D&D 5E Krynn's Free Feats: setting-specific or the future of the game?

[Vaalingrade]

There are very good reasons why Gygax listed the natural order of play as:
The Game as a whole First.
The Campaign Second.
PLAYERS Third.

Was it because it was his Game and Campaign her created and he wasn't a player?

 

[James Gasik]

Was it because it was his Game and Campaign her created and he wasn't a player?

This has to do with the way Gary ran games. He had a campaign with adventures to go on, and a vast sea of characters that could drop in or drop out at any given time; it wasn't the ongoing adventures of a small band of heroes, but more like, the individual heroes of the world occasionally teamed up to go on adventures.

 

[Minigiant]

problem in skilled is that is weak and that is why we got Skill expert.
Skilled can be beefed up to have an option for 2 skills with an +1 ASI or 4 skills.

with +1 ASI, you can take is at 4th level and still get "combat" value out of it with raising your primary from 17 to 18.

That is why Telekinetic is best designed feat in the game(not the most powerful):
it gives you + ASI in 3 ability option,
it gives you a cool RP tool with undetectable mage hand,
it gives you a small combat maneuver,
it does not care if your character is based on int, wis or cha. you only need one of those scores to be decent.
if you need int, wis or cha, even as a secondary ability(score of 14), you can use this feat in both RP and combat.

The point is that Skilled is bad on top of background.

But Skilled vs a Background's Proficiencies and Languages? My ranger, rogue, fighter,and warlock take Skilled everytime.

 

[jasper]

But if the background features had more "teeth", as Crawford put it, maybe that wouldn't have happened in the first place. Just a thought.

Oh it will.

 

[James Gasik]

Oh it will.

You seem pretty sure of that. If Features are replaced by Feats or Feat-equivalents, you think they'll still get ignored? Or are you anticipating Features remaining ribbon abilities with a few system mechanics tacked on, like "advantage on Wis (Survival) checks every off Tuesday, in areas similar to your character's homeland?"

 

[ECMO3]

A more lethal game wouldn't change how I feel, but I would probably enjoy playing it more.

I don't really get this argument, just ramp up the encounters if you want a more lethal game.

A 1st level party is hard pressed by Goblins played well, throw a dragon wyrmling at them and it is going to be very, very lethal. More than likely someone will die outright.

Heck send 2 wererats against 2nd level adventurers who don't have silver weapons and the PCs will probably win eventually using every spell slot and trick they have, but it will take a long time for the wizard and cleric to whittle them down with firebolts and toll the dead while the martials grapple or dodge. Maybe the Ranger is helping out with arrows enhanced by hunters mark so they do 3.5 magic piercing on a hit!

 

[Jaeger]

Yea, that's a little One True Way for me, sorry. In some games, the focus is on the characters and their story, and the setting is just there to be a framework for their story. In other games, exploring the setting is the primary focus, and the characters are meant to be somewhat interchangeable. ...

And that's why a single PC death will cause an entire campaign to fail, and fall apart.

Putting the campaign first doesn't makes PC's interchangeable. It is the simple acceptance that PC death is a potential outcome of play.

Nobody likes PC death. Players do get attached. But no properly run campaign should ever have to end over a PC death or two.

...Neither way of playing is wrong; they're simply different techniques to use that can work better or worse for different groups and different systems.

This is not just a difference of taste.

It is a fundamental paradigm shift - Between playing an Role Playing Game where you take risks with limited resources in pursuit of goals you choose, and accept that death and/or failure are possibilities of play.

And one where the game is used as a framework to tell a specific story. A style of gameplay that is more fragile, and it will often completely fall apart with a PC death as it short circuits the "story arc" of the campaign.

you don't plan sessions? You don't link sessions? your games don't flow from the choices players make?

Plan sessions?

Like I said: Never more than one session ahead. Because I have no Idea what the PC's will be doing two sessions from now.

How can any GM?

Even for a session my "planning" is like this:

At the end of the game night:

OTW GM: "Ok, cool, what are you guys doing next?"
My PC's: "We're going to rescue the princess from the slavelord..."
OTW GM: "Cool, see you next week."

Later that week - The OTW GM Planning session:

I figure out the factions; SlaveLord, his minions etc. And how many there are. Maybe a note or two of their motivation's /relationships / ties.

I'll likely do a quick sketch of where the princess would be in the Slavelords castle/hideout. Maybe even a dungeon like map or floor plan.

Done.

How will the PC's rescue the Princess? I have no idea, that's their job.

My session notes will easily fit on one page. The Map the same. And I'm good for 4 solid hours of play next week.

You don't link sessions?

Not something I really think about. It naturally happens as part of the organic process when the characters adventure, and I manage the game world.

Your games don't flow from the choices players make?

They absolutely do. Which is why I don't ever have to do any "storyline" nonsense.

At any time my PC's can say: "Screw this, lets bail and go be pirates..."

And it wouldn't derail a thing.

OTW GM: "You have no ship, and the nearest port is a weeks travel away."
My PC's: " Well that solves where we're going next week..."

Of course depending on where they are, and what they are doing: I toss out adventure hooks, rumors, and have NPC's act and react to the PC's actions.

The key is my PC's are not obligated to follow any path but the one they choose.

if the character driving the goal dies, that goal dies with them

The game world, with its factions, and NPC interactions therein should be compelling enough that the player(s) should want to return to that world even if they are approaching things from new angles and goals, with different PC's.

