D&D 5E L&L D&D Next Goals, Part Two

[TerraDave]

I never cared about the original D&D, when I started, it already had the word "Advanced" in front of the name.

Er, he is saying basic and standard, but what he is describing as "basic" is probably the closest we would be get to 1E AD&D in 5E.

 

[Salamandyr]

This article has reiterated to me why Basic was never going to be something I wanted, it's fine for some boardgame-like set. But playing a long-term campaign with lots of role-playing and story is something that clearly falls within Standard to Advanced rules.

Now see I'm the exact opposite. If we're gonna sit around doing a beer and pretzels shoot em up, then complicated rules with lots of fiddly bits is all kinds of fun. If I want a long running campaign with deep roleplaying and complicated stories, I want as few rules as possible, because I don't want the rules to get in the way of the stories we're telling.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Nothing to be concerned about. Mike understands the need for the basic game. A few internet complainers won't change that.

I am so glad, that there is someon in charge, who has a vision about the game and does not react too much to nerdrage!

 

[Sunseeker]

I couldn't disagree more. 5 Or 6 Rooms, with 3 simple 5 minute battles and one 15 minute battle leaves half an hour of exploration. Easy, quick and fun.

I know peoples tastes differ, but my concern is that such a thing might be too quick. Each battle takes 5 minutes, with 5 players(lets include the DM in this for simple math) that gives one minute per player. Choice must both be incredibly simple(I hit it with a sword! or: I shoot a magic missile!) and incredibly limited. I just wander if paring down the system that much might make it too easy, too quick, and less fun. I'm not saying every battle needs to be an incredible, challenging, drawn-out fight with clever tactics and so forth, but if fights are so quick, and so immemorable as to be forgotten quickly, what was the point other than filler?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm not saying every battle needs to be an incredible, challenging, drawn-out fight with clever tactics and so forth, but if fights are so quick, and so immemorable as to be forgotten quickly, what was the point other than filler?

If the fight is immemorable and forgotten... that's more probably the fault of the DM than the system.

ANY fight of any length can be the greatest thing ever or a complete waste of time depending on how it is run. And after all... this is the reason to HAVE the additional levels of complexity. So that if BECMI 5E doesn't do it for you... you can add in the more complex stuff.

 

[Sunseeker]

If the fight is immemorable and forgotten... that's more probably the fault of the DM than the system.

ANY fight of any length can be the greatest thing ever or a complete waste of time depending on how it is run. And after all... this is the reason to HAVE the additional levels of complexity. So that if BECMI 5E doesn't do it for you... you can add in the more complex stuff.

Ugh, pardon me while I go puke at the thought of BCEMI DDN.

See, that's what really bugs me about DDN, it doesn't feel like Wizards is actually trying to make a more unified edition that draws from all the things people liked in the past and eliminates most of the things people hated. It feels like Wizards is making a great big make-up edition, the edition that will say "We're sorry!" to all their past fans.

But this is why I hate saying fights should take X or Y amounts of time. Fights should take exactly as long as they take. Because there's absolutely, 100% NO reason to even have a fight if there's no going to be some value in it. This is why MMOs have moved away from hallways filled with "trash" mobs to more boss-fight centric design. Why have a fight if for no other reason than to have a fight? It's a pointless waste of time.

Fights should serve a purpose, they're a gating mechanic, they make you use resources, they test your coordination, your raw power. If you walk into a room, crack a few kobold heads without expending any real effort and then walk into the next room, what was the point?

And the flip-side of "quick fights" means "deadly combat" and we shouldn't be using the length of a fight as a measure of how deadly it is. Sure that kobold only has 10 health, but you only have 15 and he hits for avg 12 points per hit. I don't enjoy systems that value lucky dice rolls over everything else. Rolling dice is fun, but being at the whims of the dice and feeling like a random number generator has more control over your character than you do is not.

You're right that good fights can be quick, and good fights can also be long based on a lot of variables. THAT is what we should be emphasizing, GOOD fights, fights with meaning, fights that serve a purpose. I don't want the idea that appropriate-challenge enemies should not be a challenge, to get lost in the desire for "speed". Fewer fights will be more enjoyable with greater meaning and purpose than more fights with less.

