D&D 5E Creative and innovation?

[Umbran]

No, it doesn't. But I want both.

Well, it read like you were using "I want fun" as the reason behind, "I want new" (I want innovative mechanics *because* I want fun gameplay). I'm merely trying to demonstrate how they are really separate goals, and that generally speaking the one can be achieved without the other.

This doesn't say you can't want new, or that wanting new is wrong, or any such nonsense. But wanting new is its own thing. If you have grown bored of old, say so. If you really just want something shiny, that's okay too - sometimes that's what we want, it's okay.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The other thing to remember when it comes to "innovation" is that sometimes the most innovating things don't actually seem that way, because they've appeared before in different context or a different game. So we're not seeing a "new" rule or mechanic per se... but its use in this latest game and when added to the other rules makes it far more innovative than we realize. And also remember that the longer we playtest a "new" mechanic and it becomes ingrained into the game... by the time the game actually gets published we will have forgotten that some of these rules were in fact "new" at one point.

Take for example Advantage/Disadvantage. This is for my money the most innovative and greatest rule they have added to the D&DN game. The problem is that it doesn't seem that way... because we already had a similar rule created in 4E with the Avenger's Oath of Enmity. But were we to ignore 4E for a moment and then envision a 3E game where suddenly this new rule comes out of nowhere, we'd possibly look at it with much wider eyes and think "man, this is one of the most innovative ideas to D&D I've ever seen!".

But since we did in fact have that interim step of a pseudo Advantage mechanic... the idea of rolling twice and take the higher result doesn't seem as big of an idea as I think it is-- especially in terms of binding accuracy. To me, this mechanic HUGE. It might just not seem that way. And that's only going to get worse in another year or two when the game gets released, and we will have playtested this mechanic for over two years. By that point, we all will have forgotten just how innovative it actually was.

It's the exact same way I feel towards the 3E Fortitude, Reflex and Will saving throws (as opposed to the old style Spells, Breath Weapon, Rod/Staff/Wand, Paralyzation/Petrification etc. etc. saves). That change to saves based upon ability score as opposed to just groups of similar effects I thought was a monumental innovation to the game. But it turned out that it was also so doofslap obvious of a positive change that we quickly forgot just how good of a change it was.

That's where the best innovation can be found... in those places that we internalize and adapt to so damned easily because it just feels so right. We have to just not forget those innovations after the fact when we stand back and start to complain about "there's nothing new!" After all... Martial Practices were innovative in 4E (Hey! Rituals for weapon using characters! That's never been done before!) and we saw pretty quickly just how unimportant and rather useless that innovation quickly became.

 

[Iosue]

I also note - you can get new flows of the game with old mechanics, combined in new ways. For example, take out alignment, and bolt a WoD-style morality system into the game instead. With different results for many stock D&D behaviors, the game would play much differently, though there's nothing really new there.

Indeed. Innovation doesn't have to equal "new mechanics". Backgrounds and specialties are a good example. In older editions of D&D, especially OD&D and BD&D, all you chose was your class and your equipment. With WotC D&D, you get highly customizable chargen using skills and feats. Both have fans, and both someone who wants fast and easy chargen and someone who loves going through complex, customizable chargen may play at the same table. How do you accomodate this? Take 4e's themes and backgrounds, and expand them into templates. In this case, none of the specific elements are innovative, nor is the idea of half pre-generated characters. But to present these elements in this combination, officially in the rules with the support of a number of sample packages, is innovative and faithful to history.

 

[Stormonu]

I've hit burnout, so take my opinion with a grain of salt...We've already got 4+ editions of the game, I'm not keen on innovating anything. I'd rather just see reconciliation so you can use any new stuff with older versions. 3E and 4E are the biggest outliers (1E/2E/BECM is already pretty compatible). I think with 4E you might be able to get away with "add 1/2 level to X,Y,Z" and it'll work for NPC stuff, but I'm not sure if there's a formula that'd work as well for 3E.Now, on the player side of things, I don't think reconcilliation is going to work so well. Not sure what do there other than perhaps make a PHB for each "edition".

