D&D 5E Final playtest packet due in mid September.

[Ahnehnois]

None of those games put one player in charge of coming up with new rules, mind you. So, there is no one person who has a vested interest in changing the rules to favor them.

In D&D, the DM is not a player, and does not have a vested interest in favoring himself. If anything, he has to lose repeatedly. In that way, he's more like a referee.

I like the idea of emergent story. Where the story comes out of what happens when you roll the dice and follow the rules. If the rules are changed on the fly, the story isn't emergent anymore.

I also like the idea of an emergent story, but that isn't true. For example, sometimes when I don't know what to do, I'll roll some percentiles. If I roll high, something good happens. If I roll low, something bad happens. There's no standardized or predefined outcome, but what happens is still something that is partially independent of my own judgment. I'm trusting in dice, not rules.

 

[billd91]

I like the idea of emergent story. Where the story comes out of what happens when you roll the dice and follow the rules. If the rules are changed on the fly, the story isn't emergent anymore.

I don't see how that would make it non-emergent. Wouldn't it just change a parameter or two under which the story emerges?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Where is that implication found?

It's implied, so it's not text, but subtext. In the conversation, that subtext is found in the idea that of course a barbarian is a better choice for a deadly adventure than a bard, because of course a barbarian is a hardier, tougher, better fighter than the bard, who might get killed more easily. If the combat encounter is the focus of the game, that's broadly true.

In D&D itself, that subtext can be found in the powers system, where the main source of character variety and interactivity is found. You have many, many, many different ways to kill monsters (or avoid being killed by them) in 4e D&D. Why would a 1st-level character require something like 7 different kinds of combat maneuvers (two at-wills, encounter, daily, melee basic, ranged basic, racial ability, plus perhaps theme powers)? The big reason I can think of is: so that you have a lot of options in combat, to keep combat interesting and changing and varied. Why not have that many options to, say, explore the dungeon? Well, because variety and player options are not as important there, because these things are not intended to be the focus of game-time, but rather brief changes of pace between the events that the rules are, in volume, dedicated to adjudicating.

4e was the example I held up, but you can see this at work in most editions of D&D. The list of things a player can do to influence combat often vastly exceeds the list of things a player can do in any other type of challenge.

Is your objection to 4e that it lacks a non-combat resolution system, or that some particular build elements are too strong?

If you're just seeing an objection to 4e there, you're looking too narrowly at the post. It ranges wide across the editions to criticize all of them for generally having unsatisfactory resolutions to challenges aside from combat (because "Convince The DM" is only ever as satisfactory as your given DM at the moment). 4e manifestly HAS a non-combat resolution system in Skill Challenges, and it's D&D's most robust formal system, but Skill Challenges lack much of the dimension that combat has.

And all that's ultimately a detour from the idea that a bard can contribute to the overall resolution of an adventure, without having to contribute to a particular combat encounter, if the adventure itself is the focus of the design, rather than a narrow focus on each encounter.

Battle should never be a situation where the Rogue leaps under the nearest table and hides until people stop fighting.

There's a big gulf between "can't contribute at all" and "can't contribute as much." Additionally, "can't contribute at all" might be OK for certain brief periods -- a turn or two when turns spin by 10 per real-world minute is not a bad thing, and you can remain engaged, knowing you'll be back in any moment. If combat eats up an hour, no, that's not acceptable, but if combat eats up more like 3 minutes? That's a different kind of conversation.

 

[pemerton]

It's implied, so it's not text, but subtext. In the conversation, that subtext is found in the idea that of course a barbarian is a better choice for a deadly adventure than a bard

But that idea isn't universally shared even within this thread. One poster asserts it; another denies it (neither subtextually or by implication, either - expressly in both cases!). I'd also deny it, because I've seen plenty of fantasy RPG PCs over the year who, in 4e terms, would be bards.

And all that's ultimately a detour from the idea that a bard can contribute to the overall resolution of an adventure, without having to contribute to a particular combat encounter, if the adventure itself is the focus of the design, rather than a narrow focus on each encounter.

