D&D General Compelling and Differentiated Gameplay For Spellcasters and Martial Classes

[5ekyu]

So here was the initial question:



Note:

1) This was a design challenge.
2) We aren't iterating D&D.
3) We aren't hacking D&D 5e.
4) We don't have to be concerned about markets or zeitgeist (which seems like every_single_bloody_thread wants to conform to).

We just have to answer the above design challenge.



So I would need to know (a) what games you played and (b) were they run skillfully and by the book.

Because I can name several games (which, curiously enough, hook into my post on page 2 in how you do this) that afford all 3 simultaneously:

• Dungeon World
• Torchbearer
• Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy
• Strike(!)
• D&D 4e
• 13th Age

All of these possess:

1) Predefined abilities/playbooks/moves for all classes/archetypes whether you're a spellcaster or not.

2) The lack of requirement for GM curation of play with the specific intent of spotlight dissemination. In fact, some of these systems will actively fight you if you try to tailor play (or just run better if you don't).

3) Rough (or strident) cross-class/playbook balance across a variety of challenges (without 2 being in play).

They achieve this in a variety of ways.

A few common features are (a) Fail Forward action resolution and/or (b) conflict/scene resolution in dealing with threats/obstacles.

Other features are things like (c) codifying what is necessary for play and making it player-facing, (d) a GM ethos of "play to find out what happens" and core mechanical machinery that enables a GM to engage the game from this vantage, (e) all moves are rolled for to find out cost/consequence (including spellcasting), (f) both breadth and apex power of spellcasters are toned down while breadth of martial characters is amped up (and codified where needed), (g) reward cycles are fundamentally different from D&D (play incentives are realigned; xp on failure or xp, xp on discovery, xp on thematic thing x resolving in play), (h) different threat machinery changes the cognitive workspace inhabited by players (eg Torchbearer's simultaneous ticking clocks for both Light and accrued Conditions as play progresses through turns...spellcasters can't just fiat these concerns away with powerful spells...they've got to be resolved through mundane means and you have decision-points based on time + threats + your collective gear loadout as a group), (i) martial characters have codified "moves" that they can rely upon to consistently materialize within the fiction the same way that D&D spellcasters do (again, this changes the cognitive worksplace of all of the players playing the class, his/her compatriots, and the GM who is presenting the obstacle/situation for the players to deal with).

So...again...

as a design question (how do we solve this stuff @Campbell brought up but without the sort of intense GM curation of play that affords them a vastly disproportionate affect on the trajectory of play than the other participants at the table?)...this has been solved through the means presented.

Whether or not this is kosher for casual players or traditionalists or granular task resolution governed by x person's sense of realism proponents is a different question (one that we don't HAVE TO ANSWER IN EVERY SPECULATIVE THREAD...and one that wasn't asked in the opening of the thread).

If it seems like I'm cynical about the fact that we have to engage with the but traditionalists, but casuals, but granular task resolution governed by x person's sense of realism...its because I am. Why do we have to do that_every_single_thread?

We aren't actually making WotC's next version of D&D.

Well, see let's take Cortex sincevthsts one I played more of thsn those others. Cortex is driven strongly by its gimmick point mechanics and includes scene edit as a part of that. While, yes, you do have pre-defined abilities in forms, you have a system driven strongly by the gimmick economy even in use of those snd the scdne edit like I described with the barbarian is possible. This is that mechanic, authorship, etc that is included in the list of two-of-three. I remember the designer of Cortex making it clear their gimmick point economy should glow likexrsin in a scene resolution.

DW I know also goes forward as you not eith major difference in how the game is played, authorship and creating the scene - back to the idea that what is there is not determined until after we dngsgexeith results.

Agsin, those fall into the reliance on predefined vs reliance on amorphous to-be-determined scenes.

There is a big difference in how the gameplay works if " isvtheee a backdoor" is a determined factcwe might need to risk recon over as opposed to a thing we ourselves as player can choose to manifest once we get our characters in.

Personally, those two and your follow-up discussion points more prove my points of teo out of three than dispute it.

So, thanks.

 

[5ekyu]

Digging in?

What?

