Falling from Great Heights

[Crazy Jerome]

You can indeed, if you have 10 modules. My point is that a "dial" is not feasible, you have core rules and up to a handful of options. The math can tolerate any number of variations, most of us mortals, alas, cannot.

I think you are confusing "module" with "major replacement subsystem". The way they are discussing, some "modules" could be as small as a feat write up.

Dial is most definitely feasible.

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

I think you are confusing "module" with "major replacement subsystem". The way they are discussing, some "modules" could be as small as a feat write up.

Dial is most definitely feasible.

This dial system would not be major if several are combined? What would you permit in your "dial", accuracy modifiers? armor penetration? proficiencies/feats? How many sources would you allow for modifiers: item, magic, conditional, feat, racial? Can you fabricate an all-inclusive dial modifier? If you have a monster, or a group, how many dials do you want to apply? Each encounter would have dials, balanced to match the PC's dials.

 

[Hussar]

Answer my question first. Give me a rational explanation of how any such rules, like including a module for realistic falling damage, gums up your game?

Because, in order for your module to work, requires an entire reworking of how D&D works from the ground up. In order for a PC to still be credibly threatened by mundane threats (20 archers) while at the same time be able to deal with high level threats such as demons or dragons, you have to scale SOMETHING.

If that's built into the game, then it makes things that much harder to run my game. Now, if it's an entirely optional module, then fine, who cares? But, I don't think you can actually make it an entirely optional module. The changes you want to make affect every single aspect of the game - power level, advancement rates, power ratios between NPC's and PC's, the level system, the magic system (since with a much flatter scale, you cannot have high powered casters, that breaks the system).

What you're asking for is not possible to do in a module. You're asking to rework the entire game system from the ground up. If the game is based on what you want, then it makes what I want impossible to do with the game system.

Since D&D has never actually been based on the idea of "normal people doing extraordinary things", why would I want a new edition of the game to be based on this?

There, I've nicely repeated everything I've been saying for the past several pages in one nice neat package.

So, could you return the favour? Can you explain how a 15th level character in any edition is an "average guy"?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Look, I'm saying the same thing as everyone else. You can have grim and gritty. You can have wahoo. What you can't have is the same at the same time.

FWIW, in my proposed system, this would be a hypothetical possibility. Probably not a lot of fun for anyone stuck in grim-n-gritty mode, but certainly within the realm of possibility to give one character a higher tier than another.

I also think this is somewhat at the root of the wizard/fighter issue. Wizards shouldn't belong in a different "tier" than fighters just by virtue of being wizards, generally speaking. Comparing leaping between dimensions with jumping really far doesn't really gel. If you want to keep fighters basic people, you can keep wizards within the realm of basic magic, too. If you want your wizard upgrade, your fighter should probably get one, too (and by the time she's a demigod or a destined ruler or whatever, she's working well beyond the "jump far" limitation of the lower levels, too).

In order for a PC to still be credibly threatened by mundane threats (20 archers) while at the same time be able to deal with high level threats such as demons or dragons, you have to scale SOMETHING.

This works reasonably well as long as the numbers are reasonably close. If the difference between level 20 and level 1 is, I dunno, a total of 10 hp, that works fine.

This is what I'm babbling on about when I refer to capping vertical advancement. In a single tier, the bottom and the top shouldn't be too far apart.

Now, between tiers, you could conceivably have a dramatic difference. And you probably should. But as long as Normal Joe is fighting something Normal Joes can fight (even if, in someone's campaign, that's a dragon), it's pretty much working as intended.

 

[illwizard]

Can't 20 archers and a wyrm be credible threats? Sure, the wyrm is more of a threat but that doesn't mean 20 face arrows aren't threatening to a hero. facing 20 enemies always increases the risk. Leonidas could have bested almost anyone in single combat (even a demi-deity) but a hail of arrows still cuts him down.

 

[pemerton]

The key here is vertical advancement -- if you cap attack bonus, damage bonus, AC bonus, HP bonus, etc., at a given point (say, every +5), but still allow horizontal advancement at that point (more spells, more powers, just not higher level spells and powers), you wind up with "E6 With Speedbumps:" you never have to reach the point at which your PC can survive a 100-foot fall, but at any point (including at character creation!), you can opt into it. And if you wanted to play through all of them, you'd change over as soon as you reached the cap.

I don't think it's just a reskinning

You're right, this is different from what I envisaged.

