Quote from: Exploderwizard;677873They are also failing to offer a basic core that fills my B/X needs.  It is of no great concern. I still have B/X, you still have 3E and 4E and whomever prefers the mishmash that WOTC is developing will have that.

WOOT! for variety.

Early on in 5E's development I came to the conclusion that they were designing the game for people who wanted a game similar to AD&D, but not AD&D itself. A modernized AD&D. Nothing 5E has done has changed that conclusion.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677522As an aside, I am more than a bit worried about having major changes to the core game this late in the game.  I do software testing for a living, and changing the requirements after this long is one of the worst things you can do.  On a personal level, it seems to me that they decided to go to RPG.net and read the forums there, and say, "Well, if RPG.net hates it, then clearly we need to make it more like 4e, and make sure that it's less important on how the mechanics actually work in actual game play, and most important on how they work in arena combat."

That's pretty much where I'm at. If the designers don't have the courage to ignore the RPGNet BNG system-wank crowd, then Next will be 4E all over again.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;677818I looked through the GM guidelines document and didn't find that quote that Soviet posted. Without a page reference I will have to attribute it to creative interpretation.

Page 3:

Here's another secret: You don't actually have to set the DC before the player rolls the ability check. Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result. You'll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player's) squares pretty well with the set DCs presented here. A number below 10 is never going to make it unless the task is trivially simple. A number in the low teens is good enough for an easy task. A number in the high teens will succeed at a moderate task. And when a player rolls a 20 or better, there's usually little question that the character succeeds.
Your players will never know.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;677864FWIW I find the whole notion of expertise dice and rolling multiple dice every time you attack etc. to be incredibly clunky, you're basically doubling the work of every round, but that's just me.

My group has been playing D&D since 1979 and we love the advantage/disadvantage mechanic in Next. You realize you can roll two dice at the same time, right? And that rolling two dice requires no more effort or time than one? We find it faster to roll two dice and take the highest roll than to roll one dice and add 4 to value. There's also important probability difference between the two approaches: with the traditional +4 method, you increase the maximum number you can achieve; with the two-dice method, you have a fixed maximum (ie 20), but you have a higher probability of scoring a high number.

Quote from: Haffrung;677884That's pretty much where I'm at. If the designers don't have the courage to ignore the RPGNet BNG system-wank crowd, then Next will be 4E all over again.

It seems that Mearls and Co. are thinking RPGs should be about theory analysis, rather than the social interaction that is actual play.  I.e., spend more time talking about the game rather than actually playing it.

I find that disappointing.

Quote from: Haffrung;677887My group has been playing D&D since 1979 and we love the advantage/disadvantage mechanic in Next. You realize you can roll two dice at the same time, right? And that rolling two dice requires no more effort or time than one? We find it faster to roll two dice and take the highest roll than to roll one dice and add 4 to value. There's also important probability difference between the two approaches: with the traditional +4 method, you increase the maximum number you can achieve; with the two-dice method, you have a fixed maximum (ie 20), but you have a higher probability of scoring a high number.

Exactly.  You also have twice the opportunity to score a critical hit, which keeps getting left out but typically has a huge impact on game play.  In fact, way back in 2000 when I designed Altus Adventum, I used this.   You have a pool of dice (the makeup depending on how skilled you were).  When you attacked or defended, you used the highest # appearing.  No math at all.  Actually sped things up.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677888It seems that Mearls and Co. are thinking RPGs should be about theory analysis, rather than the social interaction that is actual play.  I.e., spend more time talking about the game rather than actually playing it.

I find that disappointing.

Actually, judging by interviews I heard with them, they want Next to be very much about the experience at the table. In their initial promotion of the game, they almost came out and said "system doesn't matter as much as other stuff." Which is one of the reasons the theory-wanks were all over Next with knives drawn from the outset.

However, they do seem to be backtracking on that principle with the last couple packets. I'm concerned that Next will be designed for whoever shouts loudest in the final weeks of the playtest.

