Blog post on the feel of D&D (marmell, reynolds et all)

[Wolfspider]

In other words, complex stunts not covered by the rules become EASIER than simple actions which ARE covered -- and which are balanced properly.

Wow. This is a really good point. Hmmm.

 

[hong]

Why not give players and DMs the option of starting characters out at a lower level if they want a more gritty experience or starting characters out at 3rd or 4th level if they want something more powerful?

You can always start with half hit points if you want to nerf yourself. This is exactly the same as starting at 3rd level in 3E if you want to buff yourself. The only thing that has changed is the baseline, and the baseline is important for people new to the game.

How can providing options not be a Good Thing?

Is this a trick question?

 

[hong]

Pretty accurate. I find it easier to ignore rules than to add them,

This preoccupation with paying for rules that you don't use, it is a strange thing. Perhaps it is a commentary on modern capitalist service economies.

and I like games with 'dials' or 'settings' so that a single ruleset can emulate more genres/styles of play.

The HEROization of D&D is dead.

Or you have a system which breaks in actual play because the interactions of multiple systems produce more edge cases than the 'simple' rules accomodate. You also have the problem of "You can't do that, there's no rules for it!", which is a common response.

This is only a common response when 1) the underlying framework is too complicated to handle easy improvisation; 2) the zeitgeist is such that a rule is expected for everything. 1) is changeable; 2) is under your control.

(You also also have the problem, as some have noted, of having some actions be 'easier' because there's no explicit rules, even when they should be harder. If 'trip' is a per-encounter exploit available only to trained fighters, then "swinging on the chandelier and kicking the thug into the fireplace while yelling 'What ho!'" ought to be a high level daily power, at best

Prove it.

Depends on what you mean by 'classic'. If you mean, in terms of rule structure, no. But I never liked the actual D&D *rules* until third edition.

Oh well.

 

[M.L. Martin]

The HEROization of D&D is dead.

And despite my respect for the HERO System, I'm not upset, because 3E never got two of the factors that I think make HERO work--the transparency in mechanics (HERO shows you how to build everything and how much it 'costs', whereas 3E never got more specific or accurate than guesstimating spell levels and Challenge Ratings) and the modularity of most character elements (in HERO, you could swap out a design element without having to recalculate too many dependent factors. Add or subtract a Hit Die or level, or change a stat in D&D, and the effects start cascading rapidly).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Why not give players and DMs the option of starting characters out at a lower level if they want a more gritty experience or starting characters out at 3rd or 4th level if they want something more powerful?

How can providing options not be a Good Thing?

Providing options that are bad for you isn't a "Good Thing".
It is a "Rules Mastery" thing that they tried in 3E.
Some feats are intentionally bad. Why take (3.0) Skill Focus for Spot or Listen if you could have Alertness? Why take Alertness, if you could have Improved Initiative or Power Attack, or Weapon Focus, or Empower Spell?
Some classes are very hard to play effective (and maybe can't be played effectively at all). Bard, Monk. Some of them even look very different on paper then they do in play. (from "Monks are overpowered!" to "Flurry of Misses")

1st Level play is not very similar to high level play. I can see that changing the game experience can be positive, but giving you a experience that has a good chance of disappointing you when you haven't got any "Rules Mastery" is a bad idea.

 

[med stud]

Providing options also runs into the issues of 1) production time and 2) page count. More options ---> more manhours ---> higher production costs ---> higher price for the consumer. That one is minor, though, compare to page count.

Since the page count affects the price of the product, you could have a 500 page PHB filled with options but it would be expensive, maybe not worth the extra price.

Another reason why more options can be bad: Steep learning curve. There are many people here who seem to love to get to know rules, finding combinations, adjusting bonuses and watch the effects on the system unfold. For them, a complex system is a boon, a large play ground. Other people, though, want to get on with the play or they want tactically interesting options without complexity. A prime example: Chess. The rules of chess are very simple, yet the game offers up loads of possibility for tactics.

And the final reason I can think of: More options mean more to balance against all other options. I remember when I first got Starcraft. I was used to Command & Conquer and other RTS-games where there were loads of units. Then I saw Starcraft and I was disappointed that there were so few units per faction. Then I realized that in Command & Conquer, all you needed to do was to build mammoth tanks. Other units weren't required. In Starcraft, all units are usable during the entire game. The zealot is the first unit you can build but they never get obselete by design.
Now a days, I much rather have few powers that are well thought out and adjusted against the other powers in the game than loads of powers where a few of them come out as plain superior to the rest. It creates an illusion of choice which is really quite limited.

