Uniting the Editions, Part 2 Up!

[WheresMyD20]

Let me use the analogy of a car.

That's a bad analogy. It's more like a classic rock band from the 70s who experimented with keyboards in the 80s, replaced its lead singer in the 90s, lost a few more members and tried a different sound entirely in the 00s, and now is trying to go back to its roots and rediscover its original sound.

 

[Ichneumon]

That's a bad analogy. It's more like a classic rock band from the 70s who experimented with keyboards in the 80s, replaced its lead singer in the 90s, lost a few more members and tried a different sound entirely in the 00s, and now is trying to go back to its roots and rediscover its original sound.

D&D is Neil Young.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

D&D is Neil Young.

So the question then becomes can it do a joint concert with Lynard Skynard?

 

[El Mahdi]

D&D is Neil Young.

So the question then becomes can it do a joint concert with Lynard Skynard?

Whether it can or not, they don't need it around anyhow...

 

[El Mahdi]

It's more like a classic rock band from the 70s who experimented with keyboards in the 80s, replaced its lead singer in the 90s, lost a few more members and tried a different sound entirely in the 00s, and now is trying to go back to its roots and rediscover its original sound...

...then said screw America and left for Europe.

Oh wait, that's Toto...

 

[JohnSnow]

I largely agree with everything that you're saying.

I'm finding it hard to articulate my misgivings (even to myself).

I think that my basic problem is that while I agree that AD&D, Basic D&D, 4th edition, etc are all D&D I do NOT feel that they all have things worth preserving in a modern edition aimed at the mass market.

I should emphasize that I have no problem at all that others like and play AD&D, old school clones, etc. But they are all quite small niche products right now.

I think that both 3rd and 4th editions are where the mass market has decided that the game should be. They both have mass appeal.

I think that a successful edition should start from where we are today and NOT from where we were 30 years ago.

Fair point. I am cautiously optimistic that WotC will start with the modern game engine, including such things as a single universal resolution mechanic (d20 + modifiers), consistent mechanics and ability score bonuses, fundamental system math, to-hit bonuses and escalating AC (vs. tables or THAC0), and so on that were codified in 3e and have been held over to 4e.

But as they've really gotten under the hood, I think they've found that some of the choices they made need some tweaking. If saves are ability score-based, why should you have only 3 as opposed to 6? Sure, it means you either have more balanced PCs, or characters that have both strengths and weaknesses, but is that really a bad thing?

I think you're right that the bulk of the market is in the 3e/4e camp, but I also think there's a solid "old school community" (the Castles & Crusades or Swords & Wizardry crowd). But in order to rectify the 3e and 4e camps, we have to find common ground. I think we'd all agree that skills and feats work differently between the two editions, and that the bulk of 4e's AEDU powers are largely a substitute for traditional so-called "vancian magic," right? Well, what happens if you strip those out?

Well, we still want the classes to be unique, so we start adding class features. Different classes get access to different weapons and armor, some of them get granted powers, and so on. Eventually, we have to decide on a spell system - it's the elephant in the room.

Fundamentally, although it may well have more classes, and more races, and a more modern engine, this is a system that is going to look and feel a lot like Dungeons & Dragons (1974). Because we don't have skills, ability scores form the basis for all checks. Because we're trying to decide between 3e's 3 saves based on 1 attribute each and 4e's 3 saves based on the best of two, we compromise and say "hey, why not 6 saves?"

But the thing is, when all is said and done, that system looks a lot like what a OD&D, 1e, BECMI, or 2e player would expect in a game called Dungeons & Dragons. Sure, AC goes up instead of down, and (hopefully!) the classes are better balanced.

A simple skill system (based on abilities) and a simple feat system are pretty much part of the game. Weapon and armor proficiencies and combat styles (at the least) have always existed, and proficiencies and secondary skills have been around almost as long. In simple form, it's likely nobody will object.

Of course, as I said earlier, the elephant in the room is how you handle wizard (and cleric and druid and other spellcaster) spells. And, frankly, for history's sake, the old Vancian magic system (with some minor tweaks - a la what Pathfinder has done) will probably make almost everyone happy.

Now, I think it's pretty obvious that wizards need a boost at low levels (compared to earlier editions) so that they can contribute in a meaningful way for more of the adventure. And, as the game moves into high levels, either spellcasters need to be reined in, or the other classes need a boost. So, for the sake of building a better game, we should probably re-write some of those old spells (especially the ones that have remained the same since Gary and Dave scribbled them down in 1974.

It also seems to me that if we're going to have wizards who can alter reality and decimate armies at high levels (which I think most of us DO), we need to find an acceptable way to scale up fighters.

Fighter vs. Wizard has always been the hardest balance issue - especially because it seems to trigger some deep-seated prejudice in the gamers who love overpowered wizards, and those who would really like to see more parity in the fighter class (call it "Raistlin vs. Conan"). The question seems to come down to this: should a high-level fighter's abilities still be limited to what is achievable or "realistic" for a normal human? Or is he capable of surpassing those limits? By how much?

I raise this "balance issue" as fighter vs. wizard, because if you can get those two classes to "play nice" across all levels, slotting the other classes into the spectrum should be (comparatively) trivial.

 

[pemerton]

I have nothing solid to go on so this is just speculation, but the sense I have of things is that Class is What the character is, Theme is Who the character is, and the rest (skills, feats) are things the character can do.

