D&D 5e: For real this time?

[InnaBinder]

Holy crap! that is amazing!

Sadly, based on everything I've read, I don't think it can work. The last I checked, they seriously want to balance horizontal power with vertical power on various types of rule sets (complex fighter vs big-numbers-only fighter). I only see this ending in RNG-fuckery and tears.

Indeed, it looks like they're trying to simultaneously pander to the hardcore "I want my 9th level spell powah by 12 character level" CO crowd and the "I maxed out Profession: Tailor on my STR 9 Barbarian because it's ROLEPLAYING" crowd.  I'm skeptical, at best, that this is an achievable goal.

[Prime32]

Holy crap! that is amazing!

Sadly, based on everything I've read, I don't think it can work. The last I checked, they seriously want to balance horizontal power with vertical power on various types of rule sets (complex fighter vs big-numbers-only fighter). I only see this ending in RNG-fuckery and tears.

Indeed, it looks like they're trying to simultaneously pander to the hardcore "I want my 9th level spell powah by 12 character level" CO crowd and the "I maxed out Profession: Tailor on my STR 9 Barbarian because it's ROLEPLAYING" crowd.  I'm skeptical, at best, that this is an achievable goal.

Maybe with auto-handicap.

[JohnnyMayHymn]

Aha! here is a handy link to the D&D Next blog, most of the posts have a poll at the end.

Alas, this will probably be my level of participation, b/c I don't have the time to be among the loudest opinions on the boards over there...   

[Agita]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4news/20120425a

Well. Looks like shit's getting real. Time to find out if it's worthwhile, a clusterfuck, or just fucked.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

Minmaxers get no respect. Fuck WotC.

I still don't get why they haven't simply thrown up a post here or enworld or even GitP and said "we need a tried and true optimizer to check us." Is it really that hard to find an expert community for a geeky product???

Its not like that could possibly think WotC makes perfect product that don't need an optimizer's careful eye.

[bhu]

Given the G0 dustup I sincerely doubt they ever speak to optimizers again.

[Keldar]

Minmaxers get no respect. Fuck WotC.

I still don't get why they haven't simply thrown up a post here or enworld or even GitP and said "we need a tried and true optimizer to check us." Is it really that hard to find an expert community for a geeky product???

Its not like that could possibly think WotC makes perfect product that don't need an optimizer's careful eye.

Ego.  They take insult at the idea that amateurs could be better at their job than they are.  They freak right the fuck out when its proven.  Time and again.
They don't need a C.O. person, they need anyone who's background is more math than humanities.  They've damn overdosed on the latter and don't have a one that can do the former.  A high school student taking a statistics course would do wonders for them.   

[Agita]

Minmaxers get no respect. Fuck WotC.

I still don't get why they haven't simply thrown up a post here or enworld or even GitP and said "we need a tried and true optimizer to check us." Is it really that hard to find an expert community for a geeky product???

Its not like that could possibly think WotC makes perfect product that don't need an optimizer's careful eye.

Ego.  They take insult at the idea that amateurs could be better at their job than they are.  They freak right the fuck out when its proven.  Time and again.
They don't need a C.O. person, they need anyone who's background is more math than humanities.  They've damn overdosed on the latter and don't have a one that can do the former.  A high school student taking a statistics course would do wonders for them.   

More importantly, optimizers are a niche market. A product that is approved by optimizers doesn't sell as well as a product that is approved by grognards. See: Pathfinder.

[Unbeliever]

^ I'm less certain about this. 

At least in the following sense.  A game that has fewer traps and fewer landmines (defined below) will probably sell better among all players.  At least once it's had a little bit of time to be established.  That is, better games have longer lives, all things considered.  If nothing else, they're easier to play and run -- you don't have to worry about a proliferation of house rules or awkward moments at the table as much. 

Landmines are unexpected rules hickups you run into.  White Wolf is famous for them:  neonates can send princes scurrying with trivial ease, rank 2 powers massively outpower some rank 8 ones, and so on.  There are others, too, Rifts is one that springs to mind from personal experience.

