Quote from: Rum Cove;523722Please stop acting like a caricature so that an actual discussion may take place.

You are mistaking critical thinking with radicalism. One of my favorite games ever is Vampire the Masquerade, which pretty much came up with the Storytelling rhetoric. I am running Vampire the Requiem and NWoD games right now. What I am talking about is basically the equivalent of kicking one of my favorite games ever in the balls repeatedly, not because I like it, but because it's true.

Just because I am talking about something that seems ludicrous and that doesn't register on your radar for whatever reason that is your own and your own alone doesn't mean I am lunatic or insane. So I appreciate that you have some really cool advice for me that are not given in a condescending tone at all... but I'll manage from there, thank you very much. Feel free to skip my posts in the future.

And now, if you guys are done trying to pile up on me to tell me to shut the fuck up while keeping this controversy going on and on in the process, maybe we could try talking about D&D Next again.

Here's a column posted by Bruce Cordell about Complexity v. Ease of Play, when referring to the classes available in the game:

Quote from: Bruce CordellThe great thing about 4th Edition is that the character choices provide players with several options. Whether you play a wizard, an avenger, a bard, or a fighter, you can choose from a number of resources with varying costs on your turn—usually graded along the spectrum of abilities that can be used every round, once per encounter, and just once a day.

The 3rd Edition rules, building on the concept of non-weapon proficiencies from 2nd Edition, introduced hard-coded options into every character class via skills. Players with wizards and fighters alike chose skills during character creation, though usually they chose different ones. (Skill selection is, of course, also part of 4th Edition.)

1st Edition characters used a core set of rules and a matrix for determining the success of attacks and saving throws, but for the most part, characters of one class didn’t necessarily access their abilities like characters of another class. The game mechanics behind how a wizard cast spells were in no way similar to how well a thief could hide in shadows, for instance.

With that brief overview in mind, now consider how many options a given class has when compared to the complexity of other classes within the same edition. In other words, compare the complexity of a fighter with a ranger or a wizard.

For example, a 1st Edition fighter essentially chose a weapon and armor, and then was good to go. Compare that to a 1st Edition paladin, who could detect evil, had bonuses to saving throws, could lay on hands, cure disease, and so on. Then we have a 1st Edition rogue, who could draw upon a specific set of abilities described on a table to pick pockets, open locks, find/remove traps, and so on. Wizards and clerics could choose daily spells to prepare, while most other classes had only a few, if any, daily resources.

Ultimately, the philosophy on character complexity between older editions and 4E is starkly different—earlier editions gave some classes far fewer options than other classes. Such classes are generally regarded as easier to play, or from another point of view, more open to improvisation. On the other hand, 4th Edition classes are superbly and obviously balanced against each other, and though no class is easier to play than any other by a large margin, each class does provide every player with a robust list of choices for engaging with the game.

There's a poll after that.

Now. What do you guys think on that front? What do you want to see in Next?

This exchange reminds me of a difference in says between two languages, English & French. If I remember correctly it goes thus:

English (most notably in American English) - If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all.

French - If you don't have anything good to say, at least say it well.

There's a virtue to both.

Quote from: Benoist;523729Now. What do you guys think on that front? What do you want to see in Next?

I'm old school. I want to see a variety of class complexity. One of my biggest complaints about 4e was that it did not have any simple to play classes for people who were new or more interested in playing with their character than learning rules or being "awesome in combat".

The fighter was always a great choice for new players in TSR D&D. It was easy to play but still effective in play.  "I hit it with my sword" would work in combat and was usually pretty effective, yet the player still have lots of ways he could expand on that (and without knowing rules) if he wanted to.

Quote from: Benoist;523729There's a poll after that.

The polls are always horribly worded (like political referendums).  I think that my vote for "I want some classes to be more complicated than others" means that the majority of the classes should be easy/simple.

I think it is important that all classes should be designed and played differently (unlike early 4e).

I also hope that the poll results have little effect on the released version of 5e.

I hated the poll because I want varying complexity levels within each class yet I want the game and characters to be and play simply at the base. Also I would love it if each class or group of classes had their own unique resource management scheme.

Quote from: Benoist;523729Now. What do you guys think on that front? What do you want to see in Next?

I want to play a game because the rules work and I have fun with it, not because it is the next big corporate thing or the one game meant to unite us.

Quote from: jeff37923;523742I want to play a game because the rules work and I have fun with it, not because it is the next big corporate thing or the one game meant to unite us.

Well those desires are a given for me to even consider the game as a choice for me and my friends to play long-term. I'm a game whore, I will try ANYTHING once, seriously.

Quote from: RandallS;523735I'm old school. I want to see a variety of class complexity. One of my biggest complaints about 4e was that it did not have any simple to play classes for people who were new or more interested in playing with their character than learning rules or being "awesome in combat".

The fighter was always a great choice for new players in TSR D&D. It was easy to play but still effective in play.  "I hit it with my sword" would work in combat and was usually pretty effective, yet the player still have lots of ways he could expand on that (and without knowing rules) if he wanted to.