I have the cognitive capacity to process information. I have well-considered opinions on these subjects.

I'm not digging in. I'm posting words for you to engage with. If you think I'm "digging in", your frame of what is happening here is incorrect.

But, again, if @Campbell just wanted us to throw up our hands and say "nope, can't do anything because of legacy concerns of traditionalist D&D players and because of the inability to monetize a hack to casuals", then cool...I'm saying all the wrong things.

But that would be weird as all hell to write a well-thought-out lead post and convey particular concerns and a focused design challenge only to really mean "screw it...impossible...nevermind."

" I have well-considered opinions on these subjects. "

Well OK then.

 

[5ekyu]

I don't ACTUALLY mind most cantrips, because to me if you play a Spellcaster you want to FEEL like a Spellcaster. Having 2 spells a day or something is not being a spellcaster, it's being a diletante.

A Cantrip that does basically the same as a crossbow bolt is not really a problem. Spells that rely on attack rolls or the openent failing a saving throws are, quite frankly, the least problematic of the current system. They have uncertainty baked in.

What really matters are the spells that are basically just "Press this Button for X". "Press the Spider Climb button to climb this wall" for exemple. Instead I think it should be "Press this button to replace a Climb Check with an Arcana Check" or some other variations. Playing with casting time would also be a good idea. A lot of utility spells you'd never cast in a fight really need to take longer to use so there's a 'hook' the DM can use to make it a risk to rely only on magic.

But on the flip side the Martial classes need actual choices beyond "Which dude do I poke with my pointy stick?" you know? Even if mathematically the martial dudes can hold their own in terms of damage. It's just not interesting if you don't get to make choices that matter.

For exemple, I had this idea of a fighting style where you can apply disadvantage to your attack, provided you don't already have diaadvantage or advantage, in exchange for getting a potent debuff on the target. You don't need to track ressource but you get to choose every round wether the debuff is worth the risk of missing entirely or not.

Heck, imagine if instead of just that boring Crit Range the Champion also had: "You can apply disadvantage to your own attack provided you do not already have disadvantage or advantage, if the attack still hit, the attack is automatically a critical hit" In that case the Champion would now be in control of how hard or easy it would be to score extra damage. Big risk for big rewards.

Off course this is just the combat side of things and there's more to be had in the other pillars.

I feel like the Rogues "always a 10 or more" feature should have been more widespread. Like the Fighters should get that on their STR and CON checks or all Athletics rolls. And there was no reason to gimp the Fighters in terms of skill choice. At least give them an extra tool proficiency.

It also feels like, in general, characters should get additional skill choices as they level up that don't require them to spend a precious feat. Just to show they grow outside the Combat pillar of the game. Like at 10th level everbody gains proficiency in a skill another party member is proficient in. Might not be SUPER useful but it at least would feel interesting.

Well, see, I think where we disagree is on choices.

Anyone with strength can use shove and grapple to inflict grappled, prone or reposition a target (most targets). Choose feats and you get even more - like restrained - even free with attscks.

Choose the right class or sub-class and either these get better or you get others.

You mention skills vs precious feat... well fighter get bonus feats by sixth and if not choosing to use them for optimizing combat could use them for these tools or skills etc.

Wanting the barbarian to be a pet class sub-class instead of taking ranger.

Etc...

My thought is that the system allows the choice to move to expand in these other areas but those choices dont at the same time optimize the combat aspects.

As for "boring" champion, it's meant to be simple and direct to play by design, to be straight ahead intentionally because the designers valued having sub-classes where folks just wanting an easy to play option had them. They did do while allowing those wanting more complex play to get that too - by making other choices.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So? That the design goal is about fixing D&D's problems means critiquing a solution as not working for D&D fans is a valid criticism.

It's circular reasoning, though: of course, current fans of the game don't like change, any fix will perforce be a change, so the critique will be the same for all possible solutions. It's a waste of electrons that only serves the cause of upholding the status quo for it's own sake.

If it seems like I'm cynical about the fact that we have to engage with the but traditionalists, but casuals, but granular task resolution governed by x person's sense of realism...its because I am.

