Let me start by saying that I am the forever DM of my group. 9/10 DMing falls on me because I have to most free time of the people who know the rules well enough to handle the job. Not just for D&D either, all of the RPGs my group has played.
For me what eventually killed 3.5 was about half way through its life span a combination of things happened: Half of my players had attained system mastery and half didn't want to put in the effort. This combined with inherent balance issuse ment I spent most of my time trying to compensate for this with creative encounter design leading to more book keeping than any other game I've played including RIFTS, going out of my way to make the less effective characters feel important and arbitrating interplayer disputes caused by the disparity. In my opinion that is inexcussable, because WotC didn't value balance enough at the time it more than double my work load as DM and I eventually stopped enjoying the job, yes job because thats how I thought of it so I stopped playing. I had better more important and enjoyable things to do with my free time now that I was not in high school than keep a broken system running like an overworked mechanic.
I didn't start DMing again until my group came around to the idea of 4e. The entire "Know your role and shut your mouth" approch to character design meant people didn't have overlapping abilities so they didn't inadvertantly compete with one another and the limited freedom ensured it was more difficult to make a useless character. In a group of freinds split between people good at math and lanagaue (I for example work with contract law for my job, understanding every possible interaction between several game mechanics is small fish in comparison) and people who can't be bothered to read the entire core book the entire way through this was absolutely manditory for party stability and overall stress and work load reduction on my part as DM.
Now a lot of what I am hearing about 5e confirmed or speculation is making me extremely wary because "making the game appeal to players of all editions" in my mind means a return to more freedom for suboptimal players to making ineffective characters because they are allowed to. I don't have the time or energy to correct imbalances within a party, learning to write a story that can survive contact with the types of abilities spell casters had in 3.5 without it seeming like a railroad or contrived was difficult enough, doing it while also trying to make someone the party doesn't otherwise need still feel important isn't worth my time. I am also strong opposed, at least within the context of my group to punishing system mastery by making effective players tone down their charaters for the sake of weaker players because like I said, at least within the context of my group its entirely an issue of the weak players being to lazy to spend the time learning the rules better, they could but just don't want to and feel entitled to having people conform to their level.
Is there any word on the ways the statment "making the game appeal to players of all editions" is being implimented?
In my games players have always been Exceptional individuals, not Exceptions to the internal logic of the game world.
Is there any word on the ways the statment "making the game appeal to players of all editions" is being implimented?
Nothing concrete.
We've heard a lot of nebulous talk about modularity and being able to replicate the "feel" of any edition (what he's actually talking about is complexity, though) the player wants, but then at the same time we've heard that classes are basically being broken down into "braindead simple", "moderately complicated", and "Vancian", which implies to me that you cannot play a simple Wizard or a complicated Fighter.
The problem is, all we have is hot air and promises, none of which are proof that the designers can accomplish a tenth of what they've apparently set out to do. As it stands, however, based mostly on the class design seminar from DDXP, I'd say the basic flaws of 3.x are being purposefully returned to the game (because that's what D&D "feels like", according to Cook), and the level of DM-fiat required to not only balance the game, but to even make the rules work in the first place is going to be at an OD&D/2e level (very high).
So, I'd say stick to 4e. That's my plan.
-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.
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.
"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
The first seminar gave me the same impression, and has made me feel that unless they put a miracle I will stay with 4E.
If they have that miracle, they should have opened with it. I can't believe they are marketing D&D Next worse than they marketed 4E, but they have. They aren't selling the system to anyone, they are making people suspicious from the start.
My thoughts on what works and what doesn't in D&D and how D&D Next may benefit are detailed on my blog, Vorpal Thoughts.
The first seminar gave me the same impression, and has made me feel that unless they put a miracle I will stay with 4E.
If they have that miracle, they should have opened with it. I can't believe they are marketing D&D Next worse than they marketed 4E, but they have. They aren't selling the system to anyone, they are making people suspicious from the start.
The problem is DDN isn't being marketed to 4e fans. They don't (think they) have to--we're still playing D&D, after all. DDN is being marketed to all the 1/2/3/3.5/PFe fans who aren't playing D&D anymore, and the general reaction I've seen has been from them has been cautiously optimistic.
Most 4e fans I've spoken to are of the opinion that they'll happily switch so long as the new edition actually makes the game better, but very few of them have any hope that it will. Some did at first, but Wizards has done a very thorough job of crushing their hopes in the last month.
