Legends & Lore: Roleplaying in D&D Next

[JamesonCourage]

This conversation is interesting because to me the entire point of playing a TTRPG with a DM is to adjudicate out of the box ideas. The instant that I have to pick from a list of options is the instant I get bored with the game. The attraction of D&D, back when I started playing, was that I could try anything, provided I played my character. When my Dex 10 paladin fell off the rope he tried to swing from, I didn't complain. He had a Dex of flippin' 10. That's, at best, a 50/50 proposition. And it made a great story as the party tried to hold off the Green Dragon long enough to let me get back to my feet.

This exact scenario could happen with codified rules, too. And, in fact, stuff like this has happened in my games (and, I imagine, at many other tables as well), which has codified rules for many, many things.

But, I do like the idea of codified guidelines for on-the-fly stuff, like a more official and hammered out Page 42 (from 4e). That way players can kind of get a sense of what their characters can do, and make informed decisions. But that's just my preference. As always, play what you like

 

[JonWake]

I think that when I play, as well as when I run, I want the rules to fall into the background as much as humanly possible. I'd much rather have the rules on improvising be general (do a stat check, maybe some extra random elements) than have a set expected damage, expected to hit, expected to save. The rules on the character sheet are, for me, the reliable bits. As a fighter in Next, I know that I can drop roughly x amount of damage in a fight, I can take y hits, and I am vulnerable to z magic effects. Likewise, with backgrounds, I know that my Artisan will have a minor get out of jail free card.

When the player improvises, I want to specifically get away from treating the rules as the primary interaction point and start treating the fiction as the primary interaction point. It is also a way to circumvent a DM, and this is a good thing. This is why there's a DM at all. It goes back to the Combat as Sport/War divide. If there are expected outputs based upon level and play balance, like with page 42, the players are actually disempowered. The smartest, most clever idea ends up having the same effect as pushing the Daily Power button. The players learn that it's always better to push that button, because there is no risk. Improvising in the game is accepting a large risk for a larger reward.

When a player is improvising, to me, that's when they're actually playing the game. That's when they're treating the fictional world as 'real'. That's when there is no asinine divide between 'fluff' and 'crunch', there's just a bunch of people saying 'you're going to try what?!?'

The problem there is that you have to be able to adjudicate that situation on the fly. Having solid system back up never hurts there, and is a huge help, but I think it needs to be tied to the world, not the needs of balanced math. Improvising should be unbalanced.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not entirely sure "exhaustive" is what I'd call Marvel Heroic.

<snip>

all I can figure out about the game is that it's a dice adding game with a story attached.

Being Wolverine doesn't actually give you any benefits at all. Your claws don't do extra damage to enemies compared to people without them. Your regeneration doesn't have any real effect over someone's forcefield.

<snip>

The mechanics are so disconnected from the story they create that they don't seem to have any relationship at all.

This reminds me very much of similar comments I've seen posted about 4e, and in my view is mistaken for the same reason: it's not having regard to how the mechanics are actually intended to be used by those who are using them.
[MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION], upthread, used the notion of "fiction first", and MHRP is definitely this: you frame the scene and the action first, and then build a dice pool that reflects that. Your various traits and SFX support the building of that dice pool.

Wolverine's claws help him do damage compared to others, because when he builds a dice pool to attack he gets to add a d10 for his claws; whereas (say) the Punisher only gets to add a d8 for his guns. But the question of whether a given weapon can be brought to bear in the situation will already have been determined via the scene-framing (ie fiction first): for instance, if the enemy is flying, the Punisher can declare an attack, but Wolverine is going to have to find some way to get closer to the flying target.

As @Vyvyan Baterd pointed out, Wolverine's claws also allow doing damage on a reaction (because people hurt themselves punching his adamantium skeleton), and Wolverine's regeneration allows him to use his Stamina to recover large amounts of physical stress during an Action Scene.

A forcefield is quite different - it provides Durability. Complaining that a forcefield and (say) Colossus's armoured body are both mechanically similar is like complaining that, in D&D, a shield, a suit of armour and a ring of protection all grant AC bonuses. D&D doesn't distinguish mechanically between armour protection and shield protection (contrast Runequest or Rolemaster, which do) and MHRP doesn't distinguish mechanically betweeen a forcefield, a normal field (like Captain America) or a tough skin/skeleton.

