Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Realmslore
 RPG News & Releases
 Looking at the Past and the Future
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Brimstone
Great Reader

USA
3048 Posts

Posted - 16 Jan 2012 :  05:54:01  Show Profile Send Brimstone a Private Message  Reply with Quote  Delete Topic
The Legends & Lore article for 01-16-2012 on D&D by Monte Cook.

Looking at the Past and the Future

Interesting...

"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep

Edited by - Brimstone on 16 Jan 2012 05:56:50

crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore

United Kingdom
1073 Posts

Posted - 16 Jan 2012 :  08:34:40  Show Profile  Visit crazedventurers's Homepage Send crazedventurers a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Its sounds ambitious and it also sounds like they want to be inclusive as possible. I am wondering how the modular design will work after the multiple core books they sell dependant on how many rules you want; i.e. if they design an adventure, will there be sidebars for every edition of the game on each page to explain how to run the orc in 0E-4E? (that would take up lots of room!)

The thought that someone can be playing a 0E fighter at the same table as as 3.X fighter whilst the DM is running a story driven non tactical, non minifig game is very ambitious, but if they pull it off then well done all!

Cheers

Damian

So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005
Go to Top of Page

Thauranil
Master of Realmslore

India
1591 Posts

Posted - 16 Jan 2012 :  11:17:36  Show Profile Send Thauranil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
It should help end the edition wars if nothing else.
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
3594 Posts

Posted - 16 Jan 2012 :  13:40:05  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'm skeptical to be sure. I can see it from a player's perspective, but won't this start creating player-envy? I mean, if my buddy decided to keep it simple, no skills or feats and just basic features and a weapon and I took skills, feats, powers and start doing CRAZY things like knocking 4 guys prone with an attack while he's stuck swinging maybe once per round....doesn't that start to out-shine one another?

Second skeptical feel: DM'ing sounds like it'll be a pain in the butt. For starters, this sounds like any sort of home game will be difficult to run without knowning every faucet of your PC's abilities. If everyone but the fighter opt-out of skills, then how are they going to pick the lock you put in front of them? Ad hoc rules? Sounds un-balanced. Also seems like the DM will have to shine the spotlight on every single on of the PCs to make them feel special and interesting during the adventure instead of the PCs shining on their turn.

4E Realms = Great Taste, Less Filling.

"If WotC were to put out a box of free money, people would still complain how it was folded."
Go to Top of Page

Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader

Germany
2296 Posts

Posted - 16 Jan 2012 :  15:14:50  Show Profile  Visit Mace Hammerhand's Homepage Send Mace Hammerhand a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Diffan, before 2nd edition, and before the wilderness and dungeon guides for 1st edition, the DM had to invent some rule or other all the time, and it never was a problem. Also, the way I understand it, if your friend was to DM and decided to run his game without feats etc, barebones old school, then you, as player would either go with it, or go away from the table.

Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware!
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
3594 Posts

Posted - 16 Jan 2012 :  15:44:24  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand

Diffan, before 2nd edition, and before the wilderness and dungeon guides for 1st edition, the DM had to invent some rule or other all the time, and it never was a problem. Also, the way I understand it, if your friend was to DM and decided to run his game without feats etc, barebones old school, then you, as player would either go with it, or go away from the table.



Yea, I'm not going to pay for books that require me to ad hoc rules each time a situation could lead to character deaths just so it's "modular". Certain aspects of Ad hoc rules are ok, like Crafting items. If the rules don't have this aspect (like 4E) then I don't have a problem with creating some areas where it's not defined specifically. But at least in 4E they give you ideas on running such rules that lead to system balance. For example, A player really wants to make a Longsword (to replace the one he broke) but there isn't somethign specific in 4E. So I look at his background and it says that for a time, he apprenticed as a blacksmith. So just from that, I could say "Ok, you were an apprentice and that nets you a +5 bonus. So make a d20 roll with 1/2 level, the better of your Intelligence or Wisdom modifier, +5 for training, and say another +2 if there is an expert there to help." I then add in the moderate or hard DC chart per level and voliá. He rolls, adds the modifiers, and that represents say...a day or two of hard work to craft a mundane longsword.

As to your point about aspects of character creation, I have a feeling this isn't whats going to happen according to Monte:
quote:
Originally posted by Monte on Legends and Lore


"Second—and this sounds so crazy that you probably won't believe it right now—we're designing the game so that not every player has to choose from the same set of options. Again, imagine a game where one player has a simple character sheet that has just a few things noted on it, and the player next to him has all sorts of skills, feats, and special abilities. And yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced. Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need. Or vice versa. It's all up to you to decide."