The equivalent easy to play melee class in the original Heinsoo 4E, would have been the ranger in the 4E PHB1.  Just twin-strike everything.

Later there was the slayer (fighter subclass) in 4E Essentials, which more resembled the traditional fighter classes in previous editions.


The easiest spellcaster class in 4E, would be the elementalist (sorcerer subclass) in the 4E splatbook "Player's Options:  Heroes of the Elemental Chaos".  It's basically a blaster class with no daily powers.  (Some utility powers are encounter powers).

Though unfortunately, the "Player's Options:  Heroes of the Elemental Chaos" book was released last month after 5E was already announced.  Basically too little too late.

Quote from: Benoist;523664You're arguing at something I did not say or imply.

If I am mistaken, I apologize.

QuoteI very much think so. It's a fact that the RPG Pundit is a consultant on the new edition of the game. Also a fact that Stuart Marshall, the editor in chief that gave us OSRIC, the first retroclone, the emulator of AD&D First Ed, has been consulted by WotC as well. It's also a fact that Rob Conley is a playtester of the new edition of the game.

And I think they have been chosen not because they argue with nobodies, but because of their gaming productions. The only one who has behaved like a fucking troll for years is the Pundit, and actually he has got this gig after he has gone down on the trolling and high on the publishing and creating value. Rob Conley is not someone who spends his time flaming people because of their game preferences. I insist: is not the flaming what caused that, in Pundit's case is a choice made despite the flames.

QuoteI think you're deluded if you think they are not interested at all. The spherical cows, the armchair theory that gave us the "fixes" of 4e was mostly prevalent on message boards like ENWorld. The wrong people were listened to, but some people were listened to nonetheless. And this is still going on now. Now take your head out of your ass for a moment and you'll see that WotC is very much concerned and very much paying attention.

I am not pretending that the trends on Internet discussions won't inform designer's choices, as the designers are active on Internet.

But again, this is not the place designers look for looking for ideas or trends. You arguing with Mark over this here is irrelevant. You should be arguing with the people involved in the places they are involved.

Actually, it is highly probable that people going ballistic every time the word "story" appears could be actually preventing the people who is in charge of the project from paying any attention to this place.

QuoteWho's to say I'm only talking about the game here on these boards? I talk about it in different ways on different venues, and I'm involved in the game in different fashions, not just when it comes to debates like this on the RPG Site alone. I think you're victim of tunnel vision here.

Again, I may be wrong and I apologize if that's the case. I can only have an opinion about what I see, and my time for browsing messageboards is limited.

QuoteNone of those things are mutually exclusive. I can have debates with people and share stuff on the web. We each contribute to the game in different ways. Just because one of them turns your panties in a twist doesn't mean that's all they do or that it's the end of the fucking world. Get over yourself.

Certainly, and you are right. But I'd like to see more of the latter and less of the former HERE, apart from other places.

Look, Ben, I'm saying this to you not because I want to shut you up, but because I think you are a great guy and I see this kind of stuff as very well below your worth. Simply that. I have played in your Ptolus game and it was amazing, and I think that every iota of energy you waste arguing about what story means and why is such a big deal is an iota of energy you don't put in something that will enrich more our hobby.

Of course is your energy and your time and I am no one to tell you how to spend them, but again, I tell you because I like you. otherwise, I would not say a word because I wouldn't give a fuck.

QuoteI'm sorry if that hurts your sensibilities, that you don't like seeing people not being nice to each other, that you would like everything to be sun and roses and people singing kumbaya in the Sound of Music, but the reality is that game designers are creating games that are meant to be used by people for their own entertainment. Without feedback, a company can make grave mistakes of marketing and design. With feedback, these mistakes may be avoided.

It's not about people being nice, is about people being useful. I have a thick skin and I'm not losing sleep if soemone who I don't know calls me a cunt.

QuoteActually, you are flat-out wrong on this one. [snip

]
Even if you are right (and I'm willing to concede you this point as I don't knwo about OSRIC's genesis), the discussions created nothing. The people started creating stuff once they stopped bitching. You make a relation between those things that I am not sure that exists, though again, I admit that I wasn't here and I'm willing to take your word on that.

Quote from: One Horse Town;523710While essentially true, the more i see it posted the more i think its basically a polite way of trying to shut people up.

It's kinda equivalent to telling someone who doesn't like an aspect of a game that they can ignore it or make up their own shit. Again, essentially correct, but missing the point.

As I explained previously, that is not my intent.

Quote from: misterguignol;523719theRPGsite, the only site where "Hey, I agree with you" is met with "FUUUUUCK YOOOUUU!!!"

Quote from: Marleycat;523751Well those desires are a given for me to even consider the game as a choice for me and my friends to play long-term. I'm a game whore, I will try ANYTHING once, seriously.

Whores are the best in any aspect of life

Quote from: Imperator;523624If D&D 5e has a conflict resolution system based on flinging feces and jizzing all over the GM you just have to ignore it, get your AD&D books and set up a D&D game on your merry way.

I honestly could not find this option on any of the polls.

