D&D 5E Blog Post by Robert J. Schwalb

[Jester David]

I really do want to walk away... But I'm weak.


Okay, it was said somewhere by someone that D&D always required house ruling for creativity so there was no change between this and modern editions.
Which is true... with a catch.

1st Edition D&D didn't emphasise combat. Kinda. See, experience was award from treasure gained, not monsters killed. So players were rewarded exactly the same if they bypassed the monsters or tricked the monsters or did some sneaking thing so long as they received the treasure. If the party engaged in combat there was the risk of death, so this subtly incentivized PCs to avoid combat, as there was a better risk:reward ratio for combat avoidance.
The game mechanics themselves encouraged creative solutions.

2nd Edition changed this to xp from monsters, but included class based experience awards for non-combat activities such as crafting magic items, researching or casting spells, and (for the rogue) gold acquired.

You didn't answer my question. Why is casting Infravision on the thief so s/he can scout "clever" or "creative", but using Come and Get It to bunch up the enemies so the wizard can Thunderwave them over the cliff not?

Why is using Rock to Mud to drop the cavern roof on a dragon "creative", but using the power of an idol of the Summer Queen to dispel a black dragon's darkness not?

Why is staying back and using archery against D&Dnext hobgoblins "clever", but using Parthian archery against hobgoblin infantry in a 4e game not?

It's clever but not creative.
It's the difference between colouring in the lines and making your own design. It's taking the Lego set and building what was on the box.

When you're making clever tactical choices and designing a solid build it's mathematically clever yes, but you're still playing the game solely within the confines of the rules. You're playing the game how it was meant to played. You can be tactically clever in a board game. And a miniature combat game. And a chess game. And yes, all of those examples are fun and good and shiny. But they're not creative.

D&D used to be more creative. Because there were giant gaps. You couldn't help but be creative because there was so little else. It was a Lego set in a blank box.

The rules are a crutch. They impose themselves in place of the creativity, taking up room that used to be occupied by nothing, leaving less room from the DM. It's one of those modern Lego sets that is 75% unique pieces and can really only build the one thing.
And to be frank, that IS a good thing. Because it makes it possible to have fun when you aren't feeling creative. It makes the game inherently fun rather than something you can use to basis for fun.
But it's not universally fun. Which is the catch.

 

[Greg K]

Character Optimization and Builds is such a big part of D&D. It was always there but secondary, before 3e and 4e really pushed it to the forefront. I don't think you can entirely remove CharOp from the game without removing much of the appeal of D&D. But it can be made optional, which D&D5 seems to be doing, making feats and subclasses secondary and allowing for a much simpler game.

Char Op is just as optional in 3e and 4e as it was in earlier editions. Nobody is forced to CharOp. Not one group out of a about a dozen that I know engage in it. It is a a player issue (and a GM issue if they don't want it and refuse to say, "No" to a player or players engaging it).

 

[Greg K]

The more you try to make a role-playing game unbreakable, the more certain people will push and push at it until they find a way to break it, and then that metagame (to a great degree) actually becomes the game for them. But if you just say "whatever, go ahead and break it. But it's kind of easy to do, so it won't be much fun", then the metagame dies, and people have the space to notice and appreciate the actual beautiful thing that is role-playing.

Agreed. Which is why I think designers should stop worrying about min-maxers and CharOps people. Try to design to prevent their behavior just cuts down on interesting options for everyone else (imho).

 

[occam]

I like character building. I don't like extreme Char-Op. To me, there are opportunities to be creative both building and playing a character. (It helps that my characters tend to be a bit insane), but that creativity is more important than having the highest possible mechanical advantage. I'm not saying that Schwalb didn't experience the sort of thing he's talking about, but it's complete poppycock to say this is an inherent factor in 3E and 4E rules and DDN magically somehow fixes it.

