Bring Back Verisimilitude, add in More Excitement!

[Sylrae]

Here are the things I would want to see in the next Edition of D&D. Some of them are "New things", and some are things they took out that I think should have just been handled differently instead of completely removed.

Of course, comments are welcome.

In order of Priority

0. No rules-based limits on abilities that break verisimilitude: IE - 4e Abilities, Barbarian Rage, etc.
1. Rules should help support verisimmilitude: Ideally, fire powers set things on fire. Cold powers freeze things. Lightning powers can target pools of water or puddles to extend their range. You could use fire spells on a steel door to act like heat metal. Or use lightning to hit someone around a corner who is standing on a metal floor.
2. More Dynamic combat (Martial as well as Casters) than 3.x. I want to see interacting with terrain, running along walls, swinging from chandaliers, knocking down pillars, collapsing rooves, breaking through the wall/floor, use of traps in combat, knocking people down stairs, climbing on top of big monsters to attack them from their backs, throwing other characters, etc, as well as combat maneuvers that come up and get used on a regular basis by all melee combatants (unlike 3e, where it takes special training to make using them not generally a definitively BAD idea). Perhaps nonlethal AoOs, such as the guy gives you an opportunity to kick him in the middle of a sword fight, etc.
3. More detailed out of combat mechanics, ala 3.x, as well as more out of combat abilities (ala 3.x).
4. Non-Combat statistics on the monsters, as well as combat stats (I don't really care if they're the same format as PCs stats though). Perhaps balance in-combat and out-of combat separately, so all players can do stuff in either scenario.
5. Don't lock me into a character class. Let me multiclass, /Every Level/ if I so choose.
6. Functional Multiclass casters! Wizard 10/Cleric 10 should be as good a character as a Wizard 20. Wizard 10/Summoner 10 as well. (Kindof like Trailblazer)
7. Lasting Debuffs: Things like attribute damage/drain, or things that lower a stat for a decent duration (minutes), or things that change creature sizes, etc.
8. "Win Button" abilities need to be in. Things like paralysis, disabling limbs, blinding people, sleep, confusion, rage effects, etc. However! Don't limit them to select few classes. Spread them around to the other classes too, not just casters. A monk might use pressure points, etc. Maybe a fighter sucker punches someone and knocks the wind out of them.
9. Characters need to have many options they can use in combat, not just "3 daily, 3 encounter, and 3 at-will", and new abilities should never replace old ones: Old ones should get better. The new abilities should be new.
10. Tie available options more to the situation and less to "x/encounter".
11. Hitpoints need to scale *Less* Combat shouldn't slow to a crawl because HP scale out of proportion with damage.
12. Support more creature sizes for players: Large Creatures and Tiny Creatures should be viable.
13. Ideally: Less of a power gap between levels. It would be nice if 20 level 1s could be evenly matched with 1 level 20.

 

[Lwaxy]

Agreed for the most part, but if you see the rules as just guidelines and not written in stone, you can allow all that to happen as long as it makes physical (and magical) sense. That's what house rules are for. I get the feeling almost everyone uses house rules anyway.

 

[Sylrae]

Agreed for the most part, but if you see the rules as just guidelines and not written in stone, you can allow all that to happen as long as it makes physical (and magical) sense. That's what house rules are for. I get the feeling almost everyone uses house rules anyway.

Houserules differ from table to table, and I know a very large number of GMs who don't use houserules and dont allow actions not covered by any rules in the game.

And the amount of houserules required to achieve this list in the current edition of D&D is enough that the game wouldn't be recognizable when I finished.

 

[mkill]

0. No rules-based limits on abilities that break verisimilitude: IE - 4e Abilities, Barbarian Rage, etc.

Please explain. What is wrong with Barbarian Rage?

1. Rules should help support verisimmilitude: Ideally, fire powers set things on fire. Cold powers freeze things. Lightning powers can target pools of water or puddles to extend their range. You could use fire spells on a steel door to act like heat metal. Or use lightning to hit someone around a corner who is standing on a metal floor.

