One thing I keep reading about 5th edition, and to be fair a few other games, is that the rules are not exciting.

I truly believe that this is a good thing.

What I want from the rules is to stay the hell out of the way as much as possible. I was recently playing PDQ#, which was an interesting rule set, and we enjoyed it. But... I really want the drama in my game to come from what is actually happening to the characters, not from the fact that I am adding a dice to the bowl rather than the box*. Atomic Highway I had a much better time with, because the rules where firmly in background letting us get on with the Awesomeness of the actual game.

Mike Mearl's pointed out on Reddit that one of the big surprises of the Playtest feedback is that people where really complimentary about the streamlined nature of the rules. As far as I can tell, that was not WotC's plan, they thought people would really find the current rules to basic and were prioritising adding complexity. But for all people bicker, discuss and downright campaign for and against rulesets, I really don't think they have that much of an impact on the game. None of the cool stuff in my games really comes from the rules, it comes from the Players (or if I am lucky from me).

That's not to say I don't appreciate well designed rules, I just don't want them in my face when I am playing an RPG. War Games, Card Games, they need exciting rules, RPG's really do not.


*If you have not played PDQ#, you probably are best not worrying about this.

Well, "meh" will be a different thing for different people, though. For some people, the fact that the rules let you breathe and are not in your face isn't "meh", it's great. For others, the rules being as they are is "meh", and should be great in some other way. The danger in the middle-of-the-road, try to please everyone approach, is that it might end up being considered "meh" by everyone.

Quote from: Benoist;549727The danger in the middle-of-the-road, try to please everyone approach, is that it might end up being considered "meh" by everyone.

I honestly don't think it matters. I think most people by D&D because its good at allowing them to beat up Beholders with their Holy Avenger while riding a Gold Dragon.

Unless they utterly hate the rules, they could not really care less about them.

Quote from: jadrax;549730I honestly don't think it matters. I think most people by D&D because its good at allowing them to beat up Beholders with their Holy Avenger while riding a Gold Dragon.

Unless they utterly hate the rules, they could not really care less about them.

I'm not so sure. If the rules didn't matter at all to the commercial success of the game, if all people wanted was to hold a holy avenger and ride a Gold Dragon, then 4e would have been a brilliant success and we wouldn't be talking about Next now.

That's just not what happened.

Best to nip this one in the bud.

Quote from: jadrax;549730I honestly don't think it matters. I think most people by D&D because its good at allowing them to beat up Beholders with their Holy Avenger while riding a Gold Dragon.

Unless they utterly hate the rules, they could not really care less about them.

jadrax, Benoist is confusing your "meh" (unobtrusive) for his "meh" (a dog's breakfast).

Quote from: Benoist;549734I'm not so sure. If the rules didn't matter at all to the commercial success of the game, if all people wanted was to hold a holy avenger and ride a Gold Dragon, then 4e would have been a brilliant success and we wouldn't be talking about Next now.

That's just not what happened.

yes, but 4e was not 'Meh', it was utterly 'in your face extreme and exiting rules of the like never seen before'. The fact that it was actually shit at letting you 'beat up Beholders with their Holy Avenger while riding a Gold Dragon' did not help it either.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;549735jadrax, Benoist is confusing your "meh" (unobtrusive) for his "meh" (a dog's breakfast).

I am not sure he is. I think we are both talking about Meh == uninteresting.

But I am sure Benoist will make his view clear.

Well now I'm confused. When I say "meh" I mean a disinterested reaction when you look at some dish or what not. You look at it, shrug and go "meh... that doesn't look that great..."

So you can have that super complex dish with lots of colors and whatnot (4e), look at it, and go "meh, it doesn't look that great." I think that at this point there is a danger that many people might look at the final 5e, think some mechanics are worth stealing for their home games and whatnot, but go looking at the whole game to then say "meh, I can't see myself running that."

That kind of "meh". Does that clarify?

Quote from: Benoist;549738Well now I'm confused. When I say "meh" I mean a disinterested reaction when you look at some dish or what not. You look at it, shrug and go "meh... that doesn't look that great..."

That kind of "meh". Does that clarify?

That is the 'meh' I also mean.

So yeah, you can have 4e being this very colorful, complex dish with lots of stuff in it and go "meh, I wanted something a lot simpler" nonetheless, in the end. Complex or 'in your face' isn't the opposite of "meh". It might be "GREAT!" for what I'm looking for. Just like simple might go "meh" with some people out there.

Quote from: Benoist;549740So yeah, you can have 4e being this very colorful, complex dish with lots of stuff in it and go "meh, I wanted something a lot simpler" nonetheless, in the end. Complex or 'in your face' isn't the opposite of "meh". It might be "GREAT!" for what I'm looking for. Just like simple might go "meh" with some people out there.

See, I don't think may people have a meh reaction to 4th edition, I think its tend to be either positive or very negative. It is not that the rules are complex (because they aren't), it is that the rules actively annoy a lot of people.

I am saying that the 4th edition rules actively stop people playing the latest edition of D&D, who would play it if the rules were blander.

OK I think I see better what you mean. The part that puzzles me is how you figure that a new rules set (5e/Next/however the hell they choose to call it) that would create a general "meh, I'm not that interested" reaction would actually bring back people into the D&D fold after 4e made them look for their D&D elsewhere. That doesn't compute with me.

Quote from: Benoist;549742OK I think I see better what you mean. The part that puzzles me is how you figure that a new rules set (5e/Next/however the hell they choose to call it) that would create a general "meh, I'm not that interested" reaction would actually bring back people into the D&D fold after 4e made them look for their D&D elsewhere. That doesn't compute with me.

Because people like laying D&D, I.e. whatever had the big logo on the front. Its got brand identity and consumer buy-in*. You might sob for the fate of humanity over these facts, but I think they are still facts. I also think the Retro-clone movement has proved that people are still searching for their perfect game, very few are actually happy with what exists.

So you have people wanting a new product and a desirable name, you just have to not put up barriers to those players returning.



*Actually beyond that, D&D has an good IP, I want Beholders and Mind Flayers and the Great Wheel and playing D&D is the easiest way of getting that.

Quote from: jadrax;549744Because people like laying D&D, I.e. whatever had the big logo on the front. Its got brand identity and consumer buy-in*. You might sob for the fate of humanity over these facts, but I think they are still facts. I also think the Retro-clone movement has proved that people are still searching for their perfect game, very few are actually happy with what exists.

So you have people wanting a new product and a desirable name, you just have to not put up barriers to those players returning.



*Actually beyond that, D&D has an good IP, I want Beholders and Mind Flayers and the Great Wheel and playing D&D is the easiest way of getting that.

I just don't see it working at all.

If people were playing D&D for the logo, they would have played 4e en masse, regardless of the changes (or lack thereof). I really don't follow you on this line of thought. It sounds exactly like the thinking the designers had just before changing D&D to the core, and in the end, in my mind, this has been proven completely wrong in spades.

Quote from: Benoist;549747I just don't see it working at all.

If people were playing D&D for the logo, they would have played 4e en masse, regardless of the changes (or lack thereof). I really don't follow you on this line of thought. It sounds exactly like the thinking the designers had just before changing D&D to the core, and in the end, in my mind, this has been proven completely wrong in spades.

Again, they will play D&D for the logo unless it really fucking irritating to do so.

I want to play D&D, but I am not going to put up with an rule set that induces vomiting to do so.

I think that 4th had both an irritating ruleset, and also arguably had very little D&D in it. 3rd is more popular because it has much more D&D and tends to only get really irritating at high levels.