D&D 5E You can't necessarily go back

[S'mon]

For example, I was reading over the rules for making magical items in the D&D Rules Cyclopedia today, and I was struck by just how reasonable the rules were for making items. Namely there is a gp cost, and a risk of failure. Sure the costs are far too prohibitive, but with a little less cost you have a workable system for making items that I think is better than the other editions. 3e and 4e it was perhaps too easy to make magical items (leading to a broken game) but with a risk of failure and set gp cost you can decide whether making a magical item is worth the gamble. In other words I like it and I think could work well.

I had a similar feeling recently looking at the simple item creation rules in Labyrinth Lord, based on B/X D&D. Just reduce the costs for weaker items (eg 1,000gp instead of 10,000gp for a +1 dagger) and it should work fine. Personally I think the 4e item creation rules seem to work ok due to the very high cost of item creation, they are written as a quick fix for adventurers rather than the basis of a magic item economy. I find that the 3e rules as written do create big problems, especially with the almost free 1st level wands (375gp for 50 charges!) and scrolls (12.5gp!).

 

[Argyle King]

Although we have had different experiences with 4e, I also feel that the designers do not seem to undertand what I want out of a game system, and what it is about 4e that delivers that.

One of the most important things about 4e, for me, is that it turns the focus of resource management into a "during resolution" matter rather than a "between resolutions" matter: encounter powers, unlocking healing surges in combat, managing the action economy (whether in combat, or in the somewhat different context of a skill challenge).

That's not to say that there is no inter-encounter resource management: dailies, surges, and to a lesser extent action points. But at least at my table they become secondary rather than primary focuses of play. Even for very daily-heavy PCs like the wizard or invoker, "How many dailies do I have left?" never becomes the overwhelmingly important question.

I agree with @the causaloblivion that D&Dnext, at least as it has emerged so far in the playtest materials, looks much more oriented toward long-term resource management with loose and flexible GM-mediated action resolution, which is pretty much the opposite of 4e: tight action resolution with a lot of loose and flexibe GM-mediated scene framing and derivation of consequences.

Framing is an area where I often feel I cannot participate in these discussions because the language and style of play presented by others is somewhat alien to me. I completely understand what framing is; obviously -as a D&D player- I understand what encounters are. However, for me, my preferred method of portraying the world is "here's the world, what do you do?" I would prefer to have things not broken down into scenes and encounters and simply put things in the world were it makes sense for them to be; one the world is set in motion, each piece moves where the in-game logic says it will. If there's not a preset pattern, I roll the dice and let them decide.

As I have run and played D&D, I understand how to set up encounters because the game requires me to. However, I'd be most happy if there were not such a solid idea of 'encounter' built into the game in a sort of meta-game way. I'd prefer things grow organically from the world. Yes, as the world builder, I might decide where some of those things start, but -once set in motion- it's wholly possible for what happens next to be just as much of a surprise to me as it is anybody else sitting at the table.

I guess I'm trying to say that I have a hard time participating when it comes to this part of the conversation because when it comes to a question of how I would like things framed or divided up into scenes, my answer would be -generally speaking- that I prefer for there to be no division; at least not in the way such a thing seems to be generally defined by others.

 

[Minigiant]

When it comes to framing and editions one thing D&D has been fighting is the framing of reality and the framing of story. The Narrative vs Simulation stuff. Reality is boring to watch 90% of the time. Action moves too fast, there are long gaps of free time for characters, and the laws of nature, society, and economy ruins drama often. Stories punches Reality in the jaw and force all kinds of rules in order to make the story and game workable.

The main differences between editions is just the rules used to move a party of characters from Point A to Point B without Reality making the process boring to the players.

Failed the save to catch the ledge? Roll all 1s on falling damage dice.

 

[pemerton]

Framing is an area where I often feel I cannot participate in these discussions because the language and style of play presented by others is somewhat alien to me.

<snip>

as the world builder, I might decide where some of those things start, but -once set in motion- it's wholly possible for what happens next to be just as much of a surprise to me as it is anybody else sitting at the table

<snip>

I understand how to set up encounters because the game requires me to. However, I'd be most happy if there were not such a solid idea of 'encounter' built into the game in a sort of meta-game way. I'd prefer things grow organically from the world.

A recent session ended with the PCs cleared the Immoliths and other demons out of an ancient underground temple to Orcus. The PCs stumbled on the temple when following a trail left by Orcus cultists they had beaten up in an earlier session. It hadn't occurred to me to place an Orcus temple until one of the players said that his PC spent time going around town trying to find out where the cultists had come from and what they were up to.

