PDA

View Full Version : Speculation What i'd like to get out of 5e



EccentricCircle
2014-06-29, 03:36 PM
So this was originally going to be a reply to the will 5e be successful thread, but it doesn't quite fit there. So lets open this up and create an "Optimism thread". What are you hoping to get out of the new D&D edition? What do you hope it will be able to do? What niche would you like it to fill?
I've seen some comments from people who are concerned that the new game will be too streamlined and not have enough options etc. I'd actually quite like a quick and simple D&D game. I've already got 3.5/pathfinder for long complicated games which need a lot of options, and 4th edition for tactically intensive games, But what I don't have is a good D&D game for oneshots, something where I can actually sit down and get the players to roll up characters as we start rather than having to get them to do it before arriving at the game, because otherwise it will massively eat into our time. There are a lot of games out there which are quicker to get off the ground, but that doesn't help if what you want to play happens to be D&D.

I don't know to what extent this version will actually fill this niche, there's been lots of talk about simplicity, but then again they will ultimately want it to run for years and include everything in D&D's past.

So what do you hope to get out of fifth edition?

Lokiare
2014-06-29, 03:37 PM
So this was originally going to be a reply to the will 5e be successful thread, but it doesn't quite fit there. So lets open this up and create an "Optimism thread". What are you hoping to get out of the new D&D edition? What do you hope it will be able to do? What niche would you like it to fill?
I've seen some comments from people who are concerned that the new game will be too streamlined and not have enough options etc. I'd actually quite like a quick and simple D&D game. I've already got 3.5/pathfinder for long complicated games which need a lot of options, and 4th edition for tactically intensive games, But what I don't have is a good D&D game for oneshots, something where I can actually sit down and get the players to roll up characters as we start rather than having to get them to do it before arriving at the game, because otherwise it will massively eat into our time. There are a lot of games out there which are quicker to get off the ground, but that doesn't help if what you want to play happens to be D&D.

I don't know to what extent this version will actually fill this niche, there's been lots of talk about simplicity, but then again they will ultimately want it to run for years and include everything in D&D's past.

So what do you hope to get out of fifth edition?

You said optimism right? So I shouldn't post here right?

StabbityRabbit
2014-06-29, 04:43 PM
A fun, new edition that plays quickly, and can be modded fairly easily.

Madfellow
2014-06-29, 05:53 PM
The thing about these forums is that they're mostly populated by people who are fans of 3.5 and Pathfinder, and as such most people here have held fairly low opinions of the new edition. Myself, I've always been dissatisfied with 3.5, mostly because of its overdependence on magic and its sometimes clunky mechanics. I've played 4e a little, and I like it more than 3.5, but it's still not "the game for me."

So when I first heard about 5e and the playtest, I was psyched. And truth be told, that psychitude hasn't diminished a single bit since then! :smallsmile: And here's why: every new bit of information I received about 5e (with some small exceptions) has addressed some problem that I've always had with 3e and 4e, and has helped to distinguish Next from its predecessors in a new and fun way. I've always wanted a simpler, streamlined, faster D&D. I've always wanted less dependence on magic and artifacts. In my opinion, 3e and 4e were kinda bloated, and the franchise was in need of a little deflating.

Best of all, though, is the dev team's focus on the storytelling aspect of the game. Throughout their press releases and columns and sneak peaks, they have emphasized again and again that in pulling focus away from number-crunching, they are putting more and more focus on making it easier to roleplay a good story and to develop good characters and gripping adventures.

THAT is why I am still psyched for 5e. :smallsmile:

captpike
2014-06-30, 11:20 AM
the game they said they were making.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-30, 11:36 AM
the game they said they were making.

You and Lok wouldn't be happy then, you would find something else to complain about.

Perhaps because it isn't 4e?

:smallsigh:

Sorry but a company can change goals, and if everyone is "the group that will make us money" then more power to then.WotC owes you nothing.

obryn
2014-06-30, 11:42 AM
the game they said they were making.
That hypothetical game - a milquetoast mishmash of blandness dedicated to offending nobody - would have been terrible. Well, more terrible, anyway. I'm glad the design team actually picked a design philosophy; it gives it more of a chance of turning out okay.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-30, 11:59 AM
That hypothetical game - a milquetoast mishmash of blandness dedicated to offending nobody - would have been terrible. Well, more terrible, anyway. I'm glad the design team actually picked a design philosophy; it gives it more of a chance of turning out okay.

But hey, you can't get anywhere as a company if you are flexible and evolve your ideas to suit your market's wants . :smalltongue:

But I guess some people will whine about it till 6e comes out.

Knaight
2014-06-30, 12:21 PM
I'm hoping that it's a game sufficiently streamlined to pull new people into the hobby, and which handles the particular D&D niche (dungeon crawling) reasonably well. Quite honestly, I'm getting optimistic about this. There are still things I dislike, but there are a few more promising mechanics (the use of double proficiency is nice to see), and it seems like 5e is getting to be a pretty coherent game. It's far from a generalized one, and I wouldn't expect it to work all that well for much other than dungeon crawling, but it looks like it will do what it should do well.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-30, 12:26 PM
I'm hoping that it's a game sufficiently streamlined to pull new people into the hobby, and which handles the particular D&D niche (dungeon crawling) reasonably well. Quite honestly, I'm getting optimistic about this. There are still things I dislike, but there are a few more promising mechanics (the use of double proficiency is nice to see), and it seems like 5e is getting to be a pretty coherent game. It's far from a generalized one, and I wouldn't expect it to work all that well for much other than dungeon crawling, but it looks like it will do what it should do well.

I hope they stick to these rules being only for dungeon crawling. Then give me the rules for other interactions between everything in campaign guides or whatever.

I hate the idea of dungeon crawling rules = society rules.

obryn
2014-06-30, 12:30 PM
dungeon crawling rules = society rules.
The 3rd edition rallying cry!

captpike
2014-06-30, 03:41 PM
You and Lok wouldn't be happy then, you would find something else to complain about.

Perhaps because it isn't 4e?

:smallsigh:

Sorry but a company can change goals, and if everyone is "the group that will make us money" then more power to then.WotC owes you nothing.


But hey, you can't get anywhere as a company if you are flexible and evolve your ideas to suit your market's wants . :smalltongue:

But I guess some people will whine about it till 6e comes out.

then they should say the goals have changed, when they say so I will change how I judge the game.

how would you judge the game? pick a goal randomly and see if it matches to the game?

they said they were trying to make a game for every major playstyle of the previous editions, and that it would be modular.

we have yet to see any evidence of it being in any way modular, and no support of any playstyle of that of a very narrow one. I talk mostly about the 4e one because that is what I know best and care about most, not because that is the only one that matters or the only one I think they should support.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-30, 04:43 PM
then they should say the goals have changed, when they say so I will change how I judge the game.

how would you judge the game? pick a goal randomly and see if it matches to the game?

they said they were trying to make a game for every major playstyle of the previous editions, and that it would be modular.

we have yet to see any evidence of it being in any way modular, and no support of any playstyle of that of a very narrow one. I talk mostly about the 4e one because that is what I know best and care about most, not because that is the only one that matters or the only one I think they should support.


Hear that? The world's smallest violin is playing.

They don't owe you or anyone else anything. They are a company and if their product is decent or good then it will sell. The only people that WotC owes anything to is Hasbro and their stock holders.

They don't have to have a press release just so you can have your ego satisfied. They want to change goals? Fine. They want to not tell people and assume that anyone paying attention can tell they changed their goals? Good.

Not everything has to be stated out mater of fact like. They changed their goals and they don't owe you an explanation.

Don't like it? Then tough, don't buy the game they made. But atop spreading this whiny crap about "they changed their goal and didn't tell us".

What I don't get is why you feel you have to keep saying the same garbage over and over in a forum just to try and get attention or try to antogonize people (which hey, good going you got me again). I'm pretty sure that's called trolling.

Lokiare
2014-06-30, 05:41 PM
You and Lok wouldn't be happy then, you would find something else to complain about.

Perhaps because it isn't 4e?

:smallsigh:

Sorry but a company can change goals, and if everyone is "the group that will make us money" then more power to then.WotC owes you nothing.


But hey, you can't get anywhere as a company if you are flexible and evolve your ideas to suit your market's wants . :smalltongue:

But I guess some people will whine about it till 6e comes out.

They continue to maintain that they want to support all play styles. That's still one of their goals.


Hear that? The world's smallest violin is playing.

They don't owe you or anyone else anything. They are a company and if their product is decent or good then it will sell. The only people that WotC owes anything to is Hasbro and their stock holders.

They don't have to have a press release just so you can have your ego satisfied. They want to change goals? Fine. They want to not tell people and assume that anyone paying attention can tell they changed their goals? Good.

Not everything has to be stated out mater of fact like. They changed their goals and they don't owe you an explanation.

Don't like it? Then tough, don't buy the game they made. But atop spreading this whiny crap about "they changed their goal and didn't tell us".

What I don't get is why you feel you have to keep saying the same garbage over and over in a forum just to try and get attention or try to antogonize people (which hey, good going you got me again). I'm pretty sure that's called trolling.

Your responses are just as much trolling. If you think they are trolling report them and move on. Replying is just as much against the forums rules as trolling is itself.

Also Hasbro is WotC's shareholders. WotC is a publicly traded company and Hasbro bought out all their controlling stock. That's how they replaced WotC's CEO with a Hasbro manager to get complete control of the internals of WotC after making a deal in the buyout that they would let WotC operate as a separate company.

da_chicken
2014-06-30, 06:07 PM
The thing about these forums is that they're mostly populated by people who are fans of 3.5 and Pathfinder, and as such most people here have held fairly low opinions of the new edition. Myself, I've always been dissatisfied with 3.5, mostly because of its overdependence on magic and its sometimes clunky mechanics. I've played 4e a little, and I like it more than 3.5, but it's still not "the game for me."

So when I first heard about 5e and the playtest, I was psyched. And truth be told, that psychitude hasn't diminished a single bit since then! :smallsmile: And here's why: every new bit of information I received about 5e (with some small exceptions) has addressed some problem that I've always had with 3e and 4e, and has helped to distinguish Next from its predecessors in a new and fun way. I've always wanted a simpler, streamlined, faster D&D. I've always wanted less dependence on magic and artifacts. In my opinion, 3e and 4e were kinda bloated, and the franchise was in need of a little deflating.

Best of all, though, is the dev team's focus on the storytelling aspect of the game. Throughout their press releases and columns and sneak peaks, they have emphasized again and again that in pulling focus away from number-crunching, they are putting more and more focus on making it easier to roleplay a good story and to develop good characters and gripping adventures.

THAT is why I am still psyched for 5e. :smallsmile:

This is pretty much what I'm hoping to get. I want 1e/2e with the math turned the right way 'round, or 3e with fewer broken mechanics (even if that means just fewer mechanics period). I don't have a problem with DMs making things up on the fly, and I like the idea that you don't turn into endgame Samus Aran.

Pex
2014-06-30, 09:22 PM
Right now Pathfinder is my game. I don't see 5E replacing it. What I would want is if for some hypothetical reason I did play a 5E game I can like it enough to get over it from the differences it has with 3E/Pathfinder.

da_chicken
2014-06-30, 09:45 PM
Right now Pathfinder is my game. I don't see 5E replacing it. What I would want is if for some hypothetical reason I did play a 5E game I can like it enough to get over it from the differences it has with 3E/Pathfinder.

I like PF because it fixes a lot of the issues with crappy classes and wonky skills. Then it went and made spellcasters seemingly worse, and didn't do enough to curtail buffet-style multiclassing and prestige classing which I've come to absolutely loathe.

captpike
2014-06-30, 10:07 PM
Hear that? The world's smallest violin is playing.

They don't owe you or anyone else anything. They are a company and if their product is decent or good then it will sell. The only people that WotC owes anything to is Hasbro and their stock holders.

They don't have to have a press release just so you can have your ego satisfied. They want to change goals? Fine. They want to not tell people and assume that anyone paying attention can tell they changed their goals? Good.

Not everything has to be stated out mater of fact like. They changed their goals and they don't owe you an explanation.

Don't like it? Then tough, don't buy the game they made. But atop spreading this whiny crap about "they changed their goal and didn't tell us".

What I don't get is why you feel you have to keep saying the same garbage over and over in a forum just to try and get attention or try to antogonize people (which hey, good going you got me again). I'm pretty sure that's called trolling.

they can certainly lie if they wish, but I will continue to judge their game they their stated goals.

again, how else would you judge a game? what is better then the goals the company itself sets?

Envyus
2014-06-30, 11:02 PM
again, how else would you judge a game?

If it's fun.

Dimers
2014-07-01, 01:21 AM
Well, 4e will probably continue to be my primary game system because I like the focus on tactical, team-oriented combat and I like the tight mechanics. But if a group of people I like to play with said "Hey, let's try 5e", what would I want out of it that can reasonably be expected of it?

I'd like its easy startup to continue. Very quick character creation, from what I've seen.

I'd like all sorts of builds to be able to contribute both in and out of combat.

I'd like well-written material -- the mechanics should be clear and fair (even if that takes errata to accomplish), the flavor should be evocative, the settings should make changes that really alter play for the worlds they represent, and the adventures should be easy to run and desirable to play.

I'd like material to keep coming steadily for years, not too fast but not too slow.

One thing the game definitely doesn't have now that I'd like to see is significant improvement in skill and resistance over time -- perhaps a modular addition.

I'd like a well-made online search tool.

I'd like a frank and open explanation of the meta attributes (probably in a book a few years down the road): the overall design intent, how each class works in practice, how the stats work in practice, under what circumstances different abilities matter the most, traps to avoid in character creation, what makes a group play well together, what classes are good matches for what kinds of player, how monster design and monster selection alter the expected gameplay ... Basically, I want the game to "know thyself".

EDIT: Oh, and even if I never have a group to play 5e with, even if I stick with 4e for every TTRPG ever, I would love to see a well-made 5e single-player video game. It's been too long since a good CRPG came out.

Chaosvii7
2014-07-01, 04:08 AM
Oh, and even if I never have a group to play 5e with, even if I stick with 4e for every TTRPG ever, I would love to see a well-made 5e single-player video game. It's been too long since a good CRPG came out.

I don't know whereabouts in Boston you live, but my friends and I play at a FLGS north of Boston. We're gonna be doing the starter set adventure, and then when the Player's Handbook comes out we're probably going to roll out a campaign as well. We mostly play on Sundays, and if you'd like to join in just send me a PM.

----

As for what I want out of 5e - I want a rules-light system for telling a fantasy story that lets me ask at least one deep question(be it philosophical or otherwise) while exploring the answer with a party of adventurers(friends), allowing them to play larger-than-life characters and me to shape a whole world around them.

I want fantasy tropes. I want simplicity. I want theater-of-the-mind combat sometimes. I want teamwork, I want roleplaying, I want stories from every person(but not necessarily spoken ones :smalltongue:), and I want comradery that is forged through these adventures and lasts for many years.

Also I totally want a Blood Mage subclass, preferably for Warlocks, because blood and Warlocks are edgy, and so am I.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-01, 07:11 AM
I like PF because it fixes a lot of the issues with crappy classes and wonky skills. Then it went and made spellcasters seemingly worse, and didn't do enough to curtail buffet-style multiclassing and prestige classing which I've come to absolutely loathe.

Wait, since when did Pathfinder fix anything? Crappy classes are still crappy, skills are still as wonky (though skill point system has been slimed down), also... Though a spell or two may have been changed (polymorph) they in no way made casters seemingly worse. Heck from a first glance they seem better but overall they are about the same within their systems.

Wizards are a god in each system and the Fighter is a bucket with wholes filled with mostly bad feats (there are some gems if you play level 11 - 20).

I play pathfinder, I'm currently playing and having fun as a fighter (the DM doesn't understand arcane or divine magic :/, best to stick with non-magical classes), but I know the problems I will face if I do certain things or try to go to far past a certain level with most builds.

Also why the hell isn't jump a strength based skill? Haha.

The notion that pathfinder fixed anything is kinda funny, not that they had to fix anything to make their own game and all... But well they didn't even fix all the polymorph spells (polymorph any object).

If 5e can build upon the mistakes of the past and make a decent game then I would be happy. I doubt they will though so I'll probably just end up playing 5e so I don't get roped into playing Pathfinder.

da_chicken
2014-07-01, 07:54 AM
Wait, since when did Pathfinder fix anything? Crappy classes are still crappy, skills are still as wonky (though skill point system has been slimed down), also... Though a spell or two may have been changed (polymorph) they in no way made casters seemingly worse. Heck from a first glance they seem better but overall they are about the same within their systems.

That's exactly my point.

I first looked at the martial classes and thought, "Wow, these aren't fantastic, but this guy (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter) still has a lot more going on than this guy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/fighter.htm) at least." Then I saw Monk and thought, "Well, just giving the damn class actual Fighter BAB is still the best way to do it, but I suppose this is acceptable."

Then I looked at skills and liked the streamlining. And I saw the preferred class rule and thought that was interesting incentive to remain single-classed. I liked the change to Power Attack, too, since it was just a toggle and not a dial. 4e did it that way, too, and it's the right way to do it.

Then I looked at Wizards and Clerics, and realized they didn't rebalance anything. They just raised the level across the whole game to give every class an ability at every level. That's stupid. Spellcasters didn't need any help. Then I noticed that prestige classes, if anything, got even more trivial to qualify for. There were no attempts to reign in the multiclassing stupidity of 3.x, they just give people who don't abuse it a cookie. At that point I didn't see any justification to leave 3.5, since the majority of changes were just changes and not improvements. It just felt like 5% fixes with 95% power creep. That's lame.

obryn
2014-07-01, 08:02 AM
I was invited to a Pathfinder game not all too long ago. You may have heard this story before, so I'll make it brief. I was a goblin cavalier riding a dire boar. I had a friend make it for me, because Pathfinder character creation is painful like ebola.

With a character concept like that, I thought it should have been awesome. But the truth was that, if I was charging, I was insanely strong. If I wasn't charging, I was utterly useless. I had exactly one trick where I was competent. Outside that excessively narrow niche I was worthless.

That's exactly the opposite thing I'd like to get out of 5e.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-01, 08:27 AM
I was invited to a Pathfinder game not all too long ago. You may have heard this story before, so I'll make it brief. I was a goblin cavalier riding a dire boar. I had a friend make it for me, because Pathfinder character creation is painful like ebola.

