D&D 5E Blog Post by Robert J. Schwalb

[Ruin Explorer]

This is where the separation of fluff & crunch really did the game a disservice. The old way of searching involved interacting with the setting. As a player, the setting and what it contained were important game elements. Game play involved interacting with the game world through the description/inquiry/clarification feedback loop. Players tend to pay attention to setting details when they matter in the resolution of play.

It's not separating fluff/crunch, on the contrary, it's unifying them. You can object to that, but you're describing it incorrectly.

The modern game that skips the "boring" stuff revolves almost exclusively with interacting with the mechanics. An endless repetition of " I search, I got a 22". It doesn't matter what is in the room, what or where something is. Heck, the room doesn't even NEED a description for that matter. Everything is tuned out that isn't relevant to the outcome of the mechanical interaction. The game world can be a 2 dimensional grease painting for all that it matters. Players could care less about what is in a room because the setting is divorced from the resolution of play.

This is so patently untrue it's not worth arguing with.

I suppose we have different tastes but endlessly droning " I search" and rolling a die (and metagaming by taking 20 if the result isn't high) is way more boring than poking and prodding a fictional environment.

Except that "poking/proding" in this case is essentially saying "I search" until you find the right variant of "I search". It's not "metagaming" to take 20. It's realistic - if I search for something in real life I search until I find it or am assured it is not there.

Further, interacting with a fictional environment can be much more interesting if it's not just "find the right phrase" stuff, but actually involves thinking. Like how to plan a heist, for example.

Can you give an example of a 3E or 4E adventure challenge that doesn't involve either a combat or getting X or higher on a die roll?

Not sure exactly what you mean here, but pretty certain Logan Bonner's Blood Money in Dungeon covers it. Check it out.

 

[Emerikol]

Thinking to look behind the wardrobe. No. That was never fun past age 12, for me or anyone I knew. That sort of "OH BUT YOU DIDN'T SAY YOU LOOKED BEHIND THE WARDROBE WHEN YOU SAID YOU SEARCHED THE ROOM LOLZ!" play, where every single action and idea had to be specifically narrated, was never fun for me as a teenager or adult, as a player or DM. It just seemed stupid. Groups clearly thought it was too. For example, my main group developed two mantras they related. The first, when they were progressing down a corridor, detailed how they were progressing cautiously, carefully, quietly and whilst looking at everything (I forget the exact wording of either, now), because they didn't want any gotchas or the like. The second was for searching rooms (again, the exact words are gone, because thankfully I've not heard it for nearly fifteen years), and it basically detailed how, no seriously, they carefully and quietly-as-possible searched everything, and didn't press any buttons, pull any levers, or the like.

This is just a preference. How much you tilt towards player skill vs character skill is a dial so it's not all one way or the other. Personally I have fond memories of exactly those things and my groups even today use such approaches. So I agree with you that any game can have such things. I do feel now though that it takes more effort to get that feel. Most games have a default feel and DMs then adjust. It's easier if the feel you want is default but it's not required.

The idea that 3/4E don't reward "having a good idea at the table" is abjectly false and edition-warring nonsense. I hope that's not what Schwalb implied, but it looks like it. I'm not even going to engage with it, beyond saying that, I've seen, in 4E, entire eight-hours sessions be focused on "good ideas at the table" (with very little dice-rolling or combat), and that 4E's combat rewards spontaneous good ideas more than any other edition (but does not reward pre-planning as much as any other).

I think what he is getting at is that in the past a greater emphasis was put on strategy. Prepping before the battle. Finding ways to avoid fighting the monsters or turning the battle into an easy one. I agree that that sort of play is always possible. I do think that options heavy games tend to discourage it though. It's just more natural to use a defined ability when you have a lot of them. Human nature and all.

Er, nope.

I've never known a time when a lot of people didn't enjoy making PCs. There are some who hate it in any edition, and some who love it in every edition.

I've enjoyed making PCs in pretty much every RPG ever. It's fun times, whether you're just making someone fun to play, or optimizing or whatever. Certainly for 25 years, so he's dead wrong about "the last 15".

That is probably just your culture. Some people love it and some hate it. In my own groups, I suspect that some do and some don't. The ones that do often help the ones that don't. I personally enjoy some degree of character creation personally so I'm more concerned about fast play once you start. I do like simple DM empowered games with some build choices. That is probably me.

It is kind of hard though to deny someone's experience. I believe many groups improvised less with 3e than they did with 2e. Why would be an interesting psychological study. I don't think anyone is saying it had to be that way though.

 

[Obryn]

So because one thing (let's call it "the Tool") informs a second thing (which we'll call "the Entire Point"), then we should care more about the Tool than the Entire Point? I don't see how that makes any sense.

No.

We should, however, care if the hammer is broken, the screwdriver is an awl, the wrench is missing a flange, and we're trying to build a house.

And if all of the above broken tools are being sold as awesome because it increases the challenge of home-building, we should be deeply skeptical.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This is just a preference. How much you tilt towards player skill vs character skill is a dial so it's not all one way or the other. Personally I have fond memories of exactly those things and my groups even today use such approaches. So I agree with you that any game can have such things. I do feel now though that it takes more effort to get that feel. Most games have a default feel and DMs then adjust. It's easier if the feel you want is default but it's not required.

Agreed.

I think what he is getting at is that in the past a greater emphasis was put on strategy. Prepping before the battle. Finding ways to avoid fighting the monsters or turning the battle into an easy one. I agree that that sort of play is always possible. I do think that options heavy games tend to discourage it though. It's just more natural to use a defined ability when you have a lot of them. Human nature and all.

I don't think that's what he's saying, and even if it is, it's still wrong, in practice. I see bolded bit more in 4E than 2E.

