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

[thecasualoblivion]

This is interesting how we both perceive differently the same set of information. My impression is that rather than a diluted mish-mash of mismatched parts, they were instead repeatedly distilling the "core"; stripping away excess and fat to provide the leanest core engine possible that represents D&D. I'll happily put my hand up for being wrong if this is not revealed in the Alpha rules but that was my gauge thus far. By doing this, any group could put their preferred playing shell on top of this core chassis to achieve the playing experience they want.

I'm not a big fan of modularity in RPG systems, and after years of Edition Warring call me a bit skeptical about trying to appeal to differing groups of D&D players with flat out conflicting wants and desires.

I did say it could either end up diluted or a mishmash. It could end up diluted if they water it down trying to make it inoffensive as possible to as many people as possible, and it would be the core rules that would get the brunt of that. If it ends up a Frankenstein's monster of mismatched parts, that's likely to happen with the modules more than the core system. Worst case scenario, we get a boring inoffensive core and modularity that is just a miss of conflicting pieces.

For what it's worth, currently whether we are playing 3.5/Pathfinder/4E/Traveller (those are our live campaigns at the moment), our group's game style remains unchanged (we've been playing together for well over 15 years). The 4e ruleset caused the most hiccups because of the restrictions it placed on certain concepts and expectations (splitting our group down the middle: some in our group don't play in the 4e campaign). Therefore perhaps this explains our different expectations: I'm ready for D&DN to be a good median of the game where as perhaps you are more looking for 4E+.

I'm definitely not looking for a median of the game. I wouldn't say I'm exactly looking for 4E+ though, necessarily. Balance/clunky mechanics is the only total dealbreaker. I dislike 3E multiclassing and Vancian magic, and would rather these things not be core. Having the ability to remove those things from my game while having robust alternatives to replace them would probably be enough for me to get by, and conceivably 5E's modularity could provide that.

They are certainly not presenting 4E+ at the moment (they are just worrying about the chassis rather than the various shells to be laid over the top of it) but by the time all the options and modules are piled on, I'm hoping your desired system is catered for as you would seem to represent a sizeable chunk of people under that reunifying tent.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

One can hope, anyway.

 

[pemerton]

Eh, you're completely obviating reaction rolls, and circumstances beyond "death". How about being captured? Or, losing your gear? Or, being cut off from the outside world without food? Or, getting a curse? Or, disease? Or, losing ability points? Or any number of non-death things that still suck. In fact, a lot of the non-death stuff might be considered _worse_. If you're dead, you at least get to roll up a new character.

Again, thinking just about the published Moldvay Basic rules, there is nothing on diseases, nor on curses (I don't think Moldvay Basic even has cursed items, does it?).

The general assumption is that when the heroes leave the adventure site they return to some nebulously defined town in which they can rest and recover without too much trouble.

The examples of play don't show anything like this happening. They do show more interesting stuff being done with the reaction rolls than the rules themselves might suggest (eg a bonus for a peaceful greeting, and a reroll to work out the response to an offer).

Again, to try and be clear: this isn't to try and refute you. It's to try and show how the game presents to a reader/new player based on reading the rules text.

Shoot a stirge or two then run like hell. Repeat your guerilla tactics until they are cleared out.

Buy some goats, herd them in to let the bloodsucking striges become sated on a meal other than you.

This is the OS play I'm used to. There was a drive to keep oneself out of harm's way to accomplish your goals. 3E and later versions tend to teach you to take things head on.

But the Basic rules don't even flag buying goats.

And nothing suggests that using livestock as targets (something that figure in none of the genre fiction that I'm familiar with) is an important part of the game.

The foreward (by Moldvay himself?) is presumably meant to give some indication of the game's style/genre. It doesn't suggest anything OS-ish. It involves a heroic warrior being given a magic sword by a wise cleric, rescuing a princess from the dragon, then slaying the dragon with a single blow with the sword, that hews through the dragon's neck. Thus liberating the people from the dragon tyrant.

All good high fantasy stuff, but (i) tricky to replicate with the actual game as published (max damage in basic is 10 (2h sword) +2 (best sword bonus) +3 (best STR bonus) = 15, not generally enough to kill any uninjured dragon), and (ii) not having much in common with OS play as I understand it - it certainly involves tackling the threat head-on. It is redolent of Beowulf or Arthur, for example. Or even Conan, who has a tendency to tackle threats head-on. (It is the NPC, for example, in Tower of the Elephant who uses trickery vs the guards. Conan just fights them!)