With a character concept like that, I thought it should have been awesome. But the truth was that, if I was charging, I was insanely strong. If I wasn't charging, I was utterly useless. I had exactly one trick where I was competent. Outside that excessively narrow niche I was worthless.

That's exactly the opposite thing I'd like to get out of 5e.

Quite frankly, this is why 3.5 and Pathfinder are the same damn game.

Though I finally found a Non-Caster (who eventually uses Su or Sp abilities) that is interesting. You should look into the Lore Warden Fighter.

Lore Warden 16/Horizon Walker 3/Living Monolith 1 is a pretty damn fun build... However if memory serves me correctly I believe that they called this the Horizon Tripper in 3.5, the only difference is the dimensional agility feat line... And a few other high level gem feats that I'll never get to use unless its a one shot -_-...

Teleporting all over the place as a large fighter with a glaive or whatever tripping and dazing (Dazing Assault) will be fun if I get a chance to use it.

Edit:

My skill points per level with a 16 Int Human (rolled for stats) is 2 (class) + 3 (Int) + 1 (race) + 2 (Lore Warden, Int skills only). And I get all intelligence based skills as class skills. My fighter can be useful outside of combat :p

Edits:

DA_chicken

The thing is that all the classes stayed the same tier in relation to the game. Heck even paladins are argued that they are tier 4 and not tier 3.

They didn't raise anyone and they didn't lower anyone else. They didn't change the game enough to do even that. Pathfinder is more like 3.6 whereas a game like Legend is its own game.

Chaosvii7
2014-07-01, 09:02 AM
Not gonna lie, after playing so much 3.x, I basically spend all of my time in-game trying to attach 9th-level casting onto everything I possibly can. I love 3.5 because it opened up my door to the world of Roleplaying and bum rushed me out into it, but really after coming to these forums and playing so much of it, I am ready for Next.

I think part of that has to do with the two different design philosophies that 3.5 and Pathfinder took. 3.5's power creep and splatbook bloat made dipping prestige classes not only easy, but basically necessary to do tricks that became very necessary as the gap that was already established between spellcasters and mundanes simply got wider and wider with every book. Helping my friends make builds is basically as easy as saying "What gimmick do you want your character to have?" or "You have one hypothetical full-round action. What do you want your character to be able to do in one turn of combat?" A build is basically a few levels of a core class followed by several dips into other classes that basically makes a finished build look like a cobbled-together statue, which often times might not even come out as optimized as a well-sculpted 20th level wizard staute. Pathfinder really brought the power levels for wizards back down into the stratosphere and helped leverage some of the huge problems with the core game, but now that they're expanding their material it's not growing enough to support the extensive number of possible playstyles that 3.5 could achieve. Prestige classes have had the immense fat trimmed from them to the point of being specializations of single-classed characters, or a class designed to support a hybrid playstyle. Archetypes fill some of the void, but the fact that a lot of the archetypes were designed to be used standalone and don't have many synergies with each other, you get the problem that either a smaller number of builds reign supreme due to the fact that there will definitely be archetypes that are superior to one another(some potentially exceeding the capabilities of the base class it's modifying) or that an extensive amount of fantasies just isn't possible.

For me, Next fulfills a good number of fantasies simply by trimming down the rules and specificity of classes and their capabilities while also leaving the door wide open with multiclassing(which I hope hasn't changed much from the final playtest) that isn't restrictive. Every class gets it's own chassis on top of adding a subclass to it, which easily trumps the design aesthetic of archetypes from Pathfinder, and the lack of prestige classes currently keeps the fidelity of tight and concise builds pretty good. Because there isn't 100 different specialized classes that you can take that, when chained properly, create devastating combinations. There's just the 12 core classes that can specialize in ways that one can combine to create something thematically similar while being a lot more rules light. Arguably every subclass is it's own class, but you usually only need a little bit of that one class to satisfy a goal, especially a hybrid class(Fighter 5/Wizard 15 in Next seems immensely powerful to me, whereas it'd only be okay in Pathfinder and laughably weak in 3.5).

I can't hate 3.x, but I am definitely entitled to like Next moreso.

Marius
2014-07-01, 09:13 AM
I would like a complex game, full of options and customization but also better balanced than 3.x. So, 3.x but better, much better.

Doesn't seem like I'm going to get it but I'll wait until all the books are out and try to give them the benefit of doubt for the time being. Although it's not a good omen that we still haven't seen any modules. The basic game seems fine for one-shots but it's not what I would use for a full-blown campaign.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-01, 09:54 AM
then they should say the goals have changed, when they say so I will change how I judge the game.

how would you judge the game? pick a goal randomly and see if it matches to the game?

they said they were trying to make a game for every major playstyle of the previous editions, and that it would be modular.

we have yet to see any evidence of it being in any way modular, and no support of any playstyle of that of a very narrow one. I talk mostly about the 4e one because that is what I know best and care about most, not because that is the only one that matters or the only one I think they should support.

What consistently amazes me, is how absolutely narrow your perception of this is. As you said - Every major playstyle have you even considered that you are not part of the every major playstyle? Has that even come up in your thought process? No definitive proof has been supplied to indicate that you are in the Major playstyle group. In all honestly, my opinion is that you are a war game player trying to play D&D. Which means, all you appear to care about are combat number crunching. The reality of the situation is that is only a small part of the game. Yes, it typically eats up the most time, but its only a small part of the game.

Modules can do nothing for roleplaying. It is still a roleplaying game, not a Roll playing game. Typically, players don't need a series of things to tell them how their character reacts to something. Which is why I think the "your views, your beliefs, how you attain your goals" hogwash will be dropped in my games.

Role playing is acting. Acting is assuming the identity of someone other than yourself. Instead of wandering into a field and beating each other with sticks, we use dice.

5e gives us the quick and easy to use rules so we can get through combat (when it crops up) quickly, efficiently, and properly so we can get back to the rest of the game. If your game is political intrigue, start interacting with your pcs, if its dungeoneering, make sure the rogue is healthy and set them back to task, if its high fantasy, get back to locating that spell that re-establishes the magical tranquility and saftey of the elven homeland before the meteor hits it. Which none of these require modular bits.

Marius
2014-07-01, 10:15 AM
What consistently amazes me, is how absolutely narrow your perception of this is. As you said - Every major playstyle have you even considered that you are not part of the every major playstyle? Has that even come up in your thought process? No definitive proof has been supplied to indicate that you are in the Major playstyle group. In all honestly, my opinion is that you are a war game player trying to play D&D. Which means, all you appear to care about are combat number crunching. The reality of the situation is that is only a small part of the game. Yes, it typically eats up the most time, but its only a small part of the game.

Modules can do nothing for roleplaying. It is still a roleplaying game, not a Roll playing game. Typically, players don't need a series of things to tell them how their character reacts to something. Which is why I think the "your views, your beliefs, how you attain your goals" hogwash will be dropped in my games.

Role playing is acting. Acting is assuming the identity of someone other than yourself. Instead of wandering into a field and beating each other with sticks, we use dice.

5e gives us the quick and easy to use rules so we can get through combat (when it crops up) quickly, efficiently, and properly so we can get back to the rest of the game. If your game is political intrigue, start interacting with your pcs, if its dungeoneering, make sure the rogue is healthy and set them back to task, if its high fantasy, get back to locating that spell that re-establishes the magical tranquility and saftey of the elven homeland before the meteor hits it. Which none of these require modular bits.

I'm not mad a WotC for making a game that doesn't suit me, but I think that they were biting more than they can chew when they said that 5e would be liked by fans of every playstyle. They also said that it would be done using modules.

So, for example, they said that the basic game wouldn't use skills only abilities. And that there would be a skills module for people that like using them. For what we now know of basic, the skill system is integrated in the game but is also very streamlined and simple. That's ok but that's not what they said they would do. It won't satisfy players who don't like having any skill system or players who want a complete skill system. And there won't be any module to fix that because it would break that math of the game.

And yes, you can roleplay anything, you don't even need rules! But this is a roleplaying game and games do need rules. How many rules and for what are those rules for depends on what each of us like. I don't get why people feel the need to tell other "the right way" to roleplay. Some like really simple games like 1e, some like complex things like Burning Wheel or pathfinder. Some like balance some don't and that's ok.

Chaosvii7
2014-07-01, 10:30 AM
Some like balance some don't and that's ok.

Balance might not be necessary, but it is definitely important. Any game worth it's salt that wants players to have fun with every aspect of gameplay that players can and will be subjected to should make at least a passable effort to keep the power levels of any definite rules constructs(race and classes in this case) balanced to the point where it doesn't invalidate a particular player's choices.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-01, 10:33 AM
I'm not mad a WotC for making a game that doesn't suit me, but I think that they were biting more than they can chew when they said that 5e would be liked by fans of every playstyle. They also said that it would be done using modules.

So, for example, they said that the basic game wouldn't use skills only abilities. And that there would be a skills module for people that like using them. For what we now know of basic, the skill system is integrated in the game but is also very streamlined and simple. That's ok but that's not what they said they would do. It won't satisfy players who don't like having any skill system or players who want a complete skill system. And there won't be any module to fix that because it would break that math of the game.

And yes, you can roleplay anything, you don't even need rules! But this is a roleplaying game and games do need rules. How many rules and for what are those rules for depends on what each of us like. I don't get why people feel the need to tell other "the right way" to roleplay. Some like really simple games like 1e, some like complex things like Burning Wheel or pathfinder. Some like balance some don't and that's ok.

Yeah their original design goals were X and they changed it to Y.

What the hell is the problem with that? It isn't like they are actively trying to deceive anyone. People need to get the hell over themselves and move on from this point.

They stated their design goals and have been very public with what they are doing, more so than ever before. What more can you ask for than that they have shown and told people what they are changing and making. As they went along they said what people responded positively and negatively to, they changed to meet their target audience and have been very open about this.

Seriously, what more can you want? Would you want them to not do a play test and not do all the surveys and stick to their original plan no matter what their audience really wanted?

Hogwash.

Edit:

If all play styles are X Y Z and a huge majority says "we only want X and Y" well then they are making a game everyone can play, everyone in ththe majority.

Person_Man
2014-07-01, 10:37 AM
1) 5E should not be boring. This was my biggest problem with 4E, which was filled with milquetoast X[W] + Keyword Effect Powers and highly granular +1 to X Feats.

2) The underlying math should work well, and can't be broken with optimization. This was my biggest problem with 3.0/3.5/PF, where players could optimize something to ridiculous levels and then DMs had to rejigger every monster/trap/Skill Challenge/etc they used in order to reasonably challenge the players. (Or worse, players didn't optimize, and DMs accidentally killed players with overpowered Save or Death RAW monster abilities).

So yeah, I want a fun game that works well out of the box.

No doubt this will be the case with the Basic game, because it has such constrained options. Time will tell whether or not it can be accomplished with Advanced 5E. I'm guessing that they will screw it up, since I have yet to see a functional action economy, math for all 20 levels, or stacking rules.

cobaltstarfire
2014-07-01, 10:45 AM
I'm actually really interested in 5e. I don't remember why I never felt interest in 4e (I remember thumbing through some books though and being disappointed that they didn't seem to have much fluff).

I'm hoping that the rules aren't too complicated, and are more clearly laid out. I play 3.5 and I've found a lot of the time the vagaries of some rules leaves me uncertain of how they work, and it's really hard for me to remember all the various bits and how they interact with each other. (I don't play melee characters because I've never been able to understand how attacking and BAB work as the character progresses).


I've only glanced over 5e a little bit, but it looks interesting to me. I know some of the things in it are carried over from 4e, but I also see things carried over from 3.5, so I'm interested mostly on the hope that they're taking what was good from those two things and adding more bits for an overall better and more flexible system. Also helps that at least some of it will be free, so I can play with it even if I can't afford to buy a bunch of books. I might get some though, especially if it's viable to play monsters and things. I find it boring to play the basic humanoid races, but the penalties always seem really high to play all the cool looking monsters.


Also I'd like lots of really good art work, seems like the art in 3.5 could be really hit and miss, some books were full of nothing but bad artwork, while others had amazing pieces in them.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-01, 01:00 PM
I'm not mad a WotC for making a game that doesn't suit me, but I think that they were biting more than they can chew when they said that 5e would be liked by fans of every playstyle. They also said that it would be done using modules.

So, for example, they said that the basic game wouldn't use skills only abilities. And that there would be a skills module for people that like using them. For what we now know of basic, the skill system is integrated in the game but is also very streamlined and simple. That's ok but that's not what they said they would do. It won't satisfy players who don't like having any skill system or players who want a complete skill system. And there won't be any module to fix that because it would break that math of the game.

And yes, you can roleplay anything, you don't even need rules! But this is a roleplaying game and games do need rules. How many rules and for what are those rules for depends on what each of us like. I don't get why people feel the need to tell other "the right way" to roleplay. Some like really simple games like 1e, some like complex things like Burning Wheel or pathfinder. Some like balance some don't and that's ok.

This is completely fair. And I understand the argument behind "for everyone". But then I read the various packets I have, and the various posts about the changes, and I see a common thread. I see the development team changing their concepts and goals based on what feedback they were getting from the playtest. How is that not doing exactly what they said? They are creating a game for people, based on what people directly said they want?

Are we going to claim that those people are wrong? If so, how can they be wrong? I freely accept that someone else's vision of the perfect game is most likely very different from mine. I submitted my answers and feedback. So did they. If it turns out I was in the minority, I freely accept that. I did my due diligence. If I didn't get exactly what I wanted, I accept that it was designed for more than just my playstyle, and I'm still happy. I still have the power to use, or not use any aspect of the game I want, and it doesn't have to be listed as "modular bit A" to indicate such.

This is what I find most frustrating. Why do we need something to say its modular to make it ok to use or not use? Don't like the skill system? drop it. So far, I don't see how your ability to leap affects your spell casting or attack rolls. Don't like some of the classes? Don't use em. Warlock now equals - Wizard who specialized in demonic summon spells.

I'm a firm believer in "It's my game" and I determine what is available to my players or not. I don't need a book to tell me its ok.

obryn
2014-07-01, 01:13 PM
This is what I find most frustrating. Why do we need something to say its modular to make it ok to use or not use?
Well, because it's no longer about the always-present ability to make a few small changes to get a game to better match your vision of what you want D&D to look like. Even though that's what people have done with D&D forever.

It's about the true heart and soul of D&D, you see. It's about whose playstyle WotC will bless as the default, giving that group a pat on the head and saying "You, my children, you were right all along!" And whose playstyle will be stuck in a module, where WotC says, "Oh, you might not be playing real D&D, but here's some toys." And whose playstyle isn't addressed at all, which is clearly a direct snub from WotC and their outright accusation that you've been playing elfgames wrong all along.

1337 b4k4
2014-07-01, 01:51 PM
Well, because it's no longer about the always-present ability to make a few small changes to get a game to better match your vision of what you want D&D to look like. Even though that's what people have done with D&D forever.

It's about the true heart and soul of D&D, you see. It's about whose playstyle WotC will bless as the default, giving that group a pat on the head and saying "You, my children, you were right all along!" And whose playstyle will be stuck in a module, where WotC says, "Oh, you might not be playing real D&D, but here's some toys." And whose playstyle isn't addressed at all, which is clearly a direct snub from WotC and their outright accusation that you've been playing elfgames wrong all along.

This has also been a problem with D&D forever. For some reason we (gamers as a whole) really really need external validation from official sources that the way we're playing is "correct". Gygax was often stymied at the number of people who wanted "official" rulings from him rather than doing what made sense at their table. It's actually one of the funniest things about being in the Dungeon World community. When people new to the game hop on the forums and ask "How does X work really?" or "What happens when Y?" It usually takes a few posts before the lightbulb goes off and they realize there isn't really a "wrong way" to do this. There is my way, and his way, and her way, and sometimes there's a common way because that seems to work best for most people, but whats more important than anything is your way. Does it work for you and your table? If so, happy trails my friend.

obryn
2014-07-01, 02:08 PM
This has also been a problem with D&D forever. For some reason we (gamers as a whole) really really need external validation from official sources that the way we're playing is "correct". Gygax was often stymied at the number of people who wanted "official" rulings from him rather than doing what made sense at their table. It's actually one of the funniest things about being in the Dungeon World community. When people new to the game hop on the forums and ask "How does X work really?" or "What happens when Y?" It usually takes a few posts before the lightbulb goes off and they realize there isn't really a "wrong way" to do this. There is my way, and his way, and her way, and sometimes there's a common way because that seems to work best for most people, but whats more important than anything is your way. Does it work for you and your table? If so, happy trails my friend.
Yeah, it goes down to at-table social dynamics, too. If you're able to point at specific words in books, then you win the dominance struggle. :smallsmile:

captpike
2014-07-01, 02:13 PM
If it's fun.

sure, show me a definition of fun that everyone who might play 5e agrees with, and is specific enough to cover all testing of the game and covers every playstyle.


What consistently amazes me, is how absolutely narrow your perception of this is. As you said - Every major playstyle have you even considered that you are not part of the every major playstyle? Has that even come up in your thought process? No definitive proof has been supplied to indicate that you are in the Major playstyle group. In all honestly, my opinion is that you are a war game player trying to play D&D. Which means, all you appear to care about are combat number crunching. The reality of the situation is that is only a small part of the game. Yes, it typically eats up the most time, but its only a small part of the game.

Modules can do nothing for roleplaying. It is still a roleplaying game, not a Roll playing game. Typically, players don't need a series of things to tell them how their character reacts to something. Which is why I think the "your views, your beliefs, how you attain your goals" hogwash will be dropped in my games.

Role playing is acting. Acting is assuming the identity of someone other than yourself. Instead of wandering into a field and beating each other with sticks, we use dice.

5e gives us the quick and easy to use rules so we can get through combat (when it crops up) quickly, efficiently, and properly so we can get back to the rest of the game. If your game is political intrigue, start interacting with your pcs, if its dungeoneering, make sure the rogue is healthy and set them back to task, if its high fantasy, get back to locating that spell that re-establishes the magical tranquility and saftey of the elven homeland before the meteor hits it. Which none of these require modular bits.

its hard to believe "likes the way the previous edition did things" is such a minor playstyle as to be ignorable. were that the case 4e would have epically failed, and it succeeded at least as much as 3e did.

the only thing I really care about the game is combat, I can do everything else myself. I would like it if themes and backgrounds helped RP but its not needed.

the only thing I would say the game would need for RP would be a good skill system, and that is questionable right now.

if the game's combat engine is borked nothing can be done about it. the game will never work. if the RP parts are borked then you can ignore them or just improvise.


