So its all about combat again?

[pemerton]

The only things older editions supported was combat. Everything else was reduced to "roll some fitting skill checks and make it up" (with different editions having a more or less complex skills).

I don't think this is true of 4e (I'm not sure if you include it as an "older edition"). It has skill challenges, which are a particular form of the fairly generic "extended resolution mechanic" found in many contemporary RPGs.

It's not also strictly true of classic D&D. The resolution system for reactions, exploring dungeons, and evading encounters in B/X and 1st ed AD&D aren't all that spectacular, but they're not just "roll some checks and make it up". I think that description is probably most true for 2nd ed AD&D and 3E.

You don't need tons of rules for role playing to be interesting and "tactical" where combat needs a lot more structure due to its nature.

I don't really agree with this. There is no particular need for combat to be structured - combat could simply be resolved by an opposed check (sorry, a Contest!) between attack bonuses.

But structuring combat gives it a certain "heft" and place in the game.

Likewise non-combat. Despite the discussion of 3 pillars by the designers, I will be pretty surprised if D&Dnext ends up, in mechanical terms, doing anything dramatic with non-combat that hasn't been part of earlier editions. The furthest D&d has gone in this direction is skill challenges, and it seems pretty clear no sort of extended resolution system of that sort will be in D&Dnext.

My players crept up on the goblins, hacked and slashed their way through the caves until they arrived at the back door to the hobgoblin caves and . . . then they knocked. From there the rest of the session was devoted to negotiating their way in to see the hobgoblin leader, arranging an alliance against the evil cultists, and the cleric of Pelor seducing the Warlord and then joining the ranks of her consorts.

This was accomplished by no more than a handful of charisma and wisdom checks back and forth between the two sides. The rest of the time I was winging it. The system didn't aid or hinder the results in any way.

There's no reason in principle why combat can't be handled the same way - the situation is narrated, the GM wings it and sets some stakes for what will happen on successful or failed rolls (perhaps telling the players, perhaps giving hints, perhaps keeping it secret as best suits the current pace and state of the game), dice are rolled, and outcomes adjudicated. Rinse and repeat.

That most RPGs have more robust resolution system for combat doesn't tell us anything about what combat resolution needs. It might tell us something about what RPGers want, though.

I see plenty of non-combat abilities on those character sheets.

Which ones?

There is the standard dungeon exploration stuff: Pick Locks, Disarm Traps, Detect Magic, Light, Perception, Stealth (with the Stealth rules seeming to me like a slimmed-down version of 4e's). There are no rules for running a chase through a dungeon, though. Or for spelunking. Or even for the PCs roping together so as to avoid the threat of pits.

There are Animal Handling and Survival, but no developed resolution system for them. How can I run wilderness exploration to make it as gripping as a combat with the ogre or minotaur?

There are social skills, but no developed resolution system for them. The interaction rules are even weaker than those in Basic D&D. (And they're pretty rudimentary).

And then there are the lore skills and Comprehend Languages. But again with no resolution system. (What benefits does Forbidden Lore give me when it comes to dealing with the imprisoned medusa? The rules don't say.)

In my view, non-combat abilities aren't just about entries on a character sheet (those are cheap!). It's about resolution systems that players can engage with confidence about the sorts of outcomes that might result from that engagement. I'm not seeing any signs of that in this playtest.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Which ones?

There is the standard dungeon exploration stuff: Pick Locks, Disarm Traps, Detect Magic, Light, Perception, Stealth (with the Stealth rules seeming to me like a slimmed-down version of 4e's). There are no rules for running a chase through a dungeon, though. Or for spelunking. Or even for the PCs roping together so as to avoid the threat of pits.

There are Animal Handling and Survival, but no developed resolution system for them. How can I run wilderness exploration to make it as gripping as a combat with the ogre or minotaur?

There are social skills, but no developed resolution system for them. The interaction rules are even weaker than those in Basic D&D. (And they're pretty rudimentary).

And then there are the lore skills and Comprehend Languages. But again with no resolution system. (What benefits does Forbidden Lore give me when it comes to dealing with the imprisoned medusa? The rules don't say.)

In my view, non-combat abilities aren't just about entries on a character sheet (those are cheap!). It's about resolution systems that players can engage with confidence about the sorts of outcomes that might result from that engagement. I'm not seeing any signs of that in this playtest.

The ones that jumped out at me were the researching ability on the wizard and the profession for the halfling. As to resolution systems, I kind of agree with the others above that the playtst is very dungeon-y and the rules are very simple, so I think there are more rules coming in this venue.

Then again, a complex resolution system isn't always necessary. Sometimes one or a series of die rolls is all you need; the system just needs to give you appropriate numbers for those die rolls (which 5e seems to be doing better than any D&D rules I've seen).

 

[Blackwarder]

I agree that the current playtest is very hack and slash oriented with minimal interaction and exploration rules (beside some lite dungeon exploration).

But, I would like to see exploration and interaction receive their fair share of rules. My reasoning is that if you have a rules book who's 80% about combat and combat related stuff in the book than combat will be the biggest pillar of them all.

Otoh, if you have a heafty enough rule section for interaction (not merely somthing that rely on sporadic Diplomacy checks) and exploration, both in the PHB and the DMG than you achieve to things: you alter player expectation to expect those kind of actions in their game and you make the game more full with options.