....well dang that was longer than I expected.

 

[Rune]

Basically, I like everything I've read, this time. I find the idea of having different classes of the basic game add a skill die to certain ability checks based on the class an interesting way to keep basic characters on (close to) the same level as more advanced characters that actually have skills. In theory. I do think it would be more interesting to give the player a choice at character creation which ability uses the bonus.

Sure, it's easy for the GM to make up a ruling on the fly, but your average GM is mediocre at providing statistically-balanced rulings for complex stuff like this.

Like, if you want to jump off a ledge and tackle a ghoul so your wizard buddy can get away from it safely, one GM might say, "Sounds hard. Dexterity check to aim the jump, then attack roll to hit. You take damage from falling and he gets a Strength save to remain standing." Another might say, "Sounds cool. Okay, he gets a Strength save to remain standing, and you deal unarmed strike damage to him. No attack roll required."

One rewards creativity, the other punishes it. Having a few examples of crazy maneuvers only takes up a single page, it reminds players to do stuff other than just Press the Sword Button, and it helps ensure that people aren't disgruntled when their GM's rulings don't yield fun results.

On the subject of adjudication, I think what you have described is more feature than bug. A system that allows more flexibility in adjudication also allows the DM more flexibility in establishing a game style. As for worries about not holding the hands of mediocre DMs--let's face it: mediocre DMs will be mediocre with any amount of hand-holding. However, practice at fair and consistent adjudication is the quickest and soundest way to train a mediocre DM into a good one.

That said, it would be great to have some solid advice and examples on how to do so and on how to listen to the players (especially when they are talking among themselves) to determine what kind of game they want to play.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Fights should serve a purpose, they're a gating mechanic, they make you use resources, they test your coordination, your raw power. If you walk into a room, crack a few kobold heads without expending any real effort and then walk into the next room, what was the point?

Depends on the group, but...

It could be just fun to beat a few kobold skulls.

Those kobolds might be more set dressing -- the "real gameplay" lies elsewhere.

The PC's get to show off their powers and abilties.

They could be a small part of the massive kobold tribe and the party is fighting a war of attrition against them, being the terror that haunts their dreams and the bogeymen who momma kobolds tell their hatchlings will come and take them in the night.

Etc.

Not that it's a good idea for all combats to be like that, but they have their purpose.

THAT is what we should be emphasizing, GOOD fights, fights with meaning, fights that serve a purpose

Fight length does not determine this.

If you design for quick fights and allow for longer fights, you'll capture a more casual crowd while being able to satisfy the more refined tastes of the hardcore later.

If you design for longer fights and allow for quicker fights, you're only going to capture the hardcore, because the casual are going to walk away before they're going to tinker with the system.

Good fights and meaningful fights can be quick, so by default, they should be. You can always turn up the dial if that seems weak sauce for your particular play-style.

 

[Rune]

Oh, yes. I forgot to mention how excited I am to see that they're considering a one-hour session as a baseline in the basic rules. Finding time to get everyone together for a whole evening can be challenging, nowadays, and I anticipate being able to use this baseline to get a lot more gaming in.

And, really, I remember plenty of great lunch periods (half an hour each) during high-school (way back in the day!) spent playing quick sessions of D&D. That became much harder later, with 3.X, because of the prep, and with 4e, because of the tight focus on tactics.

I very much look forward to being able to take my D&D in smaller bites!

 

[Blackbrrd]

I recently looked at the essentials version of the Rogue, Wizard and so on, and I must say that I liked what I saw. About half my players would enjoy simpler, but strong characters instead of fiddly characters they have problems wrapping their head around. That they are taking this concept further in DnD Next looks like a good idea. (They also made the "mage" build of the Wizard more like the previous versions of the Wizard and I think it will grow on me.

I do think they are taking the "we can fix the math later" too far and that they have to start fine tuning it 6 - 12 months before launch if they want to get it right for launch, instead of 6-12 months after launch like with 4e. If they had done it right, we wouldn't need expertise feats and a bunch of feats adding to defences like we do in 4e today.