If death is not a likely result of combat with sharp bladed objects, then... I think there's something wrong.

<snip>

when you level up, you have more resources to bring to bear, so those abilities do matter. And, what happens when you do need to fight something? Of course those things matter.

I'll grant this, but then it makes me think that combat stats, and the variability of these based on die rolls (for attributes, for hp, etc) does affect the balance, at least to some extent.

Again, this isn't meant to be a Basic-bash. It's a nice game. But I think there are some issues of disjunction between the game as presented, and the game as actually played OS-style. And the more the game is played as presented (eg tackiling things head-on, to use VB's phrase) the more some of the issues with the numbers crop up.

Plus there is the issue of thief skills (a personal bugbear of mine, as back when I used to GM classic D&D I had players who loved to play thieves). You said you house rule to add DEX bonus. If I was playing Basic (ie level 1-3) I might be inclined to add the full DEX score, to try and lift these into a more playable range.

I don't say, "There are stirges! Roll for initiative!" That's ridiculous.

I want to reflect a monster's ecology, abilities and potential weaknesses in their behavior and habitat.

It's the same thing I do with traps. A crushing wall trap? I place descriptors of the grated floor or grooves. A stirge? I place animal remains with obvious drain marks and so on.

The PCs look around and examine things, they are rewarded for interacting with the environment by learning about the world through these sort of descriptions.

This particular style of play is one I'm not that interested in - but I've got nothing aginst it for others who like it!

Biology/ecology is just about my weakest area of personal knowledge, and I don't enjoy incorporating it into the game beyond the level of background setting (Tolkien or Earthsea are about the right amount for my tastes). Conversely, history, myth and law are among my strong areas of personal knowledge, and I do incorporate these into my game and expect the players to draw on them to build up their understanding of the fictional situation. At the moment, for example, they are in an old minotaur temple to Torog, located in a hidden valley that the both the dragonborn and Nerath empires had used as a last redoubt, but currently occupied by human and hobgoblin cultists of Bane.

This is the sort of setting stuff that I base my game around, and I think 4e is one of the better versions of D&D for working with it, because it builds a lot of history and cosmology into many of the PC options, the monster descriptions, etc.

The character abilities themselves are just a tool. I'm not talking about "gaming the system" like we might with 3E or 4E... Oh, I got this cool feat that interacts with this magical item and when I shift and get flanking I win the game!

<snip>

I'm not looking at my character sheet every round trying to pick an action. I'm imagining what's around me and using that to inform my decision and maybe something on my sheet can help me, sure, but it's not a description or set of mechanics of my next move.

I think this is a bit unfair on 4e (I can't comment on 3E, not having played very much of it). Or, at least, it doesn't reflect the play of the game at my table.

It's true that PC build is a huge part of 4e in a way that it is not part of classic D&D at all.

But when actually playing the game, my players imagine what's around them and use that to inform their decisions. Fictional positioning matters.

I like your phrase "description of my next move", because I think it picks up on something pretty central. It's true that 4e powers establish moves - not unlike at least some classic D&D spells. But do they etablish "my next move"? Not in my experience. To set up my next move requires engaging the fiction, not unlike Silverleaf setting up his(?) sleep spell in the sample of play in the Moldvay book.

Of course I don't want to say the two games are the same. In 4e, for example, fighting down a slope is more likely to add to an existing forced movement effect, then to create a context for doing something outside the formal action resolution rules. (In published 4e materials, some of the best examples of this sort of stuff I've seen are in module E1.)

But I think the alleged fictional sterility of 4e (and the related allegation of mechanical homogeneity) is grossly, grossly overstated - at least as it plays at my table.

I don't exactly want to go back to having to flee or trick stirges as a default mode, but I also want more of the danger and unpredictability than 4e can comfortably contain.

