|
What are the current thoughts on how D&D Next will be packaged as a product? They keep talking "modules" but are we going to see the classic DMG, PHB, MM trinity or do you think they'll try something new? Mearls seems to mention tablets frequently but we've gotten absolutely no evidence of any sort of Next app being in development currently as far as I'm aware. Part of me thinks they'll stick to the three book format because that "feels" like D&D and that's what the old-school people expect of course.
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
Rosalind posted:...or do you think they'll try something new? Does anyone have any recommendations for gluten free beer? Red Bridge was pretty good, but Bards Beer was... not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
gently caress knows. I'm personally assuming the traditional triumvirate of DMG/PHB/Monster Manual, possibly a red box starter set which will be completely incompatible with the rest of the game, and basically force you to double-buy everything, and modular options either buried deep in the PHB where players can't see them, or vapourware until a splat is released which they probably won't make enough money to get to. I'm amused by their reliance on 175000 as an awesome number of playtesters - it IS, but I'm assuming that number includes people like me who stopped playtesting after maybe one packet, and also includes the vast majority of their player base - and whilst that' a strong audience for an RPG, it's a really poor audience for a Hasbro product (and indeed, for a WotC product). E: lol, they can't even be arsed to write new articles over Christmas. thespaceinvader fucked around with this message at 11:27 on Dec 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 10:01
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:What are the current thoughts on how D&D Next will be packaged as a product? If I had to guess I'd say you'll see the same three books, but they'll slap a bunch of lazy, throwaway monsters in the back of the PHB and say "You can play using only this book!". VVV It's multiplatform so I assume that means they'll have ripout pages without holes and then sell a dragon themed hole punch at a premium. DalaranJ fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Dec 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
I hope to Christ that it's a three-ring binder and the modules are literally bundles of rules to click in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
This is every time any variation of the word "module" has appeared in Legends & Lore this year:Pike Pearls posted:This brings us to the second big picture goal. We're going to make an RPG product called Dungeons & Dragons. It will be the game, Dungeons & Dragons, not just a sampler or a game that guides you through making a character and playing a single adventure. You can buy D&D and play a full, tabletop RPG campaign. You will be able to start playing, regardless of experience, and will easily find other products to migrate to if you so desire. quote:Other advanced rules are modular, in that they sit atop the core system. A set of rules for henchmen or companion animals, or detailed rules for tactical combat, falls into this category. These are new subsystems that refer to the core but don't change it. A henchman has a stat block, with perhaps a rating for loyalty or morale, but otherwise it works within the bounds of the game. quote:We have had a few interesting talks about healing in R&D lately. I'm wondering if we might be thinking too much about healing. Our goal has been to remove cleric healing as a necessary element of adventuring. Does that approach make sense given our modular design? quote:To start with, we're making skills completely optional. They are a rules module that combines the 3E and 4E systems that DMs can integrate into their game if they so desire. If you use the full skill system, we expect that you'll ask for a Perception check rather than a Wisdom check to spot a hidden monster. We can also allow skills to give you a steadily improving, static bonus. If the DM opts to use the skill system, he or she just needs to keep in mind how it affects DCs. A DM can change DCs, or just use the standard ones and accept that characters will succeed more often. quote:In many ways, our approach to adventures and campaigns shapes our approach to modularity. What kind of campaign do you want to run? What are your favorite parts of an adventure? One person's feature is another person's bug when it comes to adventure design. quote:The inspiration mechanic is a simple gateway to deeper rewards for roleplaying your character. Groups that want a more narrative game can reward inspiration freely or adapt it for other uses. You can even give players a pool of inspiration that they can spend only to reward other players for good roleplaying moments. By baking inspiration into the core of the game, we have the basic structure needed to provide for more in-depth rules modules. I thought this was going to be another one of those exercises in compulsive fact-checking for which I am known, but I think it shows us something meaningful: Every time Mike Mearls discusses modularity in reference to some design innovation, it is promptly discarded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
Isn't the kind of modularity he's discussing exactly what White Wolf has been doing for 20+ years? And almost everybody else? You can use Weird Vampire Power from the core book, or Weird Slightly Cooler Power from the clan book. Or clumsy fighting system in the core book vs a fiddly one from WoD: Combat. All that's new here is the term "module."
