D&D 5E Innovations I'd like to keep in 5E

[Guest 85555]

It isn't a straw man, you're whole basis of argument amounts to touting older mechanics, even in the face of all their drawbacks which have been overcome over and over again in both other systems and in later editions of D&D. Many of these arguments DO amount to "it was better in the old days" from my perspective. I know you'll disagree with that, and that's fine, so it goes I also think there's been (at least with 3e and 4e) a concerted conscious attempt to specifically improve on existing mechanics. While it is perfectly possible to argue the merits of any specific newer or older mechanic overall the game system has improved with time.

Again we simply disagree. Some things have been improvements. Straight d20 roll is widely embraced as an improvement. Uified system most see as an improvement (howevere there are valid reasons for wanting t go the other way---d10 roll for initiative, lowest goes first, is a bit easier on the gm for example). Other things like 4e powers have had a much poorer reaction. Still other things like some of the balancing features of pre 3e D&D are arguably superior to mechanics that came later. Again, your argument amounts to new is good and old is bad. Instead you should be addressing individual mechanics and why they should or should not be included in the next edition. When a mechanic was invented is not a good basis for an evaluation.

Designers learn with each new iteration. My concern is that the attitude of "back to the past" is not focusing on improving the game, and that should be a big part of the focus in any edition, otherwise what is the point? I still own 1e and 2e (and a couple versions of Basic and OD&D for that matter) and I can D/L numerous OSR games. While I think it will be great if 5e captures a wider range of play styles and allows the game to focus more widely on different ones I don't think rolling back the clock is a worthwhile goal. IMHO the default assumption in core 5e would best be on flexible modern mechanics. They are going to be a LOT more capable of providing a wider range of play styles than the mechanics of AD&D were, which IMHO was rather inflexible and brittle.

I am not sure they did. Each new edition caters well to a particular style of play, but I wouldn't say 4e was an objective improvement over 3e or that 2e wss an objective improvmenet over 1e. Each added some things I thought were better, but each also added things I thought damaged the game.

My 3e ravenloft games just didn't play as well as my 2e ravenloft games and it was the new system that created this problem, but 3e worked well for onje of my other fantasy setting. 4e doesn't work well for anything I want to do. Just because it comes after 3e that doesn't make it better.

Also the whole notion that anything is a steady unwavering march of progressive good doesn't hold. Each new iteration of the game is a reaction to the previous edition. The latest edition was a reaction against perceived imbalances in 3e. But that doesn't mean the solution they offer is objectively better than what came before, nor does it mean the problem they tried to solve was a universal issue. Sometimes mistakes are introduced in new editions. Sometimes good mechanics are taken out. Smetimes trends are just that. This happens in pop culture all the time (80s aesthetics went from being reviled in the 90s to being embraced today). Right now streamlined and unified systems with one broad mechanic for all possible problems is popular (and I myself tend to support this). But that doesn't mean rpgs will always embrace this design approach. There are good reasons to have multiple systems in a game. It all depends on what you are trying to achieve.

 

[Guest 85555]

I do have to quibble with this. Basing balance expectations around the use of an optional system which the campaign structure might not even allow (how exactly do you build a stronghold during your "Be Magellen" ship based game?) is bad design, plain and simple.

See my other response above, but this is an important point.

The obvious solution to a magellen campaign is to replace the stronghold with a ship and followers with a crew. As I pointed out it wasn't bad design because strongholds and followers were a core assumption oof high level play. Now things have changed clearly (and in part this was due to 2e taking the game in very different directions). If they bring back followers and strongholds, I would like to see them tied to class (because they are important high level balancers) but I would like to see them developed further to accomodate different play styles (different paths for characters who dont build strongholds).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Now, lets look at the situation in the proposed case. In this case the DM has to decide which skill is relevant, which ability score is relevant and still has the level and difficulty decision to make. Now the player has to look at his ability score modifier, and his skill bonus (if any), add them both together, roll, and report the result. This is the BEST case. In reality there's a constant ambiguous decision that needs to be made WRT what ability score to use. This choice is open to debate in EVERY case and involves the huge grey area of deciding what each score actually means. The player almost always has a motivation to try to negotiate this choice, which opens up gaming the system and the DM, and at best a moderately arbitrary choice.

