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

KM said:

Forcing the DM to take a heavy-handed "rulings, not rules" approach is ALSO forcing a particular playstyle. As I've said elsewhere, I don't want to have to decide "what makes sense" on every little action that the PC's attempt. They should be able to roll some dice and tell me the outcome without me having to do squat. Of course, if I WANT to do squat, I need to be able to, seamlessly, as well

Click to expand...

But, isn't there a happy medium here? Mechanics that cover, say, most situations that arise, while leaving a fairly large chunk of exceptions where the DM is expected to mediate. Taking the Prone example - most of the time the plain English definition of Prone applies - you've knocked the thing off its feet and its lying on the ground. Now, 4e goes a step further and says that this condition is also abstract in that it applies equally to everything. So, when dealing with stuff that doesn't have feet, you expect the DM to step in and apply some creative narration on how that thing grant's combat advantage.

That's pretty much what I want. I don't want the mechanics to spell out specifics and then a shopping list of exceptions. I want the mechanics to be broadly applicable, and intuitive enough that it makes sense most of the time, and leave it to the DM and make it expressly explicit in big freaking letters for the hard of reading that it is up to the table on how to deal with corner cases.

Hussar said:

But, isn't there a happy medium here? Mechanics that cover, say, most situations that arise, while leaving a fairly large chunk of exceptions where the DM is expected to mediate. Taking the Prone example - most of the time the plain English definition of Prone applies - you've knocked the thing off its feet and its lying on the ground. Now, 4e goes a step further and says that this condition is also abstract in that it applies equally to everything. So, when dealing with stuff that doesn't have feet, you expect the DM to step in and apply some creative narration on how that thing grant's combat advantage.

That's pretty much what I want. I don't want the mechanics to spell out specifics and then a shopping list of exceptions. I want the mechanics to be broadly applicable, and intuitive enough that it makes sense most of the time, and leave it to the DM and make it expressly explicit in big freaking letters for the hard of reading that it is up to the table on how to deal with corner cases.

Click to expand...

How many corner cases are acceptable before they become more than corner cases? (I ask this question with my 4E experiences in mind.)

edit: Nevermind... I think what I was thinking of when I first responded might not necessarily fall into the category of 'corner case,' and might have instead been an acceptable part of the playstyle the system appeared to identify with the most.

I do agree that a little more mediation (and possibly common sense) on the part of the DM is something a rpg should try to advocate. Though, I also feel that a vast number of 'corner cases' and/or a few large glaring issues can cause unpleasant experiences with a game -even with a very proficient DM.

Hussar said:

But, isn't there a happy medium here? Mechanics that cover, say, most situations that arise, while leaving a fairly large chunk of exceptions where the DM is expected to mediate. Taking the Prone example - most of the time the plain English definition of Prone applies - you've knocked the thing off its feet and its lying on the ground. Now, 4e goes a step further and says that this condition is also abstract in that it applies equally to everything. So, when dealing with stuff that doesn't have feet, you expect the DM to step in and apply some creative narration on how that thing grant's combat advantage.

Click to expand...

Johnny3D3D said:

How many corner cases are acceptable before they become more than corner cases? (I ask this question with my 4E experiences in mind.)

<snip>

I do agree that a little more mediation (and possibly common sense) on the part of the DM is something a rpg should try to advocate. Though, I also feel that a vast number of 'corner cases' and/or a few large glaring issues can cause unpleasant experiences with a game -even with a very proficient DM.

Click to expand...

There is one feature of the Prone condition in 4e that does create corner cases that a GM might have to work around: namely, the penalty to hit with non-adjacent ranged attacks.

It's clear where that comes from for the typical prone creature - you've been knocked flat! - but when a gelatinous cube is all wobbly and unsteady on its jelly, therefore granting combat advantage and requiring a move action to "right" itself, why is it harder to shoot with an arrow?

I think that this is probably a situation that's uncommon enough that it can just be either (i) ignored, or (ii) GM fiated on a case-by-case basis. But I agree with Johnny3D3D that too much need to fiat in this way is a sign of a bad game. 4e hasn't had this problem for me. If it has had it for others, though, that would certainly be a reason for them not to like it!

Hussar said:

Mechanics that cover, say, most situations that arise, while leaving a fairly large chunk of exceptions where the DM is expected to mediate.

Click to expand...

The issue becomes that different DMs in different styles with different personal preferences or even in games with different focuses want detailed rules for very different things.

A desert exploration adventure might benefit from detailed rules about food and water consumption, and with monsters, creatures, and hazards, and items that interact with that (such as a blue dragon's ability to destroy water, or the Renk from Dark Sun that lets you eat it instead of drinking). It's not something you're going to want to make a DM judgement call on every half hour in the session. However, if you're doing a dungeon-of-the-week style game, those rules get in the way: it's easy to assume you have enough food for your journey, because the game isn't really concerned with managing that resource.

Similarly, a game about court intrigue would benefit greatly from detailed alliance rules and realtionship webs, but SCREW THAT NOISE if I'm playing a game about ruffian mercenaries on the run from the law.

You want detail for the things you're interested in, for the things you want PC's to do, and different DMs are interested in different details at different times.

Hussar said:

Taking the Prone example - most of the time the plain English definition of Prone applies - you've knocked the thing off its feet and its lying on the ground. Now, 4e goes a step further and says that this condition is also abstract in that it applies equally to everything. So, when dealing with stuff that doesn't have feet, you expect the DM to step in and apply some creative narration on how that thing grant's combat advantage.

That's pretty much what I want. I don't want the mechanics to spell out specifics and then a shopping list of exceptions. I want the mechanics to be broadly applicable, and intuitive enough that it makes sense most of the time, and leave it to the DM and make it expressly explicit in big freaking letters for the hard of reading that it is up to the table on how to deal with corner cases.