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
Not really, no. In some specific cases, such as a loyalty rating for henchmen, sure. But in general? No way. In old-school D&D, one of the ways you avoid getting killed by touching a doorknob of annihilation is by having henchmen do that poo poo, so introducing henchmen has cascading implications for resource management (not to mention metagame concerns about how complicated character creation should be and how easy it should be to introduce new PCs). And that's a minor example. Attack bonus vs. armor class is the basis of the to-hit mechanic, you don't just change armor to something that provides damage reduction without changing lots of stuff! Some of the stuff he's talked about isn't really a rules module at all, just more character options, like a martial character who can heal. Most importantly, in the past he talked about cornerstones of the rules--like whether or not feats and skills exist--as modules. He's also talked about all this being okay because everything would be designed with one ability score point as the quantum of character power. Maybe that's possible, but the Next team aren't the ones to do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
But even then, all that still only amounts to new rules. Like every other RPG that has an ongoing production cycle. (Except GURPS, FATE, and Savage Worlds, which actually have a core / module model.) He even mentions that some "modules" will change core rules... Which tells me he doesn't have a working understanding of how core rules are supposed to work. They were too busy corraling sacred cows into to "core" to question if the game could function without them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
Well, like I've said, even if they weren't wrapped up in trying to cater to segments of the fanbase who are really attached to particular tropes or outright hateful, the D&D Next team as a whole has vanishingly little past experience with serious design work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
Oh, absolutely. I think much of this is born of decades where "PHB only" was the norm (due to lovely, unregulated expansion). That misunderstanding of "core rules" propagated into a list of DnD-feeling spells instead of a core spellcasting system, along with all the other nonsense they're stuffing into their core-plus-cows "core."
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:In some specific cases, such as a loyalty rating for henchmen, sure. But in general? No way. In old-school D&D, one of the ways you avoid getting killed by touching a doorknob of annihilation is by having henchmen do that poo poo, so introducing henchmen has cascading implications for resource management (not to mention metagame concerns about how complicated character creation should be and how easy it should be to introduce new PCs). And that's a minor example. Attack bonus vs. armor class is the basis of the to-hit mechanic, you don't just change armor to something that provides damage reduction without changing lots of stuff! I think the most functional type of module is the 'extra rules for a specific action or subsystem' type that comes with an explanation of what changes you'll need to make to include it. Not every campaign will be about dungeon-crawling, but it's nice to have a set of rules/guidelines for how to adjudicate fair and level-appropriate dungeon creation for those campaigns that do feature crawling as a major focus. The henchman example you gave could actually work just fine, as long as the rule book gave some explanation about how various ways of running hirelines will have certain implications for the feel of the game--you can just totally scrap loyalty rules and run them as disposable resources or you can use the loyalty rules and turn loyalty itself into a resource you can spend on things like checking for traps or keeping them in the front of the marching order. Ultimately, I think these types of rules work best when they skirt the line between rules and GM advice. You describe in non-mechanical terms how things should be handled, then you create a mechanical system to illustrate in concrete terms an implementation of the advice you just gave. The AD&D random dungeon generator/stocker is a really good example--it gave you a rough idea of what dungeons are expected to look/function like, but you weren't actually expected to use it when making your own. The thing about modular/optional rules, though, is that they really do make balance difficult. You really need some systems for absorbing imbalancing influences in your game for these things to be desirable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Not really, no. This is the thing that worries me. By putting animal companions and summoned minions as "hirelings" instead of addressing this in the class rules, that throws all balance out of whack. If an animal companion is the same as hireling, doesn't that mean that if a Ranger takes one everyone else is not going to be nearly as effective as the ranger unless they take hirelings as well? It's not so bad when you've got one wizard or one ranger, but if everyone is having to take hirelings to keep up in a hireling arms race, that is going to suck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
Or conversely if an animal companion is the same as a hireling, then anyone can get one of the ranger's class features just by spending some gold.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
