Monte Cooks First Legends and Lore

[nedjer]

Too early to say, but it looks like further mechanisation. Used to be GMs were moderators who turned to the books for crunch, but generally handled skills use and exploration by themselves. The combat crunch was then expended before skills use was also mechanised. Now exploration seems to be up for similar mechanisation - replacing the interplay between GM and players with another set of crunchy checks and rolls.

This all places the rules as a cipher between the game play and the players - which demotes the GM from flexible moderator to rule-bound referee. At the same time, the skills bar to entry to the game raises another level, as a novice player or GM is expected to play with rules mastery over combat, skills and exploration.

Please tell me it isn't so

 

[Kzach]

My post was unclear. What I meant was a player who likes to spend real time describing the specific actions his PC is taking in order to discover hidden features of the environment doesn't get to do that if he finds things automatically.

I'd prefer if the first player could also optimise his character AND still gain an advantage from his poking and prodding.

This all places the rules as a cipher between the game play and the players - which demotes the GM from flexible moderator to rule-bound referee.

I really wish people would actually read the articles that they're commenting on, you know, before commenting.

And best of all, if the player told the DM that his character was doing exactly the right thing-—checking the statue's teeth to see if one moved-—the DM could easily grant him a bonus to his rank and make what was impossible to find, possible. Player ingenuity rewarded.

 

[Jhaelen]

E.g. why not talk about automating more die rolls in combat? Players love to roll dice, so let's talk about the DM's end of things.

I think you're on the right track here. This is an area that could use some improvement.

After trying DDM I always wondered why D&D didn't just get rid of all damage rolls in favour of average damage. It's the basis for 4e's monster math after all!

Getting rid of attack rolls, as well, might not be such a good idea, though. If a group of monsters shares the same 'passive to-hit chance', they'd all either hit or miss.

What I'd like to see is a simplified, more abstract combat system that is meant to be used for 'small' encounters. I imagine something similar to a skill challenge, except it involves picking a tactic, stance, formation or whatever and resulting in e.g. loss of healing surges.

Simplifying regular (or 'epic') combat encounters is more difficult and would probably result in a game that is very different from any previous edition of D&D. This could be replacing hit points with wound levels or a damage track (come to think of it: isn't a damage track already similar to counting successes in a skill challenge and assigning specific outcomes to each success/fail ratio?).

 

[LostSoul]

I really wish people would actually read the articles that they're commenting on, you know, before commenting.

I consider what you quoted from the article a feature, probably my favourite aspect of this system.

What I was talking about is the disconnect between liking an aspect of play (exploration, specifically) and being forced to avoid mechanical excellence there in order to experience it.

Let's switch the example to combat. Assume that you really like tactical combat in your games. You'd assume that you'd want to build a combat-focused character. However, when you do, it turns out that the mechanics remove your tactical choices!

One way to remove this disconnect would be to allow the players to choose the difficulty of their challenges; players would escalate to their level of excellence. That's why I said it's not necessarily a design flaw. It is something to be aware of, though.

 

[Kzach]

This...

I consider what you quoted from the article a feature, probably my favourite aspect of this system.

...contradicts this...

What I was talking about is the disconnect between liking an aspect of play (exploration, specifically) and being forced to avoid mechanical excellence there in order to experience it.

Monte says you can have both in a system and you're saying you can't have one because the other precludes it. What's more, you're saying you like the very aspect of the system which ALLOWS for the very thing you're saying can't be done in the system.

It's sort-of like saying, "I like that I can swim in this pool," and then saying, "But the pool prevents me from swimming in it."

 

[ExploderWizard]

Originally Posted by Monte Cook
"And best of all, if the player told the DM that his character was doing exactly the right thing-—checking the statue's teeth to see if one moved-—the DM could easily grant him a bonus to his rank and make what was impossible to find, possible. Player ingenuity rewarded."


Rewarded? I suppose what is a reward to some is a slap in the face to others. Put me in the latter camp.

If a player interacts with the environment in such detail then the reward is finding whatever there is to be found. Period. The dice are there to be thrown when there is doubt. A player saying "I check the room carefully" might find the secret hollow tooth. The dice will decide. If a player bothers to check out the teeth specifically then he/she finds whatever is there.

Searching and examining things is simply playing the game. It is something for players to actually get involved in. The choice to just do a generic search or a more detailed examination should be left to the player. Paying attention to detail and interacting with the environment will almost always produce better results than relying on a die roll.

Its a simple choice of where do you want player decisions to matter more, during character creation or actual play?

 

[pming]

Hiya.

While I can see the desire to "simplify" the mechanics as an attempt to let the GM and Players 'just roleplay it', I'm finding myself thinking it find for some game genres...Super Heroes comes to mind...but for D&D-style Fantasy? No sir. I don't like it.

What I see this as doing is nothing short of "encouraging" players to keep sucking as players. As an example, take a look at the ever popluar, and/or hated, 1e AD&D module S1:The Tomb of Horrors. This module is written to challenge PLAYERS...and *not* their characters, as such. If you take a sextet of experienced 1e players, give them some of the pre-gens from the back, and let 'em at it...and you take a sextet of relatively new (say, less than 2 years) players, give them some of the pre-gens from the back, and let 'em at it...well, I'd bet dimes to dollars that the 1e players far SIGNIFICANTLY better than the relative newbies. The reasoning for that is that the 1e mentality is "The play is the thing". Playing 1e AD&D sets the players skills, insights, intuition, etc. against the challenges...his character is only there as a proxy for interaction with the world.

If 5e starts to basically reduce player skill/insight/etc. to the sidelines, in favor of how many points the character put into Skill X...it'll suck (IMHO, of course). I would like to see 5e try and get *away* from the "PC's chance to succeed" and put it MUCH more in the hands of the GM and Players. In Mikes example, what if the 'non-skilled' player said "I look for secret compartments in the desk...different color or wood type, unusuall cracks, or areas that seem like thicker or thiner wood...". Is the GM going to just say "No. But Phred finds a hair-line crack reveiling..."? If I was the player I'd be annoyed. What would that "teach" me? That using my brain and imagination in this game is secondary; how I min/max my characters skills is more important. Definitly NOT the way the game should go, IMHO.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[nedjer]

I really wish people would actually read the articles that they're commenting on, you know, before commenting.

I really wish you would understand what you're reading

 

[Kzach]

I really wish you would understand what you're reading

I'll make you a deal: you understand what you're writing and I'll do my best to understand what you wrote.

 

[vagabundo]

I really wish people would actually read the articles that they're commenting on, you know, before commenting.

I read the article and was aware of what you quoted, but I think you missed my point (and I believe some of this was LostSouls point).

Take something that like an "Expert" secret door. Characters with an Expert level in perception will auto discover the door. The Prod/Poker does not get his jollys even if she specifically says "I'm running my fingers along the cracks in that wall." unless she is a Apprentice, or lower, in perception. If she is an expert there is no advantage to her prodding and poking as she would auto discover the door. She will get some advantages is the door is Masterly hidden.

I'm not sure if their is a solution to this problem. I'm not adverse to players auto succeeding because of training, but I think it needs to be active. Passive stuff annoys me because it is silly, there is no outside force setting the DCs, I set them, so I'm dictating whether the PC passes or fails. Pointless.