D&D 5E Evolution of D&D, and choices

[Oofta]

The discussion here about alignment seems to point that perhaps BECMI had it right, with just the three: Lawful, Chaotic and Neutral.

But back then it was interpreted as good, neutral and evil. Law was always good, chaos was always evil.

Which makes sense for a war game, not so much for an RP game.

 

[Sadras]

But back then it was interpreted as good, neutral and evil. Law was always good, chaos was always evil.

Speaking for myself this was true, as I was younger then and I did not fully understand these concepts.

 

[clearstream]

So I'm one of those people that has never liked rolling for stats. Does that make me young at heart or just immature?

It depends on whether the reason was you were trying to put the dice in your mouth or not?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So I'm one of those people that has never liked rolling for stats. Does that make me young at heart or just immature?

It probably means you understood math and probability a bit better than others, actually. The main objection the "Youth of Today" have to rolling is the really uneven parties it creates, and the way it can leave people with barely-playable characters. I'm not sure I wholly subscribe to their manifesto, but they're vastly more aware of probability and the actual odds of getting an 18 and so on than we were when we were younger, or at least it seems that way.

I don't think it's any accident that the vast majority of RPGs never had rolling for stats or the like (let alone HP, good god).

 

[clearstream]

It probably means you understood math and probability a bit better than others, actually. The main objection the "Youth of Today" have to rolling is the really uneven parties it creates, and the way it can leave people with barely-playable characters. I'm not sure I wholly subscribe to their manifesto, but they're vastly more aware of probability and the actual odds of getting an 18 and so on than we were when we were younger, or at least it seems that way.

I don't think it's any accident that the vast majority of RPGs never had rolling for stats or the like (let alone HP, good god).

I've moved to a tailored set of cards (draw without replacement) and I feel unlikely to go back.

The next step I plan to playtest is moving racial ability modifiers onto class... and perhaps background. Notionally one wants to distribute 3 pts across relevant abilities, with a maximum of 2 pts into any one. That constraint makes me lean toward thinking it needs to be that each class has 3 pts to distribute across a couple of abilities, no more than 2 pts into any one. An alternative, where background also places a point, from a superficial look seems to me problematic to design... and I'm not fond of forcing the all-warlocks-are-entertainers route paralleling what we see now for choice of race.

 

[Catolias]

The next step I plan to playtest is moving racial ability modifiers onto class... and perhaps background. Notionally one wants to distribute 3 pts across relevant abilities, with a maximum of 2 pts into any one. That constraint makes me lean toward thinking it needs to be that each class has 3 pts to distribute across a couple of abilities, no more than 2 pts into any one. An alternative, where background also places a point, from a superficial look seems to me problematic to design... and I'm not fond of forcing the all-warlocks-are-entertainers route paralleling what we see now for choice of race.

I’d suggest looking at how PF2does ability. It is a different way of approaching the problem.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I've moved to a tailored set of cards (draw without replacement) and I feel unlikely to go back.

The next step I plan to playtest is moving racial ability modifiers onto class... and perhaps background. Notionally one wants to distribute 3 pts across relevant abilities, with a maximum of 2 pts into any one. That constraint makes me lean toward thinking it needs to be that each class has 3 pts to distribute across a couple of abilities, no more than 2 pts into any one. An alternative, where background also places a point, from a superficial look seems to me problematic to design... and I'm not fond of forcing the all-warlocks-are-entertainers route paralleling what we see now for choice of race.

I think this is a totally reasonable approach but I guess for me it raises the question, does limiting what stats a player can put into by class actually add anything? I can't see any obvious scenario where it does. Players are going to want to put their stat in the stats that makes sense, and in 99% of cases (literally), that's going to be the stats you associate with the class, so all this would really do, that I can see, is create work for you as you have to go through all the classes and determine which stats make sense for which classes, and in the 1% of other cases, you'll just be causing a problem which you'll then either need to make an exception to, or not.

Whereas simply letting the player distribute the 3 points is going to result in the same outcome literally 99% of the time, require zero input/effort from you, and as a bonus, solves the 1% case.

Sorry, I just constantly run a cost/benefit analysis in my mind on new rules I think of or that other people suggest, and with this one, I see the logic inherent to moving abilities to classes, but I don't see any actual benefit accrued by it. Maybe I'm missing something. We're already assuming players know the right stats for a class, and presumably that wouldn't change.

 

[clearstream]

I think this is a totally reasonable approach but I guess for me it raises the question, does limiting what stats a player can put into by class actually add anything? I can't see any obvious scenario where it does. Players are going to want to put their stat in the stats that makes sense, and in 99% of cases (literally), that's going to be the stats you associate with the class, so all this would really do, that I can see, is create work for you as you have to go through all the classes and determine which stats make sense for which classes, and in the 1% of other cases, you'll just be causing a problem which you'll then either need to make an exception to, or not.

That's a good point and I did consider it. Say we make it 3pts distributed as desired with a maximum of 2 pts into any one ability. I would predict most players will put 2pts into their primary and 1pt into an odd-numbered secondary ability, a few players will put points into abilities that happen to appeal to their character narrative, and a few novices will put them into abilities that don't do what they hoped they would.

If that is roughly right, associating ability boosts with class does the following. For most players, it's what they'd do anyway. For a few players, it's annoying. For a few novices, it saves them from a trap. My take is that it is more important to help out those novices.

Sorry, I just constantly run a cost/benefit analysis in my mind on new rules I think of or that other people suggest, and with this one, I see the logic inherent to moving abilities to classes, but I don't see any actual benefit accrued by it. Maybe I'm missing something. We're already assuming players know the right stats for a class, and presumably that wouldn't change.

If you look at my previous posting on this subject, you'll see that I at first landed on 3pts as desired. I think - but am not certain - that associating with class is going to be better (because it does what most players do anyway, and helps out beginners). In the end, it comes down to what is worth playtesting first. My hunch is class (and some of that I couldn't really explain).

 

[RangerWickett]

In Legend of the Five Rings, character creation is a game of 20 questions, where you answer things about your PC. What clan are you from, which family within that clan, what school did you train at, who is your lord, what overriding mission do you have, what personal goal do you have that might conflict with that mission, what particular training did your parents encourage you to get, how have you distinguished yourself so far, in what ways do you disagree with your clan, etc etc.

Most of these give you either skill points or ability score points.

It's a fun system that works for a well-developed setting, but I'm not sure it would easily translate to a more world-agnostic game like D&D.

 

[Oofta]

In Legend of the Five Rings, character creation is a game of 20 questions, where you answer things about your PC. What clan are you from, which family within that clan, what school did you train at, who is your lord, what overriding mission do you have, what personal goal do you have that might conflict with that mission, what particular training did your parents encourage you to get, how have you distinguished yourself so far, in what ways do you disagree with your clan, etc etc.

Most of these give you either skill points or ability score points.

It's a fun system that works for a well-developed setting, but I'm not sure it would easily translate to a more world-agnostic game like D&D.

The problem with that, and similar theories, is not that they don't work for other games. Unless I'm completely missing something it's that it assumes a common shared world one where specific social structures and factions exist.

It loses the flexibility of D&D. If I want to create 20 questions for my home campaign I can, but I wouldn't want to see those kind of assumptions layered on top of D&D.