I don't think Rob was saying that char-op was inherent to the experiences of 3e and 4e; those games don't force you to do it. But I don't think there's any argument with the concept that 3e introduced a lot more opportunities for character customization, and 4e continued with the same general framework. There are many people, like myself, and apparently Rob, that when faced with those opportunities to customize, can't help but try to take advantage of them. I don't go crazy with it -- I don't follow char-op forums, I rarely look at any character-building guides, etc. -- but I can't help using the materials I have available to design a very effective character. That means I spent a lot more time making individual PCs in 3rd and 4th Editions, and focused a lot more on character abilities in play, than I ever did in B/X, 1e, or 2e. And judging by what I saw playing the game, so did a lot of other people.

Frankly, I appreciate having a lot of those decisions taken away from me. In late 3.5, and again in 4e, I often bemoaned the ridiculous excess of feats in those games. That didn't stop me from spending an inordinate amount of time going through books or the Character Builder looking for the "best" feats for every character I designed. I think the 5e conception of fewer, chunkier feats will work better for me.

That's an example of what Rob's talking about. This won't be a big deal for everybody. But for me and for him, the hope is that 5e will return more of our focus to the table, and away from the character sheet.

 

[occam]

Agreed. Which is why I think designers should stop worrying about min-maxers and CharOps people. Try to design to prevent their behavior just cuts down on interesting options for everyone else (imho).

In large part, I agree with you. But it can go too far, or be badly designed. I remember the disappointment I felt making characters in Champions, following the rules in the book, doing nothing outlandish, then being told that I'd combined things in such a way to make my character too powerful in certain ways. Then why did it let me do that?

While I think designing an entire game around unbreakable balance is not a good idea (and doomed to failure anyway), there does need to be some attention paid to it.

 

[Umbran]

That looks very cynical to me.

And that sounds pretty sanctimonious to me. Shall we call it even, and move on?

I don't think, "welcome to the internet" is a good response to bad behavior.

It is not possible to change the world for the good if you don't recognize the reality of the present. Failing to do so - trying to meet practical reality with idealism alone - is what creates cynicism (and abject failure to accomplish the goal).

We're seeing a lot of people direct anger at Schwabb, rather than his arguments. We're seeing a lot of people strawman his arguments, and project their emotions onto him, and all sorts of nasty behavior...

Yep. This is how humans behave, Mistwell. It isn't just on the internet. It is everywhere. This behavior is not new with the internet - go look up some of the newspaper diatribes surrounding ratification of the US Constitution, there are some doozies in there. This behavior is centuries old. Millennia old. It probably stretches back to when humans first created language. I am not justifying it. I am merely recognizing it as the nature of the beast, across history, and across cultures.

I can, and do, ask folks to be better than themselves on a daily basis, but only within a very limited context - EN World. And that kinda works. But any plan that requires humans to behave contrary to their nature broadly, over time and a large population, is a fundamentally flawed plan.

 

[Jester David]

Char Op is just as optional in 3e and 4e as it was in earlier editions. Nobody is forced to CharOp. Not one group out of a about a dozen that I know engage in it. It is a a player issue (and a GM issue if they don't want it and refuse to say, "No" to a player or players engaging it).

The base math of the game assumes every character will have three good stats: a primary to-hit stat, a secondary stat based on their build, and a third stat for their last defence.
The game assumes an 18 in their primary stat and 20s are common as well, and have a secondary stat of 14. And it assumes you'll out every stat boost into that same state and your secondary stat.
All characters are optimized for one of four combat roles. All characters can innately participate in combat and be effective.

4e characters are built very much like optimized 3e characters who focus on a single role and put all their skill ranks in the same skills every level and always take combat options.
The base of 4e is a minimum level of optimization. "You need to be <this> optimized to ride 4th edition."

 

[Greg K]

ExploderWizard,
If you are referring to 3e, interacting with the environment can be important to a successful search. First, Search is limited to a 5x5 area. Second, there is an example in the DMG of requiring specific requirements to open a certain doors (It was either Secret Doors or Special Doors) and players needing to describe the order of levers located at various locations in the dungeon to open a gate. If they describe the correct sequence, the gate opens. The search roll will not help with that. Third, there is the "DM's Best Friend" in the DMG which provides a +2 for being specific (and an option for DM's to extend this to a modifier of 2 to 20 bonus or penalty to the die roll based upon circumstances).

