D&D 5E CHALLENGE: Change one thing about 5e

[Blue]

That raises the separate issue: Why haven't you seen the obvious decisions being made in your 13A game? Are the character somehow not aware of how their powers work, and what it takes to recover? Or are the players meta-gaming by not seeking out easy encounters, the way that their characters would if the world actually worked that way?

The way I see it, the options are continue what they are doing and have another encounter, or derail what they are doing and hope that they can find an encounter nearby and hope that it's easier then the encounter they wanted to do next. That's a lot of uncertainty.

It seems a no-brainer that it's in the party's favor not to search for the extra encounter. It derails what they are doing, it doesn't promise to be easier then just continuing on, and it adds in another chance at death overall - 8 encounters are easier then 8+1 more encounters. It doesn't grant XP because the levelling system doesn't work that way.

Oh, and the Dm can make it less than 4 for harder encounters or more than 4 for easier, so a cakewalk may not reset everything.

I guess that IF they knew what they wanted to do next was going to be really tough AND they just happen to have already had exactly 3 encounters they might search for another. Quite the corner case.

 

[Dorian_Grey]

I like your solution of more differentiation. My other option would be a heck of a lot less mechanical differentiation. For example, 13th Age has three categories of melee weapons - small, light or simple, and martial or heavy. And then the number of hands needed. Each class then defines them - so fighter types have bigger dice, wizards get a big penalty for martial or heavy, rogues find small just as effective as everyone else finds martial. And then it's entirely up to the players how they want to skin it and describe it.

I don't think I'd like that system. Heck I LOVE the Weapon Proficiency system from 2nd Edition and miss it! However, if I had to choose between 5e or the system you describe, I'd rather go with your system. Frankly, I think it makes more sense. So I could make a dual wielding fighter with a number of duel wielding benefits. Now, he could be wielding a rapier and main gauche and be a valiant dashing urban fighter OR be wielding two clubs as a wild outlander. Both would get similar abilities, but be able to describe their weapons (and choose their damage type) as a matter of player choice.

Is this a backdoor change to put in rerolling init every round, or are we supposed to modify them based on weapon use or not? How about moving while wielding, is that slowed? Moving, throwing a held javelin, moving more, drawing the heavy weapon, and then attacking with it? Seems to add complexity that would slow down combat with only a moderate payoff.

I absolutely LOVE rerolling init every round. I hate it when I can't. If you put into place an exhaustion mechanic it also gives a reason for high strength fighters who can keep going even as their dexterous companions begin to slow down.

Also - yes, I'd have it that if you're wielding a huge polearm, yes it IS harder to dash around with ten feet of wood and steel you're trying to control at the same time. That's why there is a difference in light and heavy infantry . Skirmishers would be able to dash forward, launch their javelins/use their slings, and dash back while the heavy infantry struggle forward. I think it would be amazing.

 

[Hussar]

That raises the separate issue: Why haven't you seen the obvious decisions being made in your 13A game? Are the character somehow not aware of how their powers work, and what it takes to recover? Or are the players meta-gaming by not seeking out easy encounters, the way that their characters would if the world actually worked that way?

I get the sense from people who play a lot of 13A and FATE that the characters have no idea how their respective worlds actually operate, but they all pretend that they do, and everyone agrees to not talk about it.

IOW, exactly how every other RPG plays.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

IOW, exactly how every other RPG plays.

You can't role-play a character (who is obviously aware of how their own world works), if you don't know how their world works at least to the degree that you are capable of making the same decisions for the same reason. It is literally impossible.

Otherwise you get nonsense decisions, like characters who think they should go lie down and rest when they're tired ("It's what my character would do"), even though they'll never feel any better unless they go beat up some monsters. If the world actually works on encounter-based recovery, but characters pretend that it works on rest-based recovery, then they're completely oblivious to cause-and-effect and none of their decisions are meaningful. (As a reminder, a game is defined as a series of meaningful decisions.)

 

[NotActuallyTim]

Earthdawn had multi-round casting. Wait 15 minutes for it to come to your action to declare gathering threads and then wait another 15 minutes.

Huge fail in terms of fun.

I'd be okay with this if you can get to my action every 5 minutes or less - regardless of number/complexity of PCs or foes. If it's not fun, it's not worth playing.

Easy enough. Just need to hustle through non magic action with a sense of urgency. Mostly a matter of herding players, rather than rules.

 

[Hussar]

You can't role-play a character (who is obviously aware of how their own world works), if you don't know how their world works at least to the degree that you are capable of making the same decisions for the same reason. It is literally impossible.

Otherwise you get nonsense decisions, like characters who think they should go lie down and rest when they're tired ("It's what my character would do"), even though they'll never feel any better unless they go beat up some monsters. If the world actually works on encounter-based recovery, but characters pretend that it works on rest-based recovery, then they're completely oblivious to cause-and-effect and none of their decisions are meaningful. (As a reminder, a game is defined as a series of meaningful decisions.)

The presumption here though is that HP=meat. That HP is a measure of how good you feel. Which of course, is nonsensical since losing HP has zero impact on how you perform. You can play it both ways and both are internally consistent.

Note, your understanding of what a game is is predicated on your own definition. This is a definition that is not shared by everyone.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The presumption here though is that HP=meat. That HP is a measure of how good you feel. Which of course, is nonsensical since losing HP has zero impact on how you perform. You can play it both ways and both are internally consistent.

