D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

Fifth Element · Jul 25, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
In D&D, some characters have spells, and some don't. In D&D, those spells include some that can make you fly, change shape, control people's minds, raise the dead, and grant wishes. In D&D, you can't do these things or anything equivalent without those spells.

That depends on what you mean by "equivalent". Do you mean producing similar effects? Or do you mean having a similar degree of importance to how the game progresses? One is in-game, one is meta-game.

Ahnehnois said:
Thus, in D&D, the characters with spells will never be completely balanced with those without. Frankly, this is true of many fantasy rpgs; magic is supposed to break limits; i.e. it is not supposed to be balanced. If it was, it would lose its identity as magic.

You're conflating the in-game realities with mechanical game effects. Magic-using characters can obviously accomplish things that mundane characters cannot, in-game. That does not have to translate to the players of magic-using characters having more influence over the game world than players of non-magic using characters.

Ahnehnois · Jul 25, 2012

[MENTION=48135]Fifth Element[/MENTION]
Actually, I'm not "conflating" the in-game world with the game rules. I'm "assuming" that the two are connected. Thus...

That depends on what you mean by "equivalent". Do you mean producing similar effects? Or do you mean having a similar degree of importance to how the game progresses? One is in-game, one is meta-game.

Both.

That does not have to translate to the players of magic-using characters having more influence over the game world than players of non-magic using characters.

No, it certainly doesn't. Thankfully, a mechanical revolution is not needed to achieve this. All editions of D&D have been successful at it, partially because the game is robust and tolerates imbalance, and particularly because the contribution of a character is more reflective of the person who plays it than of that character's mechanical properties.

Umbran · Jul 25, 2012

Jester Canuck said:
While by no means impossible, it didn't encourage other types of game play.

Well, here's a major question I don't think anyone has ever really addressed adequately - how many types of play can we reasonably expect a system to actively encourage? I don't know the answer to that, but it

TwinBahamut said:
The flaw with your (rather insulting) line of thinking and analogy is that there is no reason whatsoever for people to "share". I don't see any advantage in compromising on a ruleset for a game like D&D. It doesn't help me if the game works better for people who like overpowered wizards and poor tactical play (as an example). Yes, it's selfish, but that is exactly what consumers should be. The only party who has a vested interest in having the different groups of fans get along is WotC, not any of those fans.

While I get the point that WotC certainly benefits from consolidating the players onto one rulebase, I think your suggestion that individual players get *no* benefit from that is a bit short-sighted.

Think of it this way - this very site would not exist if D&D were not the biggest game around. Having lots of folks playing the same thing creates those "network externalities" they used to talk about, that are as valuable to you as to WotC.

You ever order pizza along with others, and have the discussion about what toppings to get, and have the other person not want exactly the same thing as you? So, you compromise a bit, and come to an agreement that is nobody's dream, but is good enough, and allows you to enjoy pizza more economically, and with friends?

Gaming is like that. Every campaign is pizza. And, the gaming community as a whole is pizza - eventually, you get to points where it makes sense for you to place separate orders, yes. But if you're a bit flexible you can get more pizza more cheaply and enjoy it with more people if you aren't so darned stubborn about your requirements. While you should play what you like, being too demanding and picky has its own drawbacks.

Crazy Jerome · Jul 25, 2012

There's also the question of complexity, and where it is needful. It will naturally vary by player and preference and playstyle. Or, you can look at it from the other end, where a game is too simple--this also varies by player and preference and playstyle.

For example, I like a game that does a lot of different things, maybe not all at once but that I can tweak to get different playstyles. However, I mainly like heroic fantasy and some close cousins to it. Then from my perspective, the generic, movable bits of d20 are exactly wrong. They are all about playing a bunch of different genres in pretty much the same playstyle, when what I want it to play a tight group of genres in different playstyles. Obviously, a single game can only do so much.

If you think about variants and popularity in D&D, this divide between what d20 is aiming at versus what I like has always been with us. Some people want to play D&D "in space" or "as horror" or such. Other people want to play D&D as focused on dungeon crawl or epic treks or such. (And that's only the tip of the iceberg, and probably not even the best examples of what I mean, when you get into different focuses on characterization, roleplaying, etc.) The tools for one group's variants are not the tools for the other group's variants.