As with much of Next, it depends on how well it's implemented. If a hireling or animal companion is 3rd ed style of having all the benefits of playing two characters and none of the potential downsides then yeah, that's going to go all to hell. If it's something more reasonable it could work fine. If, for example, a hireling is effectively just another piece of equipment on par with a low-level wondrous item then nobody will need to buy hirelings to keep up with the ranger anymore than everyone has to buy a ring of teleport to keep up with the swordmage, and choosing to spend your money on a hireling over a fire sword is no worse than choosing to buy a ring of teleport over a new fire sword. So if you have confidence that the developers are capable of looking ahead to the potential in-play consequences of their design sorry I can't do this anymore it's going to be terrible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:Does anyone have any recommendations for gluten free beer? Red Bridge was pretty good, but Bards Beer was... not. I'm told Estrella is good. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
I recommend hard cider to my gluten-free friends.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
moths posted:I recommend hard cider to my gluten-free friends. This. I've tried some of those gluten-free beers and they are rather poor imitations of beer with weird aftertastes and icky textures. Why have something that's a bad imitation of the real thing when you can have a Crabbie's Ginger Beer or Original Sin Cider?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:This. I've tried some of those gluten-free beers and they are rather poor imitations of beer with weird aftertastes and icky textures. Why have something that's a bad imitation of the real thing when you can have a Crabbie's Ginger Beer or Original Sin Cider? Usually people consume gluten-free products because they have diabetes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
Covok posted:Usually people consume gluten-free products because they have diabetes. This is incorrect. Look up celiac disease.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
moths posted:I recommend hard cider to my gluten-free friends. Seconding this. Angry Orchard Ginger is the poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Covok posted:Usually people consume gluten-free products because they have diabetes. I thought it was because they had gluten allergies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
LeSquide posted:This is incorrect. Look up celiac disease. Well, color me corrected. I thought it was diabetes because of something a co-worker told me when I offhandedly asked why we had a whole section of the store specifically for gluten-free products. Monster w21 Faces posted:I thought it was because they had gluten allergies. Edit: Well, actually, according to an article, Coeliac Disease is not the same, but similar to a wheat allergy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
-Fish- posted:Seconding this. Angry Orchard Ginger is the poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
moths posted:I recommend hard cider to my gluten-free friends. I enjoy Strongbow. Sometimes wizards call me a wuss when I order one at the tavern, but then I just chokeslam a dragon with the power of swole. Fighters.txt
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
I drink Rekorderlig's or Bulmer's apple-blackcurrant cider because it turns out all I've ever wanted in life is alcoholic Ribena.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
I have a couple gluten-allergic friends; between the two of them they most prefer Angry Orchard. Giving my own opinions: Applecore: Too dry and tart. Crispin: So there's this weird marketing thing where you're supposed to drink it on ice, but don't do that. The flavour is delicate and you won't taste it at all. Horsnby's: Well-balanced; on the dry side. Magners: Tasty; rather rich. Strongbow: Good, but a bit vinegary. Woodchuck: I like it a lot, but very sweet. (Due to the champagne yeast, I believe.) I had to do cocktail pairings for Christmas eve dinner since Kate was doing all the cooking. I did Aviations to pair with the brie en croute; after that I was making it up as I went along. I made this to pair with the meaty/bitter part of the meal (the baked kale chips and bacon-wrapped asparagus). I haven't thought of a better name for it than Trapped in Amber. 2.5 oz. Black Grouse blended scotch 1.0 oz. Grand Marnier 0.5 oz. Cherry Heering 1.0 oz. fresh lemon juice Garnish with orange zest. This serves two. The peculiar bacony aroma in the Black Grouse, freshened with lemon and orange zest, stood up well to the vegetables' bitter flavour. If for some reason you wanted to use single-malt, I'd recommend the Glenlivet for the bright grassy notes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
I've not tried the others you mentioned (my local liquor stores also carry Strongbow and Applecore, at least), but I found Hornsby's to be thoroughly mediocre. It was that sort of feeling where it was good enough to finish the bottle but not good enough to drink the rest of the six-pack. (I eventually mixed the collection with some Chaucer's Mead, which was pretty good* if a bit more potent.) Thankfully they also offer Woodchuck and Angry Orchard so I'm set for good cider. (While briefly playing Torchlight 2 I decided to be a bit whimsical and name my character based on the latter.) I also know a friend of a friend who's been home-brewing since his teenage years, and he makes this amazing sort of apple champagne. (It's about at that alcohol level, fizziness, and pressure...just with a different sugar-based feedstock.) Then again, I'm not gluten-intolerant like a few of my friends. I just happen to hate every beer that has passed my lips.  *To be fair I tend to prefer sweeter stuff, so my standard drink in a bar is Malibu + pineapple. My sister has commented that such is more like sunshine than alcohol.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 05:29
