L&L: Putting the Vance in Vancian

Odhanan · Feb 27, 2012

Hassassin said:
That's not a very useful answer. I presume it wouldn't help if they renamed feats "talents" and skills "proficiencies"?

Do you hate character options outside class? (Then class specific bonus feats could still be ok.)

Do you hate the complexity they add? (Then a short list of simple feats could still be ok.)

I like OD&D. I like AD&D. I like B/X D&D. Look into them. These games do not include Skills or Feats. These games are part of the core of D&D as well. NO, it would not help to rename these "talents" or "proficiencies". There's a reason I quit the d20 system entirely (i.e. alluding to Star Wars Saga here and its talent trees) and a reason why I play First Edition and not AD&D 2nd edition with its Non-Weapon Proficiencies.

I mean. It's really not that complicated: either this game is for all the fans of D&D, or it isn't. If it's a game for people who like feats and skills, as I said, I'm cool with it. I'm fine, my hobby is fine, I have my D&D editions to play with my friends, I'm getting a reprint of the game as a treat from WotC, my retroclones to use and publish stuff for them under the OGL, I'm cool really.

But in the interest of being helpful here, if the WotC guys believe for a moment that Feats and Skills in the core-sans-modules of the game is a way to win over the fans of the game who do not play 3rd/4e/Pathfinder, they're either deluding themselves or have a serious problem understanding the D&D game in the first place.

Invisible Stalker · Feb 27, 2012

I'm not going to be very helpful, I'd like to see all four systems used for four different magic user classes. Wizards get the Vancian system and the other magic using classes will get one of the other methods.

Hassassin · Feb 27, 2012

Odhanan said:
I like OD&D. I like AD&D. I like B/X D&D. Look into them. These games do not include Skills or Feats.

So you don't like skills and feats because those versions of D&D didn't include them? That's not a very good reason, IMO. You could use the same reason to argue against anything that was added or changed in 3e or 4e. Or, if using OD&D as baseline, anything added or changed in AD&D.

Scribble · Feb 27, 2012

First edition had proficiencies.

KidSnide · Feb 27, 2012

Odhanan said:
I like OD&D. I like AD&D. I like B/X D&D. Look into them. These games do not include Skills or Feats.

Purely as a matter of curiosity, what about skills and non-weapon proficiencies do you dislike? Are they too fiddly? Too complex? Encourage die rolling over describing what your character does? Some other reason?

-KS

Ratskinner · Feb 27, 2012

Odhanan said:
I like OD&D. I like AD&D. I like B/X D&D. Look into them. These games do not include Skills or Feats. These games are part of the core of D&D as well. NO, it would not help to rename these "talents" or "proficiencies". There's a reason I quit the d20 system entirely (i.e. alluding to Star Wars Saga here and its talent trees) and a reason why I play First Edition and not AD&D 2nd edition with its Non-Weapon Proficiencies.

I mean. It's really not that complicated: either this game is for all the fans of D&D, or it isn't. If it's a game for people who like feats and skills, as I said, I'm cool with it. I'm fine, my hobby is fine, I have my D&D editions to play with my friends, I'm getting a reprint of the game as a treat from WotC, my retroclones to use and publish stuff for them under the OGL, I'm cool really.

But in the interest of being helpful here, if the WotC guys believe for a moment that Feats and Skills in the core-sans-modules of the game is a way to win over the fans of the game who do not play 3rd/4e/Pathfinder, they're either deluding themselves or have a serious problem understanding the D&D game in the first place.

Those games however, do have (a limited set) of abilities attached to classes. Do you object to characters gaining new abilities (other than spells) as they level up in general, or just player choices in the process?

What I mean is: It sounds to me like there will be a "basic" version of the game presented in the PHB. Classes in this Basic version will not involve players making choices as they level up (except perhaps spell choices and multiclassing, maybe?) I suspect later in the book will be modules making it "Advanced" and allowing players to swap out options as they level up (call 'em feats or whatever.) I would think that an individual DM would have the option of just keeping with the basic classes. Failing that, I feel that they would be remiss in not producing a "red box" with just the basic rules and some monsters to hook young'ens.

