Dragonblade
Adventurer
I was reading a fascinating discussion on RPG.net about 5e and two points were made that really struck me as being particularly insightful. The first has to do with the deconstruction of the entire concept of niche protection in terms of the two core game elements that all RPGs have to deal with: Combat and Non-Combat.
In most RPGs, including editions 1e-3e, the designers often subscribed to what can best be described as the "spotlight" method of enforcing the concept of niche protection. For example, you have the Fighter. The Fighter is good at combat. Because combat is their niche, most of their class abilities are geared around combat. The fighter player's spotlight is shined on them in combat. But their focus on combat is "balanced" by giving them a paltry 2 skill points. Then you have say the Rogue. The Rogue is the sneak, the skill monkey. That is their niche and that is when their spotlight gets put on them. They are "balanced" by being less effective than the Fighter in combat. Then you have the caster. They get to do the supernatural stuff. They solve problems with magic. Different casters are better at solving different problems with different magical types.
So in the spotlight method of niche protection, the game encourages the DM to shine the spotlight on different players during different parts of the game. So mix in a little combat and the melee types get to shine. Mix in some diplomatic scenes or some exploration and trap disarming and the skill monkey gets to shine. Throw in some magic based problems and the casters get to shine. Also in the spotlight method of niche protection, combat skils and abilities are often balanced by a lack of non-combat abilities and skills.
Well, this approach has become so ingrained that its incorporated in almost all mainstream RPGs, and in D&D. And I think most gamers pretty much take it for granted.
But there is a flaw in this approach. The flaw is that getting equal spotlight time is very dependent on how well the DM, the adventure itself, and the players can smoothly shift the spotlight fairly. A combat heavy DM is going to frequently have a bored skill monkey player. Likewise, a fighter shines in combat, but in a session filled with intense RP and skill checks, they might as well go play Nintendo.
Now this isn't true in all cases. Some fighter players love RP during non-combat scenes. But from a mechanics standpoint, the game offers little incentive for them to contribute. Whereas the Rogue is mechanically built to excel at contributing in a skill based scene.
Combat and non-combat abilities are balanced against each other in this style of RPG design. If you have a high attack bonus you get fewer skills. The game mechanics reinforce the shifting spotlight method. You shine in combat, but suck everywhere else. Or vice versa.
Well, 4e tried to do something radically different. 4e took the spotlight notion as it pertained to combat and threw it out the door. It said lets dump the rotating spotlight queue model and lets give all classes equal opportunity to shine in combat at all times. In 4e ALL classes have mechanics that allow them to contribute meaningfully in combat. This was a fantastic model and a very innovative approach.
BUT (and this is a BIG BUT), where 4e fell short was that this focus on fixing the combat side, came at the near total neglect of the non-combat side of the game.
For groups where a large percentage of their gaming enjoyment is based around rich tactical combat, 4e is a natural fit. For groups that like to focus more on storytelling, intense RP, exploration, or other non-combat areas, there aren't any mechanical tools to work with, other than skill challenges.
This is a problem. It led to some players feeling like 4e lacked the RP depth of other editions. I think it pretty much offered the same depth in RP as other editions, but let me offer an analogy. Its like you have two light bulbs right next to each other. One is slightly brighter than the other one. But now you replace the brighter one with a super ridiculous halogen bulb. Sure the other dimmer bulb is still there, but the new bulb is so ridiculously bright that its really all you can see. And some people have to avert their eyes and can't look at it at all.
So what I'd like to see 5e do, is not to revert back to the rotating spotlight model, but to finish what 4e started. Take out that dim RP bulb and give it a super bright halogen replacement as well. Flesh out and develop mechanically the non-combat side of the game. Provide mechanics that encourage and foster RP, exploration, and other dramatic non-combat scenes. And not just with skill challenges and skills. But actual cool mechanical things that PCs can just flat out do if they have invested in the appropriate Talent tree or whatever.