Based upon this, if a player says they go to the bedpost and remove the cap to look inside, he or she automatically finds an object inside without a search roll (assuming something is there). If they search the wrong 5x5 area, they find nothing nothing. If they search the 5x5 area with the bed, they get a roll (with a bonus depending upon how specific they are). If the roll is successful, the DM, in my opinion, could be justified in giving a clue related to the cap rather than successfully finding what is inside since like the Special Door above, removing the cap is a specific requirement for success.

For doors with triggers, a player could find a secret door with a search, but finding it does not reveal how to open it if it requires a sconce located across the room being pulled. A successful search check in the 5x5 area where the sconce is located might simply reveal scratch marks at its base or similar clues, but it would not reveal that there is a secret door across the room. Stating they are investing the sconce would give a bonus to the search roll to notice it. Pulling the sconce opens the door and a character can simply walk up to a sconce and pull it without needing to make a search roll if the player simply states they walk up to it and pull it.

This is where the separation of fluff & crunch really did the game a disservice. The old way of searching involved interacting with the setting. As a player, the setting and what it contained were important game elements. Game play involved interacting with the game world through the description/inquiry/clarification feedback loop. Players tend to pay attention to setting details when they matter in the resolution of play.

The modern game that skips the "boring" stuff revolves almost exclusively with interacting with the mechanics. An endless repetition of " I search, I got a 22". It doesn't matter what is in the room, what or where something is. Heck, the room doesn't even NEED a description for that matter. Everything is tuned out that isn't relevant to the outcome of the mechanical interaction. The game world can be a 2 dimensional grease painting for all that it matters. Players could care less about what is in a room because the setting is divorced from the resolution of play.


That kind of rules structure rewards players who focus on building better mousetraps and concentrating on what their PC CAN do instead of what is happening in the game world. Players who don't really care about or engage with the setting (because it isn't required to win), eventually cause the GM to stop caring about the setting as well (why bother with setting detail if the players just ignore it?),and when the GM stops caring about the setting the whole game begins to come apart.

I suppose we have different tastes but endlessly droning " I search" and rolling a die (and metagaming by taking 20 if the result isn't high) is way more boring than poking and prodding a fictional environment.




Can you give an example of a 3E or 4E adventure challenge that doesn't involve either a combat or getting X or higher on a die roll?

 

[Greg K]

But it can go too far, or be badly designed. I remember the disappointment I felt making characters in Champions, following the rules in the book, doing nothing outlandish, then being told that I'd combined things in such a way to make my character too powerful in certain ways. Then why did it let me do that?

The answer is that it is a superhero comic book game. Superhero comic book titles come in a variety of power levels and a wide variety of powers and applications of those powers. The game is designed to recreate all of those power levels and all of the individual powers. While the game allows for it, certain powers or power levels may not be appropriate for a given campaign. The choice is limit the choices so as not to cover certain powers and power levels or allow any option and let GMs to determine what is inappropriate. Personally, I prefer the latter and allowing the GM to boot players that are not willing to accept campaign limitations, "because the build is, technically, legal" (then again, I like to assume most players are responsible to rein in any power gaming tendencies to meet the campaign the GM is running) .

 

[Greg K]

The base math of the game assumes every character will have three good stats: a primary to-hit stat, a secondary stat based on their build, and a third stat for their last defence.[]
The game assumes an 18 in their primary stat and 20s are common as well, and have a secondary stat of 14. And it assumes you'll out every stat boost into that same state and your secondary stat.
All characters are optimized for one of four combat roles. All characters can innately participate in combat and be effective.

Are you talking about 4e? 3e does not assume this. I have also been told by several 4e players on the net that you can start with a 16 in your primary stat and be ok.