Quote from: Skywalker;561174That's encapsulates why D&D5e is doomed to fail.

While the original post is an exaggeration, it is a result of my exasperation with 4e players.  I am fully willing to compromise with them on some matters, but they are unwilling to do the same.  They insist that having any deviation from all classes having the same power schedule will cause total ruination of D&D.  As I noted over on RPG.net, the E6 system proves this completely wrong.  Despite the flaws of 3e, the game plays fairly well at low levels, even though fighters are "boring" and can only make normal attacks.

I wonder if the VTT being cancelled is the first step in 5e being cancelled.

The D&D fanbase can agree on nothing.

Any time 5e shows itself leaning toward one previous edition, the fanbase erupts in (a) hate that 5e would include any part of that edition or (b) hate that 5e does not include all of that edition.

The open hostility only further segments the player base, driving them to either to Paizo, OSR, other RPGs or just resignation to stick with their current game.

I wonder if WotC is thinking that D&D as RPG could use a few years off the shelf before coming back with a reboot in 5-10 years. Meanwhile, they could continue boardgames and computer games with the D&D name.

Quote from: Spinachcat;561479I wonder if the VTT being cancelled is the first step in 5e being cancelled.

The D&D fanbase can agree on nothing.

Any time 5e shows itself leaning toward one previous edition, the fanbase erupts in (a) hate that 5e would include any part of that edition or (b) hate that 5e does not include all of that edition.

The open hostility only further segments the player base, driving them to either to Paizo, OSR, other RPGs or just resignation to stick with their current game.

I wonder if WotC is thinking that D&D as RPG could use a few years off the shelf before coming back with a reboot in 5-10 years. Meanwhile, they could continue boardgames and computer games with the D&D name.

I think it is actually a very positive indication for the line. Now they can devote resources on actual books.

Personally I can't see them not releasing 5E at this point. Even if it cant meet the goal of uniting the base, they are going to have to release something to justify the money invested in development. Worse case scenario, it bombs and they just start printing older editions (including 4E). At the very least they shouod be able to sell the first printing of 5e just for the curiosity factor alone.

Quote from: Spinachcat;561479Any time 5e shows itself leaning toward one previous edition, the fanbase erupts in (a) hate that 5e would include any part of that edition or (b) hate that 5e does not include all of that edition.

I still think the solution is to simply sell PDFs of everything D&D ever published by TSR/WOTC so that fans of any edition of D&D can get their edition. Each year clean up the core rules PDFs of a single edition to the point they can be printed very cleanly via print-on-demand and start selling those rules hardcopy as well. This provides a good income stream for WOTC at a very low cost.

QuoteThe open hostility only further segments the player base, driving them to either to Paizo, OSR, other RPGs or just resignation to stick with their current game.

Back when TSR did D&D the player base rules-used fragmentation did not matter much as all the adventures and many supplements could be used with any edition of D&D with little or no pre-use conversion effort needed. WOTC D&D started to break this with 3.0, broke it more with 3.x, and totally fractured it with 4e. They elected to design WOTC editions of D&D in a way that made the fragmentation hurt their bottom line. Unfortunately, there is no way they can unfragment the D&D hobby. 5e certainly is not going to unfragment the hobby -- at least not much.

QuoteI wonder if WotC is thinking that D&D as RPG could use a few years off the shelf before coming back with a reboot in 5-10 years. Meanwhile, they could continue boardgames and computer games with the D&D name.

I don't think tabletop D&D would survive that type of lapse (unless they did something like make all the D&D PDFs available). Pathfinder has demonstrated that if D&D fans don't get what they want from WOTC (or whoever owns the IP) when they want it, they are willing to move to some other company who will give them what they want.

Quote from: jhkim;561414You're claiming that the designers never intended that a DM would present the description of room #9 when the adventurers came to room #9.  I don't buy this.

No, what he's saying is that the designers intended(and in fact frequently pointed out in the text), is that the description of what is in #9 may not be there if half the complex came running when a guard hit the alarm gong in #1.

Quote from: jhkimYou're claiming that the designers never intended that a DM would present the description of room #9 when the adventurers came to room #9. I don't buy this.

