D&D 5E Where is D&D Headed Next (Wired.com)

[Scribble]

Ah, so you want people to believe D&Dnext is coming because 4E is just so damn successful and selling like hotcakes

I don't think his aim is to make anyone believe anything. That's his point. Rather then just make claims, why not just stick to facts that are citable?

 

[Ratskinner]

Which actually sounds a little doable the more I think about it. Sacrifice a little rules clarity for the open-ended nature, sacrifice some balance for flexibility, and sacrifice... uhhh... I'm sure there's something for the ease of DMing.

A bazillion little fiddly bits from 3e monster/npc making? One of the big things 4e got right for me is hands-down all the stuff that they changed behind the screen. Ruined me for DMing 3.xish games, I just can't bring myself to do it. I kinda wish they had the monster bit "down" more for tomorrow's release, but hey, I can be patient.

 

[Kinak]

A bazillion little fiddly bits from 3e monster/npc making? One of the big things 4e got right for me is hands-down all the stuff that they changed behind the screen. Ruined me for DMing 3.xish games, I just can't bring myself to do it. I kinda wish they had the monster bit "down" more for tomorrow's release, but hey, I can be patient.

Ah, right, the fiddly bits. I honestly didn't even consider that as a sacrifice.

Heck, I ran 3.0, switched to 3.5, and have a Pathfinder game now. And, for as much as we never got into 4e, I'd pay good money for a monster system halfway between 4e's approach and OD&D's approach.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Ratskinner]

Seems to me that schemes are to the rogue what domains are to the cleric, schools are to the wizard, and maneuvers/exploits are to the fighter. And quite frankly... if the rogue is meant to be its own class rather than just a baby fighter, it's needed.

<snippage---good stuff, though>

The primary class mechanic for Fighters are maneuvers/exploits. And these combat maneuvers get divided up and categorized based upon the type of weapon you have, how you attack with it, and what happens when you hit. And some fighters specialize in a specific weapon.

I prefer "Fighting Style", but...its early.

And just like Paladins will probably get access to some cleric prayers and fighter maneuvers... Bards will get access to certain wizard schools and rogue schemes, Monks will get access to certain fighter maneuvers and rogue schemes, and Rangers will get access to certain cleric prayers (nature related) and rogue schemes.

I guess this is my only fear. If each class gets 5 or six "scheme" options, we are in danger of bloating that PHB, and also sorta eliminating some of that simplicity...will the fiddly-bit players want to be able to rework their own schemes....

I'm all for character customization and uniqueness, but I'd like to think we could add some with some very rules-lite narrative-ish mechanics rather than add yet another dimension of fiddly-bits to be manipulated by players who are so inclined. Seems like the more of those a game has, the harder it is to keep it reasonably balanced.

Too early to get upset about anything, though.

 

[pemerton]

It's fairly well known, or at least agreed upon, that 3.x took a lot of power out of the DM's hand by codifying the system so well that players would constantly correct or reinterpret DM rulings, citing page numbers and rules updates and Book X which changed the Core Rules for Rule Z, X and Y.x31z.

Fourth edition just made that worse by giving players so many damn options that as a DM you couldn't keep a track of even a quarter of them let alone all of them. As a 4e DM you ended up having the choice of either restricting the game to X, Y, Z publications and the rules therein in order to maintain some semblance of control over your game, or you had to acquiesce to the greater power of the Compendium and Character Builder and Rules Update PDF's.

So what he's trying to say is that he wants players to understand that options, whilst great, also stifle creativity at the table and that allowing a DM more control over what happens at the table, supported by the rules themselves, helps facilitate a more enjoyable experience, as has been the case in less restrictive systems such as AD&D and OD&D.

My own view is that this isn't true. Solid action resolution mechanics don't have to be the enemy of the GM. Nor do solid PC build mechanics. There are games in which the role and power of the GM is clearly expressed - say Runequest, or Burning Wheel, or Rolemaster, or HeroWars/Quest - in which the action resolution mechanics are clear, and the PC build mechanics are (i) clear and (ii) in the players' hands.

If solid mechanics are mucking up the RPG experience, in my view that's not a sign that there's too many mechanics, or too much player power. It tells me that they're bad mechanics.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I prefer "Fighting Style", but...its early.



I guess this is my only fear. If each class gets 5 or six "scheme" options, we are in danger of bloating that PHB, and also sorta eliminating some of that simplicity...will the fiddly-bit players want to be able to rework their own schemes....

I wouldn't see schemes as being able to be "reworked"... they are assigned to the group of abilities that they go with. That's the category they are a part of. Slow Fall is a part of the acrobatic/burglar abilities, along with things like climbing sheer surfaces, running across balance beams, tumbling and uncanny dodging. A player can't decide that Slow Fall is now a Charlatan scheme any more than a player can decide that Animate Dead is now an Illusionist spell.