This hits hard right at Einstein's dictum, make things as simple as possible but no simpler. Added complexity is in your way--at the very least bloat that you must ignore. Missing complexity is a big hole you must navigate around. Well, as soon as you start appealing to a big audience, you've got a lot of big holes to fill that for other people do not even exist as holes. Why you piling all that system stuff up over there in that empty field?

Where I think any reasonable person can agree on design is that we'd like for a game to do what it sets out to do, and communicate that clearly to us--both the heart of the goal and its boundaries. If the design team has decided that niche X won't work very well because that will compromise A, B, and C too much--so be it. But don't be fuzzy about it. Either exclude X as much as necessary, or if that is unacceptable, revisit the wider design to make it work. Don't throw in a sop to X and pretend that it fits in, when you know darn well it doesn't. No illusionism in the design! :hmm:

Mallus · Jul 25, 2012

I've been thinking about things like the mythic fighter and the options imbalance for a while. Here's a simple suggestion for addressing it (hmmm, this may be the wrong thread... oh well).

Start with the assumption any sufficiently advanced skill is indistinguishable from magic (it's very Hellenic, or Tolkien-esque, or whatever).

Allow sufficiently-skilled 'non-magical' PC to duplicate spell effects, within reason, ie on a successful Stealth check, a thief gains the benefit of an Invisibility or Improved Invisibility spell, or even something as epic as a fighter gaining Raise/Lower Water on a successful STR check --to represent Herculean river-wrestling.

The rules would be nothing more than lists of examples of skill or ability checks and the possible spell effects they could duplicate. And what DC (or character level) is required.

You'd need some way of limiting this -- once per day/session/adventure/whatever -- but those are details. And certain feats, like knocking mountain tops off, might have additional requirements, like 'PC must wield an epic weapon w/cool name'. But, again, details.

(A caveat. I'd like the see hard PC level restrictions on this, something like 4e Tiers, rather than escalating DCs -- I have no faith WotC will avoid bonus bloat)

No feats, no extra class abilities, just basic skill and ability checks combined with level.

And if you don't want to use something like this? Great. You can use the traditional, DM-based way of addressing the Option Gap, ie magic items.

Jester David · Jul 25, 2012

TwinBahamut said:
The flaw with your (rather insulting) line of thinking and analogy is that there is no reason whatsoever for people to "share". I don't see any advantage in compromising on a ruleset for a game like D&D. It doesn't help me if the game works better for people who like overpowered wizards and poor tactical play (as an example). Yes, it's selfish, but that is exactly what consumers should be. The only party who has a vested interest in having the different groups of fans get along is WotC, not any of those fans.

Except... 4e didn't have enough fans to be sustainable. The success of any new products require increasing the fanbase. Your incentive to share is having any new content at all; a third of most future books is infinitely more content than no books.

And if you thought it was insulting before, you should have read the first draft where I brought in the Brady Bunch in relation to the new middle child and said "Marsha Marsha Marsha!"

Which is why I'm cranky about this. Unwavering stubbornness and slamming old editions will just mean 5e will fail and D&D will go away.
Your books will continue to exist on your shelf but it will only get harder for you to find people to game with when the best selling RPGs on the market are Pathfinder, Marvel,DragonAge, Dark Heresy, and likely some of the World of Darkness books.

pemerton said:
I'm not sure what edition of D&D you have in mind as encouraging intrigue or stealth-focused play.

I've run this in AD&D, but it required all the PCs to be (multi-classed) thieves, and there were no especially robust mechanics for social conflict.

Neonchameleon said:
Are we talking about D&D or 4e here. Because 4e is literally the only edition of D&D on my shelves (I can't talk about BECMI or oD&D) that provides me with significant support for solutions other than either violence or magic.
...
So don't tell me stealth can't be done with 4th when I have run an entire stealth and asymmetric warfare based arc for my party and been supported in it by the rules in a way no other edition of D&D would come close to. No skill challenges, stealth skills locked up tighter, a no-caster party. And don't tell me that intrigue can't be done in 4th when I've done that too - and would again say that 4e is better suited to intrigue than any other edition of D&D I've either run or played.

I'll handle both of these at the same time.