Quote from: CRKrueger;561603No, what he's saying is that the designers intended(and in fact frequently pointed out in the text), is that the description of what is in #9 may not be there if half the complex came running when a guard hit the alarm gong in #1.

That sounds like essentially the same thing to me.  Even if not specifically a gong being sounded, some sort of noise or other disturbance is to be expected in an adventure.  If the default is that the inhabitants will move around in response to a disturbance, then the keyed locations can't be used as written.  

Suppose I'm writing an adventure for some system, and I create a complex with the intent that the inhabitants will all move about if there is a major disturbance (i.e. a loud noise or other evidence of a fight).  To support the GM doing this, I'd write a list of the mobile inhabitants - and notes on what each one is likely to do.  This is standard in, say, Champions or Top Secret adventures.  The NPCs are listed separately from the locations - because they'll move about.  It's expected that, say, everyone will come down to the dining room at dinner time - or go up to their bedrooms late at night.  

D&D dungeon modules aren't typically organized like this.  Typically, they list each monster only with a particular keyed location where it is by default encountered.  

DMs can work from the keyed location format and make it fully dynamic.  I can take a dungeon module, list out its inhabitants, and then work out how they move around after a disturbance.  However, the written organization isn't great for this.  I'm arguing that the keyed location format is intended to be used as a common default.  



To go over my position again:

1) From the earliest modules, changes to keyed locations have been considered and possible.  However, they are not the default.  The keyed location format implies that the room #9 description is at least a good default.  It was written with the intent that it be used.  It's unrealistic for intelligent, social monsters - but it makes things easy for the DM and is still fun to play.  

2) It has always been common practice to at some point "hole up" or retreat to rest in a dungeon module.  The key is finding a place where you won't get wandering monsters.  This was anticipated by the designers, and it provides a flexibility to modules.  If your party is weaker or has inexperienced players, they can still make it through a module by taking it easier and taking more frequent rests.  If stopping to rest results in the opposition getting markedly tougher, then this flexibility is lost.  

3) A strategy of "commando raids of attrition" (i.e. brief overwhelming attack and rapid retreat) is neither inherently stupid nor out of character.  It's generally a reasonable in-character choice, at least as reasonable as the blitzkrieg strategy (i.e. keep charging in).  A more common historical strategy for attacking an underground stronghold is a siege, but that's usually no fun to play out.  

4) Commando raids can be unrealistically successful depending on the DM.  However, it's not like realism is all that high in general for dungeon fantasy. Trying for realism often makes the game a drag.  Typically, I like adventuring under a time limit because it adds more tension and dynamic to what's happening.

Quote from: Azure Lord;561468They insist that having any deviation from all classes having the same power schedule will cause total ruination of D&D.

What about Essentials players? Do they insist on no deviation in power structure?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;561482I think it is actually a very positive indication for the line. Now they can devote resources on actual books.

I'm inclined to agree. They only have so many resources to devote to the game, and concentrating on the game itself is presumably a good idea.

There aren't really any Essentials players, at least not in any great number.  The line flopped.  It was poorly-designed and hastily printed.

I really don't see an issue with the encounters per day (assuming you are using encounters to mean combats) or rounds of combat per day as a principle of design.

It's very likely that, like all things pre-3e, that a similar mathematical backbone was developed and buried deep under the hood for designing adventures and monster stats.  I mean, to develop those monsters, encounter tables, et cetera you would have to roughly know how many hits a likely party can take, and how many it has to dish out in order to proceed.

I really don't feel a difference in playstyle in this regard in any edition of D&D, or any game that features character resources that don't refresh at the end of every combat.  It's all a game of attrition, one way or another, which isn't different pre-3e.  All in all I don't recall fighting 100 fights in a single rest cycle pre-3e, because the rules didn't say I couldn't survive that many.  

Regardless of what the rules say, the characters were going to run out of HP and spells and be forced to retreat even if they were in the middle of sacking their enemy's lair.  3e just told you the expected number of fights it would take to reach this point, which is invaluable information for a DM making his own adventures (and it would have been invaluable if the guidelines in 3e weren't so consistently wrong or there was anything resembling an average, or baseline party performance to judge by in that edition).  If the players are going to storm a keep, and I want to present this as a goal that can be accomplished, I want it to actually be true and know exactly how many fights of what particular difficulty the party can endure before becoming overwhelmed.  

