D&D 5E 2/11/13 L&L: This week in D&D

[dd.stevenson]

Just think about it: it is possible to run the whole exploration phase without rolling a dice, and base all the outcome simply on player's input. For example, instead of rolling dice to finding traps, you require the Rogue's player to tell the DM where is she looking for traps, how is she prodding the ground, what precautions is she taking while scouting... once a trap is found, you use descriptions to present the situation and you require descriptions from the player to decide if she handles the trap successfully. It is not easy (I wouldn't be able to do this entirely without rules) but it's not impossible either. Eventually, ability checks will still be there to help the DM.

You mean like this? Yeah, it's great--I would recommend this playstyle to anyone interested in moving away from skill check based exploration.

EDIT: The post you quoted was a reply to @JamesonCourage who seemed like he needed some honest-to-god rules to play with. And although I'm a big fan of the playstyle you describe, I figure that "what you want sucks; try this playstyle instead" would have just a little callus to work as a reply--and also well outside the spirit of what I think is intended for 5E.

("Although I 110% believe that this is the One True Way to play D&D," he added in a deadpan voice.)

 

[JamesonCourage]

Because the core mechanic is ability checks, and the current skill system is only one way to augment that. You could also use open-ended skills, or a more 3e-style system with ranks, or any number of other options. By making skills optional (even if they're used by default in the Standard game) they actually open up the possibility of much more involved skill systems that a 4e- or 3e-style closed skill list that's tied into other systems would make much harder.

I disagree. Couldn't you say "here are the Advanced rules; just ignore the Basic skill system"?

Same for other exploration rules. I know I'm not the only person who managed to play RP-heavy games while ignoring the DMG guidelines on, say, the overland flight speed of a young griffon. (African, not European.) But others love those exploration subsystems and guidelines. Now, if they were "core," they'd have to be very streamlined to avoid annoying players who don't like those kind of detailed rules; if they're optional, they can be as wonky as you want.

Right, but giving a very basic rule system for the Basic rules means that players that use 5e know that these rules matter, just like "Combat, Magic, and Movement" matter. And you can present it with a dial for opting out completely, for building on the basic system, or for using an entirely different mechanic (spell points or AEDU instead of spell slots, or a complex skill system instead of modified attribute checks). Nothing stops this from being the case.

If you're worried that the devs are ignoring these systems... take a look at mile mearls's twitter, or even some l&l articles. They're spending a lot of time and energy playing wit stuff like large-scale combat, naval battles, etc. they're just not going to force those rules down everyone's throat.

I get that, and that's cool. And, the basic combat default will be able to be built upon. And I assume magic will be, too. And movement. It's nice to have these basic things, and then options to let you swap out, opt out, or build on.

And for the record, even in this thread, I haven't advocated complex rules be shoved down everyone's throats. I just lamented that they seemed to find "Combat, Magic, and Movement" more integral to the game than even a basic skill system. They could just as easily add a basic skill system that you can opt out of, build on, or swap out, too. Since it sounds like they may not be, though, it feels like they truly value those three more, and that clashes with me. But, as I've said a couple times in this thread, they never said they wouldn't make a basic skill system the default, they just said that everything outside of "Combat, Magic, and Movement" is optional. So who knows, I could be lamenting over nothing; here's hoping I am. As always, play what you like

 

[Obryn]

And for the record, even in this thread, I haven't advocated complex rules be shoved down everyone's throats. I just lamented that they seemed to find "Combat, Magic, and Movement" more integral to the game than even a basic skill system. They could just as easily add a basic skill system that you can opt out of, build on, or swap out, too. Since it sounds like they may not be, though, it feels like they truly value those three more, and that clashes with me. But, as I've said a couple times in this thread, they never said they wouldn't make a basic skill system the default, they just said that everything outside of "Combat, Magic, and Movement" is optional. So who knows, I could be lamenting over nothing; here's hoping I am. As always, play what you like

I'll be honest - for me, unless it's an actual skill-based game like Savage Worlds, skill systems are no longer a selling point most of the time. This is one area where I think early D&D had it exactly right - with a strong enough class system (with backgrounds, maybe) I don't need a skill system. The more I check out games like Dungeon World, the more comfortable with this I become.

