D&D 5E 2/25/2013 L&L: This Week in D&D

[pemerton]

some people enjoy other ways to play and that "fixing" a perceived problem, creates another problem for another group of people.

A quick example may be because the players actively sought out comfortable lodging and rest they regain all their HP overnight. Another example might be they players chose not to bring along camping equipment and bedrooms and they ground was wet and uncomfortable so they don't recover any HP that night.

So you're arguing for a de facto resource cost for time. I don't think that's a problem, but it's still very social contract-y, and anything social contract-y should be highlighted in the game rules. ("The game works best when you play it this way.")

I agree with TwoSix here, but I don't think that means I'm disagreeing with sheadunne.

"Roleplaying out" the resting time - and so the GM can make resting a cost via adjudicating weather and terrain, imposing wandering monsters, etc - is a way of turning time into a resource, via GM force.

I do much the same in my 4e game - the PCs are currently in the underdark, and they can't just take extended rests willy-nilly. They need to find safe housing (with their duergar allies, say) or conjure up a Hallowed Temple (which drains their ritual resources).

Because in 4e it doesn't matter much how often the PCs get extended rests, there is no need for the rules to talk about how to handle the timing of rests. But this is different in Next, because of the assymetric suites of resources across classes. Given that, TwoSix is right that the rules should call out the need for GM force. And they should also point out that, because this is GM force not really mediated via the mechanics, the GM needs to be careful to be seen as fair and reasonable, not abusive, by the players. (Otherwise social contract can be undermined.)

I suspect that Mearls thinks the fast healing is (at least potentially) a good basic set rule because he believes the ability for PCs to get going again after losing hit points is a better default mode of play than requiring multiple days rest to restore hit points without magical healing.

The view that you impute to Mearls doesn't make any sense, though, without some further understanding of what the passage of ingame time means, and why it matters.

If the rules treat that as self-evident, they will fail. When Gygax was writing his DMG he had the excuse that the whole enterprise was still fairly new. 30-something years later that excuse is gone, and we have excellent examples of RPG writing which can be simple and engaging and give the GM clear advice. (Moldvay Basic, Burning Wheel and Over the Edge are for me all standout examples here.)

 

[Balesir]

I can't argue with that except to say, good rules yes, bad rules no, and so far I'm not seeing consensus on either

I think the consensus problem comes about because there is no agreement on what the rules should be for. The vast majority of maxims for rule construction can only be conditionally imperative - "IF you want a game like this THEN you should design a rule like this". Very, very few maxims for rule writing are absolute imperatives ("you should ALWAYS do this" ). To form a conditional imperative, you have to know what type of result you want - and there is no consensus on that for D&D, even though some folk state things as if there was an "obvious" or "correct" aim for the game's design.

That's not to say that there aren't wrong ways to design the rules. Some are self-defeating or just irrelevant/meaningless. But until the designers of the new rule set actually decide what the rules are for, we're just flailing about in the dark - and the inevitable consequence will be an incoherent hodge-podge of rules, because different bits of the rules will be trying to achieve different things. I was kinda hoping the designers would have made clear what the aim and purpose of DDN was by now - but, if anything, it's getting less clear, not more.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I . But until the designers of the new rule set actually decide what the rules are for, we're just flailing about in the dark - and the inevitable consequence will be an incoherent hodge-podge of rules, because different bits of the rules will be trying to achieve different things. I was kinda hoping the designers would have made clear what the aim and purpose of DDN was by now - but, if anything, it's getting less clear, not more.

I think not being so laser focused though is what has made D&D's appeal in the past so broad. It was a bit of a hodge podge and that allowed for different kinds of gamers to see what they wanted in it. I make games that are pretty focused. And I think there is a place for focused design in the hobby, but there is definitely a narrowing of your potential customer base as you narrow the design. So I am not sure such an approach is the best choice for a game trying to be be king of the hobby.

 

[sheadunne]

I think the consensus problem comes about because there is no agreement on what the rules should be for. The vast majority of maxims for rule construction can only be conditionally imperative - "IF you want a game like this THEN you should design a rule like this". Very, very few maxims for rule writing are absolute imperatives ("you should ALWAYS do this" ). To form a conditional imperative, you have to know what type of result you want - and there is no consensus on that for D&D, even though some folk state things as if there was an "obvious" or "correct" aim for the game's design.

