|
2 months ago ::
Mar 13, 2013 - 1:57PM
#81
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Lol, the whole "we're still playtesting" doesn't cut it this far in.
According to whom? You? Why? On what basis are you making the judgment that they should be moving forward faster?
You have no understanding of their timetable, no understanding of their deadlines and limits. You're imposing what you think is reasonable based on some semblance of experience with other products, while ignoring the fact that they really are trying something that has never been attempted before.
They do have "some clue" about what they want to do, but they're not afraid to make major revisions based on feedback. That's the important part - major revisions based on feedback. That's something no other gaming company has ever done on anything even remotely close to this scale. Thirty years of history and a massive, fractured fanbase means that any development process that actually meets their goals is going to take a lot longer than other developments for things that are completely different.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 13, 2013 - 1:58PM
#82
|
|
|
Vancian casting is the default casting style. Multiple saving throws paired up with AC is the default, rather than the more elegant NADs and AC. Those should be a modular option, though. Feats and skills are default and unavoidable. This is not something that will appeal to all editions.
Vancian casting is a class feature, which can easily be fixed with modules: either use different classes (all classes are optional modules, after all), or use one of the advanced modules to change the casting style. Saving throws and Non-Armor Defenses are trivially changed, such that you hardly even need to write down that it is a module, but we know it will be.[/quote
Quoted for truth.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 13, 2013 - 2:00PM
#83
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Vancian casting is the default casting style. Multiple saving throws paired up with AC is the default, rather than the more elegant NADs and AC. Those should be a modular option, though. Feats and skills are default and unavoidable. This is not something that will appeal to all editions.
Vancian casting is a class feature, which can easily be fixed with modules: either use different classes (all classes are optional modules, after all), or use one of the advanced modules to change the casting style. Saving throws and Non-Armor Defenses are trivially changed, such that you hardly even need to write down that it is a module, but we know it will be.
I get what you're saying about feats and skills, but they aren't great examples because you can just not use them and it will have very little impact on the game. No encounter is so finely tuned that having feats or not would substantially change the difficulty, because feats don't add linear power. At most, you might need a line somewhere that says what to do with all of the class-granted skills in a game that doesn't use skills (my guess is that you would gain advantage on relevant ability checks).
The only non-modular things I've seen are the meta-rules by which the rest of the rules are designed: things like Bounded Accuracy, or the Universal Ability Modifier. Even then, I wouldn't put it past them to offer advanced modules for those who are comfortable with changing them.
It is core. There is no alternate feature for the wizard. A lot of people hate vancian casting, but will want to play their wizard from 4e. If the system was actually modular, there would be alternate casting styles that you could just plug and play built on some basic class features. That is how you do modularity.
Bounded Accuracy, Feats, Skills, Saves, etc. These are all default assumptions of the system, when there are other options from D&D's past to choose from. There should be no default assumption in this regard. You should be able to just plug in the want you want that matches your desired game. I'm not saying it has to be verbatim from that edition, but you should at least be able to have alternatives.
Now, let's talk about Martial healing. They said it is out. I guess that isn't going to be a modular option. It works under the core, but they're onetrueway says no.
The system is just a joke when it comes to modularity. It really is. Look at every other modular RPG out there. Now look at DDN. DDN isn't even close to being designed with that in mind.
I'm simply comparing DDN to systems that show what can be done, which DDN is not doing. I'm comparing it to other playtests that I have taken part in, and I can tell you that I've never seen it go this far without choosing an actual direction. I honestly still have no idea what they are trying to do here. It's just like they're plucking random things out of every edition and duct taping them on.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 13, 2013 - 2:00PM
#84
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
The PSU is designed to be modular for its design goal. DDN is not. DDN is supposed to be modular so you can simply plug in your favorite playstyle and play. That is how it was advertised. That is the only true way to make a D&D for everyone. If this is what they call modularity, it's a joke. It lacks any form of elegance or consistency.
