|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 4:01PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
I am genuinely curious how a modularized system with optional variant rules won't be just like a big Unearthed Arcana (3e). From as much as I have read and watched, admittedly not an exhaustive amount, but a fair bit, it doesn't (yet) feel all that different from a bundled Unearthed Arcana into the core rule set and this worries me a bit. Why? Cos we already have all the variant optional rules we could want from any UA, from other editions, shared house rules, even other game systems, etc? Will DDN be all that different from what we have already seen? Does anyone care to convince me that it won't be like one big UA? Or is a big UA just what everyone wants; a big lucky packet of variances and options to pick and choose from (hit points are abstract wounds, hit points are tied hit locations, hit points are never more than 10, hitpoints replaced with injuries and wounds, no hitpoints at all, etc)? Or have I missed the idea of what will be modularized and what won't be. Instead of five ways to treat damage, there will only be one because damage is considered "CORE". On the other hand, there will be eight ways to treat "magic" (for example), because playtests show that in "magic" there is greater flexibility to have different approaches. Incidentally, the old UA had 45 pages on how to approach magic differently, so even my example isn't that great as to show what different insights modularity will bring. I'm eager to be convinced otherwise. 
The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.
-Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 4:18PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Feb 18, 2009
|
Honestly, I think it will be like a big UA in Core, and I'm alright with that. I absolutely love UA, because it allowed you to play very different / specific characters using the base classes. Instead of having 106 core classes (which 3.5 did at the time) you could just use the core ones with all those options, and everyone felt unique. I think the big difference between 3.5 with UA and D&DN is that the new edition, despite what many people fear, won't just be 3.5. It will have a lot of new and interesting rules (hopefully) and have options for everyone. D&DN will probably be similar to 3.5, but lets face it, 3.x had a LOT of problems, as has every edition of D&D. So I'd pay a ton for a game book that is all the good stuff of the last few editions, with built-in options of UA.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 4:56PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Feb 10, 2007
|
@thorbardin
You might want to come back after they have more than 20% of their game design in place.
Maybe keeping an open mind migth be in order rather than looking for stuff to not like and challenging us to convince you you're wrong.
So what if it resembles stuff from other games, it's supposed to.
I'm sure they are going to use a lot of stuff that people aren't going to be thrilled about. We have versions D&D or other games we can play. they are trying to keep D&D alive. D&D has moved so far from it's roots as not to resemble D&D any more. People don't like that and they have used their wallets to let them know it.
If people don't like the previous versions of D&D then they are likely not going to like this one. D&D next is intended to be a new version of old style D&D, not another game that isn't D&D with the logo stapled to it.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 5:31PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
@Tlantl Well, I hope that at 20% of completion they haven't tossed the modularity idea, but I kinda think your response to my question is likely to be the same then too. My mind is open and believe me when I tell you I am not out looking for things to have concerns about - I am just communicating the concern that I feel. You obviously don't share it and that is well and good. What I don't see in your post is why you think (or don't think) the game will be like a big UA and whether you are fine (or not fine) about this approach. I'm interested to know whether I'm a lonely voice in the wilderness or whether there are others that are thinking along the same lines. I'm not sure I agree with the statement that "D&D has moved so far from it's roots...", but then I guess it depends what you consider "roots". Chainmail? D&D Basic red box? AD&D? 2e? 3e? As for my own tastes, the only edition I can say I didn't enjoy as much as the others, was the last. Hence my curiosity and interest with D&DN. I live in optimism that gamers like me, working at Wizards, can make a product I'd love to play. To reinvigorate the proto-rpg that started a lifelong hobby in 1985. Your last paragraph is quite damning. I've like nearly all the versions of the previous games. You reckon I'm doomed to not like D&DN? Perhaps you should come back when they have more than 20% of their game design in place. 
The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.
-Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 6:10PM
#5
|
|
|
What Tlantl said was that if you doidn't like the previous editions you probably won't like the new one. Logically, therefor, if you did like the old systems you may like the new one. You liked most versions of the game... chances are you will like D&DN.
The idea of having all those options out of the box (so to speak... book would probably be more accurate) is to increase the chances that you will like it as you can just not use the bits that you don't like. The benefit of building the game with this in mind is that it will be easier to change things without affecting other things in an unforseen manner (if the designers do a good job). Coming back after the game has been produced with a load of options to alter it (UA style) is more likely to lead to complications.