I don't really see how this makes sense - at least in the case of the bard. A social encounter is still an encounter (as both Gygax and 4e note), so for the bard's social skills to win the day in an an adventure, the bard is going to have to be successful in particular social encounters.

In D&D itself, that subtext can be found in the powers system, where the main source of character variety and interactivity is found. You have many, many, many different ways to kill monsters (or avoid being killed by them) in 4e D&D. Why would a 1st-level character require something like 7 different kinds of combat maneuvers (two at-wills, encounter, daily, melee basic, ranged basic, racial ability, plus perhaps theme powers)? The big reason I can think of is: so that you have a lot of options in combat, to keep combat interesting and changing and varied. Why not have that many options to, say, explore the dungeon?

<snip>

4e was the example I held up, but you can see this at work in most editions of D&D. The list of things a player can do to influence combat often vastly exceeds the list of things a player can do in any other type of challenge.

<snip>

4e manifestly HAS a non-combat resolution system in Skill Challenges, and it's D&D's most robust formal system, but Skill Challenges lack much of the dimension that combat has.

There is in my view no doubt that 4e downplays exploration (but not lore). But that's pretty orthogonal to bards, who's main schticks are lore and social interaction.

Whether it's good or bad design to have more mechanically intricate combat than social mechanics is a vexed question - a lot of people, especially those of a more traditional D&D-playing stripe, seem hostile to uniform resolution mechanics of the Marvel Heroic RP or HeroWars/Quest variety. Even Burning Wheel has more convoluted melee combat resolution (Fight!) than social resolution (Duel of Wits, which is closer to a skill challenge).

But I don't think you can infer from the greater intricacy of combat resolution that all encounters are assumed to be combat - that would be a non sequitur for Burning Wheel, and likewise is for 4e, or for that matter Gygaxian D&D.

Exploration is a different matter, most relevant (in D&D) to rangers and rogues. The current next ranger looks incredibly boring to me, but maybe there's someone who prefers exploration to conflict - or at least doesn't mind exploration - and who loves the ranger.

 

[N'raac]

I was invited into a group some time around 1998-1999. In the time period ranging from roughly 1999-2002 or so, we went through several iterations of that group, running parallel games with different DMs and getting people together from throughout the area through references from friends. The total number of people I played with in those early days was on the order of a few dozen. Then, around 2002 or 2003, we created on firm group of around ten people, which went through a couple of changes in membership, but stayed mostly the same through 2004. Then, we disbanded. Then, around 2007 or 2008, a group of four of us from the old group reconvened. Then, one left and was replaced with a new member I hadn't played with before. That has been my group for four or five years.

As to DMs, I started somewhere between ten or twelve years ago, having played with only two DMs before that IIRC. I then pretty much took over, but tried to encourage a rotating DM policy; so probably have played under around ten DMs total.

Bottom line: variety, then consistency, with ten years ago being roughly the time when we settled down. Clear?

Seems like one group of players/GM's, which to me commonly results in a pretty consistent playstyle. Toss in a few players with experience outside that group and I suspect you would see more variety. Playstyles can often vary geographically as well, as the further out one goes, the more likely one is to encounter groups that have grown their style independent of the guys back home.

To be a bias, something has to actually be not true. I'm not saying that bards are uniformly silly, only that the concept does not lend itself to adventuring as well as the concepts behind most of the other classes.

In my view, you are biased to see them as such. The Bard need no more be Brave Sir Robin's minstrels than the Fighter need match Brave Sir Robin. The Nordic Skald and Scots Piper seem serious Bards made for adventures, off the top of my head. The Spellsinger novels are humorous, but the character type presented therein seems as competent and capable as his cohorts.

We had the optional Bard in 1e, and one of the most common requests for 2e was a Bard class starting from L1. We got that. It remained in 3e and 4e. Seems like some gamers, and some games, don't see Bards as being silly, or they would not remain a priority for inclusion. I maintain that you have a bias against the Bard class.

