A chance to cover new ground

[Quickleaf]

D&D Next could be an opportunity to implement some new ideas that haven't really been done in D&D before. I'm thinking things like chase rules, techniques to keep the whole group engaged when the party is split, rules/guidelines for scouting ahead (just how much do you see vs. how much risk you take), and rules for fighting on top of big monsters.

These sorts of situations come up every other game session it seems, and could benefit from robust rules support. This is the kind of innovation I'd welcome in the next edition of D&D.

What sorts of new ground would you like to see D&D Next cover?

 

[Tehnai]

As an old-school DM, I'm against all of the above. Every single one of these could be advocated on the fly by a clever DM, thus, there's no real reason for absolute rules.

I mean, a chase could be a single opposed check, a series of skill check from the PC (whichever side he's on) or a skill challenge-like thing (first of the 2 participants that gets X checks ahead of the other, you can take a roll to try and give negatives to the opponents next roll). More likely, I'd use all three in different situations, it all depends on how important the chase is.

And for fighting on top of a giant monster, well, balance check every now and then to see if folks fall off (give them a few saves if they fail, they are either on the ground, holding themselves above nothingness on a monster spine, or dead on the ground) and whenever the DM thinks about it, the giant monster tries to swat an area on the battlefield.

In short, rules are not needed in my opinion for things I can easily pull out of my nethers, it takes up precious space in the book and makes actually doing the thing often about shuffling in rulebooks to find the exact rule for the situation.

Oh, and if it's in the rules, players come to expect it to happen. It's funnier if they don't see it coming.

 

[Quickleaf]

As an old-school DM, I'm against all of the above. Every single one of these could be advocated on the fly by a clever DM, thus, there's no real reason for absolute rules.

Fair enough, though you do reference skill checks and challenges more than old school DMs usually do.

I mean, a chase could be a single opposed check, a series of skill check from the PC (whichever side he's on) or a skill challenge-like thing (first of the 2 participants that gets X checks ahead of the other, you can take a roll to try and give negatives to the opponents next roll). More likely, I'd use all three in different situations, it all depends on how important the chase is.

The same could be said of any conflict in the game. Mass combat could come down to a single check, a BD&D Battlesystem approach, or all out tactical minis boardgame.

I assumed it went without saying that I was referring to a more involved level of rules. You might wing a chase just fine, but there might be a clearer, more engaging, and consistent way of doing it. Maybe it faintly echoes a skill challenge maybe not, maybe it uses a map in a new way. But you would have the option of zooming in on a dramatic chase scene with rules support to allow tactical decision making.

Plenty of games have such rules, Hot Pursuit was a very popular supplement, and there was a recent Unearthed Arcana article called "Fight or Flight."

And for fighting on top of a giant monster, well, balance check every now and then to see if folks fall off (give them a few saves if they fail, they are either on the ground, holding themselves above nothingness on a monster spine, or dead on the ground) and whenever the DM thinks about it, the giant monster tries to swat an area on the battlefield.

Since second edition there have been special rules unique to certain classes/kits which detailed this sort of thing. IME it's not a fringe scenario, maybe in yours it is.

My point is about complex fights which, say, take entirely on the back of a flying dragon. Sure this might be run as a skill challenge in 4e terms, but I don't think skill challenges RAW do this sort of scenario justice. I mean what happens at 3 failures, the entire party falls to their death?

In short, rules are not needed in my opinion for things I can easily pull out of my nethers, it takes up precious space in the book and makes actually doing the thing often about shuffling in rulebooks to find the exact rule for the situation.

You may be content with a 30 page rulebook, and that's fine there are plent of rules light games that go for an old school feel that do this. But to claim D&D is or has been one of them is just not accurate.

 

[ExploderWizard]

New ground?

There was an entire section in the 1E DMG on evasion and pursuit. These rules were included because the default assumption about encounters wasn't that the party would always slug it out toe to toe with everything until they either won or got TPK'd.

The other stuff can easily be ruled as needed.

 

[Quickleaf]

New ground?

There was an entire section in the 1E DMG on evasion and pursuit. These rules were included because the default assumption about encounters wasn't that the party would always slug it out toe to toe with everything until they either won or got TPK'd.

Haha, I vaguely remember that section, youve got a great memory. But it was rather scant wasn't it? I mean you couldn't use it for a half hour to an hour of gaming right? But in general 1e DM was/is a great resource, and seeing chase rules back in the game would be great. By "new ground" I'm referring to a deeper ruleset for chases than they've done before.

The other stuff can easily be ruled as needed.

So could I, but it doesn't mean there aren't more elegant, consistent, and engaging ways (in both a tactical and narrative sense) of doing such things.

 

[mmadsen]

D&D Next could be an opportunity to implement some new ideas that haven't really been done in D&D before. I'm thinking things like chase rules, techniques to keep the whole group engaged when the party is split, rules/guidelines for scouting ahead (just how much do you see vs. how much risk you take), and rules for fighting on top of big monsters.

These sorts of situations come up every other game session it seems, and could benefit from robust rules support. This is the kind of innovation I'd welcome in the next edition of D&D.

Excellent point, Quickleaf. The designers really need to step back and ask, what are all the cool things that happen in a fantasy adventure story? It's jarring to step outside a super-complete rule set to do the things you want to do, so the designers should provide plenty of "hooks" in the core system and not too many specific "powers" that imply only the right characters can do certain things.