Is it like having UA wrapped up and added into the main rules? I guess you can look at it like that. It is better to have the options in mind when designing the game than sticking them on afterwards though. And they are more likely to get support. So, I'd say... like Unearthed Arcana but better. And UA wasn't bad to begin with.
The optional rules modules may also be able to go deeper than UA managed.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 6:13PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2009
|
Unearthed Arcana is pretty much the best thing ever, so I'd be happy with that.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 6:37PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Feb 10, 2007
|
Excuse me being a putz, but which unearthed arcana are we talking about? I'm assuming 3e but I might be wrong, it's happened before.
from the things they're telling us they need to get the basic core set before the modules can be finalized. From the sounds of things the core of the game is the stuff that makes D&D tick. grounding the game in it's roots as I said. OD&D, BD&D and all of it's permutations, AD&D, D&D3e and 4e.
Right now it's still putting the skeleton together. From there they get to the more intricate stuff. Allegedly we'll get to play test their systems until the game is released, testing the core and the different modules along the way. Right now it's still on the drawing board as they say.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 6:42PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Maybe the modules will be playtested together and have solid numbers backing them that would make it not unearthed arcana.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 9:02PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2009
|
Cos we already have all the variant optional rules we could want from any UA, from other editions, shared house rules, even other game systems, etc? Will DDN be all that different from what we have already seen?
The problem, as I see it, is that all these optional/variant rules are from different versions of D&D; with 4E being so different that its rules seem incompatible with earlier editions, making the game feel very different.
This caused enough of the player base to move away from "branded" D&D, to the options that were more like earlier versions of D&D, that WotC could not keep D&D a profitable venture.
So, the modularity of D&DNext is an effort to integrate rules from all editions, in such a way that you can play a character that feels like one from your favorite edition alongside (in the same game/at the same table) as someone playing a character that feels like one from a different edition. Thus, bringing back features that might re-attract that lost player base and regain the market that was necessary for profitability.
I think it can be done; and that they are working in the right direction. I also think that the most difficult area will be in keeping it simple enough for new DMs to be successful (not an "overload" of different rules). This is where the objective will have to be to integrate those disparate rules in such a way that they are not just that: different rules sets; but different options (modules) within a single rules set. Here is where, I think, we will see some things that are considered new, D&DNext rules; ones that will be common (or core) to all surrounding modules.
In summary, it should not be all that different from what is already available; but, it will be one game/version. Hopefully, one that will unify the D&D lovers of the world again (at least when it comes to which game they're playing). Just my two cents...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 25, 2012 - 2:10AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
@TlantlYep, I've got the 3e UA on my shelf and I've been looking at that, but I remember the original UA for AD&D doing "similar" kind of things with a suite of optional rules. I think that was where the fighter first got his Weapon Specialization bonus and we said "Hail" to the Cavalier; but my memory's fuzzy. So I mean the essence of what Unearthed Arcana represents; a book filled with optional rules rather than the rules contained within any specific edition. If I've undestood WotC correctly, one could play "just the core" and have a satisfying D&D experience. If they get that right (and it's not like 4e), they can have my money. I'm absolutely playtesting the system with my gaming group. I'm really looking forward to this "collaborative" process. @lawrencehoyThanks for your post - you make a lot of sense. I had forgotten WotC's motivation for their modularity and that actually helps me deal with their approach. I am exactly the guy they are trying to entice back to their roleplaying game, having fled from 4e. Considering that I have probably bought 70% of their product line up in every other edition, to stop abruptly after the 4e core set, they would do well to win me and my wallet back. Knowing that they have "my interests" at heart is comforting. - - I guess my concern (which is purely speculative) is fueled by other speculative posts on these boards that have one-liners in response to questions like: "should they or shouldn't they include X" to which someone invariably answers: "Oh they can just make that an optional rule, it wouldn't take up much space. A tiny module in the corner of the page for those that like it to use it and those that don't to ignore it." And this freaks me out, because I don't want a core system with a hundred little modules and a checklist to make my own RPG. I'm all for modularity and variability, but I hope the other speculators that think that every rule that has more than one version should be an optional module are wrong. I point this out not to bash the designers, but to point out how wild speculation from the community shapes the meaning of the word "modularity". Does it mean an endless suite of options? Or does it mean bespoke flavours that group subsets of rules? Too soon to tell right? But I'm hoping for the latter.
The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.
-Gary Gygax
|
|
|
