L&L: Putting the Vance in Vancian

[DEFCON 1]

It goes the other way too. Allowing or disallowing feats / vancian magic / non-vancian magic / psionics / druids / paladins / monks / critical hits and misses to exist in a game are part of what allows the DM to customize his world to enhance his roleplaying.

Remember, you're RPing a single character, he is RPing an entire universe.

Which is absolutely a fine way to play. The only thing is though... that this should not then force the removal of certain systems from the game entirely just so that you don't have to do it yourself.

What I got from Jack Daniel (and its quite possible that I misunderstood him) was that he didn't want the idea that Class Features = 'pre-selected feats', because by the game insinuating that, his players might get the idea that they could still request to swap out a 'pre-selected feat' class feature for some other feat, even if he already told them he wasn't using the Feats module. So the game should just not make the connection that Class Feature = 'pre-select feat', even if they actually are. Because by stating or implying it, that's an extra ruling as DM he doesn't want to have to make.

Personally, I find that to be a very hollow argument, because you basically asking the game to not include something that many other people might appreciate just because it means you might have to do your job and actually make a ruling. Which I find somewhat ridiculous, seeing as how being a DM is all about making rulings. So to write off an entire game just because it asks you to make a single ruling that you don't think you should have to make if the game wasn't "forcing" you to, seems a bit like sour grapes to me.

 

[Jack Daniel]

JackDaniels

What I got from JackDaniels (and its quite possible that I misunderstood him) was that he didn't want the idea that Class Features = 'pre-selected feats', because by the game insinuating that, his players might get the idea that they could still request to swap out a 'pre-selected feat' class feature for some other feat, even if he already told them he wasn't using the Feats module. So the game should just not make the connection that Class Feature = 'pre-select feat', even if they actually are. Because by stating or implying it, that's an extra ruling as DM he doesn't want to have to make.

Eh... kinda-sorta. It's not that I would ever, in reality, have that hypothetical exchange with a player where I denied them some minor tweak to their character. Rather, I was trying to make the point that the D&D I play is not a game where anything that even smells like min-maxing is ever allowed to come within 100' of my game-table. I played enough 3rd edition in my time to know, factually, that I never, ever, ever again want to play any game where the players get to "build" their characters. And unless I haven't made myself clear: never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever again. Not gonna do it.

I want the 5th edition core game to be a solid core with simple classes. SIMPLE CLASSES. If the class features are actually feats in disguise, meant to be swapped out for other features... okay, fine, but don't put that in the class chapter. (Ideally, don't put it in the core rulebook; but I know better than to wish for that, given who's designing and who's publishing this game.) Hide that nonsense away somewhere else in the book, where you've sequestered the "feats module".

It pretty much comes down to this: customization == min/maxing == time-consuming character creation. When the character-building mini-game is present, the temptation to min/max is present; and even those relatively benign players (liberal estimate from my experience: 10%) who go about it the "right" way, by looking to abilities that fit their character concept rather than just immediately running to abilities that grant the optimum mechanical advantage, still take entirely too much time selecting said abilities. It just gets in the way of actually playing. I don't want it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Apologies on the name screw-up, Jack. Edited to correct it.

I want the 5th edition core game to be a solid core with simple classes. SIMPLE CLASSES. If the class features are actually feats in disguise, meant to be swapped out for other features... okay, fine, but don't put that in the class chapter. (Ideally, don't put it in the core rulebook; but I know better than to wish for that, given who's designing and who's publishing this game.) Hide that nonsense away somewhere else in the book, where you've sequestered the "feats module".

I get what you're saying here, and its a complete valid way to play. The only downside you're going to face I think is that since I would venture to guess you're in the minority in terms of not allowing the "building" of characters, as a result I suspect that you're probably going to have to make do with the advanced character creation options being there in the main book. Although you may get your wish in terms of the rules for swapping out 'class features' not appearing in the basic Class section, but instead in the Feats section. You might get that at least.

The Cleric listing in the Class section would probably give you things like hit dice/hit points, weapon and armor profs, prayer (spell) list, and a few class features like Turn Undead. Your basic run-of-the-mill Cleric stuff. However, back in the Feats section there might very well be a list of clerical feats that you could swap out Turn Undead for (for example), if the DM chose to use the Feats module. That makes more organizational sense in my opinion than trying to list all swappable options in each class's section.

 

[Ratskinner]

It pretty much comes down to this: customization == min/maxing == time-consuming character creation. When the character-building mini-game is present, the temptation to min/max is present; and even those relatively benign players (liberal estimate from my experience: 10%) who go about it the "right" way, by looking to abilities that fit their character concept rather than just immediately running to abilities that grant the optimum mechanical advantage, still take entirely too much time selecting said abilities. It just gets in the way of actually playing. I don't want it.

On the other hand, simplicity can be an issue as well. I'm in an Old-school group now. We had a BECMI-ish campaign start up. After the first several sessions weeded out all the weak characters, and everybody had finally settled into characters that had rolled high enough stats to survive a session or two. (Sorry Elf, Clerics #1 and 2, Thief #1, and Magic-User...better rolls next time! I hope you didn't want spells to fit into your character concept.) We were stuck with 3 Fighters and a Dwarf who could only be differentiated by their HP rolls (and infravision.) Finding magic weapons became a big distraction, so much so that the DM instituted what amounted to prestige classes for the fighters. Thus ending the idea, (in my head) that choiceless character development was a good thing.

I'd also suggest that, IME, the percentage of players who would "go about it the right way" is much higher than you suggest. The part of the "Old School" culture that leads people to "let the dice fall where they may" helps to quickly train new players that making suboptimal characters is a pointless effort. When I ran a 4e group of newbies, none of them felt the need to min/max at all. (I'm not 4e's biggest fan, but that was a nice thing.)