Balance might not be necessary, but it is definitely important. Any game worth it's salt that wants players to have fun with every aspect of gameplay that players can and will be subjected to should make at least a passable effort to keep the power levels of any definite rules constructs(race and classes in this case) balanced to the point where it doesn't invalidate a particular player's choices.

the thing about balance is that there is no reason not to have it. if you don't think its important then its inclusion won't hurt you, if you think it is then you will not buy a game without it.


Yeah their original design goals were X and they changed it to Y.

What the hell is the problem with that? It isn't like they are actively trying to deceive anyone. People need to get the hell over themselves and move on from this point.

They stated their design goals and have been very public with what they are doing, more so than ever before. What more can you ask for than that they have shown and told people what they are changing and making. As they went along they said what people responded positively and negatively to, they changed to meet their target audience and have been very open about this.

Seriously, what more can you want? Would you want them to not do a play test and not do all the surveys and stick to their original plan no matter what their audience really wanted?

Hogwash.



have they at any time explicitly said they are not making the game for 4e players? or that they are only interesting in making a game with the feel of 2.75?

when they officially retract their goals I will change how I judge the game, not until then.



If all play styles are X Y Z and a huge majority says "we only want X and Y" well then they are making a game everyone can play, everyone in ththe majority.

that is only true if doing Z makes X and Y impossible. and if the people clambering for X and Y can be trusted to mean exactly what they say.
it also goes against the desgin goal of modularity and making a game for all (or at least all major) playstyles

for example if Z is balance then they should make the game balanced even if only 10% are adamant about wanting it (its way more then 10% of course) this is because it hurts nothing to include balance, and it helps most other areas of the game to include it. for example its hard to RP as a badass fighter if in reality you don't have the ability to kill anyone that your parties fights because you are so underpowered.


This is completely fair. And I understand the argument behind "for everyone". But then I read the various packets I have, and the various posts about the changes, and I see a common thread. I see the development team changing their concepts and goals based on what feedback they were getting from the playtest. How is that not doing exactly what they said? They are creating a game for people, based on what people directly said they want?

Are we going to claim that those people are wrong? If so, how can they be wrong? I freely accept that someone else's vision of the perfect game is most likely very different from mine. I submitted my answers and feedback. So did they. If it turns out I was in the minority, I freely accept that. I did my due diligence. If I didn't get exactly what I wanted, I accept that it was designed for more than just my playstyle, and I'm still happy. I still have the power to use, or not use any aspect of the game I want, and it doesn't have to be listed as "modular bit A" to indicate such.

This is what I find most frustrating. Why do we need something to say its modular to make it ok to use or not use? Don't like the skill system? drop it. So far, I don't see how your ability to leap affects your spell casting or attack rolls. Don't like some of the classes? Don't use em. Warlock now equals - Wizard who specialized in demonic summon spells.

I'm a firm believer in "It's my game" and I determine what is available to my players or not. I don't need a book to tell me its ok.

they can be wrong because people are generally horrible at describing why they like things. and because it relies on Wotc collecting alot of good data, and that seams to not be the case. the surveys they did were not done well.

a modular game is NOT a game that just says "you can take out this skill system if you want" its a game that has 2 or 3 skill systems that all work well, and that the game makes no assumtions on which you will use. or a game that can be no magic, low magic, medium magic or high magic and works for all of them with only having to change a little math.

or that has a simple and complex variant for all classes, and both are of equal power and both work well in the system.

Marius
2014-07-01, 02:15 PM
Yeah their original design goals were X and they changed it to Y.

That's fine, even if they made a game that nobody liked it would be fine anyway. The problem is that...



What the hell is the problem with that? It isn't like they are actively trying to deceive anyone. People need to get the hell over themselves and move on from this point.

I don't think that's true. If they did change their original intent of making 5e a game that could be liked by players of all kinds of players then they never said so. In fact they are still saying that 5e will cater to all kinds of playstyles.



They stated their design goals and have been very public with what they are doing, more so than ever before. What more can you ask for than that they have shown and told people what they are changing and making. As they went along they said what people responded positively and negatively to, they changed to meet their target audience and have been very open about this.

Seriously, what more can you want? Would you want them to not do a play test and not do all the surveys and stick to their original plan no matter what their audience really wanted?

Again, I don't think that's true. They haven't been honest (I'm pretty sure they can't accomplish what they said they would and they know it) and they haven't shown a single module. So I don't think they are as open as you say they are.



If all play styles are X Y Z and a huge majority says "we only want X and Y" well then they are making a game everyone can play, everyone in ththe majority.

I never complained that they were making a game that didn't cater to my play style. I wish they would but they can make whatever game they want, even if it's for a minority as 4e was.



This is what I find most frustrating. Why do we need something to say its modular to make it ok to use or not use? Don't like the skill system? drop it. So far, I don't see how your ability to leap affects your spell casting or attack rolls. Don't like some of the classes? Don't use em. Warlock now equals - Wizard who specialized in demonic summon spells.


You can't do that just like that. You have to change every skill DC and who knows how many more things. It's even worse if you want a more complex skill system. I don't want to build one, I want to BUY one.

obryn
2014-07-01, 02:25 PM
the thing about balance is that there is no reason not to have it. if you don't think its important then its inclusion won't hurt you, if you think it is then you will not buy a game without it.
This argument is always terrible when used for anything. It operates under the false assumption that there's no cost incurred by doing it your preferred way.

This same tactic has been used in arguments about damage-on-a-miss, temporary hit points, martial healing, spells in stat blocks, and pretty much everything else, and it's an awful and facile spectacle of failed logic every time it appears.

Marius
2014-07-01, 02:32 PM
This argument is always terrible when used for anything. It operates under the false assumption that there's no cost incurred by doing it your preferred way.

This same tactic has been used in arguments about damage-on-a-miss, temporary hit points, martial healing, spells in stat blocks, and pretty much everything else, and it's an awful and facile spectacle of failed logic every time it appears.

I agree, there's always a cost even for balance and 4e proved that. I don't mind if the game doesn't have a perfect balance between classes.

One of the things that I can say that I liked is the art.

captpike
2014-07-01, 02:34 PM
This argument is always terrible when used for anything. It operates under the false assumption that there's no cost incurred by doing it your preferred way.

This same tactic has been used in arguments about damage-on-a-miss, temporary hit points, martial healing, spells in stat blocks, and pretty much everything else, and it's an awful and facile spectacle of failed logic every time it appears.

were wanting balance a thing only a few people wanted sure, but that is not the case. one of the largest block's of players came from a game where balance was a selling feature.

1337 b4k4
2014-07-01, 02:34 PM
sure, show me a definition of fun that everyone who might play 5e agrees with, and is specific enough to cover all testing of the game and covers every playstyle.

You and your players enjoy playing it, and would voluntarily play it, potentially over another game which you also consider fun.




the only thing I really care about the game is combat, I can do everything else myself. I would like it if themes and backgrounds helped RP but its not needed.

...

if the game's combat engine is borked nothing can be done about it. the game will never work. if the RP parts are borked then you can ignore them or just improvise.


Let's try flipping that around shall we?

the only thing I really care about the game is role playing, I can do everything else myself. I would like it if spells and abilities helped combat but its not needed.

...

if the game's role playing engine is borked nothing can be done about it. the game will never work. if the combat parts are borked then you can ignore them or just improvise.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-01, 02:36 PM
I agree, there's always a cost even for balance and 4e proved that. I don't mind if the game doesn't have a perfect balance between classes.

One of the things that I can say that I liked is the art.

Balance between classes really isn't needed for a good game.

Balance between each class and the game itself... Now that is needed. Or you get 3.P again.

I'm not saying everyone should bebuaeful all the time, but you shouldn't be dead weight by level 8.

captpike
2014-07-01, 02:42 PM
You and your players enjoy playing it, and would voluntarily play it, potentially over another game which you also consider fun.

not good enough, that does not given me enough to judge even part of a system I need something more specific, something I can put any part or all of the system next to and say "yes it meets the goals, this is why" or "it fails to meet the goals and this is why" saying "my group hates it" is useless at best.



Let's try flipping that around shall we?

the only thing I really care about the game is role playing, I can do everything else myself. I would like it if spells and abilities helped combat but its not needed.

...

if the game's role playing engine is borked nothing can be done about it. the game will never work. if the combat parts are borked then you can ignore them or just improvise.

so what your saying is you think its easy to make a combat engine in your head, as you play the game? that you can remember everything you say about it or decide about it so well that you can have someone make a class on the day of the first session, and then a RL year later still know it well enough to make small changes to it, or to use it to make a new class? or to remember all the math for hp/damage/healing so well that you can creature a new type of class or creature and will fit snugly with the others?

RP can be done on the fly, entire combat engines can't, that is not just an opinion its a fact.

you can RP just have having an NPC and a PC talking, you don't need anything else.

1337 b4k4
2014-07-01, 03:09 PM
not good enough, that does not given me enough to judge even part of a system I need something more specific, something I can put any part or all of the system next to and say "yes it meets the goals, this is why" or "it fails to meet the goals and this is why" saying "my group hates it" is useless at best.

Goal: You and your group enjoy playing the game and would play it voluntarily.

Question: Did the game meet its goal? Why or why not?

How is that not specific? Yes "my group hates it" is a useless answer. That doesn't make the goal a useless goal.




so what your saying is you think its easy to make a combat engine in your head, as you play the game? that you can remember everything you say about it or decide about it so well that you can have someone make a class on the day of the first session, and then a RL year later still know it well enough to make small changes to it, or to use it to make a new class? or to remember all the math for hp/damage/healing so well that you can creature a new type of class or creature and will fit snugly with the others?

It it was important enough to remember, it will be written down, just like you write down important NPCs, important locations and important facts about the world. If not, then it can be whatever the group decides it needs to be for the given situation at hand. This is not complicated and is in fact pretty much exactly how Dungeon World works as well as some other more free-form role playing games. Hell chat room role play in the days of AOL was pretty much exactly this before people started writing down rules.



RP can be done on the fly, entire combat engines can't, that is not just an opinion its a fact.

A fact for which you have citations right? You have proof that a combat engine can not be created on the fly? And you have a way to reconcile the fact that many TTRPG combat engines were originally created on the fly and then polished into a final product over time correct?


you can RP just have having an NPC and a PC talking, you don't need anything else.

You can do a combat without dice and a system too, it just takes more room and a bit of safety equipment.

Millennium
2014-07-01, 04:24 PM
were wanting balance a thing only a few people wanted sure, but that is not the case. one of the largest block's of players came from a game where balance was a selling feature.
A bloc that failed to sustain interest in the game, and, indeed, dominated the D&D brand during its biggest decline in the (admittedly short) history of TTRPGs. A bloc that didn't just fail to convince Wizards that 4e was worth keeping around, but that failed to convince Wizards that this experiment in game design principles was even worth continuing.

Do you really want your group to take credit for the state of the D&D brand, going into the release of 5e?

Kurald Galain
2014-07-01, 04:49 PM
A bloc that failed to sustain interest in the game, and, indeed, dominated the D&D brand during its biggest decline in the (admittedly short) history of TTRPGs. A bloc that didn't just fail to convince Wizards that 4e was worth keeping around, but that failed to convince Wizards that this experiment in game design principles was even worth continuing.

Do you really want your group to take credit for the state of the D&D brand, going into the release of 5e?

Well said. It has become abundantly clear lately that, vocal forum minorities notwithstanding, most players don't care much about balance, and in particular balance doesn't sell games.

captpike
2014-07-01, 06:13 PM
Goal: You and your group enjoy playing the game and would play it voluntarily.

Question: Did the game meet its goal? Why or why not?

How is that not specific? Yes "my group hates it" is a useless answer. That doesn't make the goal a useless goal.

it a question can only produce useless answers then its a useless question.

sure the final goal for the system are "everyone buys it and its fun" but that is not enough to make the game by. you need to be much more specific when either making or judging a game.



It it was important enough to remember, it will be written down, just like you write down important NPCs, important locations and important facts about the world. If not, then it can be whatever the group decides it needs to be for the given situation at hand. This is not complicated and is in fact pretty much exactly how Dungeon World works as well as some other more free-form role playing games. Hell chat room role play in the days of AOL was pretty much exactly this before people started writing down rules.

A fact for which you have citations right? You have proof that a combat engine can not be created on the fly? And you have a way to reconcile the fact that many TTRPG combat engines were originally created on the fly and then polished into a final product over time correct?

You can do a combat without dice and a system too, it just takes more room and a bit of safety equipment.

fine "a combat system that is in any complex or interesting, and that is in any way tactical (not just strategic)" I though that went without saying but I guess not.

there is NO WAY you could do in your head in 5min what 4e does in making D&D balanced with good tactical choices. you could make a random system sure but it would be inconsistent and unbalanced at best.


A bloc that failed to sustain interest in the game, and, indeed, dominated the D&D brand during its biggest decline in the (admittedly short) history of TTRPGs. A bloc that didn't just fail to convince Wizards that 4e was worth keeping around, but that failed to convince Wizards that this experiment in game design principles was even worth continuing.

Do you really want your group to take credit for the state of the D&D brand, going into the release of 5e?

after Wotc abandoned what made 4e so successful by making essentials yes the players then abandoned Wotc.


Well said. It has become abundantly clear lately that, vocal forum minorities notwithstanding, most players don't care much about balance, and in particular balance doesn't sell games.

so what your saying is the figures for how much 4e made were in fact not real? that the fact it outsold pathfinder until they stopped making real 4e stuff was in fact an illusion? because that is what happened.

even were that lie true (or in your defense it could just be gross ignorance), that most players say they don't care about balance I am willing to bet they care about what balance does, they just don't say such in as many words.

does the fighter care if he is able to in any way effect the game world? yes he does. he wants balance then.

does the wizard want to have a chalanging game, one where each combat is more interesting then just picking out which spell is going to end it? then he cares about balance.

Pex
2014-07-01, 07:42 PM
I was invited to a Pathfinder game not all too long ago. You may have heard this story before, so I'll make it brief. I was a goblin cavalier riding a dire boar. I had a friend make it for me, because Pathfinder character creation is painful like ebola.

With a character concept like that, I thought it should have been awesome. But the truth was that, if I was charging, I was insanely strong. If I wasn't charging, I was utterly useless. I had exactly one trick where I was competent. Outside that excessively narrow niche I was worthless.

That's exactly the opposite thing I'd like to get out of 5e.

While that is Pathfinder's fault, it's not the fault of Pathfinder. It's the fault of the Cavalier class specifically. It should not have been a base class; it's too narrowly focused. It would have been better off as a Prestige Class, Fighter and Paladin friendly, or a Fighter Archetype perhaps a Paladin version as well. Such a thing would be fine if a particular campaign would be suitable for it. For a generic pick anyone's game, Cavalier wouldn't work.

A player in my old group had a similar problem. Far too often adventures took place where he couldn't bring his horse along, preventing him from doing the whole point of his existence. He, the DM, and myself had to juggle and borrow abilities from other sources and redid the whole class to keep the class and character meaningful without a horse around.

However, this thread is not about the umpteenth time plus 1 to bash Pathfinder again ad infinitum.

1337 b4k4
2014-07-01, 07:57 PM
it a question can only produce useless answers then its a useless question.

That you can't see a way to answer that question usefully is your failing, not mine and not the question's.



fine "a combat system that is in any complex or interesting, and that is in any way tactical (not just strategic)" I though that went without saying but I guess not.

If you want me to reply to what you're thinking rather that what you say, you're going to have to wait until I get my telepathy powers from playing D&D. According to Jack Chick, that should be any day now.



there is NO WAY you could do in your head in 5min what 4e does in making D&D balanced with good tactical choices. you could make a random system sure but it would be inconsistent and unbalanced at best.

And there's no way in your head you could do the social role playing in Mouse Guard / Burning Wheel, but you're quite dismissive of that aspect of role playing, I see no reason why we shouldn't be equally dismissive of your favorite parts..

captpike
2014-07-01, 08:08 PM
That you can't see a way to answer that question usefully is your failing, not mine and not the question's.

....so you think "its fun" is useful? really? because that is the only useful answer you would get.




And there's no way in your head you could do the social role playing in Mouse Guard / Burning Wheel, but you're quite dismissive of that aspect of role playing, I see no reason why we shouldn't be equally dismissive of your favorite parts..
in order for a combat system to work, be balanced and tactical it has to be well made, tested and whatnot. that is not the case for a RP system. you can improvise the whole thing. you can never do that for a combat system you want to be interesting or complicated. we talk to each other every day, we don't use magic or swords, so it needs to be spelled out better.

Lokiare
2014-07-01, 08:15 PM
What consistently amazes me, is how absolutely narrow your perception of this is. As you said - Every major playstyle have you even considered that you are not part of the every major playstyle? Has that even come up in your thought process? No definitive proof has been supplied to indicate that you are in the Major playstyle group. In all honestly, my opinion is that you are a war game player trying to play D&D. Which means, all you appear to care about are combat number crunching. The reality of the situation is that is only a small part of the game. Yes, it typically eats up the most time, but its only a small part of the game.

Modules can do nothing for roleplaying. It is still a roleplaying game, not a Roll playing game. Typically, players don't need a series of things to tell them how their character reacts to something. Which is why I think the "your views, your beliefs, how you attain your goals" hogwash will be dropped in my games.

Role playing is acting. Acting is assuming the identity of someone other than yourself. Instead of wandering into a field and beating each other with sticks, we use dice.

5e gives us the quick and easy to use rules so we can get through combat (when it crops up) quickly, efficiently, and properly so we can get back to the rest of the game. If your game is political intrigue, start interacting with your pcs, if its dungeoneering, make sure the rogue is healthy and set them back to task, if its high fantasy, get back to locating that spell that re-establishes the magical tranquility and saftey of the elven homeland before the meteor hits it. Which none of these require modular bits.

Well since we are part of the 4E play style which dominated the market (according to all available metrics) until they released Essentials and slowed down book production, I'd say yeah, we are a pretty important segment and popular play style. Even if we turn out to not be the most popular we are definitely a large chunk of it.

The problem is that you have created an artificial divide between role playing and roll playing. I personally enjoy both. I enjoy play acting like a character from a medieval fantasy world and I also enjoy being effective at what I do. Its fine if you don't care about the mechanical part, but other do and if a game can be made that is balanced without being homogenous while sill preserving all the role playing, then would you have a problem with it? I don't think you would, but that is up to you. It is a requirement however for a pretty big part of the player pool (those that come from 4E).


Yeah their original design goals were X and they changed it to Y.

