Community

Oct 7, 2012 -- 9:17PM, John_Bigboote wrote:

 To put it simply: You're failing. Charting the current trajectory of the project, I predict that all you will accomplish is publishing everyone's second favorite D&D edition.

I, for one, disagree. Charting current trajectory, D&D Next is slotted to be my favorite version of D&D thus far and yes I started back in 1e. 

I don't think they have to unite the player base under one roof. I do think innovation is the key to survival. I think there have been plenty of mistakes made that a new system can 'clean' that will make D&D Next worthwhile and my favorite D&D edition at the table. When I started a new game, I started with Castles & Crusades and started adding pieces of 3e and 4e as I personally felt appropriate. Amusing that 5e wouldn't be something simliar in some way.

Also, the new sorcerer ideas ROCK. Ignore the whiners and keep pressing on. I love the flavor and hooks of the new sorcerer.

I have to agree about warlocks and specifically naming their pact names. Give hooks instead. Do a bunch of general ones and then give hooks into the story. If the DM needs specific names, fine, name some, but don't make them pacts of fa'la'la.

Oct 8, 2012 -- 11:20AM, Emerikol wrote:

@John
Personally I think you probably won't find 5e to be any more to your taste than previous editions.  If you really like those games you listed, then your playstyle is probably not really D&D.  Not everyone in the universe likes D&D or the types of games that D&D represents.   Tons of people do though.  It might still be a nice diversion once in a while though.  I might play one of those games for the same reason.  But for a serious campaign I like a game like D&D better whereas my guess is you'd like something different.

What playstyles constitute real D&D then? What type of game should D&D be able to support, and what type of game should it be more prohibitive toward?

Wasn't one of the chief complaints of 4E that it supposedly only supported a single playstyle? IS there a correct playstyle, or should D&D strive to support multiple styles? Personally, I believe the latter.

You seem awfully dismissive of my concerns. Are we both not potential customers for D&D5 when it hits stores? I may not have bought all of the supplements, but I have bought the core set from each edition since 1st...why shouldn't WotC be going after my money as well as yours?

Besides...D&D (of any edition) might not be my favorite game...but I do play it from time to time, and it's not like I'm asking for anything really radical here. I'm not asking for the game to turn entirely player defined like RISUS or PDQ. I'm not asking them to make it classless or levelless. I'm not trying to replace HP with wound levels. I still want D&D to look distinctly like D&D. I merely want it to be the best expression of "D&D-ness" to date.

When D&D:N was initially announced, Monte and Mike were talking up what sounded like a modernized version of good old Basic D&D, with optional add-ons to make it more advanced. As it stands now, the game looks like just another 3rd edition clone. Each new subsystem is something that someone will have to strip away to get the game they want. Every new detail about the game just seems like a reaction to criticism about 4th edition, in much the same way that 4E was a reacton to criticism surrounding 3.x.

What I was hoping for, and what I firmly believe the game needs, is to be completely torn down and rebuilt from the ground up, while all but ignoring previous editions of D&D to find the absolute best answer to each element of the game. THAT is what I'm asing for, in essence. I'm not going to get excited about some patchwork Frankenstein edition that tries to please every edition warrior like I am a complete reboot of the franchise.

Oct 8, 2012 -- 8:01AM, wrecan wrote:

John,

I've read your posts three times now and I still can't figure out, specifically, what the game could offer you that it isn't currently offering you, that would make you want to play.  I see catchwords like "new" and "streamlined", but I don't know what you think isn't streamlined about the current system.

What is it you like about the game you currently play that D&D does not give you?

It's more streamlined than 3/4E...but not streamlined enough.

For example, advantage/disadvantage is a clever way to replace a bunch of small, fiddly bonuses and penalties, however it fails to do the job as there are STILL fiddly little bonuses and penalties...but they are necessary in the current system because advantage doesn't really scale. So that's a wash.

Vancian (daily use) magic is fine and dandy, but the spells themselves need to be more interesting. For some unfathomable reason they still have the classic spell list, filled with umpteen slightly different versions of "Charm Something" spread out over 9 spell levels. This is one aspect of old D&D that needs to be shown the door. That is another area that isn't streamlined enough. Too much redundancy.

Explicit skills. We don't need them. People like them, sure...but they aren't necessary. Just have background give a flat bonus to anything that it might pertain to. Done. Now to play the D&D that I want to play, I'll have to strip the skill system out.

Not to mention each classes gimmick mechanic.

I want a cleaned up and modernized BECMI. D&D Next has failed to deliver on that note, and each successive playtest update moves the game farther away from what I want. That is the crux of my complaint.