7 Years of D&D Stories? And a "Big Reveal" Coming?

When asked what he was working on, WotC's Chris Perkins revealed a couple of juicy tidbits. They're not much, but they're certainly tantalizing. Initially, he said that "Our marketing team has a big reveal in the works", and followed that up separately with "Right now I'm working on the next seven years of D&D stories". What all that might mean is anybody's guess, but it sounds like there are plans for D&D stretching into the foreseeable future! Thanks to Barantor for the scoop!

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I'm confused about how the discussion here relates to the thread topic.
I'm seeing a lot "gotcha!" responses about mechanics, that actually don't seem to be "getting" anything. Or anywhere.
Just because you think you're being logical and your opinion makes sense to you, doesn't mean it does to me, or that your logic is air-tight.

Have I missed anything in the past 70 pages about a big reveal coming?

Nope you have as afar as I can see missed nothing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Which was ultimately my point. Much of 4e's presentation left me with the ever-pressing need to "fill in the gaps" needed to make these things work. I constantly needed to explain how "1d10 radiant damage and push 2" equated to Turning Undead, or how "all enemies must resist a Will attack or be pulled toward the target" was actually a clever fient and not mind control.

"Make things work" is an odd way to put it. Clear mechanics (crunch) make it easy to resolve how something works. If the presented fictional mechanism ('fluff') that explains how it looks or why it works isn't satisfactory, it could be changed or embellished well ahead of time, when the character chooses the power, or the DM chooses the monster. The section on how to read powers comes right out and says you're free to change those descriptions.

It isn't a very 'D&D' concept, though. In past editions, you'd need a feat, like Spell Thematics, or a spell you cast on spells, like Sense Shifting, to change how your magic appeared. The idea that mechanics could represent only what something accomplished, rather than be different-for-the-sake-of-difference for each possible way it might be accomplished, was revolutionary... in 1981, when Champoins! used the concept extensively to handle the crazy variety of super-powers and origin stories in the comics it emulated. Obviously, much later, 3e hinted at the idea by letting players describe their PCs appearance as they liked, even if it meant making their gear deviate from how the rulebook described it: so if you wanted a single-edged greatsword or composite bow made from the bones of elves (because everyone knows that elves make the best bows), it didn't require completely new stats - the very similar idea of 're-skinning' also cross-pollinated from video games. Now, re-skinning has become an acceptable way to wedge in a character concept that existing options don't fit well.

 

[Remathilis]

"Make things work" is an odd way to put it. Clear mechanics (crunch) make it easy to resolve how something works. If the presented fictional mechanism ('fluff') that explains how it looks or why it works isn't satisfactory, it could be changed or embellished well ahead of time, when the character chooses the power, or the DM chooses the monster. The section on how to read powers comes right out and says you're free to change those descriptions.

It isn't a very 'D&D' concept, though. In past editions, you'd need a feat, like Spell Thematics, or a spell you cast on spells, like Sense Shifting, to change how your magic appeared. The idea that mechanics could represent only what something accomplished, rather than be different-for-the-sake-of-difference for each possible way it might be accomplished, was revolutionary... in 1981, when Champoins! used the concept extensively to handle the crazy variety of super-powers and origin stories in the comics it emulated. Obviously, much later, 3e hinted at the idea by letting players describe their PCs appearance as they liked, even if it meant making their gear deviate from how the rulebook described it: so if you wanted a single-edged greatsword or composite bow made from the bones of elves (because everyone knows that elves make the best bows), it didn't require completely new stats - the very similar idea of 're-skinning' also cross-pollinated from video games. Now, re-skinning has become an acceptable way to wedge in a character concept that existing options don't fit well.

You know what, I don't care.

I played 4th edition for nearly a year, DMing and playing with some of the best DMs I've known. I played a warlord, a wizard, a rogue, a swordmage, and a cleric (none of which got higher than 5th level, I must admit). *I* found it boring. *I* found it repetitive. *I* was uninspired by bland, boring stat blocks masquerading as fireballs, goblins, and flame tongues. *I* found the combat grindy and tedious. *I* found the fluff was missing, and when it was there it was very different than the assumptions from before (see: angel, eladrin, and archon). And *I* wasn't alone since every single one of my rather large group of players (12 people among three groups) agreed with me. And they were never problems *I* had playing 2e, 3e, or Pathfinder, nor do I expect to have them in 5e from the couple of demo sessions I've played.

You found your muse. Good job. Go play it. But don't you DARE tell me what I saw with my own eyes were somehow invalid or that you know better.