If you didn't get these things from reading the rules, you might need to re-read them.

The problem isn't that there's nothing interesting planned on a failed Diplomacy check. It's that a skill challenge has a distinct structure. You must succeed in, say, 12 successful checks before you "succeed". Often, it is hard to find an excuse within the game to even make that many checks.

The problem is exactly that the GM has nothing interesting planned on a failed Diplomacy check, and has therefore framed the challenge wrongly - ie as requiring 12 successes (and therefore as many as 14 rolls) when the GM doesn't have 13 interesting developments to narrate during the unfolding of the challenge.

If the GM can't think of anything interesting to narrate, then s/he shouldn't be framing a challenge at that level of complexity.

In practicality, skill challenges just couldn't be done without it feeling "out of place" beyond a certain complexity level. You couldn't have a skill challenge to "convince the king" of something that required 12 successes because play degraded into continually rolling diplomacy checks. None of the other skills had a very logical reason to be used in this circumstance and any attempt to use other skills always seemed like a leap of logic and that the player was trying too hard.

If the GM wants to run "convince the king" as a complexity 5 challenge, s/he needs to have stuff in mind: like the king asking the PCs to demonstrate their prowess (might involve something other than Diplomacy); or their being some other party invovled (the PCs have to deal with some obstacle other than the king); or complications arising that rely on some other sort of knowledge to be addressed (the PCs have to make knowledge checks); etc.

Here is an example from my 4e campaign of what I have in mind.

 

[pemerton]

If there are expected outputs based upon level and play balance, like with page 42, the players are actually disempowered. The smartest, most clever idea ends up having the same effect as pushing the Daily Power button. The players learn that it's always better to push that button, because there is no risk.

I think this depends upon how easy it is to renew daily powers. Part of the reward of improvising is getting effects without expending resources.

 

[Cyberen]

[MENTION=95255]JonWake[/MENTION] : I agree with you concerning 4e auto-recharge rates : when something is granted, by the rules, it doesn't feel earnt. Concerning improv, though, if you don't have solid guidelines, the system starts breaking really fast : DM rulings are either inconsistent, consistently too generous with the players, or consistently too harsh. All 3 options erode the game in their own way... As you just pointed out, 4e improvising is subpar compared to power use, because it entails extra rolls. I feel a simple way to gain Advantage on these rolls (and the removal of "Powers") should provide a more satisfactory, but rather similar effect in a less constrained framework.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think that when I play, as well as when I run, I want the rules to fall into the background as much as humanly possible.

It varies for me, but I get where you're coming from.

When the player improvises, I want to specifically get away from treating the rules as the primary interaction point and start treating the fiction as the primary interaction point. It is also a way to circumvent a DM, and this is a good thing. This is why there's a DM at all.

I think the GM is there to run the game, not necessarily make up rules / rulings. Run the NPCs, define the setting, create events. Some people like to progress plots, or even railroad players (and some players even like this). The GM has tons to do that isn't making up rules / rulings, as far as I'm concerned.

It goes back to the Combat as Sport/War divide. If there are expected outputs based upon level and play balance, like with page 42, the players are actually disempowered.

I disagree. More on that below.

The smartest, most clever idea ends up having the same effect as pushing the Daily Power button. The players learn that it's always better to push that button, because there is no risk.

Now you're mixing in daily powers with page 42. I never even mentioned the AEDU power scheme.

Improvising in the game is accepting a large risk for a larger reward.

When the players have little idea what the resolution method is, there is going to be a big risk in announcing that action. I think the players are empowered by knowing rough statistical outcomes of proposed actions, since it lets them make informed decisions about the actual risk vs reward. So, to me, something like codified rules usually equates to player empowerment.

When a player is improvising, to me, that's when they're actually playing the game. That's when they're treating the fictional world as 'real'. That's when there is no asinine divide between 'fluff' and 'crunch', there's just a bunch of people saying 'you're going to try what?!?'

Again, I'm not sure how this can't apply to game mechanics. I tried pretty hard to match all my "crunch" with the "fluff" in my RPG. Improvising is fun. I don't prep my games, so I even enjoy it as a GM. But, I don't see how avoiding the rules somehow equals "they're treating the fictional world as 'real'." My players treat "the fictional world as 'real'" while using the rules that are codified.

