This Week in D&D

I'm A Banana · Oct 16, 2012

pemerton said:
I want a system that recognises what it is that 4e players - or, at least, many of those who post on this forum - do with their game. Which looks nothing like VinylTap's characterisation of it.

Some distintive features of 4e inlcude:

* Silo-ing non-combat abilities (many utility and skill powers, rituals, most of the skill system, etc;

* A robust non-combat conflict resolution system (skill challenges);

* Clear rules for awarding XP for non-combat encounters and challenges, and for quests, and for time spent in free roleplay, which - together with the combat XP rules - reflect a clear sense of what XP are for (ie progression at the rate of around 1 level per 12 or so hours of dedicated play);

* Solid rules for adjudicating improvisation, with clear DC guidelines set out by reference to metagame consequences for pacing, flow etc, and supporting crossover between combat and non-combat, such as using skills in combat, and (per PHB p 259 and DMG 2 p 86) using attack powers in non-combat situations.

When I look at D&Dnext so far, much of this is missing. There are no guidelines at all for improvised effects, and the DC-setting guidelines only approach the issue from the point of view of ingame difficulty, but not from the metagame point of view of the effect of DCs on pacing and flow. There is no non-combat conflict resolution at all (and traits are crying out for such a system!), nor rules for out-of-combat XP awards. And the skill rules are very fiddly and have a lot of overlap (eg Survival vs Nature Lore; Magical Lore vs Forbidden Lore), though the announced change in the skill mechanic, back to the first iteration, should deal with some of those issues (overlap is less of an issue in a stat-based, more free-descriptor style skill system).

In my 4e game, when the PCs encountered a dire bear and decided to tame it rather than fight it, adjudication and the award of XPs was completely straightforward, and every PC clearly had some way of contributing to the collective endeavour. How would I resolve that in D&Dnext without resort to sheer fiat? How would I make it as exciting, in play, as the combat encounter would be?

And that's before we even get to the more serious, session-dominating social encounters that 4e handles with mechanical ease.

While I think you over-state 4e's uniqueness and innovations in this regard, I think there's a big point of agreement with the core of your idea here with me.

It's early in the playtest, and we're not looking at non-combat mechanics yet, but it's about dang time we did. The rogue is spinning its wheels looking for an identity, and figuring out how you want to handle Exploration at least (aside from fiat and unmoored ability score checks) should be part of how you get that class right, IMO.

And there's no reason that 5e can't have a Page 42.

pemerton · Oct 16, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
The rogue is spinning its wheels looking for an identity, and figuring out how you want to handle Exploration at least (aside from fiat and unmoored ability score checks) should be part of how you get that class right, IMO.

Agreed. I think that a certain element of exploration (namely, lore) is also central to the bard, as well as to the way many people play the wizard and even the cleric. And exploration is pretty key to the ranger.

Social conflict is also central to the bard, and in my view to the paladin as well (ever since that compulsory 17 CHA).

So there are a number of elements on which progress can't be made, it seems to me, without moving outside of simply combat resolution.

Kamikaze Midget said:
And there's no reason that 5e can't have a Page 42.

Maybe. But Page 42, at least in its 4e form, depends on recognising the metagame for what it is, namely, a source of reasonable constraint on how ingame situations are structured and resolved.

At the moment D&Dnext has very little allusion to the existence of a metagame, let alone the legitimacy of metagame concerns like pacing, flow, rewarding certain sorts of approach, etc.

That's not to say that it couldn't have those things. But I think the current hesitance on that front is not accidental. I hope they find a way of approaching this. Even classic D&D was braver in talking about its metagame (dungeon levels, advice on planning an expedition, stated rationales for XP, hp and saving throw mechanics, etc) than WotC seems to be at the moment!

Klaus · Oct 16, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
While I think you over-state 4e's uniqueness and innovations in this regard, I think there's a big point of agreement with the core of your idea here with me.

It's early in the playtest, and we're not looking at non-combat mechanics yet, but it's about dang time we did. The rogue is spinning its wheels looking for an identity, and figuring out how you want to handle Exploration at least (aside from fiat and unmoored ability score checks) should be part of how you get that class right, IMO.