Just my POV of when more choice can be bad. Of course, more choice can be good too

 

[Steely Dan]

"my monk, Bannor

…What a rip!

I am always suspicious when players blatantly plagiarize a fantasy name for their character.

"No, you cannot call your dude Elric…"

 

[billd91]

This preoccupation with paying for rules that you don't use, it is a strange thing. Perhaps it is a commentary on modern capitalist service economies.

Partly. It's the trade off between time and money. Same reason some of us buy modules, use about half of it, and modify some of the rest. The designers are getting paid for their time designing an adventure or rule set but I'm not. I'd rather contribute to that payment, even if I get more than I want, to save me unpaid time, that then must compete with family time, sleep, and so on. Cutting out a rule I don't want to use is generally faster and easier than coming up with and balancing a new one.

 

[Ipissimus]

Hat's off, JD, I know where you're coming from.

I'm in 100% agreement that Wizards should be releasing more details. Holding important things this close to their chest this close to the deadline, particularly now that the books are going to print, seems a bit silly.

However, on capturing the feel of oDnD I'm not sure that's something that really has anything to do with the core rules, since it depends greatly on your DM. See, I was the victim of a pessimistic DM for a long time. By a pessimistic DM, I mean a DM that lets you use your imagination to do cool things (e.g. encase a dragon's head in a wall of ice) but they always, 100% of the time, go wrong and wind up harming the party in a spectacular fashion. The problem? It's a valid playstyle. Not every cool, imaginative, idea you have is a good idea.

It took me a long time to realize what was wrong with that way of DMing, though I knew I disliked it. Then, while I was DMing, I started DMing for new players and their expectations revealed the answer. Invarably, every newbie I've played with has this 'cool idea' moment. Their hero leaps off a wall, does a backflip, and stabs the bad guy in the eye. Ok, roll to hit... oh, you got a two, that's a miss, next player. Every single time, the light of creativity flickering in their eyes DIES. That was the worst thing in DMing 1E, 2E for me.

When I started seeing this happening, I wanted ways to deliver the reward such creativity and encourage it rather than kill it with failure. Feats did that a little in 3E, Action Points did it more and what I've seen of 4E action points and Powers does it even better, since they're a renewable resource. And I can balance player creativity with a suitable cost for the innovation while each character comes with in-built cool stuff to do every day.

I feel that with Action Points and Powers that renew, I am more empowered as a DM to adjudicate creative actions that aren't covered by the book by having the players pay the price in Action Points and the expenditure of Powers in their place, a limiting factor that does not nerf the player significantly. I can finally encourage player creativity fairly in relation to the other players.

My point is that everything I've said above is just me eyeballing what little of the rules we know and applying a bit of DM creativity to find a fair and balanced method of dealing with actions outside the rules. It has nothing to do with the rules, it's my own way of solving the problem.

Similarly, capturaing that old school feel of 1E and 2E adventures I think has more to do with the adventures that have been published than the rules. I miss rolling on a random table to find out just what the statue I just touched is going to do to me. I miss the wierdness of the unknown. I miss the fluid and changing circumstances of wholisticly designed dungeons rather than fixed encounters in a fixed space expressly detailed in two different places in the book that I have to flip between so I know what's going on. I miss the detailed descriptions of the monsters that inhabit a room and what they're preoccupied with at the moment rather than the generally bland description that they give in the grey boxes these days. Oh, or the maps all scattered through the book even if they're in the same dungeon, who thought that was a good idea?

But that's an adventure design and philosophy issue, not a rule issue. Hopefully, the 4E exp system will help me throw appropriate encounters against my players, not too easy and just hard enough not to TPK 99.9% of the time. But fixed encounters the way they're presenting them in the last few 3.5E adventures? Yuck! I much prefer a more organic environment like old Temple of Elemental Evil adventure, that was a blast.

Anyway, just my 10c.

 

[malraux]

To me, the place for lots of rules that take the system mastery approach and/or expand beyond the core of the base rules (ie stuff like 0-level characters, extra grittiness, etc.) is an Unearthed Arcana book. That really should be the place to open up all sorts of rule variants.