Can someone be so kind as to explain to me like I'm five, what is the difference between a "first order operation" and an "Ivory Tower" design? I define those terms as a "first order operation." being the technique that requires a low skill input to high results output. For example, in Call out Duty using the grenade launcher or "noob tube" to carpet bomb an area, or in D&D kicking open the door and throwing maximized fireballs. An Ivory tower design seems to be when there are a certain list of feats that produce a high amount of damage.

Where I'm confused are when these two differ in a game. Just because one technique produces more damage doesn't mean that the character build is more rewarding to the player. It seems like it depends solely on the game design and now much that game supports non-optimized builds.

These sound like words people make up to slow down the amount of ordnance explosions and love explosions in my game.

I will not stand for either.

That's a great attitude.

The only thing worse then a new edition of D&D is no more new editions of D&D.

Personally, I've always been a minimalist with respect to rules; in my heart, I'll always be a 1st Edition fan, because that's how I learned the hobby, and I played in some epic campaigns under that system.

But I think the introduction of Skills, Feats, and DC rolls made alot of sense. I also thought the ascending Armor Class made more sense than -8 AC being better than 2 AC.

I'd be for scrapping all the prestige classes, and instead, opening up all the skills and feats, and allow player to really create unique characters, with certain skills and feats costing more if they are outside the core classes (i.e., a wizard would pay more in a point-buy to advance in pick pockets than a rogue).

One thing I'll mention. Apparently PAX EAST this year set a record for the number of DCI forms filled out. I have to think this had something to do with the D&D Next play tests, but I probably ran for at least 2 dozen noobs over the 3 days. I don't have anything hard on this next bit but Paizo's both seemed pretty busy too. Every time I walked by I didn't see any empty chairs.

What's the point? Good news for RPGs in general.

This is where hopefully 5E will focus......creating modules, and other playable content.

Personally, I'd like to see a smooth game system that could also make use of 21 century tech.

For example, when Neverwinter Nights came out, the response was huge, and it had mainly to do with a computer toolset that was extremely easy to use..... PnP fans flocked to the game, because it FINALLY allowed GMS to take their old PnP dungeons and post them online for people to play.

The result: thousands of free modules were created by fans of the game.

It would be very cool if 5th Edition allowed that sort of option - the ability for the DM to take his own PnP dungeon or wilderness map and render it in CGI.. Similarly, players could roll up their characters in old school fashion, and then upload them to be viewable and playable.

So, instead of resolving combat on a map with miniatures, you could resolve it on your 50" HDTV.....with all the number crunching baked into the software already, with all the assorted graphical pyrotechnics you'd associate with today's game.

It would be cool if the software allowed you to roll dice into a special USB-connected box.....would be killer rolling a real d20, and watching the results on a big screen.

The D&D community could upload a monstrous amount of free content - dungeon maps, unique monsters (with their stats and mechanics baked in), treasure, NPCS, etc., etc.

Again, I'm talking about an option, not a hard-wired requirement. If people wanted to stick entirely to PnP, they could. But it would be cool if WotC supported an online platform that incorporated combat rules.

Speaking of which, I think it's a travesty that we don't have a Neverwinter Night 3 or 4 by now, but that's a different wankfest.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20120416
Talk about D&D next. sounds like it's going to be more rules light then the last few version of D&D. I fear the comment that their going to give more options and less controls. Down that road pun pun lies.

I really like how Dungeon World is shaping up. It scratches the right itches for me: fast character creation, rules light, shared narrative control, no maps or minis, recreates (for me) a sort of 2e experience but now with rules that make sense.

This was actually the first of many missteps with 4E on WotC's part. They're not a software company, and they shouldn't try to be.

The thing that most deflated my interest in 4E was their failure to deliver on the online tabletop. I bought the PhB with the impression that it was up and running, but it never materialized. I bought a year subscription to the wizards.com online service in expectation of it being released, but it never showed up.

I'll probably pick up the PHB for this edition when it comes out, to have a look - but I don't think I'll seriously consider playing any new iteration of D&D until a viable online component is offered.

Monte explains the Ivory Tower game design concept here.
http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142

I've always loved stupid mutant builds, so ITGD as it relates to suboptimal character options is fine by me. I definitely agree with him on the rules angle, however.