And there's no reason that 5e can't have a Page 42.

Y'know, D&D Next could very well have a Pg. 42 (I like that new jargon!). Thanks to the bounded accuracy, it would be really short. List difficulties (which wouldn't rise much with level), a damage expression for common maneuvers (which would be close to a regular weapon attack) and a greater damage expression for limited maneuvers (stuff that you could only do once in a fight, with the correct set-up).

Something like:

Difficulty-------Damage----------More damage
Very Easy------1d4-------------- 1d6
Easy-----------1d6 ------------- 1d10
Moderate-------1d8 + quarter-level -- 1d12 + half-level
Hard------------2d8 + quarter-level -- 2d12 + half-level
Very Hard-------3d10 + half-level--- something
Impossibly Hard - 4d10 + half-level -- pi

(note: all difficulties and damage expressions were pulled out of my... er... head, and bear no similarity with anything even close to balance).

Chris_Nightwing · Oct 16, 2012

pemerton said:
Some distintive features of 4e inlcude:

* Silo-ing non-combat abilities (many utility and skill powers, rituals, most of the skill system, etc;

* A robust non-combat conflict resolution system (skill challenges);

* Clear rules for awarding XP for non-combat encounters and challenges, and for quests, and for time spent in free roleplay, which - together with the combat XP rules - reflect a clear sense of what XP are for (ie progression at the rate of around 1 level per 12 or so hours of dedicated play);

* Solid rules for adjudicating improvisation, with clear DC guidelines set out by reference to metagame consequences for pacing, flow etc, and supporting crossover between combat and non-combat, such as using skills in combat, and (per PHB p 259 and DMG 2 p 86) using attack powers in non-combat situations.

Manbearcat said:
Outside of these things mentioned by @pemerton and @Magil, I would also include:

1 - Player Metagame Resources;

1a - Character Builds including a suite of thematic Encounter Powers that they can deploy reliably from Actor and Director Stance that allows them to impose their vision upon the fiction.

1b - Bennies/Action Points (etc) that players earn from Milestone System (story or thematic) and, again, are able to deploy reliably from Actor and Director Stance (which allows them to impose their vision upon the fiction).

2 - Evocative, user-friendly, elegant Swarm mechanics that allow for diverse usage (from swarms of bugs, to animal herds/stampedes, to swarms of orcs/barbarians, to mass combat).

3 - Diverse, evocative Hazard/Trap system with mechanics that are unified with the rest of the system.

4 - User-friendly Condition Track system that allows for the DM to threaten the PCs further inside of the Encounter system and outside of it as well (4e could be improved upon here - both balance and simplification of mechanics).

5 - On the same line as Magil's post, regarding combat:

5a - A more granular action economy.

5b - Hard-coded terrain system.

5c - Much more mobility embedded in Classes' and Monsters' resources (including shift). Further, a wider scope (this is controversial as it seems this is unwieldy for many...but myself and my grouop love it) of immediate actions. Both of these allow for breaking of the "Rock-em, Sock-em Robots", "Battleship" nature of turn based combat.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]

Skill Challenges as presented in 4E, and I don't just mean the poor mathematics, are only suitable for players familiar with narrative roleplaying games. I have seen countless times with new players an inability to get their head around cause and effect, and the fact that a skill success may technically achieve nothing if a completely different skill failure occurs. There's scope for something functional here, but the bland count of success/failures does not do it for me.

Agreed that XP guidelines should exist for non-combat encounters, but I don't want to return to the hardcoding of 2E, aka give all the gold to the thief.

There exist DC guidelines, but I suspect you want a wholesale import of page 42 in this matter. Personally I dislike the 'metagame' - if you push someone into a fire it does damage based on the fire, not the player level, and no, fires don't just get hotter because players are fighting tougher monsters. This is something fundamental that will never be resolved, I fear.
[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]

Sometimes, I get a tingling sensation that you're not being serious, I honestly can't tell. "Actor and Director Stance" for instance, has me giggling. I don't understand why you play D&D! How can anyone impose their vision on the fiction when you have a roll a dice to see if you have any effect? Metagame features such as certain encounter powers and action points are anathema to many of us.