 

[pemerton]

I really enjoyed 4e and even I have to say the above is all true (at least for me). In play, it was great and the narrative was fine, but reading the books full of stat blocks did not really inspire that much, to tell you the truth.

No doubt about it, the 4e rule books were much better references than reads.

My experience was very different. Reading the 4e Monster Manuals and players' manuals (not the general rules, but the power lists) makes me want to see these things in play (and to imagine what might happen in the course of such play).

It's not the same as reading a story, obviously. But I don't really read RPG books for story.

Much of 4e's presentation left me with the ever-pressing need to "fill in the gaps" needed to make these things work. I constantly needed to explain how "1d10 radiant damage and push 2" equated to Turning Undead, or how "all enemies must resist a Will attack or be pulled toward the target" was actually a clever fient and not mind control

<snip>

I was very happy when flipping through Heroes of the Fallen Lands, I saw actual text explaining powers, races, monsters, magic items, etc.

I had the exact opposite reaction on both counts.

It seemed to me obvious how "1d10 radiant damage and push 2 + immobilised" equated to Turning Undead: the undead were blasted by holy light, were driven back from the caster, and cowered in despair. In play it works out like this too, but I could see it in the stat block.

The two most complex creature powers I remember GMing are both from MM3: some of the ones on the Pact Hag; and the Chained Cambion. The Pact Hag has a range of dominating and similar control effects, but for some of them their "pactish" nature is really brought out.

On the other hand, the Chained Cambion has one of the best effects I've ever encountered, Mind Shackles. The text of the power is:

Two enemies [of the Chained Cambion] adjacent to each other in a close burst 5 are psychically shackled (save ends; each enemy makes a separate saving throw against this effect). While psychically shackled, an enemy takes 10 psychic damage at the start and the end of its turn if it isn't adjacent to the other creature that was affected by this power.​

When you read this power it may not be immediately obvious what it is getting at. Once you read the Chained Cambion description ("Wrapped in chains and masked with a gruesome iron visage, a chained cambion radiates pain, rage, and frustration") it starts to make more sense - the cambion, being the spiteful type, vents its frustration by making others endure it.

Then when you see it in play, it becomes absolutely awesome - or at least, it did for me. The two affected targets were a melee fighter and an archer - so already they weren't that keen on being shackled together. And then they were standing on the roof of a small shrine, and had to find a way to get down without becoming separated. So the frustration gradually increases. And then, when one of them saves but the other doesn't, the one who has saved has to decide whether to submit to further frustrating chaining so as to protect his ally from the psychic damage, or whether to callously move away and just let the other suffer alone.

I want a system that can give me mechanical elements that will work like this in play.

The Essentials verbiage, on the other hand, I find completely off-putting. Either show me mechanics that will make it true in play (how does the PHB tell me that dwarves are hardy? because they get Second Wind as a minor action!), or say nothing at all. But long descriptions that are divorced from the play experience, and sometimes are misleading as to they way some power or ability will actually play out at the table, are not very interesting to me. When I look through my Essentials books, I skip over all that stuff so I can see what the mechanics are, and hence really see what sort of fiction is going to be created by using this stuff in a game.

 

[Sadras]

Then when you see it in play, it becomes absolutely awesome - or at least, it did for me. The two affected targets were a melee fighter and an archer - so already they weren't that keen on being shackled together. And then they were standing on the roof of a small shrine, and had to find a way to get down without becoming separated. So the frustration gradually increases. And then, when one of them saves but the other doesn't, the one who has saved has to decide whether to submit to further frustrating chaining so as to protect his ally from the psychic damage, or whether to callously move away and just let the other suffer alone.

I find at the table it becomes more of...
Player A (Fighter), who succeeded his save, says to Player B (Archer), how many hit points do you have, because if I hit the Cambion I can do X damage? Player (B) says 50, I should be able to withstand a little damage, plus I have psychic protection ring. Player C (Warlord) says to Player B I will grant you another saving throw should you fail. DM things 'bleh, mechanics failed again to evoke anything' There is no question of callousness or ally protection - in a game like this it comes down to hit points.

If they know there are 8 goblins archers protecting a mountain path - the PC thinks to himself he can survive 8 attacks plus his armour class is high enough so he will not think twice about running into the line of fire because the mechanics are stuffed. D&D raw is not great in this regard. Bajillion hit point systems have a tendency of dumbing the game down!

As for the Chained Cambion - all you have to do is look at the 3.x Kyton (Chained Devil) who I find richer in every way. I do not find anything complex or unique about that Chained Cambion power.