I agree with the idea, but you'll have to create a huge body of rules if you want this to be defined exactly. Do you really want the GM to pause the game and look up the table for "lightning spells in puddles" when the player tries something like that? For me, this sounds more like "stuff the GM or player can make up on the spot".

I mean, an RPG is not a video game. You don't need to hard-code environment effects into the system to happen. That's why we have a human GM, with a flexible, human brain.

In other words, this stuff has always been in the game, if you want it.

4. Non-Combat statistics on the monsters, as well as combat stats (I don't really care if they're the same format as PCs stats though). Perhaps balance in-combat and out-of combat separately, so all players can do stuff in either scenario.

But how much do you really need? Monsters need perception, maybe tracking, and what else? What does a Purple Worm do except digging, eating, sleeping, procreating, killing PCs?

If you have some out-of-combat interaction, make an NPC, don't use monster stats.

8. "Win Button" abilities need to be in. Things like paralysis, disabling limbs, blinding people, sleep, confusion, rage effects, etc. However! Don't limit them to select few classes. Spread them around to the other classes too, not just casters. A monk might use pressure points, etc. Maybe a fighter sucker punches someone and knocks the wind out of them.

Problem 1: If everyone has "win buttons", monsters have them too. And if anything sucks, it's have your PC do absolutely nothing during a fight. In 3rd ed, our poor bard was left out from more than one fight because of fear effects. Awful.
This is why the save mechanic in 4th edition is so useful, because it at least gives you a chance to come back every round.

Problem 2: It's anticlimatic. Nothing is more boring than expecting a long, action-rich fight, only to end before it started because the Wizard popped out a one-hit-kill. Ok, it feels awesome for the wizard, and there are some players who like this, but what about the four other guys at the table?

9. Characters need to have many options they can use in combat, not just "3 daily, 3 encounter, and 3 at-will", and new abilities should never replace old ones: Old ones should get better. The new abilities should be new.

Sorry, but that's not good game design. If you have too many options, you start to suffer from analysis paralysis. Psychologically, this happens when you have more than 9 things to choose from. Incidentally, that's where the 3/3/3 comes from. Note that with Paragon paths, racial powers, items and so on, high-level 4th edition characters easily had more than a dozen options to choose from any time. In fact, that's why they came up with Essentials classes that had less rather than more options.

Finding the right balance here is key. PCs should have their reliable basic tricks, plus some limited powerful attacks, plus some standard maneuvers everyone can do (charge, grapple, trip, disarm...)

The difficulty is that some players love to have tons and tons of options to choose from, while others are very happy just to swing a sword every round.

13. Ideally: Less of a power gap between levels. It would be nice if 20 level 1s could be evenly matched with 1 level 20.

I disagree. This is not how fantasy works. If a 20th-level character could easily be stopped by a group of low-level commoners, they wouldn't be big damn heroes. Besides, it raises the question why a 20th-level character doesn't have better things to do than fight a bunch of low-levels, like, saving the world from the reawokened ancient dragons.

 

[Desdichado]

So wait... your first point is that you want more verisimilitude. Your second point is that you want combat with running along walls and breaking through floors?

I guess if your game is meant to emulate either Spiderman or Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon that'll work, but otherwise I see an immediate conflict here.

 

[Desdichado]

I disagree. This is not how fantasy works. If a 20th-level character could easily be stopped by a group of low-level commoners, they wouldn't be big damn heroes. Besides, it raises the question why a 20th-level character doesn't have better things to do than fight a bunch of low-levels, like, saving the world from the reawokened ancient dragons.

Just as a technical aside: D&D is fantasy, but not all fantasy is D&D. Your statement is not true. That's not how D&D works, it could very well be how fantasy works. In fact, most fantasy doesn't have "20th-level characters" because it doesn't have levels. I can think of all kinds of examples from fantasy where heroic characters are threatened or even defeated by a mob of Joe Blow Commoners.

I second the motion for "fixing" that aspect of D&D. The notion that the genre assumptions literally change as you go up in level is one of the big cognitive dissonances I've always had with D&D.

 

[Sylrae]

Please explain. What is wrong with Barbarian Rage?

Arbitrary Limited number of uses per day.