4e can contain a fair bit. Which is not to say that one mightn't reasonably want more. But I remember running a pretty near-thing stirge encounter at level 10 in 4e: two PCs went to explore the top of a ruined temple, go attacked by the stirges that flew out of the hole in the roof (I can't remember the exact stats, but probably a swarm, a couple of real creatures and a handful of minions). They were only saved by the wizard using his Arcane Gate to let the other PCs get up on the roof in one turn and stage a rescue.

Not the same sort of gameplay as herding in goats, I'll concede.

 

[Imaro]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]: I just wanted to comment that I find it more than a little ironic that when confronted by naysayers about the way 4e presents it's playstyle in the books and modules you often state your opinion that the books are not very good guides for the way 4e should be played and then use your own play experiences as evidence to back up your assertions.

However, now that there are people giving commentary on how they actually play/played B/X you're citing the book as the definite guide to how B/X was supposed to be played. Not saying you're wrong but it is interesting.

 

[pemerton]

I find it more than a little ironic that when confronted by naysayers about the way 4e presents it's playstyle in the books and modules you often state your opinion that the books are not very good guides for the way 4e should be played and then use your own play experiences as evidence to back up your assertions.

However, now that there are people giving commentary on how they actually play/played B/X you're citing the book as the definite guide to how B/X was supposed to be played.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about how Basic is supposed to be played. I'm talking about how the books present it. And how I, as a result, played it.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

The general assumption is that when the heroes leave the adventure site they return to some nebulously defined town in which they can rest and recover without too much trouble.

The DM is expected to create a fleshed-out world with non-nebulous places to retreat to.

The examples of play don't show anything like this happening.

But that's old-school play. Thinking outside the box. That's why many actual table experiences don't match what's presented in the books.

But the Basic rules don't even flag buying goats.

The rules don't need to codify things that an inhabitant of the gameworld could reasonably do. Buying goats with gold from farmers that are used to seeing copper is reasonable. And the adjudication of the purchase is left to the living, thinking DM.

And nothing suggests that using livestock as targets (something that figure in none of the genre fiction that I'm familiar with) is an important part of the game.

You and others miss the point. This was merely one of two examples of how the party could try to overcome a problem with resorting solely to luck of dice rolls and character abilities.

At my table the whole scene would probably turn into a funny failure of characters chasing their purchased goats around the countryside because they just tried to herd them into a dark cave that smells like death. It doesn't matter whether the attempt works or fails, it was the mere attempt to do something that doesn't revolve around your character sheet that seems less existant outside of OS gaming.

The foreward (by Moldvay himself?) is presumably meant to give some indication of the game's style/genre.

Again, what's in the book has nothing to do with a style that many adopted.

This particular style of play is one I'm not that interested in - but I've got nothing aginst it for others who like it!

I'm not really interested in it either, I'd like a happy medium. But I think each style should be supported. Is it possible in 4E? Sure, but since there is usually little risk to taking things head-on, a player is usually rewarded to not choose actions outside of his power set.

 

[pemerton]

The DM is expected to create a fleshed-out world with non-nebulous places to retreat to.

I think this is part of the Expert set, rather than Moldvay Basic.

But that's old-school play. Thinking outside the box. That's why many actual table experiences don't match what's presented in the books.

<snip>

You and others miss the point. This was merely one of two examples of how the party could try to overcome a problem with resorting solely to luck of dice rolls and character abilities.

<snip>

Again, what's in the book has nothing to do with a style that many adopted.

I think I get the point. It seems a variant on my own suggestion that one might get past the stirges by smearing oneself in foul-tasting mud.

And as I said upthread, if you adopt this sort of action resolution then questions of mechanical balance and comparable mecanical effectiveness become less important.

My own view is that few who came to Moldvay Basic without some sort of prior background in D&D play would work out that this is the sort of thing the game envisaged - given there are no hints of it in the book or the examples of play. But that's just a hypothesis, and perhaps generalising unsoundly from my own experience.

Is it possible in 4E? Sure, but since there is usually little risk to taking things head-on, a player is usually rewarded to not choose actions outside of his power set.

I think the issue is slightly different from this, and deeper. I think that 4e envisages that most action resolution will take place by deploying the formal mechanics. That doesn't make fictional positioning irrelevant - but the point of that positioning is to affect the application and adjudication of the mechanics, rather than to set up some sort of alternative to them.