Quote from: Imperator;523790If I am mistaken, I apologize.

Hey, it's cool. It's okay to argue between friends.

Contrarily to popular belief, I kind of have an idea who's here to try to help and who isn't.

Quote from: Imperator;523790And I think they have been chosen not because they argue with nobodies, but because of their gaming productions. The only one who has behaved like a fucking troll for years is the Pundit, and actually he has got this gig after he has gone down on the trolling and high on the publishing and creating value. Rob Conley is not someone who spends his time flaming people because of their game preferences. I insist: is not the flaming what caused that, in Pundit's case is a choice made despite the flames.

I think a guy like the Pundit has been chosen because he represents an alternative to the echo chambers of RPGnet and ENWorld, and that's a good thing.

But that's beside the point. The point is that I'm not spending the entirety of my time trolling about "story". That's your tunnel vision right there.

Quote from: Imperator;523790I am not pretending that the trends on Internet discussions won't inform designer's choices, as the designers are active on Internet.

But again, this is not the place designers look for looking for ideas or trends.

You don't know that. I have no way to prove it one way or the other, but I just think you are wrong. And if WotC isn't listening, others are. Some others who have opened their mouth on this thread here and basically showed they understood what I'm talking about. Which tells me I'm not necessarily preaching in the desert. That's good enough for me.

Quote from: Imperator;523790You arguing with Mark over this here is irrelevant. You should be arguing with the people involved in the places they are involved.

Actually, it is highly probable that people going ballistic every time the word "story" appears could be actually preventing the people who is in charge of the project from paying any attention to this place.

I don't think so either. If you are that worried about this sort of thing in the first place, I would then encourage you to not go on with something like this for pages upon pages trying to tell me how wrong I am and how time would be better spent talking about something else - because I'm not the one doing that right now. You are. So if you guys would let me place my thing, then move on, these things would be far shorter and wouldn't have to go into convoluted back-and-forths all the time.

Quote from: Imperator;523790Certainly, and you are right. But I'd like to see more of the latter and less of the former HERE, apart from other places.

Look, Ben, I'm saying this to you not because I want to shut you up, but because I think you are a great guy and I see this kind of stuff as very well below your worth. Simply that. I have played in your Ptolus game and it was amazing, and I think that every iota of energy you waste arguing about what story means and why is such a big deal is an iota of energy you don't put in something that will enrich more our hobby.

The AD&D Ptolus game will reopen once I'm done with a bunch of stuff on my plate, like the D&D Next playtests. So it's going to take some time, but it'll happen eventually.

Quote from: Imperator;523790Of course is your energy and your time and I am no one to tell you how to spend them, but again, I tell you because I like you. otherwise, I would not say a word because I wouldn't give a fuck.

I do get that.

Now setting aside the rest of the "debate", there are a bunch of things I need to point out here:

(1) arguing over the meaning of "story" is not the only thing I do,

(2) that said, I've had time for these posts here in part because I've been suffering from a cold that's been paralyzing me for the last few days; it's far easier to discuss about stuff like this rather than try to solve puzzles making sense of my notes in that state,

(3) you'll notice that my exchange with Marleycat had found a reasonable conclusion until you guys relaunched the whole thing for another round, so it's not like I'm the one wearing the whole weight of seeing these types of conversations going on and on over pages and pages of threads like this. If you want to move on, then fucking move on - don't try to rewind the conversation once a formal agreement has been reached: that accomplishes nothing, and that keeps what troubles you going needlessly.

That's it. Now let's carry on the conversation about D&D Next.

Quote from: Benoist;523801Hey, it's cool. It's okay to argue between friends. [snip]

If you are that worried about this sort of thing in the first place, I would then encourage you to not go on with something like this for pages upon pages trying to tell me how wrong I am and how time would be better spent talking about something else - because I'm not the one doing that right now. You are. So if you guys would let me place my thing, then move on, these things would be far shorter and wouldn't have to go into convoluted back-and-forths all the time.

You are right on this, so as I have made my point I have nothing else to add :hatsoff:

Quote from: Imperator;523790If I am mistaken, I apologize.


And I think they have been chosen not because they argue with nobodies, but because of their gaming productions. The only one who has behaved like a fucking troll for years is the Pundit, and actually he has got this gig after he has gone down on the trolling and high on the publishing and creating value. Rob Conley is not someone who spends his time flaming people because of their game preferences. I insist: is not the flaming what caused that, in Pundit's case is a choice made despite the flames.

Or you know, it could be because Mike Mearls was a regular reader and commenter on my blog years before he became an employee of Wizards of the Coast; and because the "name" I've made for myself is as a person who gets heard a lot (regardless of whether I'm agreed with or not), have always had important insights on the rpg hobby and games, am the owner of one of the largest RPG-discussion forums on the internet, and Totally Called it on 4e.

RPGPundit

It was made pretty clear to me that I was asked to come aboard BECAUSE I'm the Pundit, not in spite of it.  That is, they hired me to be the RPGPundit and use the same critical (and brutal) eye that I've always used on rpgs, for the development of 5e.

RPGPundit