It doesn't bother me at all that a core game could be released without skills. AD&D and the old red box were, and they worked pretty great; if "a red box for 2014" is the goal, I think that's fine.

-O

 

[DEFCON 1]

It doesn't bother me at all that a core game could be released without skills. AD&D and the old red box were, and they worked pretty great; if "a red box for 2014" is the goal, I think that's fine.

And this right here I think is where we get all the trouble when describing 5E. By continually using the word "core". Because what would have been considered "core" in 3E and 4E is thousands of rules more than what is "core" in 5E. And thus... when you say "a core game could be released without skills"... people freak out. Or when it's said the "core of the game is combat and movement"... people freak out. Because they still have the mindset that "core" is the all the stuff you get in the first three books... when in actuality in 5E... "core" is nothing but the Basic rules. Of which probably 95% of all players won't actually be playing.

People get hung up on words. Especially ones that have been used before. The word "core" implies things for a good many people that just are no longer the case in 5E... the same way the word "skills" imply things for a good many people which are no longer applicable in 5E. So let's stop using the word "core" when talking about 5E, because it's confusing people and getting them freaked out.

The Basic game is combat and movement. The game that probably only 5% of the players will actually play. The Standard game will include all the additional junk that we've come to expect, including exploration and interaction rules and mechanics. And just because they are still working on finalizing the Basic rules... it does not mean they aren't working on the Standard rules too. And if you came away with that impression, then you are mistaken.

Remember: "Core" game in 3E/4E = STANDARD game in 5E. Not BASIC game.

 

[Libramarian]

I do wonder if he means that the base assumption is that only those items will feature in every game.

No I think he's saying more than that because he says
"The core rules present the minimum rules needed"

minimum rules needed = enough for a complete, playable game

He is saying that "the basic mechanics for stuff like moving, combat, and casting spells" is a complete playable game.

And I'm not sure I agree with that. Of course, he says "stuff like" so maybe this is not everything he has in mind. But it's still a bit disheartening as others have said. That's enough to run a prepackaged plot-based adventure, but not enough to do your own thing.

 

[gyor]

Anyone else curious as to which 2 to 3 classes and 3 races will be in the next playtest packet? My guess is Tieflings, Half Orcs, and Gnomes. Classes I guess the Warlock, Sorceror, and Paladin.

 

[gyor]

Remember: "Core" game in 3E/4E = STANDARD game in 5E. Not BASIC game.

that sums it up pretty well. Basic is just for newbies till they graduate to standard and DnD 1e fans. Core=Standard which makes sense given Standard basically means normal.

 

[Dragoslav]

Anyone else curious as to which 2 to 3 classes and 3 races will be in the next playtest packet? My guess is Tieflings, Half Orcs, and Gnomes. Classes I guess the Warlock, Sorceror, and Paladin.

My guess for the races is Dragonborn, Shardminds, and Wilden, and for classes Runepriest, Bladesinger, and Warlord.

 

[pemerton]

when I look at how other D&D editions over the years have handled exploration, I can't say they're objectively part of the D&D Experience. 4e didn't care. OD&D didn't care.

Why do you say OD&D didn't care about exploration. Exploring the Underworld is pretty much the heart of classic D&D play, isn't it?

 

[pemerton]

No I think he's saying more than that because he says
"The core rules present the minimum rules needed"

minimum rules needed = enough for a complete, playable game

He is saying that "the basic mechanics for stuff like moving, combat, and casting spells" is a complete playable game.

And I'm not sure I agree with that. Of course, he says "stuff like" so maybe this is not everything he has in mind. But it's still a bit disheartening as others have said. That's enough to run a prepackaged plot-based adventure, but not enough to do your own thing.

I would be pretty surprised if some form of ability check is not part of the minimum core.

Also, I think he is focusing in that list on action resolution checks. That list (with ability checks) is enough to do action reolution both in a pre-pacakged module and a home-generated game - you're right that the GM for a home-driven game also needs some sort of tools and advice for scenario design (I'm thinking 4e encounter buildng, the Moldvay dungeon tables, etc), but I don't think Mearls is exlcuding that stuff - he just didn't list non-action-resolution mechanics.