Swarm mechanics would be welcomed, saving time is always good. Traps are great. Using the word evocative doesn't.. mean anything any more..

I don't understand what you are talking about with the condition track.

You want more granular combat mechanics, yet a meta-narrative game approach. Hm. Personally I want combat to be simple, with fewer interrupts. I want turns to tick by rapidly, with the general flow of combat determining whether a player will kick in some special ability they might have to turn the tide. I don't want turn-by-turn agonising and optimising of actions - that's for Dungeon Command.

Ratskinner · Oct 16, 2012

ppaladin123 said:
Clerics are mostly self-buff gishes; they use magic to make themselves stronger and more durable. This is a bit different from the duskblade or swordmage, which usually use magic to directly harm their enemies (channeled through a sword strike, close bursts and cones, etc.) I think a lot of players want something like this that doesn't suck (like the duskblade or hexblade did).

So give them access to a shiny new spell selection, possibly dependent on deity.

Ratskinner · Oct 16, 2012

pemerton said:
I want a system that recognises what it is that 4e players - or, at least, many of those who post on this forum - do with their game. Which looks nothing like VinylTap's characterisation of it.

Not to start/enter an edition war squabble, but VinylTap's characterisation matches a lot more of what I saw (if not participated directly in) from 4e. Don't get me wrong, I love what you guys are doing with it, and appreciate it quite a bit. I just don't think its the "typical" interpretation of 4e (at least around here.)

For me, one of the weirder things about 4e and the reaction it engendered was how so many people saw such contradictory things in it. This is one of those areas. On the one hand, I know a few "grognards" who absolutely despise all the "new-school indie Bleep!<bleep>" in 4e. On the other hand, most of the non-grognard crowd seems unaware of those facets of the game, or at best doesn't interpret/use them that way. I have no idea what any of that implies for Next and what its best direction would be. I would hate to be in the designer chair and trying to figure out how to interpret 4e wrt next.</bleep>

Ratskinner · Oct 16, 2012

thewok said:
I disagree with the premise. The sorcerer has been in two editions: 3rd and 4th. It is different in each. In 3E, the sorcerer was basically a wizard who sacrificed the number of spells he could learn (and thus, utility) for being able to cast more spells per day and being able to cast spontaneously (if more slowly). In 4E, the Sorcerer embraced the "magical heritage" lore from 3E and became a high-damage spellcaster of various lineage, with the possibility to turn spells into melee attacks via a feat.

In 2e (apparently the "forgotten" edition :.-(

) a sorcerer was a type of specialty elementalist wizard from Al-Qadim.

Ratskinner · Oct 16, 2012

pemerton said:
Maybe. But Page 42, at least in its 4e form, depends on recognising the metagame for what it is, namely, a source of reasonable constraint on how ingame situations are structured and resolved.

At the moment D&Dnext has very little allusion to the existence of a metagame, let alone the legitimacy of metagame concerns like pacing, flow, rewarding certain sorts of approach, etc.

That's not to say that it couldn't have those things. But I think the current hesitance on that front is not accidental.

(emphasis added)

I definitely agree with this point. I'm not sure what precisely about 4e's acknowledgement of these issues puts people off, but it really does. I suspect that part of DM empowerment means putting some of that back into the DM's hands directly. For whatever reason, some people feel that codifying these things hamstrings the DM. It may also play into that "one way to play" thing. Perhaps Next should off multiple/concurrent metagame solutions?

Manbearcat · Oct 16, 2012

Chris_Nightwing said:
@Manbearcat 

Sometimes, I get a tingling sensation that you're not being serious, I honestly can't tell. "Actor and Director Stance" for instance, has me giggling. I don't understand why you play D&D! How can anyone impose their vision on the fiction when you have a roll a dice to see if you have any effect? Metagame features such as certain encounter powers and action points are anathema to many of us.