What the hell is the problem with that? It isn't like they are actively trying to deceive anyone. People need to get the hell over themselves and move on from this point.

They stated their design goals and have been very public with what they are doing, more so than ever before. What more can you ask for than that they have shown and told people what they are changing and making. As they went along they said what people responded positively and negatively to, they changed to meet their target audience and have been very open about this.

Seriously, what more can you want? Would you want them to not do a play test and not do all the surveys and stick to their original plan no matter what their audience really wanted?

Hogwash.

Edit:

If all play styles are X Y Z and a huge majority says "we only want X and Y" well then they are making a game everyone can play, everyone in ththe majority.

If they've changed their design goals can you point out where they did, because I've been reading, and watching everything put out about 5E and all I've seen is the repeated mantra "a game for all play styles".


This is completely fair. And I understand the argument behind "for everyone". But then I read the various packets I have, and the various posts about the changes, and I see a common thread. I see the development team changing their concepts and goals based on what feedback they were getting from the playtest. How is that not doing exactly what they said? They are creating a game for people, based on what people directly said they want?

Are we going to claim that those people are wrong? If so, how can they be wrong? I freely accept that someone else's vision of the perfect game is most likely very different from mine. I submitted my answers and feedback. So did they. If it turns out I was in the minority, I freely accept that. I did my due diligence. If I didn't get exactly what I wanted, I accept that it was designed for more than just my playstyle, and I'm still happy. I still have the power to use, or not use any aspect of the game I want, and it doesn't have to be listed as "modular bit A" to indicate such.

This is what I find most frustrating. Why do we need something to say its modular to make it ok to use or not use? Don't like the skill system? drop it. So far, I don't see how your ability to leap affects your spell casting or attack rolls. Don't like some of the classes? Don't use em. Warlock now equals - Wizard who specialized in demonic summon spells.

I'm a firm believer in "It's my game" and I determine what is available to my players or not. I don't need a book to tell me its ok.

The polls were self selecting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias). The people that liked the game stayed and filled out the polls and told their friends to sign up. Those that didn't were much less likely to continue with the polls and further play test documents. What you saw was the play testers self selecting toward a particular play style.

If they had offered each respondent a free signed copy of a D&D book of their choice if they stayed for the entirety of the play test then it wouldn't have been self selecting because people that didn't like it would have still gave their opinions on it because they wanted a free book. There was literally no reason for people that didn't like the play test to stay. (those like me that see the long view of things stayed, but we are few and far between).

The reason that many want modules and rules to come from the developers is that we want something that is made by professionals, well tested, and well designed. We don't want to have to do that kind of work ourselves. its literally what we are paying them for.


Well, because it's no longer about the always-present ability to make a few small changes to get a game to better match your vision of what you want D&D to look like. Even though that's what people have done with D&D forever.

It's about the true heart and soul of D&D, you see. It's about whose playstyle WotC will bless as the default, giving that group a pat on the head and saying "You, my children, you were right all along!" And whose playstyle will be stuck in a module, where WotC says, "Oh, you might not be playing real D&D, but here's some toys." And whose playstyle isn't addressed at all, which is clearly a direct snub from WotC and their outright accusation that you've been playing elfgames wrong all along.

We could set the snark aside and have a conversation where we come to a mutual understanding about 5E, or we can continue to be disruptive and argue in every thread. Your choice...:smallsmile:


This argument is always terrible when used for anything. It operates under the false assumption that there's no cost incurred by doing it your preferred way.

This same tactic has been used in arguments about damage-on-a-miss, temporary hit points, martial healing, spells in stat blocks, and pretty much everything else, and it's an awful and facile spectacle of failed logic every time it appears.

Nice try at ridicule. Short of people disliking balance itself or the cost it applies to the design, there is no reason not to want a balanced game and many reasons to want it. Many people mistake balance for homogenization. The two have nothing to do with each other as Essentials proves. There are classes in there like the slayer that make basic attacks that get occasional boosts to damage and other classes that are full on vancian casters and they are all balanced with each other and against the game.

The only real question is how much balance is worth the cost of testing and which kind of balance (homogenization or differentiation) is desired.


Goal: You and your group enjoy playing the game and would play it voluntarily.

Question: Did the game meet its goal? Why or why not?

How is that not specific? Yes "my group hates it" is a useless answer. That doesn't make the goal a useless goal.




It it was important enough to remember, it will be written down, just like you write down important NPCs, important locations and important facts about the world. If not, then it can be whatever the group decides it needs to be for the given situation at hand. This is not complicated and is in fact pretty much exactly how Dungeon World works as well as some other more free-form role playing games. Hell chat room role play in the days of AOL was pretty much exactly this before people started writing down rules.



A fact for which you have citations right? You have proof that a combat engine can not be created on the fly? And you have a way to reconcile the fact that many TTRPG combat engines were originally created on the fly and then polished into a final product over time correct?



You can do a combat without dice and a system too, it just takes more room and a bit of safety equipment.

Actually science has quantified and categorized this like it has many other things: http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/ once you read that a lot of things become clear.


A bloc that failed to sustain interest in the game, and, indeed, dominated the D&D brand during its biggest decline in the (admittedly short) history of TTRPGs. A bloc that didn't just fail to convince Wizards that 4e was worth keeping around, but that failed to convince Wizards that this experiment in game design principles was even worth continuing.

Do you really want your group to take credit for the state of the D&D brand, going into the release of 5e?

You mean the biggest decline that happened to coincide with one of the biggest financial troubles since the great depression right? That couldn't possibly have anything to do with 4E's failure. or how about how it dominated the market by all known metrics until the release of Essentials and the slow down of the book publishing?


Well said. It has become abundantly clear lately that, vocal forum minorities notwithstanding, most players don't care much about balance, and in particular balance doesn't sell games.

Again with the minority stuff. You cannot know if the opinions on a forum are vocal minorities or vocal majorities. In fact we know you can't know because Essentials was called out to be a failure on the forums and it turned out it was, thus at that time the forum goers were the vocal majority. In other cases with WoW expansions you see the opposite where forum goers are not the majority when they lambast an new expansion and it turns out to be the most popular one yet. You simply can't know. I wish people would stop bringing this up like its a foregone conclusion. It really doesn't help the discussion to go anywhere.

unwise
2014-07-01, 08:15 PM
I want the level of character customisation that I have with 4e, with more meaningful feats and a few less powers. I also want faster combats that don't require a battlemap. So far what I have seen leads me to believe that customization is based on picking certain specialisations rather than individual decisions each level. So I think my third hope for 5e is that my players will be OK with that. 5e seems so much easier to DM I would enjoy the change myself.

<edit> Seriously guys, Lokiare offered to sit this one out and Catpike kept it to just one little comment. Why do we have to do this dance again?

Fwiffo86
2014-07-01, 08:24 PM
....so you think "its fun" is useful? really? because that is the only useful answer you would get.

A proper answer Captpike would be....

My group enjoyed the provided scenario. There was ample opportunity for each character class provided to shine in what the class was designed to do. The warrior's damage output remained consistent throughout the combat. His armor class proved to be an issue, as he took more hits than expected. This could be due to the monsters having too high an attack bonus, or him not having the appropriate armor. Seeing as he was a protection path warrior, using a sword and shield, I am inclined to believe the monster's bonus to hit was high. Because of this, it stands to reason that less armored targets are likely to be severely injured and hit more often than not.....




in order for a combat system to work, be balanced and tactical it has to be well made, tested and whatnot. that is not the case for a RP system. you can improvise the whole thing. you can never do that for a combat system you want to be interesting or complicated. we talk to each other every day, we don't use magic or swords, so it needs to be spelled out better.

This further reinforces your mind set. You do not call D&D anything other than a combat system. Even though it is listed as a Roleplaying Game. You want to keep them at their defining words of "a game for all playstyles" or whatnot, how about you follow through, and remember its a Roleplaying Game, NOT a combat system.

captpike
2014-07-01, 08:34 PM
A proper answer Captpike would be....

My group enjoyed the provided scenario. There was ample opportunity for each character class provided to shine in what the class was designed to do. The warrior's damage output remained consistent throughout the combat. His armor class proved to be an issue, as he took more hits than expected. This could be due to the monsters having too high an attack bonus, or him not having the appropriate armor. Seeing as he was a protection path warrior, using a sword and shield, I am inclined to believe the monster's bonus to hit was high. Because of this, it stands to reason that less armored targets are likely to be severely injured and hit more often than not.....

that would be a useful answer however your not going to get that if all you ask is "is it fun". nor is it directed in order to judge the game you have to know what its goals are, what is important.






This further reinforces your mind set. You do not call D&D anything other than a combat system. Even though it is listed as a Roleplaying Game. You want to keep them at their defining words of "a game for all playstyles" or whatnot, how about you follow through, and remember its a Roleplaying Game, NOT a combat system.
for the Nth time the combat system is the most important part because it can't be made up on the spot, this is true if you use combat all the time or just ever other session. the combat system has to work well out of the box, any RP stuff can be changed on the spot or ignored and the game will still work.

also even were I only like combat, and I also like RP, then that would not matter, the combat heavy playstyle is just as important as the RP heavy playstyle.

nor does having more of one effect the other. its not a see-saw

obryn
2014-07-01, 08:52 PM
We could set the snark aside and have a conversation where we come to a mutual understanding about 5E, or we can continue to be disruptive and argue in every thread. Your choice...:smallsmile:
If I believed you wanted understanding, sure. I don't think you do, though.


Nice try at ridicule. Short of people disliking balance itself or the cost it applies to the design, there is no reason not to want a balanced game and many reasons to want it. Many people mistake balance for homogenization. The two have nothing to do with each other as Essentials proves. There are classes in there like the slayer that make basic attacks that get occasional boosts to damage and other classes that are full on vancian casters and they are all balanced with each other and against the game.

The only real question is how much balance is worth the cost of testing and which kind of balance (homogenization or differentiation) is desired.
No ridicule, just an evaluation. The form of argument being used is terrible, and I laid out the reasons why. It's nonsense when it applied to Damage on a Miss (that is, X group really hates it, but Y group doesn't care, so X group should win!) and it's nonsense now.

captpike
2014-07-01, 09:01 PM
No ridicule, just an evaluation. The form of argument being used is terrible, and I laid out the reasons why. It's nonsense when it applied to Damage on a Miss (that is, X group really hates it, but Y group doesn't care, so X group should win!) and it's nonsense now.

um..no

so you think every feature should only be in the game if at least a majority of the players want it? so much for almost every class, every race. and of course this idea flies in the face of the design goals of the game.

balance will draw alot of people to the game, hurt no one who does not want it. there is no reason not to include it and every reason to include it.

obryn
2014-07-01, 09:05 PM
um..no

so you think every feature should only be in the game if at least a majority of the players want it? so much for almost every class, every race. and of course this idea flies in the face of the design goals of the game.

balance will draw alot of people to the game, hurt no one who does not want it. there is no reason not to include it and every reason to include it.
Not even a little bit what I said.

Kerrin
2014-07-01, 09:09 PM
I'd like really great, fun, well constructed and written, top notch, adventerous adventure modules.

captpike
2014-07-01, 09:19 PM
Not even a little bit what I said.

I love how you did not feel the need to say why it was not what you said, it made it so clear what you meant.

if a large percentage of people want X, and group Y does not want it, but having X will not hurt Y then X should be put into the game.

the only people who have a reason to not want balance are those who want to lord over other players, who like playing casters and knowing that they matter more then people who are playing fighters

Tvtyrant
2014-07-01, 09:26 PM
I would like for 5E to combine my favorite aspects of WotC's previous games. Preferably: single class, multiple prcs that are side by side with the main class and start at level 1 (ala 4E,) healing surges, none-crippling or short term conditions, simplified temporary bonuses, a hit point total that keeps combat quick and swingy, working math for the attack and defense that does not require bland magic items to fix, and classes with functional options each turn in and out of combat.

obryn
2014-07-01, 10:39 PM
if a large percentage of people want X, and group Y does not want it, but having X will not hurt Y then X should be put into the game.

the only people who have a reason to not want balance are those who want to lord over other players, who like playing casters and knowing that they matter more then people who are playing fighters
For the first paragraph, I explained why this is false - namely, that you are disregarding any potential cost to the added mechanic. You somehow chose to interpret that as "so you think every feature should only be in the game if at least a majority of the players want it? so much for almost every class, every race. and of course this idea flies in the face of the design goals of the game." Which is all coming from you, not from me.

I kept my response short and simple because I really don't intend to get into an in-depth debate with you on this. I've seen your arguments with others, and I saw how you took my statement and interpreted it with total moon-logic. Although I think we think similarly about RPGs in some ways, I don't think you're arguing in good faith and thus have no real desire to continue engaging with you.

Envyus
2014-07-01, 10:43 PM
....so you think "its fun" is useful? really? because that is the only useful answer you would get.


Well is it fun is the most important question to the game. Nothing about the game matters if it's not fun.

Your question was "If not the stated goals what should we judge it by?" I said if it's fun. If the game is fun the stated goals don't matter.

Chaosvii7
2014-07-01, 11:02 PM
Your question was "If not the stated goals what should we judge it by?" I said if it's fun. If the game is fun the stated goals don't matter.

To that effect, if the game isn't fun for you then you have the liberty to take it upon yourself to make the game fun. If you do not want to make the game fun for yourself, either by altering it's rules constructs to satisfy your fantasies or by talking out any problems you have with the game's atmosphere with those you play it with, then you are choosing to not take action. The game is designed for people to take it and have fun with, and if you don't then you're entitled to either make it so or can elect to not play it and help yourself to a variety of alternative storytelling mediums available to you as an individual - including, but not limited to, other RPG systems.

I think it's fun. Other people think it's fun. Some people don't think it's fun. That's fine.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-02, 05:53 AM
For the first paragraph, I explained why this is false - namely, that you are disregarding any potential cost to the added mechanic. You somehow chose to interpret that as "so you think every feature should only be in the game if at least a majority of the players want it? so much for almost every class, every race. and of course this idea flies in the face of the design goals of the game." Which is all coming from you, not from me.

I kept my response short and simple because I really don't intend to get into an in-depth debate with you on this. I've seen your arguments with others, and I saw how you took my statement and interpreted it with total moon-logic. Although I think we think similarly about RPGs in some ways, I don't think you're arguing in good faith and thus have no real desire to continue engaging with you.

Moon-Logic?

Never heard of that phrase till now and I love it haha.

1337 b4k4
2014-07-02, 08:31 AM
....so you think "its fun" is useful? really? because that is the only useful answer you would get.

Like I said, if you can't think of a way to answer that question constructively, that's your own failing not mine and not the question's.



in order for a combat system to work, be balanced and tactical it has to be well made, tested and whatnot. that is not the case for a RP system. you can improvise the whole thing. you can never do that for a combat system you want to be interesting or complicated. we talk to each other every day, we don't use magic or swords, so it needs to be spelled out better.

Except none of this is actually true. I'm sure you would agree that early D&D's combat system is not "well made, tested and whatnot" (at least not to your standards) and yet it works. It works because it has been the dominant TTRPG for 30+ years despite there being more "well made, tested and whatnot" combat systems. Further, as I said, you are being blatantly dismissive of other people's play styles and priorities. It's quite apparent there are plenty of people who don't care much about "combat systems" and wouldn't care at all if the whole thing was boiled down to rock-paper-scissors. Again, that you can't imagine an RPG system with a simple and thrown together combat system is a failure of your imagination (and I have to assume experience) rather than any "truth" of RPGs in general.


Well since we are part of the 4E play style which dominated the market (according to all available metrics) until they released Essentials and slowed down book production, I'd say yeah, we are a pretty important segment and popular play style. Even if we turn out to not be the most popular we are definitely a large chunk of it.

But apparently not a large enough chunk to sustain the game.


The polls were self selecting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias). The people that liked the game stayed and filled out the polls and told their friends to sign up. Those that didn't were much less likely to continue with the polls and further play test documents. What you saw was the play testers self selecting toward a particular play style.

If they had offered each respondent a free signed copy of a D&D book of their choice if they stayed for the entirety of the play test then it wouldn't have been self selecting because people that didn't like it would have still gave their opinions on it because they wanted a free book. There was literally no reason for people that didn't like the play test to stay. (those like me that see the long view of things stayed, but we are few and far between).

If players chose to leave the playtest because they didn't see their particular playstyle rather than providing feedback, then it is their own fault that the game will not strongly represent their playstyle. WotC asked for feedback, if people threw trantrums and gave up, well they probably weren't likely to buy the completed game anyway if they're that sensitive to not having their playstyle front and center. If you don't participate, you don't really have any room to complain when things don't come out your way.

Also, if they had offered a free signed copy, it would still be self selecting. Selecting for people that like free stuff. What you think people that quit the playtest because their playstyle wasn't being represented would want a new book for an RPG that doesn't represent their playstyle? I think not.



We could set the snark aside and have a conversation where we come to a mutual understanding about 5E, or we can continue to be disruptive and argue in every thread. Your choice...:smallsmile:

That would require you to be interested in coming to a mutual understanding. As others have said, it's pretty clear you're not that interested in that.



Actually science has quantified and categorized this like it has many other things: http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/ once you read that a lot of things become clear.

Entirely irrelevant to the point at hand.



You mean the biggest decline that happened to coincide with one of the biggest financial troubles since the great depression right? That couldn't possibly have anything to do with 4E's failure. or how about how it dominated the market by all known metrics until the release of Essentials and the slow down of the book publishing?

Dominated so strongly that WotC felt it had to produce some significant changes (Essentials) to simply keep treading water as they were.



Again with the minority stuff. You cannot know if the opinions on a forum are vocal minorities or vocal majorities. In fact we know you can't know because Essentials was called out to be a failure on the forums and it turned out it was, thus at that time the forum goers were the vocal majority. In other cases with WoW expansions you see the opposite where forum goers are not the majority when they lambast an new expansion and it turns out to be the most popular one yet. You simply can't know. I wish people would stop bringing this up like its a foregone conclusion. It really doesn't help the discussion to go anywhere.

Generally speaking, you can always assume that forum goers are vocal minorities. This has nothing to do with whether or not their opinion corresponds with the majority however.



that would be a useful answer however your not going to get that if all you ask is "is it fun". nor is it directed in order to judge the game you have to know what its goals are, what is important.

Then it's a good thing the question wasn't "Is it fun" isn't it. Here allow me to requote for you since you missed it the first time:

"Goal: You and your group enjoy playing the game and would play it voluntarily.