In addition to chases, scouting ahead, and fighting on large monsters, I can think of a few other, similar things that have come up. For instance, how do you handle a tiny monkey or imp climbing up a man-sized character and stealing his magic amulet? What's the best way to handle attacking a small part of a larger enemy, like a hand reaching through a hole, the sole of a giant's foot as he steps on you, etc.? Can you get two enemies to hit each other?

I want a system where dropping onto the back of a lion -- or similar monster -- means you have a chance of clinging on and stabbing it with a knife or choking it out, but walking right up to it means you have zero chance of doing the same.

I guess I want a game where tactical decisions are important, but they're not about power-listings and grid-squares.

 

[Tehnai]

Fair enough, though you do reference skill checks and challenges more than old school DMs usually do.

I believe myself an open minded one. Skill challenges were a good idea (and could easily be switched for ability checks and such)

The same could be said of any conflict in the game. Mass combat could come down to a single check, a BD&D Battlesystem approach, or all out tactical minis boardgame.

I assumed it went without saying that I was referring to a more involved level of rules. You might wing a chase just fine, but there might be a clearer, more engaging, and consistent way of doing it. Maybe it faintly echoes a skill challenge maybe not, maybe it uses a map in a new way. But you would have the option of zooming in on a dramatic chase scene with rules support to allow tactical decision making.

Plenty of games have such rules, Hot Pursuit was a very popular supplement, and there was a recent Unearthed Arcana article called "Fight or Flight."

My point is that there are a million ways to run these things, and in my opinion, they belong on blogs, or small ebooks or magazines and such.

ME it's not a fringe scenario, maybe in yours it is.

Well, if it happens all the time, the situation loses it's novelty, but I digress. It's not as much as it's a fringe situation as it is a very, very specific one. Rules ought to be general, I feel.

My point is about complex fights which, say, take entirely on the back of a flying dragon. Sure this might be run as a skill challenge in 4e terms, but I don't think skill challenges RAW do this sort of scenario justice. I mean what happens at 3 failures, the entire party falls to their death?

Well, that all depends of the desired lethality of your campaign. Hell, if a OD&D group is flying on top of an upset dragon, 3 checks is very, very generous. If I'd do the same in 4e, I'd say you're hanging on the sides for your dear life, die if you fail 3 death saves, unless one of your allies comes to help you out. Basically, the original idea was just a random example, could be ruled in any ways, really.

 

[howandwhy99]

I mean you couldn't use it for a half hour to an hour of gaming right? But in general 1e DM was/is a great resource, and seeing chase rules back in the game would be great. By "new ground" I'm referring to a deeper ruleset for chases than they've done before.

I'm curious to what you mean. I'd love a variety of different options for evasion and pursuit, but it's not like there aren't 100s of boardgames that focus on racing already. This is hardly a uncovered topic.

Are you talking about in game length as in 30-60 minutes of a chase between characters (either PC or NPC)? Is this strictly character-level evasion and pursuit, meaning on foot, as a human-like character? Do you mean you want pursuit and evasion to last 30-60 minutes of real time? What about travel through different mediums, 3D flight for instance? Sighting / sensing as well as concealment comes into escaping pursuers too. Are we including those? Are we talking abstract game rules like 4E skill challenges or 3.x UA complex skill challenges?

I like to think there are many ways to handle evasion and pursuit, but we need to be specific for each of us to really get what we want.

[BTW I use Wilderness Survival for long term pursuits which could go on for weeks, even months potentially if it crosses multiple terrains. Plus the basic rules in AD&D aren't too bad for evading simple skirmish battles.]

 

[Guest 85555]

I think all the innovations in 5e will be more about connecting the different edition styles of play rather than venturing into new territory. 4e was all all about going in a new direction. My guess is that approach would further fragment the player base.

 

[Quickleaf]

Are you talking about in game length as in 30-60 minutes of a chase between characters (either PC or NPC)? Is this strictly character-level evasion and pursuit, meaning on foot, as a human-like character? Do you mean you want pursuit and evasion to last 30-60 minutes of real time? What about travel through different mediums, 3D flight for instance? Sighting / sensing as well as concealment comes into escaping pursuers too. Are we including those? Are we talking abstract game rules like 4E skill challenges or 3.x UA complex skill challenges?

I'm talking chases on foot, in the sky, thru the city, on rooftops, in the woods which evoke excitement and involve the PCs in making decisions which determine how they progress, and a way for the DM to introduce setbacks. Yes including breaking off from combat and sighting the quarry. Yes including risk vs reward options. I choose 30-60 minutes based on personal experience with how long exciting scenes seem to last in my games, and allow for a series of meaningful decisions to be made. YMMV.

In short the entire experience of running a compelling chase. Is that clear enough?

I like to think there are many ways to handle evasion and pursuit, but we need to be specific for each of us to really get what we want.

Of course there are. Since 4e skill challenges have come up, I don't find a "one size fits all" skill challenge mechanic satisfying. There are definitely times when it works, and definitely times when it does not. I'd include chases to lean more toward the latter than the former.

[BTW I use Wilderness Survival for long term pursuits which could go on for weeks, even months potentially if it crosses multiple terrains. Plus the basic rules in AD&D aren't too bad for evading simple skirmish battles.]

You mean a straight up Wilderness Survival skill check (or a couple checks)? Or do you mean more general exploration and survival rules?

You mean the 1e DMG? I'll have to reread that section since both you and [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] bring it up.