Swarm mechanics would be welcomed, saving time is always good. Traps are great. Using the word evocative doesn't.. mean anything any more..

I don't understand what you are talking about with the condition track.

You want more granular combat mechanics, yet a meta-narrative game approach. Hm. Personally I want combat to be simple, with fewer interrupts. I want turns to tick by rapidly, with the general flow of combat determining whether a player will kick in some special ability they might have to turn the tide. I don't want turn-by-turn agonising and optimising of actions - that's for Dungeon Command.

1 - I'm pretty sure I've been serious in all of my posts on this board. There might have been a few times where I was being silly or satirical but most of those were just quips or XP comments without any poijnts or elaboration. Sorry for the confusion.

2 - I play D&D because it is a hobby that I share in common with a few dear friends and it provides an outlet for my creative energies and strategy game interests all in one go! Its fun.

3 - I understand metagame features are anathema (suversive to deep immersionist/Actor stance only, simulationist agenda play ) to many. They are not anathema to myself or my group (or people/groups like us). They allow players to say "this thematic/genre appropriate thing that is relevant to my character and the unfolding story happens NOW (the kind of power that wizards have at all times). Eg - I'm a Barbarian, a horde of orcs coming up the pass with only me to protect it. I call upon the primal fury of my clan's ancient hero Bob the Pass Defender. The same primal spirits that informed Bob and bulwarked him by their might course through my body and so and so affect (that aids in felling hordes and not letting them get through) is at my disposal. Or Eg - A framework that supports - "Oh, I passed this Ride check while I'm in the midst of a Skill Challenge (whose point is to determine if I steal a fell god's idol from an evil temple, evade the pursuit of its acolytes and get it back to the town to destroy it in a ritual thus cleansing the cursed)? Ok, I deftly roll to the left of my horse as an arrow cuts a lock from hair. My horse is spurred on by the arrow buzzing by its own ear. I turn back around as I remount at full gallop. We're cresting a ridge. What lies beyond?" - onward to resolution of the conflict.

4 - Evocative, in that sense just means that they capture their mechanics capture the fear/trepidation/foreboding that I'm looking for.

5 - Condition Track is a mechanic that represents some exposure to a foreign influence (contagion, smoke, extreme hunger or thirst, some form of environmental exposure, lack of sleep, etc). Its a very user-friendly and highly functional mechanic that represents these elements (and their accompanying challenge and dread) quite well.

6 - I know these aren't what some want. I put controversial there. I could have put highly contentious. It is not a boardgame to myself or my group (or those like me).

The creative agenda of my group is a hybrid (Ron Edwards might call it incoherent as it seems you do) of Gamist and Narrative tastes. It works great for our table. We enjoy it very much and it gives us the games that we want. There really isn't any need to belabor most of this. Its just preferences/agendas clashing with one another. You would not like my games and don't want the rules that assist in that kind of game to be within the default of the D&D framework. I understand. I promise that I'm sincere in my preferences/agenda and my advocating for them...as I know you are. With luck, perhaps we'll both get to play our preferred games with 5e. I highly, highly doubt it. But we shall see.

Chris_Nightwing · Oct 16, 2012

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]

I'll pick up on points 3 and 5, as the others are just unresolvable. Condition tracks are great: indeed if there needs to be a formal skill challenge mechanic, condition tracks are better at this. For point 3, I don't find what you describe horrific, I just don't understand how you can go from "awesome storytelling" (let's call it) to "fiddly bonus combat". Does the Barbarian calling his primal spirits not feel a bit let down that it just turns into some bonus damage and knocking people over? I would happily play a game where the resolution of that combat was done narratively, but I don't think I can indulge in awesome storytelling when all I'm really doing is picking a precise square to move to to optimise the use of a power I've selected from a group of powers and then add up a bunch of numbers to see if what I narrated actually turned into something (ie: a kill or rider). By all means let there be a version of D&D that suits narrative play, let's call it D&D Stories (TM (I can't TM this)), but that should never include such tedious and precise combat - leave that for D&D Tactics (TM (I also can't TM this)).