D&D 5E [D&D Next] Second Packet - initial impressions

[Balesir]

Ah, and here we have it. D&D is a game in the broad sense of the word, but is not winnable and is not inherently based on any type of success. If you play D&D to win, then yes, rolling stats might cause problems.

So can a lot of things, in that case. Not everyone is interested in having their D&D character succeed against any particular standard.

If you read the whole discussion, you'll see that I have already recognised that playing to explore rather than overcome challenges (= "win") would be a different case. I don't really get the impression that this is common with D&D, though. Maybe it's more common than I recognise - but, even so, I think D&D has never been really well suited to this type of play in any case.

 

[Imaro]

You do realize that in many games where balance is actually considered in design, the starting player pays for that advantage in some way, like by getting fewer moves on the first turn, a scoring handicap, use multiple games in a match or bonus resources for later players, right? Other games have mechanics such that going first is not an unmitigated advantage. For instance, in Rex, the first player can move to exploit opportunities that open up more cheaply with his move. OTOH, going later than other players means you can counter attack any weakness that opens up, and potentially go for a game winning move without reprisal. Proper design can mitigate the importance of that random roll.

I understand that Reign (which I've neither played nor read) has random generation that assigns stuff randomly instead of determining the amount of stuff randomly, such that random characters are roughly on par with other characters. And our group had more fun rolling up Traveler characters and seeing what happened to them than we did playing the game. The new Gamma World presets your primary and secondary attributes, and then has 3d6 random for the others (with full healing between encounters, and 4e style HP - with 3.x/5e HP and Con rules, Con is so universally powerful that it'd probably have to be set as well) so characters are pretty good at their main things and mostly vary on secondaries.

This has nothing to do with my point. Which is that there are plenty of games besides tic tac toe that allow a player to go first randomly and it is an advantage. Nerver argued there weren't games that didn't mitigate it or even counter it.. so I'm not sure what these two paragraphs are addressing.

But the traditional random generation in DnD doesn't just assign stuff, or come up with improbable chains of background events.

It's deeply tied in with the chance to get considerably more (with the current attribute mod system, way more) or less.

And? How is this a counter to anything I've said? Some people like the idea of trying to achieve more with whatever fate gave them, your statement above doesn't nullify the fact that this is fun, interesting, convenient (or whatever draws them to it) for some people.

Is that really necessary to meet your character?

I think very few things are "necessary" in a game of make believe... thus why it mostly boils down to preference.

 

[Ahnehnois]

If you read the whole discussion, you'll see that I have already recognised that playing to explore rather than overcome challenges (= "win") would be a different case. I don't really get the impression that this is common with D&D, though. Maybe it's more common than I recognise - but, even so, I think D&D has never been really well suited to this type of play in any case.

This is no less condescending or inaccurate than those above posts to which you refer.

There's not some narrow segment of "explorers" that are the exception to the rule. "Not playing to win" encompasses a whole constellation of playstyles virtually all of the Robin Laws archetypes or whatever other categories you want to use, including but not limited to people who play to act their character ("roleplaying"), people who play for the story, people who play for the company, people who just like to kick ass and take names, people who play for escapism, casual beer and pretzels people, specific atchetype afficianados, etc. etc. The true blue powergamers are the exception, not the rule. This isn't to say that charop isn't fun or legitimate, but it's hardly what the game should be designed for.

To say that D&D isn't suited for these style of play and is only about "overcoming challenges" is ludicrous.

 

[Victim]

16s rolled are twice as sweet as 16s bought. /paulnewman

I seriously don't get that this is an argument at all. I mean, if Mearls said "3d6 in order is the only way", or "Only standard arrays", then yeah, go to the mattresses. But when he says "Default will be 4d6 drop 1, and we'll also have standard arrays and point buys", then we have nothing to argue about. Everyone's getting what they want. I mean we have so many options.

It's a matter of design goals. A lot of people, including myself, would like a more balanced DnD. If the default character generation method provides large variance in character ability, then balance is clearly not an equivalent priority.

And the original stat generation methods set for DnD didn't use the same ability mod system used in modern DnDs. In 2e, a 9 Con character and 14 Con have the same HP, although Con checks, system shock, etc vary. HP penalties or bonuses didn't occur until 7 and 15 IIRC; a lot of stuff didn't make that big of a difference until the far ends of the stat range. In the 3e/5e system, small differences in stats turn into major bonuses. Those 9 and 14 Con characters are separated by 3 HP per level. On a wizard, that means triple average HP!

