| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
 Posted - 21 May 2012 : 21:18:42
|
Mike Mearls interview on ENworld for D&D:Next
Well we get a deeper look into a lot of the mechanics side of D&D:Next as much of the NDAs are removed for the interview. Some things to note are Mike's words regarding Monte's design work being seen in D&D:Next-
quote:
Originally posted from ENworld
Q: "On which areas of D&D Next will the departure of Monte from the design team have the most immediate effect?"
A: "The core concept and direction remains the same, so really nothing has changed in terms of our big picture ideas."
Not exaclty the question I would ask, but it reaffirms my belief that it wasn't the rules or the other designers that made Monte feel he needed to leave. So while he's not on the project, gamers should be able to feel safe that his mechanics are primarly apart of D&D:Next.
I'll not do a point-by-point summary of the conversation, but from what was said I can actually say I'm excited to see what they roll out with. I know some things are going to 'irk' me, it's just the nature of the beast when you change editions, but I think overall they're blending a lot of good elements from all the editions (special mention to 2E stuff in here) and keeping an understanding that balance across all areas (Class, themes, feats, backgrounds) is important.
I also got the vibe that Mike generally wants a positive experience to come out of the open playtest. He wants people to really explore the options as they present themselves and give great feedback about the system and what can be done to make it better. Judging from people who've playtested excitement, I'm very curious myself and I anticipate a fun time trying out the new rules.
|
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
Edited by - Diffan on 21 May 2012 21:19:28
|
|
|
Gaming Tonic
Acolyte
USA
2 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2012 : 00:14:45
|
| Thanks Diffan for noticing the interview. I am not sure what question you would have asked about Monte, but the world at large seems to think I should have asked, "why did Monte Cook leave?". Although I am sure Mike Mearls would know the answer, no way are you going to get a straight answer about it, especially on the record. If that wasn't your question then I hope you enjoyed the story. Everybody at Wizards of the Coast has seem genuinely excited by the open playtest and fan feedback since I started covering this in December. The play test material is fun and it is still early on and has a lot of room for flexibility so I can already see where fan input is going to shape certain areas. There is nothing wrong with that. I think WotC is hedging their bets by writing for a modular idea to appeal to a wider fan base. If you are a 2E guy at this stage I would say you have more than enough to be happy about. Each edition is reflected in different ways and that is wisdom. Thanks for the feedback and if you have any questions tweet or email me. |
 |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2012 : 04:52:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gaming Tonic
Thanks Diffan for noticing the interview. I am not sure what question you would have asked about Monte, but the world at large seems to think I should have asked, "why did Monte Cook leave?". Although I am sure Mike Mearls would know the answer, no way are you going to get a straight answer about it, especially on the record. If that wasn't your question then I hope you enjoyed the story. Everybody at Wizards of the Coast has seem genuinely excited by the open playtest and fan feedback since I started covering this in December. The play test material is fun and it is still early on and has a lot of room for flexibility so I can already see where fan input is going to shape certain areas. There is nothing wrong with that. I think WotC is hedging their bets by writing for a modular idea to appeal to a wider fan base. If you are a 2E guy at this stage I would say you have more than enough to be happy about. Each edition is reflected in different ways and that is wisdom. Thanks for the feedback and if you have any questions tweet or email me.
Thanks Gaming Tonic for the response. I certainly understand your reasoning behind not asking why Monte left, and I think it's probably for the best regarding everyone around. I probably would've asked what in capacity during the rules development did Monte work? Was it an overall, lead approach or were there specific classes or mechanics he was in charge of? I think this would help people understand the "Whys" of certain aspects of D&D:Next when the rules come out.
I doubt anyone would say that I'm a 2nd Edition fan, though I understand that each edition has it's merits and the game needs to draw from the best of those elements to be something greater. In 2E's case, it was bringing back some Rogue schemes, 'Kits' (for lack of a better term), and how Clerics domains are more like Spheres with it's intent. It's also exciting to read about how Familiars are going to be a lot of fun for D&D:Next. I think 4E's version was the first time I opted to take one without fear or retribution of it dying and me taking a HUGE penalty.
I had just talked it over with my group and I believe we're going to try to do a good couple of hours of Gaming with the new playtest on Memorial Day (Monday) so we'll have lots of time to get used to some new stuff. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
|
Gustaveren
Learned Scribe
Denmark
197 Posts |
Posted - 14 Oct 2012 : 13:29:27
|
I will just stick to 3.5
It works for me, why fix it, if it is not broken
Well, i might be convinced to switch to pathfinder since that seems to be 3.75 and still having a good skill system, but personally do I believe, that 3.5 works well enough in order to make it a bad idea to discard that money investment and Hasbro do deserve, that I boycot their products due to their 4e rape of Forgotten Realms.
I am not planning to forgive them for that
Well, it is of course bad for me, that they own Avalon Hill, since I am fond of strategic board games, but on the other hand, there is a really good alternative in the form of strategic computer games from paradox. |
Edited by - Gustaveren on 14 Oct 2012 13:55:02 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4460 Posts |
Posted - 14 Oct 2012 : 14:43:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gustaveren
I will just stick to 3.5
It works for me, why fix it, if it is not broken
Well, i might be convinced to switch to pathfinder since that seems to be 3.75 and still having a good skill system, but personally do I believe, that 3.5 works well enough in order to make it a bad idea to discard that money investment and Hasbro do deserve, that I boycot their products due to their 4e rape of Forgotten Realms.
I am not planning to forgive them for that
Well, it is of course bad for me, that they own Avalon Hill, since I am fond of strategic board games, but on the other hand, there is a really good alternative in the form of strategic computer games from paradox.
I play Pathfinder because it's free. I play 3X because I have dozens upon dozens of books for it. I play 4E because it gives me more freedom in the player and DM department for creating more interesting mechanical characters and games overall. So when the new playtest material is free and there's no investment except time, I'm willing to try it out and give some feedback. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Mike Mearls interview on ENworld for D&D:Next