Question: Did the game meet its goal? Why or why not?"




for the Nth time the combat system is the most important part because it can't be made up on the spot, this is true if you use combat all the time or just ever other session. the combat system has to work well out of the box, any RP stuff can be changed on the spot or ignored and the game will still work.

And for the Nth time, this just isn't true. Or more accurately it's not a universal truth. Perhaps a combat system that you would enjoy can not be made up on the spot, but you are not everyone.



also even were I only like combat, and I also like RP, then that would not matter, the combat heavy playstyle is just as important as the RP heavy playstyle.

And yet you are happy to dismiss the RP heavy playstyle as "unimportant" and "easy to make up"

Fwiffo86
2014-07-02, 08:43 AM
they can be wrong because people are generally horrible at describing why they like things. and because it relies on Wotc collecting alot of good data, and that seams to not be the case. the surveys they did were not done well.

a modular game is NOT a game that just says "you can take out this skill system if you want" its a game that has 2 or 3 skill systems that all work well, and that the game makes no assumtions on which you will use. or a game that can be no magic, low magic, medium magic or high magic and works for all of them with only having to change a little math.

or that has a simple and complex variant for all classes, and both are of equal power and both work well in the system.

I will give you that people can be wrong. To further explain my point, have you even thought that the data WotC determined as good to them, is not data you agree with? Just because you think its not good data, doesn't have anything to do with what WoTC determined to be good data.

Hmmm ok, with that definition of Modular, it sounds alot like you want 3e GURPS, where every genre book provided methods to play it in various styles... ex) Horror - types presented: Modern day, Victorian England, Slasher film, Atomic (godzilla/aliens). Am I understanding this correctly? Because if so, I do not see anything in 5e that prevents this. Its already there. No modifications needed. Using Loki's idea of beefing HP could work as an example. (I will never do this, because it takes the lethality out of combat), but for his style, its seems to be a viable option.

If that's all he needs to do, then why do you need 6 different systems? Based on your comment about changing math, and math being the basis of the game (or maybe that was Loki), wouldn't that give you essentially 6 different systems/games instead of one that can be molded as you need? I believe that would be extremely expensive to produce. And is probably why they elected not to go this route.

IMHO, nothing you have presented thus far cannot be reproduced with the test packet. The reason this is, is because the system is so basic and simple. You add a tweak here, bumb an ability there, and presto... you have what you want. You are welcome to prove me wrong. But instead of throwing math in my face, why don't you get several friends together, and play a game. Do whatever tweaking you want to the packet, and make an adventure up instead of using a module. Then you aren't constrained by terrible authors writing drivel modules. Let me know how it went.

obryn
2014-07-02, 09:04 AM
But apparently not a large enough chunk to sustain the game.
In fairness, neither were 2e, 3.0, and 3.5 when they got shelved.

1337 b4k4
2014-07-02, 09:38 AM
In fairness, neither were 2e, 3.0, and 3.5 when they got shelved.

True, fans change and playstyles move on. The OD&D playstyle folks aren't enough to sustain D&D anymore either. It's probably also worth noting that D&D seems uniquely (perhaps only rivaling Traveller) unable to settle on a single edition for a while. It's almost like the loose and open to house ruling system tempts even the developers to keep tweaking and adjusting until they have to release a new edition with their current favorite house rules.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-02, 09:45 AM
True fans change and playstyles move on. The OD&D playstyle folks aren't enough to sustain D&D anymore either. It's probably also worth noting that D&D seems uniquely (perhaps only rivaling Traveller) unable to settle on a single edition for a while. It's almost like the loose and open to house ruling system tempts even the developers to keep tweaking and adjusting until they have to release a new edition with their current favorite house rules.

I wouldn't exactly call old school d&d fans not true fans. Family and life doesn't stop you from being a true fan.*

And any sort of play style doesn't automatically make you less of a fan than another.

:smallannoyed:

Edit: *: If you get into the game and love it but you have a family and life that goes beyond D&D you may not change your play style or anything. I know plenty of older guys and gals that play the same way when they first started playing d&d. They are just as much fans of D&D as anyone else. Just because they aren't interested in the new rules doesn't mean they hate D&D, they tens to wish it well but they are content with their game the way it is.

Millennium
2014-07-02, 10:07 AM
after Wotc abandoned what made 4e so successful by making essentials yes the players then abandoned Wotc.
And why do you suppose they did that? The writing was already on the wall. Game design is a difficult and time-consuming task, and in the business world, time is money, so it's also a very expensive task. Wizards would not have spent so many resources designing Essentials if they thought there was any other way out of 4e's death spiral: from a business standpoint, it wouldn't even make any sense.

But they still wanted to continue the grand experiment that 4e was in the first place, and continued more or less down that same path. Essentials wasn't quite identical to 4e, but the roots are strong and obvious. But that wasn't enough to save the brand. And so Wizards decided that the experiment had to end.

if a large percentage of people want X, and group Y does not want it, but having X will not hurt Y then X should be put into the game.
I question just how large that percentage is, in the case of your group. Certainly the market share statistics do not indicate that your group has "a large percentage" of the market.

But those same percentages and figures also force me to question your assertion that "having X will not hurt Y". You claim to represent the majority of 4e players, and given the arguments I've seen here and elsewhere, I've no reason not to believe you.

But the market votes with its money and its feet, and the sales figures show an interesting pattern. It shows strong initial interest, followed by fleeing in droves. There can be no doubt that 4e was designed specifically to cater to your group -the early marketing materials prove that- but still, you seem to have achieved this dominance, by being left, rather than by being right. Your group claims that balance has not hurt the game, but the market seems to believe otherwise, and to believe it quite strongly.

It almost makes a person wonder why.

1337 b4k4
2014-07-02, 10:09 AM
I wouldn't exactly call old school d&d fans not true fans. Family and life doesn't stop you from being a true fan.*

And any sort of play style doesn't automatically make you less of a fan than another.

:smallannoyed:

Edit: *: If you get into the game and love it but you have a family and life that goes beyond D&D you may not change your play style or anything. I know plenty of older guys and gals that play the same way when they first started playing d&d. They are just as much fans of D&D as anyone else. Just because they aren't interested in the new rules doesn't mean they hate D&D, they tens to wish it well but they are content with their game the way it is.

Sorry, that was poor typing on my part*. I've corrected it now. I wasn't talking about "true fans", I was acknowledging the truth of the statement and adding a point. My mistake.


* Use good grammar kids. It's the difference between eating with grandma and eating grandma. Friends don't let friends eat relatives.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-02, 10:14 AM
Sorry, that was poor typing on my part*. I've corrected it now. I wasn't talking about "true fans", I was acknowledging the truth of the statement and adding a point. My mistake.


* Use good grammar kids. It's the difference between eating with grandma and eating grandma. Friends don't let friends eat relatives.

No problem, I had my own typo of sorts...

I meant to click :smallwink: and not the annoyed, I should have reviewed my own post better haha.

(Heck I edited my response and didn't notice the wrong smiley, :smallredface:)

captpike
2014-07-02, 11:36 AM
For the first paragraph, I explained why this is false - namely, that you are disregarding any potential cost to the added mechanic. You somehow chose to interpret that as "so you think every feature should only be in the game if at least a majority of the players want it? so much for almost every class, every race. and of course this idea flies in the face of the design goals of the game." Which is all coming from you, not from me.

I kept my response short and simple because I really don't intend to get into an in-depth debate with you on this. I've seen your arguments with others, and I saw how you took my statement and interpreted it with total moon-logic. Although I think we think similarly about RPGs in some ways, I don't think you're arguing in good faith and thus have no real desire to continue engaging with you.

that is why I said "large percentage"

if all your going to say is "your wrong, I'm right" then there is no reason to respond at all.



Like I said, if you can't think of a way to answer that question constructively, that's your own failing not mine and not the question's.

and most people would say somthing like "its fun, we liked it the wizard's spells were nice"

again you need MORE then just "is it fun" to make a game, you need to have goals that you can measure, goals that if they are fulfilled will make the game fun. (like balance)




Except none of this is actually true. I'm sure you would agree that early D&D's combat system is not "well made, tested and whatnot" (at least not to your standards) and yet it works. It works because it has been the dominant TTRPG for 30+ years despite there being more "well made, tested and whatnot" combat systems. Further, as I said, you are being blatantly dismissive of other people's play styles and priorities. It's quite apparent there are plenty of people who don't care much about "combat systems" and wouldn't care at all if the whole thing was boiled down to rock-paper-scissors. Again, that you can't imagine an RPG system with a simple and thrown together combat system is a failure of your imagination (and I have to assume experience) rather than any "truth" of RPGs in general.

your right early D&D games were very bad games, they were successful because all of the games were poor, we now know how to make better games.

I have no problem with playstyles that have less combat, however combat still needs to work, its the most important part of the system because its the only part you cant make up as you go. if I only got into combat every other session, I would still need for it to work.

yes a system is a failure if the combat system sucks, because that is the most important part to get right.



But apparently not a large enough chunk to sustain the game.

.....do you even read the posts of people who state facts you don't like? it has been said and proven far too often for you to miss that 4e was the best selling RPG up until Wotc shot themselves in the foot with essentials, going away from what made 4e the edition it was.



If players chose to leave the playtest because they didn't see their particular playstyle rather than providing feedback, then it is their own fault that the game will not strongly represent their playstyle. WotC asked for feedback, if people threw trantrums and gave up, well they probably weren't likely to buy the completed game anyway if they're that sensitive to not having their playstyle front and center. If you don't participate, you don't really have any room to complain when things don't come out your way.

Also, if they had offered a free signed copy, it would still be self selecting. Selecting for people that like free stuff. What you think people that quit the playtest because their playstyle wasn't being represented would want a new book for an RPG that doesn't represent their playstyle? I think not.

not its Wotc they are the ones being payed to make the game, they are the ones who made the surveys. its thier job to get good data, not everyone else's.



Dominated so strongly that WotC felt it had to produce some significant changes (Essentials) to simply keep treading water as they were.

they made Essentials as an attempt to capture the second highest market share as well as the highest. in turn they lost the customers they had.



Generally speaking, you can always assume that forum goers are vocal minorities. This has nothing to do with whether or not their opinion corresponds with the majority however.

so the opinion of the forumgoers is useless, it may be the majority, it maybe the minority.



Then it's a good thing the question wasn't "Is it fun" isn't it. Here allow me to requote for you since you missed it the first time:

"Goal: You and your group enjoy playing the game and would play it voluntarily.

Question: Did the game meet its goal? Why or why not?"

AGAIN NOT USEFUL, if your goal is balance you need to know if you succeeded, if your goal is flexibility you need to know if you succeeded. someone telling you why they had fun is not enough.

this is even more true for those making the game, if everyone just makes what they think is "cool" or "fun" you get nowhere.



And for the Nth time, this just isn't true. Or more accurately it's not a universal truth. Perhaps a combat system that you would enjoy can not be made up on the spot, but you are not everyone.

sure you can make a crappy combat system easily, but a good one takes time.

I guess if 90%+ of everyone you want to sell to does not mind having a combat system that is non-function then you could get away with having it be crappy, but I would venture to say that that is not D&D

you want to make a system where you can have fighters, wizards, psions, rogues all working together, none of them overpowered but all useful that takes time.



And yet you are happy to dismiss the RP heavy playstyle as "unimportant" and "easy to make up"

you know those squiggly things on the screen? those are called words, you read them BEFORE you respond if you want to sound at all intelligent.

I said the RP system was unimportant, not that RP Is unimportant. the RP system is unimportant because you can make it up on the fly, you don't even need a system as such. that does not work for combat unless your ok with combat being so broken as to be useless.


I will give you that people can be wrong. To further explain my point, have you even thought that the data WotC determined as good to them, is not data you agree with? Just because you think its not good data, doesn't have anything to do with what WoTC determined to be good data.

Hmmm ok, with that definition of Modular, it sounds alot like you want 3e GURPS, where every genre book provided methods to play it in various styles... ex) Horror - types presented: Modern day, Victorian England, Slasher film, Atomic (godzilla/aliens). Am I understanding this correctly? Because if so, I do not see anything in 5e that prevents this. Its already there. No modifications needed. Using Loki's idea of beefing HP could work as an example. (I will never do this, because it takes the lethality out of combat), but for his style, its seems to be a viable option.

If that's all he needs to do, then why do you need 6 different systems? Based on your comment about changing math, and math being the basis of the game (or maybe that was Loki), wouldn't that give you essentially 6 different systems/games instead of one that can be molded as you need? I believe that would be extremely expensive to produce. And is probably why they elected not to go this route.

IMHO, nothing you have presented thus far cannot be reproduced with the test packet. The reason this is, is because the system is so basic and simple. You add a tweak here, bumb an ability there, and presto... you have what you want. You are welcome to prove me wrong. But instead of throwing math in my face, why don't you get several friends together, and play a game. Do whatever tweaking you want to the packet, and make an adventure up instead of using a module. Then you aren't constrained by terrible authors writing drivel modules. Let me know how it went.

it would not need to be as modular as GRUPS. and keep in mind they, not I, said that was a goal of the system.

modular does not mean you can easily change genre's it means you can change things like magic items, hp things like that, and the system is set up to let it work out of the box. so If I use the "more health" option it changes healing as well, and I know its been tested and works. I don't then have to change the creatures you fight, or feats or anything else.

also I am paying them to make the system, I will not buy it unless it is good out of the box, I may tweak it but if I have to overhaul it I will just buy another system that works as is.



And why do you suppose they did that? The writing was already on the wall. Game design is a difficult and time-consuming task, and in the business world, time is money, so it's also a very expensive task. Wizards would not have spent so many resources designing Essentials if they thought there was any other way out of 4e's death spiral: from a business standpoint, it wouldn't even make any sense.

But they still wanted to continue the grand experiment that 4e was in the first place, and continued more or less down that same path. Essentials wasn't quite identical to 4e, but the roots are strong and obvious. But that wasn't enough to save the brand. And so Wizards decided that the experiment had to end.

I question just how large that percentage is, in the case of your group. Certainly the market share statistics do not indicate that your group has "a large percentage" of the market.

But those same percentages and figures also force me to question your assertion that "having X will not hurt Y". You claim to represent the majority of 4e players, and given the arguments I've seen here and elsewhere, I've no reason not to believe you.

But the market votes with its money and its feet, and the sales figures show an interesting pattern. It shows strong initial interest, followed by fleeing in droves. There can be no doubt that 4e was designed specifically to cater to your group -the early marketing materials prove that- but still, you seem to have achieved this dominance, by being left, rather than by being right. Your group claims that balance has not hurt the game, but the market seems to believe otherwise, and to believe it quite strongly.

It almost makes a person wonder why.

I think they did it, even thought it was a horrible idea, because hasbro decided that being the best was not good enough, they wanted 100% market share.
never assume a company only makes the best decisions.
there was more then enough stuff left they could have done for 4e. it had the biggest market share right up until they killed it with essentials

balance by definition cant hurt the game, it can only help.

I dont know what your getting at with market share right now, its not there are new 4e books coming out, so you cant judge how many 4e fans there are now by sales of 4e books.

if they want 5e to succeed they need to capture the 4e market, I would say its as important if not more so then the 3e market. after all every current 3e players has at some point chose to stick with an older more broken game, that is not true of 4e, and they were close to each other in fans when they were the current edition.

1337 b4k4
2014-07-02, 01:37 PM
your right early D&D games were very bad games, they were successful because all of the games were poor, we now know how to make better games.

Oh really? Do I need to go through the history of RPG games again? GURPS alone should be sufficient to disprove your point. GURPS is clearly (for your particular interests) superior in every way to D&D. Yet D&D reigned (and still does).



I have no problem with playstyles that have less combat, however combat still needs to work, its the most important part of the system because its the only part you cant make up as you go. if I only got into combat every other session, I would still need for it to work.

yes a system is a failure if the combat system sucks, because that is the most important part to get right.

To you. The point that you keep purposefully missing over and over again is that you are not everyone and not everyone thinks the combat system is the most important part of the game.



not its Wotc they are the ones being payed to make the game, they are the ones who made the surveys. its thier job to get good data, not everyone else's.

And they said they're going to make a game that their fans want to play. They then went and asked their fans "what game do you want to play". If you didn't answer, it's your fault that the game isn't the game you want to play.


AGAIN NOT USEFUL, if your goal is balance you need to know if you succeeded, if your goal is flexibility you need to know if you succeeded. someone telling you why they had fun is not enough.

The stated goal was not balance. Those squiggly things you were talking about ... pots and kettles and all that.



this is even more true for those making the game, if everyone just makes what they think is "cool" or "fun" you get nowhere.


And yet, Flappy Bird, Angry Birds, Tetris, Pong and the TTRPG All Out of Bubble Gum exist and are successful.



I guess if 90%+ of everyone you want to sell to does not mind having a combat system that is non-function then you could get away with having it be crappy, but I would venture to say that that is not D&D

By your own admission, that was D&D for 30+ years, and continues to be in the form of the "second highest market share" of TTRPG players.



you know those squiggly things on the screen? those are called words, you read them BEFORE you respond if you want to sound at all intelligent.

Pot meet Kettle. Kettle, this is Pot.



I said the RP system was unimportant, not that RP Is unimportant. the RP system is unimportant because you can make it up on the fly, you don't even need a system as such. that does not work for combat unless your ok with combat being so broken as to be useless.

Again, only in your opinion. Plenty of people think otherwise.


Edit
--------------

And owing once again to the theory that once things get beyond ~3 quotes per response, no actual communication is happening. I'm bowing out of this one again. Really not interested in continuing on this merry go round.

Millennium
2014-07-02, 03:31 PM
again you need MORE then just "is it fun" to make a game...
Why?

you need to have goals that you can measure, goals that if they are fulfilled will make the game fun. (like balance)
Why?

your right early D&D games were very bad games, they were successful because all of the games were poor, we now know how to make better games.
I disagree. The earlier editions have all been great at what they are going for: a little clunky at times, but not to any degree that actually hurts them. The improvements in later editions have generally been small ones: incremental evolution, you might say. That changed with 4e's revolution, but it did not change for the better.
quote]I have no problem with playstyles that have less combat, however combat still needs to work, its the most important part of the system because its the only part you cant make up as you go.[/quote]
What on Earth gave you any of these ideas? Why can't combat be made up as you go? Even if it can't, what makes that the most important part of the system?

AGAIN NOT USEFUL, if your goal is balance you need to know if you succeeded, if your goal is flexibility you need to know if you succeeded.
Why must this be attached to a number?