That's not to say that there aren't wrong ways to design the rules. Some are self-defeating or just irrelevant/meaningless. But until the designers of the new rule set actually decide what the rules are for, we're just flailing about in the dark - and the inevitable consequence will be an incoherent hodge-podge of rules, because different bits of the rules will be trying to achieve different things. I was kinda hoping the designers would have made clear what the aim and purpose of DDN was by now - but, if anything, it's getting less clear, not more.

I agree.I think we're seeing shifts up and down toward what I want and I'm sure everyone is in the same boat. One minute they say they have the core rules all but finished and the next we get posts about healing in the core rules, then we get another statement that seems to go in another direction. Sigh. Oh well, we're along for the ride even if it's in stormy weather.

 

[sheadunne]

I think not being so laser focused though is what has made D&D's appeal in the past so broad. It was a bit of a hodge podge and that allowed for different kinds of gamers to see what they wanted in it. I make games that are pretty focused. And I think there is a place for focused design in the hobby, but there is definitely a narrowing of your potential customer base as you narrow the design. So I am not sure such an approach is the best choice for a game trying to be be king of the hobby.

I agree with this as well. But I do think they're having difficulty focusing on any particular audience for any particular rule. I don't mind mismatch, but I'm not getting the feeling that it's deliberate.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I agree with this as well. But I do think they're having difficulty focusing on any particular audience for any particular rule. I don't mind mismatch, but I'm not getting the feeling that it's deliberate.

I have certainly been vocal about the things I feel they got wrong, but the point is they cant focus on any one audience in particular. If they do that they'll just be trading one narrow segment of the gaming community for another (i.e. they could gain old schoolers at the expense of 4e and 3E fans, or 3E players at the expense of old schoolers and 4E fans). The problem they face is, after 4E, the game encompasses so much, it is hard to do the hodge podge in a way that wont drive out some groups of people. And I think because of pathfinder's success they cant count on the return of 3E fans, they have to try to appeal to everyone. So they are in a tricky spot, with all sides bound to accuse the designers of "not getting it". I think they do in fact get it, but they are working within some really difficult design parameters (make it modern, but not too modern, please the 4E people, but dont anger the 3E people, gain back the old school gamers, but dont drive away the 4E players, keep the warlord, but without all the things that he had before, healing, etc). This is a project that everyone and his brother is just waiting to criticize. Plus peoples' jobs are on the line.

Sure, I am happy to voice my concerns, and sometimes I get a bit ornery about it even, but i keep tring to remind myself of the stress they must be under to produce the best game ever and the context they are working inside of. At the end of the day, Mearls gets my respect for even stepping up to the plate (even if it turns out Next isnt a game I play).

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I think the consensus problem comes about because there is no agreement on what the rules should be for. The vast majority of maxims for rule construction can only be conditionally imperative - "IF you want a game like this THEN you should design a rule like this". Very, very few maxims for rule writing are absolute imperatives ("you should ALWAYS do this" ). To form a conditional imperative, you have to know what type of result you want - and there is no consensus on that for D&D, even though some folk state things as if there was an "obvious" or "correct" aim for the game's design.

That's not to say that there aren't wrong ways to design the rules. Some are self-defeating or just irrelevant/meaningless. But until the designers of the new rule set actually decide what the rules are for, we're just flailing about in the dark - and the inevitable consequence will be an incoherent hodge-podge of rules, because different bits of the rules will be trying to achieve different things. I was kinda hoping the designers would have made clear what the aim and purpose of DDN was by now - but, if anything, it's getting less clear, not more.

I agree, wholeheartedly. There are far too many posters on here stating their opinions on the direction of the game as though there is a "correct" way to proceed. The only correct way there is to proceed, as stated by their design goals for Next, is to include as many ways to play as possible, and that includes playstyles that I don't like.

That's great though, and I have no problem with that; different strokes and all that. But, for that to work, the playstyles that *I* prefer also need to be represented. There are folks that are calling for the kinds of things I prefer to *not* be included, which runs counter to the goals of the game, and is a pretty petty thing to advocate. Sadly, the design team seems to be listening to those folks more than their current-and-soon-to-be-former customer base.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I agree, wholeheartedly. There are far too many posters on here stating their opinions on the direction of the game as though there is a "correct" way to proceed. The only correct way there is to proceed, as stated by their design goals for Next, is to include as many ways to play as possible, and that includes playstyles that I don't like.

