New Legends & Lore (Rules, rules, rules)

[P1NBACK]

I'm confused. He specifically mentioned that he mashed up different rules in the examples, because which edition did what or used what rules is less important to what he's trying to convey than how detailed they are, and he's only discussing 3e and 4e? You said yourself the level of complexity of the earlier games was between 1 and 2, that sounds like inclusion to me.

That's not inclusion. He specifically states he mashed up 3E and 4E rules.

He didn't even discuss how older editions presented those rules. His examples are straight up out of modern D&D models. He just assumes "setting DCs" is the standard and that the complexity arises from how you modify that skill check, instead of say having skill checks with setting DCs altogether.

That's why older editions fell between 1 and 2, not because his scheme somehow reflected them, but because they weren't represented whatsoever. Because he went straight from "you climb at half your speed" to the default "checks for each climb" thing and totally skipped over any sort of divergence from the status quo skill checks from 3E and 4E.

He can say he's avoiding edition comparison, but then by using the standard methods of 3E and 4E only, he's outright avoiding historic methods altogether - something his previous poll indicated that players wanted to preserve.

Are you less confused?

And for the poll, what better could he have done? He listed answers for everything from "No Rules" to "Lots o' Rules" and left a "Something Completely Different" option. Maybe he could have done a 1-10 scale, but how much better would that have been, really?

As it stands, I can choose Option 1, which sucks because it doesn't address DM judgment whatsoever. Or, Option 2, which is basically the same as Option 3, because "based on the difficulty of the climb" will need guidelines.

Do you really think Option 2 is a serious rules option? "Based on the difficulty of the climb" will need supplemental rules, which will wind up looking more like Option 3: a bunch of modifiers affecting the climb.

Therefore, we have: Option 1, Option 2 and 3 (basically the same), or "Radically Different" and "Nothing whatsoever".

Wtf?

He could have added:

None. I want an option that's not radically different, but falls somewhere between these options.

Where I stand, I don't want to roll checks for every single task that will occur in a basic adventure. But, there are also times when seemingly basic tasks, such as climb, become extraordinary: climbing the slick walls of a tower, climbing sheer cliffs, etc.

This is something Monte doesn't address. His choices basically become:

No checks.
Checks all the time based around a bunch of modifiers (more, or less modifiers to taste).
DM wings it.
Radically different.

Is that really the only options? It is in 3E (more to taste) and 4E (less to taste).

 

[Agamon]

As it stands, I can choose Option 1, which sucks because it doesn't address DM judgment whatsoever. Or, Option 2, which is basically the same as Option 3, because "based on the difficulty of the climb" will need guidelines.

Do you really think Option 2 is a serious rules option? "Based on the difficulty of the climb" will need supplemental rules, which will wind up looking more like Option 3: a bunch of modifiers affecting the climb.

Therefore, we have: Option 1, Option 2 and 3 (basically the same), or "Radically Different" and "Nothing whatsoever".

Wtf?

He could have added:

None. I want an option that's not radically different, but falls somewhere between these options.

Where I stand, I don't want to roll checks for every single task that will occur in a basic adventure. But, there are also times when seemingly basic tasks, such as climb, become extraordinary: climbing the slick walls of a tower, climbing sheer cliffs, etc.

This is something Monte doesn't address. His choices basically become:

No checks.
Checks all the time based around a bunch of modifiers (more, or less modifiers to taste).
DM wings it.
Radically different.

Is that really the only options? It is in 3E (more to taste) and 4E (less to taste).

These are the options, as I understand them (Monte explained each quite clearly, I thought):

1. No checks.
2. DM decides if there checks and how they are overcome.
3. Rules decide if there are checks and how they are overcome.
4. No rules (odd choice, if you ask me)
5. Something weird like, I don't know, players decide if there are checks how they are overcome, perhaps?

 

[P1NBACK]

3 is "radically different" than what? These are the options:

1. No checks.
2. DM decides if there checks and how they are overcome.
3. Rules decide if there are checks and how they are overcome.
4. No rules (odd choice, if you ask me)
5. Something weird like, I don't know, players decide if there are checks how they are overcome, perhaps?

