So with the playtest heading into the home stretch, Mearls' summary of the feedback gives me a lot of reason for optimism.

The Final Countdown

So, what did we learn from the public playtest? In some cases you confirmed things, in others you dispelled some notions that had become lodged in R&D's view of you.

• You like simplicity. You want to jump into the game quickly, create characters, monsters, NPCs, and adventures with a minimum of fuss, and get down to the business of playing D&D.
• You like that every class has the potential to contribute in most situations, but you're OK with some classes being better at certain things if that fits the class's image. You see balance on a larger, adventure-based or campaign-based scale.
• You want rules that make it easy to build adventures and encounters. You want to think about the story or your setting's details, rather than fiddle with math.
• You value flexibility in rules. You prefer an ability or a rule that's easy to adapt or that leaves space for creative applications, rather than rigidly defined abilities.
• You aren't edition warriors. You want the game to support a variety play styles in equal measure. You're not attached to any specific ways of doing things as long as the game works.

[/I]

I know there are some grognards who are fiercely opposed to pretty much any mechanical changes from D&D circa 1980. Safe to say WotC has written them off. But for someone who wants to play an old-school style game, who is open to modern mechanics, it looks like WotC has me square in its sites as the market for Next.

Of course, the proof is in the pudding. There have been some head-scratchers in the playtests. And I frankly think they're still clinging to too many sacred cows. But it's starting to look like I'll be buying more than just a core book or two for a new edition of D&D to mine for ideas; I might actually become a fan of the in-print system. And that's a weird feeling.

I for one am annoyed at this new "thing" to try to sell some game not on its own merits, as the modern game it is, but instead by appealing to what it isn't by using phrases like "it's in the style of the old school." That phrase is at the level of "love letter to D&D" for me now. As soon as I see it, I just know it's anything but what I might construe as "old school".

This list here reads to me like a checklist of what Mearls thinks WotC costumers want to hear.

Quote from: Haffrung;682976I know there are some grognards who are fiercely opposed to pretty much any mechanical changes from D&D circa 1980. Safe to say WotC has written them off.

Same with the 4vengers, or 3etards, I'm guessing.  Next isn't a direct clone of any one edition.  The key is does it allow you to play the style you want?

QuoteBut for someone who wants to play an old-school style game, who is open to modern mechanics, it looks like WotC has me square in its sites as the market for Next.

Same here.  I'm not adverse to new games.  I did not like the system mastery and overly complex character building in 3e.  I did not like the Japanimation take over in 4e (where every character has uber powers and hp bloat ranges into the hundreds or even thousands of points).  I use Japanimation because it's like they took D&D and emulated it after JRPGs in that regard.  I'm also not a fan of pretty much requiring a grid to play

QuoteOf course, the proof is in the pudding.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating

Quote from: Benoist;682978I for one am annoyed at this new "thing" to try to sell some game not on its own merits, as the modern game it is, but instead to appeal to what it isn't by using phrases like "it's in the style of the old school." That phrase is at the level of "love letter to D&D" for me now. As soon as I see it, I just know it's anything but what I might construe as "old school".

To be fair, I don't think the WoTC team is pandering the product as "it's in the style of the old school."

I think those phrases are coming from 4vengers who keep saying that since it's not a 4e clone, clearly it's pandering to old school players.

And I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock into those claims.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;682980To be fair, I don't think the WoTC team is pandering the product as "it's in the style of the old school."

I think those phrases are coming from 4vengers who keep saying that since it's not a 4e clone, clearly it's pandering to old school players.

And I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock into those claims.

Yeah, I haven't heard Mearls or anyone at WotC using the term 'old-school' or otherwise pandering to any kind of trend. I think they sat down and honestly assessed where they may have gone astray with 4E, and made a genuine effort to find out what the core elements of D&D were to the broad, diverse player-base. It turns out (as many of us had long suspected) that the crunch-loving char op and hardcore system-balance wankers were in fact a vocal minority of the player base, and catering to their desires was corroding the appeal of the game to the larger, more casual market. And whatever the merits of Next as a system when it's finally published, I for one will be glad that the flagship game of the hobby will be a more accessible game than the last two editions.

I will reserve judgment when I see the final rules and the terms of third party licensing (if any). Right now I am cautiously optimistic.

However I feel D&D Next's potential downfall will not be in the rules but in the presentation of the product line. I think it will be all right if they do what they have been doing in the playtest adventures. Some new style, some old style (i.e. the conversions), and stuff in-between.