Instead of Rogue's making a Disguise check, maybe develop a whole Disguise Talent tree with cool abilities they can unlock as they level up. By level 10, the PC can pick up the Mimic Speech Talent and can mimic perfectly any voice they have ever heard. Or there could be a Glib Tongue Talent, where once per day they can create a Charm Person effect on any NPC just by talking to them. And so on and so forth.
In Mike Mearls L&L article he talked about skill tricks, where at high level you can take a trick to run a certain distance across a wall without falling. Or maybe there is a Speech Talent for paladins called Moving Oratory, where once per day any NPC who is friendly towards you and listens to you make a speech is shifted to Fanatically Loyal from Friendly. Before they would have merely followed you into battle, now they will take an arrow for you and believe they will go to heaven for doing so. Perhaps integrate something like this into new high level kingdom management rules.
Just make a diverse selection of non-combat oriented Talents, feats, or abilities that PCs can take. Perhaps a social combat system. Basically make non-combat matter from a robust and detailed mechanical sense. Sure make it modular so people can add or remove what they like or don't like from it and make it less or more crunchy as desired.
But here is the key: Don't just balance non-combat abilities with combat abilities. That just gets back to the whole rotating spotlight issue. Don't make the Fighter excel in melee but suck in non-combat.
Give every class their own distinct array of non-combat talents that allow them to contribute meaningfully and mechanically outside of combat.
Somebody on EN World once posted a system where every PC essentially took two classes. A combat class and a social or non-combat class. I don't remember who it was, but it was a brilliant idea. So you could be a Fighter Explorer, or a Fighter Diplomat. Or a Wizard Explorer, or whatever.
For those players and groups that can't stand the notion of all players contributing meaningfully both in and out of combat, and really want the rotating spotlight model, then design it so that your non-combat and your combat class can standalone. So you don't have to pick one of each if you don't want to and can just pick a non-combat class or a combat class.
Anyway, it doesn't have to be a two class system like that, but I'd like to see a 5e where one's PC can always meaningfully contribute to the game in a mechanical manner regardless of whether the focus of the game is on combat or exploration, or diplomacy, or whatever.
In most RPGs, including editions 1e-3e, the designers often subscribed to what can best be described as the "spotlight" method of enforcing the concept of niche protection. For example, you have the Fighter. The Fighter is good at combat. Because combat is their niche, most of their class abilities are geared around combat. The fighter player's spotlight is shined on them in combat. But their focus on combat is "balanced" by giving them a paltry 2 skill points. Then you have say the Rogue. The Rogue is the sneak, the skill monkey. That is their niche and that is when their spotlight gets put on them. They are "balanced" by being less effective than the Fighter in combat. Then you have the caster. They get to do the supernatural stuff. They solve problems with magic. Different casters are better at solving different problems with different magical types.
So in the spotlight method of niche protection, the game encourages the DM to shine the spotlight on different players during different parts of the game. So mix in a little combat and the melee types get to shine. Mix in some diplomatic scenes or some exploration and trap disarming and the skill monkey gets to shine. Throw in some magic based problems and the casters get to shine. Also in the spotlight method of niche protection, combat skils and abilities are often balanced by a lack of non-combat abilities and skills.
Well, this approach has become so ingrained that its incorporated in almost all mainstream RPGs, and in D&D. And I think most gamers pretty much take it for granted.
But there is a flaw in this approach. The flaw is that getting equal spotlight time is very dependent on how well the DM, the adventure itself, and the players can smoothly shift the spotlight fairly. A combat heavy DM is going to frequently have a bored skill monkey player. Likewise, a fighter shines in combat, but in a session filled with intense RP and skill checks, they might as well go play Nintendo.
Now this isn't true in all cases. Some fighter players love RP during non-combat scenes. But from a mechanics standpoint, the game offers little incentive for them to contribute. Whereas the Rogue is mechanically built to excel at contributing in a skill based scene.