I agree that slow and tedious character creation is a bad thing, but absolutely choiceless development isn't good either. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Lanefan]

They're being deliberately vague in many cases, but one of the central conceits of the L&L columns has been to push forward something that sounds a lot like OD&D as "the eternal, always-existing core of D&D upon which we will build everything." I.e., they're trying to court the OSR/OD&D folks ... but they're likely to deliver, in the end, something which won't be palatable to them after all.

And as a long-time 1e-er, that's what worries me about this whole process.

I still maintain that people are totally misconstruing the statement that 5E/D&DN will recapture the "Feel" of older D&D with meaning that the rules mechanics will revert to "BEING" an old system.

Well, it'll be hard to recapture the feel without the mechanics as the mechanics were responsible for a large part of the feel in the first place. Pretty hard to have one without the other.

It pretty much comes down to this: customization == min/maxing == time-consuming character creation. When the character-building mini-game is present, the temptation to min/max is present; and even those relatively benign players (liberal estimate from my experience: 10%) who go about it the "right" way, by looking to abilities that fit their character concept rather than just immediately running to abilities that grant the optimum mechanical advantage, still take entirely too much time selecting said abilities. It just gets in the way of actually playing. I don't want it.

Speak it! Speak it loud!

Lanefan

 

[Ratskinner]

Well, it'll be hard to recapture the feel without the mechanics as the mechanics were responsible for a large part of the feel in the first place.

1) That feel varied a lot between groups.

2) There are OSR-ish indie games that use new-school mechanics to capture that old feel quite well, IMO.

 

[pemerton]

This is the core of what's wrong with D&D. WOTC catering to people who didn't like D&D to begin with and making it an entirely new game.

I'd buy this more if the people always trying to don the mantle of "High Priest of What D&D Is" were not universally set on telling me that what I did with D&D in the early days did not happen.

I agree fully with CJ on this, and get a little bit tired of being told again and again in these sorts of threads that, because I like and play 4e, I don't like D&D.

I played B/X D&D from 1982 to 1984. I GMed AD&D from 1984 to 1989. I played AD&D 2nd ed, on and off, from 1990 to 1997. I GMed a little bit of 3E in 2000.

From 1990 to 2008 I GMed primarily Rolemaster, but used a whole host of D&D materials, incuding material from Greyhawk, Oriental Adventures, and other sourcebooks, modules, rulebooks etc. D&D is not just the mechanics, it is a whole collection of story elements and approaches to gonzo fantasy RPGing. Nor is D&D just the playstyle set out in Gygax's rulebooks: Oriental Adventures, for example - a 1st ed AD&D product - is clearly aimed at a different playstyle from B/X or the "skilled play" described by Gygax in the PHB, and had a profound effect on my own approach to GMing.

I didn't return to D&D with 4e because 4e is not D&D. I returned to D&D with 4e because with 4e, D&D finally had the mechanics to deliver the sort of stories that it had been promising me for over 20 years, but that I had been using other mechanical systems to achieve.

it looks to me like the D&DN team has not learned any of what I consider the really important lessons of 4E. They talk about "tactical combat" and such like as if they were what the main attractions of 4E are - they just miss the point, entirely.

I agree with this too, although I think 4e's attractions for me are slightly different from those that Balesir sees.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I agree fully with CJ on this, and get a little bit tired of being told again and again in these sorts of threads that, because I like and play 4e, I don't like D&D.

.

I just want to be clear about my own statements on this subject (and i do think this is how many people mean it when they make these sort of remarks): 4E didn't have that D&D feel for me. The absence of the traditional spells in their traditional form, the extension of casting like powers to mundane classes, muddied the brand identity in my opinion. This isn't to say you aren't playing D&D or an attemp to divine your reasons for liking 4E, it is just my personal reaction to the edition. That should be no more a threat to your enjoyment of the game than your statement that previous editions failed to deliver the game's promise is to my mine. If prior editions didn't perform for you, and this one did, I am fine with that. One thing that has really been bothering me about these edition conlficts is people are dismissing the personal experiences of others (i.e. No, you didn't encounter believability issues with mechanic X, you just don't know what you are talking about). So I hope my comments haven't come across as such for the other side.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], I didn't have you in mind when I made my post. But I am curious - if 4e doesn't have the D&D feel for you, what about Oriental Adventurs (the 1980s version)? Or some of the "story"-oriented stuff from the 2nd ed era?

I mean, maybe there were people who played OA in just the sort of way Gygax talks about at the end of his PHB, but I find that a bit hard to imagine.

 

[Bedrockgames]

[MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], I didn't have you in mind when I made my post. But I am curious - if 4e doesn't have the D&D feel for you, what about Oriental Adventurs (the 1980s version)? Or some of the "story"-oriented stuff from the 2nd ed era?

I mean, maybe there were people who played OA in just the sort of way Gygax talks about at the end of his PHB, but I find that a bit hard to imagine.

To be clear, i am not an oldschool dungeon and hex crawler. I have mostly played D&D with a focus on monster hunts, investigation, political intrigue, urban adventures, etc. 2E worked very well formy style,though I disliked the railroading and for me verisimiltude is important to my immersion in the setting (so stuff like giving players narrative control--not afeature of 2E--also doesn't apoeal to me). What I liked about 2E were 1) the mechanics and 2) the emphasison settingand flavor. Most of my games are combat and dungeon light.

But my point about 4E not feeling like D&D to me has more to do with mechanical changes than anything else. Didn't play much OA. Was very into Ravenloft, Dark Sun and settings like birthright.

I actually wrote a defense of 2E on my blog (here: 2e Defense). Also have an entry on running monster hunts.