1/14/2011
This is going to be a bit different than some of my more recent posts, as I don't have any new photography outings to talk about. Now, as many of you may know, one of my favorite hobbies is gaming. Not shoot-em-up world war II style gaming, but table top gaming. Board games, card games, and most of all, pen and paper roleplaying games. I've been into these since high school, and have played several different systems. There is a special place in my heart, though, for Dungeons and Dragons, the first game I played.
With the announcement of work on the 5th edition (Just 5 short years after the release of 4th edition in 2007), rumors will likely begin to fly about what this new edition will hold. This is especially true due to Wizards of the Coast's pronounced goal to obtain player input on making the new rules system the rules system. I don't claim to have the answers for how to achieve their stated goal, but I do have opinions on what was done right in 3.5 and 4th edition, and what was still lacking. And since this blog has my name on it, I'll go right ahead and share those opinions.
Oh, and I lied earlier about not having any pictures. Since this is just way too much text, I'm going to go ahead and include a random picture just to break things up. Sorry.
Ok, on to my thoughts:
Things Done Right with 4e:
- Simplification of skills to minimize redundancies
- Customizable class features
- Easy, streamlined dungeon/encounter design and combat mechanics
Problems:
- Skill simplification removed too much for skills not directly related to typical actions
- Class modulation led to limitations in the flexibility of character creation.
- Streamlining of mechanics quickly led to combat becoming even more of a grind than before.
Clearly, the problems that 4e went about trying to solve ended up being the biggest problems with 4th edition. For this, I have come to view 4e more as a tactics game than a role-playing game.
So what do I want from a 5th edition? The problems that existed in 3.5 are still irksome, but the solutions presented in 4e have really failed to make things better, instead making it a different game. The statements that a more modular design to the system is being considered, where people can choose which rules to include/exclude sounds promising, as it allows for the potential of making a system everyone can get behind. I will be following the progress on this system closely. For my money, I'm hoping for a system with a comprehensive and detailed skill system that enriches non-combat play, and provides an easily navigated system to combat that removes some of the restrictions of the 4e combat system while enhancing its strengths in giving all players an ability to contribute in a fight.
I really hope 5e can overcome most of the problems plaguing other editions. But I am extremely leery of system claiming to be 'one-size fits all.' There are far to many mutually exclusive design decision points to allow for the effective implementation of a system that pleases all gaming styles. For example, from a very high-altitude perspective, how can you reconcile the fundamentally disparate goals of cinematic and simulationist play styles? The source materials for each contradict the other. In one, falling from a cliff spells instant death, while in the other, it merely guarantees the existence of soft, cushioning hay bale at the bottom, or even arrests the laws of gravity to turn a lethal impact into a flesh-wound.
ReplyDeleteAnd this is the problem with such a design by committee approach. Who can act as oversight to reconcile committee members who advocate strongly for only one style.
I can definitely see that as a dilemma, but I really think there is a way to have these disparate goals reconciled under one system, and they key to it comes from something WOTC is really good at, which is a sort of booster sets. Your core rules serve as guidelines for the basic mechanics of how the game operates, a basic list of magic items and equipment, things like that. Expansion books serve to build on this to cater to different playing styles.
DeleteFor example, you might have an expansion set built towards the hardcore 1st edition players, which implements a table-heavy approach, and have another expansion which focuses on a more tactics based approach. Each group can basically decide which version of the game they are most interested in and invest in that direction. This isn't too much different than how things stand now, the difference being that all these (basically different) games would have current support, including modules and further expansions, utilizing modern printing and technological capabilities. All expansions would have their quirks and focuses, but would all be rooted in the same set such that a group could easily decide to try a different style out without venturing too far from their comfort zone.
And, most importantly for WOTC, this would bring in tons of cash.
The nuclear hedgehog? Any relative to the Ugly Hedgehog????
ReplyDelete