This has nothing to do with my point. Which is that there are plenty of games besides tic tac toe that allow a player to go first randomly and it is an advantage. Nerver argued there weren't games that didn't mitigate it or even counter it.. so I'm not sure what these two paragraphs are addressing.

I'm saying that large unmitigated initial random advantages is basically putting DnD way behind the kinds of games I'm likely to buy, especially considering the length of the game.

And? How is this a counter to anything I've said? Some people like the idea of trying to achieve more with whatever fate gave them, your statement above doesn't nullify the fact that this is fun, interesting, convenient (or whatever draws them to it) for some people.

There we go. It's not just about meeting your character, or avoiding "cookie-cutter" stats. The point of the random element in character generation is the opportunity to get more than the overall power level of the game.

 

[Imaro]

It's a matter of design goals. A lot of people, including myself, would like a more balanced DnD. If the default character generation method provides large variance in character ability, then balance is clearly not an equivalent priority.

And alot of people like random character attribute generation... as long as both methods are in the books who cares what's default, or gets listed first... both groups will be catered to, which can be a priority that doesn't necessarily conflict with balance in gameplay being a priority... especially if everyone in your group goes with point buy or array.

And the original stat generation methods set for DnD didn't use the same ability mod system used in modern DnDs. In 2e, a 9 Con character and 14 Con have the same HP, although Con checks, system shock, etc vary. HP penalties or bonuses didn't occur until 7 and 15 IIRC; a lot of stuff didn't make that big of a difference until the far ends of the stat range. In the 3e/5e system, small differences in stats turn into major bonuses. Those 9 and 14 Con characters are separated by 3 HP per level. On a wizard, that means triple average HP!

I'm quite aware of this, I stated it in a post a while back. It doesn't change what is or isn't fun for some people. The same way some people like SoD in their games and some don't. What I don't get is as long as the game provides you a point buy method... why do you care about the imbalances others choose to inflict upon themselves?

I'm saying that large unmitigated initial random advantages is basically putting DnD way behind the kinds of games I'm likely to buy, especially considering the length of the game.

I get it, you have a different preference... the fact of the matter is I have no problem with that, what I had a problem with is certain posters passive-aggressively denigrating a playstyle they don't like (or don't understand) and/or claimig point-buy is "objectively" better and/or claiming no random rolling should be in the book. You seem to have jumped into the middle of a discussion without fullly understanding what it is about.

There we go. It's not just about meeting your character, or avoiding "cookie-cutter" stats. The point of the random element in character generation is the opportunity to get more than the overall power level of the game.

That's exactly what I posted... ...only it's not. Notice where I said "with whatever fate gave them".

 

[Balesir]

This is no less condescending or inaccurate than those above posts to which you refer.

Oh, I'll play whatever game is on the table; if you can't take it, don't dish it out.

There's not some narrow segment of "explorers" that are the exception to the rule. "Not playing to win" encompasses a whole constellation of playstyles virtually all of the Robin Laws archetypes or whatever other categories you want to use, including but not limited to people who play to act their character ("roleplaying"), people who play for the story, people who play for the company, people who just like to kick ass and take names, people who play for escapism, casual beer and pretzels people, specific atchetype afficianados, etc. etc.

Of course exploration covers a whole spectrum of variations; so does every classification of playstyle. "Powergaming", for example. The "chart" for such things is multi-dimensional - I should have thought that was obvious.

The true blue powergamers are the exception, not the rule. This isn't to say that charop isn't fun or legitimate, but it's hardly what the game should be designed for.

And here you go explicitly reducing those whose style you don't like to "some narrow segment". Ho, hum.

Just to be clear - are you saying that "true blue powergamers" (or even any other sort of powergamers or the like) should not have any games designed for them at all, or just that those games that you wish to lay claim to should not be designed for them?

To say that D&D isn't suited for these style of play and is only about "overcoming challenges" is ludicrous.

If you find that collecting experience points for killing things and taking their stuff to get better at killing things and taking their stuff is not uniquely supportive of killing things and/or taking their stuff, fine - I have no issue with that. All I'm going to say is that I do find that collecting experience points for killing things and taking their stuff to get better at killing things and taking their stuff is uniquely supportive of killing things and/or taking their stuff, and I think many others find this, too. As such, I find D&D best supports a game which focusses on killing things and taking their stuff in a way that RPGs that don't have xps and levels don't.

