D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Gimby]

Perhaps not; but it is a general truism in game design that, unless you specifically go out of your way to make support very enjoyable or very powerful (the two are not the same), people will prefer to play direct-action roles, even if they would otherwise like playing supportive roles.

While I think your overall point is fine, it's worth considering confounding factors with this - a typical MMO player will probably be spending most of their play time in non-group content and the tank and healer roles are really only needed for group content. Leveling, farming and so on are typically much easier in a DPS spec of some sort (tank and healer leveling in early WoW was especially painful). Also the ratio for small group content doesn't always extend to large group content - in WoW for example you'd typically need fewer tanks by ratio the larger your group was - typically only needing 2 even for the largest scale content. This then becomes a sort of self reinforcing cycle which puts off people who would otherwise be interested in support roles.

The dynamic in D&D is quite different - you are almost always in "group content"

 

[Lanefan]

Playtest documents are....literally nothing like "written down house rules" beyond....the fact that they are written. Are you seriously claiming the two are identical?

Other than perhaps degree of organization, once the houserules become extensive enough what's the difference?

Take the system I use. It's fully written up (except for many of the monsters), sort of vaguely organized, and consists almost entirely of tweaks, kitbashes, and houserules on top of the 1e chassis. The only thing that perhaps prevents it from being a "playtest document" is that it's too tightly tied to the specific setting I use; doing a more generic version is very much on the docket, but don't hold yer breath as it's a bit down the priority list.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm struggling to envision this, do you have an idea/example that elaborates some of your thought process?

Bearing in mind that I am inventing numbers as I write this post, and thus any numerical balance is extremely unlikely to bear out beyond superficial examination:

Imagine that in this hypothetical 6e, we can define the absolute bare minimum one requires in order to have...a character, as opposed to not having one.

We can, for example, conclude that they can wear cloth (as that tends to be something anyone can use), but have no training beyond that--no skill with armor, weapons, equipment, etc. They have no training/proficiency with any skill, saving throw, or whatever else--but they do have a floor modifier of +0 to any such derived statistics. Implicitly, they have less than 10 in their stats, as these stats are likely to be developed through play--though perhaps choosing some set of non-penalty ability scores (but not actual bonus) is warranted. This character has no class features, no feats. Background could be more complicated, but we'll assume that that background will get established later. Lacking class features, they can't cast spells. We can, however, presume that they understand at least one language both spoken and written. Likely, the character has a species/race/physiology/etc. That one's a bit harder to explain being discovered/learned by doing/etc., but perhaps it could be elective too with a bit of extra effort. (I would not expect the system to be designed from that point, but it could be a bolt-on.)

From there, we start defining chunky pieces of the features a full character would have, that this one doesn't. Things like:

• Various armor/weapon training
• Increasing base HP
• Improving saving throws
• Learning skills
• Improving ability scores
• Gaining cantrips and a spellcasting modifier
• Gaining a 1st level spell and slot
• Gaining a core baseline class feature (e.g. Bardic Inspiration, Lay on Hands, Divine/Primal Order, etc.)

Some of these might lock you into specific choices, e.g. if you choose Intelligence as your spellcasting modifier, you can't become a Druid or Bard, or if you improve your hit points up to the maximum, you can only be a Barbarian, etc.; but that's for later speculation.

Then, we explain various ways of assembling these pieces to produce an easier experience. Zeroed out across the board, that's your ultra-gritty OSR-style starting experience. Good defenses, HP, saves, but otherwise feature-free? That's your "training wheels" approach for brand-new players. Perhaps, maybe in a supplement, develop rules for a quicker-but-still-granular character creation--sort of an "accelerated novice levels" sort of thing--so that people who love making their characters grow organically can do so, really letting them "play" the character to "build" it, as it were.

Further, produce a handful of official "starter character" adventures, fully designed around having characters that are this much weaker than a standard character. (After all, this would be one of the best ways for people to learn the ins and outs of the new system!) Have at least one of those "starter character" adventures be specifically geared for an old-school experience, so that that approach is clearly marked as just as much warranted and accepted as any other. You could even implement random results for what things characters get by achieving goals in their starter-character adventures, so that the player genuinely discovers what they're going to play by playing, rather than by having a single roll of the dice tell them.

 

[Lanefan]

For me, my dream 6e would include...