It has some similiarities - different pools of spells, feats etc to be drawn on depending on the "tier" of play - but also changes the action resolution numbers (ie by capping them).

A comment and a question.

Comment: This is very different from any version of D&D to date (other than E6, as you noted) - even in classic D&D, hit points keep going up (though they slow down), and saves, attacks etc don't slow down at all! That's not an objection to it. But it's a reason to think that it might be controversial in some quarters - "level-less D&D" or something similar would be the criticism.

Question: To what extent do you envisage the need for multiple monster manuals, treasure lists etc? If each tier is 5 levels, and I'm level 10 tier 1, then I've got the action resolution numbers of a 5th level PC, though backed by a suite of options closer to a level 10 tier 2 PC. Presumably a monster that would be challenging to a level 10 tier PC will be very challenging for me, because my action resolution numbers are smaller. Is this a feature? - ie if I'm playing a tier 1 game, I expect monsters above level 5 to be more threatening than their level would indicate by default. Or is it a bug? - the solution to which is to publish level 10 tier 1 monsters, who are a good threat for level 10 tier 1 PCs, but not so useful against level 10 tier 2 PCs.

The same sort of question arises for magic items - are there separate lists by level and tier, or are we expected to recognise that a level 10 item will have a more dramatic impact when dropped into a level 10 tier 1 game than when dropped into a level 10 tier 2 game?

(Regardless of the answer to this question about monsters and items (and other non-pC level-defined game elements), presumably the game would need GM guidelines to tell the GM how to handle the intersection of levels and tiers in adventure design and adjudication of action resolution.)

 

[pemerton]

Give me a rational explanation of how any such rules, like including a module for realistic falling damage, gums up your game?

A massive damage save option, that I can just ignore, won't gum up my game.

But if the module is more complex than that, or attempts to operate over a greater range of the game than just falling (eg point blank dragon breath), and if the part of the game that I'm using has to be built a certain way so as to support the integration of that module into the game, then it can gum things up.

On the list mentioned in Rule of Three, the potential game-gummer that stood out for me was hit locations. Because once a system is going to support hit locations, it is probably going to have to support piecemeal armour. And piecemeal armour brings with it all sort of issues in turn. For example, it doesn't work that well with an AC system, because you get the oddity that your heavy breastplate makes you overall harder to hit, but doesn't reduce the likelihood of your taking damage to your torso as opposed to your arms or legs. (HARP has this issue, and Rolemaster to a lesser extent.) It can work better with a damage reduction system, but then the game probably needs called shot rules too, so that combatants can aim their attacks at the less-protected part of the body. (This is an issue in Runequest.) And workable called shot rules then put constraints on the design of the attack rules more generally.

Lingering wounds are a different sort of case here. Because they complicate the encounter design guidelines (by changing the expected numbers of the PCs, due to wound penalties), they may lead to the encounter design guidelines being written in a particular sort of way, which might reduce the utiity of those rules for me compared to what they otherwise might have been.

I'm not saying that making hit locations work mechanically, or integrating lingering wounds into a worthwhile set of encounter-buidling guidelines, is impossible. I just use these as illustrations of the conceivability of one person's module gumming up another person's rules.

 

[Balesir]

Ahhhh...Okay. We had a misunderstanding. No big deal.

For clarificaton purposes: I don't feel that the level progression system is a problem. Gonzo superhero abilities have also been front loaded. And, even though they are typically aquired by levelling up, aquiring such abilities is not a necessity. I'd say that OD&D and BD&D most definitely did not have that, and were very much Ordianary Hero type games. Even moreso if Zero Level Character rules were used.

OK, but I didn't get the overall impression that it was the "gonzo abilities" that were really the issue - more the escalating hit points and defences. The suggestion is that this edition will have a much shallower defence escalation, but hit points seem still to be expected to increase with level - isn't that the core of the "falling damage" and "mundane archer" problems?

And, if level does not increase hit points, or defences, or 'to hit' bonuses or "gonzo abilities" - what is the purpose of retaining the idea of "levels"?

With talk of having a much more flatter progression in D&D Next, and being able to pick and choose modules for your play style; D&D Next should be able to even better support, and equally support, both Ordinary Hero and standard Super Hero D&D..and just about every other type.

I would point out that, in OD&D, an 8th level fighting man was labelled "superhero"...

Having an "ordinary hero" at level 1 is easy; but if they are still "ordinary heroes" at level 15 I have to ask what all the "levelling" stuff was all about...

