|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 4:01AM
#1
|
|
|
One of the original design goals was Goal #2: Reunification through Diversity “The next iteration must stretch the system to cover a wider variety of play styles through character and DM options.” Further it was stated that different play styles could play at the same table. Some articles mentioned that the designers were also looking at indie games and concepts like aspects from the fate game. I see some but not enough progress on this end. D&D next was/is not just an attempt to bridge the gap between 3rd and 4th edition or even all incarnations of D&D – it was going beyond that – it was the coming together of what the whole hobby meant to everybody, its roots and origin, which for all intents and purposes is D&D. So where is the narrativist playing style plug ins – and I don’t mean “minds eye theatre”
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 5:36AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 22, 2003
|
One of the original design goals was
Goal #2: Reunification through Diversity
“The next iteration must stretch the system to cover a wider variety of play styles through character and DM options.”
Further it was stated that different play styles could play at the same table.
Some articles mentioned that the designers were also looking at indie games and concepts like aspects from the fate game.
I see some but not enough progress on this end.
D&D next was/is not just an attempt to bridge the gap between 3rd and 4th edition or even all incarnations of D&D – it was going beyond that – it was the coming together of what the whole hobby meant to everybody, its roots and origin, which for all intents and purposes is D&D.
So where is the narrativist playing style plug ins – and I don’t mean “minds eye theatre”
Hmm, I don't know that the claim in blue was ever made (especially as it refers to bridging the gaps of the hobby at large).
In defense of the design process, I'd have to say that round three of a two year playtest is much too soon to be fretting over the lofty ideals of bridging all systems when the foundational system has yet to be forged. -- All in good time, my friend. 
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 8:00AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
I'm curious to know what specific plug ins you'd like to see sooner than later?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 9:55AM
#4
|
|
|
Yes blue is how ive been looking at it - after you pointing it out i might very well be way off and projecting personel wishful thinking. I am no game designer so how well it will work with D&D i dont know - but something along the lines of when a check rolls a critical the player gets to add a narrative fact that the DM has to accommodate. Knowledge Underdark roll 20! DM: Yes this is indeed the cavern known death’s abode where the deep dragon is said to often come and slumber PC: Its also the same cavern where my ancestor Gregor Dragonslayer fell. Or Skills can be named by the players with DM approval, which go beyond proficiencies or similar. So a character might have greed and the +3 bonus applies to the check whenever the situation is relevant.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 12:09PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2012
|
Knowledge Underdark roll 20!
DM: Yes this is indeed the cavern known death’s abode where the deep dragon is said to often come and slumber
PC: Its also the same cavern where my ancestor Gregor Dragonslayer fell.
Or Skills can be named by the players with DM approval, which go beyond proficiencies or similar. So a character might have greed and the +3 bonus applies to the check whenever the situation is relevant.
I think the ad hoc narrative aspect is more of a playstyle thing. I've seen it included in some indie games, so it could be ported in easily. Narrative points could be used or something (if a mechanical aspect is required).
I think greed is mechanically too powerful. It needs to be nerfed. 
But, joking aside, did you see the L&L article on high-level play? There are some clear intentions to address more narrative-oriented gameplay mechanics. I think a forum poster off-handedly called it story creep. So yeah... it should be coming along.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning."
-Mike Mearls
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 2:00PM
#6
|
|
|
One of the original design goals was
Goal #2: Reunification through Diversity
“The next iteration must stretch the system to cover a wider variety of play styles through character and DM options.”
Further it was stated that different play styles could play at the same table.
Some articles mentioned that the designers were also looking at indie games and concepts like aspects from the fate game.
I see some but not enough progress on this end.
D&D next was/is not just an attempt to bridge the gap between 3rd and 4th edition or even all incarnations of D&D – it was going beyond that – it was the coming together of what the whole hobby meant to everybody, its roots and origin, which for all intents and purposes is D&D.