 

[pemerton]

I find at the table it becomes more of...
Player A (Fighter), who succeeded his save, says to Player B (Archer), how many hit points do you have, because if I hit the Cambion I can do X damage? Player (B) says 50, I should be able to withstand a little damage, plus I have psychic protection ring. Player C (Warlord) says to Player B I will grant you another saving throw should you fail. DM things 'bleh, mechanics failed again to evoke anything' There is no question of callousness or ally protection - in a game like this it comes down to hit points.

Is that actual play experience of this creature?

As for the Chained Cambion - all you have to do is look at the 3.x Kyton (Chained Devil) who I find richer in every way.

A 3E chain devil can attack with chains, can animate chains, and can cause a debuff which is described as " A chain devil can make its face resemble one of an opponent’s departed loved ones or bitter enemies" but does not seem to express that description in any very interesting mechanical form.

It doesn't seem that rich to me. In 4e, the MM2 has a gorechain devil which has the only non-magical domination power that I know of in the system: it controls its target with its chains, like a puppet (mechanically, it is domination until the target saves, or starts its turn outside the devil's reach). From memory, I used one of these in my encounter with the chained cambion, but it was not as memorable.

 

[Sadras]

Is that actual play experience of this creature?

No, however my gaming experience with D&D of over 25 years should count for something, especially on how players react. The fear of damage is only relevant if the damage is significant, otherwise there is a lack of choice - that is where the mechanics fail and as a result that power. So it is only interesting in the right circumstances.

Furthermore, one does not require a Chained Cambion Mind Shackles to bring about the choice of callousness or the protection of an ally. Those PC actions can be evoked with general encounters, which makes the power even less special.

A 3E chain devil can attack with chains, can animate chains, and can cause a debuff which is described as " A chain devil can make its face resemble one of an opponent’s departed loved ones or bitter enemies" but does not seem to express that description in any very interesting mechanical form. It doesn't seem that rich to me.

Yes, but be fair, just like you read the description about the chained cambion so to you must read about the Kyton.

The below is just an excerpt.

"...seek ecstasy through pain in the form of deliberate and violent self-transformation, adhering to the belief that by altering the physical and spiritual matter that makes up their form, they can reach a state of perfect being. Removing aspects of themselves and replacing them with more desirable or powerful pieces one at a time, kytons believe that experiences of heightened emotion and sensation (typically in the forms of terror and pain) lead to greater states of awareness and existence."

"By drawing strength from its new grafts, a kyton grows and becomes both stronger and more terrible to behold. Thus, weaker kytons resemble the mortal creatures they once were, whereas older ones are horrifying patchworks of transplanted material that rarely look like their original forms."

"Kytons' need to replace parts of themselves with those of stronger mortals puts them in perpetual danger of attacking creatures that are too powerful for them to kill....(snip) Seeing strength in numbers, kytons often attack or trap a mortal victim as a team, hauling the unfortunate soul to the Plane of Shadow, converting their prey into a new kyton or dividing its body and soul among them for grafting and nourishment."

I find I can draw a wealth of ideas from the above and bring that through when the group of chain devils attack - you might not be able to identify a specific mechanical ability which tears off pieces of a characters body but you can certainly roleplay that into combat, it is much more evocative - imagine a situation where a character (the victim of their attack) is being grappled/pinned by the interlocking chains of two kytons, while the remaining chains are (through attacks, dancing chains) disarming the character, ripping off armour, shredding through the backpack and finally tearing through the character's flesh attempting to dismember him.

In 4e, the MM2 has a gorechain devil which has the only non-magical domination power that I know of in the system: it controls its target with its chains, like a puppet (mechanically, it is domination until the target saves, or starts its turn outside the devil's reach).

I used the gorechain devil. I liked the gorechain devil.

From memory, I used one of these in my encounter with the chained cambion, but it was not as memorable.

For me, the domination aspect is much more engaging as it doesn't rely on a mechanical system that places so much value on the metagame aspect of hit points whereby potentially interesting powers are diluted.

 

[Eric V]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION],

Just to be clear, the actual play of things was great (if a bit long and tedious at high paragon) and the clearness of the rules was a plus. As a reference tool, it's probably the best PHB, IMO. However, while I don't read RPG rulebooks for story either, do you not get a different "vibe" from reading class descriptions in the 5e PHB vs. the 4e one? Not that I appreciate the vagueness (I feel referring to things like that as a feature is off), but the descriptions are more evocative, at least to me.

 

[pemerton]

do you not get a different "vibe" from reading class descriptions in the 5e PHB vs. the 4e one?