In a skill challenge, for example, fictional positioning is important, but not so much in order to avoid having to use a skill, but to open up the opportunity to use a skill - or to use a substitute for a skill, such as a ritual (which is itself a mechanical device). So the attempt to use the herd of goats to bypass the stirges, for example, would open up a Nature check when one otherwise was not available.

So at least in my view, it's not about comparisons of creativity, but about the way in which the creativity interacts with the formal action resolution mechanics.

And for utter clarity, I'm not therefore saying that 4e and Basic are the same. Of course they're not. And I've just explained how, in my view, they're not. But I've also explained where I think the deep difference lies - not in creativity or fictional positioning, but in the relationship between creativity, fictional positioning, and the formal action resolution mechanics.

I'm not really interested in it either, I'd like a happy medium. But I think each style should be supported.

Well, that goes without saying, doesn't it? I've said the same thing upthread, or one of the other threads running concurrently (Falling Damage and April 3rd RoE).

But as I also said upthread (#103), assuming they follow through on their "stats as skills" idea then I think there D&Dnext will suggest less "semi-free-forming" departures from the action resolution mechanics. (To put it another way, I think it will have a text closer to the actual Moldvay Basic text, than to the contemporary old-school primers etc.)

For example, at least as I understand it, the idea of "stats as skills" is that players engage the fiction so as to get boosts on their stat checks (eg reduce the difficutly category so that they are now eligible to make a check, or alternatively don't have to make a check). Which is closer to a 4e or Burning Wheel approach, I think - engage the fiction so as to open up or enhance a certain mechanical space - rather than an old school approach of engaging the fiction so as to work around the mechanics.

But then maybe "stats as skills" will itself be a module. I don't have a full understanding of what is confirmed core and what modular, if anything, at this stage.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Is it possible in 4E? Sure, but since there is usually little risk to taking things head-on, a player is usually rewarded to not choose actions outside of his power set.

In my haste to post I neglected one point I meant to make in response to someone upthread.

OS gaming does not require an old school system. You certainly could play 4E with OS sensibilities, but the risks and rewards for doing so vary from previous editions.

 

[P1NBACK]

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about how Basic is supposed to be played. I'm talking about how the books present it. And how I, as a result, played it.

You're right that Basic is missing some of the "grander scheme" stuff of the time. But, you have to consider that a lot of those play procedures and stuff were not really mechanized and recorded. A lot of it was learning from play and/or developed socially. Those guys back then learned a lot from each other, and D&D was largely taught and not learned from a book. The books were a collection of rules for play and the methods were developed over top of that.

So, yes, you're right that a lot of the "insight into play" isn't formally laid out in the book's procedures for play.

 

[P1NBACK]

And as I said upthread, if you adopt this sort of action resolution then questions of mechanical balance and comparable mecanical effectiveness become less important.

Agreed. Which is why most earlier edition players don't really care for "4E balance".

My own view is that few who came to Moldvay Basic without some sort of prior background in D&D play would work out that this is the sort of thing the game envisaged - given there are no hints of it in the book or the examples of play. But that's just a hypothesis, and perhaps generalising unsoundly from my own experience.

How much did you play? I find that players adapt to the system quite handily after a few sessions (and character deaths) of play.

In fact, I'm amazed at how players in our ACKS game (B/X+) have changed their methods of play. One of our players had only played 3E and his first three characters had very short careers. But, his next was long. And, longer, and now he has a 4th level Mage (nearly 5th). No easy task. And, it's because he learned to play differently based on actions and consequences for those actions.

I think the issue is slightly different from this, and deeper. I think that 4e envisages that most action resolution will take place by deploying the formal mechanics. That doesn't make fictional positioning irrelevant - but the point of that positioning is to affect the application and adjudication of the mechanics, rather than to set up some sort of alternative to them.

I think 4E minimizes the importance of fictional positioning. This is why a lot of people complain it feels like a board game. It's not entirely irrelevant, but it's certainly trumped by mechanics.

And, you've probably seen me railing against people playing 4E mechanics-first. When I played 4E, I tried my damnedest to bring it to a fiction-first level. The problem was, I had to fight the system to do it.

Can it be done? Sure. But, 4E doesn't encourage, or lend itself well to it.