I'm not sure I follow this.

For example, if what I am is a forester, then some of what I can do is (by definition, as it were) track and hunt. So what do the skills add to the class (or vice versa)?

Or, if who I am is the king, then one of the things I can do is (by definition, as it were) pull the sword from the stone. So what does the "pull sword from stone" feat add to the theme (or vice versa)?

It seems to me that classes will be a way of distributing the classic suite of D&D stats and abilities - spellcasting, hit points, attacks, weapon and armour use, and some other niche things like backstabl/sneak attack.

In 4e, themes are a way of giving access to abilities (either powers or feat-like stuff - in 3E they would all be feats) that are minor tweaks on the class chassis. (The latest design and development talks about this.) I would expect themes to be used to fill some of the space currently occupied in 4e by subclass differentiation and by feat-basd multi-classing as well as by themes. The difference from class and race, I think, will be of degree rather than of kind - although it seems that themes may, like race, carry more story content with them than does class. This might seem odd, but I think it is a consequence of the fact that a few classes have to do a lot of work for a lot of players, whereas the range of themes will be broader, and therefore the number of players any given them has to please will be less. (In this respect, themes will probably resemble prestige classes or paragon paths or 4e themes, in terms of the amount of story baggage that they carry.)

Feat I would expect to be like themes but even more minor - very modest tweaks to the mechanical abilities of a PC, and with less story element behind them than behind a theme, or even a class.

Skills I would expect to work as modifiers to ability scores in certain situations.

 

[pemerton]

DM fiat, if done fairly and with regards to the story/setting/campaign, should be clearly acceptable to players. But this requires a very healthy sense of trust between group members.

I don't think it's just about trust. Group members can have all the trust in the world, but still prefer a game in which authority is distributed between players and GM differently from how you describe. Even if my players trust me as a GM, why should I be the only one with power to exercise fiat in the interests of the story? I mean, they probably have views about the story too.

I'd prefer if that read "...an attack bonus—can be left up to the player if the DM wishes."

<snip>

I hope that this is just poorly worded in the article and the actual rules are clear that the DM has total authority to overrule any player decision if he wishes, not just give "input".

Whereas I very strongly hope for the opposite. If this edition is all about "the story", then I hope the rules indicate that, in D&D, the starting point for the players' contribution to that story is by building their PCs.

 

[pemerton]

I think it's pretty obvious that wizards need a boost at low levels (compared to earlier editions) so that they can contribute in a meaningful way for more of the adventure. And, as the game moves into high levels, either spellcasters need to be reined in, or the other classes need a boost. So, for the sake of building a better game, we should probably re-write some of those old spells (especially the ones that have remained the same since Gary and Dave scribbled them down in 1974.

It also seems to me that if we're going to have wizards who can alter reality and decimate armies at high levels (which I think most of us DO), we need to find an acceptable way to scale up fighters.

Interestingly, though, if you make these changes then I'm not sure the game will really have the OD&D feel.

I think that Mearls got that reasonably right in one of the earlier Legends and Lore columns:

Right from the beginning, we have a nice encapsulation of the relationship between fighters and wizards. Fighters protected wizards, who eventually became the most powerful characters. A sleep spell was often the difference between victory and defeat in the early days. Thus, wizards were carefully protected by fighters and other characters to preserve them for just the right time to take down a whole mess of monsters.

On the face of it, this might seem like a bizarre way to design a game...

In the early days of D&D, and to some extent through 3rd Edition, death was a cruel, capricious mistress...

In this situation, play skill focused more on your ability to come up with a good plan or figure out the clues that pointed to a hidden trap or treasure. Character power was at the whim of the dice, making the concept of building your character largely irrelevant. Aside from choosing class and race, you had few decisions to make. How you played your character, rather than how you built it, determined your chances of success.

Against this backdrop, the disparity between wizards and fighters make sense. The fighter was akin to playing in easy mode. You had more hit points, better AC, and access to weapons. All things being equal, when it came time to use the rules to determine if you lived or died, the fighter had a leg up at low levels...

In some ways, playing a magic-user was like opting for hard mode.

When you think about the game in those terms, the disparity starts to make sense. If you played in easy mode, you had a better chance of survival but a lower ceiling of power. In hard mode, you ran the risk of losing a character in exchange for a shot at accessing powerful spells.​

I think you're right that the core 5e game will try and put fighters and wizards on a par. But I wonder if there will be a module which lets you use them in the style of OD&D "easy mode" and "hard mode".

 

[catsclaw227]

I don't think it's just about trust. Group members can have all the trust in the world, but still prefer a game in which authority is distributed between players and GM differently from how you describe. Even if my players trust me as a GM, why should I be the only one with power to exercise fiat in the interests of the story? I mean, they probably have views about the story too.

Very good point. I should have clarified that with trust comes with some collaboration. Yes, the DM spends a borkload of time setting up the milieu, but player input is required (through in game interaction with the setting) to deepen the immersion. So, in my game, player actions and interactions will drive the ongoing development of the experience. A player might decide to seek out the origin of a sword he found, which is unexpected by me, and now I drive some story/action/development towards that goal.

But my point is that the players need to trust that I will do this. It might not be immediately -- or in the case of a player-entitled group that demands control, it might not happen in their prescribed timeline -- but it will happen because I want my players to feel important and to have fun.