He's right, I don't believe it. Either the DM has to know who is using what all the time and has a fundamental grasp of each character mechanic the players are using (which is a lot if your running 4-5 characters) OR the rules will be spelled out in published adventures to make it easy. So in an adventure, the PCs come up to a locked door. They'll be a small side note saying: "If the players have skills, they can use Open Lock/Thivery. If they don't, and you have X race, they can use this feature. If they don't have skills or that race, then they can use X-spell found in page Y of the PHB. If they lack all of these aspects, put a Monster of level X in front of the door as guardian and make them solve this riddle with no mechanical requirement..." WTF is that? And how does a DM go into his own homebrew campaign with these kinds of rules? The DM would literally have to create dozens of options for each encounter or obstacle to accomidate the level of the group because of the "they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced" style. To me, this sounds like the sort of game DM who love to Micro Manage would love and compeletly defies any attempt at DM'ing made easy.

And really, there are already "established" systems out there that focus on these aspects, which mades me wonder if it's worth purchasing? If I can find a game that already does what "the next iteration of D&D" can do AND better, I probably just play that and not bother with D&D.


EDIT: Changed "better" in the last paragraph as it's impossible to know this without a playtest at least.

4E Realms = Great Taste, Less Filling.

"If WotC were to put out a box of free money, people would still complain how it was folded."

Edited by - Diffan on 16 Jan 2012 18:14:47
Go to Top of Page

Therise
Master of Realmslore

1265 Posts

Posted - 16 Jan 2012 :  16:26:56  Show Profile Send Therise a Private Message  Reply with Quote

None of us have even seen what they've made, much less playtested it, and already there are "better games out there that do this!"?

Really?

4E Realms was awful, but it's water under the Boareskyr Bridge. Let's make 5E Realms truly shine!
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
3594 Posts

Posted - 16 Jan 2012 :  16:54:54  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Ok, better was not a good word to use. Perhaps established or developed is more suitable to the topic as this is just all speculation now. And I really really wana hope its as fun as they claim and as modular as possible while remaining balanced. I just have a hard time seeing it.

4E Realms = Great Taste, Less Filling.

"If WotC were to put out a box of free money, people would still complain how it was folded."
Go to Top of Page

Mumadar Ibn Huzal
Master of Realmslore

1338 Posts

Posted - 16 Jan 2012 :  16:58:10  Show Profile Send Mumadar Ibn Huzal a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand

Diffan, before 2nd edition, and before the wilderness and dungeon guides for 1st edition, the DM had to invent some rule or other all the time, and it never was a problem.


And this was both a strength (major) and weakness (minor) of the system. A strength in the sense that the DM was free to 'wing it' without having to check x-amount of rules that his players might have access to and would expect him to adhere to. He/she would make a judgement call and move on with the game.

The weakness was in the fact for people playing with multiple DM's. Where above would be fine for a DM with more or less fixed group of players, when a player would game with different DMs, the judgement calls would be different and a player would not have a clear 'reference point' for in-game actions ("yeah, but my other DM allowed me to do this...")

Having more and detailed rules makes the game more portable, but also burdens the play with a certain amount of bureaucracy. If (big IF) they (WotC) can come up with a game design that is distilled to the bare minimum of core rules, and focus on products that can be used with just this minimum of rules they might have a winner again. Bringing in modular options might then be doable, as long as the products that come with the game do NOT require these options. Instead, these options can be used to 'enhance' these products to individual references. (compare with seasoning for food, not everyone likes their food salted and peppered, but adding salt or pepper on an individual base can enhance the taste for those who prefer a little seasoning).

An approach like this would also allow game world related products to be very light on rules (basically only referencing the core rules) and allowing for more print space for 'fluff'. Using web enhancements they could then provide alternate 'seasoning' for these products using the modular approach.
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
32105 Posts

Posted - 16 Jan 2012 :  18:53:52  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Perhaps we can refrain from commentary on the 5E ruleset until we actually have an idea as to what's in the rules?

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
3594 Posts

Posted - 16 Jan 2012 :  19:30:49  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Perhaps we can refrain from commentary on the 5E ruleset until we actually have an idea as to what's in the rules?



I'm just basing this opinion from what Monte has released for the next iteration of Dungeons and Dragons. Of course it's all speculation until the Open Playtest and it'll be a few months before we even get data on what they propose. Yet, I understand WHY they want to go modular and I can see it HAS potential, but it'll be hard to pull me (a 4E fan) away from the game that I've come to deeply respect and enjoy. And before anyways says it, I know I can always run 4E and I certanily plan to do so, I just hope I can enjoy the next iteration of Dungeons and Dragons.