Combat and non-combat abilities are balanced against each other in this style of RPG design. If you have a high attack bonus you get fewer skills. The game mechanics reinforce the shifting spotlight method. You shine in combat, but suck everywhere else. Or vice versa.
Well, 4e tried to do something radically different. 4e took the spotlight notion as it pertained to combat and threw it out the door. It said lets dump the rotating spotlight queue model and lets give all classes equal opportunity to shine in combat at all times. In 4e ALL classes have mechanics that allow them to contribute meaningfully in combat. This was a fantastic model and a very innovative approach.
BUT (and this is a BIG BUT), where 4e fell short was that this focus on fixing the combat side, came at the near total neglect of the non-combat side of the game.
For groups where a large percentage of their gaming enjoyment is based around rich tactical combat, 4e is a natural fit. For groups that like to focus more on storytelling, intense RP, exploration, or other non-combat areas, there aren't any mechanical tools to work with, other than skill challenges.
This is a problem. It led to some players feeling like 4e lacked the RP depth of other editions. I think it pretty much offered the same depth in RP as other editions, but let me offer an analogy. Its like you have two light bulbs right next to each other. One is slightly brighter than the other one. But now you replace the brighter one with a super ridiculous halogen bulb. Sure the other dimmer bulb is still there, but the new bulb is so ridiculously bright that its really all you can see. And some people have to avert their eyes and can't look at it at all.
So what I'd like to see 5e do, is not to revert back to the rotating spotlight model, but to finish what 4e started. Take out that dim RP bulb and give it a super bright halogen replacement as well. Flesh out and develop mechanically the non-combat side of the game. Provide mechanics that encourage and foster RP, exploration, and other dramatic non-combat scenes. And not just with skill challenges and skills. But actual cool mechanical things that PCs can just flat out do if they have invested in the appropriate Talent tree or whatever.
Instead of Rogue's making a Disguise check, maybe develop a whole Disguise Talent tree with cool abilities they can unlock as they level up. By level 10, the PC can pick up the Mimic Speech Talent and can mimic perfectly any voice they have ever heard. Or there could be a Glib Tongue Talent, where once per day they can create a Charm Person effect on any NPC just by talking to them. And so on and so forth.
In Mike Mearls L&L article he talked about skill tricks, where at high level you can take a trick to run a certain distance across a wall without falling. Or maybe there is a Speech Talent for paladins called Moving Oratory, where once per day any NPC who is friendly towards you and listens to you make a speech is shifted to Fanatically Loyal from Friendly. Before they would have merely followed you into battle, now they will take an arrow for you and believe they will go to heaven for doing so. Perhaps integrate something like this into new high level kingdom management rules.
Just make a diverse selection of non-combat oriented Talents, feats, or abilities that PCs can take. Perhaps a social combat system. Basically make non-combat matter from a robust and detailed mechanical sense. Sure make it modular so people can add or remove what they like or don't like from it and make it less or more crunchy as desired.
But here is the key: Don't just balance non-combat abilities with combat abilities. That just gets back to the whole rotating spotlight issue. Don't make the Fighter excel in melee but suck in non-combat.
Give every class their own distinct array of non-combat talents that allow them to contribute meaningfully and mechanically outside of combat.
Somebody on EN World once posted a system where every PC essentially took two classes. A combat class and a social or non-combat class. I don't remember who it was, but it was a brilliant idea. So you could be a Fighter Explorer, or a Fighter Diplomat. Or a Wizard Explorer, or whatever.
For those players and groups that can't stand the notion of all players contributing meaningfully both in and out of combat, and really want the rotating spotlight model, then design it so that your non-combat and your combat class can standalone. So you don't have to pick one of each if you don't want to and can just pick a non-combat class or a combat class.
Anyway, it doesn't have to be a two class system like that, but I'd like to see a 5e where one's PC can always meaningfully contribute to the game in a mechanical manner regardless of whether the focus of the game is on combat or exploration, or diplomacy, or whatever.