The problem there is that you have to be able to adjudicate that situation on the fly. Having solid system back up never hurts there, and is a huge help, but I think it needs to be tied to the world, not the needs of balanced math. Improvising should be unbalanced.

I don't mind combat being unbalanced. Hell, I'm a huge proponent whole of non-combat classes. I've had players play scholars and craftsman with no combat ability, and they had fun. I just like codified rules, as I feel that empowers my players since they can make informed decisions about risk vs reward. It's a personal preference.

I was just saying that I don't think you need to have loose rules (at best) in order to have a story like you mentioned about your paladin and the green dragon. That very thing can happen in my RPG, which has codified rules. You'd just know what your odds are. Not saying your preference is wrong, just saying that I don't think that experiences like the one you expressed are exclusive to your play style. As always, play what you like

 

[JonWake]

Well, there's a couple issues. You can have the improvisation rules be based on a generic metamechanic, like 4e. You can have very loose rules that may not have great fidelity, but are broadly applicable. Or you can go the other route, where there are many different rules for many different situations. Then you run into the problem of rules bloat, where each permutation of a situation has it's own set of rules behind them. I personally think that the strength of an RPG rules set, run by a person, is the capacity for abstraction.

 

[Balesir]

When the players have little idea what the resolution method is, there is going to be a big risk in announcing that action. I think the players are empowered by knowing rough statistical outcomes of proposed actions, since it lets them make informed decisions about the actual risk vs reward. So, to me, something like codified rules usually equates to player empowerment.

I concur very much with this. When I do things in the real world, I rely on a constant stream of information, feedback and cues from personal interaction and body language to what I see others try or do and what I try myself. I am constantly doing the things that I might rely on in a crisis situation, but in low stakes, often trivial situations that an RPG would never bother to model. For example, take jumping. When I walk in daily life, whether it be in the country or down the street on a rainy day, I might make several little, low-stakes jumps over puddles or bits of boggy ground. The stakes are really low - usually the worst I could get if I fail is a wet foot - but it gives me frequent and useful feedback to be internalised. This feedback will inform my view of a really high-stakes, tricky jump, should I ever need to make one (which I hope I don't!).

When I roleplay, my knowledge and understanding of the system substitute for that internalised knowledge. My character will very often have totally different capabilities than me - as would be only right for a professional adventurer - but the game system substitutes in a myriad little ways for the knowledge that I would expect every person - especially one who relies on knowing their own limitations and capabilities intimately - to have at their command.

When every rule and ruling is left to the GM, I find that one of three things happen:

1) The GM creates a rule system through consistent rulings and recorded norms and standards. This is like having a written system (after an initial period of flailing around), but it requires more work from both the GM and the players. As a player, constantly asking what the system is can be tedious and precludes me getting much character identification; as a GM I have sooo many things I would rather be spending my attention on...

2) The GM runs an internalised set of rules that amount to "the way s/he thinks the world actually works". This is inevitably wrong on several counts, since we are all unavoidably limited by our own experience and the model that human science has as a whole is still imperfect - and likely always will be. There's nothing wrong with that - it's just inevitable. The best a player can do with this is to try to discover what that model is and how it works. As a player this tends to be frustrating (in areas where you know the GM's model is wrong) and hard work. As a GM it's more pressure than I care for, unless I am being particularly heedless of my players' frustrations.

3) The GM responds to ideas s/he likes and rejects those s/he doesn't. The player does best by learning the GM's peccadilloes and pandering to them, combined with using as much charm and persuasive ability as they have available to them. There is nothing wrong with this style of play, as such, but it got old for me years and years ago. These days, as a player it bores me and as a GM I loathe it.

Overall, then, I would much prefer to have good, flexible, general rules that cover the most common situations expected in the game explicitly, and cover all other cases generically or via well defined structures that can be adapted on a case-by-case basis. Luckily, I already have several games that do this pretty well, and more seem to be coming along all the time.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think that when I play, as well as when I run, I want the rules to fall into the background as much as humanly possible. I'd much rather have the rules on improvising be general (do a stat check, maybe some extra random elements) than have a set expected damage, expected to hit, expected to save. The rules on the character sheet are, for me, the reliable bits. As a fighter in Next, I know that I can drop roughly x amount of damage in a fight, I can take y hits, and I am vulnerable to z magic effects. Likewise, with backgrounds, I know that my Artisan will have a minor get out of jail free card.