In a skill challenge, for example, fictional positioning is important, but not so much in order to avoid having to use a skill, but to open up the opportunity to use a skill - or to use a substitute for a skill, such as a ritual (which is itself a mechanical device). So the attempt to use the herd of goats to bypass the stirges, for example, would open up a Nature check when one otherwise was not available.

Don't get me started on Skill Challenges.

So at least in my view, it's not about comparisons of creativity, but about the way in which the creativity interacts with the formal action resolution mechanics.

I think the problem is, 4E hands you a hammer and says, here's a nail. Hammer it into the board.

Whereas, earlier editions said, here's a nail. Now, go find a way to get it in the board.

Sure, we can have our moments of creativity in 4E. But, that's the exception, not the rule. For the most part, we're looking at our power list and thinking, "Hmmm. Which power would be best here...?"

And, Page 42 is often overlooked. Why? Because it's unreliable currency. Your powers are reliable currency. They have specific actions they require, specific damage output, specific effects. Page 42 is just a table with levels and possible damages... You never know what sort of effect will come out of your creative maneuver. So, as a player, you fall back on reliable currency.

It sucks. The idea is fine, but the implementation sucks (like skill challenges! heh).

And for utter clarity, I'm not therefore saying that 4e and Basic are the same. Of course they're not. And I've just explained how, in my view, they're not. But I've also explained where I think the deep difference lies - not in creativity or fictional positioning, but in the relationship between creativity, fictional positioning, and the formal action resolution mechanics.

I don't think you're entirely wrong. I just wonder how much B/X you've played (I always lump in Basic and Expert, sorry). And, I wonder how your thoughts on it would change over the course of say 10, 20, 30 sessions.

But as I also said upthread (#103), assuming they follow through on their "stats as skills" idea then I think there D&Dnext will suggest less "semi-free-forming" departures from the action resolution mechanics. (To put it another way, I think it will have a text closer to the actual Moldvay Basic text, than to the contemporary old-school primers etc.)

I really can't stand the "Old School Primer" honestly. It has some tidbits of goodness in there, but some of it is just B.S.

For example, at least as I understand it, the idea of "stats as skills" is that players engage the fiction so as to get boosts on their stat checks (eg reduce the difficutly category so that they are now eligible to make a check, or alternatively don't have to make a check). Which is closer to a 4e or Burning Wheel approach, I think - engage the fiction so as to open up or enhance a certain mechanical space - rather than an old school approach of engaging the fiction so as to work around the mechanics.

That's an interesting point, because there is certainly some of that "use the fiction to avoid mechanics" in old school play. And, I agree, this is where old school could improve!

I don't think 4E does the "engage the fiction to open up mechanical effects" well though. I think it does the opposite: engage the mechanics so we can engage the fiction. "I use mechanics." Ok, we apply fiction after the fact.

In another thread, we're talking about old school saving throws. We're arguing about something else in terms of the saves, but in relation to this conversation, they do that mechanics-first thing and I hate it! There's a fireball! Roll a save vs. blast! "15!" Sweet! I jump out of the way.

Instead, I want to see, "I do something." Kick in mechanics.

"A fireball is hurtling at you! What do you do?" "I leap behind the corner of the wall!" Ok, kick in mechanics for that. Or, "I throw up my shield and try to cling behind it as closely as possible." Ok, kick in mechanics for that.

This is the kind of crap no one on these boards is talking about. They're concerned with At-Will vs. Vancian or Fort / Will / Ref vs. Poison / Breath Weapon / Spells.

It's like arguing about gays getting married when our economy is swirling down the tube.

Anyways, sorry for the rant.

But then maybe "stats as skills" will itself be a module. I don't have a full understanding of what is confirmed core and what modular, if anything, at this stage.

I like the stats as skills because it opens up the possibility of what I said above.

"What do you do?"

Ah, that will require Dexterity. Or, Strength. Or, Wisdom. Or, Intelligence.

Make a roll for me.

 

[Mallus]

I think that 4e envisages that most action resolution will take place by deploying the formal mechanics.

3e and Pathfinder end up in the same place, by making the deployment of formal mechanics the most effective tools. If you consider mechanics eclipsing "fictional positioning" a problem, you have to start that discussion w/the edition just prior to 4e.

Now... a question about Moldvay basic -- does anything like an ability check system for resolving stunts/non-standard actions?