You're basically just accusing me of incompetence, which you don't have any basis for and still wouldn't if I gave you the full statblock and a rundown of what happened (which I'm not all that inclined to spend time on). Believe me, this was a pretty well designed opponent. There were some minor things here and there, but the bottom line outcome is what it is.

Went through this with a Dragon discussion a while back. It seems like any critique of your gamestyle will be perceived as a personal attack, so not much point having such a discussion, is there? I haven't looked at using a high level Witch as an opponent, so unlike the "why are there other spells at L4" Lich, I'm not really equipped to address how one would best be outfitted and deal with a group of opponents.

I suspect not getting in a direct confrontation where he has to deal with 4 or more attackers would be the best strategy for the Witch.

I do, however, have a graduate degree in my field, which as far as I know game designers do not.

First, I am aware of no such degrees in "Game Science", so I would agree. Second, acadamia and reality can be entirely different areas of skill - I say that as a member of a profession which requires a bachelor's degree as a prerequisite to our professional program, so over 25 or so years in that profession, I have seen a lot of very solid, high marks students fail out of "the real world".

And the publications I work on are subjected to peer review, which D&D is not.

Really? I doubt that the writer simply pens his manuscript and it is published without comment or change. I suspect, rather, that most are subject to reviews, playtests and rewrites, outside of the smallest endeavour. In fact, one writer who I believe would consider himself a "paid amateur" still has his writings reviewed and edited, and subjects them to several playtests.

So I think a description of "paid amateur" is pretty apt. It's not a bad thing per se; many of us wish we could make any money by working on our hobbies as amateurs. And most of them are probably relatively good amateurs. It just means that the pedestal that some people put game designers on isn't warranted.

Depending on where one draws the line, "paid amateur" could describe virtually any field. Is a university graduate an amateur or a professional? I get experienced practitioners coming to me for assistance in my area of specialization who, while seldom using the word "amateur", will certainly define themselves as a non-expert, or non-specialist, in my area of focus. I would not consider them amateurs. I would often consider them to underestimate their own skills.

Yes, but that work is spread out over time. Also, it's free, whereas game books are getting spendy.

Time is far from free if one has a career, a family and/or other responsibilities. I was a lot more willing to dedicate time to learning new systems and playing a lot more games when I was a student - now, my time is more precious.

I tend to find that trying a new system is quite straightforward for players, provided the GM has some familiarity and can guide them through it. For instance, a few weeks ago I GMed my 4e group through a session of Marvel Heroic RP - they chose PCs, I ran through the character sheets and rules, and then we played a session with two action scenes separated by a transition scene (writeup here).

In such cases, however, the players most definitely learn to play "The Pemerton Style of Game X", as the system comes filtered through your own perceptions and biases. Probably not a bad thing - the players you game with presumably have a liking for that style, or they would not be playing, especially under a mostly sight-unseen new system on your recommendation. But that doesn't mean other groups might not play the same game in a very different style.

In D&D, the DM is not a player, and does not have a vested interest in favoring himself. If anything, he has to lose repeatedly. In that way, he's more like a referee.

Referees do not win or lose. They typically adjudicate between two or more competitors. To have a true "referee" in D&D, we would need one or more players running the Heroes and one or more players running their opponents. The referee would adjudicate the results of the actions of both sides, but would not run any side. The term as applied to RPG's seems to derive from wargames where complex rules calls were made by a non-playing referee.

 

[pemerton]

In such cases, however, the players most definitely learn to play "The Pemerton Style of Game X", as the system comes filtered through your own perceptions and biases. Probably not a bad thing - the players you game with presumably have a liking for that style, or they would not be playing, especially under a mostly sight-unseen new system on your recommendation. But that doesn't mean other groups might not play the same game in a very different style.

My only quibble with this would be that I read the rulebook pretty extensively, posted a query on rpg.net and got a reply from the designer (Cam Banks), and read several long rpg.net threads where various experienced playes (and Cam Banks) were posting.

So I don't think my approach would be outrageously idiosyncratic! (Session write up here for anyone who wants to judge.)

