Community

May 31, 2012 -- 5:18PM, Seeker95 wrote:

May 31, 2012 -- 3:21PM, MedhiaNox wrote:

And why is forced co-operation important exactly?

It's not a matter of forced cooperation. It's a matter of shared knowledge of the rules of interaction.

I want to know the strategy rules. Selfishly and cooperatively. The playtest leaves so much to the whim of the DM that I have no idea what I can and cannot do until I ask him. I have never enjoyed playing games with someone else who makes the rules up as they go along, And I don't think I would like that type of game now, even if it is called D&D. (I didn't like it in the playtest. And I like my DM.)

This is true. As an old-schooler there was the problem then and it is assumed to be coming back now. with the DM empowerment and the power of the Fiat.

That is the "Mother may I........"

I would hope that in the spirit of emergent play that more DMs will stick with the more group friendly method of.


"Yes, and....." or "Yes, but...."

I encourage any player to TELL me what they are going to do. It is usually follwed by one of the mentioned statements. A good DM is firm but fair. Unfrotunately, well there are alot of so-so DMs, some good DMs and few great ones.

Sure, the party need to co-operate on an adventure and I agree that the rules should encourage it but, not dictate it.

More fleshed out options for "helping" or "assiting" other players needs to happen. this would go a long way to what this thread is talking about.  You know what that is a good idea for a thread. 

Thanks for bringing this topic up. 

It's one of the design goals, so it's a perfectly valid thing to speak out against, this early on. In fact, this is the best time to speak out against design goals, since it will just get harder and harder to change them as time goes on. 

nope, i'm sorry, but an incomplete rules set is not "part of the design goals".  that is to say it's not even finished (not even CLOSE) and yet you are acting like it's allready in stone, i find it.... funny actually, but thats just me.

but let us talk about the design goals, because you brought them up, lets muse over that, pay attention, because i will ask you a question at the end.

as i understand it. the design goals of this edition are simple. create a solid base of the very core rules to which you can apply a modular rules set on top. these rules modules should only ever add rules, never subtract, to keep things as simple as possible in terms of modifying the tables rules to their playing needs. this rules set's goal is to include EVERYONE.

so how does baking cooperation into classes include the people that don't want it? how does adding on more and more rules include the people that don't want them, how does the system you envision in your head include EVERYONE?

this is not just your game, understand that. understand the version of DDN that you want will most likely be a module, understand that this will be the case for most people.

so the final and important question.

why is your imagined style of game more important than anybody elses?

Jun 1, 2012 -- 7:11AM, FaceInTheSand wrote:

I've found experienced, imaginative players can attempt (and confident DMs can facilitate) teamwork and set each other up for risky-but-effective combos in any RPG system.

But, for new RPG players who may not be 100% familiar with the rules not having options codified for that sort of tactical teamwork means that those options might as well not exist.

As it stands, Next does not facilitate co-operative encounters especially among new players, as it relies too heavily on knowledge of available actions from past editions.

but that would suggest that we leave the old guys to sit in a corner and ...... depreciate.... while the new guys have fun RIGHT NOW. we are testing the base, the rules will allow for all styles of play, and this is the best way to ensuure that everyone is included.

May 31, 2012 -- 8:47PM, Yuwain wrote:

you mean a Work in progress rule set for the first three levels of the MOST BASIC CORE RULES of a modular rules system is light on rules?

You keep spamming this bullshit response all over the threads whenever someone raises a request for more rule granularity.

This is a playtest. Of the core rules. We are testing the rules that we have. If there is something missing from the core rules that I feel should be IN the core rules, I need to provide that feedback. Core Rules still need to be rules. And this "core rule set" seems to have two rules:

1. You are allowed to ask your DM for permission to do anything you want to do;
2. You must ask your DM for mission for anything you want to do that is not a printed rule.

Jun 1, 2012 -- 6:43AM, Yuwain wrote:

so the final and important question.

why is your imagined style of game more important than anybody elses?

Perhaps for the exact same reason that you believe that yours is.

This of course assumes that because you say you like something, you do believe that your style of the game is more important than everyone else's. If you feel we should not be making this assumption about you, then would you kindly stop assuming the same of others?