D&D 5e, except they want to incorporate mechanics from all previous editions and thus call it "Next"

...D&D is role-playing, but it is also a game. That's why its an RPG. If you're just storytelling or freeform RPing, you can do better than D&D with something like Amber or Everway.

 

I've found that D&D has always been about the "magic being superior to the mundanes", not simply something unique to Monte or 3rd ed. 4th ed went so far as to give everyone "magic powers" and Monte didnt work on that at all (and didnt particularly like the style of it either).

As for the "Ivory Tower" design, that isn''t always a bad thing, many fun computer, board (likely the most notiable for that issue) and role-playing games includng Dungeons of Dredmore have the same factor and it doesnt make them any better or worse than those that don't.

Also note that Monte Cook and Mike Mearls have had creative differences in the past, so that may again be an issue on D&D Next, as they typically have very different design philosophies.


As to rule styles, I personaly sit between the rules and narative subset. I like having rules but the rules should be able to "get out of the way" if you prefer a more narative solution to the situation. If a single system can cater to both it could work well.

 

D&D, unlike DoD, is a cooperative game. If you overshadow your party without even trying simply because you read the rulebook more than once (or happened to choose the right class), then there is a problem. There is no problem with rewarding system mastery: there is a problem with actively punishing people who make suboptimal decisions when creating their character, which is exactly what Ivory Tower design is about:

...and yet, Toughness is a feat that the rulebook itself goes out of its way to show as a "good feat" that you should be taking, due to that all the example PCs have it and most of the monsters do too.

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142

 

D&D has always had some choices are better than others 3ed ed is no different.

Since the players handbook (atleast for 3.0, I cant say for 3.5 as I dont own it) has all but 1 character in it, and that of a fighter that doesn't have Toughness, I'm not sure where all these example PCs are from.

Try looking at this take on it.

Putting all that on just Monte Cook is a bit unfair given Jonathan Tweet and Skip Williams had design power on the game as well as co-lead designers. While Jonathan had design lead for the players handbook. (dont get me wrong, I dont like all the work Monte has done, though some I do. He even clearly expains it could have been done differently. I dont think he deserves all the flack for the decisions as allot of his other work is balanced and holds a good mix of power vs options).

Though if you look at Toughness anyone with any knowledge of D&D what so ever whether having read the 3rd ed books (or any material on D&D for that matter, including computer games) or not is going to know +3 HP isn't much at all, its something I would only expect a complete rookie to D&D and a novice to RPGs to actually see it as being a good option for a campaign game reguardless of what the designers say. (the exception would be someone comming from Neverwinter Nights, as that changed what Toughness does, though that is hardly an issue D&D is responsible for).
If its a pitfall a player has fallen into I put the blame on the sholders of the DM (who should in most cases be someone that understands the system), it's their responsibility and to a lesser extent that of the entire group that the player understands the game and the ramifications of their decisions.

DoD is actually a quite a good example, with certain builds the game is insanely difficuilt, while others its quite easy. It rewards knowing the rules (and puts some implications on all skills being equal). Though in DoD's defence it doesnt have others to immediatly call on (because it is single player) that could have a better idea of whats good or whats not good. Not only that, there is no actual warning in the slightest that monsters corrupting items is permanent (with absolutly no way to fix it), as up untill that point no monster effects (short of death) are permanent.

D&D comes with the assumption (atleast what I'd expect RPGs too) is that you dont just have your own knowledge to draw on, because it is multi-player.

 

There is one example character for each character class.

The reason ivory tower design doesn't work in D&D is because it sets players apart, when it is fundamentally a community game and it should bring players together.

 

Cooke apparently never read up on the purpose of Timmy cards, or is showing a very severe tendency towards Spike-ness. Timmy cards aren't there for people who enjoy maximizing the effectiveness of their gameplay, they're there for people who love saying, "My creature is so big it blots out the sun, and possibly has noticeable gravity."

Since these people play Magic too, its important that they have things they enjoy. Also, note that Magic has at least two formats (Chaos Multiplayer and Elder Dragon Highlander/"Commander") where Timmy cards are the most effective long-term choice, because there's simply more value in them when you need to deal 100+ damage to other players to win the game.