I do get a different vibe when I read the 5e Basic PDf compared to the 4e PHB, but it is less inspiring. In relation to Essentials I called it verbiage, and that is probably too pejorative for 5e (which is not as badly overwritten as Essentials, in my view, was).

But when it comes to RPGing I really am a "show, don't tell" person. It is the mechanics that show me what the fiction "really" is (or will be). For instantce, p 6 refers to building a "courageous fighter", but until you get Indomitable there is no particular element of fighters that makes the courageous (and in fact the lack of WIS save proficiency points the other way). The description of some example fighters in the opening paragraphs of the class description is fine enough, but there is similar descriptive text in the opening paragraphs of the 4e PHB, and I also have a lot of examples of fantasy warriors that I can bring to mind myself.

The fear of damage is only relevant if the damage is significant

I don't know what makes you think the damage from the Chained Cambion, either in general or in the encounter in which I used it, was not significant. I can assure you that it absolutely was.

one does not require a Chained Cambion Mind Shackles to bring about the choice of callousness or the protection of an ally. Those PC actions can be evoked with general encounters, which makes the power even less special.

By all means post your actual play examples of this!

But I don't see why these instances bear upon my point: which was that there was a power which was somewhat opaque, or at least complex, in its text; but that which, in play, manifested itself clearly and brilliantly.

The below is just an excerpt.

<snip>

I find I can draw a wealth of ideas from the above and bring that through when the group of chain devils attack - you might not be able to identify a specific mechanical ability which tears off pieces of a characters body but you can certainly roleplay that into combat, it is much more evocative - imagine a situation where a character (the victim of their attack) is being grappled/pinned by the interlocking chains of two kytons, while the remaining chains are (through attacks, dancing chains) disarming the character, ripping off armour, shredding through the backpack and finally tearing through the character's flesh attempting to dismember him.

I can read stories, too, and imagine how they, or variants of them or derived from them, might be realised in the fiction.

But my first thought about your suggested encounter is what mechanics would be used. In particular, how does an assailant (in D&D) rip of armour, tear through an opponent's flesh and then dismember them (without a sword of sharpness or similar ability). It just sounds like hit point damage, which I thought you were deriding.

If the dancing chains actually had a mechanical implementation that supported that idea they would be more interesting to me than they currently are!

 

[Remathilis]

The Essentials verbiage, on the other hand, I find completely off-putting. Either show me mechanics that will make it true in play (how does the PHB tell me that dwarves are hardy? because they get Second Wind as a minor action!), or say nothing at all. But long descriptions that are divorced from the play experience, and sometimes are misleading as to they way some power or ability will actually play out at the table, are not very interesting to me. When I look through my Essentials books, I skip over all that stuff so I can see what the mechanics are, and hence really see what sort of fiction is going to be created by using this stuff in a game.

I find this a chicken-or-egg dilemma then.

Is the dwarf hardy because it has second wind, or does it have second wind because its hardy? Which comes first, the mechanics or the fluff? D&D has traditionally written from a place of fluff first, mechanics support it. Your proposing that the mechanics come first, and then you can hang whatever fluff you want on it. That is a very radically different way of doing things.

Lets try an experiment. I have a monster I designed years ago (2008) for my 4e game. I will post its stat-block and nothing else. Describe to me what that monster is. (Hint: Dahlia is the creature's name, not type)

[sblock]Dahlia Level 1 Elite Skirmisher
Tiny fey beast XP 200 each
Initiative +6 Senses Perception +2; low-light vision
HP 40; Bloodied 20
AC 20; Fortitude 15, Reflex 22, Will 17
Saving Throws +2
Action Points 1
Speed 6
Claw (standard; at-will)
+3 vs. AC. 1d4+1
Eyebite (Standard; recharge 56) Arcane, Charm, Psychic
Ranged 10; +4 vs. Will. 1d6+3 psychic damage and you are invisible to the target until the start of your next turn.
Undeniable Beauty (immediate interrupt, when Dahlia is targeted by a melee attack; at will)
+ 3 vs. Will against the attacker; the attacker must target a different creature or end its attack.
Lure of the Wild (standard; recharge )
Ranged 10; + 3 vs. Will. The target is pulled 5 squares and is dazed (save ends).
Step Through the Mists (move; encounter)
Dahlia teleports up to 3 squares.
Alignment Good Languages Common, Elven
Skills Acrobatics +9, Athletics +5, Stealth +9
Str 6 (–2) Dex 18 (+4) Wis 10 (+0)
Con 12 (+1) Int 14 (+2) Cha 12 (+1)
Equipment +1 amulet [/sblock]

Here is some perfectly good mechanics. Weave me a story.