Resolutions are for breaking, right? 5e broke me.

You may also like...

13 Responses

  1. drow says:

    nine whole days, i’m impressed. =)

    i’m looking forward to see how the process plays out, and what wizards ends up doing when their feedback system provides at least ten radically different directions.

    • greywulf says:

      > nine whole days, i’m impressed. =)

      It’s a personal best! :D

      That’s where I’m hoping the modular design comes in. Done well, it will be awesome.

  2. Thorynn says:

    One of the many questions I’m wondering about it how the “levers” will affect the experience from one table to the next. I wonder if they won’t go back to the old “Basic” and “Advanced” tiers of yore, and then add more “levers” from there.

    The “levers” concept reminds me of the TSR splat books. As I recall that wasn’t the best move for TSR from a sales standpoint, and may divide rather than unite the D&D audience. We’ll see.

    • greywulf says:

      The problem with “Basic” and “Advanced” tiered play was exactly that – it was tiered. Being able to mix and match rules elements to suit your preferred style of play (and actively encouraging and supporting that in the rules) is a far better solution. If your group or campaign setting wants (for example) more complex combat options then they should be usable without having to move en masse to the “Advanced” game. Modular design ftw.

      The problem with the old TSR splat books were many and varied. One problem was balance. They provided options that made characters which used them substantially more powerful than their counterparts. This is a lesson that (hopefully!) by now D&D game designers have learned to avoid. 4e is pretty good in this respect, and I hope 5e follows suit.

    • greywulf says:

      Moving from one table to another (or even one compaign setting to another in the same group, if the settings are widely different) will involve a small degree of learning the new Levers, yes. Provided the rules are internally consistent though, that should be less of a problem than, say, changine rules system, and even that isn’t all that difficult.

  3. Darktouch says:

    One of the places where ‘levers’ worked best was Mutants and Masterminds 2nd edition. The Mastermind’s Manual was just one big book of levers. Most people didn’t use them, but they were there and they were official. On the Atomic Think Tank you would see a lot of people say, “I like the game, but it doesn’t do X which I like.” More often than not, someone would point to the Mastermind’s Manual and say “Pull levers A, B, and F”. Usually the complainer would say “Oh.” and wander off to either play or complain elsewhere.

    • greywulf says:

      Absolutely! I’ll be writing about Levers and multiple layers of complexity at the gaming table, using Mutants & Masterminds as an example, later this week.

  4. KosherInfidel says:

    Why would they do this? Most of us already own all of these levers in the older editions and are more than capable of doing the work ourselves. Most have done the work already. They are desperate and reaching.

    • greywulf says:

      > Why would they do this?

      1) Because it’s a game they love and they want to see it have a future
      2) Because they’re a company and making new stuff is what companies do
      3) Because some people didn’t like Fourth Edition so they are genuinely trying to address their concerns

      > Most of us already own all of these levers in the older editions and are more than capable of doing the work ourselves.

      This is true. There are many people out there who are capable of doing the work themselves. Have they done this? No.
      Besides, there’s a world of difference between Joe Q Gamer doing it, and the official makers of Dungeons & Dragons doing it and offering it to everyone else as a core element in the product line.

      > Most have done the work already.

      Not in my experience. D&D Editions tend to be polarized. Classic D&D gamers play Classic D&D, AD&D gamers play AD&D, 3e gamers play 3e and 4e gamers play 4e. You won’t find many gamers who play (for example) Third Edition D&D with Fourth Edition classes and AD&D monsters. The next edition of D&D looks like it will allow that degree of flexibility.

      > They are desperate and reaching.

      That’s just being pointlessly negative and critical for no good reason. If you don’t support the future of the hobby then save your complaints for other parts of the internet where I don’t go (*cough* grognard forums *cough*).


  5. Tetsubo says:

    This is the first edition of my favorite game that I simply do not care about in the least. WotC has lost a customer for life. They burn the last bridge that joined us with 4E. I hope folks enjoy their new game.

  6. Sayge says:

    I cannot help, after reading all of this and the comments, sitting with a copies of M&M on my shelf and go, “I got your fifth edition. . . right there. . .”

  7. Norcross says:

    I’m coming a little late to this thread, but I don’t want the “Levers” to make characters more powerful than those without. Maybe more focused in a particular area, but not “better” overall. One player shouldn’t be penalized because he is just using the basic game, while another player is adding Feats and Skills.
    (Or for that matter, because a third character wants to have all his HP healed up and almost all of his spells/powers ready to go after catching his breath for five minutes between fights).

  1. October 14, 2015

    […] Edit: Looks like Greywulf may have hit upon how this is possible: Modularity. […]

Leave a Reply