This isn't what they call modularity. We haven't even seen a module, let alone begun to test one. As I said before, what we're seeing is Standard. Modules are Advanced. Actual replacements for core rules are also Advanced, in addition to the modules.
You're right, what we're seeing doesn't demonstrate modularity, it isn't elegant, and it isn't consistent. Welcome to this thing called "playtesting an incomplete product in early development."
Your arguments in this regard are based on a faulty axiom, that we aren't in early development. We still are, yes, at least two years in.
Also, modular rules should NEVER replace core rules. The key to modularity is consistency in the core. Once you start pulling stuff out from the bottom, the whole thing can come crashing down. You're talking about playing Mahjongg with the rules now. The fact that they're even considering this is like nails on a chalkboard.
Okay, seriously, READ THE DAMNED ARTICLE ON ADVANCED RULES. Because you clearly haven't. Or, you didn't understand it.
Because it describes the different types of things in Advanced rules. Dials, which you can adjust up and down, but don't really add much in the way of new mechanics. Modules, which add new mechanics that didn't exist before, but don't change anything in the core. Modules don't interact with the core or with each other, you can add them on freely in any configuration you like and the game will still function. And then there are the things that change the core, which may not be compatible with each other, and may not be compatible with many of the modules. They know that, and yes, they're going ahead with it anyway. Because some people might like things that fall into this category, like replacing all daily resources with encounter resources. That's a change to the core, and you do not get to tell people that such a change can't be included in Advanced rules just because it offends your sensibilities.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 13, 2013 - 2:04PM
#85
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
It is core. There is no alternate feature for the wizard
Yet. I don't know how many times I have to say this before you start to understand: the packet does not represent the latest effort at best replicating the final intended design.
Seriously, your entire argument, all of your conclusions, are based on the mistaken impression that we're so far along in development that nothing significant can be changed or added. That's flatly wrong - the're taking classes back for redevelopment (we still haven't seen the updated warlock or sorcerer, they're modifying the fighter, and we've only seen the initial concept for the barbarian), and they've got a whole slew of new classes to add. And every time they do the development of an existing class or a new class, there's a chance that they may run into something that requires an adjusment to the core. The most recent one is Martial Damage Dice. They don't like it, so they said they're going to change it. That is a change to the core, the kind of change that you say can't happen, and yet they're doing it anyway.
This makes you wrong.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 13, 2013 - 2:07PM
#86
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
The PSU is designed to be modular for its design goal. DDN is not. DDN is supposed to be modular so you can simply plug in your favorite playstyle and play. That is how it was advertised. That is the only true way to make a D&D for everyone. If this is what they call modularity, it's a joke. It lacks any form of elegance or consistency.
This isn't what they call modularity. We haven't even seen a module, let alone begun to test one. As I said before, what we're seeing is Standard. Modules are Advanced. Actual replacements for core rules are also Advanced, in addition to the modules.
You're right, what we're seeing doesn't demonstrate modularity, it isn't elegant, and it isn't consistent. Welcome to this thing called "playtesting an incomplete product in early development."
Your arguments in this regard are based on a faulty axiom, that we aren't in early development. We still are, yes, at least two years in.
Also, modular rules should NEVER replace core rules. The key to modularity is consistency in the core. Once you start pulling stuff out from the bottom, the whole thing can come crashing down. You're talking about playing Mahjongg with the rules now. The fact that they're even considering this is like nails on a chalkboard.
Okay, seriously, READ THE DAMNED ARTICLE ON ADVANCED RULES. Because you clearly haven't. Or, you didn't understand it.
Because it describes the different types of things in Advanced rules. Dials, which you can adjust up and down, but don't really add much in the way of new mechanics. Modules, which add new mechanics that didn't exist before, but don't change anything in the core. Modules don't interact with the core or with each other, you can add them on freely in any configuration you like and the game will still function. And then there are the things that change the core, which may not be compatible with each other, and may not be compatible with many of the modules. They know that, and yes, they're going ahead with it anyway. Because some people might like things that fall into this category, like replacing all daily resources with encounter resources. That's a change to the core, and you do not get to tell people that such a change can't be included in Advanced rules just because it offends your sensibilities.