What can modular mean to every D&D player? Well, for starters I feel that this route can open up EVERYONE who's played all editions of the game. I think this route will supercede what Pathfinder can accomplish. You see, with Pathfinder you have their rules and 3.5 rules and that's really about it. With a new modular game for D&D, you have 1E, 2E/AD&D, 3.0E, v3.5e, Pathfinder (v3.75e), 4E to be used with said adventure. That leave a lot of people looking to their older products and opening them back up again. IF WotC is smart enought, they'll allow free PDF sales of older 2E/AD&D-3E stuff to be downloaded and purchased for the use of their New D&D stuff. Now THAT sounds like a win-win approach. As long as I can use my 4E stuff (online tools and all) WITH their current designs then I'll be happy to contribute.

4E Realms = Great Taste, Less Filling.

"If WotC were to put out a box of free money, people would still complain how it was folded."
Go to Top of Page

ZeshinX
Learned Scribe

Canada
207 Posts

Posted - 16 Jan 2012 :  20:31:08  Show Profile  Visit ZeshinX's Homepage Send ZeshinX a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I will remain exceedingly skeptical until I have some 5e playtest material in my hands. At present I do not believe Monte's (and WotC's) vision of a modular D&D is feasible (and modular currently strikes me as a synonym for bloat).

I do, however, remain open to the possibility of being suprised (pleasantly or painfully).

"...because despite the best advice of those who know what they are talking about, other people insist on doing the most massively stupid things."
-Galen, technomage
Go to Top of Page

Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader

USA
3080 Posts

Posted - 16 Jan 2012 :  20:46:11  Show Profile Send Ashe Ravenheart a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil

It should help end the edition wars if nothing else.

That's like saying if we shut down 4chan, internet trolls will go away...

As long as there are rules to a game, there will be a) someone that disagrees with how they were written and b) someone that thinks they can write them better.

I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.

Ashe's Character Sheet

Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs
Go to Top of Page

Faraer
Great Reader

3308 Posts

Posted - 16 Jan 2012 :  21:22:28  Show Profile  Visit Faraer's Homepage Send Faraer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
We can see, at least, that Wizards is managing the diplomacy much better this time. If the game lives up to it, it may well be a fine one for playing in the Realms, whether one prefers a basic, relatively neutral system (the role 2E plays for me) or a more mechanically involved one.
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
32105 Posts

Posted - 16 Jan 2012 :  21:52:29  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

IF WotC is smart enought, they'll allow free PDF sales of older 2E/AD&D-3E stuff to be downloaded and purchased for the use of their New D&D stuff. Now THAT sounds like a win-win approach.


It does sound win-win, but keep in mind that WotC, as a reaction to 4E stuff being pirated, yanked all pdf sales -- including stuff from prior editions, which they otherwise made absolutely no money at all for them.

So I'll remain skeptical on that prospect.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore

United Kingdom
1073 Posts

Posted - 17 Jan 2012 :  00:05:49  Show Profile  Visit crazedventurers's Homepage Send crazedventurers a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Perhaps we can refrain from commentary on the 5E ruleset until we actually have an idea as to what's in the rules?


Why do we need to be quiet? I thought WoTC wanted input, wanted the gaming forums to talk about it, they are asking for feedback right? And more to the point we are discussing a game that brings us all here to Candlekeep in the first place, surely this is actually the best time to talk about what we love and loathe about the game and how we all hope 5e will be a smashing success and encourage even more people to play it?

What would be better is one thread on the subject, not a dozen or so. So surely a better option would be to lock down all but one thread (maybe the mods can make an official 5E thoughts thread and sticky it?) and that way all the thoughts and ideas become easier to see and manage, because at the minute we are getting repetitive posts on multiple threads.

Just a thought to make it easier for us all

Cheers

Damian

So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
32105 Posts

Posted - 17 Jan 2012 :  00:22:12  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Perhaps we can refrain from commentary on the 5E ruleset until we actually have an idea as to what's in the rules?


Why do we need to be quiet? I thought WoTC wanted input, wanted the gaming forums to talk about it, they are asking for feedback right? And more to the point we are discussing a game that brings us all here to Candlekeep in the first place, surely this is actually the best time to talk about what we love and loathe about the game and how we all hope 5e will be a smashing success and encourage even more people to play it?



It's fine to offer feedback on what you want, or on elements that WotC has already described. I'm just asking that people not comment on specific elements in 5E when we don't know what those elements are or how they'll work. It would be really silly, for example, to claim that 5E's mechanic for weapon specialization isn't going to work as well as 3.x's mechanic, when we don't know if 5E will even have weapon specialization or how it will work if it does.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

Knight of the Gate
Senior Scribe

USA
624 Posts

Posted - 17 Jan 2012 :  15:22:32  Show Profile Send Knight of the Gate a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'm just going to remain cautiously optimistic that 5E will allow for the creation of new material set in the pre-Plague Realms; if it means there's some chance I get a Mirt novel or a Cormyr sourcebook (including the lineage!) I am in foavor of it!

How can life be so bountiful, providing such sublime rewards for mediocrity? -Umberto Ecco
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2019 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000