I agree with the idea, but you'll have to create a huge body of rules if you want this to be defined exactly. Do you really want the GM to pause the game and look up the table for "lightning spells in puddles" when the player tries something like that? For me, this sounds more like "stuff the GM or player can make up on the spot".

Just give some general guidelines here and tell the GM to use their common sense or whatever. I dont need it to be perfect, but I dont want them to just be the same effect with different colors.

this stuff has always been in the game, if you want it.

The stuff is there if you houserule it in. By raw, it doesn't exist at all. I'd rather it be *In the Rules* and be loosely defined, giving the DM some leeway, than nonexistant.

But how much do you really need? Monsters need perception, maybe tracking, and what else? What does a Purple Worm do except digging, eating, sleeping, procreating, killing PCs?

If you have some out-of-combat interaction, make an NPC, don't use monster stats.

I'm just as likely to use a Satyr, or a Minotaur, or a Succubus, for a non-combat encounter (which has a decent chance of turning into combat.)

I don't need a full character sheet, but the succubus needs to have well, "Charm" and such.

Problem 1: If everyone has "win buttons", monsters have them too. And if anything sucks, it's have your PC do absolutely nothing during a fight. In 3rd ed, our poor bard was left out from more than one fight because of fear effects. Awful.
This is why the save mechanic in 4th edition is so useful, because it at least gives you a chance to come back every round.
Problem 2: It's anticlimatic. Nothing is more boring than expecting a long, action-rich fight, only to end before it started because the Wizard popped out a one-hit-kill. Ok, it feels awesome for the wizard, and there are some players who like this, but what about the four other guys at the table?

So you give the boss character some higher saves?

It's hard to do a capture mission when you can't keep someone unconscious for more than 6 seconds.

I get so bored when everything is just slowly whittling away hitpoints. I need more than that.

Sorry, but that's not good game design. If you have too many options, you start to suffer from analysis paralysis. Psychologically, this happens when you have more than 9 things to choose from. Incidentally, that's where the 3/3/3 comes from. Note that with Paragon paths, racial powers, items and so on, high-level 4th edition characters easily had more than a dozen options to choose from any time. In fact, that's why they came up with Essentials classes that had less rather than more options.

Finding the right balance here is key. PCs should have their reliable basic tricks, plus some limited powerful attacks, plus some standard maneuvers everyone can do (charge, grapple, trip, disarm...)

The difficulty is that some players love to have tons and tons of options to choose from, while others are very happy just to swing a sword every round.

Not everyone needs a spellbook of options, for sure. And not every option should apply in every situation. But if I have the same 9 abilities, all the time (plus a basic attack) things get kindof repetitive. I want more options than that, though I don't necessarily need them to all apply in all situations; and I really don't like the mechanic where getting a new ability requires you forget an old one. It's a little too Pokemon for me.

I disagree. This is not how fantasy works. If a 20th-level character could easily be stopped by a group of low-level commoners, they wouldn't be big damn heroes. Besides, it raises the question why a 20th-level character doesn't have better things to do than fight a bunch of low-levels, like, saving the world from the reawokened ancient dragons.

Since we're quoting skyrim: You start having a fair amount of trouble if a dozen guards are trying to kill you - assuming you're not cheating.

So wait... your first point is that you want more verisimilitude. Your second point is that you want combat with running along walls and breaking through floors?

I guess if your game is meant to emulate either Spiderman or Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon that'll work, but otherwise I see an immediate conflict here.

I dont necessarily need an analogy to the real world here, but I dont want arbitrary X/Day limitations, or fire that doesn't ignite things, etc. I want it to fit the game world, not feel "Gamey".

Give me enough verisimilitude to emulate Pirates of the Caribbean or Marvel Comics' Thor and its great.

I just don't want to have the "Okay I can see why they would do this mechanically for gamebalance reasons, but I can't think of any way to justify this limit in-game other than *Because They Said So*"

For Example, I'm not a fan of Barbarian Rage X/Day, or the Pathfinder Alchemist Bombs not working the instant you pass them to someone else, etc.

Just as a technical aside: D&D is fantasy, but not all fantasy is D&D. Your statement is not true. That's not how D&D works, it could very well be how fantasy works. In fact, most fantasy doesn't have "20th-level characters" because it doesn't have levels. I can think of all kinds of examples from fantasy where heroic characters are threatened or even defeated by a mob of Joe Blow Commoners.

