D&D 5E A Sense of Wonder in 5E

[Shemeska]

I started playing only just about the same year 3rd Edition was released. But to me it seems that the sense of wonder pretty much disappeared with 3rd edition. The way WotC produces D&D, it is all very clearly structured and explained, and given stats. There is no ambiguity, instead there's a huge mountain of new options for character optimization. As a result, 3rd and 4th are primarily games about building characters and moving pieces on a grid.
Fixing that is easy, but I don't see how WotC would through their entire work philosophy over board.

I started the year that 3e came out as well, however with the exception of the Sunless citadel (one of the first adventures I ever played through) and the 3e FRCS, virtually all of the "sense of wonder" that I got from D&D came through 2e material (Planescape, Ravenloft, FR, etc) that I went back and read copies of. A lot of 2e material used the unreliable narrator, multiple conflicting truths (all of which might be true in Planescape for instance), rather than a comparatively dry presentation that much of 3e and later 4e gave for the material (again IMO).

I'd love for more material presenting info in that matter, intentionally trying to put some mystery into things. For material that I've written for 3.5 and Pathfinder, when possible I've tried to go for that style of presentation with myths, intentional mystery, hanging plot hooks, etc.

 

[Connorsrpg]

I also would like magic to be something more. I know it is easy to say, but there are ways of doing this.

Not focusing to heavily on the damage (in hp terms) but what a blast of fire actually does to environment is one way...but may cause arguments.

One thing I would like to see are spells that take longer to reach full effect. This came about when running 'an off the cuff game' with my kids (where we don't have PC sheets - they just choose minis and tell me what their PC is good at, which modifies their d20 roll on the spot). I grabbed an earth elemental mini at random and then the opposing wizard 'raised' this creature from a puddle of mud on the road. The sense of urgency increased as it slowly took form.

Of course many players would scream not to get their full effect/action in one go, let alone several actions, but it is a way to bring wonder back to some spells. To many spells are hard to picture happening so fast. Some would be cool to build up over time. (The spell/description builds each round). It could also be a way to get higher level spells to work at low levels, or even help slow down the caster massive damage at higher levels?

Other spells could require a few successes before they are successful. More skill like.

I don't mean a caster stands there casting their spell for several rounds. Once cast it is merely being maintained, or simply takes a few rounds to take form (or even its full form). Whilst this is happening the caster can cast their other spells.

I guess it could bring back more ritual-like casting into a combat too. (It also builds off 4E's succession of saves. Spells where after effects and such took place were more fun in my mind). Just some thoughts.

 

[Endur]

My problem with the second example here isn't that it has strict rules. Rather, it has bad rules - it doesn't require the player to explain what it is that his/her PC is doing in order to generate a skill check.

This leads into an issue of role playing versus roll playing. I'd much prefer a player to role player his character dealing with an issue before rolling an appropriate skill check. I don't want to hold it against the player if they do the wrong thing in their wrong play as my percenption of what would work in reality. Instead, I'd prefer to give them a +2 circumstance bonus.

 

[Scribble]

A lot of 2e material used the unreliable narrator, multiple conflicting truths (all of which might be true in Planescape for instance), rather than a comparatively dry presentation that much of 3e and later 4e gave for the material (again IMO).

I'd love for more material presenting info in that matter, intentionally trying to put some mystery into things.

I completely agree.

 

[billd91]

For me it's not about encouraging but about mandating ie can the action resolution rules even be engaged without giving some account of what the PC is doing?

If people aren't doing it with encouragement, they won't do it with mandates either. Though how a game would enforce that mandate is anybody's guess. My gut tells me that people would simply ignore any such mandate and play the styles they prefer to play.

 

[pemerton]

Though how a game would enforce that mandate is anybody's guess.

Well, no one is going to break into anyone's club house and insist!

But Monopoly mandates that dice be rolled by players as part of taking their turn, because there is no other procedure for working out how far your token moves on the board.

AD&D mandates that a target be identified before damage from an attack is applied (sometimes the target is identifed by choice, sometimes randomly) - otherwise there is no way of applying the damage.

And I'm talking about action resolution mechanics that can't be adjudicated unless we know what, in the fiction, the character is doing. So we can't adjudicate (for example) a Trapfinding roll unless we know what the character is doing that permits the player to make the roll. And as I said, the level and type of description required will give us a good idea of what the game cares about.