Now you're just being silly. Did you honestly expect a serious answer to this...

No, of course not

I was just frustrated with the misunderstandings - one you pointed out, another I will discuss below.

I play a range of styles that I like. But every style I play IS D&D. And every other style is also D&D.

And this is where I think the second miscommunication comes in.

To me, this is a nonsensical set of assertions. I can only assume that we are talking about radically different things. Not every style I play is D&D. Especially if I am playing HârnMaster, Ars Magica, Runequest, Traveller, Shadowrun or Universalis.

To me, "D&D" is not a style of play at all - it's a set of (published) roleplaying game rules. As such, it is not capable of being "inclusive", "accepting" or anything else you call out for in the following section of your post.

You seem to me to conflate two things, here.

One is "D&D the roleplaying game", which is a piece of collected intellectual property published and expanded upon by the IP owner, currently Wizards of the Coast, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc.

The other is some sort of cultural-political entity I can perhaps best identify as "D&D fandom". This entity, as a cultural and political phenomenon, most certainly could be "inclusive" and "accepting".

Viewed in this light, perhaps what you want to see in D&D Next is a manifesto (which is inclusive and accepting) for this cultural-political entity? Presumably with some roleplaying rules and guidelines included as well?

If this is the case then we are just looking for different things. I just want the published roleplaying rules system (if it's any good). I have no real interest in any published manifesto, and I would much rather see the wider (and, by definition, more inclusive and accepting) cultural-political grouping of "roleplayers" cultivated and developed than any commercially-centred, product-linked subset of it.

D&D Next IS going to be an edition that unifies all of these playstyles (as much as possible) under one umbrella of core rules and optional modules. If you don't want that, why are you posting in the D&D Next forums...?

Marketing BS aside, a set of roleplaying rules can't "unify" anything. It can't even determine "playstyle" (though it can, I think, support it), let alone "unify" several of them.

I don't need an "umbrella" of rules to allow me to play the styles I want to play - I'll choose what I want to use for each style, thanks very much.

And I'm here on the D&D Next forums to discuss and speculate about a set of roleplaying rules that have been announced for future publication. I'm really not that interested in discussing political agendas or manifestoes for some sort of "D&D zealotry movement" and I am, in general, opposed to the identification of such a "movement" as distinct from the wider fellowship of "roleplayers".

If D&D as you see it, is such a singularly defined game, how is it that we have such a divisive fan base...? Why is it that these fans didn't move on to other game systems...? Why is it that different editions of D&D are so distinct from each other...?

Oh, easy - because roleplayers, quite naturally, have a range of styles and conceits around which they like to focus their roleplaying. Some of them, instead of taking the rational course of simply finding or writing a system that suits their preferences, dedicate themselves to playing one specific "label" and try their damndest to haul that property toward their own preferred style. In the actual property owner (and their hired staff) this is just about functional; among customers and roleplayers in general, less so.

The answer is that D&D has never been a singularly defined game. It has been and is many different things, both officially and semi-officially (and even uniquely different at different tables); and they are all D&D...and will continue to be so.

D&D has always been a corpus of published rules and advice - nothing more and nothing less. Customers have used the product in many ways - including the quite rational way of houseruling, sometimes extensively, when the basic, published rules don't suit them. The owners of D&D have even written suggestions and advice concerning such houseruling - a fine idea!

D&D Next will be added on to this corpus of published material (all being well). I will be interested in it if it provides a coherent, focussed system that supports some sort of play that I wish to engage in. I have no "beef" if this is not what it turns out to be - I have plenty of other published supports for my roleplaying already.

More suggestions and guidance for houseruling I really don't need. It's not that I don't think they are useful - it's merely that I have copious amounts of them already.

No almost about it. I can see it right here; people arguing blue-in-the-face about exactly what the nature or definition of D&D is. This time around, it looks like a more inclusive and universal definition is going to win out (finally). May as well start accepting it.

Well, that's really a different tenor and type of arguing than I'm talking about, but, yes, I guess it's an indication of just how argumentative we all are

 

[Crazy Jerome]

This dial system would not be major if several are combined? What would you permit in your "dial", accuracy modifiers? armor penetration? proficiencies/feats? How many sources would you allow for modifiers: item, magic, conditional, feat, racial? Can you fabricate an all-inclusive dial modifier? If you have a monster, or a group, how many dials do you want to apply? Each encounter would have dials, balanced to match the PC's dials.