I second the motion for "fixing" that aspect of D&D. The notion that the genre assumptions literally change as you go up in level is one of the big cognitive dissonances I've always had with D&D.

Other than D&D and WoW, most fantasy I've read, a mob is a serious threat even to trained experts.

I suppose the difference is that I don't feel like my game needs to go all the way up to kicking down the gates of hell to kill the devil. That seems more high powered than I need. I'm good with sticking to killing giants and slaying the occasional dragon; but I want a full-fledged game that covers the genre I want to play.

I'd be cool with, you know: 20 levels of fantasy (book 1), 20 levels of superheroes(book 2), 20 levels of godslayers (book 3). You can chain them together, or run them as separate games.


I'd only ever need the first book.

 

[nnms]

When I think of verisimilitude in terms of experiencing fiction (be it a book, a movie or the fiction in an RPG session) I don't think of it in terms of realism. I think of it in terms of "getting it right" in terms of genre, theme, plot, colour, etc.,.

 

[Ahnehnois]

0. No rules-based limits on abilities that break verisimilitude: IE - 4e Abilities, Barbarian Rage, etc.

Yes.

1. Rules should help support verisimmilitude: Ideally, fire powers set things on fire. Cold powers freeze things. Lightning powers can target pools of water or puddles to extend their range. You could use fire spells on a steel door to act like heat metal. Or use lightning to hit someone around a corner who is standing on a metal floor.

What a game that would be!

2. More Dynamic combat (Martial as well as Casters) than 3.x. I want to see interacting with terrain, running along walls, swinging from chandaliers, knocking down pillars, collapsing rooves, breaking through the wall/floor, use of traps in combat, knocking people down stairs, climbing on top of big monsters to attack them from their backs, throwing other characters, etc, as well as combat maneuvers that come up and get used on a regular basis by all melee combatants (unlike 3e, where it takes special training to make using them not generally a definitively BAD idea). Perhaps nonlethal AoOs, such as the guy gives you an opportunity to kick him in the middle of a sword fight, etc.

You can make a lot of interesting options viable without resorting to powers.

4. Non-Combat statistics on the monsters, as well as combat stats (I don't really care if they're the same format as PCs stats though). Perhaps balance in-combat and out-of combat separately, so all players can do stuff in either scenario.

A necessity

5. Don't lock me into a character class. Let me multiclass, /Every Level/ if I so choose.
6. Functional Multiclass casters! Wizard 10/Cleric 10 should be as good a character as a Wizard 20. Wizard 10/Summoner 10 as well. (Kindof like Trailblazer)

No-brainers.

8. "Win Button" abilities need to be in. Things like paralysis, disabling limbs, blinding people, sleep, confusion, rage effects, etc. However! Don't limit them to select few classes. Spread them around to the other classes too, not just casters. A monk might use pressure points, etc. Maybe a fighter sucker punches someone and knocks the wind out of them.

If a fighter can knock out a wizard in one blow, then all's finally fair in love and war.

10. Tie available options more to the situation and less to "x/encounter".

This is one of the most important design points in D&D. How to get off the "X/[arbitrary time unit]" abilities that offer neither balance, verisimilitude, nor fun.

11. Hitpoints need to scale *Less* Combat shouldn't slow to a crawl because HP scale out of proportion with damage.

That's a start.

13. Ideally: Less of a power gap between levels. It would be nice if 20 level 1s could be evenly matched with 1 level 20.

Get those numbers under control!

***

It's amazing how, when you take the Trailblazer approach of analyzing things, learning from experience, and revising the game, it seems so fixable.

 

[Sylrae]

I'm glad we agree!

It's amazing how, when you take the Trailblazer approach of analyzing things, learning from experience, and revising the game, it seems so fixable.

It's astonishing that anybody would attempt to write a revision any other way.

Trailblazer doesn't give me precisely the game I want, but as a "problem fixer" I'd say it did quite admirably when compared to 4e *or* pathfinder. Especially considering it's a small publisher one-off book.