Quote from: Black Vulmea;524890Yeah, I like roleplaying games because they're not videogames or conch-passing or fanwank.

Ditto.

RPGPundit

Here's the latest little snippet about 5e make of it what you will.....

Re: PAX East D&DN Playtest and Seminar
From a list of Twitter stuff post-seminar. As pulled from ENWorld:

Campaign settings as modules that can alter core rules.
Grids and minis optional in the core.
Will not let the wizard overpower martial classes.
About 20% done and on 4th iteration of DND Next.
Perception will be an ability check.
Focus on non-combat roles and abilities returning.
Giving more power back to the DM.
Unusual classes may be better as option for core classes.
Bringing back step-by-step adventure creation instructions.
Focus on shorter games.
Skill challenges not in core.
No info on public playtest date.

Quote from: Marleycat;528220Skill challenges not in core.

Thank heavens. To quote the black adder series "skill challenges were like fitting wheels to a tomato: time consuming and completely unnecessary". There was no need to include a minigame like that at all.

Personally I'm intrigued by #1. If they do something in the vein of FantasyCraft's campaign qualities (sanctioned houserules that alter settings either at the start of the start of the campaign or even on the micro level, such as individual scenes if appropriate). I would be one happy kitty. #8 sounds like kits are back.

Quote from: Marleycat;528220Will not let the wizard overpower martial classes.

Wonder how exactly they will do this.

I am interested to see how they are going to redesign the skills subsystem.  I am in favor of a return of the Craft and Profession skills.

Quote from: Marleycat;528220Will not let the wizard overpower martial classes.

:banghead:

Show of hands: how many people who played the GDQ series felt like their fighters were outclassed by the magic-users?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;528265:banghead:

Show of hands: how many people who played the GDQ series felt like their fighters were outclassed by the magic-users?

Then don't be a fighter.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;528265:banghead:

Show of hands: how many people who played the GDQ series felt like their fighters were outclassed by the magic-users?

I've ran this series (often except for Q) several times over the years and I can't remember ANY player complaining that their fighter (or fighting classes in general) were outclassed by magic-users. In fact, the fighters were thanking their lucky stars for their great saving throws and their "only usable by fighters" combat-oriented magic items.

Fighters simply were not outclassed by magic-users in the 0e/1e era until very high levels of play (say 14+) which were seldom reached in non-Monty Haul campaigns.

The super-magic-user problem is really only a major issue in the WOTC era because WOTC D&D eliminated most of the checks and balances on MUs that TST D&D had.

D&D Next Design ConsiderationsLegends and LoreMike Mearls
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I 'd like to share with you a draft of the earliest documents I put together to help shape the new iteration of D&D. I distributed this document to the D&D team about a year ago. It lays out the case for the basic approach we should take with the RPG. It's not long, but I felt that if I had to write a convoluted document to make my case, it wasn't a case worth making.

Over the course of a long design period, it's easy to lose track of the fundamental purpose behind the entire project. Note that this document doesn't mention any specific rules, mechanics, settings, or so forth. The idea is to lay down a short list of inviolate design principles to get things rolling. None of the points below surprised anyone on the R&D team. We had been talking about them for quite a while. If anything, this document put down in writing a set of goals that had been forming in the team for some time.

D&D Design Overview
This document outlines the design directives behind the process of revising D&D. It lays out the goals and expected results of the design process.

Goal #1: Reunification through Common Understanding
As part of the design process, the R&D team must boil down the RPG into its most basic component parts. Using those rules elements, the team must then build an easy to understand game system that incorporates the most iconic elements of D&D in prominent roles. Anyone who has ever played any version of D&D must recognize and understand its most important elements.

Goal #2: Reunification through Diversity
Traditionally, D&D editions have focused on specific play styles. This approach has fragmented the community over time. The next iteration must stretch the system to cover a wider variety of play styles through character and DM options. By looking at past editions and incorporating their elements as core or optional rules, we can allow players and groups to place the focus where they want it.