Right now my guess is that the final results will allow for more customization than classic D&D but less than 3e. It will have some tactical options but less than 3e or 4e. That their primary pitch that it will quick to get going in the style you prefer. Which takes aim at Pathfinder's 3e heritage.

So, how is this game coming along? I haven't been paying attention in a while. Is it close to publication, and can we see an emerging picture of how the final form will look like, or is it still just prototype stuff?

Sound good to me.


Of course I've been saying that for so long my tongue is about to fall out.

I'm guessing this means we're probably looking at Gencon '14?

Quote from: Melan;682999So, how is this game coming along? I haven't been paying attention in a while. Is it close to publication, and can we see an emerging picture of how the final form will look like, or is it still just prototype stuff?

I think the feel and atmosphere are pretty much set, but now they are going and looking for broken exploits or builds.  So I expect some of that to change.

Just my opinion mind you, but from what I've seen and played, I see support for the following styles of play:

Simpler:
*Warrior fighter (not a lot of extra abilities, but overall combat effectiveness increases.  Things like increasing crit hits to a 19 or 18 instead of just 20
* attribute increases instead of feats

Complex:
*Gladiator fighter (several maneuvers and abilities that can be used in combat, like trip, ringing the bell, etc)
* use feats instead of attribute increases


Is it as complex as 4e's powers, or 3e's char op?  No, but then again, it isn't nearly as simple as B/X either.  I call it the 80% rule.  80% of simplicity or complexity can be replicated in Next

Quote from: Melan;682999So, how is this game coming along? I haven't been paying attention in a while. Is it close to publication, and can we see an emerging picture of how the final form will look like, or is it still just prototype stuff?

I forgot when they released the higher level stuff but it been a playable version of D&D for a while. The biggest "issue" is that they veer between various tweaks.

I don't consider it much of an issue because it is a playtest of a game and I am assuming they are trying things out. Despite the bitching and moaning, it not like they ditched whole sections of the game. Keep of the Borderlands and other older conversion are still in the packet as well as newer style modules including Murder in Baldur Gate.

I think the final result will be a game tolerable to classic edition gamers but there won't be wholesale adoption of it. But there will be a "common" grounds of sorts to had at game stores and convention event. And I feel some D&D Next products will be directly useful to classic edition campaign.

I lost interest because my main interest is whether I can publish for it. At this point it seems that the fundamentals are pretty much there so the next step for me is to see what kind of third party license they use (if any) and what the final details look like.

I am feeling that it going to be a lot like the Mongoose Traveller playtest. There was a lot of bitching through the playtest particularly over the combat rules. And when they released the final product much of the playtest document was in it but much of it was revamped particularly combat. And it was much better than I expected aside from Mongoose's issues with the pricing and physical presentation of their product. And Mongoose Traveller has continued to be well received.

Quote from: Benoist;682978I for one am annoyed at this new "thing" to try to sell some game not on its own merits, as the modern game it is, but instead by appealing to what it isn't by using phrases like "it's in the style of the old school." That phrase is at the level of "love letter to D&D" for me now. As soon as I see it, I just know it's anything but what I might construe as "old school".

The only mention of "old school style" was from Haffrung's commentary at the end of his post, not from Mearls.  Did you think it was Mearls saying that?

QuoteThis list here reads to me like a checklist of what Mearls thinks WotC costumers want to hear.

Fuck, I hope so! Him saying the game will be what customers want it to be is a good thing.  That's about the biggest "feature, not bug" there is.  Are you implying it was a negative?

I think the list is more what Mearls really hopes is true. Some of it may well be true, and some of it different degrees of wishful thinking.  But as a mission statement, its a promising starting point.

RPGPundit

Yeah, another cautiously optimistic poster here.

If you can choose between complex and simple characters and they're actually roughly equal, that's good.

If they're putting "class balance" on the scenario/campaign level rather than the itty-bitty details level that is also good.

I still think D&D is two games:

1) a character build game where character power is important
2) a story-telling adventure game (not in the same sense as a story game)

Games 1 and 2 are ever in conflict as flexibility makes #2 work much better whereas you really need rigidity to be able to flawlessly analyze a build.

I feel like the statements are a little vague, like a cold-reading or a horoscope or a campaign speech. Generic enough to sound applicable to almost everyone's beliefs without actually offering a concrete plan. I dunno. It seems to me that someone has to be disappointed and I wish he'd come out and say who he expects will or won't be. This is one of those times where it might actually be good to dictate a little.