D&D 5E Coming Around on the "Not D&D" D&D Next Train

[Dannyalcatraz]

People want balance but can't accept this homogenization that occurs as a result of that balance being implemented. then they complain that the fighter is weaker than the wizard ad nauseam.

I honestly believe there are ways to achieve balance without homogenization. Even in 4Ed, we started to see inklings of that with the Psionic and Essentials character classes.

(Then again, I'm a HEROphile...)

 

[billd91]

IMHO, no one in 3e actually performed these suboptimal actions in practice though. It kind of made certain people feel better that they were there from a process sim point of view, but all 4e did was remove some of this simulationist clutter to give us a more streamlined and practical approach.

I'm not certain that's a plus for a refereed role playing game, though. One of the RPGs charms, compared to a board game or computer game, is the relative lack of hard boundaries. If you can imagine your PC, given what he is and knows, doing it, you can give it a try. And if you suck at it, you suck at it. There's nothing stopping you from doing your best.

Granted, the nature of the randomizer used encourages players to stack the odds in their favor, thus they tent to not use suboptimal actions - or at least not use them so much. And, in my experience, that applies to both 3e and 4e. The table on page 42 offers a significant amount of promise, but players still tend to use their own powers because using the page 42 table and matching a stat vs a static defense tends to be not as good as their powers anyway. An artful dodger rogue is generally going to do better with his sly flourish than he will using his strength to kick the table over in front of his opponent, because he has probably dumped his strength score to get a better Con and another healing surge while the defense he has to hit has its math keyed to a non-dumped stat driven power. Page 42's table would work better, in my estimation, with the flatter math promise of D&D Next and fewer dump stats.

 

[Greg K]

IMHO, no one in 3e actually performed these suboptimal actions in practice though. It kind of made certain people feel better that they were there from a process sim point of view, but all 4e did was remove some of this simulationist clutter to give us a more streamlined and practical approach.

Well, you're humble opinion would be wrong. I have seen them used. I also prefer the "simulationist clutter" to 4e's approach.
Edit: Although I do use hero points which can be used to. temporarily offset some or all of the penalty.

 

[Greg K]

Did 4e ever cover the worth of "riders" for p.42?

 

[pemerton]

Did 4e ever cover the worth of "riders" for p.42?

There was an article on the WotC website, yes, authored I believe by [MENTION=64825]wrecan[/MENTION].

 

[Dausuul]

Well don't say it can't be done when the RAW very clearly encourages improvisation. It is the fault of the DM for not encouraging creative role-playing in his players.

If a problem is widespread enough, blaming it on the DM is pointless. A system that does not work properly for a large fraction of its users is a system in need of fixing.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not certain that's a plus for a refereed role playing game, though. One of the RPGs charms, compared to a board game or computer game, is the relative lack of hard boundaries. If you can imagine your PC, given what he is and knows, doing it, you can give it a try. And if you suck at it, you suck at it. There's nothing stopping you from doing your best.

Granted, the nature of the randomizer used encourages players to stack the odds in their favor, thus they tent to not use suboptimal actions - or at least not use them so much. And, in my experience, that applies to both 3e and 4e. The table on page 42 offers a significant amount of promise, but players still tend to use their own powers because using the page 42 table and matching a stat vs a static defense tends to be not as good as their powers anyway. An artful dodger rogue is generally going to do better with his sly flourish than he will using his strength to kick the table over in front of his opponent, because he has probably dumped his strength score to get a better Con and another healing surge while the defense he has to hit has its math keyed to a non-dumped stat driven power. Page 42's table would work better, in my estimation, with the flatter math promise of D&D Next and fewer dump stats.

I don't know, flatter math still bothers me, and DDN is far from proving that it will actually work in practice (or that DDN actually WILL have very flattened math). I think another approach would be to simply provide the same sorts of bonuses that exist for attacks. In any case, why SHOULD a low STR character attempt something that requires a lot of STR? They wouldn't use a STR based power, which is why people say "powers work", its not that they work better or differently, just that people only have powers that they know WILL work for their characters. In the few cases where PCs have automatically had stuff that was off-stat (the Battle Mage Arcane Riposte for instance) it got changed. Clearly there may be times when a character needs to accomplish something and it just doesn't match with his abilities, a 'hero point' or something like that would be cool, but in general if you're the rogue with high DEX jump up on the table, let the fighter kick it over. The only thing that page 42 doesn't really address is enhancement bonus, but I think there's a pretty wide consensus that enhancement should be relegated to the ashbin of history, at least in a system anything like 4e.

