so, uh, here's a thing....

[Matthew Miller]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDNext.aspx

"D&D Next", a.k.a 5th edition: playtest now.

I haven't looked; I'm happily running a 4E game with some fairly heavy house
rules (no minis or grid, for example). But I was kind of surprised to find
no mention of it at all here. Wow, everyone really felt burned the last time
around, huh?


--
Matthew Miller

[Keith Davies]

google+ is going kind of nuts on it, at least in my stream.

I think it's partly burnout (4e was less than four years ago, and
they've already done their mid-version update), partly a lot of people
who might have been interested are doing other things (I've seen a lot
of people who love Pathfinder or gone back to OSR stuff), it could be
that they've been botching this release's marketing as badly as last
time.

I know someone who decided to be a '4e grognard'. Already didn't like
Essentials, didn't feel like watching WotC crap another one up.

http://www.kjd-imc.org/2012/05/14/dd-5es-chance-of-success-poor/
explains some of my thoughts on it.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "chain letter and chain mail...
keith....@kjdavies.org not the same thing, right?"
KJD-IMC: http://www.kjd-imc.org -- Naomi
Echelon: http://www.echelond20.org

[dr...@bin.sh]

its been virtually impossible to download for most of today, so i've
only just gotten my copy.

overall, i like it
i won't miss the "plus 1/2 level" shenanigans at all
i really like the advantage/disadvantage mechanic
the intoxicated condition is hilarious

--
n_n n_n dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
|"|n_n_n|"| ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | " " | | "Ryan Dancey doesn't *do* anything. He's got epic levels in
|_|_[T]_|_| psion. He simply wills people into action."
-- der_kluge

[tussock]

Matthew Miller wrote:

> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDNext.aspx
>
> "D&D Next", a.k.a 5th edition: playtest now.

Last night here, but wouldn't let me log in until I could find my
password they last sent me in 2007. Luckily I never clean up, and once awake
I could find the damn thing.

> I haven't looked; I'm happily running a 4E game with some fairly heavy
> house rules (no minis or grid, for example). But I was kind of surprised
> to find no mention of it at all here. Wow, everyone really felt burned the
> last time around, huh?

Reading, damnit. Uh, yeh, actually, this thing they have where your
abilities just work without you doing anything, it's distracting me from
complaining about the math just yet. 8]

--
tussock

[Grant Anderson]

On 25/05/2012 11:40 a.m., Matthew Miller wrote:
> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDNext.aspx
>
> "D&D Next", a.k.a 5th edition: playtest now.

I like the pre-gen Wizard's Researcher feature; if you fail a Lore
check, you still know where and from whom you can get the information
(adventure hooks ahoy!).

--
Grant

[Hadsil]

On May 24, 8:32 pm, Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> wrote:

> Matthew Miller <mattdm-use...@mattdm.org> wrote:
> >http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDNext.aspx
>
> > "D&D Next", a.k.a 5th edition: playtest now.
>
> > I haven't looked; I'm happily running a 4E game with some fairly heavy
> > house rules (no minis or grid, for example). But I was kind of
> > surprised to find no mention of it at all here. Wow, everyone really
> > felt burned the last time around, huh?
>
> google+ is going kind of nuts on it, at least in my stream.
>
> I think it's partly burnout (4e was less than four years ago, and
> they've already done their mid-version update), partly a lot of people
> who might have been interested are doing other things (I've seen a lot
> of people who love Pathfinder or gone back to OSR stuff), it could be
> that they've been botching this release's marketing as badly as last
> time.
>
> I know someone who decided to be a '4e grognard'.  Already didn't like
> Essentials, didn't feel like watching WotC crap another one up.
>
> http://www.kjd-imc.org/2012/05/14/dd-5es-chance-of-success-poor/
> explains some of my thoughts on it.
>
> Keith
> --
> Keith Davies                         "chain letter and chain mail...

> keith.dav...@kjdavies.org             not the same thing, right?"

> KJD-IMC:http://www.kjd-imc.org        -- Naomi
> Echelon:http://www.echelond20.org

My DM was willing to switch to Pathfinder precisely because it's new
stuff compatible with his large 3E library. We like it a lot,
especially the revamped character classes. 5E will have a very tough
sell to get the group to switch. I'm open to liking it for its own
sake, but our game is highly likely to remain 3.P.

Gerald Katz

[brian.b.m...@lmco.com]

I am dubious about the whole idea of getting all players to unite under one
edition. If group X is happy playing 2e, or group Y is passionate about
4e, why should they spend $100 or so on a whole new edition? They have
most likely fixed all of the really irksome game flaws with house rules
already. What could be so compelling about 5e that these people will feel
they have to run out and buy it?