I guess if 90%+ of everyone you want to sell to does not mind having a combat system that is non-function then you could get away with having it be crappy, but I would venture to say that that is not D&D
You just said that earlier editions of D&D were bad games, and that combat was the most important thing. Why, then, does a "non-function" combat system make something "not D&D"? If anything, I'd think that it struck closer to the essence of D&D, whose combat systems have never functioned all that well by your definitions.

you want to make a system where you can have fighters, wizards, psions, rogues all working together, none of them overpowered but all useful that takes time.
Every version of D&D has successfully done this (even if all of these classes were called different things in some of them).

I think they did it, even thought it was a horrible idea, because hasbro decided that being the best was not good enough, they wanted 100% market share.
never assume a company only makes the best decisions.
Of course one should never assume that a company only makes the best decisions. But even game companies don't make decisions by rolling a die: you can, and should, assume that companies only make decisions that they think are the best at any given time. They can be mistaken, of course, but what they don't do is not make sense. You're asserting that Wizards did something that does not make sense.

if they want 5e to succeed they need to capture the 4e market, I would say its as important if not more so then the 3e market.
4e failed to capture the 3e market, yet by your standards, it succeeded. So why is 5e doomed to failure if it fails to capture the 4e market?

captpike
2014-07-02, 03:43 PM
Oh really? Do I need to go through the history of RPG games again? GURPS alone should be sufficient to disprove your point. GURPS is clearly (for your particular interests) superior in every way to D&D. Yet D&D reigned (and still does).

I never said if it was a good idea for 5e to be modular, or if in general I like games that are. I was saying that was a design goal of theirs, and they have failed to reach it, going from what we have seen thus far.

I am not judging the game based solely on if I will like it I am judging it based on their own goals for it.



To you. The point that you keep purposefully missing over and over again is that you are not everyone and not everyone thinks the combat system is the most important part of the game.

then they are wrong, unless they never use the combat system then it is the most important part of the system, because its the one most sensitive to being broken, or to having problems you can't fix once the game is made. that is not true of the RP system(s).

when buying a house what is more important the foundation or the color of the paint? even though you will never see the foundation it needs to be in good repair or you will bleed money, no matter how bad the paint is you can always fix it.



And they said they're going to make a game that their fans want to play. They then went and asked their fans "what game do you want to play". If you didn't answer, it's your fault that the game isn't the game you want to play.

when you get to pick who you ask a question of, you also get the pick the answer.

their job was the find a way to ask the questions of the right people to get good data, they did not do that. both because the questions they asked were not good, and because they did not do their do diligence to make sure the people were a good sampling. that literaly was thier job.



The stated goal was not balance. Those squiggly things you were talking about ... pots and kettles and all that.

sometimes I think I need to talk to everyone like a child, I used something called an analogy. if your goals are X Y and Z you need to know how to test for each one. having a binary "is it fun?" question does not help. you need to know if and how you failed and which of your goals failed, did you succeed X and Y but fail Z? did you fail Z and consequently fail Y?



And yet, Flappy Bird, Angry Birds, Tetris, Pong and the TTRPG All Out of Bubble Gum exist and are successful.

your totally right, and if we were talking about a game that in any way could be compared to flappy bird, angry birds, pong you might have a small point.

but we are not, so you do not. D&D (of any edition) is too complicated to use such simple metrics



By your own admission, that was D&D for 30+ years, and continues to be in the form of the "second highest market share" of TTRPG players.

your right, but again things have changed, we now know better, when I buy 5e I expect it will have improved on D&D, will have learned from the mistakes of the past, just like when I buy any new edition of anything.



Again, only in your opinion. Plenty of people think otherwise.

plenty of people are wrong. also the number of people thinking something has no relation whatsoever to if its right or wrong.

I was not saying that in my opinion combat is more important then RP.
I was stating that the combat system is much more complicated and interconnected, it CAN NOT be made up on the spot if you want it to be good and in any way balanced. that can be done with RP, you don't even need a system for RP, you can Ad-lib the entire thing.

obryn
2014-07-02, 03:46 PM
And owing once again to the theory that once things get beyond ~3 quotes per response, no actual communication is happening. I'm bowing out of this one again. Really not interested in continuing on this merry go round.
Yay, I started a meme! :smallcool:

Also, for captpike,

your right early D&D games were very bad games, they were successful because all of the games were poor, we now know how to make better games.
I think it's pretty clear that RPG "technology" has improved over the years.

However, very little of that is in the D&D family of games. You have crazy, innovative stuff coming out like Dread, Fiasco, and Apocalypse World. But D&D has always pretty much been D&D - squarely in the same wheelhouse it's been in since the 80's - and overall very resistant to modernization. Sure, it's gotten unified mechanics and even some narrative stuff, but the core of gameplay is fundamentally no different from 30 years ago. (70's D&D was often more like a tactical wargame; the 80's is when the D&D "style" really started to gel.)

With all that said, earlier editions of D&D - especially, IMO, the Rules Cyclopedia - have some very clever mechanics and a more elegant approach to balance than you might expect. It's only really in the backlash against 4e that people have begun talking about "game balance" as if it's some sort of bugaboo.

Really and truly, you can't understand D&D if you ignore its earliest branches and developments. Not necessarily to play them, but to understand them.

For example, and I'll just lay this out here for everyone to criticize, Awarding XP for treasure is one of the best mechanics that has ever appeared in an RPG. It's not good for every game, but it displays an intuitive understanding of reward systems, wherein players need to weigh risk and reward, and it drives the game's playstyle away from murderhobo and towards the ... let's say plunder-hobo ... style that drove D&D games of that era.

Damn, now I want to roll 3d6 in order and plunder goblin caves. :smalleek:

e: And just so I'm totally crystal-clear here, in my mind, the more RPGs you (generic "you" not just captpike) know and experience, the better you will get at both running and playing any RPG. Yes, that includes every edition of D&D, including {that one you hate}. And it very much includes games that don't involve rolling a d20 at all, from trad-style standbys like WFRP to modern narrative games such as Fate Core and Apocalypse/Dungeon World.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-02, 04:05 PM
AGAIN NOT USEFUL, if your goal is balance you need to know if you succeeded, if your goal is flexibility you need to know if you succeeded. someone telling you why they had fun is not enough.


Here I'll translate: The stated goal is "You and your players enjoyed playing the game"

The goal is to have fun. That's it. What is hard about this concept that you continue to ignore? Do you see those formatted letters on your screen? They form words. Words form sentences. Sentences convey ideas. You are blatantly ignoring statements of people and claiming they are ignoring yours. In essence, arguing for the sake of arguing and nothing more.



I said the RP system was unimportant, not that RP Is unimportant. the RP system is unimportant because you can make it up on the fly, you don't even need a system as such. that does not work for combat unless your ok with combat being so broken as to be useless.

How can you have the audacity to claim that RP isn't important to a Roleplaying Game? Again, I state that you view D&D as nothing more than a combat simulation game. There are better ones out there. I suggest you stick to them, or continue to play 4e. Whichever makes you happier.



it would not need to be as modular as GRUPS. and keep in mind they, not I, said that was a goal of the system.

modular does not mean you can easily change genre's it means you can change things like magic items, hp things like that, and the system is set up to let it work out of the box. so If I use the "more health" option it changes healing as well, and I know its been tested and works. I don't then have to change the creatures you fight, or feats or anything else.

also I am paying them to make the system, I will not buy it unless it is good out of the box, I may tweak it but if I have to overhaul it I will just buy another system that works as is.

As previously established, the goal of the game is to have fun. End of concept. If your kind of fun is different, then it's different. If your kind of fun is represented in 4e, play that. Your problem with an antiquated (by this time) statement made by a company in the beginning of development is ill advised and stubborn. Your dislike is abundant, save yourself much needed time for 4e and stop complaining. You have the game you want already.



I think they did it, even thought it was a horrible idea, because hasbro decided that being the best was not good enough, they wanted 100% market share.
never assume a company only makes the best decisions.
there was more then enough stuff left they could have done for 4e. it had the biggest market share right up until they killed it with essentials

balance by definition cant hurt the game, it can only help.

I dont know what your getting at with market share right now, its not there are new 4e books coming out, so you cant judge how many 4e fans there are now by sales of 4e books.

if they want 5e to succeed they need to capture the 4e market, I would say its as important if not more so then the 3e market. after all every current 3e players has at some point chose to stick with an older more broken game, that is not true of 4e, and they were close to each other in fans when they were the current edition.
[/QUOTE]

They do not need to do anything of the sort. In order for the product to succeed, they need to make more money than they spent to develop, print, and ship it. One dollar is sufficient to consider it a success. Your assumption that 4e players cover the majority of the market is not proven by how well it sold. The Dungeons and Dragons market covers the following (but is not limited to):

Basic Players, 1st Edition Players, 2nd Edition Players, 3.x Edition Players, 4th Edition Players, Tournament module players, Living World Players, Game Design enthusiasts, Collectors, Miniature enthusiasts, Novel writers and readers, and Video game players.

The majority of these people may or may not be part of more than one group, noone can say. Not to mention the market spans the globe and is not an anomaly of the United States. Many of these people don't even play anymore, but they still buy products of one form or another, if nothing more to have it on a rainy day.

You need to accept the fact that you are not the majority. You are not the majority market, 4e players are not the majority market, and Forum posters are not the majority of the market.

Simple math will tell you this last one. How many actual forum posters are here? How many forums do they post on? You can't count the same person twice simply because he is on more than one forum. Lets go high and say there are 2000 posters here in this forum branch (granted Ive only seen maybe 20). Do you think 2000 people is the majority of the market for all of Dungeons and Dragons? Do you think they are the majority of the people who will buy the new game? If so, your logic is flawed.

At best, you have opinions. Opinions you have made clear on numerous occasions. I implore you to consider the possibility that your opinions are nothing more than that. Opinions. You are not wrong, and you are not right.

captpike
2014-07-02, 04:09 PM
Why?

Why?

becuase if I am making a class and only told to make it "fun" I will have no idea what to do, I could make the class overpowered or underpowered, I could make the rules about it vague or obtuse, or even have the class take up half the book.

you might be able to make such a vague goal as "fun" work if you were the only one on the game, or testing it but that is not the case with D&D. all the people making it, all the ones testing it need to be on the same page about its goals, they need to know what is worth time and effort and what is not.
for example how flexible should a class be? should you be locked in once you picked your class or should you have alot of choices?



I disagree. The earlier editions have all been great at what they are going for: a little clunky at times, but not to any degree that actually hurts them. The improvements in later editions have generally been small ones: incremental evolution, you might say. That changed with 4e's revolution, but it did not change for the better.

earlier editions were horrible at what they did, they have restrictions that existed for no reason at all (race/class restrictions, paladins must be LG ect) they added in trap feats, they had systems that were obtuse for no good reason whatsoever.



What on Earth gave you any of these ideas? Why can't combat be made up as you go? Even if it can't, what makes that the most important part of the system?

logic? you cant make a good balanced system for combat during a session, if you think I am wrong then in the next 5min make a system as balanced and detailed as 4e, with as many classes and races as were in the PHB1



Why must this be attached to a number?

because that is how people work.
if I was making a game and my biggest goals was flexibility and 90% of my testers told me that the game was more then flexible enough, that would be differernt then if only 2% told me that



You just said that earlier editions of D&D were bad games, and that combat was the most important thing. Why, then, does a "non-function" combat system make something "not D&D"? If anything, I'd think that it struck closer to the essence of D&D, whose combat systems have never functioned all that well by your definitions.

I was unclear, I meant that I doubt D&D is a game where 90% don't care about combat.



Every version of D&D has successfully done this (even if all of these classes were called different things in some of them).

no it has not. before 4e there were whole sections of the game where certain classes were non-functional. high level 3e with a fighter meant you were useless for example.



Of course one should never assume that a company only makes the best decisions. But even game companies don't make decisions by rolling a die: you can, and should, assume that companies only make decisions that they think are the best at any given time. They can be mistaken, of course, but what they don't do is not make sense. You're asserting that Wizards did something that does not make sense.

no I am asserting that hasbro told Wotc to do something stupid. Wotc may or may not have known better, hasbro did not know better or were greedy enough to not let logic stand in the way.



4e failed to capture the 3e market, yet by your standards, it succeeded. So why is 5e doomed to failure if it fails to capture the 4e market?
in general the last edition of players is more important then the ones form two editions ago. 3e players already choice at least once not to move on, many have their own non-D&D games, and 3e is further removed from modern games then 4e is.

also, I think a game could be successful with either 3e fans or 4e fans. its hasbro that has the unrealistic expectations of drawing everyone in.



Really and truly, you can't understand D&D if you ignore its earliest branches and developments. Not necessarily to play them, but to understand them.

D&D is any game with the D&D Logo on it, nothing more. if you try and make a game while bowing to sacred cow this, and tradition that then you end up with something hardly different from the last edition. something that is not worth anyone's time or money.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-02, 04:21 PM
I never said if it was a good idea for 5e to be modular, or if in general I like games that are. I was saying that was a design goal of theirs, and they have failed to reach it, going from what we have seen thus far.

I am not judging the game based solely on if I will like it I am judging it based on their own goals for it.

Dismissive response. You have indicated that only by the game being modular will you say it is a good game. Any idea to the contrary you dismiss.



then they are wrong, unless they never use the combat system then it is the most important part of the system, because its the one most sensitive to being broken, or to having problems you can't fix once the game is made. that is not true of the RP system(s).


An opinion cannot be wrong. Misguided maybe. But it cannot be wrong. My opinion could be that Blue should have been named Zuld. That doesn't make it wrong.



when you get to pick who you ask a question of, you also get the pick the answer.

their job was the find a way to ask the questions of the right people to get good data, they did not do that. both because the questions they asked were not good, and because they did not do their do diligence to make sure the people were a good sampling. that literaly was thier job.


Dismissive response. Survey was dispersed through internet channels to reach as many players as possible. Those who took up the torch and ran the race may have given poor answers, but they are in fact the proper people to ask the survey of. Unless you intend to target someone outside of the market, then you might be close to right.



sometimes I think I need to talk to everyone like a child, I used something called an analogy. if your goals are X Y and Z you need to know how to test for each one. having a binary "is it fun?" question does not help. you need to know if and how you failed and which of your goals failed, did you succeed X and Y but fail Z? did you fail Z and consequently fail Y?


Is it fun is only half of the question. The second half you are completely dismissing because it is contrary to your argument.


your right, but again things have changed, we now know better, when I buy 5e I expect it will have improved on D&D, will have learned from the mistakes of the past, just like when I buy any new edition of anything.


Improved on D&D or improved on 4e?



I was not saying that in my opinion combat is more important then RP.
I was stating that the combat system is much more complicated and interconnected, it CAN NOT be made up on the spot if you want it to be good and in any way balanced. that can be done with RP, you don't even need a system for RP, you can Ad-lib the entire thing.

You are in fact placing more emphasis on combat than on RP. This indicates that you are placing combat on a higher level than Roleplaying.

captpike
2014-07-02, 04:21 PM
Here I'll translate: The stated goal is "You and your players enjoyed playing the game"

The goal is to have fun. That's it. What is hard about this concept that you continue to ignore? Do you see those formatted letters on your screen? They form words. Words form sentences. Sentences convey ideas. You are blatantly ignoring statements of people and claiming they are ignoring yours. In essence, arguing for the sake of arguing and nothing more.

its easy to understand, its also useless when making a game because if you hand me a game and I test it and tell you "its not fun" you have gained no useful information.

you know that would be more useful? if they stated a goal like for example "a game for everyone" then I can use that to say "it does not fit playstyle X, so you failed" that gives them useful information.



How can you have the audacity to claim that RP isn't important to a Roleplaying Game? Again, I state that you view D&D as nothing more than a combat simulation game. There are better ones out there. I suggest you stick to them, or continue to play 4e. Whichever makes you happier.

for the thousandth time, BECAUSE ITS EASY TO RP ON THE FLY, if I get 5e and find it has a overcomplicated and obtuse system for diplomacy I can ignore it and continue with the game. if I find it has a non-useable combat system I can't use the system because I can't make that on the fly.



As previously established, the goal of the game is to have fun. End of concept. If your kind of fun is different, then it's different. If your kind of fun is represented in 4e, play that. Your problem with an antiquated (by this time) statement made by a company in the beginning of development is ill advised and stubborn. Your dislike is abundant, save yourself much needed time for 4e and stop complaining. You have the game you want already.

the end goal yes, but how is the game going to do that? you need more then "make it fun" for people to make the game work

they keep saying is a "game for everyone" its not someting that has gone away. nor have they ever retracted it.

there is nothing better to judge a system by then its own goals. both for how good the goals are, and if they reach them.

the second they retract the goal I will change how I judge the game, not until then.



They do not need to do anything of the sort. In order for the product to succeed, they need to make more money than they spent to develop, print, and ship it. One dollar is sufficient to consider it a success. Your assumption that 4e players cover the majority of the market is not proven by how well it sold. The Dungeons and Dragons market covers the following (but is not limited to):

Basic Players, 1st Edition Players, 2nd Edition Players, 3.x Edition Players, 4th Edition Players, Tournament module players, Living World Players, Game Design enthusiasts, Collectors, Miniature enthusiasts, Novel writers and readers, and Video game players.

The majority of these people may or may not be part of more than one group, noone can say. Not to mention the market spans the globe and is not an anomaly of the United States. Many of these people don't even play anymore, but they still buy products of one form or another, if nothing more to have it on a rainy day.

You need to accept the fact that you are not the majority. You are not the majority market, 4e players are not the majority market, and Forum posters are not the majority of the market.

Simple math will tell you this last one. How many actual forum posters are here? How many forums do they post on? You can't count the same person twice simply because he is on more than one forum. Lets go high and say there are 2000 posters here in this forum branch (granted Ive only seen maybe 20). Do you think 2000 people is the majority of the market for all of Dungeons and Dragons? Do you think they are the majority of the people who will buy the new game? If so, your logic is flawed.

At best, you have opinions. Opinions you have made clear on numerous occasions. I implore you to consider the possibility that your opinions are nothing more than that. Opinions. You are not wrong, and you are not right.

were the game made by a small company sure you would be right. but its not in order for hasbro to be happy they have to be the first in the RPG market by a very large margin. in order to that they have to capture 4e fans. I don't know if 4e fans are a real majority but they are a large minority in the least.

captpike
2014-07-02, 04:33 PM
Dismissive response. You have indicated that only by the game being modular will you say it is a good game. Any idea to the contrary you dismiss.

only by being modular will they have met their goals. that is the metric I am using the judge the game, not if I think it will be fun.

there are only two good ways to judge a game such as 5e, how good their goals are, and if they meet them. anything else is just folly



An opinion cannot be wrong. Misguided maybe. But it cannot be wrong. My opinion could be that Blue should have been named Zuld. That doesn't make it wrong.

then their statement is wrong.