As the PCs went to go down the Moria-like stairs behind the back door of the temple (the map is from one of the 4e Dungeon adventure Siege of Bordrin's Watch) they were attacked by a Nightwalker and its bodak servants. The idea of putting the stairs there, and using a Nightwalker as a Balrog substitute, was something I came up with in the time between sessions. But it was easy to narrate a weakening of the barrier between world and Shadowfell in the vicinity of an ancient Orcus temple.

Then, when the PCs were searching around after beating the Nightwalker and bodaks, one tried to sense if there was any more shadow energy leeching through. I said that there was, and expected the PCs to try to seal the breach. But instead they took up positions and prepared for combat - so I had a dracolich attended by lost souls (levelled-up wraith figments) come through the barrier.

The PCs then conjured a hallowed temple via a ritual to rest, and after resting went down the stairs. I had just got my copy of Into the Unknown, and used a picture in it, of an underdark staircase in a vast cavern, to indicate the general character of their descent. I had statted up some Death Giants as part of general prep, expecting that they might come in handy, and used them - plus an Eidolon, levelled up to 17th - to ad lib an encounter at the bottom of the stairs involving a locked door, and the guardians on the other side of it protecting the sealing away of this ancient Orcus temple complex. I decided that the giants had been placed there by the Raven Queen, under a geas to serve as warders against the servants of Orcus. I thought the PCs might try to negotiate, and they did, but the dwarf fighter wields a giant-hating dwarven thrower artefact, and the paladin of the Raven Queen is pretty rabid too, so the idea of negotiating peaceful passage in return for lifting the geas on the giants didn't get very far. Combat ensued, although the paladin managed to ensure that only one of the giants was actually killed (the other was knocked out, and will regain consciousness still geased).

I'm guessing that's somewhat different from your preferred approach, but I'm not sure how different. My two criteria for encounters are (i) that it fits with what's come before ("background consistency") and (ii) that it pushes the players (and their PCs) in some interesting direction. The surprise for me isn't in what the PCs encounter - I generally decide that, although often not very far in advance - but rather how they respond to it.

 

[S'mon]

Re scene framing - as a device, scene framing works well in storygames - narrativist games centred on group story-creating. One of the players gets to frame the scene, then the group or a subset participate to resolve it.
Scene framing by the GM occasionally works well in RPGs, most obviously in 'kicking off' an adventure, where the GM can reasonably set the start conditions, but leave the resolution open. But as a default mode of play it leads to linear adventures that can often feel railroaded. Some players are happy to follow a '90's-style linear storypath to its pre-written conclusion, but I'm not, and when 4e or other RPGs trend that way I don't like it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I most emphatically disagree. There is no great old game that can do what e.g. Dread, Fiasco, or Dogs in the Vineyard can. Even 4e absolutely can not be matched by older games. The play experiences that are being designed towards have expanded. And so have the play experiences being supported.

Even when it comes to trad RPGs I don't know anything that matches Burning Wheel's Lifepath and Relationship tools. Technology which is built on in part Traveller's careers. And WFRP's career progression system.

This isn't to say that designers have got smarter. But when he set out Gygax didn't know what he was doing. He had to make it all up using a hacked tabletop wargame engine. And in some ways did a superb job (and communicated it very badly in other places). But like anyone trying to do new things, he made a lot of mistakes. Modern designers have the advantage of seeing those mistakes rather than finding them themselves. And can also take inspiration from MMOs which are better playtested than any tabletop wargame in history.

There are certainly new play experiences that only the games that are designed to them can deliver.

Not everything originally designed is a mistake. It never occured to Gary and Dave when designing original D&D to expressly forbid things not on an approved laundry list for a game powered by the imagination of the participants. Modern tinkering was required to bring that to the game.
This makes for a different play experience, but not an objectively better one.

Complex mechanics, and more of them do not automatically provide a better play experience. Its all down to what the participants feel is required to provide the experience they want.

4E umatched by older games? I suppose if having a catalog of a billion fiddly options for character generation, long drawn out grid combats, and playing superheroes in fantasy costumes are desired play experiences then sure.

The Burning Wheel lifepath tools might be fantastic but that comes with the assumption that a character's backstory tempered by a load of mechanical malarkey is an experience you are looking for in the first place. How is this objectively better than jotting down a paragraph about your character's background and getting on with playing?

MMOs should be used as inspiration and teaching tools for the development of other MMOs. Unless the game being inspired features the same base characteristics (including no human being in a GM capacity) the medium is unsuitable for use as a model.

 

[Dannager]

MMOs should be used as inspiration and teaching tools for the development of other MMOs. Unless the game being inspired features the same base characteristics (including no human being in a GM capacity) the medium is unsuitable for use as a model.

