at CharOp To anyone who thinks Pathfinder is outselling D&D
Show
While one report may say that FLGS report a greater amount of book sales, one cannot forget the fact that the 71000 DDI subscribers paying 6-10 dollars a month don't count as "Book Sales." "see sig" redirects here
Show
Oblivious troll is Oblivious PbP supporter! General thoughts, feelings, and info on DDN!
Show
Stuff I Heard Mike Say (subject to change): Multiclassing will be different than in 3.5! That's important.
There is no level cap; classes advance ala 3.5 epic levels after a set level.
Mundane (AKA fighter and co) encounter and daily powers will probably not be in the PHB (for the lack of space), but nor will they be in some obscure book released halfway through the edition. You can't please everyone, but you can please me. I DO NOT WANT A FREAKING 4E REPEAT. I DO NOT WANT A MODULE THAT MIMICS MY FAVORITE EDITION. I WANT MODULES THAT MIMIC A PLAYSTYLE AND CAN BE INTERCHANGED TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE FEEL, BUT NOT THE THEME, OF D&D. A perfect example would be an espionage module, or desert survival. A BAD EXAMPLE IS HEALING SURGES. WE HAVE 4E FOR THOSE! A good example is a way to combine a mundane and self healing module, a high-survival-rate module, and a separate pool of healing resource module.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 5:42AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
I think you may mean Vancian. Jack Vance wrote wizards with only daily powers. The Vatican wrote Catholicism.
|
|
|
