After the furor caused by the most recent WotC article about the five-minute workday, I'm at a loss at how WotC will create a system that can satisfy them.  The current screaming whinefest is that everyone needs the same power schedule or the game is ROONED FOREVAR.  People who like D&D have tried explaining solutions to this (random encounters, playing monsters intelligently, assuming a reactive environment, introduction of spellcasting timers, making spells more difficult to cast in the middle of combat, etc.) but to no avail.  Unfortunately, it turns out that people who hate D&D aren't interested in playing D&D.  They want a game that has the D&D label but doesn't play anything like D&D.

So fuck 'em.  I'd like a D&D that feels and plays like D&D.  They can stick with 4e.

Damn right.

Quote from: Azure Lord;561030After the furor caused by the most recent WotC article about the five-minute workday, I'm at a loss at how WotC will create a system that can satisfy them.  The current screaming whinefest is that everyone needs the same power schedule or the game is ROONED FOREVAR.  People who like D&D have tried explaining solutions to this (random encounters, playing monsters intelligently, assuming a reactive environment, introduction of spellcasting timers, making spells more difficult to cast in the middle of combat, etc.) but to no avail.  Unfortunately, it turns out that people who hate D&D aren't interested in playing D&D.  They want a game that has the D&D label but doesn't play anything like D&D.

So fuck 'em.  I'd like a D&D that feels and plays like D&D.  They can stick with 4e.

I read the article with interest. I am glad they finally seem to understand that many of use don't need characters to all be in sinc in the course of an adventuring. I was pleased to see mearls say its okay for the wizard to have his moments and stomp through some early encounters. On the other hand I hope they are not going in the direction of structuring the game aorund x number of encounters per day. This really is just as bad as class parity for me because it is still about rationing power and fun in a highly controlled way. I want my adventures to be varied. I really hated the encounter first design promoted during late 3e (i.e. Build the adventure around set encounters).

Ayup. For WOTC, the time has come to shit or get off the pot. Make D&D yes, or make D&D no.

Either way a part of the player base will not want it.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;561034I read the article with interest. I am glad they finally seem to understand that many of use don't need characters to all be in sinc in the course of an adventuring.

I'm quoting your full statement because I want to note both areas where I agree and disagree.  This is an area in which I agree - it's not necessary that everyone have the same 'power refresh rate', or even that everyone have the same power.  I'll point out that if the Barbarian is able to hit a single opponent for 30 damage and the wizard is able to hit five opponents for 10 damage each, those are different types of power that have different types of uses - there are advantages and disadvantages to each.  

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;561034I was pleased to see mearls say its okay for the wizard to have his moments and stomp through some early encounters. On the other hand I hope they are not going in the direction of structuring the game aorund x number of encounters per day.

I also hope they don't try to assume x number of encounters per day.  Even if they have the intention for that, it's not enforceable.  If the wizard has an ability that allows them to 'win' an early encounter, but they don't have that ability again that day, they have an incentive to stop adventuring that day and wait until they can use that power again to 'win' the next encounter.  Encouraging other players to 'keep adventuring' without their wizard's contribution is possible - but so far such a system doesn't exist.  For example, someone suggested that the XP for each encounter could be increased depending on the number of encounters you have - for example, the first encounter is worth 1x XP, the 2nd is 2x, the third 3x, etc.  

Thus, if you want to advance in levels, you're encouraged to find and defeat as many enemies per day...  

But without such a system, if the PCs can wait, they will.  Lots of adventures might not have a 'time-limit'.  If you're breaking into a tomb guarded by undead that has been sealed for a thousand years, there's no real reason to 'rush' unless the undead can escape and wreak havoc in a nearby town, for instance.  

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;561034This really is just as bad as class parity for me because it is still about rationing power and fun in a highly controlled way. I want my adventures to be varied. I really hated the encounter first design promoted during late 3e (i.e. Build the adventure around set encounters).

I really like varied encounters, and different types of adventures.  From the article, I really got the impression that Mearls and team don't understand the cause of the 5-minute adventuring day, so they won't be presenting a solution to the 5-minute adventuring day.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;561037Ayup. For WOTC, the time has come to shit or get off the pot. Make D&D yes, or make D&D no.

Either way a part of the player base will not want it.

I'm entirely OK with a segment of the 4e player base being fired as customers.

However, looking around I know that there are many, many people who are big tent fans of D&D and think all D&D is awesome and that number is likely greater than the number of 4vengers.