• Asynchronous class design: playing different classes should feel radically different and fun in different ways
• Moving almost all damaging abilities to the martial classes (spellcasters would still buff, impact the environment, curse enemies, etc)

I'd rather almost go the opposite: arcane casters become almost exclusively damage-dealing artillery and mind-screwers while divine casters do the buff-support-healing piece.

• Getting rid of the monk, and making it a variation of the Fighter class

There's room for a Swashbuckler-y class that could mechanically replace the Monk in the light-armoured warrior slot but I think the light and-or ranged warrior needs to be a different class than the heavy knight-cavalier type of warrior.

• Replacing barbarian, ranger and druid with a wilderness-focused class that could go combat, exploration, or magic based

Barbarian can outright go IMO. Return Ranger to being a Fighter with wilderness extras a la 1e, and turn Druids into Nature Clerics.

• Introducing an intelligence-based expert class that could include the artificer, the commander, and the Psion

What makes the "commander" tick?

• Having enemies be fun, easy, and interesting to run
• Combining everything into 10 levels
• Including explicit rules support for different versions of D&D: an exploration focused campaign, a campaign based on running a tavern, a political intrigue campaign...

More to the point, include written-out play examples for each (a la 1e DMG pp 96-99 or so) so people can read how these might play out at the table.

These last three points are fine ideas.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

While I think your overall point is fine, it's worth considering confounding factors with this - a typical MMO player will probably be spending most of their play time in non-group content and the tank and healer roles are really only needed for group content. Leveling, farming and so on are typically much easier in a DPS spec of some sort (tank and healer leveling in early WoW was especially painful). Also the ratio for small group content doesn't always extend to large group content - in WoW for example you'd typically need fewer tanks by ratio the larger your group was - typically only needing 2 even for the largest scale content. This then becomes a sort of self reinforcing cycle which puts off people who would otherwise be interested in support roles.

The dynamic in D&D is quite different - you are almost always in "group content"

Actually...the vast majority of play, once you have completed the "main story" of an MMO, is almost entirely group-focused. That's...why I brought up the "duty roulette" thing. You are getting assigned a random dungeon or raid with other players.

It's actually a pretty recent development to have MMOs include the ability to play through the thing almost totally solo. Most players are expected to be social. (The fact that many MMOs do not enforce their community standards much, if at all, is part of why many of their communities end up highly toxic, unfortunately.)

 

[mamba]

So what does that make of a huge, huge swathe of both complaints levied at, I dunno, some particular version of some popular game out there, AND at the explicit design policy that went into the sequel?

Because if that's true, then the entire foundation upon which 5e was built is inherently suspect.

not sure what is suspect about it, some people did not like 4e and did not play it as a consequence, that is exactly that principle.

WotC did not like the reduced sales, so tried to design a game that would bring those people back with 5e, and started having playtests to ‘ensure’ that this time around the audience liked the direction. That too supports the principle, or am I misunderstanding what you are asking?

I am sure that if 4e had had 5e’s success, the fact that some people complained and wanted something else would have not mattered to WotC and they would have stuck with 4e / created a 4.5 from it instead of a 5e that departed from it a lot. That WotC looks for a bigger audience over sticking to its 4e guns does not change that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Plenty of people chose option B regarding that particular version of a popular game. Certainly a valid choice, and it makes sense that the producers of said game would take that into account when they try again.

But "plenty of people [opposed it]" is precisely the standard you're complaining about if you dislike the hyperbland sorcerer and not-meaningfully-differentiated warlock. "Plenty of people" is LITERALLY why those things ended up the way they did. They failed to hit a certain minimum approval rating right out the gate, and were thus canned instantly. "Plenty of people" specifically demanded only the most milquetoast flavor, because anything even remotely spicier was upsetting, alien, different, and thus had to be eliminated.

5e was built from the ground up on this principle. If you are questioning it only now, I am choosing the charitable interpretation: that this was always a problem, and thus 5th Edition D&D was always a problem, because this was baked into its DNA from the moment it was announced. I would rather not consider a less charitable interpretation.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

not sure what is suspect about it, some people did not like 4e and did not play it as a consequence, that is exactly that principle.

WotC did not like the reduced sales, so tried to design a game that would bring those people back with 5e, and started having playtests to ‘ensure’ that this time around the audience liked the direction. That too supports the principle, or am I misunderstanding what you are asking?