I think optimizers may want something in addition to that.  But, I hope that's at least one service or thing that people who are really into the game's mechanics add to it. 

[caelic]

More importantly, optimizers are a niche market. A product that is approved by optimizers doesn't sell as well as a product that is approved by grognards. See: Pathfinder.

You're right on the verge of fallacy territory there, Agita.  "Grognard" and "optimizer" aren't mutually exclusive.  (Though I've noticed that lately there's an effort to redefine "grognard" as "Stubborn player who's not smart enough to like the edition I like!")

[caelic]

^ I'm less certain about this. 

At least in the following sense.  A game that has fewer traps and fewer landmines (defined below) will probably sell better among all players.  At least once it's had a little bit of time to be established.  That is, better games have longer lives, all things considered.  If nothing else, they're easier to play and run -- you don't have to worry about a proliferation of house rules or awkward moments at the table as much. 

Landmines are unexpected rules hickups you run into.  White Wolf is famous for them:  neonates can send princes scurrying with trivial ease, rank 2 powers massively outpower some rank 8 ones, and so on.  There are others, too, Rifts is one that springs to mind from personal experience.

Unbeliever, it's a nice theory, but I really don't think it holds up in practical experience.

Case in point: White Wolf.  HORRIBLY unbalanced, LOADED with landmines.  Shelf life?  13 years for OWoD (with a recent resurrection as CWoD.)  Another eight for NWoD so far.

Second case in point: Rifts.   It's even MORE loaded with landmines, and they all do mega-damage.  Shelf life?  21 years so far.  It's outlived second, third, AND fourth edition D&D.


Counterpoint: Fourth edition.  They GOT optimizers to playtest it.  They removed most of the landmines.  They created by far the most balanced and coherent set of D&D rules forever.

Shelf life?  A little under 4 years.

The history of gaming, I would argue, teaches us that most gamers don't want a game without landmines--because they like finding the landmines.

[Unbeliever]

I don't know about the counterexamples. 

Rifts is a dead letter.  When you have to ask your fans to make donations to support your company it's probably not in good shape.  There are more people playing 1st edition D&D than there are playing Rifts in New York City. 

Likewise, everyone I know who is interested in Vampire, especially OWoD, is interested in it despite the rules.  If their rules didn't suck, I think they also wouldn't see their player base dwindling to the point where that company is likely to go under in the next year or two.  Even the big cash grab of V20 was met with a resounding "meh" by everyone outside of a very small, hardcore fanbase.  I say that from my perspective of being good friends with some of their playtesters. 

That being said, I could be totally wrong.  I just think a game that is easier to play or run, one that works as advertised, tends to have a lot longer shelf life.  Where I define shelf life as being able to push product.  Games can be easier and hard in lots of ways, but one way that they can be made hard is what I call landmines.  I think most people, optimizers aside, actually aren't that interested in them, and find themselves having to dodge them.  Identifying them, and suggesting ways around them, is a service system-minded players, like optimizers, can provide. 

This is sort of a tangent, but I also think the tolerance for bad rules in games has gone way down in the past decade or so.  Perhaps it's due to the wider availability of small print games, or simply that there are a few decent rules systems out there at present.  But, way back in the day when I got into Rifts (and oh god, did I play a lot of Rifts), I knew its rules were terrible.  But, it's only real competition was AD&D (sort of terrible rules) and White Wolf.  So, it didn't look too bad by comparison.  Nowadays, there are lots of options, many of which are pretty good.

Finally, I think 4E, to the extent optimizers were involved in playtesting, drew many of the wrong conclusions.  In their desire to standardize things and avoid ... whatever, I don't even know, they bled a lot of the color and flexibility out of the game.

[caelic]

I don't know about the counterexamples. 

Rifts is a dead letter.  When you have to ask your fans to make donations to support your company it's probably not in good shape.  There are more people playing 1st edition D&D than there are playing Rifts in New York City. 