That is probably just your culture. Some people love it and some hate it. In my own groups, I suspect that some do and some don't. The ones that do often help the ones that don't. I personally enjoy some degree of character creation personally so I'm more concerned about fast play once you start. I do like simple DM empowered games with some build choices. That is probably me.

It is kind of hard though to deny someone's experience. I believe many groups improvised less with 3e than they did with 2e. Why would be an interesting psychological study. I don't think anyone is saying it had to be that way though.

Saw more improvisation in 4E than 3E, less in 3E than 2E, about same in 2E/4E. Agree that this is culture. Disagree with Schwalb that it's anything new or that liking to make characters detracts from play in any way. Share liking of fast play one started with you.

 

[evileeyore]

How can you tell if mechanics are broken before seeing how they actually play out?

By testing them.


You let people play with the rules in "prearranged" tests and in "the wild". If your lucky you can get to watch most of the playtests as an "impartial observer" and ask your testers why things went as they did, get results from not only your perspective and observations but theirs.

Then you adjust and test again. And keep testing until you get the results you want "every time".

Then you advance out of Alpha build into the Beta process and test it truly in the wild with a small selection of "your audience". You again take in data from your testers and seee if you missed anything.

If it's clean, you release, if not you bug fix, and repeat until (as before) you finally get the results you wanted, or more likely at this point, as close as possible.



The problem is most tabletop game designers is they don't adequately test in the wild. The test among people who are actively developing the game, who know it well, so when these people run into problems they auto-correct, often without even noticing.

 

[The Hitcher]

Except that "poking/proding" in this case is essentially saying "I search" until you find the right variant of "I search". It's not "metagaming" to take 20. It's realistic - if I search for something in real life I search until I find it or am assured it is not there.

"Realistic" has nothing to do with "interesting". The DM should be pointing out noteworthy features in a given location. The player should be interacting with them on the level of the fiction. BUT (and this is important), these things should only happen if the DM has given the player an interesting problem to solve. If they haven't, and it IS just pointless repetition of "I search" (however that happens to be phrased), then just give the players the damn treasure and move on to the next thing that people actually care about.

 

[TwoSix]

The idea that people who enjoy 3E and 4e do so for some purpose other than playing the game is odd to me.

I think the whole existence of Theoretical Character Optimization (a term I see on other boards, not around here) is a counterpoint. Plus, there are people who love the game, but simply don't have groups to play with, and so spend their time working on making characters instead.

And then there are those people who are the character focused counterparts of the, err, "obsessive" DMs discussed in another thread, those who spend their time writing 20 page backstories for their characters, planning out all their magic items and feats and spells, and generally being annoyed when they do actually "play" these characters because the game doesn't necessarily revolve around them.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It's not separating fluff/crunch, on the contrary, it's unifying them. You can object to that, but you're describing it incorrectly.

If the facts are that there is DC and nothing of significance matters or can be resolved without checking for pass/fail against that DC then any detail which doesn't impact that test is fluff which can be and is quite often disregarded.

This is much the same as character detail that doesn't include a mechanical component- it is rarely thought about or considered.

Except that "poking/proding" in this case is essentially saying "I search" until you find the right variant of "I search". It's not "metagaming" to take 20. It's realistic - if I search for something in real life I search until I find it or am assured it is not there.

If finding the right variant means that the environmental detail actually matters and you found something due to keen observation or putting together clues from the overall nature of the setting (aka actively playing the game) then the accomplishment is more meaningful than getting finding it because you rolled a 15 or higher on the die. How can you ever be assured something is not there? The only way to be sure is to know that your take 20 result is better than the toughest DC there is to beat.

Further, interacting with a fictional environment can be much more interesting if it's not just "find the right phrase" stuff, but actually involves thinking. Like how to plan a heist, for example.

Agreed, providing planning involves more than rolling gather information and streetwise checks and the actual substance of your plan can lead to success.

Not sure exactly what you mean here, but pretty certain Logan Bonner's Blood Money in Dungeon covers it. Check it out.

I would love to, do you know the issue number?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This is much the same as character detail that doesn't include a mechanical component- it is rarely thought about or considered.

Character personality, appearance, background have little/no mechanical component in stock D&D (most editions), yet are constantly considered by most players, so can't agree (many more examples too).

If finding the right variant means that the environmental detail actually matters and you found something due to keen observation or putting together clues from the overall nature of the setting (aka actively playing the game) then the accomplishment is more meaningful than getting finding it because you rolled a 15 or higher on the die. How can you ever be assured something is not there? The only way to be sure is to know that your take 20 result is better than the toughest DC there is to beat.

Perhaps, not what was described though.

Agreed, providing planning involves more than rolling gather information and streetwise checks and the actual substance of your plan can lead to success.

Indeed.

I would love to, do you know the issue number?

200.

"Realistic" has nothing to do with "interesting".

Arguable, but agree and disagree.

The DM should be pointing out noteworthy features in a given location. The player should be interacting with them on the level of the fiction. BUT (and this is important), these things should only happen if the DM has given the player an interesting problem to solve. If they haven't, and it IS just pointless repetition of "I search" (however that happens to be phrased), then just give the players the damn treasure and move on to the next thing that people actually care about.

Broadly agree. Most older (i.e. 15+ years from Schwalb's example) D&D adventures seemed to have tons of pointless hidden stuff, or just require "find the right phrase"-type stuff to get through bits of them. Yet he seems to laud this, prefer this. Find hidden object to progress almost never interesting problem for a group (hence terrible, mostly mindless, mobile game genre).

GUMSHOE interesting to this discussion which could involve own thread.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

There is no excuse for the personal insults, but he has been around long enough to know that implying that 3e and 4e lost the spirit of D&D will create some backlash.

The truth always does.