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I had to do cocktail pairings for Christmas eve dinner since Kate was doing all the cooking. I did Aviations to pair with the brie en croute; after that I was making it up as I went along. I made this to pair with the meaty/bitter part of the meal (the baked kale chips and bacon-wrapped asparagus). I haven't thought of a better name for it than Trapped in Amber.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 07:19
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Serve with no ice and call it Amber Iceless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 09:00
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Serve with no ice and call it Amber Diceless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 12:28
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Serve with no ice and call it Ambered Iceless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 11:38
|
|
|
Add a couple drops of Ouzo and call it Lords of Olympus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 11:46
|
|
|
God drat, all this beer talk made me think I was having a stroke, thanks guys.thespaceinvader posted:I'm amused by their reliance on 175000 as an awesome number of playtesters - it IS, but I'm assuming that number includes people like me who stopped playtesting after maybe one packet, and also includes the vast majority of their player base - and whilst that' a strong audience for an RPG, it's a really poor audience for a Hasbro product (and indeed, for a WotC product). That sample also includes people like me, who downloaded one packet but kept filling out their surveys. I don't have a lot of faith in the end product, but I really, really don't want to become the grog who refuses to try it because of poo poo I've heard rather than experienced/read first hand from the rules.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 16:12
|
|
|
I don't think they'd have gotten this far if the "I've never looked at a 4e book, but..." crowd wasn't such a thing. I mean, I've caught myself giving Next way more benefit of the doubt than it deserves, just to not be that guy. And I wonder if this hesitancy to judge is ultimately detracting from the quality of the end product. Gamers who cared about clean design and appreciated what 4e and Pathfinder got right are self-censoring, having put up with a half-decade of position-of-ignorance smear "criticism," are reluctant to voice anything that could be misconstrued as uninformed "dumb WoW babby" poo poo. They're instead taking their own advice: gracefully moving on to (or sticking with) better games, not engaging, and staying positive. I don't think Next could have gotten this far being this bad without being prefaced by a brutal, divisive edition war. It's enjoying the massive protection of nobody earnestly wanting to go through that again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
moths posted:I don't think they'd have gotten this far if the "I've never looked at a 4e book, but..." crowd wasn't such a thing. I mean, I've caught myself giving Next way more benefit of the doubt than it deserves, just to not be that guy. I don't think Next is immune to criticism; in fact, I've never heard anybody ever say anything nice about it other than 'meh, seems inoffensive.' I think the mistake is assuming the Next and its community are a mere byproduct of the Great Edition War. It is the Edition War, it's the latest battleground that all the angry nerds are using to pass their completely inconsequential agendas onto. A mechanic is never just good or bad; it's 'the specter of 4e' or 'some lame 3.5 bullshit' or whatever. And I don't think those assessments are always wrong, but the fact that people keep pushing to label mechanics as remnants of their totally most hated version of D&D says something about Next, I think. EDIT: And by 'not immune to criticism' I mean, 'I think a lot of us have been loudly criticizing Next for a long time.' Mendrian fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
I still haven't found an internet community that's all hugely excited over Next. Even the WotC boards (when I can stand looking at them after their endless "revamps") tend towards the same simmering pot of barely restrained psychopathic hostility that they've been since 1999.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
I don't want to be the guy not playing next purely because it's next. I want to be the guy who, when we run out of LFR, persuades the group to switch to Dungeon World.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:EDIT: And by 'not immune to criticism' I mean, 'I think a lot of us have been loudly criticizing Next for a long time.' I think the problem with criticising Next is that anyone who cares about math and rules interactions can already see whatever you're pointing out, and anyone who doesn't care will respond as they have been responding for years, with "just roleplay it or houserule it, caring about math is for WoW babies".
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
Guess there's nothing more to say about Next then. This thread is done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 00:47
|
|