Likewise, everyone I know who is interested in Vampire, especially OWoD, is interested in it despite the rules.  If their rules didn't suck, I think they also wouldn't see their player base dwindling to the point where that company is likely to go under in the next year or two.  Even the big cash grab of V20 was met with a resounding "meh" by everyone outside of a very small, hardcore fanbase.  I say that from my perspective of being good friends with some of their playtesters.

Sure, they're coming to the end of their lifespan...after two decades.  Fourth edition, as I pointed out, lasted 20% as long.
 

I just think a game that is easier to play or run, one that works as advertised, tends to have a lot longer shelf life.  Where I define shelf life as being able to push product.

Can you give some examples?  I have to be honest, I'm thinking back over the powerhouse games of the last thirty years, and none of them lacked the sorts of landmines you describe, to my recollection.  I suppose you could argue for systems like GURPS and Hero, but their point-buy nature meant you could break the hell out of them, too.

But, way back in the day when I got into Rifts (and oh god, did I play a lot of Rifts), I knew its rules were terrible.  But, it's only real competition was AD&D (sort of terrible rules) and White Wolf.  So, it didn't look too bad by comparison.  Nowadays, there are lots of options, many of which are pretty good.

There were good options back then, too--it's just that the really well-balanced games were niche games that never attracted a massive following.  I would argue that, in part, that was because you couldn't break them as easily.

Finally, I think 4E, to the extent optimizers were involved in playtesting, drew many of the wrong conclusions.  In their desire to standardize things and avoid ... whatever, I don't even know, they bled a lot of the color and flexibility out of the game.

I agree.  My initial reaction was "They did what they set out to do, and it doesn't interest me at all." 

[phaedrusxy]

If they can actually pull of the "modular design" thing, and if it turns out to be anything like the "prediction" linked to in the 2007 post on the Paizo boards... it actually could turn out to be a great game. Of course, it would likely be incredibly difficult to balance, and they'll probably totally mess it up... but I still found myself hopeful for a better official edition of D&D for the first time in years... (If I just want a better version, there is plenty of good homebrew to go around...)

[bhu]

I have about as much faith in Hasbro being able to pull off 5e as I do that the local hookers will blow people for free on their birthday.

Which is to say none.

[wotmaniac]

the local hookers will blow people for free on their birthday.

we need to start a petition.

[Rejakor]

Monte Cook isn't the best game designer in the world, but I view this as a terrifically terrible horrible omen nonetheless.

If I had any kind of investment in 5th ed DnD i'd be sad.  But I don't!  The 4e crowd will go and en-mass purchase 5th ed, as well as some poor stupid newbies, leaving behind a smaller amount playing 4e/quitting the hobby than 3e vs 4e did, so Mike Mearls will punch the air and have big fake hugs with his design crew, and the 'flagship' for roleplaying will continue to be an infectious kitchen sink that pushes people away from discovering that roleplaying is heaps fun.

[Nicklance]

Fighter Design Goals

AAAARRRGGGHHHH YOU FUCKING IDIOTS!

Why do you idiots keep trying to design a fighter to match with a blaster wizard?!

[LordBlades]

Fighter Design Goals

AAAARRRGGGHHHH YOU FUCKING IDIOTS!

Why do you idiots keep trying to design a fighter to match with a blaster wizard?!

That can only mean 2 things: these guys still have no clue how their game works or they're going to make blaster wizard a decent (or better) choice in 5e, so comparing stuff with it wouldn't be so pointless.

Sadly, I think the former is much more likely than the latter.

[Bozwevial]

Fighter Design Goals

AAAARRRGGGHHHH YOU FUCKING IDIOTS!

Why do you idiots keep trying to design a fighter to match with a blaster wizard?!

That can only mean 2 things: these guys still have no clue how their game works or they're going to make blaster wizard a decent (or better) choice in 5e, so comparing stuff with it wouldn't be so pointless.

Sadly, I think the former is much more likely than the latter.

If I had to guess, I'd say they're taking the 4e route and beating all the out-of-combat spells to death so that the math is easier.