|
5 months ago ::
Jan 06, 2013 - 9:01PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Legends & Lore
D&D Next Goals, Part OneBy Mike MearlsMike starts off 2013 with an overview of the basic goals of D&D Next. Come learn more about our guiding principles as we work on this game.Talk about this column here.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 06, 2013 - 9:09PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 22, 2003
|
All sounds goid to me! 
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 06, 2013 - 9:13PM
#3
|
|
|
"Core is supposed to be unchangable by modules." Time to expect a lot more fights about what is core. If the core is to be set in stone for all time (i.e. for all of the edition's run time), it needs to be as broad as possible. And there WILL be big disagreements about broadening things that have been traditionally narrow.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 06, 2013 - 9:15PM
#4
|
|
|
"Create a set of rules that allows a smooth transition from a simple game to a complex one."
With the complexity brought about by having 6d6 martial damage dice and 8 maneuvers you can spend them on (with each not necessarily using up a max of one martial damage die)?
With the complexity involving giving a PC as many as 12 spells per day?
I fing this statement questionable to laughable. Plus, if you ask me, the major issues surrounding the game mostly fall under
* bad marketing
* poor customer support
* increasing number of alternatives to D&D
* poor system development
Especially when it came to 3E and 4E.
I'd like to see this set of rules he speaks of, that allows a smooth transition from a simple game to a complex one. Because even if I make a lot of assumptions regarding the latest playtest, I'm not seeing him actually fulfilling the very goals he's stated.
As for "Create a version of D&D that embraces the enduring, core elements of the game", I wonder: how many old-time players that see D&D Next for the first time would ask, "where's the Fortitude/Reflex/Will save?" (sure, we playtesters and bloggers know the answer, but what about the old-timers who still haven't been going online and are only vaguely aware of this new upcoming D&D?)
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 06, 2013 - 9:25PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Overall, pretty predictable. Well, here's to them meeting their goals by the end of this playtest thing! A toast! *cue throwing bread slices*
Disgruntled ghost of the Knights of W.T.F.
(Keep D&D alive, end the edition wars!)
"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Disclaimer: Most of my posts are based on opinions (and are sometimes humorous, other times inspirational)
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 06, 2013 - 9:25PM
#6
|
|
|
1. Core Elements of D&D I don't really buy this, that there is one core D&D that can stay true across all editions and playstyles. What different editions did, particularly 4E, was often in complete conflict with other editions. What is "core" to one group is "kill it with fire" to others, and you can't have it both ways. The most interesting line is this: the design implication is that D&D Next should deliver the primary strengths that each edition brings to the table.
In many cases, those strengths are mutually exclusive. They have also, in this playtest so far, shown no comprension of what 4E's strengths are for the people who prefer it.
2. Smooth Transitions
This whole declaration seems to be under the mistaken impression that power creep doesn't exist. More options inevitably leads to power creep, as its impossible to perfectly balance them. Some options are inevitably better than others, and more options means more better options, and the game with more options will be ahead of the power curve as a result. New players playing core only will not be playing the same game as people playing with all the options. I'd also like to know how they expect to write adventures equally playable core only or option rich. I've seen year 1 4E adventures destroyed by modern, well built 4E characters, and 4E was built around balance from the ground up. 5E does not seem to be being designed with as strong a focus on balance.
Also, if the core is going to be the same and unchangeable, it needs to not suck and not force people to use things they don't want in their D&D. Modularity won't fix it, as he's describing things.
3. All Editions, all the time
I'm not sure how ok with this I am, as I have a "kill it with fire" reaction to many iconic bits of AD&D and 3E. There is a lot in the old editions that I honestly never want to see again, and many of those things are essential to other people. I think the reverse is true in terms of people disliking newer editions. I also don't believe its truly possible, given how many essential bits of various editions are mutually exclusive.
...whatever
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 06, 2013 - 9:25PM
#7
|
|
|
With the exception of one edition, I think the rules of the game look pretty similar throughout the years.
I also feel the game by and large hasn't gotten more complex over the years and editions.
I feel it is the differences between the introductory product and additional material that are causing fewer and fewer people to make the move towards the latter. I think new players can pick up any version of D&D with ease, and don't need a dumbed down version that only caters to experienced players through heavy module addition.
These guiding principles are nothing like the design goals we were given in early 2012. The game that was supposed to be simple to run has become the game too simple with which to have fun. The game that was supposed to be recognizeable as D&D has become the game that embraces a handful of D&D concepts with no connection or correlation to one another.
The Legends & Lore article that was supposed to improve my morale has simply confirmed to me that the train has jumped the track and the following question must be asked. "Is it jumping the shark if you never intend to land?"
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 06, 2013 - 9:43PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
"Core is supposed to be unchangable by modules." Time to expect a lot more fights about what is core.
If you can fight about it, that means it's not core.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 06, 2013 - 9:45PM
#9
|
|
|
"Core is supposed to be unchangable by modules." Time to expect a lot more fights about what is core.
If you can fight about it, that means it's not core.
Not true. At least, not if what they've been saying about the playtest content still being open to change.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 06, 2013 - 9:46PM
#10
|
|
|
"Core is supposed to be unchangable by modules." Time to expect a lot more fights about what is core.
If you can fight about it, that means it's not core.
That's an awful lot of things. Advantage/Disadvantage, Martial Damage Dice, Spellcasting, basic class structure, and a host of other basic game elements are all still being argued.
|
|
|