 

[billd91]

Just to be clear - are you saying that "true blue powergamers" (or even any other sort of powergamers or the like) should not have any games designed for them at all, or just that those games that you wish to lay claim to should not be designed for them?

You know, if people would stop being so condescending and try to score rhetorical points off each other, questions like this would not need to be asked or would be a lot easier to answer. And that goes for both sides in the debate.

 

[Ahnehnois]

And here you go explicitly reducing those whose style you don't like to "some narrow segment". Ho, hum.

Actually I do like it. More than most, probably. I just acknowledge that my enjoyment of character building and rules min/maxing is a niche, and I don't feel the need to degrade the large portion of people who are not in it or tell them that their enjoyment of the game through such things as, say, unbalanced rolled character stats is "objectively wrong".

Just to be clear - are you saying that "true blue powergamers" (or even any other sort of powergamers or the like) should not have any games designed for them at all, or just that those games that you wish to lay claim to should not be designed for them?

D&D is a roleplaying game. It should be designed to facilitate roleplaying. Powergaming is not roleplaying; it is a natural consequence of any rule system that some people will try to get the most of of it. It is an offshoot of the game itself, and designers of that game shouldn't really be focusing on trying to prevent or control it.

As such, I find D&D best supports a game which focusses on killing things and taking their stuff in a way that RPGs that don't have xps and levels don't.

You're referring to an XP system that the majority of people playing the game don't use at all (the same, incidentally is probably true of rolling for ability scores), and which is very open and varies by edition and by DM (ditto) and is generally tangential to the play experience even when used.

 

[Balesir]

Actually I do like it. More than most, probably. I just acknowledge that my enjoyment of character building and rules min/maxing is a niche, and I don't feel the need to degrade the large portion of people who are not in it or tell them that their enjoyment of the game through such things as, say, unbalanced rolled character stats is "objectively wrong".

It looks like I'll put this down to radically different experience of D&D play(ers). I have found Gamist D&D to be at least as prevalent as Sim/faux-Sim D&D - probably more so - and at least as varied. Your mileage clearly varies.

D&D is a roleplaying game. It should be designed to facilitate roleplaying. Powergaming is not roleplaying; it is a natural consequence of any rule system that some people will try to get the most of of it. It is an offshoot of the game itself, and designers of that game shouldn't really be focusing on trying to prevent or control it.

This I find just annoying - especially when combined with your next paragraph.

First you say "D&D is a roleplaying game", a term that D&D actually coined and thus, one would think, an automatic "fit" (i.e. D&D is a roleplaying game because when D&D arose as something new, it called itself a roleplaying game"). Then, against a background where you apparently agree that people "powergame" D&D and furthermore (in your next paragraph) apparently accept that, in order not to powergame, those who "sim" D&D ignore a core part of the D&D rules, you assert that "powergaming is not roleplaying"...

I call shenanigans.

You're referring to an XP system that the majority of people playing the game don't use at all (the same, incidentally is probably true of rolling for ability scores), and which is very open and varies by edition and by DM (ditto) and is generally tangential to the play experience even when used.

A) This is not my experience at all - most of the folk I know who play D&D use XPs and levels more or less as written. What inside information do you have that "the majority of people playing the game" dont?

B) Nuances between editions there might be, but which one didn't give xps for killing things and taking their stuff, can you tell me?

 

[Ahnehnois]

A) This is not my experience at all - most of the folk I know who play D&D use XPs and levels more or less as written. What inside information do you have that "the majority of people playing the game" dont?

No one knows for sure as to the whole gaing population, but on ENW this is a pretty well-polled topic. There are several more over the years, all of which come to the same conclusion: close to half of people don't use any XP system and level by discretion and those who do tend to do a variety of things that are well off the book. I seriously doubt that the average gamer adheres to the XP system more than the average ENWorlder.

B) Nuances between editions there might be, but which one didn't give xps for killing things and taking their stuff, can you tell me?

Depending on the version, the rules may cover this in very different ways. XP for treasure does not necessarily require killing anything. "Quest XP" IME the most common form of XP when it is used, could reward any number of things.