I think they broke the news about DDN too early. They should have waited until they had something to actually show people. Something they could point to and say "see? We're making the game modular and fun for you no matter what edition is your favorite, and here's how we've done it." Without proof that they can back up their claims, all they're doing is blowing smoke and trying to distract us by parading Cook around going "Look look! We got this guy! Isn't he awesome? He's awesome! He's going to do awesome things, we promise!"
It's kind of pathetic, really.
-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.
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.
"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
3E pretty much had the same effect on me DMing. The group I play with are friends, so it isn't a matter of asking some not to play, but we had rather differing play styles.
One player seeks to full on break the system. Then at the other end you have a player who just licks hitting things and charging. You can see with 3E who si going to have the fun here - and it isn't the second player or me as DM.
It turned into rediculously overpowered spell caster and his torch beared, who, to actual have any fun, rolled for one of the summoned minions that the spell caster summoned.
I think a lot of 4E players are prematurely coming to the conclusions that their hopes will be crushed. Understandable given any amount of historical reference, but it might be a bit blinding.
I can't say I have any knowledge of the inner workings, but when they say they'll have varying levels of class complexity, what I hear is:
Simple Martial -- XX Class Divine -- XX Class Arcane -- XX Class etc
Moderate Repeat
Complex Repeat
Such that there will be classes of all types at each level of complexity, rather than complexity focused into one type of class. Perhaps the classes at the higher levels of complexity will even have the ability to go from 100% Combat (or any other % from the pillar structure) to 60% Combat, 30% Social, 10% Exploration, or some other such customization. Thereby achieving a more inclusive environment for everyone. People who don't have the time or desire to mess with optimization pick a pre-optimized simple class.
Also, your particular situation seems unhealthy. That you have players that you feel catering to them is punishing to others means your playgroup should probably have a talk about each person's goals from play, and what each person can do to help everyone else reach their goals.
I played 3.0/3.5 and still remember the problems and fixes you had to do to patch the game to a playable form. Some of it was fun for example in my group nobody was a cleric so the party would conveniently find a imprisoned healer in every dungeon willing to heal the party after being freed. The players started to assume that they kept finding the same guy. 4.0 was a gift to the DM. We may have very well sacrificed freedom for balance but after playing 4.0 I'm not sure if I'm ready to spend countless hours creating NPC's or situations my players may or may not have any meaningful interactions with.
For me what eventually killed 3.5 was about half way through its life span a combination of things happened: Half of my players had attained system mastery and half didn't want to put in the effort. This combined with inherent balance issuse ment I spent most of my time trying to compensate for this with creative encounter design leading to more book keeping than any other game I've played including RIFTS, going out of my way to make the less effective characters feel important and arbitrating interplayer disputes caused by the disparity. In my opinion that is inexcussable, because WotC didn't value balance enough at the time it more than double my work load as DM and I eventually stopped enjoying the job, yes job because thats how I thought of it so I stopped playing. I had better more important and enjoyable things to do with my free time now that I was not in high school than keep a broken system running like an overworked mechanic.
Wow!That's how DMing SHOULD work IMO. And I am 100% on your side. DMing got too complicated with 3.5 - but not only because of what you mentioned. There are other problems, too. Like: Designing an encounter or a challenge for several hours, to make it really interesting ... only to see that one correctly placed spell turns it into nothing in one round.
In 3.5 I had .... many characters that ended up on the low end of the food chain, and maybe two that ended up on the top of it. And mostly I had the feeling, that the DMs I had cared little about either of it happening. They said: It's the players responsibility, but even when asked offered little to no advice on how to improve the situation. And I had only DM who really tried to make things work ... with often mediocre results.
Tried it myself for a while, but even wrapping my head around all the spells, feats and equipment you'd inevitably need to know, since 3.5 usually doesn't list all the mechanical aspects of a monster in one summarized statblock ... was simply too time consuming.
Here's the problem with that: Let's say I want to play a warrior, the archetypal blademaster who can pick up anything with an edge and turn the act of murdering monsters with it into a work of art. Let's say that the Fighter is the only class that allows you the level of weapon-mastery and flexibility to achieve this. Now, let's say that the Fighter is the "Simple Martial" class. However, I'm an experienced player who likes detail and customization and options like the Advanced classes offer. The "Advanced Martial" class, the Chevalier, however, is built around mounted combat, battlefield challenges and wielding spears and lances, which isn't what I want to play.
So, do I get the type of character that I want, and be bored with its lack of options, or do I get the level of complexity I want, and be frustrated because I can't play the character like I want to?
-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.
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.
"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
