A transition I want to see...

[Scribble]

It's interesting to me... I see people talking about what they hope is in D&D Next, but then also what they hope is NOT a part of D&D Next. I think people are thinking about it incorrectly... I THINK at least the idea isn't going to be so much a this rule OR that rule in the game, so much as which one do you choose in YOUR game...

I'm really hoping that the game is modular enough that the idea of "Rules as Written" kind of fades into the ether.

I'd like to see the discussions on the board transition from why a rule should or should not be in the game, and instead to whether or not it's fun to use... To me there is a big difference.


Anyone else with me?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yes. I would like to see an end to THE RAW, and a rebirth of the toolkit rules that playing groups can pick from to build the game that they would enjoy most.

Of course having a plethora of mutually exclusive options all being "official" would be enough to make some rules lawyer's heads explode.

 

[Scribble]

Yeah I've said it before, but I think one of my favorite parts of AD&D (and Dragon in particular) was that it was sort of a mishmash of various optional rules. It was kind of a Frankenstein's Monster... But it was so chaotic it became cumbersome...


3e ushered in the "standardized system" which was good, but I think it focused too much on adding everything it thought people wanted, and as a result I think it also ushered in a sort of "this is D&D" everything else is your homebrew... sort of feeling.

I want the return of what I felt in earlier days (D&D is what you make it) but with less chaos... I really hope that's possible.

 

[steeldragons]

Definitely with you on this.

A great hope to have/hold on to.

 

[El Mahdi]

It's interesting to me... I see people talking about what they hope is in D&D Next, but then also what they hope is NOT a part of D&D Next. I think people are thinking about it incorrectly... I THINK at least the idea isn't going to be so much a this rule OR that rule in the game, so much as which one do you choose in YOUR game...

I'm really hoping that the game is modular enough that the idea of "Rules as Written" kind of fades into the ether.

I'd like to see the discussions on the board transition from why a rule should or should not be in the game, and instead to whether or not it's fun to use... To me there is a big difference.


Anyone else with me?

I'm with you...but I'm not so sure about having a discussion of whether something is Fun or not. Those types of discussions usually go quite badly also. How about less about RAW and Fun, and more about what the results of this or that mechanic might be. Will it speed up game play? Slow it down? Will it close a loophole? Will it support a style, mood, or feel? Etc., Etc., Etc.

As soon as people start saying that somebody shouldn't use something because it's not fun, things usually end up getting ugly.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I'm down with the rules being flexible, but I like a robust general mechanic that makes it easy to balance things when you're making them up. Having one combat skill using a different mechanism to resolve than another combat skill is messy.

 

[Mark CMG]

It's interesting to me... I see people talking about what they hope is in D&D Next, but then also what they hope is NOT a part of D&D Next. I think people are thinking about it incorrectly... I THINK at least the idea isn't going to be so much a this rule OR that rule in the game, so much as which one do you choose in YOUR game...

I'm really hoping that the game is modular enough that the idea of "Rules as Written" kind of fades into the ether.

I'd like to see the discussions on the board transition from why a rule should or should not be in the game, and instead to whether or not it's fun to use... To me there is a big difference.


Anyone else with me?

There are aspects of RAW that will be discussed that have nothing to do with the modularity of some of the design. The reality is that WotC is producing a product that will turn some customers away if it includes some aspects that are not the liking of particularly fans. If, for intance, and to pick an extreme that might not be to everyone's liking, WotC chose to write the entire ruleset to a first grade level, I think it is fair for some to say that they would not want that and would reject 5E if they found out that was a design goal. I'm also not a fan of limiting the discussion to only positive input by steering away input that expresses trepidations and concerns that can be expressed more easily through a negative statement, i.e. Someone might not want overuse of portmanteau word naming conventions for creatures. Something like the reading level and the naming conventions, as well as a host of other concerns, are likely to extend over the whole of the game without being a modularity considerations.

 

[Scribble]

I'm with you...but I'm not so sure about having a discussion of whether something is Fun or not. Those types of discussions usually go quite badly also. How about less about RAW and Fun, and more about what the results of this or that mechanic might be. Will it speed up game play? Slow it down? Will it close a loophole? Will it support a style, mood, or feel? Etc., Etc., Etc.

As soon as people start saying that somebody shouldn't use something because it's not fun, things usually end up getting ugly.

I know what you mean... but to me they get ugly mainly because they also tend to at heart center around wether or not that's how the game should BE. X is no fun so D&D should not BE that.

Not sure if I'm making sense with that- but I feel it's different.

There are aspects of RAW that will be discussed that have nothing to do with the modularity of some of the design. The reality is that WotC is producing a product that will turn some customers away if it includes some aspects that are not the liking of particularly fans. If, for intance, and to pick an extreme that might not be to everyone's liking, WotC chose to write the entire ruleset to a first grade level, I think it is fair for some to say that they would not want that and would reject 5E if they found out that was a design goal. I'm also not a fan of limiting the discussion to only positive input by steering away input that expresses trepidations and concerns that can be expressed more easily through a negative statement, i.e. Someone might not want overuse of portmanteau word naming conventions for creatures. Something like the reading level and the naming conventions, as well as a host of other concerns, are likely to extend over the whole of the game without being a modularity considerations.

But I think I'm trying to express something different...

Your post might actually be a perfect example- I think there is an idea that's kind of sprung up that there is an "Official" D&D, and whatever is the printed rule is that official D&D.

This is the attitude I want to see change. I want the game to be modular enough that there isn't ONE set of rules that if you've changed you're considered to be playing a modified version of D&D.

IE I don't want the rules to say here are the rules to D&D but you can change them with these options... I want them to say Here are the different options, please select how you want D&D to work for you.

Instead of opting to change a rule we should just select which one to use from the start.

I think THAT will go a long way towards changing the mindset that D&D has to = one thing at a time.

 

[Mark CMG]

But I think I'm trying to express something different...

Your post might actually be a perfect example- I think there is an idea that's kind of sprung up that there is an "Official" D&D, and whatever is the printed rule is that official D&D.

This is the attitude I want to see change. I want the game to be modular enough that there isn't ONE set of rules that if you've changed you're considered to be playing a modified version of D&D.

IE I don't want the rules to say here are the rules to D&D but you can change them with these options... I want them to say Here are the different options, please select how you want D&D to work for you.

Instead of opting to change a rule we should just select which one to use from the start.

I think THAT will go a long way towards changing the mindset that D&D has to = one thing at a time.

I see what you mean but for those who play a lot of convention games and gamedays, particularly tourneys and living campaigns, or who run spontaneous pickup games with players who they don't necessarily know, a solid RAW core ruleset often plays a big part in getting those games together quickly and easily. We'll see how the presentation of 5E manages to cater to both those circles of gamers, particularly if organized play organizations are going to be a big part of 5E.


And for the examples I mention (reading level, naming conventions, and let's add artwork), as I stated, I don't think the modularity of the game will make much difference. Those are going to be part of it throughout but might be beyond the scope of your suggestion.

 

[Mattachine]

I heartily agree--I won't be sorry to see rules lawyers be sad. RAW doesn't need to rule the game.