Join the club. We don't meet - what'd be the point?

Why do we have to do that_every_single_thread?
We aren't actually making WotC's next version of D&D.

When the only defense of something rests on foundations like 'tradition' or 'popularity' or the like, continued defense is necessary or it'll just fade away - even allowing discussion of alternatives is dangerous, because acceptance of a status quo is often cemented by the conviction that there are none.

 

[Oofta]

It's circular reasoning, though: of course, current fans of the game don't like change, any fix will perforce be a change, so the critique will be the same for all possible solutions. It's a waste of electrons that only serves the cause of upholding the status quo for it's own sake.

Join the club. We don't meet - what'd be the point? When the only defense of something rests on foundations like 'tradition' or 'popularity' or the like, continued defense is necessary or it'll just fade away - even allowing discussion of alternatives is dangerous, because acceptance of a status quo is often cemented by the conviction that there are none.

But telling people that like the current system that their opinion isn't valuable is okay?

Don't get me wrong, there is no such thing as a perfect system. But for example I don't see how making magic unreliable would be a good thing. Giving martial characters additional extraordinary abilities* or fate points or something else would change the nature of the game.

When I point out that everyone at my table contributes in different ways and is engaged in all aspects of the game the accusations of "just fix it with RP isn't a fix" come out. Except that is how I fix it. Different people get the spotlight at different times because I go out of my way to try to engage different skills and backgrounds. Considering that fighter is the most popular class according to DndBeyond, it seems like it's not a widespread issue.

As other people have pointed out more elegantly than I, all games have compromises. I think 5E made more-or-less the correct ones. I'm not saying "tradition" is the only defense. But I also don't believe that change for the sake of change or because some people have a problem with some aspect of the game is justification for change either.

*Beyond what certain subclasses already have or that you could easily get through multi-classing or feats I guess?

 

[Tony Vargas]

But telling people that like the current system that their opinion isn't valuable is okay?

Yes. Because their opinion is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

"Let's discuss the design challenges of making D&D better..."
"YOU CAN'T!!! IT'S PERFECT!!! STFU!!!!!!! ATICA! ATICA! ATICA!"
"You're not being helpful"
"Don't tell those that like the current system that their opinion isn't valuable!"

But for example I don't see how making magic unreliable would be a good thing.

It'd make it 'feel more magical' in the genre sense, among other possible more 'gamist' benefits.

Giving martial characters additional extraordinary abilities* or fate points or something else would change the nature of the game.

Yes, change is the point.

 

[Oofta]

Yes. Because their opinion is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

"Let's discuss the design challenges of making D&D better..."
"YOU CAN'T!!! IT'S PERFECT!!! STFU!!!!!!! ATICA! ATICA! ATICA!"
"You're not being helpful"
"Don't tell that like the current system that their opinion isn't valuable!"

It'd make it 'feel more magical' in the genre sense, among other possible more 'gamist' benefits. Yes, change is the point.

Right. So because I like the current system I'm not allowed to give advice on how to ensure all people that want the spotlight get the spotlight without changing a single rule.

Good to know.

P.S. when there's something on this thread other than "change the game to be better", I might have some feedback. I just haven't seen real concrete house rules that can be evaluated.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Every time we have this conversation, I need to point out how the game is designed for a lot of gamers, and that means different play styles need to feel like they have options. That means that not every class or race is going to do what you want. In fact, doing so would be contradictory. How else can you have a game where someone who likes rules lite can play along with the person who likes classes with a ton of options? Impossible if every class needs to do what you want.

As soon as people accept that the champion fighter (just an example) doesn’t NEED fixing (because it’s working as designed for how it was intended), the better. Not every class needs to cater to your particular taste. Needs are different than wants. People need to get over that entitlement. We’re given a ton of options, and we can choose those that best fit what we want. Between classes, subclasses, feats, and backgrounds, we have a huge toolset that can accomplish just about any preference. And yes, it’s entitlement when you want the game to be designed how you want often at the expense of other gamers who are just as important as you. I don’t like the bard. But guess what, I understand how other people do and I’m not going to demand that WoTC change that class to fit how I want. Because I don’t like how the bard is designed doesn’t mean it’s broken or needs fixing. It just means it doesn’t do what I personally would like. Not every class should be designed how I want. That would take away options from others.

