Rule-Of-Three 2-7-12

[I'm A Banana]

In which WotC decides to jump on my bandwagon.

I kid, but I really like the sounds of this. The first question goes on about the three major things you do in D&D (I identified it years ago as 4 things -- they don't have "Discovery", which I can see...), the second goes on about how Page 42 is a lot like their idea for the central mechanic in 5e, and the last question goes on about breadth vs. depth, which I was harping on about even earlier today...

So, yeah, whatever 5e actually looks like, I can say that I'm on board with their big-picture design goals. And given that the team usually meets their design goals well (I'm of the opinion that most of the time, when D&D doesn't work, it isn't because it didn't meet its goals, it's because the goals weren't right) this bodes well for the next iteration.

I'm a little pumped! And I'm glad to see that Rule-of-Three is still quite informative under Rodney Thompson.

Yeah!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I've got no bone to pick with any of that. I am in wait and see mode on making exploration and roleplaying equal participants without imposing overly narrow stylistic ideas of what they entail.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I appreciate the reassurance in the last answer. It has been a big worry of mine (and others), so I'm glad they are aware of the concerns.

I'm still not sold on their approach to non-combat via ability scores and DM interpretation, but I guess I may as well see how it plays out.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am in wait and see mode on making exploration and roleplaying equal participants without imposing overly narrow stylistic ideas of what they entail.

What really reassured me is that they plan on making exploration and roleplaying aspects of monster and adventure design as well. This speaks to the notion that they've stopped trying to "fix the rust monster."

Y'know, how back in late 3e, they said the rust monster wasn't a great monster because it didn't give you a good fight, and it ruined all your items, and the "fix" was to make it a bigger combat threat and less effective at ruining your equipment, without really understanding that the point of the rust monster (and other "gotcha" monsters) wasn't to fight it in combat, but to treat it as an exploration element, not unlike a trap.

The kind of philosophy that, IMO, lead directly to 4e's "101 powers to damage + condition something, maybe 1 power to do something else to it" problem. And a few other 4e problems (like grind, and silly adventure structures, and monster manuals that are almost entirely combat stat blocks, etc.)

Clearly, they now better grok the idea that monsters and characters are not simply combat-related things, but need to fit into a bigger scheme for the game.

One Of The Best Things I've Heard So Far (tm).

We might not get exactly robust systems for these aspects, at least as a default, and I'm pretty OK with that, as long as the game clearly realizes that these are things I want to do with my character, and I do want some rules fobs to do these things with my character. If we can get back to where we were in, say, 2e, with that part of the game, I'll be quite a bit happier than I've been since 2008.

 

[Minigiant]

On the fresh question. I hope this means they will focus on make a few noncombat roleplay and exploration monsters and shift some currents to those styles. Instead of killing a troublesome fey, the game gives a method to track and convince the fey to leave.

For the third question, it seems I was right. The base characters with have the simpler features why advanced modular characters have more options.

I hope they go the Basic= Power, Advanced=Versatility approach. Joe the core fighter just has a +4 axe attack for 1d8+8 and a +3 spear attack for 1d4+4. John the advanced fighter with the Martial exploits mod has a lot of at 1d8+2 damage at-wills but get to push, pull, and knockdown without the DM judgement. Core: Heroic Fighter (+Dex to attack rolls and +Con to damage rolls). Exploits Module: Substitute Heroic Fighter with Master Fighter (gain 2 at-will and 1 encounter exploit)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Y'know, how back in late 3e, they said the rust monster wasn't a great monster because it didn't give you a good fight, and it ruined all your items, and the "fix" was to make it a bigger combat threat and less effective at ruining your equipment, without really understanding that the point of the rust monster (and other "gotcha" monsters) wasn't to fight it in combat, but to treat it as an exploration element, not unlike a trap.

Well, or the point of the rust monster was to get rid of the occassional campaign-breaking item.. that happened to be metal.

Slightly less blatant than the disenchanter.


Or maybe it was strictly to hose fighter and clerics - and let druids (leather armor, wooden shield, club) get to do something.

 

[The Shadow]

Okay, now this was a lot more satisfying than the last couple Legends & Lore columns! I actually feel I know a little more after reading than before, for one.

I'm very much liking what I'm hearing. Now, please get the rules into my hot little hands.

 

[Saracenus]

Why isn't the sky falling in this thread?

I am glad you guys are feeling better about the direction of D&D Next.

Now if I can calm down some of my 4e brethren about their fears of a rules light base not catering to their preferred play-style and that having to use a skills/powers and/or tactical module to make the game more like 4e is a good thing, we might be get somewhere.

Playtests for the people!

 

[Mattachine]

The second response worries me.

I have never been comfortable with a game that purports significant roleplay and detailed characters and at the same time expects player metagaming to be an important factor in problem resolution. It is one of the reasons I was not happy with much of the "Gygaxian" style of play in early D&D.

If characters have detailed stats and defined skills and powers, then the player should be able to roleplay those abilities, and make a die roll to determine success--especially when the player's relevant ability or knowledge is vastly different from the character's.

If the rules explicitly call for adjudicating situations by player actions/statements (rather than character-based actions), I think that is step backwards.

Anyone else here been in one of these situations over the years?

a. My genius-level wizard is confronted with a simple logic puzzle, but I (the player) can't figure it out.

b. I am playing a dumb-as-rocks warrior who can solve the logic puzzle because I (the player) am good at that sort of puzzle.

c. I have a smooth-talking bard or thief who needs to get information from the local barman, but I (the player) can't quite think of the right words to say.


There are games out there were these situations are explicitly based on player actions/statements, but these same systems don't heavily define character stats and abilities like D&D always has. I will be sad to see the game move in that direction.

 

[Halivar]

Now if I can calm down some of my 4e brethren about their fears of a rules light base not catering to their preferred play-style and that having to use a skills/powers and/or tactical module to make the game more like 4e is a good thing, we might be get somewhere.

Playtests for the people!

Well, this 4ron has no sacred cows. I love completely swapping out mechanics every few years; but then again, I'm a ruleset junkie. I collect them like rare bugs.

That being said, the only only only only thing that frightens me is the possibility of losing lightweight monster construction. It is literally what allows me to DM, given my time constraints.