Goal #3: Reunification through Accessibility
D&D has traditionally required large amounts of time, a large play group, and a sustained commitment. The design process must focus on play time, group size, speed of play, and length of campaigns, with an eye toward reducing the minimum required from each area. Players who want a longer play time and so forth can easily scale up the game to meet their needs and opt into the various rules modules we'll provide or that they'll build themselves. However, our standard goal is to remove minimum group sizes, allow for a complete adventure in one hour of play, and satisfying campaigns in 50 hours of play.

Game Design
The new system must create a mechanical and mathematical framework that the play experience of all editions of D&D can rest within. One player can create a 4th-Edition style character while another can build a 1st-Edition one. Complexity and individual experiences rest in the players' hands. That experience is more important than the specifics of the math. In other words, if the math works but the game doesn't feel like D&D, we've failed. If the system is sound, but it can't replicate D&D's classic adventures or seamlessly support any of D&D's settings, it isn't the right system for D&D.

More importantly, we must look beyond the mechanics of the game to focus on the archetypes, literary tropes, and cultural elements that built D&D. We must build a fighter that resonates as a warrior, not one simply cobbled together with mechanics pilfered from D&D's past. The key game experience of D&D lies at the game table. Our work must start by focusing on the key elements of D&D and the unique traits of a tabletop RPG. The mechanics must support those two factors, not the other way around.

Wrapping Up
Hopefully, this document helps give you some insight into the thinking behind our goals. When you feel that you know a game very well, it's easy to get lost in the details of what makes it work. One of our aims for the next iteration is to call into question everything that R&D thought it knew about what makes D&D tick. The document above, along with a lot of the other work we've done over the past year or so, is all part of the process of hitting the reset button on our understanding of D&D.

That reset ties back into our playtesting efforts. In going back to basics, it's important for us to remember that D&D is a game played by a huge number of people. We're not trying to reinvent D&D so much as rediscover it. Doing that means we need to take into account the entire, diverse range of people who enjoy the game.



Laudable goals lets hope they can pull it off.

"In other words, if the math works but the game doesn't feel like D&D, we've failed."

Heh.

QuoteHowever, our standard goal is to remove minimum group sizes, allow for a complete adventure in one hour of play, and satisfying campaigns in 50 hours of play.

WTF?
I agree with simplifying the game to run smoother, but in one hour of play?
It's an RPG, not a game of Magic.

That said, yeah, I probably can't sacrifice 10-12 hours on a weekend to play anymore, so shortening it down to 4-5 hours is nice; but 1 hour?!?

Quote from: Novastar;528460WTF?
I agree with simplifying the game to run smoother, but in one hour of play?
It's an RPG, not a game of Magic.

That said, yeah, I probably can't sacrifice 10-12 hours on a weekend to play anymore, so shortening it down to 4-5 hours is nice; but 1 hour?!?

Hmmm ... 1 hour adventures?

Wonder if Mearls et al have been watching too many CSI or Law & Order reruns.  :rolleyes:

(ie.  Cases or adventures being solved/finished in a 45 minutes tv episode.  Comb through evidence, witnesses, etc ... case closed).

Quote from: Novastar;528460WTF?
I agree with simplifying the game to run smoother, but in one hour of play?
It's an RPG, not a game of Magic.

That said, yeah, I probably can't sacrifice 10-12 hours on a weekend to play anymore, so shortening it down to 4-5 hours is nice; but 1 hour?!?

Well I kind of see it as if that is the base it is very easy to expand to longer time blocks unlike say having a complex system that absolutely requires 4 hours just to get through a session and any shorter being useless.

I think the 1-hour adventure game may happen with a very specific set of players and DM.

However, and that's the good news IMO: it does not matter whether they succeed or fail at reaching that particular benchmark. It's enough for them to have this in mind and try to reach it so that the game plays as simply as it can under specific circumstances. It's a good design goal, whether it works or not as wished in practice.