If characters can't observe an in-game reality which corresponds to HP, then they wouldn't be able to cast a Cure spell without committing the illegal act of meta-gaming. If we assume the game is playable as a role-playing game, then it follows that characters can observe something which corresponds to HP. It might be the tiniest of scrapes or bruises, but HP damage is not only plot armor or luck or other such intangibles.

You might think it's weird that someone who has taken any degree of sword wound can effectively act at close enough to maximum efficiency that we don't need to model the penalty, but you cannot argue that HP reflects something that the characters can't observe - not while still giving that information to the players, and asking them to make decisions based on it. If you're trying to argue that you can hit someone, without actually hitting​ them, then you aren't even speaking English anymore.

 

[Blue]

Easy enough. Just need to hustle through non magic action with a sense of urgency. Mostly a matter of herding players, rather than rules.

In all seriousness, if you can work out a rules system that keeps players on track I'd buy it.

I often have long rounds (by the wall clock) while players reread powers/spells because what they planned doesn't do what they thought and now they need to pick something new. Or people who figure out the math each and every time they swing. "Okay, I rolled an 13. My STR makes that a 16, does that hit?" "Did you add your proficiency?" "Oh yeah, now it's an 18." Or rolls slowly and has to go and find their damage dice in their dice bag every time. Or the wide variety of players who lose focus due to chatting, playing with their phone, or surfing the web who need the whole round since their last action recapped and current conditions of all the foes.

I've actually looked at writing a combat system much more granular in actions so everyone has a quickly resolved action once a minute or quicker. Things like "I attack with my hammer" would be an action and advance their chit on a circular initiative tracker the correct number of spaces, and maybe the foe gets his "parry" off in time or maybe not, and when it's up next it's a quick (1 roll hit/damage/soak) attack, then maybe a new action "I move to the bar" and you move 5'. Two initiatives later you move another 5'.

The idea would just to to get people so involved that it plays fast and hot and there is no time to look away and check your phone becuase your next actions is coming ... up ... NOW.

 

[Blue]

If characters can't observe an in-game reality which corresponds to HP, then they wouldn't be able to cast a Cure spell without committing the illegal act of meta-gaming. If we assume the game is playable as a role-playing game, then it follows that characters can observe something which corresponds to HP. It might be the tiniest of scrapes or bruises, but HP damage is not only plot armor or luck or other such intangibles.

Agreed, but that doesn't need to be a wound. Can you tell if you are tired? I can. Can you tell if a friend is full of vim and ready to go or dragging? I can do that too. That's information that can be acted on in-game that isn't a tangible wound.

So, let's go into the next part with the understanding that you can be noticeably (and actionably) down HPs without having taken a single wound according to the in-game narrative.

You might think it's weird that someone who has taken any degree of sword wound can effectively act at close enough to maximum efficiency that we don't need to model the penalty, but you cannot argue that HP reflects something that the characters can't observe - not while still giving that information to the players, and asking them to make decisions based on it. If you're trying to argue that you can hit someone, without actually hitting​ them, then you aren't even speaking English anymore.

Correct, we aren't talking English, we're talking game mechanic keyword. Since HPs don't have to represent wounds (they CAN, but they don't HAVE to), a the game term of "rolling a hit" does not necessarily equate to the in-game narrative of "you have taken a blow".

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I get the sense from people who play a lot of 13A and FATE that the characters have no idea how their respective worlds actually operate, but they all pretend that they do, and everyone agrees to not talk about it.

In Fate, you can declare that your character sees an old friend when they walk into the bar. This pretty obviously isn't "how their world actually operates": your character cannot psychically summon old friends at will. But before you start casting aspersions, you need to realize the game isn't claiming that they can. In a narrativist game like Fate, the rules serve a fundamentally different purpose than they do in D&D. They do not spell out characters' in-universe capabilities, but rather players' narrative privileges. You the player are not so much your character's actor as your character's author. Of course, you're free to critique a narrativist game from that perspective -- by no means do all games pull this off equally well. But critiquing Fate from a D&D-style simulationist perspective is like critiquing a submarine for not having a sunroof.

Now, 13th Age takes a hybrid approach between D&D-style simulationism and Fate-style narrativism. In my opinion, this just means it doesn't function very well as either sort of game: it's a submarine that does have a sunroof. But others may see it more as chocolate and peanut butter. Genre preference is a simple matter of taste.

Otherwise you get nonsense decisions, like characters who think they should go lie down and rest when they're tired ("It's what my character would do"), even though they'll never feel any better unless they go beat up some monsters. If the world actually works on encounter-based recovery, but characters pretend that it works on rest-based recovery, then they're completely oblivious to cause-and-effect and none of their decisions are meaningful. (As a reminder, a game is defined as a series of meaningful decisions.)

"How can I advance the narrative in an appealing and verisimilitudinous way?" is a meaningful decision. Writers of fiction make it all the time. The reward for success is a good story; the consequence for failure is a bad one. You might want to argue that fiction writing is not a "game". But think ahead: even if you can make that case persuasively, what will you have proven? If narrativist games aren't strictly speaking "games", do they vanish in a puff of logic? Do the game police come and take them away? Are they suddenly no longer fun? In short: who cares?