Ideally, this would be handled by making the default assumption that your roll is whatever ability score the DM says it is (albeit you want a consistent DM here, same as with 4E skills). Instead of 17 choices to pick from, the DM has six. Then, on top of that, the player can lobby for a particular skill (or maybe two or three if you want to be generous) to apply. Then the DM can accept that or not. Sure, you'll have that negotiation still arise at times, but now the player is responsible for initiating it. If the player is really involved in the scene, a bit of time spent here is worthwhile. If the player isn't that involved, go ahead with the straight ability check and move on quickly.

I'm not suggesting that this way would be perfect, but I think it is a better floor than what you suggested.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

3e and 4e however dismissed some balancing mechanics that were in ADnD 2nd edition. Not wholly purposeful. Also I believe, the average gamer´s mind set has changed since back then. People rather want more control of their characters...
and they don´t want to cope with disadvantages...

on the other hand, games like quest, or dungoneer are quite successful, even though you don´t have to worry too much about character advancement.

this beeing said, i believe 4e did a great job of innovating D&D. And In my opinion there at least was an attempt to simplify the game. Some people disliked it just for that (dumbed down version...) but other people liked it, even thought hey rather had a slightly different approach.

So I really believe, that 4e is a very influential edition for 5e. Even if not a lot of mechanics are directly ported over, wizards have learned a lot of what simlifications are good and which don´t resound well with the audience.

 

[Sadras]

Same for D&D, but the argument that specific mechanics have to be used because they're classic or that specific design decisions have priority because they were used in 1e (and weren't always great ideas even back then) is like saying my new Mustang has to have drum breaks and a carb.

Are you suggesting an entirely new system could be acceptable to you or are there some sacred cows you are not willing to slaughter? Because if an entirely new system presents itself which is vastly superior, would you object to it due to it being so different? and if yes, why? I'm merely asking here - because I wonder how far YOU are willing to go for a new system.

In this case the DM has to decide which skill is relevant, which ability score is relevant and still has the level and difficulty decision to make. Now the player has to look at his ability score modifier, and his skill bonus (if any), add them both together, roll, and report the result. This is the BEST case. In reality there's a constant ambiguous decision that needs to be made WRT what ability score to use. This choice is open to debate in EVERY case and involves the huge grey area of deciding what each score actually means. The player almost always has a motivation to try to negotiate this choice, which opens up gaming the system and the DM, and at best a moderately arbitrary choice.

This is not as complicated as you make it out to be. White Wolf has been using a similar system for years and its no more complex than what we are using now. The Summerland RPG even uses a variation of this system where the player motivates what attribute s/he wants to use and the Storyteller decides based on the motivation. And it works fine. So really this isnt a deal breaker.
Also unfortunately 4E (which I play and I enjoy) is rather thin in skills for my taste.

Designers learn with each new iteration.

Unfortunately its not always the same designers that carry through to create the newer editions. But even with all that knowledge and learning - you have to ask yourself that if it was as you say, why did 4E fall short in certain aspects when all that knowledge and learning from previous editions was at their fingertips already? (And just for all you trolls remember I play 4E).

Truthfully I'm torn - do we carry all these sickly bloated cows into the new edition (traditionalist) or do we instead forge ahead and leave archaic system of hit points, armour class, healing surges and the like behind - since we are never ever going to agree (just look at these boards!!!)