 

[teitan]

If a problem is widespread enough, blaming it on the DM is pointless. A system that does not work properly for a large fraction of its users is a system in need of fixing.

Then all systems are broken and need fixed.

 

[Dausuul]

Then all systems are broken and need fixed.

I dare say every RPG ever made has issues worth addressing. What's your point?

 

[Gorgoroth]

No disrespect intended to wrecan, but I read his improv guide and it's seven steps. I can't see that being used in a game very often, and a game where even just using your stock power loadout is often compared to bullet time in The Matrix (i.e. way too slow to allow any of the other pillars of gameplay any air to breathe in). Thing is, I don't want to look at powers and decide what to do in this room or that situation. If I'm playing a big strong fighter, or a swashbuckling rogue, or a shape-changing druid, I can think of all manners of things to do on the spot without the need (or desire) to simply put my card down and say "this is what happens now, will ye nil ye" to the DM. It removed the DM from the equation from adjudicating often simple things that shouldn't be tough calls. If you're in a room full of barrells propped up with a perch, chased by orcs, I run by and say by the way, I kick the prop down as I run by them to cause them to roll. Why do I need an "encounter" power to do that? The DM quite often, for trivial or clever or cinematic things, would just say "ok, yeah you knock that fruit cart over, causing a raucus, it gains you and your friends a 1 round head start to get away".

Really do not like "auto-happen" cards that replace creativity and make all the fruitcarts or barrels that the DM either describes are in your surrounds, or aren't. I just can't see that "power of skill" working without props in the scene to use - PCs will probably not be carrying a load of garbage around just to make a tiny area of debris -- and what if you're in an empty room? Shouldn't work. Just...no. And you take this "Power of Skill" instead of some other, much better feat or power at that level. What I'm saying is, for the love of improv I think relying on cue cards that automatically work is a way to ignore what the DM describes in the scene and having to think on your feet to actually make it happen. I think it cheapens the job of the DM, gives players no incentive to actually listen to the DM (I've seen this in every edition, but much more so in 4e, since improv is so suboptimal a strategy / lackluster next to just killing stuff).

"Plot coupons", no offense, sounds like a terrific way of describing a gameplay mechanic that I wish had never been made a part of D&D. What power of skill does is reduce the actual room or alley or environment your PC is in to a set of squares, and everything within them, other than "difficult terrain" or monsters are fluff.

The best set of rules to improvise are those that get the heck out of the way of your creativity, and require you to FOCUS on what the DM is saying, and what he / she is describing to you. The rules I'm describing are, of course, ability checks or skill checks, or proficiencies, and should be only used appropriately, and with DM fiat. Players being able to dictate the narrative with "this happens" is just not true to the spirit of the game. At least not in any that I want to play in. DMs I've played with love when you do creative and interesting things, just could never get their heads around the 4e way of doing it. Wrecan's positive contributions to the 4e forums over at Wotc headquarters might be held in high regard by many, but the improv guide I read of his is just so impractical, and is in such a 4e-esque frame of mind (hey, this simple encounter is already taking three hours, what's another twenty minutes to adjudicate how we're going to knock over this bolder from the roof). Sigh....at a certain point we just wanted battles to be over because they long ceased to be exciting any more.

I work 60 hours a week, and just don't have time to play a game where every skirmish turns into an hour long affair. You get nothing done. One of my first posts here mentioned how when I joined some pathfinder groups it was such a breath of fresh air. To me, that was playing D&D again. Sure it's not perfect, and it is very rules heavy too, but once you have your character made you can do a zillion things per session, and you had bloody well pay attention to what the DM is telling you if you don't want your PC to wind up in an early grave.