And, if done right, groups could pick and choose what level of rules from each pillar they would like to use, some groups would relish simple combat but complex interaction while other will like to wonder for years in the wilderness hunting monsters with minimal interaction.

Warder

 

[I'm A Banana]

The ones that jumped out at me were the researching ability on the wizard and the profession for the halfling. As to resolution systems, I kind of agree with the others above that the playtst is very dungeon-y and the rules are very simple, so I think there are more rules coming in this venue.

There's also the priest's and knight's ability to get lodging and aid from allied NPC's, and the soldier's endurance.

There's not a whole lot of NPCs or environments in a cave full of chaos n' evil that would USE those rules bits, but that's kind of a separate problem with the design of the adventure (again: this thing needs a town, and some wilderness). I hope for a broader scope in the next round of playtest materials.

 

[pemerton]

I would like to see exploration and interaction receive their fair share of rules. My reasoning is that if you have a rules book who's 80% about combat and combat related stuff in the book than combat will be the biggest pillar of them all.

Otoh, if you have a heafty enough rule section for interaction (not merely somthing that rely on sporadic Diplomacy checks) and exploration, both in the PHB and the DMG than you achieve to things: you alter player expectation to expect those kind of actions in their game and you make the game more full with options.

I agree with all this. But to date I've seen little (in Ro3 or L&L, for example) that suggests they are working on serious resolution systems for the other pillars. And nothing in the playtest documents suggests otherwise. So unless they are playing their cards very close to their chests, I'm feeling a little pessimistic.

 

[Hussar]

Why must planning an epic heist (D&D version of Ocean's 11) be done by free forming with a few skill checks while combat receives dozens or even more than a hundred of pages of attention? Why shouldn't interaction with the game world apart from combat not also get some attention from the rules?

Well, it worked for every other edition of the game...

 

[Dausuul]

Well, it worked for every other edition of the game...

This. The goal of D&DN is to bring together the D&D community, which means we should not expect to see it breaking large chunks of new ground rules-wise. And robust mechanics for exploration or social interaction would be entirely new ground for D&D. These have always been handled with a few bare-bones mechanics and a lot of handwaving*.

If we get such systems, I expect they will be in an "Unearthed Arcana" type of thing, not the core.

[size=-2]*And I include 4E in that. I have played adventures where skill challenges were run by the book--get X successes before Y failures, using the following skills--and it was the stupidest, boringest, immersion-wreckingest thing ever. If you look at the sample challenges in the DMG, they use the basic skill challenge rules as a jumping-off point and then make a lot of stuff up, and that's the only way I've found skill challenges work.[/size]

 

[Derren]

Well, it worked for every other edition of the game...

And that is the reason I wrote "again" in the title.

To be honest, I am not the target group of WotC. At the end of my D&D time 3E became too combat focused for me and 4E only got worse. Skill challenges were a interesting idea, but we all know that they didn't really work and also provided a "one size fits all" mechanic for everything non combat related in a system where combat is pretty much hardwired into and takes up >95% of the space.

My interest in 5E is more for nostalgic reasons and I am fully aware that it is unlikely that D&D would shift its focus in the direction my interests have wandered nor that the player base even wants that (most discussions and questions about 5E are about combat so thats apparently what interests the players).

Still, personally I think that the focus on combat is a dead end. Computers can do combat, tactical or h&s, just fine and are getting better and better at the social component. What computers can't do very well is the non combat stuff which is less strictly regulated as they can't react to the crazy ideas the players have.

 

[Blackwarder]

This. The goal of D&DN is to bring together the D&D community, which means we should not expect to see it breaking large chunks of new ground rules-wise. And robust mechanics for exploration or social interaction would be entirely new ground for D&D. These have always been handled with a few bare-bones mechanics and a lot of handwaving*.

If we get such systems, I expect they will be in an "Unearthed Arcana" type of thing, not the core.

[size=-2]*And I include 4E in that. I have played adventures where skill challenges were run by the book--get X successes before Y failures, using the following skills--and it was the stupidest, boringest, immersion-wreckingest thing ever. If you look at the sample challenges in the DMG, they use the basic skill challenge rules as a jumping-off point and then make a lot of stuff up, and that's the only way I've found skill challenges work.[/size]

I'm not entirely sure about that, considering that they aim to make DnDN a modular system than adding big systems for exploration and interaction shouldn't go against the stated goal of 5e.

Also, 2e and back had systems for interaction and exploration, for example interaction table and wondering monsters tables to name a few.

Warder

 

[Hussar]

I'm not entirely sure about that, considering that they aim to make DnDN a modular system than adding big systems for exploration and interaction shouldn't go against the stated goal of 5e.

Also, 2e and back had systems for interaction and exploration, for example interaction table and wondering monsters tables to name a few.

Warder

Umm, how is wandering monsters tables not combat linked? It's not like you are going to talk your way past most of them.

Look at just about any RPG out there - certainly any mainstream one, and you'll see pages and pages of how to kill stuff and paragraphs and paragraphs on how to talk to stuff.

This is no different. And, hey, if you look at RPG's that remove the focus on combat and focus on different stuff, you get a fair number of D&D fans who will decry rather loudly that it's not even an RPG anymore.