That's great though, and I have no problem with that; different strokes and all that. But, for that to work, the playstyles that *I* prefer also need to be represented. There are folks that are calling for the kinds of things I prefer to *not* be included, which runs counter to the goals of the game, and is a pretty petty thing to advocate. Sadly, the design team seems to be listening to those folks more than their current-and-soon-to-be-former customer base.

I think the issue here is lots of peoples' playstyles are in conflict and it is going to be very difficult to balance out in a system (or example you have groups that want symmetry/parity among classes and those who want assymetry, squaring those two expecations is going to be tough). You have people who insist on vancian casting and people who insist on nonvancian. you have folks demanding sacred cows and folks burning sacred cows. the spectrum is so wide now that accomodation of one preference is seen as a reudiation of another. What I see is both sides cheering when they get what they want, but jeering when they dont. I expect it will not get any better when the game itself is released (i imagine we are in for a revisit of the edition wars that followed 4E).

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I think the issue here is lots of peoples' playstyles are in conflict and it is going to be very difficult to balance out in a system (or example you have groups that want symmetry/parity among classes and those who want assymetry, squaring those two expecations is going to be tough). You have people who insist on vancian casting and people who insist on nonvancian. you have folks demanding sacred cows and folks burning sacred cows. the spectrum is so wide now that accomodation of one preference is seen as a reudiation of another. What I see is both sides cheering when they get what they want, but jeering when they dont. I expect it will not get any better when the game itself is released (i imagine we are in for a revisit of the edition wars that followed 4E).

I don't doubt that they are in for a challenge - that has never been disputed. But they stated their design goals right from the outset, and I will hold them to it. If they fail to deliver, then they have only themselves to blame. If they happen to deliver a game that I am interested in, even if they've failed in their goal, I might buy it. If they don't deliver a game I am interested in, then it means they've definitely failed, and I certainly won't buy it.

I am well aware of the massive differences in the preferences of individual groups. Heck, some groups will use different rules for different campaigns, and that's great. It should be an option. Not every gamer has preferences set in stone, even withing the genre of D&D. It certainly isn't as simple as one side versus the other, as you imply; it is a multi-faceted problem, and they have to treat it as such, which means it must be adaptable and option-rich, or it fails.

Despite the difficulty of their task, I am not convinced that they *cannot* deliver the experiences of every edition. I think it will be hard, but not impossible. Will they do it? That remains to be seen, but I will advocate for the things I want to see included, while doing my best to not disparage the wants of others. I'd like to see the same respect in kind, but it is a rare thing in these discussions.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't doubt that they are in for a challenge - that has never been disputed. But they stated their design goals right from the outset, and I will hold them to it. If they fail to deliver, then they have only themselves to blame. If they happen to deliver a game that I am interested in, even if they've failed in their goal, I might buy it. If they don't deliver a game I am interested in, then it means they've definitely failed, and I certainly won't buy it.

i think this is somewhat unreasonable and a bit harsh. Their design aims may have to adjust to facts on the ground. And they are just designing a game here.

I am well aware of the massive differences in the preferences of individual groups. Heck, some groups will use different rules for different campaigns, and that's great. It should be an option. Not every gamer has preferences set in stone, even withing the genre of D&D. It certainly isn't as simple as one side versus the other, as you imply; it is a multi-faceted problem, and they have to treat it as such, which means it must be adaptable and option-rich, or it fails.

i am not saying it is a two-sides issue, i am saying some preferences are in conflict with each other. I think the measure of its success or failure is how many players it can attract. If they produce a game that is less option rich but draws in more people than the previous edition, then I would call it a success.

Despite the difficulty of their task, I am not convinced that they *cannot* deliver the experiences of every edition. I think it will be hard, but not impossible. Will they do it? That remains to be seen, but I will advocate for the things I want to see included, while doing my best to not disparage the wants of others. I'd like to see the same respect in kind, but it is a rare thing in these discussions.

I think this is entirely reasonable. You should certainly advocate what you would like to see.