The first problem is that Skill Challenges don't work. They're a fantastic idea but the skill system in 4e is broken, and thus Skill Challenges are unable to work properly. They've errated the DC by level chart twice and it's still problematic.
I've written whole blogs on this so I'll try and keep it short.
The problem is bad math. 4e encourages one high stat for your to-hit stat and skill training gives too high of a bonus and it is far, far too easy to stack bonuses from backgrounds, races, feats, and magic items. So there is an incredible disparity from someone who is good at a skill to someone who is bad, and it only gets wider as levels increase. Very quickly the DM has to throw out DCs that either challenge the adept but are impossible for the amateur or challenge the amateur but are automatic for the adept. I've joked that 4e fixed the "clumsy expert/ lucky amateur" problem in this regard.
So Skill Challenges almost always become "PCs try and sell their best or second best skill".

Which brings us to Stealth. Now, typically this means the entire party rolling stealth. But the stealth experts are so high as to be on another level. So the DCs and challenge applies to the rest of the party. The person who built their character around stealth doesn't get to play, they can sit out, because they roll so high. They "win" stealth and stop playing, which is like telling the person who maxed out their character for combat that they autohit and deal max damage.

Now, other non-combat resolution. The problem here lies in the lack of other character support for non-combat options other than skill challenges. You pick skills at first level which is your only non-combat choice and after that, the remaining 29 levels, every choice reflects combat.
Playing a non-combat game becomes tricky because all the character's powers, all the tools in their toolbox, involve combat. They can't swap out attack powers for more Utilities and even then most Utilities relate to combat. And even seemingly non-offensive powers always deal damage. Illusionists are blaster wizards in 4e, with all their powers dishing the pain. I played a psion for a while, with the telepath build, and I didn't have a single power that let me read minds. None. All of them related to mind raping my opponents.
What incentive is there to level up? If the change of succeeding at a skill is static anyway, why not just stay at first level?
And are you really playing 4th Edition at that point? If you're ignoring 90% of the rules and options and content, is that really the best game for you?

4e doesn't discourage alternate types of play. There's nothing to prevent stealth or intrigue or Game of Thrones style power plays. But there's nothing that encourages it, there's nothing that rewards it or prompts it or enables it.

Neonchameleon said:
Now, there are two things 4e doesn't support - grit and overwhelming PC magic. Your characters will be larger than life. And it's hard work to make a mage tricksy enough that you retire him to prevent the DM tearing his hair out (I've done it in 4th but tend to stay away from wizards in previous editions).

Gritty doesn't work, but neither does the only semi-related low-magic style. If you want a no-magic game or non-fantastic game then 4e isn't great. One of the base races can teleport at first level (and if they play a warlorck or swordmage they become Nightcrawler).
And, yes, magic being powerful and special is also tricky.
But, as argued above, there's little in 4e to really encourage heist or stealthy play.

And just because earlier editions didn't do a style of play better than 4e, doesn't mean 4e does it well, it just means 4e does it least badly. And that right there is something new 5e can bring to the table.

Neonchameleon · Jul 25, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
These are all perfectly valid solutions, which help make the game more playable without really changing the fundamental issue (that magic can do powerful things). These are the sorts of things that can work. These are the kinds of things that 3e didn't do enough of. These are not the power system, so I don't know if the 4e crowd buys this, because the underlying imbalance is still there, it just won't manifest in play as much.

As a rule of thumb I'd expect the pro-Essentials 4e players to be slightly sceptical but wait for the implementation as results matter more than theory, and the anti-Essentials 4e players not to buy in as the theory isn't sound.

Of course the irony here is that 4e already has powerful and fairly flexible magic with a drawback. The drawback is that it costs money (rituals). And although it is imbalanced (and just one of the reasons I retired my mid-heroic 4e wizard for giving the DM too much of a headache) it's widely accepted by 4e players. What isn't is cost-free magic. If the cost is a risk of blowing yourself up (and not just singeing your eyebrows) that's an actual cost - if it's "Sleep alongside everyone else, and read a book while the non-casters strike camp" that doesn't work as a drawback.

A lot of people don't like that. Tactical play is possible (and probably easier) without painted detailed figures, and probably without a grid,

Possible, yes. Easier? Tactical play revolves around the details - and nailing the position of PCs to a grid allows the large details such as macro-scale physical objects, and relative positions to be shared far more easily than any other system I'm familiar with. So no, it isn't easier.