Dismissive response. Survey was dispersed through internet channels to reach as many players as possible. Those who took up the torch and ran the race may have given poor answers, but they are in fact the proper people to ask the survey of. Unless you intend to target someone outside of the market, then you might be close to right.

simply putting something on the internet is not enough. any more then if its my job to advertise for company and all I do is put up a website no one goes to.

they could have had some inducements like loki said, or done more surveys at cons or had a "what is your favorite edition" question before you answer anything. or even just phrasing the questions better to remove bias would be been an improvement.

it is Wotc job to get good data, not everyone else's job to flock to their website to give it to them.



Is it fun is only half of the question. The second half you are completely dismissing because it is contrary to your argument.

what do you mean?



Improved on D&D or improved on 4e?

given that 4e IS D&D, both I want to see 5e learning form what came before, and trying new things that were not in earlier editions.



You are in fact placing more emphasis on combat than on RP. This indicates that you are placing combat on a higher level than Roleplaying.
on combat MECHANICS yes, not on combat itself.

please I have repeated myself like 4 times in this. you cant make up good combat mechanics on the fly, you can make up RP on the fly therefor combat mechanics are more important to get right.

1337 b4k4
2014-07-02, 04:34 PM
I know I said I was out, but I really can't let these couple things pass



then they are wrong, unless they never use the combat system then it is the most important part of the system, because its the one most sensitive to being broken, or to having problems you can't fix once the game is made. that is not true of the RP system(s).

...

plenty of people are wrong. also the number of people thinking something has no relation whatsoever to if its right or wrong.

You seriously and truly think that anyone who doesn't believe the combat system is the most important part of an RPG is wrong don't you? I strongly recommend you expand you TTRPG experiences. You may find yourself surprised.




logic? you cant make a good balanced system for combat during a session, if you think I am wrong then in the next 5min make a system as balanced and detailed as 4e, with as many classes and races as were in the PHB1


"a good balanced system for combat" != "a system as balanced and detailed as 4e, with as many classes and races as were in the PHB1"

4e's system may be a good balanced system, but a system does not have to be 4e's system to be good and balanced.


D&D is any game with the D&D Logo on it, nothing more.

So if WotC released a game tomorrow with no combat system, and no social skills system, no magic system, no classes, no levels and no treasures, just a rule that says "whenever you want to do something, flip a coin, if its heads you succeed if it's tails you fail" that would be D&D to you?

Edit
-------

Now I'm done for real.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-02, 04:39 PM
its easy to understand, its also useless when making a game because if you hand me a game and I test it and tell you "its not fun" you have gained no useful information.

Useful information gained: The system I designed is not fun. Design a different system.



for the thousandth time, BECAUSE ITS EASY TO RP ON THE FLY, if I get 5e and find it has a overcomplicated and obtuse system for diplomacy I can ignore it and continue with the game. if I find it has a non-useable combat system I can't use the system because I can't make that on the fly.

Combat system on the fly:

2d6 to hit.
1d6 plus armor to defend (armor rated between 1 and 6]
Damage inflicted - 1 wound
Player group Wound totals: Fighters - 6, Clerics - 5, Rogues - 4, Wizards - 3
Spell Mechanic:
Cast spell - if resistable, roll 1d6. 6 resists spell.
if not resistable, resolve as described.
If healing - Heals broken into three categories, 1 wound, 2 wound or 3 wound healing.

Combat system complete.



were the game made by a small company sure you would be right. but its not in order for hasbro to be happy they have to be the first in the RPG market by a very large margin. in order to that they have to capture 4e fans. I don't know if 4e fans are a real majority but they are a large minority in the least.

The size of the company has no relevance to a products profitability. Either you made more money than you spent to make it, or you didn't. This is simple economics.

captpike
2014-07-02, 04:42 PM
I know I said I was out, but I really can't let these couple things pass

You seriously and truly think that anyone who doesn't believe the combat system is the most important part of an RPG is wrong don't you? I strongly recommend you expand you TTRPG experiences. You may find yourself surprised.

.....please read what I wrote again, I said the MECHANICS of combat are more important then the MECHANICS of RP. because I can make up the RP stuff on the fly I cant do that for combat. a system that has broken RP stuff will work if you improv RP, a system with broken combat will never work.

this is true even if you only use the combat system every other session, that system still needs to work.



"a good balanced system for combat" != "a system as balanced and detailed as 4e, with as many classes and races as were in the PHB1"

4e's system may be a good balanced system, but a system does not have to be 4e's system to be good and balanced.

true but given we are talking about 5e that is the standard by which I will judge if 5e works for that playstyle. if they want to capture the 4e market it has to be at least as good as 4e.



So if WotC released a game tomorrow with no combat system, and no social skills system, no magic system, no classes, no levels and no treasures, just a rule that says "whenever you want to do something, flip a coin, if its heads you succeed if it's tails you fail" that would be D&D to you?
my opinion is not relevant, no ones is.
by definition any game that Wotc publishes and calls D&D IS D&D.

captpike
2014-07-02, 04:47 PM
Useful information gained: The system I designed is not fun. Design a different system.

so what you start over every time any playtester tells you its not fun? really?



Combat system on the fly:

2d6 to hit.
1d6 plus armor to defend (armor rated between 1 and 6]
Damage inflicted - 1 wound
Player group Wound totals: Fighters - 6, Clerics - 5, Rogues - 4, Wizards - 3
Spell Mechanic:
Cast spell - if resistable, roll 1d6. 6 resists spell.
if not resistable, resolve as described.
If healing - Heals broken into three categories, 1 wound, 2 wound or 3 wound healing.

Combat system complete.

now detail me 20 levels of spells for 3 classes, with at least 4 options per level each of which is balanced.

also give me powers for each of the non-casters in the same numbers as spells given to the casters but made so they are not spells (so no fireball for the fighter)

you have however it its at your table that a round takes...go



The size of the company has no relevance to a products profitability. Either you made more money than you spent to make it, or you didn't. This is simple economics.
in theory yes, in fact hasbro will not let them get buy with just being slightly profitable or they would never have crammed essentials down Wotc's throat

obryn
2014-07-02, 04:56 PM
D&D is any game with the D&D Logo on it, nothing more. if you try and make a game while bowing to sacred cow this, and tradition that then you end up with something hardly different from the last edition. something that is not worth anyone's time or money.
I think you completely missed my point again.

It's good to experience other games to learn from them. Even if it's a game you don't ultimately like, you can take lessons from it to improve yourself as a player, DM, and (if appropriate) designer.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-02, 05:00 PM
Combat system on the fly:

2d6 to hit.
1d6 plus armor to defend (armor rated between 1 and 6]
Damage inflicted - 1 wound
Player group Wound totals: Fighters - 6, Clerics - 5, Rogues - 4, Wizards - 3
Spell Mechanic:
Cast spell - if resistable, roll 1d6. 6 resists spell.
if not resistable, resolve as described.
If healing - Heals broken into three categories, 1 wound, 2 wound or 3 wound healing.

Combat system complete.

Well done. Please allow yourself to be hired by WOTC for the 6E design team :smallsmile:

da_chicken
2014-07-02, 05:04 PM
Personally, I learned a lot from WEG d6 Star Wars, old school ShadowRun, and learned a ton about running a narrative game from (of all things) Top Secret/S.I.

I still likes me my d20s, though.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-02, 05:19 PM
now detail me 20 levels of spells for 3 classes, with at least 4 options per level each of which is balanced.

also give me powers for each of the non-casters in the same numbers as spells given to the casters but made so they are not spells (so no fireball for the fighter)

you have however it its at your table that a round takes...go

I'll give you five levels.

Fighter
All armors, all weapons
1 - Block (reduce melee damage for you or someone in reach), Parry (negate melee damage, you only), Trip (knockdown target, resisted on 5-6), Disarm (lose weapon, resist on 5-6)
2 - Counterstrike (roll to hit after successful parry), Sure footing (tripped on 6), Spear vs Charge (+1 wound to charging opponent), Bandage (recover 1 wound - non-combat)
3 - Overpower (add 1 wound to weapon damage, cannot move for turn), Mighty Roar (you and allies reroll 1s to hit), Fear full Roar (nearby enemies flee unless 6), Charge (+1 wound, must move x feet)
4 - Bulldoze (knock target over unless roll a 6, must move x feet), Hammer blow (+1 wound to fallen target), Willpower (remain fighting until -3 wounds), Expert Weapon user (disarmed only on 6)
5 - Phalanx (side by side with shield, reduce all damage by 1 wound), Intervine (charge and gain targets attention), Deflect magic (resisted spells forced back to caster), Juggarnaut (cannot be stopped, only slowed)

Cleric
Limited to medium armors, blunt weapons, Cast spells spent only if roll 1 on d6, spent spell needs rest to recover
1 - Block, Spell casting (2 spells granted) Choose from: Heal small (1 wound), Sanctuary (cannot attack or be attacked), Holy Word (1 wound)
2 - Turn Undead, Spell casting (3 spells granted) Choose from: Banish (non terrestrial entities only), Create food
3 - Aura of Safety (fear resisted on 5or6) - Spell casting (4 spells granted) Choose from: Heal medium (2 wounds), Smite (mindless undead destroyed)
4 - Spell casting (5 spells) Choose from: Consecrate (area becomes holy +1 wound healed in area) Cure ailment (poison, disease, etc).
5 - Spell casting (6 spells) Choose from: Heal major (3 wounds), Convert (target becomes follower)

Wizard
No armor, Simple weapons, Cast spells spent only if roll 1 on d6, spent spell needs rest to recover
1 - Spell casting - (4 known) Choose from: Bolt (1 wound), Sleep (one target unconscious), Armor (armor considered 3), Hold (target cannot move), Light (see in dark)
2 - Spell casting - (6 known) Choose from: Elemental Change (bolt becomes specific element type), Harm (2 wounds), Fly, Breath in all environments
3 - Spell casting - (8 known) Choose from: Summon elemental minion, Spell shield (negate one spell targeted against you), Dispel magic (negate spell effect/unsummon)
4 - Spell casting - (10 known) Choose from: Command (non terrestrial creatures only), Befuddle (target can take no offensive action), Superior Bolt (2 wounds)
5 - Spell casting - (12 known) Choose from: Drain life (heal 1 wound, target takes 1 wound), Animate corpse, Multi-bolt (two targets take 2 wounds)

I'd add more, but its time to go home from work. But you see my point. It can be done. It just seems you think you can't. I did this simply for entertainment. If your going to make the combat system up on the fly, why do you need 20 levels? Since your argument is that the combat system is the main chunk of the game, and it works with 5 levels, why do you need more?

obryn
2014-07-02, 05:20 PM
Personally, I learned a lot from WEG d6 Star Wars, old school ShadowRun, and learned a ton about running a narrative game from (of all things) Top Secret/S.I.

I still likes me my d20s, though.
Absolutely zero wrong with playing one game, mostly, as far as I'm concerned.

But really and truly, although I've been playing some form of D&D for 30 years, my 4e game improved immeasurably after running 1e for a while. And I've taken more cues from Feng Shui than anything else recently.

And one of these days, mark my words, I will run Powers & Perils (http://powersandperils.org/).

Envyus
2014-07-02, 05:36 PM
so what you start over every time any playtester tells you its not fun? really?


No you start over if the majority of the play testers tell you it's not fun.

captpike
2014-07-02, 05:54 PM
No you start over if the majority of the play testers tell you it's not fun.

so you basic make up dozens of games, until one happens to work, you don't use any input to change them or to improve them. you just make a game, if 51% say it sucks you throw it away? that is a horrible way to make a game

pwykersotz
2014-07-02, 05:58 PM
now detail me 20 levels of spells for 3 classes, with at least 4 options per level each of which is balanced.

also give me powers for each of the non-casters in the same numbers as spells given to the casters but made so they are not spells (so no fireball for the fighter)

Your added criteria are unnecessary for a combat system to exist. It doesn't need 20 levels, or levels at all. There don't need to be classes either. Extra details are unimportant. It's a simple combat system. :smallconfused:

All that you asked for was a combat system that could be winged within a few minutes, and that has been done.

Envyus
2014-07-02, 06:01 PM
so you basic make up dozens of games, until one happens to work, you don't use any input to change them or to improve them. you just make a game, if 51% say it sucks you throw it away? that is a horrible way to make a game

Of course not. But if the majority is not enjoying the game then something needs to be fixed.

This question does not even matter. The point I was trying to bring up in the first place was a response to you asking how we should judge the game if not by it's original design goals. I said it should be judged by weather it's fun or not. You can say why it was fun or not fun as well. But if it's fun is all that matters in the end.

captpike
2014-07-02, 06:18 PM
Of course not. But if the majority is not enjoying the game then something needs to be fixed.

This question does not even matter. The point I was trying to bring up in the first place was a response to you asking how we should judge the game if not by it's original design goals. I said it should be judged by weather it's fun or not. You can say why it was fun or not fun as well. But if it's fun is all that matters in the end.

I guess you can judge that way, but it won't help anyone it wont give anyone any new information, it wont let you know why its good or not.


Your added criteria are unnecessary for a combat system to exist. It doesn't need 20 levels, or levels at all. There don't need to be classes either. Extra details are unimportant. It's a simple combat system. :smallconfused:

All that you asked for was a combat system that could be winged within a few minutes, and that has been done.

a combat system is useless without the other information, like classes and such.

we are talking about build the entire thing whole hog during a session, not just the bits that fall between classes

pwykersotz
2014-07-02, 06:25 PM
a combat system is useless without the other information, like classes and such.

we are talking about build the entire thing whole hog during a session, not just the bits that fall between classes

I have to vehemently disagree. Combat does not need to be complex to be fun. You want additional nuance, and that's fine. But a fun and balanced combat system that fits in a game where heavily detailed and carefully balanced roleplay rules exist has just been illustrated. It would be polite to accept that either Fwiffo86 succeeded in your challenge or that you need to restate your challenge to appropriately make your point.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-02, 06:34 PM
a combat system is useless without the other information, like classes and such.

we are talking about build the entire thing whole hog during a session, not just the bits that fall between classes

First, a combat system only determines ways to inflict, or resist damage or effects. The number of those effects are left up to how detailed or fantastic you want your game to represent. You asked for "a Combat system" off the cuff. I have done that. When I did that, you asked for detailed information regarding classes, options, etc. I did that, to a certain extent for 5 levels.

It is simple to come up with a "combat" system. That is a separate function from Abilities and how they are used in the combat system. I am not responsible for your lack of clarity, or scope of vision.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-02, 06:53 PM
so you basic make up dozens of games, until one happens to work, you don't use any input to change them or to improve them. you just make a game, if 51% say it sucks you throw it away? that is a horrible way to make a game

The issue is the only answer you are getting is "No, it wasn't fun". Since there is no additional input, you logically can't take any other action. Your statement is invalid by your own criteria for this discussion. Please remember the things you say before you attempt to change an argument beyond its intended and original scope.

captpike
2014-07-02, 07:06 PM
The issue is the only answer you are getting is "No, it wasn't fun". Since there is no additional input, you logically can't take any other action. Your statement is invalid by your own criteria for this discussion. Please remember the things you say before you attempt to change an argument beyond its intended and original scope.

yes that is what I said, I was using the fact its invalid to show a point.

"is it fun?" is a very very bad way to judge a game, useless in fact if that is all you have. its why you have goals like "a game for everyone"



First, a combat system only determines ways to inflict, or resist damage or effects. The number of those effects are left up to how detailed or fantastic you want your game to represent. You asked for "a Combat system" off the cuff. I have done that. When I did that, you asked for detailed information regarding classes, options, etc. I did that, to a certain extent for 5 levels.

It is simple to come up with a "combat" system. That is a separate function from Abilities and how they are used in the combat system. I am not responsible for your lack of clarity, or scope of vision.

....so your one of THOSE people, you like to twist the words people say to meet what you want rather then trying to understand what they meant and talk to that.

I said a combat system, that means everything involved in combat. do you use what your class gives you in combat? yes, its part of the combat system then.

even if that was not the case, your example would still not be enough because you would have no way to judge it. it would be like saying "I have 100hp" without having any idea about the rest of the system. you would have no way to judge if 100 was alot or just a few.

EDIT: also we are talking about 5e, not a d6 based system not anything else.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-02, 07:57 PM
yes that is what I said, I was using the fact its invalid to show a point.

"is it fun?" is a very very bad way to judge a game, useless in fact if that is all you have. its why you have goals like "a game for everyone"

If this was the purpose of adding "you need additional information to..." then yes, I understand your point. But you were not clear, or concise.



....so your one of THOSE people, you like to twist the words people say to meet what you want rather then trying to understand what they meant and talk to that.

So you are one of the people who lashes out with thinly veiled insults when you're points are used against you.


I said a combat system, that means everything involved in combat. do you use what your class gives you in combat? yes, its part of the combat system then.

Actually, the combat system is a way to resolve how your class abilities operate in the combat scenario. Modern day example, if a person fights another person, that is combat yes? If one is using Martial Arts, that would be an ability. It doesn't change the baseline concept that combat is hitting and inflicting damage, or resisting damage. How this is accomplished (the abilities you use to do so) is irrelevant. A fireball and a sword both inflict damage. Armor and save throws both resist damage. The combat system is unaffected either way. Damage is inflicted, or it is resisted.



even if that was not the case, your example would still not be enough because you would have no way to judge it. it would be like saying "I have 100hp" without having any idea about the rest of the system. you would have no way to judge if 100 was alot or just a few.

I provided a way to determine a win condition in the first example. Wound levels. Please read it again. If I need to explain that the loss of all wound levels results in death, I am guilty of giving you more credit than you deserve.


EDIT: also we are talking about 5e, not a d6 based system not anything else.

you did not specify that you wanted a 5e based system, a d20 based system, or any kind of system. I was proving you wrong about being able to come up with a combat system on the fly, something you were adamant about being impossible. And since you believe that RP and Combat are different things (and they are) the type of system is fundamentally irrelevant. Its nothing more than a different set of numbers to resolve possibility questions.

And incidentally, it is interesting to hear you say "we are talking about 5e" when you spend most of your time determining the measure of the system judged against 4e, instead of analyzing it as an individual thing.

