D&D 5E D&D Next Design Goals (Article)

[I'm A Banana]

Good math is essential to a good game.

It's not the only thing I care about, but the math not working and/or the game not being balanced is the one, absolute deal breaker.

I don't think anyone is saying "Let's have awful math, that would be real fun!"

I think he's saying "If at some point we need to choose between math and these other goals, math looses. It is a lower priority."

Personally, I think that's a well-aligned priority. Balanced math is only as good as the game it props up. It is not a goal in and of itself. It is a tool in service of something much more important than itself. If balanced math was all we needed, we'd be playing "Coin Flip" and never want for anything more.

4e had an honest-to-goodness innovation with how it balanced the numbers, and, on many occasions, the 5e team has noted that this is something they want to keep (and I agree with them -- no sense in throwing that little trick out!). But 4e's fetish for balance caused it to commandeer the rest of the game and force it to line up and check that balance box before it could be used. This lead to some end results that clearly fail on those other goals Mearls espoused.

No one is saying "Wow, unbalanced stuff was so great, lets try that again!" Instead, the statement is more like "Wow, 4e went a bit too far in making sure everything was balanced. It lost sight of the reason that we want balance in the first place. For 5e, lets make sure that we keep in mind the true masters that we're serving here, and not place the false idol of balance up on a pedestal like it is the most important thing in the world."

Besides, even with 4e's balance fetish, it's not like twink builds don't exist. Stunlock and frostcheese are this e's CoDZilla and PunPun. It's not as if any game with enough complexity to stay interesting isn't going to have some bits that get abused. Chase around balance too long and you find yourself chasing your own tail.

None of that means that the math is worthless. All that means is that the math is not everything.

I get that it's still sacrelige to some 4e fans to say that perfect equivalence isn't a prerequisite for a damn fun game, but, well, it isn't. Balance can certainly improve a game, but if it was a prerequisite, D&D wouldn't have lasted 30-some years and garnered millions of fans before 4e imposed balance on it from on high.

Yes, the math is very important. It is not as important as the rest of those goals. If it gets in the way of those other goals, it must be sacrificed. Very few people play a game just because it gets the math right (or else 4e's sales would be much higher).

 

[pemerton]

But there's more to it than just balanced (or not) math. There's also a hard-to-define question of what I'll call forgiveness in the math; or room for error. 0e-1e-2e have this - in combat, for example, there's a much wider range of opponents you can throw at a party that'll give a good fight without either a TPK or a party cakewalk. In 3e the range is much narrower, probably due to the open-ended scaling. I'm not sure about 4e but from what I've seen I'd guess it to be more like 3e in this regard.

In my experience, the 4e maths is very forgiving. My own memory of AD&D is that it is fairly easy to create slogfests, in which the PCs are pretty much guaranteed to win, but the players are at risk of RSI from rolling so many dice! 4e has a different suite of tools - minions, swarms, elites, solos, levelling up or down that can be done on the fly - to change the pacing in various ways but still set up a very wide range of challenges.

The "die in a fire" quote was from Robert Schwalb. The full quote, from a seminar at DDXP, is as follows:

"Rob: (jokingly) I really want skill challenges to die in a fire. The plan was great for those, but I always felt it subtracted too much from the narrative. I think we can do complex skill checks within the narative and provide a robust amount of information to help the DM just weave them into the story."

Make of that quote what you will.

What I find most striking about the quote is its equation of skill challenges with complex skill checks. Whereas I identify skill challenges with complex scene resolution mechanics found in games such as HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, Burning Wheel etc.

So I infer that D&Dnext will be much less focused on "situation"/"scene" oriented play. This fits with the idea that "the adventure" is the unit of play. While this can be done in situation-driven ways (after all, one glossing of "the adventure" is as waves of challenges in a geographicaly mobile scene) I'm not sure that this is what they're going for.

 

[pemerton]

I get that it's still sacrelige to some 4e fans to say that perfect equivalence isn't a prerequisite for a damn fun game, but, well, it isn't. Balance can certainly improve a game, but if it was a prerequisite, D&D wouldn't have lasted 30-some years and garnered millions of fans before 4e imposed balance on it from on high.

It's probably worth noting that Gygax has quite a lot to say about "balance" in both his PHB and his DMG. It's not as if the goal of "comparably effective playing pieces" had its origin in 4e design.