So, you may fire when ready, Gridley!

If it caters to d20 it's gonna suck NUTS!  LOL

Just curious: How many people out there like 1E, 2E, and 4E, but dislike 3E, 3.5, and Pathfinder?


As a player, I don't pay as much attention to the version of dnd I am playing.

When I DM, I greatly prefer 1E, 2E, and 4E.



It may be heresey, but I think 'feeing like dnd' is more about the DM than the system.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;561041I'm entirely OK with a segment of the 4e player base being fired as customers.

However, looking around I know that there are many, many people who are big tent fans of D&D and think all D&D is awesome and that number is likely greater than the number of 4vengers.

This is surely true. They'll never achieve a 100% adoption rate.

The number of "4vengers" is similarly low to the number of "4E fans can go fuck themselves" people. They just tend to congregate on different sites.

I've liked every edition up until 4th. I thought 4th was ok, but way too different to keep the label of D&D.

Quote from: Fifth Element;561050The number of "4vengers" is similarly low to the number of "4E fans can go fuck themselves" people. They just tend to congregate on different sites.

Agreed, 100%.

My eventual Frankenstein D&D was mainly 1e with some 2e thrown in, that was my favorite D&D, a kitbashed monstrosity, as it should be.  If I had to play a version of D&D straight at this moment in time it would be...

DCC
Hackmaster 5th
ACKS
Conan D20
AD&D1
BD&D
AD&D2
D&D 3.0
D&D 3.5
I'd only run 4e if I did it in an Xcrawl-like world where you really had arena-like fights.

Right now, I'm running Shadowrun and DCC, and hoping to get Conan RQ off the ground now that RQ6 is out.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;561040I also hope they don't try to assume x number of encounters per day.  Even if they have the intention for that, it's not enforceable.  If the wizard has an ability that allows them to 'win' an early encounter, but they don't have that ability again that day, they have an incentive to stop adventuring that day and wait until they can use that power again to 'win' the next encounter.  Encouraging other players to 'keep adventuring' without their wizard's contribution is possible - but so far such a system doesn't exist.  For example, someone suggested that the XP for each encounter could be increased depending on the number of encounters you have - for example, the first encounter is worth 1x XP, the 2nd is 2x, the third 3x, etc.  

Thus, if you want to advance in levels, you're encouraged to find and defeat as many enemies per day...  

But without such a system, if the PCs can wait, they will.  Lots of adventures might not have a 'time-limit'.  If you're breaking into a tomb guarded by undead that has been sealed for a thousand years, there's no real reason to 'rush' unless the undead can escape and wreak havoc in a nearby town, for instance.

In my opinion, the 'correct' way this should be handled is:
DM tweaks the strength of the undead to keep things challenging, without punishing the players for using good strategy.

Fixed number of encounters is terrible, but may be useful for a novice DM. Maybe.

XP incentive? I personally can't stand players being motivated to 'kill one more orc to level.' I prefer to raise the party level by one as a reward for major accomplishments in the campaign; combat or non combat.

Quote from: Bill;561047Just curious: How many people out there like 1E, 2E, and 4E, but dislike 3E, 3.5, and Pathfinder?


As a player, I don't pay as much attention to the version of dnd I am playing.

When I DM, I greatly prefer 1E, 2E, and 4E.



It may be heresey, but I think 'feeing like dnd' is more about the DM than the system.

I will play any edition if the people are cool.

I will only run OD&D, B/X, AD&D and possibly 2E (core only-no complete book of munchkins)

Quote from: CRKrueger;561054My eventual Frankenstein D&D was mainly 1e with some 2e thrown in, that was my favorite D&D, a kitbashed monstrosity, as it should be.  If I had to play a version of D&D straight at this moment in time it would be...

DCC
Hackmaster 5th
ACKS
Conan D20
AD&D1
BD&D
AD&D2
D&D 3.0
D&D 3.5
I'd only run 4e if I did it in an Xcrawl-like world where you really had arena-like fights.

Right now, I'm running Shadowrun and DCC, and hoping to get Conan RQ off the ground now that RQ6 is out.

It would do WotC good to know about your order. The big thing that jumps out is that classic Dnd is no better than 5th on that list. Mine is similiar except Fantasy Craft is on top and no Conan D20 and 3x is above the 0/1e era stuff in a virtual tie with 2e.