 

[Ahnehnois]

Seems like one group of players/GM's, which to me commonly results in a pretty consistent playstyle. Toss in a few players with experience outside that group and I suspect you would see more variety. Playstyles can often vary geographically as well, as the further out one goes, the more likely one is to encounter groups that have grown their style independent of the guys back home.

All probably true. Clearly, if I wanted to do journalism or research on this hobby instead of anonymous message board posting, I would need more information than I have. But I'm still relatively well-informed for a hobbyist.

I maintain that you have a bias against the Bard class.

Maintain if you like. There are plenty of other examples where from the outlook a reasonable player might have differing expectations for different D&D characters, and I don't think that's a bad thing. A halfling fighter, for example, should not be on par with a half-orc fighter. A cleric of the god of home and hearth should not be quite as good at adventuring as a cleric of the god of war. Even without mechanics, the basic archetypes presented are not equally focused on and adept at combat and other adventuring-related tasks.

I suspect not getting in a direct confrontation where he has to deal with 4 or more attackers would be the best strategy for the Witch.

True, and this example had circumstances that created abnormal challenges for the witch, allowing the party to surprise him and precluding his normal escape method. The same circumstances limited the players too, but not to the same extent. Then again, most battles have some kind of context.

First, I am aware of no such degrees in "Game Science", so I would agree. Second, acadamia and reality can be entirely different areas of skill - I say that as a member of a profession which requires a bachelor's degree as a prerequisite to our professional program, so over 25 or so years in that profession, I have seen a lot of very solid, high marks students fail out of "the real world".

True. The education and/or certification is only part of the picture. But it is a part.

Really? I doubt that the writer simply pens his manuscript and it is published without comment or change. I suspect, rather, that most are subject to reviews, playtests and rewrites, outside of the smallest endeavour. In fact, one writer who I believe would consider himself a "paid amateur" still has his writings reviewed and edited, and subjects them to several playtests.

Editing and even playtesting are not the same as academic peer review. Then again, many professionally written manuscripts don't go through that process, so this is getting further and further on a tangent.

Depending on where one draws the line, "paid amateur" could describe virtually any field. Is a university graduate an amateur or a professional? I get experienced practitioners coming to me for assistance in my area of specialization who, while seldom using the word "amateur", will certainly define themselves as a non-expert, or non-specialist, in my area of focus. I would not consider them amateurs. I would often consider them to underestimate their own skills.

And this is all fine. What I'm doing here is trying to set a bar for being an expert at something. I think that bar should be pretty high. I don't think a degree gets you over that bar, but it can help. I don't think a list of credits gets you over that bar, but it can help.

The point is that I do not know of any game designer-even the ones whose work I respect or who have relatively high name recognition and achievements-who has reached the level of expertise where their opinions are so trenchant that they are better than that of an individual DM for his group.

To give an analogy, even the best doctors and scientists in the world can't compose a diet and publish it en masse that would be better for me than what I can do for myself. They don't know my likes and dislikes, allergies, my budget, availability of food in my area, my own particular health status, etc. Most of them would be smart enough not to try, and instead publish some general guidelines.

Which is exactly what D&D authors do, publish general guidelines. The term "rule" is simply a misnomer as applied to roleplaying.

Time is far from free if one has a career, a family and/or other responsibilities. I was a lot more willing to dedicate time to learning new systems and playing a lot more games when I was a student - now, my time is more precious.

True, but learning and modifying a game book is time-consuming as well.

Referees do not win or lose. They typically adjudicate between two or more competitors. To have a true "referee" in D&D, we would need one or more players running the Heroes and one or more players running their opponents. The referee would adjudicate the results of the actions of both sides, but would not run any side. The term as applied to RPG's seems to derive from wargames where complex rules calls were made by a non-playing referee.

A DM is only part referee, but he isn't really a player either. The role is unique to this hobby.

 

[Ratskinner]

My only quibble with this would be that I read the rulebook pretty extensively, posted a query on rpg.net and got a reply from the designer (Cam Banks), and read several long rpg.net threads where various experienced playes (and Cam Banks) were posting.

So I don't think my approach would be outrageously idiosyncratic! (Session write up here for anyone who wants to judge.)