But anyway, it's trivial to think of games that aren't balanced in the 4e sense (of comparably effective playing pieces) and yet which many people still think are worth playing. Classic Traveller. Runequest. Burning Wheel. Each of these has some or other version of a lifepath system which, either by random roll (in Traveller and Runequest) or deliberate choice (in Traveller and BW) can produce very different degrees of mechanical effectiveness in a starting PC.

Part of good design in this sort of game, though, is setting things up so that the mechanically less effective PC has something to contribute. Traveller achieves this in part via role specialisation. There are so many varied specialisations that can be required, that even an overall weak PC might be able to bring something unique to the party. BW achieves this through making considerations other than mechanical success in attempted tasks a key focus of play (it is being tested in ways you care about rather than succeeding in tests that tends to matter in BW). Both BW and RQ also have rules that result in those with smaller numbers advancing more quickly than those with bigger numbers, so that initial gaps in effectiveness are, to some extent at least, likely to close over the course of play.

Basic D&D, in my view, is prone to produce PCs with wide gaps in mechanical effectivenss, without any offsetting considerations: better PCs actually advance faster (due to the XP bonus for high stats); most PCs are trying to perform the same tasks (fighting monsters, exploring dungeon corridors and rooms); and the game emphasises succeeding at challenges over being challenged, given that the penalty for failure is typically death. (I just reread the two samples of play in Moldvay Basic, and in what is probably an hour or so of play two PCs die - one to a failed poison save during exploration, and one in combat).

This may be a viable model for a game, but it's going to produce a very different play experience from RQ, Traveller or BW. In fact, it helps explain where a game like Tunnels & Trolls came from - it is being more self-conscious about the lottery-like silliness of Basic play - and it also helps explain how games like Traveller and RQ could present themselves as being "more serious" than D&D.

The way in which a game approaches the issue of mechanical balance, and makes it signficant or not in play, can tell us a fair bit both about the approach(es) to play for which it is designed, and the approach(es) to play that it will support.

In my view the worst approach to balance is in a game like 2nd ed AD&D, which aspires to the "seriousness" of Traveller or RQ, but has the same lottery-like approach as Basic D&D (PC advantage sets up positive feedback loops, and mechanical success rather than mechanical engagement is what is rewarded in play), and simply assumes that those players stuck with less effective PCs will nevertheless enjoy (or at least tolerate) the experience because they can sit ineffectually at the table sucking up "the story" and nattering away in funny voices.

EDIT: There is also an approach to action resolution, emphasised both in some classic D&D play and also, I think, in quite a bit of contemporary "old school" approaches, that downplays the significance of the PCs' mechanical capabilities altogether. Meaning that balance, to the extent that it matters, emerges out of freeform play and resolution rather than the formal action resolution mechanics. I doubt that this will be a terribly big feature of D&Dnext, however. Even where D&Dnext is likely to make a more self-conscious effort to have players engaging the fiction (as via the skill rules or the "combat advantage" rules), I think this will be more like Burning Wheel - engaging the fiction to get bonuses to mechanical resolution - than like White Plume Mountain, in which engaging the fiction is a freeform alternative to engaging the action resolution mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

one of 4E's weak points was replicating something as simple as a pitfall trap. Either you create some weird solo pitfall encounter trap or you give a character or two a minor boo-boo. This may seem like a nitpick, but traps such as these were important challenges while exploring in AD&D.

In AD&D play (and similar classic play) they tend to have one of two effects: either they produce the "lottery" effect, in which PCs fall down pits they coudn't reasonably avoid, and then live or die based on whether the d6 damage roll is higher or lower than their 1st level hit die roll; or they produce the "standard operating procedure" effect, in which players prepare more or less complex dungeon-scouting procedures, involving the full works of detailed mapping, plumb lines, ten foot poles, wire-protected ear trumpets, etc.

Neither of these approaches occurs in my own 4e game, and personally I've not missed them. But if D&Dnext wants to capture the full range of D&D experiences it undoubtedly needs to make room for them. The interesting question is whether, in so doing, it makes room for a style of D&D play that is not interested in this sort of stuff.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I don't think anyone is saying "Let's have awful math, that would be real fun!"

I think he's saying "If at some point we need to choose between math and these other goals, math looses. It is a lower priority."

You are the first person to imply this. In all of the complaining I've done about this L&L article on that specific statement, everyone else has said I'm being paranoid and that it isn't going to happen like that.