But what schemes do is take all of the class abilities and Trained skills that only specific classes could do... and put them into one big "non-combat" pot... and then divide them up into piles that make sense together. And then... all the classes who might use specific ones would just get assigned the specific scheme, rather than having to re-write the same abilities over several classes as they used to do.

Rangers and Druids both can walk without making tracks, and can find/scavenge for food. Instead of putting these abilities individually into each of their "class features", they instead get assigned to the Scout scheme, of which the Ranger and Druid both get access to as class features (along with the Rogue). Monks gain all the Acrobat/Burglar scheme as class features along with the rogue. The Bard gets the Charlatan scheme as class features along with the rogue.

Schemes are simply a way of categorizing the non-combat features that classes get, the same way Charge, Bull Rush, Grapple, and Disarm are the combat features that classes get (under the Maneuver or Exploit name).

 

[Kzach]

My own view is that this isn't true. Solid action resolution mechanics don't have to be the enemy of the GM. Nor do solid PC build mechanics.

I don't disagree. In fact, I think what Mike was trying to assert was exactly this:

If solid mechanics are mucking up the RPG experience, in my view that's not a sign that there's too many mechanics, or too much player power. It tells me that they're bad mechanics.

 

[Ratskinner]

My own view is that this isn't true. Solid action resolution mechanics don't have to be the enemy of the GM. Nor do solid PC build mechanics. There are games in which the role and power of the GM is clearly expressed - say Runequest, or Burning Wheel, or Rolemaster, or HeroWars/Quest - in which the action resolution mechanics are clear, and the PC build mechanics are (i) clear and (ii) in the players' hands.

If solid mechanics are mucking up the RPG experience, in my view that's not a sign that there's too many mechanics, or too much player power. It tells me that they're bad mechanics.

Maybe. However, what if, after analysis, you find that the thing that made them bad mechanics was that they too narrowly defined game, gave the players too much explicit control, and there were far too many of them? That's the case I think the designers believe themselves in.

"With fourth edition, there was a huge focus on mechanics. The story was still there, but a lot of our customers were having trouble getting to it. In some ways, it was like we told people, ‘The right way to play guitar is to play thrash metal,’ But there’s other ways to play guitar.” - Mike Mearls.

I'll withhold judgement on your examples, having not played them. However, I don't think that "solid" is the question. Or at least, we operate with different definitions of "solid", in this case. I believe that the rigidity of those mechanics is the big question. When you pile on descriptor after descriptor, you define the play experience. This can be overdone, especially in a game like D&D with all its attendant mechanical baggage. Hence the "thrash metal" quote.

Consider the more narrative rpgs. Many of which have very defined, solid, mechanics that tell you very clearly whether you succeeded or failed. Many of which also have perfect numerical character balance. Several even operate without GMs at all. Very few of them actually define for you precisely "how" you succeed or fail.

The problem is...none of those game use mechanical baggage like HP, AC, Vancian magic, Classes, etc. They all start with the presumption that the mechanics will be simulating a story, so things like Narrative Causality often work and are more important than simulating a "realistic" combat. That is to say, they start as story games, not war games that turned into story games. Of course, what story you tell is very flexible (at least in most of them).

That's a big gap for the designer's to bridge. I'm curious to see how and how well they bridge it. Its not impossible, there's a few mind-bending games out there that use new-school mechanics to simulate old-school feel, so who knows?

Oh, and just to be clear: There's nothing inherently right or wrong about liking any of these types of play. If you like 4e's "thrash metal", that's fine. However, that doesn't mean that that's best for the brand and continuation of the game/culture or WOTC's profitability and bottom line. Obviously, narrative games aren't taking off in a really big way, so I'm not looking to see a whole mess of narrative stuff injected into 5e.

 

[Frostmarrow]

To me it sounds like characters in general get themes but rogues get themes and schemes. Schemes are there only to make rogues more resourceful whereas magic-users get spells and fighters get tough. It looks like rogues will become quite accomplished adventurers. I'm of course intrigued that all classes would get schemes or the like to add to the repertoire but it's not really necessary. Schemes fill exactly the same designspace as themes and we only need to expand on that for rogues.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I don't think his aim is to make anyone believe anything. That's his point. Rather then just make claims, why not just stick to facts that are citable?

I would venture to say that it's because if we only talked about verifiable facts, we'd have nothing to talk about. As someone who uses and sometimes generates market research data, I can tell you that it's really difficult to find hard information in many areas, even if you're a professional working in that area. As such we have to make reasonable guesses and inferences, which actually works quite well most of the time as long as you're not too biased by your own preconceived notions.