So where is the narrativist playing style plug ins – and I don’t mean “minds eye theatre”
Hmm, I don't know that the claim in blue was ever made (especially as it refers to bridging the gaps of the hobby at large).
In defense of the design process, I'd have to say that round three of a two year playtest is much too soon to be fretting over the lofty ideals of bridging all systems when the foundational system has yet to be forged. -- All in good time, my friend.
Amen.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 3:14PM
#7
|
|
|
One of the original design goals was
Goal #2: Reunification through Diversity
“The next iteration must stretch the system to cover a wider variety of play styles through character and DM options.”
Further it was stated that different play styles could play at the same table.
Some articles mentioned that the designers were also looking at indie games and concepts like aspects from the fate game.
I see some but not enough progress on this end.
D&D next was/is not just an attempt to bridge the gap between 3rd and 4th edition or even all incarnations of D&D – it was going beyond that – it was the coming together of what the whole hobby meant to everybody, its roots and origin, which for all intents and purposes is D&D.
So where is the narrativist playing style plug ins – and I don’t mean “minds eye theatre”
Hmm, I don't know that the claim in blue was ever made (especially as it refers to bridging the gaps of the hobby at large).
In defense of the design process, I'd have to say that round three of a two year playtest is much too soon to be fretting over the lofty ideals of bridging all systems when the foundational system has yet to be forged. -- All in good time, my friend.
We are on round 5-6 of the second year. They also said the core at this point was pretty much set in stone. So you are factually wrong...
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 4:28PM
#8
|
|
|
Further it was stated that different play styles could play at the same table.
Unless they have optional "DM tag team partner rules", there is absolutely no way to have people with different play styles sitting at the same. The campaign settings alone would prevent it from happening.
Edit: I think they can achieve most of what they have set out to do, but that was one of the statements they should have never made and probably should re-cant. It would be hard getting people with different play style who like the same edition to sit down and play at the same table. They are biting off more then they can chew to try do this across different editions as well.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th EditionReality Refracted: Social ContractsD & D: A Documentary Kickstarter ( http://kck.st/SyKNzf) 
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 6:30PM
#9
|
|
|
One of the original design goals was
Goal #2: Reunification through Diversity
“The next iteration must stretch the system to cover a wider variety of play styles through character and DM options.”
Further it was stated that different play styles could play at the same table.
Some articles mentioned that the designers were also looking at indie games and concepts like aspects from the fate game.
I see some but not enough progress on this end.
D&D next was/is not just an attempt to bridge the gap between 3rd and 4th edition or even all incarnations of D&D – it was going beyond that – it was the coming together of what the whole hobby meant to everybody, its roots and origin, which for all intents and purposes is D&D.
So where is the narrativist playing style plug ins – and I don’t mean “minds eye theatre”
Hmm, I don't know that the claim in blue was ever made (especially as it refers to bridging the gaps of the hobby at large).
In defense of the design process, I'd have to say that round three of a two year playtest is much too soon to be fretting over the lofty ideals of bridging all systems when the foundational system has yet to be forged. -- All in good time, my friend.
We are on round 5-6 of the second year. They also said the core at this point was pretty much set in stone. So you are factually wrong...
We are on round 3. You can't count the sorcerer/warlock, magic items, and monk adds as if they were a new packet :P
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 23, 2012 - 8:12PM
#10
|
|
|
Further it was stated that different play styles could play at the same table.
Unless they have optional "DM tag team partner rules", there is absolutely no way to have people with different play styles sitting at the same. The campaign settings alone would prevent it from happening.
Edit: I think they can achieve most of what they have set out to do, but that was one of the statements they should have never made and probably should re-cant. It would be hard getting people with different play style who like the same edition to sit down and play at the same table. They are biting off more then they can chew to try do this across different editions as well.
I myself have been for the longest time skptical about how they can pull something like that off - still am. However i am simply hoping that somehow they do pull it off, its the only reason that got me excited about D&D again and interested in playtsting - lets hope
|
|
|
