Resume z dyskusji o D&D Next

Kilka dni temu informowałem o Mike Mearlsie (lead designer D&D Next), który odpowiadał na pytania internautów na popularnej stronie Reedit. Do tego momentu pojawiło się ponad tysiąc komentarzy, niezawodny jednak okazał się Michael Tresca z Examinera, który wyłuskał najistotniejsze fragmenty dyskusji.

Mearls walked through the various editions and what he would like D&D Next to learn from them:
0e - The core concept of an RPG, a game without limits or rails that is adjudicated by another person.
1e - Character options, creating a sense of the world of D&D rather than just a dungeon.
2e - Crazy cool settings like Planescape and Spelljammer, kits and stuff that tied characters to the setting.
3e - An easy core mechanic, clear rules for combat, a game that can be modified.
4e - Core math to build stuff, much easier DM tools, tactical challenges.
All this talk about the past leads to the question as to why 5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons is following so quickly on the heels of 4th Edition. Mearls explained where he think 4E went astray:
I think 4e tried to change too much too quickly, and it didn't look before it tried to leap forward.
The 4e changes felt jarring to some people, and I think it's much better to manage change in an ongoing, actively played game by measured advancements.
For instance, I think that the Book of Nine Swords helped warm people to the idea of over the top martial maneuvers. We needed to do more of that in 3e, see how people reacted, see what rose to the top, before we decided to make sweeping changes to the core game. With Nine Swords, clearly a lot of people liked it, but looking back I don't think it was such an overwhelming response that the entire game needed to follow that path.
The other side of the coin is that you can appeal to a new audience while keeping your current one happy. If you see a destination, you have to take a moment and consider what you need to do to get there, then figure out the best way to do that.
For instance, for people who might like D&D but don't want to commit to an RPG, we have the Castle Ravenloft board game. We can make that game, and sell a bunch of copies to people who might want to play a D&D game without committing to the RPG, without messing with the RPG.
So, I think there was too much of a focus on changing the RPG, rather than looking at customers - whether current or potential - and figuring out the best way to make something that appeals to them.


Jednak może to nie powyższy fragment dyskusji jest najistotniejszy, a ten który dobrze rokuje dla branży gier niezależnych, znajdziecie go na stronie
Examinera:Mike Mearls, D&D Next's lead designer, conducts a Reddit AMA session
Wnikliwi mogą przejrzeć całą dyskusję na Reedit:
AMA: Mike Mearls, head of D&D Research and Design at WotC. Tymczasem dzisiaj pojawił się drugi wpis Mearlsa dotyczący potworów w DND Next. Pierwsza część w tym miejscu.
Zdjęcie z ubiegłego tygodnia  dobrze wróży, WotC wyciśnie co najmniej kilka razy z Was pieniądzę na rozmaite części Monster Manuala.

Źródło: Examiner
Fotografie: 
Wizards of the Coast
photo credit: babelglyph via photo pin cc
Tagi:

MKRdezign

{facebook#gitgames} {twitter#gitgames} {google-plus#GitgamesBlogspotRPG}

Formularz kontaktowy

Nazwa

E-mail *

Wiadomość *

Obsługiwane przez usługę Blogger.
Javascript DisablePlease Enable Javascript To See All Widget