I am sure that if 4e had had 5e’s success, the fact that some people complained and wanted something else would have not mattered to WotC and they would have stuck with 4e / created a 4.5 from it instead of a 5e that departed from it a lot. That WotC looks for a bigger audience over sticking to its 4e guns does not change that.

As said to Micah: The problem is that the standard being levied is one of being irritated with design-by-popular-vote, but that is literally what 5e was! It literally did that! So if design-by-popularity is a bad idea now, I have to ask: Why wasn't it a bad idea then? Either it wasn't a bad idea then, and thus somehow 5e is magically good but new design-by-popular-vote ideas are magically bad without explanation; or it was a bad idea then, but folks who take umbrage with design-by-popular-vote now didn't complain about it because...reasons?

 

[mamba]

As said to Micah: The problem is that the standard being levied is one of being irritated with design-by-popular-vote, but that is literally what 5e was! It literally did that! So if design-by-popularity is a bad idea now, I have to ask: Why wasn't it a bad idea then?

it wasn’t a bad idea then and it isn’t a bad idea now.

I have my issues with the execution of that idea (to me the playtest as conducted is flawed, but gives WotC an idea of what is really unpopular regardless - and I suspect that this is all they really want from it in the first place, or they would have a better test).

It also doesn’t mean that everyone will like the end result, it should however mean (assuming the test actually works reasonably well) that a large part of your audience likes it well enough to not drop it for having missed the mark

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Other than perhaps degree of organization, once the houserules become extensive enough what's the difference?

A playtest document is designed to be distributed for easy, rapid testing. It is barebones, focused on efficiently communicating the mechanics in question, in a way that helps the user quickly apply said rules, and actually test them. Meaning, it explains to some extent the purpose/intent of the rules provided, especially if they have changed relative to a previous playtest document, and it specifically puts the reader in an analytical mindset relative to its content.

A playtest document is--or should be--a serious thing, presented carefully in such a way as to highlight that which is being tested, and to make it as painless as possible to rapidly perform such tests and provide detailed, specific feedback.

A house-rules document is simply record-keeping.

It's the difference between schematics and illustrations. Schematics do contain visual depictions (in most cases, anyway), but not vice-versa.

Take the system I use. It's fully written up (except for many of the monsters), sort of vaguely organized, and consists almost entirely of tweaks, kitbashes, and houserules on top of the 1e chassis. The only thing that perhaps prevents it from being a "playtest document" is that it's too tightly tied to the specific setting I use; doing a more generic version is very much on the docket, but don't hold yer breath as it's a bit down the priority list.

If I may use an analogy?

This is "Grandma's annotated cookbook". It is not an experimental procedure being shared so that the procedure can be refined later. Grandma's annotated cookbook is a beautiful thing and, in general, very usage-focused--but it is not for testing purposes.

Oh, I've got an even better idea. Imagine an engineering company working on reviewing all sorts of aspects about cars-in-general to find ways to make them cheaper, safer, more fuel-efficient, less resource-intensive, etc. You don't know what things about the car need to change, so you make it extremely modular, allowing you to swap engines, transmissions/drive-trains, brakes, wheels, exhausts, windows, whatever. All of these things can be easily popped in or out, specifically because the engineers have designed them to work that way. They create various design models with different elements, and provide them to drive-testers to analyze and report back about. As bits get refined and streamlined, they begin sticking to specific parts again and again, but the inherent hot-swappable modularity remains in this model, which would not be present in the finished product.

Now imagine you are a hobbyist muscle car enthusiast who tinkers in your garage. You've re-built and re-imagined a genuine classic car--say a '65 Shelby Mustang GT350--with top-flight, hand-machined parts, improving nearly everything about the vehicle except the upholstery. Your vehicle would not tell an outsider a damned thing about what makes a Mustang "tick", about how to do Mustang-type cars differently. It's simply designed to be a real damn fun ride, for those who are looking for that kind of ride. It has no testing value, and if you gave it to someone else to drive, they might pick up an idea or two they like to take back to their own muscle car in their garage...but they'd have to hand-machine it all over again, just like you did.

A playtest document is one specific "engineers' modular car". A house-rule document, even if made neat and pretty, is one hobbyist's muscle-car rebuild. The former is an experimental platform designed for testing purposes. The latter is a cool object to view (or, in this case, to use). And neither one of them is a production-model car (=manuscript ready for publication).