Ahnehnois · Jul 25, 2012

Neonchameleon said:
Possible, yes. Easier? Tactical play revolves around the details - and nailing the position of PCs to a grid allows the large details such as macro-scale physical objects, and relative positions to be shared far more easily than any other system I'm familiar with. So no, it isn't easier.

Does nailing down the positions require painted figures in the likenesses of the characters and monsters? Expensive ones?

Neonchameleon · Jul 25, 2012

Jester Canuck said:
Except... 4e didn't have enough fans to be sustainable.

Then no WotC edition had enough fans to be sustainable. After all they literally pulled 3.0 off the shelves after two and a half years. They started work on 4e after three years of 3e. And they started work on 5e after 3 years of 4e.

The first problem is that Skill Challenges don't work. They're a fantastic idea but the skill system in 4e is broken, and thus Skill Challenges are unable to work properly. They've errated the DC by level chart twice and it's still problematic.

It's still not perfect, granted. But it's far and away better than the systems any other edition of D&D has had.

So there is an incredible disparity from someone who is good at a skill to someone who is bad, and it only gets wider as levels increase.

Say outstanding to bad. But yes you can get pretty outstanding.

Very quickly the DM has to throw out DCs that either challenge the adept but are impossible for the amateur or challenge the amateur but are automatic for the adept.

Or just impose a penalty for repeat skill use by the same PC or make it less desirable in the fiction.

So Skill Challenges almost always become "PCs try and sell their best or second best skill".

This I've never found a problem as long as I treat the skill challenge as a DM-side tool and make the players engage with the fiction.

The person who built their character around stealth doesn't get to play, they can sit out, because they roll so high.

Having a smart player of a stealthy PC in my group, no. That's not how it works. They provide one success from stealth. And then what? If they want to help the team succeed they start distracting the guards. Their first roll was against a hard stealth check not a medium one because they got as close to the guards as they thought possible while staying in cover. And their second roll was nature or bluff to sound like an animal near the guards, providing noise to distract them.

If they can think how to leverage their awesome rather than just use it passively they aren't out of play.

Now, other non-combat resolution. The problem here lies in the lack of other character support for non-combat options other than skill challenges. You pick skills at first level which is your only non-combat choice and after that, the remaining 29 levels, every choice reflects combat.

You mean their only non-combat choice other than some of their 17 feats and however many utility powers? (nine?) Oh, and depending on their class, their tricks, stances, and features? And even some attack powers? (And yes, I do take non-combat feats and mixed feats).

And even seemingly non-offensive powers always deal damage.

Strictly false. About half the illusion school doesn't do damage, and neither does about two thirds of enchantment (although it does normally make the monsters wack each other which might count).

What incentive is there to level up? If the change of succeeding at a skill is static anyway, why not just stay at first level?

Common misinterpretation of 4e. The DC by level challenges are based on the challenge level you are attempting, not the level of the PC attempting them. The vault door to the duke's treasure room is level 10 hard to pick whether you are level 1 or level 20.

4e doesn't discourage alternate types of play. There's nothing to prevent stealth or intrigue or Game of Thrones style power plays. But there's nothing that encourages it, there's nothing that rewards it or prompts it or enables it.

There's more to encourage it IMO than in any other edition.

Gritty doesn't work, but neither does the only semi-related low-magic style. If you want a no-magic game or non-fantastic game then 4e isn't great.

If you want a no-magic game 4e beats the pants off literally any other edition of D&D there has ever been. I'm playing in a Middle Earth game now - and the only magic the party is capable of is rituals (and we've not cast one yet). The party is still flexible and versatile and even covers all four roles (rohirrim skald, variag slayer, dwarf knight, elf hunter). We aren't even crippled by the lack of a healer.

For no-magic you'd just have to swap the skald out with a warlord. Or even not bother.

Neonchameleon · Jul 25, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
Does nailing down the positions require painted figures in the likenesses of the characters and monsters? Expensive ones?

Nope. Just tokens on a wipe clean map. The painted figures simply look better.

Which is just as well because needing painted figures has, as far as I know, never been specified in any edition of the D&D rules.