|
5 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 12:51AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
Some people are not happy with the class delivery system. They don't just want to play an AEDU magic user, they want to play a wizard AEDU magic user. It sounds like the advanced rules will be used to appease groups with such players in them. And, they have not said that the advanced rules will be completely mutually exclusive; they have only said that using more than one advanced rule should be done with caution on the DMs part, and consideration for how they interact with each other.
I believe the desire to do away with the 'class delivery system' and develop a system which allows for multiple resource management types for each of the various classes (e.g. both a vancian and an AEDU wizard, etc.) was a large part of the reasoning behind yanking the Sorcerer and Warlock classes.
I do not believe they still have any plans to use a 'class delivery system' to satisfy the desire for alternative ways to manage resources.
Carl
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 12:57AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Why is everyone so worried about the DM's permission. If a DM is ruining the fun for people, why not find a new group or a new DM. No one person should be able to ruin the game for a group. Groups I've been in have never stood for it. Every DM I have played with knows the group will leave (or he ask to leave, depending on location) if stuff happens.
The only time I refuse a character option is when I know it'll hurt the player later (someone becoming a dragonrider when the campaign is about to move underground) or some how ruin the game for everyone else.
Variant rules. D&D had issues with it in the past. Players and DMs hope to be able to use their favorite variants/modules but many never can find enough people who like most of their favorites at once. So you get a lot of having classes/rules/settings they want to play but never getting to.
It is compounded when the classes/rules/settings look imbalanced or actually are. Then the "Never Used Cool Stuff" bin fills and fills.
In the past many aspects were core so if you like it, you ould easiler find a group/DM. By barebonesing it, there are fewer assummed rules setups to serarch for.
That is my fear for DDN.
This is why I hope for PREMADE RULE GROUPINGS.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 1:04AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2006
|
I'm not saying make DDN a gridded system. I'm not a fan of gridded combat. But there needs to be optional rules in core DDN. Right now meta-Vancian is the only spellcasting type there is in core, automatically disenfranchising 4E fans. I have trouble seeing how you can believe my "big tent" method would make this edition a flop or push any demographic except for "Red Box only" fans away. It accepts that there are divisions in the fanbase, and gives those divisions core options to play how they want to.
Again, I could not disagree with you more, and I think you are suffering from a conceptual block. Optional rule systems in this game are referred to as advanced rules systems. There are merely the basic rules, the standard rules, and the advanced rules that you tack onto the standard system to modify the way the game plays. All of what you have described falls into a rule system that you tack onto the base system to modify the way it plays. I don't see why all such systems should not be grouped together and called advanced modules. Likewise, I don't see why any reasonable 4e player ought to be disenfranchised by being given an alternate 4e esque casting system that can use to replace vancien casting via those advanced modules. Anyone who is so unreasonable that they will not be appeased by an optional, alternate casting system released in one of the first three rulebooks (PH, DMG, or MM) will probably find a reason to dislike this edition no matter what it does, unless it resembles 4e to a degree that will cost it a major share of the market. Thus, I don't think it is reasonable to worry about such players. I say that as a 4e fan.
i see merits in both of your arguments, but i think Chak has a point.
when elements that make or break the game for you are placed in the game as "advanced optional rules", you'll have a lot harder time getting a DM to let you play exactly what you want.
i can speak from experience as someone who plays with DM who's very set in their ways. getting that person to allow some optional rule that completely changes the rules that arbitrate my character would be like pulling a sword from a stone.
admittedly, we don't know how the game will end up being presented, but as it is now, it's looking like 4e options are going to be something players will have to ask for hat-in-hand.
Why is everyone so worried about the DM's permission. If a DM is ruining the fun for people, why not find a new group or a new DM. No one person should be able to ruin the game for a group. Groups I've been in have never stood for it. Every DM I have played with knows the group will leave (or he ask to leave, depending on location) if stuff happens.
The only time I refuse a character option is when I know it'll hurt the player later (someone becoming a dragonrider when the campaign is about to move underground) or some how ruin the game for everyone else.
some people have a hard time finding a group at all. they can't just drop from a game because the DM doesn't want to use a few optional rules.
in my case, the people i play with are my friends. i've been gaming with them for years, but that doesn't change the fact that we have disagreements all the time.
once you've been playing with someone for a couple of years, dropping out of the game is a lot harder. if i end up not liking something the DM has done, my only options are to argue my case or grin and bear it.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 1:14AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2007
|
Well, here's what I've been waiting for the last few months! I have limited interest in all but the advanced options where I can tweak the game in the direction I want. I can see the value of the other parts of the jigsaw but they don't really excite me. Here's what I am excited about in this post: 1. Alternative magic systems - I'm not a fan of Vancian magic and can't wait to see the alternatives. I'd love to see an action/fate-point magic system that produces a low-magic feel. A bit of divination, enchantment and summoning is all I want from my magic system - but how to balance that?!! 2. Action/Fate Point system - yes, and with particular regard to the above and below. 3. Character Motivation/Personality Traits - yep, fuelled by #2 would be great. 4. Story-based approach rules. Always did run my D&D this way, so eager to take a look at what's being put together in this regard. I'm also interested to see what comes out of the realms management, PC roles in mass battles, grittier healing and armor as DR. There's only one thing I didn't like about this post: "When we design them, we'll always assume that they are the lone, engine-altering option you're using. That path allows us to keep our sanity and also makes it more practical to implement such rules." I can understand that some of the rules-heavy options would have issues of integration but the four I mention above could work very well in tandem with each other. Plus, you have sanity in the first place?!! 