I think that the tendency of WOTC to focus on red herrings like game
balance or maintaining the "feel" of D&D is also harmful, since it
needlessly limits their options. The only thing they should focus on is
making the game as much fun as possible. Who cares if, say, a wizard and a
fighter have exactly the same amount of power, so long as both can
contribute usefully in most situations the party encounters? Who cares if
the game retains "iconic" D&D elements as long as it is fun to play?

One problem that D&D has always had is an excessive number of useless rules
and limitations that hem players in without improving the game. Examples
are racial or class limits on skills, maximum level, and so on. If players
can choose any skills, feats, and powers they like for their characters,
multiclassing is easy. Perhaps a wizard studies combat skills in lieu of
some spells he would otherwise be entitled to. Maybe a fighter decides to
study lockpicking instead of becoming proficient in a particular weapon.
Removing useless restrictions would improve the game considerably.

Another problem is that the rules often make no sense. Why should hit
points be class-based? Basing them on the Con score would make much more
sense. Moreover, having armor class improve rather than hit points
increase as a character gains experience levels (and presumably learns to
defend himself from attacks more effectively) would be more realistic and
help prevent monsters from becoming humdrum so soon. Fighters would gain
AC bonuses the fastest, since fighting is their specialty, but every class
would improve at varying rates.

--- Brian

[David Lamb]

On 28/05/2012 11:12 PM, brian.b.m...@lmco.com wrote:
> I think that the tendency of WOTC to focus on red herrings like game
> balance or maintaining the "feel" of D&D is also harmful, since it
> needlessly limits their options. The only thing they should focus on is
> making the game as much fun as possible. Who cares if, say, a wizard and a
> fighter have exactly the same amount of power, so long as both can
> contribute usefully in most situations the party encounters?

"Contribute usefully" is indeed what most of us are talking about when
we complain about "game balance." Some people have no trouble, relying
on the DM to balance out "spotlight time;" others want the mechanics to
play more of a role in guaranteeing that each character has a useful
role. Few if any of us in this ng care about fighter vs wizard in a
single combat.

I dunno what WotC is talking about when they use the term.

[Nicole Massey]

<brian.b.m...@lmco.com> wrote in message
news:005dfbb1-0206-4085...@googlegroups.com...

I understand what the original designers were trying to get at by increasing
hit points based on class -- the assumption is that those focused on
physical stuff would gain them faster as they develop their ability to move
in combat situations, while those not getting involved in combat wouldn't.
Remember that hit points only slightly deal with the physical body and also
deal with combat reflexes and the like. Rolemaster handled this using the
Body Development skill and basing hit points on constitution. I can see
value in assigning starting hit points on constitution -- in fact, having a
character's starting hit points as their constitution, modified by the con
bonus might be a good system. (I know people who do this, especially for
sub-zero hit points before death)
I also agree that WOTC spends a lot of time trying to keep what they deem
"iconic" elements to the game. They failed for at least the last three
versions, if you consider 3.5 to be a version.The true test is how many
players of the older versions consider the later ones to be the same game.
I've encountered a lot of folks who don't consider 3x or later to be the
same thing as the original boxed set, the Holmes stuff, or AD&D of either
edition. So this makes it just a brand. And I wonder how some of the
incompatibilities will resolve whenthey're trying to merge such different
games. There are now three different groups of "grognards" playing older
editions of the game -- AD&D first edition, (sometimes with some 2x elements
thrown in) Pathfinder/D20 players, and folks playing either the digest sized
books or the basic/masters/companion/immortal stuff. (I know of a few 2x
players, but they tend to pull freely from anything AD&D in my experience)
These groups are rather different in what they find important about their
particular system du jour, and I can't see folks getting past some of that
to unite in a single community once again. (Feats, if nothing else, tend to
send the earliest of the two groups into hives)
They might create an interesting game. But I can't imagine how they will
create one that returns D&D to monolithic status -- where it's possible to
do a pick-up game in just about any group of gajmers because everyone knows
the rules well enough.

[tussock]

brian.b.m...@lmco.com wrote:

> I am dubious about the whole idea of getting all players to unite under
> one edition. If group X is happy playing 2e, or group Y is passionate
> about 4e, why should they spend $100 or so on a whole new edition?

No one at sales and marketing really gives a shit about the grognards;
they're not buying anyway. Mike Mearls just thinks the old school movement
has made some good points about game design in recent years.

The game basically makes all its money in periodic long-tailed sales
peaks, only two thus far according to Ryan Dancy, from 3.0 and BX+AD&D. 4e
made them nothing, they don't care about it or it's customers in the
slightest, they just want some of them to say good things about the new
edition on the internet, because that's the best advertising money can't
buy.

> They have most likely fixed all of the really irksome game flaws with
> house rules already.

Most people's house rules are complete clusterfucks. Mine included, if
I'm being all real about it.

> What could be so compelling about 5e that these people will feel they
> have to run out and buy it?