That strikes me as needlessly restrictive, and arbitrary to boot. It's perfectly reasonable to pull from other gaming media without that media having to share every trait with tabletop roleplaying games. Is there any reason I shouldn't just chalk this up to silly MMO hate?

 

[ExploderWizard]

That strikes me as needlessly restrictive, and arbitrary to boot. It's perfectly reasonable to pull from other gaming media without that media having to share every trait with tabletop roleplaying games. Is there any reason I shouldn't just chalk this up to silly MMO hate?

I don't hate MMOs. I played WOW for a long time before getting bored with it. I suppose world flavor inspiration wouldn't be that much different than what one could get from another medium.

Gameplay/mechanical structure is just too different a beast to be useful, unless the actual goal is to create an MMO game on the tabletop. In that case inspiration from such sources would kind of be required in order to get it right.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Re scene framing - as a device, scene framing works well in storygames - narrativist games centred on group story-creating. One of the players gets to frame the scene, then the group or a subset participate to resolve it.
Scene framing by the GM occasionally works well in RPGs, most obviously in 'kicking off' an adventure, where the GM can reasonably set the start conditions, but leave the resolution open. But as a default mode of play it leads to linear adventures that can often feel railroaded. Some players are happy to follow a '90's-style linear storypath to its pre-written conclusion, but I'm not, and when 4e or other RPGs trend that way I don't like it.

I find there's a third option and one 4e does well. Odd plans of the sort PCs like to come up with. And it is this where a flexible scene framing tool as opposed to a linear narrative game excels.

Not everything originally designed is a mistake. It never occured to Gary and Dave when designing original D&D to expressly forbid things not on an approved laundry list for a game powered by the imagination of the participants. Modern tinkering was required to bring that to the game.

No it didn't. But that's not modern tinkering. It's the big change in the period from oD&D played round a table with people you all vaguely know to AD&D with tournament rules and settings when you need to ensure that different DMs will come up with the same answer.

Complex mechanics, and more of them do not automatically provide a better play experience. Its all down to what the participants feel is required to provide the experience they want.

Indeed. Which is why IME the trend in games is to the simpler. I find 4e significantly simpler than AD&D. No lookup tables or rules most people ignore like weapon vs armour type - and for another the 4e character sheet might be a monster but you don't need separate books to look spells up in. And no D&D version can touch e.g. Dread for simplicity - whereas if I want a complex game I look back to the 1970s and games like Chivalry and Sorcery (it's notable that of all the variants of D&D in the 70s I know of with the exception of Tunnels and Trolls make it more complex). Or I look at any Fantasy Heartbreaker.

4E umatched by older games? I suppose if having a catalog of a billion fiddly options for character generation, long drawn out grid combats, and playing superheroes in fantasy costumes are desired play experiences then sure.

Oh ffs.

The Burning Wheel lifepath tools might be fantastic but that comes with the assumption that a character's backstory tempered by a load of mechanical malarkey is an experience you are looking for in the first place. How is this objectively better than jotting down a paragraph about your character's background and getting on with playing?

It depends what you want from a game. Games in the 1970s were grappling with this - see Classic Traveller - not everyone wants the same thing.

MMOs should be used as inspiration and teaching tools for the development of other MMOs. Unless the game being inspired features the same base characteristics (including no human being in a GM capacity) the medium is unsuitable for use as a model.

A model, no. A source of ideas and new players, assuredly yes. More time, thought, and effort has gone into work on MMOs than ever will on tabletop RPGs. And some although not all of the problems are simmilar. If we can't drift ideas out of their intended settings, we'd never have drifted into D&D.

 

[Argyle King]

<stuff>

I do not want to give the impression I cannot have fun with different styles of play. I do.


However, my ideal would be -as I said- the world (generally speaking) is as it is. I'd prefer to not artificially apply encounter guidelines to it. If the PCs decide to go with a full on frontal assault against the BBEG's castle in the middle of the day, they will find forces which are consistent with that. Likewise, if they were to uncover that the BBEG were planning to send out his forces next week and planned their assault while his troops were at a lesser number, they would find forces consistent with that.

While GMing D&D, I do use encounter guidelines -albeit somewhat loosely, but that is because (imo) the players are trained to expect a certain definition of an encounter, and they tend to feel somewhat cheated when the game defies those definitions. At times, I feel more of the game revolves around artificial constructs such as encounter guidelines, level, and various other things than it revolves around what's going on in-game. That's not a method I prefer. It's something I can work with, but I'd prefer to go a different way.