Just another aspect of how what you're looking for in a game defines whether any given game is a good fit for you or not. One of my favorite DnD characters was a mess of sub-optimal skills and feats, horrible stats and he was a halfing rogue to boot, who was always on the brink of death and left me searching my character sheet to see if any of the resources I had on hand would be useful in a given situation or not. He got polymorphed into a spider monkey (failing his will save to even keep his intelligence score), turned into stone, failed a save vs. a disintegrate spell (full health to -4 HP in one turn, instant dust!) and killed outright by a cleric with a really nasty evil spear.

He also did all the party's talking even with a Charisma of 10, getting them into trouble as often as he got them out, claimed credit for all the party's accomplishments to their incredible annoyance and struck the killing blow against an honest to goodness demon lord (CR 25) and won eternal fame and free beer for life (resurrections not included). So the question for me isn't, "do you want total system mastery resulting in a minimaxed character or amazing storytelling?" Its, "can the same system accommodate both people without either feeling like they aren't getting their money's worth?"

 

With 4E, most of us turned to Pathfinder, aka "D&D 3.75".

 

Roleplaying is fun.

Rollplaying is fun.

Both tend to benefit from at least a little of the other.

Pure roleplaying can lead to kindergarten-style Cowboys and Indians: "I shot you!" "Nu-uh I shot you first!" "Nu-uh you missed!" Toss a polyhedron, the 17+5 is higher than 19, you got hit, stop arguing and start roleplaying your retaliation/death throes/begging for life/"I am not left-handed" etc rather than the "I have surpassed you"/"And thus good triumphs over evil!"/etc you were planning.

Pure rollplaying is kinda just math class (which I enjoy but I'm weird). d20+7+3+2vs taxa7 vs d20+5+1w/ca +25%chance of 50%bonus 3/day. FUNZ!!!11 The fact that you're actually rolling to see if you can restore the amnesiac prince to his throne before the Doppleganger can summon his demon master is lost in the pile of charts.

Combine the two, and you've got a fun game. "Restriction breeds creativity" as MaRo says; you might have a story in mind which is pretty good, with your fellow players bouncing ideas off of each other. But then the dice do something silly, and the wagon falls off the cliff *before* it reaches the cinematic bandit ambush, and the barbarian is the one who loses his grip to be caught by the gnome wizard, and the "recurring villain" bandit leader is killed by an unexpected blast from the Rod of Wonder. That forces you to come up with stories you probably would not have come up with on your own! Meanwhile the story takes you places the min-maxing rollplayers were not prepared for either; the kill-everything-that-moves Barbarian might need to find a gentler way to retrieve the magical bracelet from the temple of kindly guardians-who-dont-believe-the-world-is-in-danger-yet. The rogue with +37 to steal but only +2 to disguise might find himself needing to pretend to be a visiting nobleman, with some help from his "there are spells other than fireball?" sorceror "butler." Your dice and charts don't tell you how your character would react to the little orphan girl who tried to steal your food (blah blah alignment), but they will tell you if you succeed in saving her long-lost-brother from the Yaunti cult in the sewers (though some rolls will require more personal sacrifice than others).

Anyway. As long as Next has fairly balanced combat rules, and ways to include dice rolls in the story without being too restrictive, I'll be happy to write a story together with my players while tossing dice for phat lewtz.

 

I gotta say I loved the theorycrafting for making characters in 4e. I never got to play the game, but I loved making characters for it.

In general though, I've had more fun playing storytelling RPGs than I have rollplaying RPGs. For example I've played both Rolemaster and most of the White Wolf games, and I definitely prefer the white wolf ones over 'rulemaster', though I've had fun RP experiences in both.

From a char creation point of view I prefer minimal randomness, point buy is where it's at, which is what 4e had over 3.5e and all the earlier editions. I also really liked the idea of at-will/encounter/daily power restrictions that 4e had.

Though from a setting point of view, the best I've played is a swedish RPG named Drakar och Demoner: Trudvang. Which was very inspired by norse mythology, without being exactly norse. It was also quite gritty, even as it had the possibility of epic fantasy campaigns. At one point a character I played, being a warrior, had sufficient standing to pass judgement on a man who beat his wife and child, which involved tying him to a stake in the woods over night(a possible death sentence in this world, with trolls and wild beasts roaming the woods).