I suspect that most people would still call the additional modules in the PHB (or first three books?) a part of the "core", while still calling the simpler game "basic" or something. At least, this is the impression I get from the things they've written. Would that be satisfactory for you?

Odhanan · Feb 27, 2012

Hassassin said:
So you don't like skills and feats because those versions of D&D didn't include them? That's not a very good reason, IMO. You could use the same reason to argue against anything that was added or changed in 3e or 4e. Or, if using OD&D as baseline, anything added or changed in AD&D.

Actually you can, yes. The only way for this to work as per stated intent of creating a game for all editions of D&D is to basically start from the start, leave that as the core-sans-modules of the game, and then propose modules to get the game play you want out of your game.

This means that the core of the game would look something like OD&D, with each module adding a different aspect to the core. Feats and Skills in one module of character customization, for instance. Tactical miniatures game play in another module. Breakdown of the system to "fix" the core to make it into an uber-balanced machine for those who like that in yet another module. And so on, so forth.

As I understand it when reading the L&L columns, this game sounds like a new school game trying to appeal to Pathfinder/3e fans primarily. That's a non-starter, as far as I'm concerned.

Hassassin · Feb 27, 2012

Odhanan said:
Actually you can, yes. The only way for this to work as per stated intent of creating a game for all editions of D&D is to basically start from the start, leave that as the core-sans-modules of the game, and then propose modules to get the game play you want out of your game.

The stated intention wasn't to support the mechanics of every edition, but the play style.

Rogue Agent · Feb 27, 2012

Odhanan said:
Actually you can, yes. The only way for this to work as per stated intent of creating a game for all editions of D&D is to basically start from the start, leave that as the core-sans-modules of the game, and then propose modules to get the game play you want out of your game.

Translation: The only way this works is if the version of the game I like is the "core" and everything I don't like is "optional".

Which is a great design principle if they were designing a game exclusively for Odhanan. But they aren't. And everyone else has different ideas of what "the version of the game I like" is.

This is, BTW, why the entire idea that D&D5 is going to be the "edition of all editions" through the use of some sort of "modular magic" is a complete pipe-dream that can only hold up for as long as WotC remains as vague as they possibly can. The lightest breeze of specificity and the whole thing collapses.

Odhanan · Feb 27, 2012

KidSnide said:
Purely as a matter of curiosity, what about skills and non-weapon proficiencies do you dislike? Are they too fiddly? Too complex? Encourage die rolling over describing what your character does? Some other reason?

-KS

Skills run contrary to archetype/class-based design. I don't need both. It's just redundant and makes the game more nitpicky for no reason that cannot be accounted for by my own adjudication of the game. I prefer players to describe what they do instead of looking at their character sheet to see what modifier they have in this or that. The same way, I want players to describe to me what they do as their characters during combat. I don't want them to look at lists of feats and abilities wondering how to use the rules. I want them to think and imagine the heck out of the game itself.

This is the same reason why I do not use THAC0 in my games in favor of to-hit charts I keep on my side of the screen. No calculations on the players part whatsoever. Just tell me what you do, roll 1d20, maybe add this or that single-digit modifier from that piece of equipment or whatnot, but this is it. Nothing else to worry about.

But really that is inconsequential. Whether you think my reasons are justified or not from your own corner of the woods does not matter one single bit at my game table. I honestly do not care one bit whether you tell me "but you can ignore this or that" or whatnot. It's not the point. Believe me: I'm completely fine running my games as they are, and so are my players. I'm not asking for your help.

What matters is that the guys who are designing this D&D Next game need to understand that. They need to really think hard about whether they want this game to be this "big tent" they are talking about, or if this is just all PR destined to target one single, specific segment of the D&D audience instead.