And before you claim that you are judging it against its "game for everyone" rigamarole, you can back this claim up by actually dropping all comparisons to 4e, and then maybe I will start to believe your claim.

Lokiare
2014-07-02, 09:17 PM
If I believed you wanted understanding, sure. I don't think you do, though.


No ridicule, just an evaluation. The form of argument being used is terrible, and I laid out the reasons why. It's nonsense when it applied to Damage on a Miss (that is, X group really hates it, but Y group doesn't care, so X group should win!) and it's nonsense now.

Its a very simple concept. If you one group of people don't care what flavor ice cream they eat and another group does, then you should serve the flavor of ice cream the group that does care wants, because all parties will be happy. Now the premise isn't true (one group doesn't care and the other does) then the entire statement is false because the premises are false. Is this what you are saying? Because the logical course given the premise is to make the game that the group that cares about wants. The only caveat is if the cost of doing it the way that the group that cares is too expensive. In the case of 5E its really not. They literally had thousands of volunteers to test their system out as well as people posting to their own forums breaking down the math of each part of the system from classes and races down to feats and individual spells. They had a wealth of information. If they failed to make a game that lives up to their goals, its all their fault. It was not a resource problem.


Except none of this is actually true. I'm sure you would agree that early D&D's combat system is not "well made, tested and whatnot" (at least not to your standards) and yet it works. It works because it has been the dominant TTRPG for 30+ years despite there being more "well made, tested and whatnot" combat systems. Further, as I said, you are being blatantly dismissive of other people's play styles and priorities. It's quite apparent there are plenty of people who don't care much about "combat systems" and wouldn't care at all if the whole thing was boiled down to rock-paper-scissors. Again, that you can't imagine an RPG system with a simple and thrown together combat system is a failure of your imagination (and I have to assume experience) rather than any "truth" of RPGs in general.

In the beginning D&D had a feature that all the other games out didn't. It was role playing. That's why it was successful. Nothing else. Its subsystems were far too archaic and difficult to understand and not balanced at all when compared to the successful war games of the time. D&D being an expansion for Chainmail (a popular miniatures war game of the time) would have been a complete failure if it hadn't stumbled upon the role play aspect. From there the popularity built upon itself. Just like WoW today. Its the most popular MMO out there. Why though? There are much better MMO's for instance Rift by many measures is much better (even though WoW borrows some things from it and Rift borrows some things from WoW). Popularity feeds popularity. Same thing with D&D its big because its the biggest.


But apparently not a large enough chunk to sustain the game.

By Hasbro's standards 3.5E and the entire TTRPG market was "not a large enough chunk to sustain the game.". Which is why both 3E and 4E ended in the first place. Our only hope is that 5E and continuing editions are not under the same goals, otherwise D&D might get shelved for 10+ years, and brought out for a republishing of each edition in order.


If players chose to leave the playtest because they didn't see their particular playstyle rather than providing feedback, then it is their own fault that the game will not strongly represent their playstyle. WotC asked for feedback, if people threw trantrums and gave up, well they probably weren't likely to buy the completed game anyway if they're that sensitive to not having their playstyle front and center. If you don't participate, you don't really have any room to complain when things don't come out your way.

Also, if they had offered a free signed copy, it would still be self selecting. Selecting for people that like free stuff. What you think people that quit the playtest because their playstyle wasn't being represented would want a new book for an RPG that doesn't represent their playstyle? I think not.

Its more likely that they would have retained enough people to get a more even sampling. I was talking about any book they produced from their unsold stock, not just from 5E.


That would require you to be interested in coming to a mutual understanding. As others have said, it's pretty clear you're not that interested in that.

I am interested in coming to a mutually beneficial understanding of the topic at hand. Please quit trying to dictate my opinions to me. It gets really old and doesn't help the conversation be constructive. In fact I think every time someone responds with a snarky or meme filled comment, I'm going to respond in kind.


Dominated so strongly that WotC felt it had to produce some significant changes (Essentials) to simply keep treading water as they were.

Nice assumption, too bad there are no facts to back it up. Its just as likely they wanted to put Paizo out of business (at the time they were the biggest competitor). It could also be just as likely they wanted to try something new to make even more money.


Generally speaking, you can always assume that forum goers are vocal minorities. This has nothing to do with whether or not their opinion corresponds with the majority however.

If you mean that people on forums are a small group dwarfed by the number of people not on forums you are correct, but that doesn't help us understand if the people on forums are representative of the populations opinions or whether they aren't. That's just pure speculation.


Then it's a good thing the question wasn't "Is it fun" isn't it. Here allow me to requote for you since you missed it the first time:

"Goal: You and your group enjoy playing the game and would play it voluntarily.

Question: Did the game meet its goal? Why or why not?"

This is a good start, but the question is extremely broad, and gives a very binary answer. If they answer the second question then you have 1 million+ surveys to analyze peoples thoughts on.


And for the Nth time, this just isn't true. Or more accurately it's not a universal truth. Perhaps a combat system that you would enjoy can not be made up on the spot, but you are not everyone.

If you make a combat system up on the spot you can't tell if it does what is intended. You are just as likely to get a completely random result as get what you want.


And yet you are happy to dismiss the RP heavy playstyle as "unimportant" and "easy to make up"

Another poster already answered this one.


I will give you that people can be wrong. To further explain my point, have you even thought that the data WotC determined as good to them, is not data you agree with? Just because you think its not good data, doesn't have anything to do with what WoTC determined to be good data.

We've proven the methodology they used to gather data was flawed so any information they have is also flawed. It doesn't matter if we agree with their conclusions or not. Its simply that the data is inaccurate.


Hmmm ok, with that definition of Modular, it sounds alot like you want 3e GURPS, where every genre book provided methods to play it in various styles... ex) Horror - types presented: Modern day, Victorian England, Slasher film, Atomic (godzilla/aliens). Am I understanding this correctly? Because if so, I do not see anything in 5e that prevents this. Its already there. No modifications needed. Using Loki's idea of beefing HP could work as an example. (I will never do this, because it takes the lethality out of combat), but for his style, its seems to be a viable option.

Or we could take a basic simple stripped down D&D and build the type of D&D we want instead of having to use a completely different system like GURPS (Generic Universal Role Playing System) to do it. For instance the stats in GURPS doesn't match D&D. Neither does the attack or damage rolls.


If that's all he needs to do, then why do you need 6 different systems? Based on your comment about changing math, and math being the basis of the game (or maybe that was Loki), wouldn't that give you essentially 6 different systems/games instead of one that can be molded as you need? I believe that would be extremely expensive to produce. And is probably why they elected not to go this route.

I've shown in other posts and thread and forums why this is incorrect. I myself almost designed a modular D&D system in those posts. While it might not be the best or even the only way to do it, I proved it can actually be done and be done cheaply.


IMHO, nothing you have presented thus far cannot be reproduced with the test packet. The reason this is, is because the system is so basic and simple. You add a tweak here, bumb an ability there, and presto... you have what you want. You are welcome to prove me wrong. But instead of throwing math in my face, why don't you get several friends together, and play a game. Do whatever tweaking you want to the packet, and make an adventure up instead of using a module. Then you aren't constrained by terrible authors writing drivel modules. Let me know how it went.

I've already done that. It has a thread of its own here. As far as 'tweaking' the system to meet my requirements, we've been over this. I'd have to rewrite half the game, and that's the only reason I buy TTRPG material in the first place, so I don't have to create it from scratch myself.

In my view house rules and tweaks should only be made to change how the game feels for story and RP reasons. It should never be to fix the underlying system or math. That's the developers jobs.


Useful information gained: The system I designed is not fun. Design a different system.

Yes, but I think we can narrow that down to a slightly more useful set of questions. The question above means they might go through 6 billion systems before they blindly stumble upon the best one. Using the right questions we can narrow that down to 10-20.


Combat system on the fly:

2d6 to hit.
1d6 plus armor to defend (armor rated between 1 and 6]
Damage inflicted - 1 wound
Player group Wound totals: Fighters - 6, Clerics - 5, Rogues - 4, Wizards - 3
Spell Mechanic:
Cast spell - if resistable, roll 1d6. 6 resists spell.
if not resistable, resolve as described.
If healing - Heals broken into three categories, 1 wound, 2 wound or 3 wound healing.

Combat system complete.

Average roll on attack 7. Average armor defense 6.5. This system has a slightly over 50% chance of success for each attack. Wizards go down in 3 successful hits meaning you have no more than 5-7 combat rounds per day, hope your DMs keep within that range. Spells have a 16.6% chance of success and deal the same damage as attacks. Attacks are always more effective. You don't define the amount of healing given. So unlimited healing means no danger. In non-math terminology:

Fighter player "I always drop the bad, guys."
Wizard Player "I keep going down and I can't drop any enemies. This is no fun."
Healer Player "I would be having fun if I didn't have spam healing on the Wizard and Rogue all the time."
Rogue Player "I'm squishy. I keep dying almost as much as the Wizard."
DM "Shut up. I'm a tin god!"


The size of the company has no relevance to a products profitability. Either you made more money than you spent to make it, or you didn't. This is simple economics.

Yes the product was profitable as 5E will likely to be. As in more money was brought in than was spent. However 5E like 4E and 3E and all the editions before it will likely not meet the profit goals that Hasbro has set out.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-02, 11:40 PM
We've proven the methodology they used to gather data was flawed so any information they have is also flawed. It doesn't matter if we agree with their conclusions or not. Its simply that the data is inaccurate.

This was not intended for you. But your comments as always are appreciated.




Or we could take a basic simple stripped down D&D and build the type of D&D we want instead of having to use a completely different system like GURPS (Generic Universal Role Playing System) to do it. For instance the stats in GURPS doesn't match D&D. Neither does the attack or damage rolls.

Pointing this out has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.




I've shown in other posts and thread and forums why this is incorrect. I myself almost designed a modular D&D system in those posts. While it might not be the best or even the only way to do it, I proved it can actually be done and be done cheaply.

You have shown what you would do to make the game acceptable to you. This does not, nor will it ever, reinforce your point.



Yes, but I think we can narrow that down to a slightly more useful set of questions. The question above means they might go through 6 billion systems before they blindly stumble upon the best one. Using the right questions we can narrow that down to 10-20.


You are correct. The subject matter is simply if "Was it Fun?" gets you any useful information. The answer is in fact yes. Is that information enough to work with? No. Your dissertation on "the right" questions has no bearing on the question "Was it Fun?" garner any useful information.



Average roll on attack 7. Average armor defense 6.5. This system has a slightly over 50% chance of success for each attack. Wizards go down in 3 successful hits meaning you have no more than 5-7 combat rounds per day, hope your DMs keep within that range. Spells have a 16.6% chance of success and deal the same damage as attacks. Attacks are always more effective. You don't define the amount of healing given. So unlimited healing means no danger. In non-math terminology:

Fighter player "I always drop the bad, guys."
Wizard Player "I keep going down and I can't drop any enemies. This is no fun."
Healer Player "I would be having fun if I didn't have spam healing on the Wizard and Rogue all the time."
Rogue Player "I'm squishy. I keep dying almost as much as the Wizard."
DM "Shut up. I'm a tin god!"


The viability, equality, or utility of the above mentioned combat system is not in question. The point of the provided combat system was to prove that a combat system can be made up on the fly. At no point was it indicated that it had to be good, or mathematically accurate.

The defined amount of healing is 1, 2 or 3. As is clearly stated. Please see my further post about combat system being only a method to determine if you inflict damage/effect, or you resist damage/effect.

Lokiare
2014-07-03, 08:40 PM
This was not intended for you. But your comments as always are appreciated.




Pointing this out has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.




You have shown what you would do to make the game acceptable to you. This does not, nor will it ever, reinforce your point.



You are correct. The subject matter is simply if "Was it Fun?" gets you any useful information. The answer is in fact yes. Is that information enough to work with? No. Your dissertation on "the right" questions has no bearing on the question "Was it Fun?" garner any useful information.



The viability, equality, or utility of the above mentioned combat system is not in question. The point of the provided combat system was to prove that a combat system can be made up on the fly. At no point was it indicated that it had to be good, or mathematically accurate.

The defined amount of healing is 1, 2 or 3. As is clearly stated. Please see my further post about combat system being only a method to determine if you inflict damage/effect, or you resist damage/effect.

This entire post missed the original point of the questions asked. The original thoughts were about the polling methods and how effective they were at gauging the response of the general public. We proved it did not do that.

I've proven that a game could be made that would allow all play styles, one of their main goals right up until release. It not only meets my standards it meets everyone's standards for play style (it may not be pretty but does what it says it will). It does this by replacing the keywords with whatever mechanic allows you to play with your play style. If you like quick and deadly you can replace conditions with instant save or die effects. If you like strategy and tactics you can replace it with 2-3 saves before dying.

Whether the game was fun or not doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter if you technically answered the question correctly. The original thought was whether "is it fun?" is enough information to design a good game. It is not. It might be useful information, but it is not enough to design a good game under the same constraints WotC is under (limited budget, limited person hours, etc...etc...).

The whole point of the instant combat system was whether you could make something "fun" up in just a few minutes. You clearly didn't because the players would complain based on the outcomes.

Chaosvii7
2014-07-03, 09:31 PM
The whole point of the instant combat system was whether you could make something "fun" up in just a few minutes. You clearly didn't because the players would complain based on the outcomes.

...No it wasn't?

I hate to argue semantics here, but all he had to do was make a combat system. There was no discussion of having to make it fun.

And it's probably worth making it clear that no game has to be fun. Being fun is not an actual criteria of a game - a game is a constructed activity. Any constructed activity. Hell, real war is as much of a game as Hopscotch is.

Hopscotch is a game in which you're trying to reach the greatest distance in a well-time rhythmic hop, and messing up means you have to stop where you land. War is a brutal and long display of Human nature as we slog to fight off an enemy for different social, political, and ideological beliefs that clash with ourselves and that of several others.

Hopscotch displays strength(the length of time one can sustain the hopping pattern), skill(calculating the distance they have to travel travel to be able to land in every square), and luck(being able to do both of those things on any given day). Would anyone like to argue that War doesn't follow any of the three paradigms of hopscotch(strength, luck, skill)?

Now quick poll; Who thinks hopscotch is fun? Who thinks war is fun? Do you think both are fun? Feel free to comment your opinions below.

Lokiare
2014-07-03, 10:13 PM
...No it wasn't?

I hate to argue semantics here, but all he had to do was make a combat system. There was no discussion of having to make it fun.

And it's probably worth making it clear that no game has to be fun. Being fun is not an actual criteria of a game - a game is a constructed activity. Any constructed activity. Hell, real war is as much of a game as Hopscotch is.

Hopscotch is a game in which you're trying to reach the greatest distance in a well-time rhythmic hop, and messing up means you have to stop where you land. War is a brutal and long display of Human nature as we slog to fight off an enemy for different social, political, and ideological beliefs that clash with ourselves and that of several others.

Hopscotch displays strength(the length of time one can sustain the hopping pattern), skill(calculating the distance they have to travel travel to be able to land in every square), and luck(being able to do both of those things on any given day). Would anyone like to argue that War doesn't follow any of the three paradigms of hopscotch(strength, luck, skill)?

Now quick poll; Who thinks hopscotch is fun? Who thinks war is fun? Do you think both are fun? Feel free to comment your opinions below.

None of that matters. If the game isn't fun people won't play it. The only thing that was proved by that post is that someone on a forum can make up a combat system that is as fun as WotC best efforts in 5E, that's not really setting the bar high.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-03, 11:23 PM
It's amazing how much extra you read into things.

Teapot Salty
2014-07-03, 11:26 PM
A bit of a simple wish, and I'm not sure of quite how to elaborate it, but I want the balance of 4th, combined with the options of 3.5/pf. Though, I'm sure everyone does, even having 3.5, but also having the 4e maneuvers and the like.

Lokiare
2014-07-03, 11:29 PM
It's amazing how much extra you read into things.

Its amazing how many logical fallacies you use, but you don't hear me complaining...

Envyus
2014-07-03, 11:30 PM
Its amazing how many logical fallacies you use, but you don't hear me complaining...

Yes we do. Every post you make is pretty much you complaining.

Lokiare
2014-07-03, 11:32 PM
Yes we do. Every post you make is pretty much you complaining.

Every post by you is complaining about me complaining.

Envyus
2014-07-03, 11:35 PM
Every post by you is complaining about me complaining.

If you look around 5e forums you will see that's not true.

Lokiare
2014-07-03, 11:43 PM
If you look around 5e forums you will see that's not true.

If you look around the forums you'll see that what you said isn't true either.

Envyus
2014-07-03, 11:45 PM
If you look around the forums you'll see that what you said isn't true either.

I said pretty much all of your comments on the 5e fourm on complaints. Pretty much not all of them. You said all of my were complaints about yours which is not true at all.

Lokiare
2014-07-03, 11:46 PM
I said pretty much all of your comments on the 5e fourm on complaints. Pretty much not all of them. You said all of my were complaints about yours which is not true at all.

Neither is true. Attacking my posts will get you no where. I don't think like that.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-04, 11:08 AM
Its amazing how many logical fallacies you use, but you don't hear me complaining...

LOL I love when you pretend to be the smartest person in the room, capable of believing you understand what a person is posting simply by reading it. Here, let me enlighten you a little.

You're posts are a lot like an English teacher attempting to determine and teach others what a poem actually means. Instead of actually asking the author (who is the only one who knows what they were talking about entirely). You read meaning into sentences, completely ignore other sentences, and chime in to discussions thinking you actually know what the discussion is about.

You like to use language that only thinly veils the contempt you have for everyone who doesn't think the way you do, or support your views entirely. Which is completely fine. But it makes it extremely difficult to take anything you say as remotely accurate, honest, or informed. Your citations are flawed. Your logic is rigid and unyielding. Instead of giving someone else's point of view a chance, you are instead quicker to hunt down perceived flaws with a poster's statement simply because it may disagree with your defined point of view.

As this is the case, you can claim that I'm attacking you instead of attack your views. If so, please examine the paragraph just above this one. I am in fact, attacking your writing style. Your choice of topics to focus on. Your methods of explaining yourself. And you periodically argue for the sheer pleasure of arguing. See the above posts with Envyus as an example of high school one-up-manship, which produces nothing. Since nothing productive can be accomplished when you usurp domination of a conversation, I am recusing myself from interacting with you.

Thank you for your time though. I will continue to read your posts, as they provide no end of amusement for myself and my gaming group.