The Grumpy Dwarf will have much to say on this tonight. In the meantime, some quick observations.
Mike mentioned the playtest agreement twice in the article (fairly close to each other). I think I want to read this agreement's restrictions more than I actually want to read the D&D Next Playtest rules. Ain't that a kicker?
Which is later followed by my favorite quote from the whole article. It is in a excerpt of the answer to the question regarding the uniting of D&D's waring factions (fans of earlier editions).
Here's part of the quote:
I think a mistake we made in the past was to try to make these big, grandiose statements, but in doing that we lost track of the core elements of what people enjoy about RPGs. We also ended up touting things that we couldn’t actually execute on, and no one wants that to happen again. (end quote)
I think modularity is dead, at least to the extent they were touting in the beginning. I didn't think it was an achievable goal in the first place and it looks like reality has set it at WotC. Maybe this is a good sign. Too early to tell.
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/05/d-d-update-mike-mearls
Tower in the Wasteland v2
-
I recently asked my patrons what posts deserved a sequel and Tower in the
Wasteland was one of the first replies. So here's an updated version of
that d...
2 hours ago
I think one of the things that is killing Next, and D&D in general, is the accepted inevitability of a new edition. It is taken for granted that as soon as a new edition rolls out that the next one is already in development. When did this notion enter the collective conscious? Nobody sits around daydreaming about the next edition of Pathfinder (at least that I know of). For most games a new edition means cleaning up some editing gaffs and incorporating errata, not a new version with the old name.
ReplyDeleteIt was another thing they borrowed from the computers.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say modularity is impossible. In fact the D&D With Pornstars Guy did an example of how it could work.
ReplyDeleteThe possibility of "modularity" is pretty much the only thing I found interesting. If it is dead, then I have little interest in the process or the product.
ReplyDeleteIf it's not going to be modular, what is the 'point' of the edition? In particular, why should Pathfinder players change over. They already have something that's currently supported, if that's important to them.
ReplyDelete