It's not /for/ them, it's for the hope of a boom in the market. Whoever
those people might be, newbies, CRPGers, board-gamers, ipod kids, lost WoW
players, the farmville crowd, whatever.

> I think that the tendency of WOTC to focus on red herrings like game
> balance or maintaining the "feel" of D&D is also harmful, since it
> needlessly limits their options. The only thing they should focus on is
> making the game as much fun as possible.

Oh, gods no. The tyranny of the "fun game design" principle has a lot to
answer for. Monopoly isn't still kicking ass because it's fun. Chess hasn't
lasted centuries because it's fun. WoW isn't fun. Successful games are not
fun, they're ... well, they're addictive and challenging with repeating
cycles and partially randomised rewards that allow ongoing responses.

> Who cares if, say, a wizard and a fighter have exactly the same amount of
> power, so long as both can contribute usefully in most situations the
> party encounters?

Spotlight time. You actually need most situations to have someone be
clearly better at them, so players get a clear sense of their contribution
to the group over time. People joke about the 3e Bard because he's never
quite the best at anything, he only ever makes others shine.

> Who cares if the game retains "iconic" D&D elements as long as it is
> fun to play?

Most iconic D&D elements are there because people really enjoyed them
over the decades. Wizards were feeble enough to be killed by a house cat
because it made for a more enjoyable game for everyone, even the players of
Wizards found great satisfaction in it.
When younger designers take those things away, or nerf them out of
common use, it often recreates problems that were already solved by the late
70's.

> One problem that D&D has always had is an excessive number of useless
> rules and limitations that hem players in without improving the game.
> Examples are racial or class limits on skills, maximum level, and so on.

Races had level limits to support the fluff, Humans ruling. Classes
exist for niche protection (at least until Rob fucking Heinsoo decided
niches weren't "fun", all you needed was a "role" to play, all tiny cogs in
his little machine), class skills support niche protection, spotlight time,
and so on.

> If players can choose any skills, feats, and powers they like [...].

GURPS, Champions, they're -> thataway. They're not very good, eh. When
players can choose anything, they find the tiniest flaws in your game engine
and drive a container boat full of win through it.

> Another problem is that the rules often make no sense.

The rules that make the least "sense" are usually the ones that were
most needed to make the game run properly. Things like ...

Level-inflated hit points so the challenges you can overcome change over
time in a predictable fashion. The classic ban on buying magic items so
people don't all end up with perfect, boring-ass clone gear. XP for treasure
rather than challenge so players /avoid/ pointless fights and /fear/ trivial
wandering monsters, so they *like finding treasure*, like real people do.
Attack bonuses growing much faster than AC. Saves getting /easier/ as
the spells and monster special attacks you face become more dangerous. PCs
not being able to cast spells in melee. Strictly limited recovery cycles.
Some classes being simple and functional, some being complex and rewarding
deep planning and study. Slow exploration and combat.

--
tussock

[dr...@bin.sh]

Alien mind control rays made tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> write:
> People joke about the 3e Bard because he's never
> quite the best at anything, he only ever makes others shine.

except as Diplomacy monkeys. dear gawds.

> GURPS, Champions, they're -> thataway. They're not very good, eh.
> When players can choose anything, they find the tiniest flaws in your
> game engine and drive a container boat full of win through it.

yeah, that.


--
._n_______n_. dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
| --------- |== -----------------------------------------------------------
I"/""|"|Z7""' "Well, yes, it did occur to me that I might hit one or
lJ | | two civilians. But I never really thought I would hit
|_l all of them." -- Axly

[tussock]

Nicole Massey wrote:

> I understand what the original designers were trying to get at by
> increasing hit points based on class -- the assumption is that those
> focused on physical stuff would gain them faster as they develop their
> ability to move in combat situations, while those not getting involved in
> combat wouldn't.

The original game has Wizards with very similar attacks and hit points
to Fighters. That steadily changed as Fighters got much better and Wizards
substantially worse at combat, and casting got harder. EGG wanted even more
power for Fighters, better defenses against magic, and a more narrow spell
selection for Wizards, just to keep them a bit even, share the spotlight.

But Monte Cook grew up hating all those restrictions on his Wizards, so
he got rid of them all for 3e. Someone should have told him, considering
he'd just spent twenty years playing Wizards, he obviously enjoyed that
challenge.

Not to mention 4e, where the Wizard is just a Fighter with different
coloured arrows. Zap, zap, zap.

--
tussock

[Joanna Rowland Stuart]

In article
<0e7442ae-dd02-41a4...@m10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,

foru...@netzero.com (Hadsil) wrote:

>
>
> My DM was willing to switch to Pathfinder precisely because it's new
> stuff compatible with his large 3E library.

Ditto

> our game is highly likely to remain 3.P.

Also ditto

Cheers
JOanna