Click to expand...

Being forced to do that is a TREMENDOUS problem for a lot of players and DMs. That's unnecessary work and disbelief-breaking and all sorts of things.

The trick is to provide detailed rules for the people who want it, and not make you feel like you HAVE to use them. Labeling them as optional is a good start.

This is a long thread and I admit I haven't read every detail. Just wanted to chime in on my thoughts.

I think there was a thread of identity to D&D that ran through 1e,2e,and 3e. Yes 3e added a lot of extra stuff but I could take away things and get back to 1e,2e style. It didn't really change things a whole lot. It was additive. I found that 4e changed the very structure of the game. It no longer felt like D&D. I'm not saying anything about it as a fantasy game but such a radical deviation from a base that was at the time very successful was unwise.

So whatever 5e does I think it needs to support a recognizable version of D&D. I think the designers get this. I also think it should then support as many other styles of play as the designers can handle. A game is created to sell so including more customer preferences is good.

So why do I feel that original D&D is so important? After 4e was released, Pathfinder and a slew of retroclones appeared on the market. There was a demand for traditional D&D. This demand seems to be outselling the current iteration of D&D. Especially if you consider Pathfinder+3.5e+retros+1e/2e. Even if Pathfinder is slightly more or slightly less is beside the point. A lot of people are playing 3.5e that have never touched a Pathfinder book. Same for 1e/2e. So it's good business to support that desire with product.

I think 5e will achieve the goal of being a recognizable D&D. I am not sure how many other playstyles they'll cover but hopefully enough to make the game really successful.

Emerikol said:

I think there was a thread of identity to D&D that ran through 1e,2e,and 3e. Yes 3e added a lot of extra stuff but I could take away things and get back to 1e,2e style. It didn't really change things a whole lot. It was additive. I found that 4e changed the very structure of the game. It no longer felt like D&D.

Click to expand...

That's interesting, because for me 4e is the system that (to date) has best let me run the sort of game that I've been wanting to run since reading the Foreword to Moldvay Basic (which talked about freeing the land of tyranny by slaying the dragon tyrant).

And I think 3E changed a lot about AD&D, it didn't just add. Just as one well-known example, fighters went from having pretty good saving throws at mid-levels and above, to having pretty bad ones.

pemerton said:

That's interesting, because for me 4e is the system that (to date) has best let me run the sort of game that I've been wanting to run since reading the Foreword to Moldvay Basic (which talked about freeing the land of tyranny by slaying the dragon tyrant).

Click to expand...

You've stated this argument over and over again... and I still don't get it. Unless you expected to slay dragons from 1st level onward (which is not what is promised in the foreword)... EVERY edition of D&D made good on this promise... characters just had to be a high enough level to face dragons. This argument just doesn't make sense.

pemerton said:

That's interesting, because for me 4e is the system that (to date) has best let me run the sort of game that I've been wanting to run since reading the Foreword to Moldvay Basic (which talked about freeing the land of tyranny by slaying the dragon tyrant).

And I think 3E changed a lot about AD&D, it didn't just add. Just as one well-known example, fighters went from having pretty good saving throws at mid-levels and above, to having pretty bad ones.

Click to expand...

I think D&D is not for everyone. I'm just saying that D&D is popular for a lot of people. That smart business would say that they should satisfy those people. I am amazed to meet people who seem to be saying that they weren't happy with D&D until 4e. That says to me that you really never liked D&D. I mean if you disliked it for thirty years wow.

Also if just changing the numerical value of a saving throw counts as a major change to the way the game works then what can I say. You missed my point. BAB changed too a good bit. The basic structure of the game though looks the same. They added a skill system and feats and extended cleric spells to 9. Thats the structural change.

It looks to me like they are trying real hard in 5e to do what I've suggested. To me that is the proof in the pudding that they get what I'm saying even if a lot of 4e people don't.

Here are things that I believe would sink D&D 5e on launch if true
1. No vancian wizard exists. (Others can exist but that needs to exist)
2. Wizard with only 9 spells active at any time.
3. Fighters that can't be played without daily powers.
4. Martial healing baked into the game and hard to remove

Another point on the game being inclusive....

I'm for that. I know that at my table I'm not going to have a bunch of pro-4e players. If I had some of the 4vengers on the D&D forums these days try to come into my game, I'd just suggest they wouldn't like it and they should seek elsewhere.

So 5e can be totally successful if it offers these things...

1. Traditional D&D is an option for a particular group at a particular table.
2. Other forms of D&D are options for a particular group at a particular table.
3. Some options are of the kind that individual players in various groups can choose either side and play the way they want to play. This #3 though is of trivial concern compared to #1 and #2 .

DMs and in some cases players will make maybe ten or fifteen configuration choices for their campaigns and then play the game they've always wanted (hopefully). It is why I'm very eager for 5e. I don't like any edition so much that I don't think it can be improved in some areas. I don't hate any edition so much that there aren't some things I wouldn't borrow for 5e.

So for me 5e makes me excited because I can configure my game on a finer granularity level than edition. I don't want to choose an edition and settle on that. If I did have to choose and couldn't houserule at all, I'd probably pick 3e. If I could houserule, I'd pick a retroclone that still had classes and races separate and then I'd add in a more complex skill system.

Imaro said:

I still disagree with "b" here. Until the final failure or final success is rolled you have no idea what state (as it concerns the resolution of the conflict) that you are in. If you need one more success but then roll 3 failures... you have failed the SC, so you weren't any "closer" to escape than you were the first time you rolled a die in the SC as it relates to the overall conflict.

Click to expand...

This assumes that there is no fiction and no narration involved in the skill challenge - a claim that is extremely dubious (as pmerton and I keep illustrating).