D&D 5E Legend Lore says 'story not rules' (3/4)

[MichaelSomething]

Since we have very little to go on as to what this column actually means, I'm going to focus on the idea that "Precise Shot bad, Archer good."

But what if I wanted to be a knife thrower? Precise shot would be useful for me but how would "Archer" be useful for me?

 

[gyor]

Any one else notice this was released two days early? Its dated for the fourth, but its only the 2nd.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

"Bounded accuracy" covers for a lot of other design mistakes, at least if done reasonably well. That is, you can handle the "sweet spot" in D&D via the 4E route of having the numbers scale within a framework that keeps them in proportion--or you can say, "toss the scaling, the important thing is to have the sweet spot be there all the time--so use something like the early D&D 5th to 9th level numbers or close to them."

The hard part has always been how you flavor and manage the exceptions--such as 1st level wimps (as desired by some) or powerful high level-wizards (as desired by some). You could somewhat fairly characterize the problems in 2E and 3E as letting the flavor and exceptions wag the core design too much. I suppose the flip side of that argument is that some would say that 4E tied the flavor tail to a splint to keep it from wagging the core design at all.

Now, the question of what is popular and sells is pertinent and related but ultimately separate. That's one of the reasons why we collectively keep having such strong disagreements about these things: The differences in what people prefer (or think they prefer) as a fun game versus what they think will sell (or will produce a gravy train they can jump onto themselves) versus what actually works.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

The hard part has always been how you flavor and manage the exceptions--such as 1st level wimps (as desired by some) or powerful high level-wizards (as desired by some). You could somewhat fairly characterize the problems in 2E and 3E as letting the flavor and exceptions wag the core design too much. I suppose the flip side of that argument is that some would say that 4E tied the flavor tail to a splint to keep it from wagging the core design at all.

This is one of the things that I really liked about 4e, and it ties into another of the things I liked - that flavour is explicitly *not* tied to the mechanics. The mechanics suggest flavour, but don't define it. This leads to a situation where it can even suggest multiple different flavours/interpretations. This, to me, is a very desirable aspect of the game, and one which simply tacking on a "tactical" module won't be able to accomplish on its own.

The very fact that most of the "address a 4e playstyle" commentary is usually summed up with "add tactical support/complexity/minis" just serves to illustrate for me just how much people are missing in the full spectrum of the 4e experience. I get that not everybody likes the element of fixed crunch/negotiable fluff that I named in the last paragraph, as there have been long and heated debates about the merits of that approach or lack thereof, but the fact remains that it's something that won't be easily recaptured for those of us who do actively want it (or require it, post-4e) simply by adding a "tactical" module. To me the tactical element is secondary to the rest of the design philosophy inherent to 4e.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think we do understand our own preferences and alot of the attempts I see to "clarify" other peoples' opinions about mechanics in many of these edition wars are really more manipulative than anything else (even if they are not deliberately so). I just find the attitude of "you don't really know what you want" dismissive. I mean I have been playing the game since 1986, played countless other role playing games, and like a lot of other gamers, designed my own mechanics and thought hard about what I like and why. Just because we disagree on some fundamental things, doesn't mean I am misguided about my own taste.

Which is EXACTLY the reaction I'm talking about... I'm not belittling anyone. In fact I'm sure that you know what bothers you. The question is whether the underlying cause of that is the obvious one or not. Really, consider, if you had a different set of powers in 4e (and 4e in its exact form doesn't obviously have to be what we're talking about here of course, but roughly speaking) then what? Suppose you have 18 levels and a power every other level, named and arranged as spells like 2e spells (for whatever relevant class). Now suppose you have a set of powers that work quite differently and give you a fighter. Now are you objecting to this because it is intrinsically a bad design just because the numbers and levels of the these powers are all the same? Or is it just because it isn't quite like what Dave, Gary and Rob and Co happened to come up with in their basements in 1974?

 

[Libramarian]

Leaving aside for a moment whether or not it's good for the rules of the game, it seems like it would be bad for the sales of the game. This is a 180 on how Wizards has handled the D&D game line since the launch of 3.0. The intent with that release was to let 3rd party publishers produce the lion's share of settings and adventures because market research showed those products, while often helpful for a game, didn't sell as well as character options. Has that changed in the last decade and a half?

I don't think "put our emphasis on story" means they're planning to publish a lot of expensive settings and adventures.

What might be going on is they're setting their sights really low for profits from the actual RPG, maybe even considering it a sort of loss leader for the boardgames/novels/videogames/etc. Under this interpretation what "emphasis on story" means is they don't want to spend much money on crunchy stuff that is unique to the RPG and doesn't translate to other expressions of the brand. (you don't see Drizzt saying "I use Twin Strike!!")

I don't mind that idea. I'm not into the splat treadmill and if the system is simple enough then 3pps can produce settings/adventures regardless of what happens on the OGL/licensing front. I've noticed that some OSR publishers don't bother using the OGL anymore.

If they must pick one, then they must be honest with us and stop lying about 5E being for everybody.

I wouldn't mind them saying something like "if you only really like one edition of the game, then 5e is unlikely to be better for you than that one edition"

 

[Warbringer]

You refluff the background to be with knives, not a bow, and call it knife thrower...

seems to be a fine approach in 4e, or is that not allowed because this is 5e?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Which is EXACTLY the reaction I'm talking about... I'm not belittling anyone. In fact I'm sure that you know what bothers you. The question is whether the underlying cause of that is the obvious one or not. Really, consider, if you had a different set of powers in 4e (and 4e in its exact form doesn't obviously have to be what we're talking about here of course, but roughly speaking) then what? Suppose you have 18 levels and a power every other level, named and arranged as spells like 2e spells (for whatever relevant class). Now suppose you have a set of powers that work quite differently and give you a fighter. Now are you objecting to this because it is intrinsically a bad design just because the numbers and levels of the these powers are all the same? Or is it just because it isn't quite like what Dave, Gary and Rob and Co happened to come up with in their basements in 1974?