Personally, I think that's a well-aligned priority. Balanced math is only as good as the game it props up. It is not a goal in and of itself. It is a tool in service of something much more important than itself. If balanced math was all we needed, we'd be playing "Coin Flip" and never want for anything more.

I couldn't disagree more. It(feel > balance) isn't a well-aligned priority, and balance is a goal in and of itself.

4e had an honest-to-goodness innovation with how it balanced the numbers, and, on many occasions, the 5e team has noted that this is something they want to keep (and I agree with them -- no sense in throwing that little trick out!). But 4e's fetish for balance caused it to commandeer the rest of the game and force it to line up and check that balance box before it could be used. This lead to some end results that clearly fail on those other goals Mearls espoused.

No one is saying "Wow, unbalanced stuff was so great, lets try that again!" Instead, the statement is more like "Wow, 4e went a bit too far in making sure everything was balanced. It lost sight of the reason that we want balance in the first place. For 5e, lets make sure that we keep in mind the true masters that we're serving here, and not place the false idol of balance up on a pedestal like it is the most important thing in the world."

I don't consider it the most important thing in the world. After the trauma of 3E's balance issues and playing for 5 years with 4E doing it right, I'm just not willing to play D&D without it anymore. If sacrifices need to be made, they need to be made because not getting the balance right is a deal breaker.

Besides, even with 4e's balance fetish, it's not like twink builds don't exist. Stunlock and frostcheese are this e's CoDZilla and PunPun. It's not as if any game with enough complexity to stay interesting isn't going to have some bits that get abused. Chase around balance too long and you find yourself chasing your own tail.

That's a false dichotomy. Stunlock and frostcheese are not equivalent to CodZilla or PunPun. Stunlock was errata'd years ago, and frostcheese is a decent trick that doesn't rise to the level of breaking the game. Neither is as overpowered as the 3E balance villains.

None of that means that the math is worthless. All that means is that the math is not everything.

The math isn't everything, but that doesn't mean it isn't required or that there is any justification for bad math.

I get that it's still sacrelige to some 4e fans to say that perfect equivalence isn't a prerequisite for a damn fun game, but, well, it isn't. Balance can certainly improve a game, but if it was a prerequisite, D&D wouldn't have lasted 30-some years and garnered millions of fans before 4e imposed balance on it from on high.

Yes, the math is very important. It is not as important as the rest of those goals. If it gets in the way of those other goals, it must be sacrificed. Very few people play a game just because it gets the math right (or else 4e's sales would be much higher).

I don't really see them as being mutually exclusive. What I do see is balance and the math being good as important enough to the 4E community that they won't be able to build a D&D for everybody without it.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm not convinced that assumption was ever baked in very well. You would expect descending AC to "cap" (floor) at 0. But instead we had AC going all the way down to -10. Once you're allowed to go negative, who says you have to stop at -10?

AC started at 10, so going down to -10 was just a matter of symmetry.

 

[Lanefan]

As for ACs below -10, Fullplate +4 and Shield +5 gives -9. (Even if you're not using UA, Plate Mail +5 and Shield +5 gives -8.) A handful of bonuses on top of that (from DEX and/or other magic, such as a Defending sword) will give an AC below -10.

I think the best AC anyone's ever got to in my games is -12 but - other than there was a lot of very expensive magic involved - I forget the specifics as to how it was achieved.

And there are probably other ways I'm not remembering, involving Bracers plus Rings and/or Cloaks of Protection plus other miscellaneous magic items plus DEX. I haven't got my books here, but I think the best Bracers are AC 2, the best Ring +6 (giving -4), +4 or +5 from DEX is not out of the question for a mage or thief, which will then give us AC -11 with another +3 of bonuses. (I have a feeling that a Cloak will stack with a ring. If it doesn't, I'm pretty sure that there are other options.)

Yes, and given this it is very plausible in a high-level party that the MU's AC is better than the Fighter's! Illusionists are even worse as they require high Dex. to begin with and thus have a built-in assist there. And yes, I consider this a bug.

My memory is that the rules actively encouraged GMs to have monsters use the magic in their treasure hoards.

The rules may have but the actual adventure modules certainly don't, far too much of the time; except to detail some defensive measures if forewarned e.g. drinking potions etc.