I think I would add that for games which have mechanics that when compared to D&D are more universal, less complicated, and more loose or less simulative (I hesitate to say abstract or metagame) that the game can play mechanically very similarly between groups, while producing very different narratives. Which I think muddies the whole idea of a "pemertonian" style of one of these games. Which is to say, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and I might run two different groups through a game and produce two entirely different narratives and feels, yet neither of us would need to actually houserule any particular mechanical aspect of the game to achieve this. I would think that games like MHRP, FATE Core (especially the Accelerated version), and a few others would fall into this group. So, players of either group, would still be able to "translate" their experiences directly between groups. (None of which prevents people from fiddling with those simple rules, in fact both MHRP and FATE are imminently hackable to emphasize one thing or another in the narrative.)

I would also note that both MHRP and FATE have reputations within their communities as being easier for rpg newbies than for veterans of D&D or other traditional rpgs. IME with FATE, this is well-earned. (In fact, I've seen a group of 8-11 year old girls playing a "Percy Jackson" style game of FATE Accelerated pick the game up almost without help from me.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

But that idea isn't universally shared even within this thread.

I didn't intend to imply that it was a monolithic idea, merely that the idea of "barbarians are better than bards" comes from a combat-encounter-focused way of thinking about D&D.

I don't really see how this makes sense - at least in the case of the bard. A social encounter is still an encounter (as both Gygax and 4e note), so for the bard's social skills to win the day in an an adventure, the bard is going to have to be successful in particular social encounters.

I don't see how that point renders the idea that the bard can be a useful contributor to an adventure senseless?

There is in my view no doubt that 4e downplays exploration (but not lore). But that's pretty orthogonal to bards, who's main schticks are lore and social interaction.

4e downplays anything that isn't combat related. "Lore" in 4e is largely related to the things you are fighting. Social interaction in 4e is resolved via skill challenges, which, again, lack the variety and depth and option found in combat (presumably, again, because this is "less important.")

4e isn't exactly unique in this regard among D&D editions -- it's just on par with the somewhat unsatisfying non-combat resolution that most other editions have held, where different DMs have wildly different results, because the system is so DM-dependent.

But I don't think you can infer from the greater intricacy of combat resolution that all encounters are assumed to be combat - that would be a non sequitur for Burning Wheel, and likewise is for 4e, or for that matter Gygaxian D&D.

It's not monolithic -- like I said, it's implied that combat should be the focus of your games.

Rules are there to be used. The more rules you have for a certain thing (like "hitting the goblin,") the more often those things become used, because there is more variety and option there in the rules than there is in other places. At a quick guess, 4e has something like five thousand attack powers, and any one character, at first level, has something like 5-7 themselves. That's a lot of variety and options for hitting the goblin. If you're looking for interesting and varied character options, you gravitate toward one of the seven thousand different ways to hit the goblins, just from the design of the game. There's hundreds of different ways to kill a goblin. There's maybe 3 different ways to talk to it.

Again, 4e isn't alone in this, it's just one example. No e gets a free pass on being heavily focused on combat.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

A halfling fighter, for example, should not be on par with a half-orc fighter. A cleric of the god of home and hearth should not be quite as good at adventuring as a cleric of the god of war.

Your bias seems to sway towards an "adventuring effectiveness" = "strength."

While I agree a halfling shouldn't be on par with a half-orc in regards to strength, wouldn't a halfling fighter employ the advantages he has over the half-orc to remain on par with the fighter? Even in a simple case of better Dex and size he may hit with less punch, but has a better defense than his half-orc peer. He can still be on par and just as valuable a fighter as the half-orc.

Same with a cleric of the god of home and hearth. He wouldn't be on par in direct conflict with the enemy, but his protective wards should be him on par with his war-devoted counterpart. Storywise there are equal validations I can see for either type of priest to be bound to their home or to go out to adventure. I think you already envision a default for why the home and hearth cleric would stay home. But, equally so, a war cleric isn't really going to war when he delves into some dungeon. Conflict at home could just as easily keep him there.