I've never been at a 3e or 4e table where we routinely did 4-6 combats 'per day' and then called it quits because dems da rules.  All the DMG is saying is that after 4-6 fights of a certain caliber the party is probably low on HP and spells.  That's not necessarily always true, as the dice introduce chance, in addition to party composition or playstyle with more cautious or intelligent players getting more bang for their buck, et cetera.

Citing the game is about 'milieu' is meaningless, because ultimately the game is about roleplaying characters in official D&D settings in every edition.  The rules, even in 1e were disproportionately about fighting monsters though.  I think if you want to go by a pure page count on what portion of the 'milieu' was about monsters versus everything else you'd have the monster/combat side of things completely overwhelm every other aspect of the rules governing the 'milieu' in the game by a truly enormous ratio.

What the article over at WotC is talking about is rules, which like in every edition of D&D will be disproportionately geared towards resolving combat.  That doesn't mean you won't be able to have a 'milieu' in 5e, or couldn't in 2e, 3e, or 4e, and that ultimately most people will still be playing the game for the sake of roleplaying adventurers in a fantasy milieu more so than anything else.

I don't get the hate for well-done math.  I don't want to play in a game where I'm going to fail unless I roll a twenty (or succeed unless I roll a one).

Damn, it's fun to see the trolls unite.

Quote from: Marleycat;561775Damn, it's fun to see the trolls unite.

Is there a list of who is a troll and who is not?

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;561741I really don't see an issue with the encounters per day (assuming you are using encounters to mean combats) or rounds of combat per day as a principle of design.

It's very likely that, like all things pre-3e, that a similar mathematical backbone was developed and buried deep under the hood for designing adventures and monster stats.  I mean, to develop those monsters, encounter tables, et cetera you would have to roughly know how many hits a likely party can take, and how many it has to dish out in order to proceed.

This type of math, in an effort to succeed on a 'number of rounds' basis, is inherently going to fail -unless everyone is the same.  

If you presume that a Fighter is going to be 'good' for 25 round of combat per day, and your Fighter has an AC 5 higher or 5 lower than expected, you will greatly increase the number of rounds or decrease the number of rounds.  Since they've mentioned AC boosting items that can push the number up by +5 (or more) the math won't work.  

There absolutely is a need for 'good math' at the table, and that's really been a failure of WotC up to this point.  

Since they're so bad at math, it's no surprise that they misunderstand why they're bad at math.  

Further, the party is supposed to be a 'flexible' unit of game play.  Some parties will have 5 members, some will have 3.  Some will have two clerics, some will have two wizards.  This level of variation fundamentally changes the way the game works - and they don't seem to recognize it.  

Would you like it if their 'encounter design' was always 'if you have x PCs, you have x monsters'?  That'd be horrible!

But if a particular monster is supposed to go 6 rounds with a party of 4, how many rounds will it go with a party of 6?  4 rounds?  2 rounds?  

The designers should have worked to make sure that wizards don't start out stronger than fighters in the first encounter of the day (which, admittedly, we haven't clearly seen, but let me assume Mike is being honest for a moment).

In mathematical terms, the number '1' is MUCH more likely to come up than the number '9'.  

Every day that has encounters has at least 1 encounter by definition.  But every day that has an encounter isn't required to have a second encounter.  Even if 90% of days that have an encounter have a second encounter, a reasonable portion of adventuring days are limited to only a single encounter - and that would benefit the wizards.  And among those days that have two encounters, perhaps only 50% of them have a third encounter.  While these numbers are pulled out of my ass, it is a mathematical fact that on average, there will be more days with a single encounter than days with 4 or more encounters.  UNLESS the rules specifically MAKE the DM run multiple encounters, which is retarded.  There are lots of reasons why PCs would only fight once in a given day.

Quote from: Bill;561845Is there a list of who is a troll and who is not?

It's all in the reflexes. It's an art not a skill, sorry.

Quote from: Marleycat;561963It's all in the reflexes. It's an art not a skill, sorry.

Is that a Jack Burton line from Big trouble in Little China?