D&D 5E L&L: Exploration and Interaction

[GX.Sigma]

What in hell does this mean? I can't figure it out.

-----Each exploration scale has a set of actions, with overlap where appropriate. You don't navigate in dungeons since there are no rules for getting lost while using 1-minute exploration turns.

You don't get to navigate dungeons?

He means "rules for getting lost" in the sense that, when you're navigating a forest, you might go east when you think you're going north. That doesn't really happen in dungeon exploration--you don't turn left when you think you're turning right.

In other words: if you get lost while dungeon mapping, that's the players getting lost just as much as the characters. You don't need rules for that.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

One thing I wasn't keen on, though:
This sounds like a reaction to the Diplomacy skill being horribly broken in 3.5e, but it just doesn't feel right.

I think they have planned it so that there's a difference between short-term interaction and long-term interaction. It's mentioned in the article that an impressive Charisma check can still cause someone hostile to you to begrudgingly offer assistance, but afterwards they still won't like you. Maybe if you actually do something for them, complete a quest maybe, then you might bring them around to neutral. If you hit the right note too, that hostile NPC will be neutral temporarily (and later if you realise you've used their weakness). I quite like this setup because you can then, as a DM, track long-term attitudes without worrying about every interaction. I think it also provides the opportunity to distinguish nicely between bluffing, persuading and being diplomatic. If you bluff, and later this becomes apparent, that'll be a black mark against you and the NPC will slip down the scale (a long-term change scale would be nice in these rules, even if it's just 3 ticks and you change). If you are diplomatic, and you fulfill a promise, that'll be a white mark and the NPC will move up the scale. If you don't care to lie or promise something in return, you just want to be charming, it'll have no long-term effect.

 

[Klaus]

I'm liking it! I want to try these new rules modules.

With the spelling out of tasks during exploration, the rules packet created cool new niches that the characters can try and fit into (or even be created around).

It also allow you to make a Moria-type dungeon, with hour-long turns sprinkled with minute-long turns when the characters find something like Balin's Tomb.

 

[MarkB]

I think they have planned it so that there's a difference between short-term interaction and long-term interaction. It's mentioned in the article that an impressive Charisma check can still cause someone hostile to you to begrudgingly offer assistance, but afterwards they still won't like you. Maybe if you actually do something for them, complete a quest maybe, then you might bring them around to neutral.

I thought the Magistrate example given in the article illustrated this concept well. You have an NPC who starts out neutral, but depending upon his traits, the approach the PCs use may make him either friendly or hostile.

That means that a group who do their research on a target and know his traits can choose an approach which may improve their chances. Sometimes it'll alter his attitude, other times it may just provide a modifier to their check.

But either way, the choice is left in the DM's hands - he doesn't have to make an NPC behave out-of-character just because a PC pours on the charm. And equally, if a player comes up with a really good idea for an approach that will influence a character, the DM can decide to let it change that character's attitude, and then even if the player's character isn't the best talker, he's still starting out from a better position and will likely achieve at least some good result.

 

[Lizard]

From my reply on the actual WOTC board:
This sounds good. I admit I wince every time I read the word "simplify", because that usually translates to "punt all the work to the DM" in WOTC-speak, but it seems you're using the term here to mean 'apply more structure so the rules start to work together'. I like the structured interaction as an adjunct to roleplay. It's how I tend to run things in GURPS and WoD, where there's specific tags and traits you can quantify for NPCs, and use them as guidelines when interpreting an NPCs reaction to a player's roleplaying and their character's interpersonal skills. Common sense works for the "easy" cases ("No, the captain of the guard won't let you see the king for a copper piece, are you insane? I don't care what your Diplomacy is."), but the rules aren't there for easy cases, they're there for the tipping point where there's not an "obvious" answer and there needs to be a resolution mechanism beyond "what mood is the DM in right now". I'm glad the game design is, finally, drifting back into that direction. Hopefully, the advanced rules will add even more detail for those of us who like it.

I'm also very pleased to see that you're talking about how to tie game mechanics into character abilities and suchlike. This is very, very, important, as until now, pretty much the only really quantified parts of the game were those involved with gutting orcs, which means the only character options tended to be "How well do I gut orcs?" This is positive step.

 

[Texicles]

I dig it.

I'll +1 concerns that 1-hour turns for long-distance, encounter-light travel could get tedious, but I think that it'd be easy enough to fudge something for those situations if need be. After reading the first iteration of exploration rules, my concern was the supposition that you were as likely to have a random encounter in a day as in an hour, so I can't be too upset about that being addressed (in some fashion anyway).

As for a mechanical interaction system, I'm most enthusiastic. I am fundamentally a lazy person. As such, if I can look at an NPC's block and quickly discern some important parameters for interaction, and avoid making a decision that yields unintended consequences later, I'll be delighted. I also like that it avoids the cases where players get something from interaction that's unreasonable because of strong dice and vice versa.

Finally, the idea of integrating interaction and (especially) exploration into monsters is outstanding. It's the sort of thing that can be baked right in, instead of requiring me (and my fundamental laziness) to have thought up an interesting and balanced way to work it in.

New playtest packet nao plz, kthxbai!

 

[Li Shenron]

It also allow you to make a Moria-type dungeon, with hour-long turns sprinkled with minute-long turns when the characters find something like Balin's Tomb.

This is exactly what I had in mind when I made the example of a cave complex. Explorations rules would be so much handy when the area to explore is very large but relatively scarce in interesting features, and even more so when the nature of the area would make precise mapping and detailing would be tedious (such as in a forest, in caves, or any other area where "everywhere looks almost the same"). Then, whenever the party stumbles upon an area of interest, the DM can "zoom in" to a smaller scale and time frame.

But 1-minutes turns are also very useful (although I would have expected more like 5-minutes, but it's not important) when you are in a traditional dungeon, particularly to avoid situations like the Rogue having to guess the exact spot of traps, then failing to do so 2-3 times because of not asking to check, then becoming pissed off and wanting to check every single 5ft square of ground before walking over it... This is typically the result of having only detailed rules which work on the extremely low scale.

 

[gyor]

I figure a new packet can't be that far if thier on polish, feats, and Subclasses.

 

[Dausuul]

I really like the approach for interaction. It's a good way to incorporate both roleplaying and social skills. Roleplaying determines the NPC's basic attitude toward your proposal, setting the parameters of what a good roll or a bad roll can get you. Then you roll and see which it is.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I think simplifying down to just 1 minute and 1 hour intervals is a smart move, because it allows the rules to focus on the differences between short and long range travel. I don't think it even takes an experienced DM to alter the actual interval if something else fits better. The cave example is a good one. Another might be making the overland interval a day long when traveling great distances. The rest of the framework stays the same. A small sidebar about this topic should be all that's needed.