Lol. Now they're making a game incompatible with itself? Yeah, elegance incoming!
Seriously. 4e managed to integrate daily and encounter resources together. Why does DDN have to make that incompatible? Because the system isn't designed to handle modularity.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 13, 2013 - 2:09PM
#87
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Dude. Go. Read. The. Article.
They're making parts of the game incompatible with other parts, all of which are completely optional.
You're posting nothing but ignorance now, and I've already told you what you need to do to remedy it.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 13, 2013 - 2:10PM
#88
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
It is core. There is no alternate feature for the wizard
Yet. I don't know how many times I have to say this before you start to understand: the packet does not represent the latest effort at best replicating the final intended design.
Seriously, your entire argument, all of your conclusions, are based on the mistaken impression that we're so far along in development that nothing significant can be changed or added. That's flatly wrong - the're taking classes back for redevelopment (we still haven't seen the updated warlock or sorcerer, they're modifying the fighter, and we've only seen the initial concept for the barbarian), and they've got a whole slew of new classes to add. And every time they do the development of an existing class or a new class, there's a chance that they may run into something that requires an adjusment to the core. The most recent one is Martial Damage Dice. They don't like it, so they said they're going to change it. That is a change to the core, the kind of change that you say can't happen, and yet they're doing it anyway.
This makes you wrong.
If you have to change the core to add a new class, then it is not designed to be modular, either. I never said it can't happen. I just said it should never happen. It's bad design. The core should be basic enough to where something like that wouldn't effect it. Like every modular RPG in existence.
Again, Savage Worlds, GURPS, World of Darkness... all modular systems. All support thousands of varying options under a unified core structure. Not DDN, though....
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 13, 2013 - 2:11PM
#89
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Hey Mand12,
Let's work backwards a little about the timeline. Nexts annoncement was in Jan of 2012. In Feb. of last year Kevin Kulp posted on Feb. 24 over at E.N. World:
"Also, I can neither confirm or deny whether we're playtesting D&D Next. I can say that every other week I'm running B1: In Search of Adventure! But those things are surely coincidental and completely unrelated.
Whoa, look behind you. A three-headed monkey!"
That's consistent with Mand12's statement that playtesting began in January 2012.
I remember reading posts on various sites about the people at Wizards playing all editions of the game, Mike even stated as much. So going has far back as the essentials release around sept. of 2010, there was a basic concept for Next. When they actually started putting pen to paper in terms actual rules is unclear but Next was certainly in some peoples minds by sept. 2010.
I imagine that the next edition is in developers' minds as soon as current edition is released. That's what designers do. That doesn't mean that the new edition is actually in development. I think Mearls' design guidelines as set forth in this article represents the first real attempto begin design of an edition.
Which places the schedule as follows:
April 2011: Mearls develops design guidelines for a new edition.
January 2012: Family & Friends invitations go out. Playtesting begins.
May 2012: Official playtesting begins.
August 2014 (anticipated): next edition releases.
Forty months of development.
Compare 4e...
June 2005: Mike Mearls hired by Wizards to be lead developer on Fourth Edition.
August 2007: Announcement
June 2008: Release
Thity-Six Months
Compare 3e...
April 1997: Wizards acquires TSR. Assigns Monte Cook to develop 3rd edition
August 2000: Players Handbook Released
Forty Months.
In contrast, 2e was begun in 1987 and released in February 1989.
Two years.
I believe Gygax wrote 1e in a year and a half.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 13, 2013 - 2:11PM
#90
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
.....
The core is not designed to be modular. It's designed to NOT be modular, because it's the core.
They're having to change the core now because the core is not yet final. And yet you deny that, and say that the core is finished.
You can call it "bad design" all you want, but at this point you're ignoring what they said and claiming they've said the opposite of what they said, and then saying how it can't work. Bwah?
Edit: Gahh! Wrecan! Fix it!
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
