|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 9:22PM
#171
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
This issue really is about presentation. To exaggerate a bit to explain how having a default can harm my enjoyment, imagine this wording.
"This way is the default way. Or, if you're a cheesy, powergaming munchkin with no respect for the DM's authority and are just there to make his life a living hell, you can choose an alternate option."
Yes, those of you reasonable people who disagree with me would scoff at such a characterization. I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the people who agree with you but who aren't reasonable.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 1:22AM
#172
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
Mand12 I know you're exagerating for effect but even toning that down I don't think I've ever seen that happen in a D&D book, except perhaps the DMG and other DM specific supplements before 3e where they reinfornced that the DM has the final say. They'd say it in the PHB as well before 3e but they were pretty specific about how players can and will try to take advantage of the game and it was the DM's job to keep them in check. It even offered strategies on how to do that, as I recall. I'm guessing that particular line of instruction won't come back, though some nod to the game ref having the final say on what options are used is necessary (or even critical from some points of view).
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 1:59AM
#173
|
|
|
Just noting the difference between 4e and 5e.
In 4e, “all options are core”.
In 5e, “all options are equal”.
These goals have very different outcomes.
In 4e, all new options must work with the same top-down comprehensive gaming system, in a balanced way. For example, if the option for a Warforged Golem exists in the Eberron setting, then this race is also able to exist in other settings, such as Neverwinter and Forgotten Realms. The 4e culture encourages the existence of all options in all contexts. The mechanical machinery that makes all of these options simultaneously possible is remarkable.
However, in 5e, the mechanical machinery is itself optional. Therefore some assemblages of modular system choices will allow subsystem options that are not possible in other assemblages. Probably the sustainability of certain options as opposed to certain others will encourage a culture that picks and choose which elements to emphasize and which elements to deemphasize - even aggressively so by means of soft bans. The assumption is, not all features are possible, and even if they are possible they can still be non-central. 5e players will probably be more likely to pick a handful features - certain setting systems and tropes and certain classes and races - and build an entire world of adventure around these specific features while ignoring the rest of the features that 5e offers.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 2:03AM
#174
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2012
|
You have spelled out exactly what I don't like about the idea of "replacable" spellcasting mechanics to appease the vancian vs non-vancian players.
Some specifics about D&D are essential for game flavor and ease of communicating the game between players of different groups.
I just want to see these optional rules like Low-magic game rules and high magic game rules. be reduced to a very simple alteration somethign everyone can easily understand and adapt too.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 5:41AM
#175
|
Date Joined:
Jan 17, 2012
|
oh gosh not the edition wars... not even going to enter into that... uggg.. cant... resist... any game system which gives you wings of flying that dont actually let you fly is a....
whew... thought I was going to loose it again...
Mand is hitting the nail on the head, that is EXACTLY what I have been going through, and the reason why if they have that "FG is the Default" setting to the rules, then I wonder why make any rules optional, just try and give the largest denomination of gamers exactly what it is that they want and would be happy with... oh yeah because Pathfinder already did that...
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gygax
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 5:58AM
#176
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
but there are larger reasons why they need to make choices. It's not just about pleasing players and providing players with options. When you produce something it needs to evoke things in your audience. Basically they need to inspire us to play, and that's done in a variety of ways. I know mechanics aren't specifically what inspires us to play a pen and paper game like D&D but the look and feel of the game will be informed by those mechanics. One of the best examples of this is that whole vancian wizard revolving around a spellbook. That book is not just any book, it's this monster of a thing made of rare and exotic materials. It's huge, it's thick, it's heavy. So the mechanic is informed by the visual and vice versa. That kind of imagery doesn't happen in a vacuum; they've got to make fairly specific choices based on research to produce it and the mechanics they pick will play a part in that process.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 6:07AM
#177
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2012
|
Coming a bit late to the party here, and I'm going to do a few quick posts (not meaning to spam, just quoting different folks with different points). I look at it in a similar vein to New World of Darkness. The core book lays out the core rules of the game, but that's it. It's then up to the individual groups to go buy Vampire or Geist or Hunter (etc.) and play with that combination of rules (core + specifics). I have no doubt that the 5E PHB will contain the core classes and races along with standard equipment and so on. It will then be up to the individual groups to add whatever they want to those core rules. Perhaps like 2E did it...you buy the PHB and DMG, then decide if you want to add the Compelte Book of Elves, Complete Fighter's Handbook, and so on to supplement the core. I really think people might be getting themselves worked up over what might amount to be no more than what we've been doing this whole time.
This is what I suspect as well, really. Mostly because it has already worked quite well for the nWoD, so doing something similar has the benefit of there already being something like it in the market.
However, I also fully suspect that there will be modular rules in the PHB and DMG - perhaps in sidebars or something similar.
Here's how they could easily have a "default" and not step on anyone's toes. At the beginning of each book, they can have a short bit about the design goals for DDN, and the fact that they have presented but one way to play the game. Furthermore, that the game is designed to have folks tinker with it to get the ruleset they prefer, and that those extra (or modular) rules are presented in the book in such-and-such a fashion. (Sidebar, highlighted text, appendices, whichever.)
It is frightfully easy to have a "default" option (pick from these standard races, then these classes, with this sort of equipment and this suggested spell list if applicable), as well as having all of the modularity the designers have stated is intended for the system.
For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon
@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 6:13AM
#178
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2012
|
Sounds great. But D&D players want different, mutually contradictory things. Designing a system with defaults that ignores those different needs will alienate and fracture the playerbase, rather than uniting it as is the intent.
Why would a default alienate and fracture the playerbase? Every single edition of D&D to date has had a "default," yes? I mean, wasn't the default in 4E that one would use the AEDU structure? (Honest question; I tried 4E when it came out, discovered I didn't care for it, and haven't touched it since.)
And if that's true, why should things suddenly be different? I am really not understanding your constant railing against any sort of default, ever. It's not like the WotC game police are going to come to my door when I inevitably change something. (For instance, in my feedback in the last survey, I stated I prefered the Skills not "hard-coupled" to any one particular Ability, and further stated that I was fine with changing it back the other way in my game anyway, but that it might be helpful for those folks not experienced enough to do that.)
A simple paragraph (or a few) in the beginning of the books saying "change whatever you like; the game is yours, we're just giving you the tools" should suffice I should think to handle the entire problem.
I mean, it's like getting a Lego set. For instance, on my bookcase, I have a Lego model of an X-Wing. The set assumes that I'm going to build an X-Wing with the pieces, and provides instructions on how to build that "default" set. However, since they're Legos, I can just as easily build whatever else I want, should I so choose. And Lego doesn't care one bit. Why must DDN be different?
For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon
@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 6:17AM
#179
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Why would a default alienate and fracture the playerbase?
I don't think it will. "Here's the default, and here's a few thousand ways to screw with the default" is just about right.
That Lego analogy is spot on.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 6:19AM
#180
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
Why would a default alienate and fracture the playerbase?
I don't think it will. "Here's the default, and here's a few thousand ways to screw with the default" is just about right.
That Lego analogy is spot on.
Yeah I have a very hard time believing that some kind of default configuration would alienate anyone. It's like a gateway drug  The key would be for the writing to encourage folks to play.
|
|
|
