D&D 5e: For real this time?

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Wouldn't nae been fun without it ... http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=53055

 

[Ziegander]

Wouldn't nae been fun without it ... http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=53055

 

Some harsh words there from a bunch of people who haven't played the "beta" material and who weren't even present when the material was played. I would be incredibly surprised if there was an editorial anywhere online of how the beta tests have gone so far, because of non-disclosure agreements signed by all participating parties, thus making such a thing illegal, so I question how they are getting their information about the 5e beta tests being made-up numbers and magical tea party. But I'll look around and see what I can dig up.

EDIT: Okay, so I already found what they must be talking about: http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/317494-seminar-transcript-reimagining-skills-ability-scores.html. And wow does that actually sound a whole lot like magical tea party... but did anyone at D&DXP actually play a game? With rules? If you read the full article it sounds like they did, and there are certainly a few blogs floating around, but being under NDAs, all of them read like magical tea party. The enworld link details more types of rulesey stuff, but that's definitely not much. One interesting tidbit was that Monte Cooke mentioned that, for DMs, they're taking lots of lessons from the ease and speed of adventure generation that existed in 4th edition.

[caelic]

Yeah, it comes across as fairly bitter.  Then again, it's hardly the only place I've seen that sentiment.  The net is full of "game designers" and "industry insiders" with a take on fifth edition, and more often than not, that take boils down to "It's doomed to failure because they didn't hire me to design it."

Ninety-nine percent of it is pure speculation.  I admit that I'm not overly sanguine about 5e's chances of success, but I'm willing to wait and judge the system once I've actually seen it.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

I wonder how much "upward" drift happens,
just because d&d is the biggest $ rpg ?
As in: somebody else gets something right,
big money (in a relative sense) goes out and gets it.

[Bozwevial]

Oh, good. Now it looks as though they're making GNS theory one of their core design principles.

[ksbsnowowl]

GNS theory

[wotmaniac]

GNS theory

HERE you go.

[RobbyPants]

Oh, good. Now it looks as though they're making GNS theory one of their core design principles.

The theory that doesn't mean anything?

[Prime32]

Oh, good. Now it looks as though they're making GNS theory one of their core design principles.

The theory that doesn't mean anything?

Narrativist and Simulationist are the same?
A Simulationist game would tell you that your swan-fletched yew-shafted arrow pierces the guard in his right ventricle, and has specific effects for that combination of factors.
A Narrativist game might be no more detailed then "I make my way in, taking down any guards." "Okay, you're in."

[Bozwevial]

Oh, good. Now it looks as though they're making GNS theory one of their core design principles.

The theory that doesn't mean anything?

This is where I thought you were going with that at first.

But yeah, that...that was sarcasm. If I ever get genuinely excited about someone adopting GNS, please feel free to smack some sense back into me.

[caelic]

So they've embraced the cutting edge of mid-1990's design theory.   Woohoo!

[awaken_D_M_golem]

One of the maths-y ideas they've pitch out,
is ditching the +1 per level progression.
So most npcs and monsters are gonna be static.

It "feels" to me like they can just ditch the +1/2 per level,
that 4e PCs use, and defacto keep something like 1/2 per level
on the monsters. I know I'm not being real clear here. (normally)
If you eliminate one of the progressions entirely,
it simplifies the other side by quite a bit. Perhaps hugely.

[ksbsnowowl]

I know I'm not being real clear here.

Understatement. 

[awaken_D_M_golem]

I know I'm not being real clear here.

Understatement. 

... do you know any pick-up lines, that might work with the 5e design staff ?

[Bozwevial]

I know I'm not being real clear here.

Understatement. 

... do you know any pick-up lines, that might work with the 5e design staff ?

"I'd like to GN your S, if you know what I mean."

[Agita]

I know I'm not being real clear here.

Understatement. 

... do you know any pick-up lines, that might work with the 5e design staff ?

"I'd like to GN your S, if you know what I mean."

"You don't like it the way I like it? That's cool, we can do it both ways. At the same time.
No, it's not anatomically impossible. It's all modular."

[Risada]

On the last few days, I've been lurking on the D&D Next forums, and I have to say things don't look good for WotC.

Maybe it's just me, but most of the discussions running there change into anything but constructive discussion. I mean, there's a huge thread going there discussing about reflavoring, and whether or not it should be included in the rules for 5e.

I wonder if WotC bothers to look through all that content...

[FatR]

      That's why looking to Internet for feedback on 5E is even more of a bad idea than enslaving yourself to the voice of vocal minority in general. At the moment fanbase is divided into antagonistic camps with the camp that still stands around WotC banner on their own forum being full of sycophants, thanks to moderators taking a side in the previous edition war. Seeing, also, how awful their polls are, I actually hope that their "listening to the public" is nothing more than a marketing stunt.

[RobbyPants]

Jeff Grubb made a small mention of 5E here.

Other than that, it's a fun read.

[Keldar]

I cannot speak to the new edition, except to say that the team has already written a very large check -- All D&D Editions beneath one roof. I am concerned that I have seen a lot of comment on the net along the lines of "Congratulations on revising D&D -- here are my non-negotiable demands". The only advice I can give is that each major edition change had strong reasons (from a design side as well as marketing one) to improve the earlier editions. Looking at what drove those editions forward will help shape the next iteration.

-Grubb

For those that care, but not enough to read it all.  Very large check, indeed.