I can understand where you are coming from. But I have a simple follow-up question to that. Why in the name of the little black pig do you touch D&D with a ten foot bargepole? Every edition of D&D that there has ever been has been a relatively big and bulky game with a lot of special cases. Yes, that includes Brown/White Box D&D. And that's even before we get into the D&D magic system.

Seriously, you sound like someone who would really enjoy Dungeon World.

When the player improvises, I want to specifically get away from treating the rules as the primary interaction point and start treating the fiction as the primary interaction point. It is also a way to circumvent a DM, and this is a good thing. This is why there's a DM at all. It goes back to the Combat as Sport/War divide. If there are expected outputs based upon level and play balance, like with page 42, the players are actually disempowered.

This is false. If you take away my ability to estimate the outcome of my actions (which is one thing p42 gives me) then you disempower me, and insulate me from the fiction and understanding the world we are working in.

The smartest, most clever idea ends up having the same effect as pushing the Daily Power button.

Um... no. Pushing the daily power button has a logistical cost. Improvising does not. So it's like getting the daily power effect without spending the resources. Which is pretty big. And you miss something huge. The key to great strategy is not to defeat the enemy, it's to make the enemy irrelevant. Daily powers work on defeating the enemy.

The players learn that it's always better to push that button, because there is no risk. Improvising in the game is accepting a large risk for a larger reward.

Again, false. If I wasn't willing to accept risk I wouldn't be an adventurer. As an adventurer I balance risks. And believe me, my characters take ones that leave the rest of the table shocked.

When a player is improvising, to me, that's when they're actually playing the game. That's when they're treating the fictional world as 'real'. That's when there is no asinine divide between 'fluff' and 'crunch', there's just a bunch of people saying 'you're going to try what?!?'

Indeed. But I don't know how much improv drama you've done. And I don't know whether you've watched Whose Line Is It Anyway. In an improv model, rules are props. Nothing more, nothing less. Props add a certain dynamic to improv - good and ill.

The problem there is that you have to be able to adjudicate that situation on the fly. Having solid system back up never hurts there, and is a huge help, but I think it needs to be tied to the world, not the needs of balanced math. Improvising should be unbalanced.

And the system used to adjudicate it should be balanced. With the imbalance coming from which toggles to select and what the improvisation actually does.

My players like the rules because it gives them a central point of reference that we all agree to abide by and even the DM is bound to. They like the rules specifically because it prevents me from setting the DC at 50 just to screw them and prevents me from setting it at DC 10 and softballing it for them.

This I'll agree with. My DC 25 tightrope example is mostly from discussions of D&D Next where you need to be ridiculously good to not fall off a tightrope; the mathematically best rogue I have been able to make, a thief acrobat with all possible feats and skill boosts still has a 1/8 chance of falling off a tightrope when not under additional pressure (taking 10 would only lower the odds).

Also, there is a good reason not to suddenly give a monster a power. Possible story/flavor reasons.

If those are the reasons why would you do it?

Even WOTC didn't know how to do it properly as was evident about the discussion we had in a Q&A panel a couple of years ago at GenCon where Mike Mearls said he was trying to find a solution to monsters with stuns being much more powerful than monsters without them.

That's Mike Mearls. The lead writer of Keep on the Shadowfell, Pyramid of Shadows, and Heroes of Shadow - or the worst two modules produced for 4e and the worst player side book. Plus "Stay away from stuns" is not exactly rocket science when improvising.

I honestly don't see any difference in the way that the Athletics skill for climb and Climb in 3e are presented. Both give you a list of DCs. The numbers are slightly different, but other than that, they both tell you what the DCs are to accomplish tasks. 4e lists less examples, so I suppose that gives a DM slightly more leeway, but they are really close to one another.

Most of it is the other set of DCs. The improv DC table.

 

[Sunseeker]

That's Mike Mearls. The lead writer of Keep on the Shadowfell, Pyramid of Shadows, and Heroes of Shadow - or the worst two modules produced for 4e and the worst player side book. Plus "Stay away from stuns" is not exactly rocket science when improvising.

Right, because he was looking at "monsters with stuns are too powerful" as the problem needing to be solved, when mechanically speaking, it is the stuns themselves and the player's ability to deal with them that is the root problem.

But there's a difference between "just giving your monster this random power" and "giving your monster a creative hombrewed power that fits it's style and use".