Quote from: soviet;677886Page 3:

Here's another secret: You don't actually have to set the DC before the player rolls the ability check. Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result. You'll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player's) squares pretty well with the set DCs presented here. A number below 10 is never going to make it unless the task is trivially simple. A number in the low teens is good enough for an easy task. A number in the high teens will succeed at a moderate task. And when a player rolls a 20 or better, there's usually little question that the character succeeds.
Your players will never know.

Thanks. OK that looks like pure storywank with dice tossed just for show.

I am all for ruling a success or failure based on circumstances and how an act was attempted but once the action has been deemed worthy of a die roll, the odds are determined and the dice decide.

Quote from: Haffrung;677887My group has been playing D&D since 1979

So what?

Quote from: Haffrung;677887You realize you can roll two dice at the same time, right? And that rolling two dice requires no more effort or time than one?

That's not really true. Rolling the second dice when you have advantage is pretty smooth and works out well in play, but once you start getting into expertise dice and all that stuff you introduce a whole new phase of 'OK, what the fuck dice am I rolling again? I need 2d20, a d6, a d4, no wait...'.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677889Exactly.  You also have twice the opportunity to score a critical hit, which keeps getting left out but typically has a huge impact on game play.  In fact, way back in 2000 when I designed Altus Adventum, I used this.   You have a pool of dice (the makeup depending on how skilled you were).  When you attacked or defended, you used the highest # appearing.  No math at all.  Actually sped things up.

I first saw the 'roll two dice take the highest' mechanic offered on Dragonsfoot years ago as a houserule for two-handed weapons in B/X D&D. I stole it then, and I'm glad Next is using it now.

My favourite part of D&D Next is that I now have concrete proof that I am a better games designer than the people who do it on a full time professional basis for the industry leader.

Note that I make no special claims for my competence otherwise.

How is that storywank?  That's how I do things all the time.  It's the players rolling the dice and the GM interpreting the results.  Just because there's not a set DC doesn't mean that it's "storywank."

Player: I want to break down the door.
DM: Roll a Strength test.
Player: I got a seventeen.
DM: Okay, you break down the door easily.

vs.

Player: I got a six.
DM: You thump the door but you can't break it open.

vs.

Player: I got an eleven.
DM: The door creaks and groans as you kick it.  It's not down yet, but you can roll again next round with advantage.

Omg storygamezzzzzzzzzz.

What they need to realize is that their "D&D for everybody" goal is what is bringing 5E down. "Everybody" involves groups of people with multiple mutually exclusive needs and desires who can't be reasonably served by a single game.

They either need to make a single, smaller game and commit to it being "what D&D is going to be going forward" or start thinking about multiple D&D lines.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;677891Thanks. OK that looks like pure storywank with dice tossed just for show.

I think it'd work better if it weren't a binary pass/fail thing but a matter of deciding how effective the action is.

So, to use the inspirational speech example, a trivial success looks good but only really bolsters the morale of folk who were already convinced, a low-teens roll wins over some of the undecideds, a high-teens roll convinces everyone who hadn't already decided they weren't going to support the PC, and a critical success wins over a portion of the naysayers on top of everyone else.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;677883Early on in 5E's development I came to the conclusion that they were designing the game for people who wanted a game similar to AD&D, but not AD&D itself. A modernized AD&D. Nothing 5E has done has changed that conclusion.

That's great to hear. I'd also say that it is meaningful and an purposeful attempt to go for those who are more likely to buy D&D5 - those who are now adults in their 30s to 40s; with kids, with dollar, free time and nostalgia.

Recently a survey found that most video game players were aged 35 on average and I would think a similar figure for D&D though aged average 45. Not quite the grey dollar, but the 'greying' dollar. That's why I expect D&D5 to be a mature product, and by that I don't mean an 18 certification but a maturity of writing; being more grounded than 3E and 4E.