I would need to see the powers and game and play it to make a decision. But I am not fankly clear on what you are proposing here.

I have already offered my explanations of what I like and dont like in other threads with you. clearly you have already reached own conclusions about the underlying causes of my opinions. I dont think these lines of questions are done in good faith as this demonstrates. It is all about pinning me to a position to prove I really like 4E and I am just a crusty grognard who lives and breathes by the gospel of Gary (which is very much not the case by the way).

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

You refluff the background to be with knives, not a bow, and call it knife thrower...

seems to be a fine approach in 4e, or is that not allowed because this is 5e?

That will entirely depend on a few things:

(1) Sufficient mechanical flexibility to allow this to work
(2) Sufficient options to make this a mechanically viable alternative
(3) Sufficient DM advice in the books making it clear that this is allowed/supported/encouraged

Item number 3 was a huge sticking point with some players and DMs near the end of the 3.x era, and still is in some circles. I'm not saying that it's wrong to dislike the approach, but if the books don't support it you will get a lot of folks who may disallow it out of hand. Not a terribly satisfying solution to someone who really wants to play a "knife thrower" if no other options exist to cover it. This is one of the things I think 4e did right - expressly allowing reflavouring/refluffing and leaving it mostly in the player's hands where it concerns their characters.

I can't speak directly to the other two criteria because we just don't have enough of the game in front of us yet. Item 1 is the easiest criteria to satisfy, depending on how things are worded. Item 2 will depend on the other two items for support. In order to be viable, and a real choice, the option involved should not "gimp" the PC for the player having made said choice.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't disagree with any of the details of your statement, but I'm not sure I agree with the ultimate conclusion. Many of the 3e balance problems were, as you say, build deeply into the system, but many are fundamental design elements -- not just products of the multitude of options. To pick some examples: Cleric and Druid had a bunch of stacking bonus spells that allowed them to outfight Fighters straight out of the PHB. Wizards advanced in number of spells, the level of spells and the effectiveness of spells while scrolls and wands allowed them to bypass most of the limitations of a finite number of spells per day. Save and BAB numbers didn't work well with how multiclassing allowed you to stack level 1 bonuses. Polymorph magic lets PCs use the monster manual as a self-augmentation menu. These are fundamental problems to the system whether or not you add on a couple dozen splat books.

I agree that there's no way to solve these 3.x problems by hunting down unbalanced combos (except maybe by changing polymorph), but I don't see you couldn't create a new 3.x style game that solved them from the beginning. Will there be unbalanced combos after that? Sure, I'm sure there will be. Searching for unbalanced combos is part of what some people enjoy about the game. But I don't need a game that is safe from charop. I just want a game where I can let my less-sophisticated players choose their own powers without generating useless characters. (And frankly, it's not like 4e was all that good about that. You can get some pretty ineffective characters picking powers from PH1.)

IMHO 4e IS that "new 3.x style game that solved them". It is exactly that game that I hankered for when I read and played 3e and said to myself "ouch, this has big problems, lets go play some X".

I also think the lessons WotC designers learned from managing powers can be imported into D&DN. Spells can be balanced across classes and levels in the same way that powers were. Yes, it's harder to try that with class abilities, but we've seen maneuvers as an effort in that direction. I don't think I can judge the whether WotC can balance non-spells until we're a little further along in the playtest.

Yeah, like I said in my response to Bedrockgames, I think the notion that it isn't possible to make an interesting set of classes from the same basic class mechanics is still not proven. Everyone acts like it is, but I don't agree with them. That leads to my questioning why we have different mechanics for fighters, etc. Sure, I can't prove its never going to be possible to make them balance with spells, but I am advancing that proposition, and I don't see any evidence to contradict it. I see a lot of examples of people TRYING to do similar things and failing. Why not at least try to establish from a proven working balanced starting point that classes and powers can be made that DO work well for more people? Mike and Co took one cut at it and gave up. I'm just not impressed with that, lol.

I don't know. I've read those threads and I play 4e now. But I don't view those characteristics as being "superficial or trivial." I think those (along with - at least in theory - skill challenges) are primary characteristics of 4e play.

Yeah, I'm not sure exactly what I was trying to say there. I don't think they are exactly trivial or superficial either. I think agenda is the most important thing though. I don't dwell over on The Forge sucking up Ron Jeremy 'wisdom' but there are a lot of people here whom I have read a lot of posts from and tried things, and looked hard at how 4e worked, and my conclusion is that everything else really does follow from agenda. Few groups articulate theirs, but it is the core thing, and DDN's agenda is simply not mine. It isn't that the other stuff is trivial, it is just a consequence of that fundamental thing. The mechanical structure and 'flavor' of the game grow out of it. So the existence of some few isolated things that resemble 4e things but in the context of a game that uses them for entirely different purposes doesn't make that game like 4e in any deep way.

For my game, 4e provided a fun tactical subgame, encounter-based resources, easier DM prep and a bunch of new fluff (that I picked and chose from, but mostly didn't use). It also solved a number of 3.x problems that were driving me nuts, but it also slowed down combat as my less sophisticated players began taking longer and longer to re-read their character sheets before every combat round.

-KS

I don't think the presentation and some of the content of 4e are the greatest, nor do I think it is the last word in how a game's mechanics should be set up. I would LOVE to see it iterated on to produce a better game. Which is exactly why in the final analysis DDN really does nothing for me, it is in no way shape or form that game. That is a game WotC can sell me. I think they could have sold it to a lot of people if they did it right. It is pretty much moot at this point anyway.