 

[billd91]

It's the exact same way I feel towards the 3E Fortitude, Reflex and Will saving throws (as opposed to the old style Spells, Breath Weapon, Rod/Staff/Wand, Paralyzation/Petrification etc. etc. saves). That change to saves based upon ability score as opposed to just groups of similar effects I thought was a monumental innovation to the game. But it turned out that it was also so doofslap obvious of a positive change that we quickly forgot just how good of a change it was.

And just to point out the other side...
While I also like the Fort, Ref, Will saving throws, one pretty good criticism of them is that they constrain the narrative. Under the old saves, the fighter could be described as succeeding at saves in any number of ways. There was no assumption that he survived because of his toughness, his ability to dodge, or his strength of mind. He could tough-out every single save if that fit the player's narrative for his character. There was also, I believe, less debate in the old days about whether a tied up character got to make a saving throw - now, lots of people seem to labor under the impression he loses his Ref save since he can't really go anywhere.

So, while I do prefer the Fort, Ref, Will system in many ways, I'd like to point out that it's not without its criticisms. Innovations, even ones we mostly prefer, aren't necessarily all good all the time. Sometimes the older method we innovated away from work better in some situations.

 

[Dausuul]

While I also like the Fort, Ref, Will saving throws, one pretty good criticism of them is that they constrain the narrative. Under the old saves, the fighter could be described as succeeding at saves in any number of ways. There was no assumption that he survived because of his toughness, his ability to dodge, or his strength of mind. He could tough-out every single save if that fit the player's narrative for his character. There was also, I believe, less debate in the old days about whether a tied up character got to make a saving throw - now, lots of people seem to labor under the impression he loses his Ref save since he can't really go anywhere.

To some people these are bugs; to others of us, they're features. Whether something works "better" very much depends on what you want to accomplish.

 

[sheadunne]

Take for example Advantage/Disadvantage. This is for my money the most innovative and greatest rule they have added to the D&DN game. The problem is that it doesn't seem that way... because we already had a similar rule created in 4E with the Avenger's Oath of Enmity. But were we to ignore 4E for a moment and then envision a 3E game where suddenly this new rule comes out of nowhere, we'd possibly look at it with much wider eyes and think "man, this is one of the most innovative ideas to D&D I've ever seen!".

Innovative? Yes. Feeling right? No.

It's the exact same way I feel towards the 3E Fortitude, Reflex and Will saving throws (as opposed to the old style Spells, Breath Weapon, Rod/Staff/Wand, Paralyzation/Petrification etc. etc. saves). That change to saves based upon ability score as opposed to just groups of similar effects I thought was a monumental innovation to the game. But it turned out that it was also so doofslap obvious of a positive change that we quickly forgot just how good of a change it was.

The people I was gaming with when 3e came out were not impressed by the Fort/Ref/Will because we had been using ability scores only for saving throws for over a decade. We never used the traditional D&D model because it never made any sense to us. Just roll an ability check and move on. 3e saves were a step backward. Were they innovative? For published rules yes, but I found that other groups were doing what we were doing so it wasn't that innovative as far as table play went in the circles I gamed in. Compared to Ad/Dis I would say it's low on the innovation scale, but it was certainly a better innovation than Ad/Dis which most people I game with dislike and will probably scrap if they play 5e.

That's where the best innovation can be found... in those places that we internalize and adapt to so damned easily because it just feels so right. We have to just not forget those innovations after the fact when we stand back and start to complain about "there's nothing new!" After all... Martial Practices were innovative in 4E (Hey! Rituals for weapon using characters! That's never been done before!) and we saw pretty quickly just how unimportant and rather useless that innovation quickly became.

So far there are only a couple of innovations in 5e. Most of it is creative reshuffling of existing mechanics. What will certainly be innovative to me, is if they manage to reproduce play styles associate with editions in a single mechanic that doesn't require a million tack-ons and modules. It's not their primary goal, but that would indeed be innovative.

Cheers