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 1:26AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2004
|
Some people are not happy with the class delivery system. They don't just want to play an AEDU magic user, they want to play a wizard AEDU magic user. It sounds like the advanced rules will be used to appease groups with such players in them. And, they have not said that the advanced rules will be completely mutually exclusive; they have only said that using more than one advanced rule should be done with caution on the DMs part, and consideration for how they interact with each other.
Well, I didn't say that the advanced advanced rules (sic; no name given in article) HAD to be mutually exclusive, only that it was recommended they remain so.
And I understand why they're doing this. I'm just not sure that what seems to me to be a "dirty edit" (game modders would understand this term) would serve this purpose well. All hypothetical, so I'll just have to wait and see.
This is why I hope for PREMADE RULE GROUPINGS.
Premade rule groupings are exactly what campaign setting rulebooks were made for. Well, that's what I'm guessing.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 2:10AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2008
|
My reaction to this as to all wotc pronouncements on future plans - Talk is cheap show me.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 2:52AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
Seems like they are updating 2nd ed Players Option books. I'll buy the D&DN core rules regardless beyond that IDK.
I don't think I like the idea of an incomplete game where you have to buy extra stuff for it. 3.5 for all its flaws was more or less complete on release but new classes, feats or whatever are always good (within reason).
I keep saying module= splatbook. It will be back to the old spam a splat a month but probably with more emphaisis on settings, varient rules and fluff as opposed to the crunch.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 3:39AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Mar 11, 2008
|
While I have hopes that multiple magic systems can work together, I have serious doubts. If they went with class based magic systems (wizard, sorcerer, and warlock from packet 2) it can work because the system will be balanaced around the class. If they make all classes "vancian" and have advanced rules for each class to be spell point or AEDU, then the systems will start to fall apart.
The spell point system (my favorite) is more powerful than Vancian, because it allows a caster to cast their highest level spells repeatedly. I saw this with the 3E Psion, which quickly got it banned by my DM.
Depending on how they do AEDU, it will either be stronger or weaker than Vancian. I suspect it will be weaker to make up for the durability of Encounter Powers. This is how most spellcaster fans I know felt playing 4E.
Unless they are very careful, you could have multiple caster types at the table, but someone's going to feel screwed.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 3:40AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
May 16, 2004
|
It's kind of a laundry list, and there's no guarantee that everything will be ready at launch, so it's more of a wish list.
Include tactical combat rules that allow the option to add more miniatures gaming elements to combat. This would include a grid, options for facing, rules for more detailed zones of control, and so on.
Does this mean that there is a chance that I will not be able to use tactical combat rules right from the start of Next? At least that is what I am reading. In this case, Next will definetely have to wait before I will spend any money on it. And because I am many, I think Next will fail if this is the case. And that is very sad.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 4:36AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2006
|
* Include tactical combat rules that allow the option to add more miniatures gaming elements to combat. This would include a grid, options for facing, rules for more detailed zones of control, and so on.
There is a great potential if the next D&D is compatible with a fantasy miniature wargame, and don´t forget the RTS videogames.
But my doubt is about the share-out of XPs rewards. And don´t forget PCs could use special weapons to kill the biggest monsters (for example catapults or giant crossbows). My suggestion is monsters should be different XPs rewards if they are used like swarn, army, minions, elite or solo. Defeating a minotaur hand-to-hand combat isn´t to easy like hurtin half-dozens by means of causing a stampede of beasts. How much XPs reward should be got by Mulan when Mongol army was buried by snow avalanche?
* Provide a system that emphasizes refreshing resources by encounter instead of by day.
It would perfect for videogame adaptations, haven´t you thought it? I rebember once I saw somebody playing Newerwinter Nights. When the wizard spent all spells the character rested until recovered them. I think it was the reason 4Ed wanted use encounter powers.
* Use action points, fate points, or a similar meta-mechanic as a reward or a way to give players a mechanical option to boost their power for a specific moment.
I like the idea of spending "willpower points" (like from Storytelling System) to improve actions. It could be a right optional reward.
* Add in rules for firearms, including both a historical take and one driven by fantasy.
Wow. Firearms can change totally the game. My suggestion is firearms and other special extra like legendary weapons should be like template added to monsters...or PCs have got less XPs reward, like if a extra PC was to share out the XPs reward.
Think about it, Firearms means a d20 Modern 2.0.... maybe a d20 with superheroes..
* Create rules for realms management and strongholds.
Interesting. I am imagining the return of Birthright setting. The "housing" (game mechanic) is being more popular in the online videogames.
I would like a D&D Sims Medieval with stronghold managerment or "housing". Lots of social networks videogames are about "housing" or management realms or strongholds.
* Design rules for finding ingredients and reagents to craft magic items.
Mmmmmmmmmm, I have thinking about social networks videogames where players ask each other lots of ingredients... or the crafter classes from Sims medieval. It isn´t a bad idea, only it needs a good game desin.
* Design rules for using armor as damage reduction, along with rules for hit locations.
I suggest damage reduction could be a crafting improvement for blacksmith PCs.
* Include alternative magic systems.
Some ideas from "Magic of Incarnum" could be used for ki power source, like chakras like body slots.
The pacts were a interesting mechanic. I suggest the shadow magic game mechanic to be used for other type of magic background like elemental magic.
The truename magic game mechanic could be used for bards like option...
* Provide rules for horror and sanity, along with other rules to change D&D's genre.
I wish suggest the rules about insanity from "Unknown Armies". (With the madness metters: violence-stress, unnatural/supernatural/reality, helpleness, Isolation and Self-Ego).
"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)
Book 13 Anaclet 23
Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"
|
|
|
