D&D 5E Are you happy with D&D Next so far?

[Ratskinner]

One feature of 4e that distinguishes it, I think, from 3E is that if you don't remainn focused on the underlying fiction, the combat resolution mechanics won't give you much of an alternative default fiction. This is because of their well-known non-simulationist character (eg encounter powers, scaling DCs etc). In my view, this is why, for those groups who aren't interested in or don't maintain that focus on the underlying fiction, the game plays (as it is often put) "like a board game". Whereas in 3E, even if you don't care about the stakes of what is going on in the fiction, the more-or-less simulationist mechanics themselves still deliver some sort of surface-level fiction about who went where and tried what and stabbed whom.

I just gotta tell you, in a friendly way, ...this makes absolutely no sense with my experience whatsoever. I don't find anything about the way 3e or 4e work mechanically that I would describe as "narrative". I just don't find narrative mechanics to be a big feature of D&D in any edition. That's not to say narrative play doesn't happen, but its not a big feature of the mechanics. I find 4e to be just as simulationist as early editions...its just simulating a slightly different "reality" in a much more prescribed manner than earlier editions. Heck, one of D&D's core problems is that its got a strong simulationist bent, but is also really bad at it. (see all the arguments about HP, healing, alignment, Vancian (or not) etc.)

 

[SteveC]

Um. It's the first iteration of the playtest. It's like thirty pages. Of course there's a lot more coming.

Right, I certainly understand that. That's why I said this:

Now this is such an early playtest that there may very well be a lot more to come, but right now this game is giving me a mid-eighties vibe, and I'm not interested in going back. What's more, it's taken the classes that I enjoyed the most (rogue and fighter) and returned them to a "why bother" status. Ugh.

For your first playtest, I'd say you want to lead with something interesting. To me, this isn't really it. I have Keep on the Borderlands in the box with my 1E stuff, so nothing new there. The classes and system give me a very mid-eighties vibe, crossed with a Castles and Crusades style core. Nothing I haven't seen before.

Now the thing is, the backgrounds and themes idea really intrigues me, so I am still looking forward to the future, but the stuff they've shown me is pretty much content I already have, and content in the case of the rogue and fighter, that I discarded in favor of something (in my opinion) more interesting.

I've run and played the playtest, and I had this horrible sensation of "been here before." That certainly may be the designer's intention, and if so, I'd say "do not want!" Your mileage may vary, and probably does... and that's perfectly okay.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

First and foremost, it's a playtest, so trying to gauge if I'll like 5E is too early. I like a lot of what I'm seeing, but is it enough for my group to switch from Castles & Crusades? So far, no, but as I said, I like what I see.

 

[pemerton]

I just gotta tell you, in a friendly way, ...this makes absolutely no sense with my experience whatsoever. I don't find anything about the way 3e or 4e work mechanically that I would describe as "narrative". I just don't find narrative mechanics to be a big feature of D&D in any edition.

All I can really do is refer you back to my discussion upthread of the Chained Cambion. (EDIT: It's on the other thread, the Rule-of-3 one.)

I'll elaborate on that example in one way, though. What makes it support narrativist play (in the Forge sense, of thematically engaging and expressive play) and not just a type of simulationism (like your PC going bonkers in Call of Cthulhu) is because the players have a high degree of agency in choosing how to respond to the situation of resentment at being chained that the GM has thrown them into.

Now the thing is, the backgrounds and themes idea really intrigues me

Themes don't do a lot for me - at this stage I'm not seeing how they difffer meaningfully from feat trees - but backgrounds look interesting. (There are what seem to be some typos on the character sheets, where 3rd level features are described as coming from a background that I think in fact are theme-generated feats.)

But until we see a richer non-combat resolution system than what's been presented so far, I don't quite see how the backgrounds are going to be put to work.

One of my complaints about 4e relates to this. Paragon paths, in many cases, do a great job of anchoring the PC in the fiction (with my own group, I have a Divine Philosopher of Erathis, Ioun, the Raven Queen and Vecna, a Warpriest of Moradin, a Demonskin Adept with runes of chaos inscribed on his demonskins and on his eyelids, and a Questing Knight). But there is nothing in the skill challenge mechanics to give advice on how this sort of anchoring in the fiction is meant to play out in action resolutio. I just make it up as I go along - for example, I frequently give that Warpriest a +2 on Diplomacy checks when he's dealing with dwarven artisans and warriors who would naturally look up to him - but there is a lot of scope here for greater mechanical richness. (I'm thinking here of, say, Burning Wheel, where reputations give mechanical advantages on Circles checks, or to HeroWars/Quests, where relationships can be used as augments on other checks.)

Background features like Trade, Knight's Station, Temple Services etc seem like they should be feeding into the resolution of social challenges in some sort of way. And features like Endurance and Researcher seem a bit weak at present, without more guidance on things like how long a normal person can hold their breath (ie what benefit does Endurance really give me?), or how hard it is to find and then gain access to a sage or library (ie how useful is Researcher really?).

Also, the skills seem a little too derivative, at present, of 3E and 4e norms. "Survival" skill doesn't really tell me what it covers unless I have in mind 3.5 (I assume I can't use survival to help dodge monster's attacks, for example, although a literal reading might suggest otherwise). Backgrounds might be even better if the skills were framed more with reference to categories of experience and expertise within the fiction (eg "forester of the northern woods +3", or "cutpurse of the southern trading ports +3") rather than to abstract categories that only have meaning relative to prior editions of the game.

Anyway, that's both my interest in, and my views of the current limitations of, backgrounds.

 

[pemerton]

4e does not hold up well to shallow purely mechanical play.

That sounds right to me. I think this is where the "board game" issue comes from.

Whereas I think a more process-simulation enging like 3E is seen to deliver some sort of story, and some sort of engagement with the fiction, even when just being played at the shallow mechanical level, just because of the way its action resolution mechanics are more tightly correlated with particular processes and events within the fiction.

I think RuneQuest's biggest strength is also its biggest weakness. It's bloody brutal combat system calls too you begging to be used. Sure, there's a good chance your character will die every time they take up their sword, but it's so much fun you don't care as much as you should.

I think that's a nice way of putting it.

The circumstance in which I've most enjoyed RQ, Stormbringer, Elric, Pendragon and CoC is in tournament play, with a strong scenario and a capable GM. The mechanics are so transparent and easy to read that their is no confusion about who your PC is or what his/her place is within the fiction. With a good, evocative GM the mechanics support rather than impede immersion in the shared imaginary situation. And because it's a one-shot, it doesn't matter if, in the bloody climax, your PC dies.

(A Rolemaster character sheet is a bit more detailed than an RQ one (it has more fiddly bits) but with that caveat is almost as transparent (to see how good your guy is at fighting, for example, or jumping, all you have to do is look at the relevant skill bonus). But the action rseolution mechanics are more intricate, especially in combat, and so it can take a reasonable amount of play to actually get a feel for what your PC can and can't do well.)

 

[Jhaelen]

So far I fail to see the point. Since I haven't seen any of the optional modules yet it just looks like YAORC* to me. It currently lacks almost everything I've grown to expect from a modern RPG system.
I could see myself playing it as a one-off for nostalgia's sake, but not more.









(* Yet Another Retro Clone)