Plus there are usually 3-4 other players still active pursuing their in-game goals. One PC death is not enough reason to stop a campaign when there are still 3-4 reasons to continue.

cause Gygax didn't run modern games

The only difference between OD&D/AD&D/BX, etc, and 'modern' games is that mechanical game design did not stay in stasis. Designers have come up with mechanics that better emulate various genre's of play for different levels of crunch tastes.

This is good.

The methods and art of running RPG's are timeless.

your one true wayism can go jump in a lake

SPLASH

Both Cool and refreshing!

In our discussion we are contrasting two different game running paradigms. So how might we objectively evaluate them?

First, what is the goal?

My goal as a GM: I want to run long term RPG campaigns.

So which GM paradigm best serves the goal of long term play?

1: The "Framework for a Story" - The game world (setting) as a framework for a specific story Paradigm.

By its advocates own admission; a campaign run under this paradigm can be ruined, and can end if just one PC dies due to the randomness of the dice.

This paradigm implicitly necessitates the GM to fudge dice and/or adjust NPC stats on the fly in order to avoid such undesirable outcomes. The actual game rules being suborned to the needs of the PC's 'story arc' at all times heavily dilutes the rules utility as a system for adjudicating outcomes in a reliably impartial fashion.

This paradigm is thus inherently fragile for running long term campaigns because they can be ended at any time when you actually use the game system as intended unless actively suborned though constant manipulation. This places the GM in the position of bring at constant odds with the game system when running an RPG campaign to get the desired outcome. (Long term campaign play).

2: The "Game-Campaign-Player" - The game world (setting) as the framework for adventure Paradigm.

In an RPG campaign run under this paradigm it is explicitly understood that PC death is a potential outcome of play, and that there is not wider 'story arc' driving play. Adventure naturally flow from the actions of PC's as they explore and interact with the larger game world via factions, and NPC's, as they pursue personal goals or adventure hooks dangled by the GM. This generates the campaign play.

Because the campaign world is bigger than any one player, even PC death can serve as a launching point for further adventure. Anything from revenge, to an escalation of campaign world events, or recovery missions to cut losses and move on to alternate plans in the face of defeat. In a campaign paradigm that is not limited to tell a single 'story', the options are only limited by imagination.

Because PC death is accepted as a possible outcome, the GM does not have to resort to system manipulations in order to serve the outcome of any preconceived 'story'. Instead of being at odds with the game system; this allows the game system to fulfill its natural role of being a touch stone with which the players can reliably reference when interacting with the game world.

This Paradigm is less fragile to PC death because the game world itself is the driving vehicle for adventure. Not a preconceived story built upon tight integration with detailed PC backgrounds.

If my goal is to run the long term RPG campaigns that will bring maximum enjoyment to the group as a whole for the longest amount of time; then I am best served by adopting the campaign model that is the least fragile to PC death.

And contrary to some assumptions, the anti-fragile Game-Campaign-Player paradigm works just as well with standard gaming groups as it does with a more 'open table' style of game.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And that's why a single PC death will cause an entire campaign to fail, and fall apart.

no... it CAN but what I have found is that every game has a balance point... 1 death will change the game, but if too many die at all (or especially too close togather) those changes the game to the point where it isn't the same one you signed up for.

Putting the campaign first doesn't makes PC's interchangeable. It is the simple acceptance that PC death is a potential outcome of play.

but if the PCs are not interchangeable (the only way that deaths can't effect the game, and for sure the only way that an entire new party, aka every PC has died at least once, can't be a compltly diffrent game.)

Nobody likes PC death. Players do get attached. But no properly run campaign should ever have to end over a PC death or two

NO game properly run with PC choices mattering at all should not feel VERY diffrent for every death.

This is not just a difference of taste.

It is a fundamental paradigm shift

yes, we have different PCs with different POVs and as such we expect that if we loose a major portion of the party it will DYNAMICLY change the game...

Like I said: Never more than one session ahead. Because I have no Idea what the PC's will be doing two sessions from now.

They absolutely do. Which is why I don't ever have to do any "storyline" nonsense.

how do you run a game that doesn't have a line?

The key is my PC's are not obligated to follow any path but the one they choose.

except in YOUR world the PCs are interchangable and will always follow what the last PCs did... and as such no one of them matter.

SPLASH

FYI once you admit to one true wayism you admit to not understanding D&D

Because PC death is accepted as a possible outcome, the GM does not have to resort to system manipulations in order to serve the outcome of any preconceived 'story'.

Nobody has suggested this... this is YOUR idea

 

[TwoSix]

First, what is the goal?

My goal as a GM: I want to run long term RPG campaigns.

Playing a long-term campaign isn't always the goal.

And if it is, you simply play in systems (or modify one) where the lethality is lower. There are plenty of systems and methods in which PC death is only an outcome if the player chooses it to be one.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Playing a long-term campaign isn't always the goal.

heck even the meaning of longterm is up in the air... I ran a 16 month campaign that went from level 2 through level 12, and in the same (apporximit) time period played in one that went from 3rd to 20+epic boons over about 13 months... I know that 1 player remembers the shorter campagin (by months) but with faster leveling as the 'longer' campagin.