The wiring system in your home, apartment, office, or school is quite complex--it works on basic principles, but there is a lot of stuff there, built within some rather severe constraints (both physical and safety). In contrast, the outlet where you plug things in and the switch were you turn them on or off is much simpler. It isn't completely foolproof, but compared to the system as a whole, it is very close.

Designed properly, modules are a lot like things you can plug into an electrical outlet. Does the existence of hundreds or even thousands of possiblities complicate your life when you plug in a radio?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Question: To what extent do you envisage the need for multiple monster manuals, treasure lists etc?

I don't think we'll need that much. Assuming we keep the maths that work from 4e, we'll have a very handy way to generate basic stats at any point. Given that, we can peg "default" monsters and treasure (and spells and even things like prestige classes or epic destinies) to a given tier. Orcus or the Terrasque or Lolth might be Epic Tier. Orcs might be Common Tier. Most dragons might ping at "Paragon" (or high Heroic). Magic items can work similarly: Resurrection and Polymorph might be Epic tier, while Fireball and Fly might be Heroic, and Teleportation hits more the Paragon.

It's sort of self-defining. If you're fighting Orcus, or a mind flayer, or a dragon, you're not a common joe anymore. Common joes that go up against these things die like minions. Only those of close-to-equal power can hope to contend with these threats. Of course, you can start as a common joe who goes on to fight Orcus later, after becoming something more -- that particular arc is very commonin D&D gameplay.

This is a feature. Dragons should kill townsfolk in droves. When you're strong enough to take on a dragon, you should be able to handle a dozen orcs.

It's also true that the difference between +5 and +6, while it may be a tier threshold, is not that big of a mechanical difference. If you have most dragons at Paragon tier (starting at, say, +11), you can still make them a tough fight for a party of Heroic-tier PC's (capping out at +10).

Magic items work much the same way -- a sphere of annihilation is a bigger effect than a +1 longsword. You can also peg this to the spell lists -- something capable of granting a Wish might be Epic, something capable of dealing extra fire damage might be more like Heroic or even Common.

All this needs is a little blurb in the stat block, like:

Level: 10 (Heroic)

or

Level: 21 (Epic)

You could conceivably have a Level 21 (Common) item, but I imagine it would be something like a very strong potion (Potion of Polymorph?) or a ritual scroll capable of a big one-time effect (Scroll of Plane Shift?). Whereas a Level 21 (Epic) item might be more like the Armor of Achilles, or a Vorpal Sword.

The advice is pretty simple. You clearly explain the tiers and what kind of vibe they're going for, and then you tell the DM how to award "levels" without awarding a "tier" (that is, give the party more spells, but not more powerful spells, or whatever). This is the basics of E6, and can be pretty easily grokked in a sentence or two, like:

"When you gain a level after hitting the cap for your tier, you gain an additional ability, but your Level Bonus does not increase."

For DM's, it might be:

"Monsters have a level and a tier. PC parties can be considered to be balanced against threats in their own tier. Against lower-tier enemies, PC's are more effective. Against higher-tier enemies, PC's are less effective."

And:

"Magic items have a level and a tier. PC's are generally good matches for treasures in their own tier. If you give them something from a lower tier, it might be hawked at the nearest pawn shop. If you give them something from a higher tier, it might make them more powerful than most of the encounters assume."

Comment: This is very different from any version of D&D to date (other than E6, as you noted) - even in classic D&D, hit points keep going up (though they slow down), and saves, attacks etc don't slow down at all! That's not an objection to it. But it's a reason to think that it might be controversial in some quarters - "level-less D&D" or something similar would be the criticism.

I think of it as just sort of codifying what groups are doing informally, anyway. That group that starts over at level 12? That DM who thinks that all high level D&D is insane no matter what? That group that spends years just getting to level 5? The group that begins play at level 3? This is all an attempt to play in a particular "tier."

The disadvantage with keeping it the same is that the game then changes underneath you. DMs are surprised when PC's can teleport and raise the dead and thus wreck adventures. Players never get those high-level awesome abilities they work toward. Players expect a game where they feel like heroes and the DM has them slaying goblins for months. Or vice vesa. Or whatever. That's not what a lot of people seem to want -- they want to control the change in scope based on what they want.

I think the "default mode" D&D might change every 5 levels or so, thus making tier transitions a natural part of play, and helping to keep D&D firmly ensconced in leveled territory. The main feature is the ability to "turn off" tier advancement without having to turn off ALL advancement.