Lan-"AC currently -7 or -8, using about 50,000 g.p. worth of magic to get there"-efan

 

[Tovec]

Catching up! (page 5 )

My main issue is they say their goal is reunification, but all they talk about is bringing back the old. At best, 4E interests are being taken for granted. At worst, they are being thrown under the bus. Neither inspires confidence.

I wouldn't call it hate so much as bias. They claim 5E is going to be for everyone, but the majority of talk coming out of WotC is biased in the other direction. Given that, I find it difficult to trust WotC or to be enthusiastic about 5E.

Now you know exactly how we (people who liked 3.5) felt when they released 4e stuff. Except the difference being they released 4e stuff for us to dislike as opposed to us saying we liked everything in 3.5 don't change anything or else we won't buy.

The key is: Do you not want martial dailies and healing surges on your character sheet or are you so full of edition hate that you won't be happy if they exist on the same table?

Everything we've seen seems to indicate they are aiming for the first method. If you don't want a 4e style character sheet then you pick the old school classes/themes and have a fighter/sword whacker, but your buddy Joe who does like martial dailies and healing surges picks the Paladin/Holy Bastion. So the choice of playstyle lies at the individual character level. Admittedly this does not help if you are unwilling to permit Joe to have badwrongfun at your table, but if we can all be just a bit more grown up than that then 5e might have a chance.

I'm not who you are quoting but NO I don't want healing surges to be on my character sheet. Thankfully 5e should allow me to do that. 4e certainly never game me a choice.

It's hard to improve something if you insist it was perfect to begin with, it's hard to learn a lesson if you think you got it right the first time.

I haven't read much bashing of 4e, certainly not nearly the level of bashing they were dumping on 3e back when 4e was the hot new thing. What I have read seems to be more along the lines of "We see some room for improvement." or even "We liked it but half our player base went into anaphylactic shock and had to have pathfinder administered by IV. We'd like to dial that back to sub-critical dosages."

Many of us, who liked 3e/PF style, would say that WotC should have administered the IV but they didn't. Somehow WotC didn't realize that just because they thought a product was made out of god himself, doesn't mean that everyone thought that.

Beyond that however, this design goal should have nothing to do with that. They will try and recapture me as much as keep 4e people, that is the intention anyway. The problem will be with people (of any edition) who feel, as you say, "It's hard to improve something if you insist it was perfect to begin with." If you are going to stick to your guns about a previous edition then 5e will probably cause problems for you. If you don't want something or do want something and for you that is a deal breaker, then you are going to have problems with 5e. As others have repeatedly said, 5e isn't going to attract 100% of all DnD fans. It can't but it will attract those willing to give it a chance. It's intention is to create a game that Feels like the game everyone loves, regardless of edition. Up until I watch that video from PAX (which is actually found at the D&D 5E Info button at the top) I was skeptical. After that however, after hearing them talk and what they are working on and how they are doing it, I have hope they can at least approximate my game as well as yours. If they can do it close enough for both me and you remains to be seen.

 

[Shemeska]

Yes, the math is very important. It is not as important as the rest of those goals. If it gets in the way of those other goals, it must be sacrificed. Very few people play a game just because it gets the math right (or else 4e's sales would be much higher).

I should think they've learned the lesson that the game's legacy and core tropes need not be offered up as sacrificial sacred cows upon the altar of the cult of balance. A certain amount of balance is good for the game, but when it becomes an overriding design focus to the harm of others elements, something's gone terribly wrong IMO.

Of course, depending on how this all plays out, I find it may be very very interesting if they end up trying to hew more towards reclaiming the people they lost to Pathfinder or who still play 3.5, versus other older editions, versus 4e players, versus bringing in new people completely. If there's sufficient overlap it'll make for interesting times and a real Jerusalem vs Gerezim situation as for which one is carrying on the D&D mantle more faithfully.

 

[Incenjucar]

I am not convinced that a good, balanced D&D game cannot be made, unless the game being unbalanced is viewed as a requirement for "good." And even then, I'm sure that a careful, competent design team can add the old imbalance in as a module, or, if they absolutely must bring back godly wizards, design the system such that the parts that make them quadratic are specifically identified, so that they can be removed without effort.

That is, if they design a hidden core game, then add the "classic" module to that game, while identifying that module's parts, they can appeal to the "classic" audience without guaranteeing the newer audience's retreat.

That hidden core game would be what people play when they want to play a balanced game, while those who enjoyed the old imbalance can have their game as the "real" game even if the 4E fans are playing the -actual- core.