You don't know because he didn't talk about it - and you clearly didn't read my first post in this thread where I talked about it.

Thanks - you just made my point.

 

[Agamon]

You don't know because he didn't talk about it - and you clearly didn't read my first post in this thread where I talked about it.

Thanks - you just made my point.

The problem I see with these threads is that the examples are often taken as RAW instead of examples of theory. You didn't like the three examples given? That's not the point. As I pointed out in my post, the basis of the the examples are the point. No check, DM decides, rules decide. How can you have something in between one of those? Sometimes there's no check, but sometimes the DM decides, except when the rules specify otherwise. That way lies madness.

 

[P1NBACK]

The problem I see with these threads is that the examples are often taken as RAW instead of examples of theory. You didn't like the three examples given? That's not the point. As I pointed out in my post, the basis of the the examples are the point. No check, DM decides, rules decide. How can you have something in between one of those? Sometimes there's no check, but sometimes the DM decides, except when the rules specify otherwise. That way lies madness.

Yeah, I'm not talking about specifics of the rules. I'm talking about presentation of the rules and complexity - the topic of the article. He could have been citing Saving throws for all I care.

I don't want to derail this thread further, because my point is a minor one: the irony of having a poll where 76% of polled say they want to preserve history, and then dedicating no time to the discussion of said topic and how it relates to historic versions of the game.

Monte's article is clearly representative of aa 3E/4E design mentality without as much as a nod to how rules were presented in previous editions.

That's it.

Let's drop it or start a new thread.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Besides which... this isn't a real poll. None of these three options are the actual options any future game is going to have. We aren't actually deciding on anything right now, so there's no real need to find more exact 'middle ground' between options 1 & 2, or options 2 & 3. All that matters is if there's an overwhelming support for one thing over the two others.

If the poll resulted in 90% of all players saying they wanted option 1... something I suspect none of the R&D department would ever think would actually occur in the poll voting... it'd be a massive shift in what we players currently have and what we appear to want. They'd know that the game's apparently been on the wrong track, and that it was time to take a deeper look at things. Conversely, if 90% of the players voted Option 3... that'd tell them that the sound of complaints saying that the game was too complicated might just be from a smaller but much more vocal group of individuals and not reflective of the gaming populace more as a whole (granting the truth that those who vote in the WotC polls are also not reflective of the gaming populace as a whole either).

If this poll was to pick how 5E's skills would actually be... then sure, wanting more gradations of choice would be expected. But for just broad-based 'taking the temperature of the populace' questions... the 'No check, DM decides, rules decide' options are really all they need just to make sure there hasn't been a massive miscalculation up to this point.

 

[P1NBACK]

I pretty much agree DEFCON.

 

[Agamon]

So do I...I guess he just said it better than I did.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Personally, while web polls are wonderful tools, I'd argue that the vocal minority of the player community is actually responding to the polls on Wizards.com. With this logic what the majority of the player community wants may not be reflected by this polling mechanism.

Heck, the only reason why I'm even on ENWorld is because I'm the DM of my group and I feel it's my responsibility to sort of know what's going on with the game we're playing. Yes I have a wizards account because I want access to Dragon and Dungeon and stuff, and yes I'm here because there's an interesting group of people that represent a population of non Wizards stuff.. but if I wasn't a DM, I wouldn't give two cares about editions or such.

I'm willing to bet there are more players with my viewpoint than DMs, so what are we really on about with the "these are potential future rules"?

KB

 

[pemerton]

I don't want to roll checks for every single task that will occur in a basic adventure. But, there are also times when seemingly basic tasks, such as climb, become extraordinary: climbing the slick walls of a tower, climbing sheer cliffs, etc.

This is something Monte doesn't address.

Sorry to continue the derail, but I'm curious: would you regard the skill system that Mearls and Monte were discussing at the time of the Legends & Lore handover as giving you what you want?

As I recall it, that system was: skill levels are graded (say 5 ranks from Novice to Master) and challenges are graded in the same way; challenges below a PC's skill level don't require a check; challenges at a PC's skill level do require a check; challenges above a PC's skill level are impossible (which gives the players a reason to have their PCs take steps to reduce the difficulty of the challenge).