My final verdict, with a heavy heart, is to adopt White Wolf's RPG system -its truly superior in every way.
Realistic Wounds System, Conviction for Morale, Wits for Initiative, Combat Expertise (including Archery) becomes a Skill as it should be, Better Skill System, Faster Combat Scenes, Easier multi-classing system, Willpower instead of Action Points, Faith for Clerics, Traits and Flaws for better roleplaying, Backgrounds are present and the "Magic" works better, Comeliness for the win, no silly Saving Throws, Great Advancement System/XP...etc
With only a few minor adjustments it would be the ideal D&D system...

 

[Steely_Dan]

I'm not interested in driving a 1960's car in 2012.

Ah, ya should once in awhile, the right one can feel amazing (nothing like it, really).

 

[CroBob]

Now, lets look at the situation in the proposed case. In this case the DM has to decide which skill is relevant, which ability score is relevant and still has the level and difficulty decision to make. Now the player has to look at his ability score modifier, and his skill bonus (if any), add them both together, roll, and report the result. This is the BEST case. In reality there's a constant ambiguous decision that needs to be made WRT what ability score to use. This choice is open to debate in EVERY case and involves the huge grey area of deciding what each score actually means. The player almost always has a motivation to try to negotiate this choice, which opens up gaming the system and the DM, and at best a moderately arbitrary choice.

That's really not true, though. The DM has only to choose which stat applies, and the player can state that he's good at that and his skill applies. The Dm may argue, and maybe he should, but I don't think players or DMs who try to use the system against the other should be a serious consideration for the rules themselves. Further, there would still be a list of skills to choose from (with a description of what situations they apply to) to avoid off the wall BS, and an option for the DM and player to make their own skills up.

Now, what does your system actually GAIN us? In most cases nothing really IMHO. The interpretation of ability scores is hair splitting and really adds very little to the game in the vast majority of cases. For the few corner cases where it might be nice to have this flexibility you can do it already with the 4e system (nothing stops you from saying that particular PC can't get additional or different bonuses if it makes sense to the DM). 4e allows for feats, themes, classes, races, and powers to potentially give bonuses or allow different numbers to be used if the player wants to decide his PC should be especially talented at a particular thing either.

I don't see how my proposed system would prevent adding bonuses to skills OR to specific stats checked, or whatever. My system is essentially the same as the current one, just more flexible. More importantly, it would allow for more interesting class features or feats, as they'd apply to 2 variables instead of only one, and would therefore appeal to gamers who like to focus on skills as much or more than combat.

I just don't see where the cost/benefit analysis favors the more complicated system. In a case where there's no clear benefit and there IS a clear cost the best choice is the simplest choice, and that's basically the 4e type system IMHO.

I don't see the cost. It's still 1. Player attempts something, 2. DM calls for a kind of roll, 3. Player makes the roll, 4. DM determines success.

 

[CroBob]

And you are entitled to have opinion. Lots of people share it. My point is some of us found it a great aid to balance. Rapid advancement for the rogue was a big gift that made them more attrsctive to me as a player. On the whole i found 2E a far more balanced game than 3E. And 4E was balanced in a way that just didn't appeal to me. With 2E the classes were balanced by a whole host of things and they still had enough texture and variety to be distinct and interesting.

So you claim the classes are not distinct and interesting in 4th?

The game could be designed so that classes are equal based on amount of XP again... but then what's the difference between that and making them even every level and level at the same XP values? What's gained except complexity?

 

[Guest 85555]

So you claim the classes are not distinct and interesting in 4th?

Yes

Well, I am saying I find them to be uninsteresting and not very distinct.

 

[Guest 85555]

]

The game could be designed so that classes are equal based on amount of XP again... but then what's the difference between that and making them even every level and level at the same XP values? What's gained except complexity?

The different level progressions allow for characters that don't get as much sizzle (like say spellcasters) the advantage of early advancement and all that entails (HP, class abiitities, etc), and forces characters with some of that sizzle to wait. For me it always worked well. I don't think they will go back to it, nut if you are trying to balance over the campaign rather than perfectly balancing each character to the encounter (something I find pretty dull) it is a good place to start.