New Legends & Lore column on WotC's website

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd%2F4ll%2F20120213#78339

Quote from: Monte CookStuff to Leave Behind

Although we don't currently see universal consensus on this, it seems likely that there are a handful of things from prior editions that we don't want to bring forward into a new iteration of D&D. Not everything about every version of the game was absolutely golden.

For example, it would be difficult to imagine that THAC0 would make a comeback. Armor Class values going down to represent them getting better. System shock rolls. Racial level limits. Gender-based ability score maximums. Lots of bonus types. And so on. But here's the thing: if I'm wrong about that, get involved in the open playtest when it starts and let us know. If you would like to see things like that be a part of the core rules set, or if you would use rules like that as optional modules, that's the kind of information we are looking for in order to make this a game you want to play.

Further, there's stuff that is kind of on the fence in this regard. What about a system that resembled the weapons versus armor table in 1st Edition? Could we make that work as a part of a simulationist rules module? Maybe. Racial class restrictions? Sure (but why?). Are these good ideas? Bad ideas?

New Material

We don't want a new iteration of the game to be only a "best of" of the prior editions. If we did, there would be no reason to play it. It needs to achieve the goal of not only giving you the play experience that you want, but also giving you that play experience in a way that's better than what you've had in the past. Faster, better, smarter.

But how much new material is too much? That's the question. How can we capture the feel and tone of your favorite edition if we add in mechanics or material that's never been in a prior edition? And yet, how can we convince anyone to play a game that is just a rehash of what's come before?

One way is simply through the customization of the rules modules that I wrote about last week. That is to say, although you can recreate the feel of 2nd Edition using them, you can also recreate the feel of 2nd Edition with a few options from 3rd or 4th as well. You wouldn't have to choose a past edition. You'd customize the game to make it yours. Imagine a game with Basic D&D's simplicity but with the powers of 4th Edition. Or a game that has the character customization abilities of 3rd Edition without all the tactical rules. Or any other combination you desire. We believe it's perfectly possible.

We are experimenting, however, with some material that is truly and entirely new. Class abilities that capture the core feel of a class, for example, even though they've never been presented in any version of the class. For example, we might take the idea of a ranger's favored enemy but express that idea in a completely different way.

We are also experimenting with variations on task resolution. What if, for example, something that used to give you a bonus or a penalty instead modified the dice you roll? A bonus to your attack roll might be the ability to roll 2d20 and take the best roll, for example. Or maybe instead of having a flat bonus, you got a bonus die to roll and add (or, in the case of a penalty, subtract)? Would these brand-new mechanics be fun and add something new to the game? And most importantly, would they feel like D&D?

That's what lots of playtesting and player feedback will let us discover.

Some interesting hints and ideas on what might be there and what might not. How they are thinking about the game, too.

What would you like to see return in the game that's been mentioned there?

What are your general thoughts on what's being said?

One thing that tickles me in the wrong places aside from the actual contents of the column is the use of Forge terminology when talking about gaming play styles (i.e. simulationism, narrativism, gamism).

Things like talking about being interested by the game aspects of the RPG, or wanting to "tell stories", as though role playing and immersion were encompassed by the term "story", which I see as antithetic to immersion and "first-person role playing".

This reminds me way too much of Ron Edwards' theories that "simulationism" doesn't "really exist", it's just that these gamers are proto-narrativists or proto-gamists in denial. "Brain-damaged" they are, because of the "incoherent" games they played before.

Ahh. I hope I'm just seeing something that's not there.

"Or maybe instead of having a flat bonus, you got a bonus die to roll and add (or, in the case of a penalty, subtract)? "
 
They did this in Alternity and I hope that they don't go this way with rolling extra dice that vary in size all the time.  It's tedious.

QuoteImagine a game with Basic D&D's simplicity but with the powers of 4th Edition.

Derp.

http://matt-landofnod.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/5th-edition-d-for-free.html

solved.

More discussion!

I had to pop over here after getting tired of rpg.net's weird obsession with parsing out every word Monte writes.

I like your concept that simulationists are just gamists and narrativists in denial....

Quote from: camazotz;514303I like your concept that simulationists are just gamists and narrativists in denial....

It's Doctor Bat Penis's idea, not mine. An idea which directly leads, and is intertwined with, the notion that these gamers are in fact "brain-damaged", kind of like rape victims, since they played all these incoherent games far too long.

I suspect he is using the term simulationist because it is widely used on regular rpg forum, and so I don't think he means it in the edwards sense. But I could be wrong.

This reads as another "Give us another chance guys, pretty please". Rather understandable, nothing really new. What worries me a bit is how much they are talking about the "feel". It feels (pun not intended) too much like they are basing their design on certain...illusion of experience, rather then solid design. I hope I'm being a negative nancy.  But then again, they are going to experiment with mechanics - which is always a good thing (in general. It may produce broken stuff, but it's good to see people try and reinvent this stuff - fresh take can always be good).

It's a bit sad that you can't have a chat these days about gaming theory, without fear of Foul Ole Ron showing up to poison it, eh?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;514311I suspect he is using the term simulationist because it is widely used on regular rpg forum, and so I don't think he means it in the edwards sense. But I could be wrong.

I would agree with you. It is precisely this prospect of us both being wrong that keeps tickling me in the wrong places.

It's empty noise that doesn't even deserve getting quoted, much less its own thread.

Quote from: Benoist;514318I would agree with you. It is precisely this prospect of us both being wrong that keeps tickling me in the wrong places.

Keep in mind, the terms Gamist, Simulationist and Narrativist pre-date Edwards.  All he did was take the useful concepts and fuck them up.  Someone could invent a time machine, go back and turn Edwards away from gaming and we'd still use those terms, only people wouldn't associate them with the co-opted version.

A lot of the little things they jettisoned, like system shock, aging for powerful spells and the like is what led to things like the perceived caster dominance of 3e.  Old School D&D frequently means rather hard choices with definite consequences for spellcasters.  New D&D - not so much.

Quote from: Windjammer;514322It's empty noise that doesn't even deserve getting quoted, much less its own thread.

Have this goldfish.

Quote from: CRKrueger;514325A lot of the little things they jettisoned, like system shock, aging for powerful spells and the like is what led to things like the perceived caster dominance of 3e.  Old School D&D frequently means rather hard choices with definite consequences for spellcasters.  New D&D - not so much.

I think this deserves a prize too!

Quote from: CRKrueger;514325A lot of the little things they jettisoned, like system shock, aging for powerful spells and the like is what led to things like the perceived caster dominance of 3e.  Old School D&D frequently means rather hard choices with definite consequences for spellcasters.  New D&D - not so much.

::nods:: They removed most of the things that made it hard for spellcasters, then complained that spellcasters dominated the game. Many of the techniques that people hate in 3.x (like scry then teleport into the midst of your enemy) simply were too unreliable and/or too dangerous to be regular tactics in TSR D&D. And the lack of anything like the concentration skill made non-casters fare far better against casters -- especially as save vs magic ignored the level of the caster, it was based on the defender's level which meant high level fighters could charge right up to high level casters and chop at them if they had to with a good chance of not only surviving but winning.

Perhaps TSR D&D did not have the unified mechanics, the very free mechanical customization of characters, the stress on balance, etc. that WOTC D&D has, but it seemed to actually be less fragile in play -- at least in my experience.