And no one is saying the game is perfect. Anyone resorting to those strawman arguments has a weak argument or they wouldn’t have to use them. What I’m saying is, is how do you make it “better” for you without taking away the preferences of others?

 

[Son of the Serpent]

So...i think the real world might have an answer to this. Well. Errr...sorta...

Maybe there isnt a problem here to be fixed. If a person becomes a soldier in the military they gain certain abilities, fitness, skill, knowledge, and other things. Many of these things can be applied to new functional positions in society thereafter and many things are useful in a narrow set of scenarios. There are things a standard soldier can do by default and ither things they may be able to do due to other experience in life. If they want to learn how to run a large company they will probably have to go out of their way to get additional experience in a setting they actually havent been exposed to as of yet to know how to do that. There are overlaps and they are uneven. But maybe thats just it and its ok.

Now, i understand everyone wants a balanced game but maybe its best to have a mostly balanced game with a little unbalancing. And maybe regardless of how you set the rukes up, due to the way our universe works any difference signifficant enough to distinguish classes will naturally cause some degree of unbalancing. To me it seems that the tendencies of this type of game inherently resemble real life. And i dont view the need to have the occasional level dip or prestige class in order to round a character out to be a negative mark on a class unless the class reeeeeeaaaally sucks. After all, in real life thats what successful humans usually do. They generally get a job or two or three that they excel in and they take "dips" into other things to augment just how good or uniquely capable they are at their main role or roles in life.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So because I like the current system I'm not allowed to give advice on how to ensure all people that want the spotlight get the spotlight without changing a single rule.

Because you feel the current system can't be improved, you have no useful contribution to make to a thread about improving it.
And, AFAICT, a moving spotlight doesn't wouldn't really address the issue raised in the OP.
Spotlight balance is something of a zero-sum approach: if you have 6 players, you try to engineer 6 moments to shine, and ration them one to a player, sometimes that can be a literal moment (a critical hit or failed save or whatever that finishes the BBEG) sometime it can be more of a 'scene' (the 'face' brings an important ally on-board; the netrunner retrieves the vital data; etc). Like niche protection, it means the choice of class/build at chargen/level-up are choices that mattered, not choices made in-play. In D&D, generally regardless of edition, in most situations, the spotlight will be on the fighter or rogue or any other non-caster that might've been available in the ed in question, when the encounter is the one sort that turns on their abilies - a stand-up fight, a treasure to be extracted from clever hiding place among fiendish traps - while the caster's time to shine comes when the player decides a given challenge is 'worth' expending a spell to resolve. While I doubt either of those would score high as what Campbell's looking for, the latter is closer - the in-play decision, even if it's just whether to pull the pin on an I-win grenade or not, at least matters.

Every time we have this conversation, I need to point out how the game is designed for a lot of gamers, and that means different play styles need to feel like they have options.

It's designed for a range, sure. But a lot of gamers - and a lot of potential gamers - might enjoy things outside that range.

Thing is, no amount of discussion of 'fixes' to the issues D&D raises will result in D&D no longer serving the agendas of its' current fanbase.
But, the intellectual exercise of examining how it might be - in some more tolerant quantum-alternate-universe community, perhaps - well, interesting. If it could ever be undertaken without being shouted down.

Certainly, 5e tried hard to embrace the wants/needs/expectations/concerns of the whole of the existing fanbase, to at least be broadly acceptable to everyone, so we could all stand in the big tent without burning like vampires in direct sunlight - while, miraculously, also being acceptable enough to new players that enough of them can get through their early play experiences with an appreciation for the hobby to continue the tend. But, there were a /lot/ of compromises made to get there, so, while 5e is an effective gatekeeper of the RPG hobby that defends its own traditions valiantly, there's still a whole lot it doesn't do, or could do better for certain goals of play...

…a discussion like this is not, even in the most terrifying worst-case scenario, going to result in even one tiny official change to D&D.
It might generate some ideas that get used as house rules in some home game, somewhere.