 

[Quickleaf]

And I'm talking about action resolution mechanics that can't be adjudicated unless we know what, in the fiction, the character is doing. So we can't adjudicate (for example) a Trapfinding roll unless we know what the character is doing that permits the player to make the roll. And as I said, the level and type of description required will give us a good idea of what the game cares about.

I was shocked when a recent player of mine just wouldn't describe his actions around trapfinding. He rolled a poor Perception check to search for traps, and then kept trying to use Thievery to detect/disarm. Finally, the only way I could get him to engage with the fiction was to say "ok show me how your mini moves across the board square-by-square."

DMing should not make me feel like I'm a dental hygienist pulling teeth!

Whatever creates that phenomenon in player behavior needs to be killed and composted IMHFO.

 

[MacMathan]

This relates to spoilers but I think it would also apply to recapturing the wonder of youthful D&D again,


http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/04/27

 

[pemerton]

I was shocked when a recent player of mine just wouldn't describe his actions around trapfinding.

<snip>

Whatever creates that phenomenon in player behavior needs to be killed and composted IMHFO.

I have a personal theory about players who want to use skill checks as an alternative to engaging the fiction, rather than as a consequence of engaging the fiction. The theory is this: they don't like the scene that the GM has framed, and so want to use a skill check to reframe it.

For example, GM says, You are standing at the entrance to a corridor". Player responds, "I check Trapfinding." What the player is really trying to do here is to reframe the scene as one in which there are no unknown/unobserved threats in the corridor. Thereby avoiding engaging the scene the GM has actually framed.

Another example: GM says, "You see a menacing figure blocking your path." Player responds, "I check Diplomacy." What the player is really trying to do here is to reframe the scene as one in which there are no unfriendly NPCs blocking the way. Thereby, once again, avoiding engaging the scene the GM has actually framed.

According to this theory, then, Trapfinding/Perception skills - at least when used in this non-fiction-engaging way - are not really intended as mechanics for resolving scenes involving hidden traps, but rather as a tool for reframing such scenes. Limited evidence in favour of this interpretation of the situation is that players who defend use of these skills complain about tedium/pixel-bitching, while players who criticise the use of these skills advocate playing the game by engaging the fiction as their preferred alternative.

On this theory, also, Diplomacy skill - when used in this non-fiction-engaging way - is not intended for those players who want to resolve social situations, but rather for those players who don't enjoy social situations, and therefore want a way of reframing them away.

More generally, then, on this theory some of these approaches to skill use are intended to allow players limited control over scene-framing as an alternative to relying on GMs to actually frame scenes that are interesting to their players. This might seem a bit weird, but makes more sense if you assume (i) that many GMs will be running modules with scenes that their players may or may not care for, and (ii) that many groups will include certain sorts of scenes (like potentially trapped corridors) not because they particularly care for them, but because they can't envisage playing the game without them (that's just what D&D is for them, even if they find bits of it boring).

Anyway, this is just a theory, and I put it forward somewhat tentatively, but I do feel there is something to it. Personally, I would prefer a D&Dnext that tried to make these sorts of skills tools for engaging the fiction, rather than what are, in effect, metagame tools for reframing scenes. But that would require a system that also puts responsibility for framing decent scenes well-and-truly on the shoulders of the GM - and I don't think D&Dnext will do this, because (i) it wants to cater to sandboxing, which is a different technique for giving players some control over scene framing, and (ii) for reasons I don't really understand GM responsibility for scene-framing in 4e is widely scene as a negative rather than a positive ("my precious encounter"), and D&Dnext seems to be pulling back from many of these features of 4e.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I don't think of them as reframing scenes - which smacks of "taking control of the game from the DM" - but as providing me with information my character should have.

I agree the game would be better if I look at the corridor and say "I proceed cautiously down the corridor, looking for any signs of traps", but ultimately when I roll Find Traps I'm saying to the DM, "My character knows what the signs of traps are, whereas I don't. Please tell me if my trapfinding character sees anything you have not yet described."

I'd love to be able to engage in persuasive, in-character dialogue with the half-ogre blocking my way, but even if I am good enough at making up conversation to do so, it still helps to know "my character is persuasive and well-studied in half-ogre behavior, so please interpret my phrasing in a way most elegant and persuasive to the half-ogre."