D&D 5E D&D Next Design Goals (Article)

[Umbran]

How the worm turns. Literally DAYS before 4E was released the pro-4E camp was telling anyone who was down on it how outrageous it was for them to make judgments with seeing everything in full context.

And look how that turned out.

Do either of you live in some weird and freakish mirror universe that actually needs more recriminations for things years past, and more "I told you so!"? Because I sure don't live in such a world!

That was a rhetorical question, by the way.

What we see here, ladies and gentlemen, is a basic example of the dynamic of perpetuating edition wars: the inability to let it go. The old hurts are getting in the way of looking at developments with fresh eyes, and are apt to ruin the discussion for everyone.

So, let it go now, folks. Please. As always, if this is somehow confusing, take it to e-mail or PM. But enough with the warring already.

 

[Greg K]

The problem I see is that making things modular potentially makes arriving at that social contract more difficult, or come with long term consequences. If somebody at the table wants old school high immersion, and another wants to play Spiderman with a laser gun, and 5E has modular rules for both, their is going to be some level of conflict in achieving the social contract, and whoever doesn't get what they want is likely to hold some level of resentment or at least longing for something they want but aren't allowed to use. That player starts enjoying the game less and participating less, and might become a problem player down the road.

Its something I saw back when I was playing 3E and a DM would label certain books off limits. Some people took it hard and the game suffered for it, and this was something I never saw in other editions(2E and 4E) or other RPGs that had didn't have lots of controversial optional rules.

Its a bigger issue when it is something that the game supports and has rules for than when its something the game doesn't offer in the first place.

I don't see the problem. The DM should be upfront about the options being used. If someone does not like a particular option missing or being included, they can talk, politely, talk to the DM. If they don't like the final decision, they can choose not to play and either find another game, start a game, or find something else to do.
If nobody wants to play with the DMs choices, the DM can reconsider their options, the group can play else or go find another activity.

 

[Yora]

But I do know for a certainty that it won't unite those that have already made up their minds to be against it...

True, but that's not me. I am very exited about what we will get.

But for the reason that I am expecting something very different from what has been there before. All edition of D&D were not very good.

 

[pemerton]

Can you explain to me how the Moldvay 1981 Basic set was "unbalanced"?

I posted on this upthread (#103).

Now the stat adjustment rules actually tend to make Moldvay Basic one of the better balanced versions of class D&D in my view - they tend to reduce the likelihood that a cleric with 13 STR will outshine a fighter with 12 STR, for example.

But in 1st level play, good die rollls let you play an Elf rather than a MU, which is a strict power-up. And Dwarves are close to a srict power up from fighters, too. (The effective +2 to save seems a more-than-fair trade off for not being able to use a two-handed sword.)

And thieves' skill chances are so low for everything except climbing (and, maybe, listening) that those abilities make a doubtful practical contribution - particularly in a game where the generic penalty for failure is PC death. (I think Moldvay D&D could be improved by replacing the current rules for thief failure with some sort of "complication" rule - so thieves' schtick would be to both introduce and deal with complications, rather than just die Black Dougal-style.)

This isn't intended as a criticsm of Moldvay Basic, by the way. I think it can be fun despite being unbalanced (and have had fun with it). But as I said in my earlier post, I can also see why the Tunnels & Trolls designers decided to be more upfront about the lottery aspects of the game.

 

[P1NBACK]

I posted on this upthread (#103).

Now the stat adjustment rules actually tend to make Moldvay Basic one of the better balanced versions of class D&D in my view - they tend to reduce the likelihood that a cleric with 13 STR will outshine a fighter with 12 STR, for example.

Eh. I don't think a 13 STR Cleric is outshining the Fighter anyways. The Fighter still is a fighter, with all the benefits of using magical swords, spears and better attacks (at higher levels). Secondly, why are we comparing a 13 STR Cleric with a 12 STR Fighter?

Either the player has rolled 13 or they've rolled 12. They can play a Fighter with +1 attack and 5% experience bonus, or they can play a Cleric with +1 attack. The Fighter makes better use of the higher STR.

But in 1st level play, good die rollls let you play an Elf rather than a MU, which is a strict power-up.

Also not true. Elves have a much higher XP cost than MUs. Not to mention a harder chance of +10% bonus XP. Which means, an 18 Int MU is going to level up far quicker than the elf.

We have an elf in our current campaign, and he has by-far the most XP (out of 20+ characters) because that character has survived since the beginning of the campaign. Yet, everyone else is right there with them in terms of level. If someone else had the same XP, they'd be a level or two ahead. The downside of an elf is that you are going to level much slower.

And Dwarves are close to a srict power up from fighters, too. (The effective +2 to save seems a more-than-fair trade off for not being able to use a two-handed sword.)

This might be a better argument. But, again. Dwarves need more XP to level. So, sure. If you're willing to pay more XP for the +2.

And thieves' skill chances are so low for everything except climbing (and, maybe, listening) that those abilities make a doubtful practical contribution - particularly in a game where the generic penalty for failure is PC death. (I think Moldvay D&D could be improved by replacing the current rules for thief failure with some sort of "complication" rule - so thieves' schtick would be to both introduce and deal with complications, rather than just die Black Dougal-style.)

It just depends. Thieves are definitely the worst class in terms of their comparison to HP, AC, weapons use and so on. And, we have house-ruled it so that you get +Dex mod to your skills, which improves the odds a bit. But, thieves shine at 4th level+ - and they have the lowest XP to get there. I can have a 3rd Level thief while your elf is still 1st level.

I've also witnessed a 4th level thief have an invisibility spell cast on them, and use their skills to climb into a tower and backstab the BBEG in a pretty amazing display of stealth and assassination.

I also don't get the "generic penalty for failure is death". Maybe elaborate? I can't imagine a generic penalty for failure. It all just depends on the fiction and what's happening in the game. Certainly, falling might hurt - but as you noted, a Thief has a very small chance of failing at climbing, even at 1st level.

This isn't intended as a criticsm of Moldvay Basic, by the way. I think it can be fun despite being unbalanced (and have had fun with it). But as I said in my earlier post, I can also see why the Tunnels & Trolls designers decided to be more upfront about the lottery aspects of the game.

And, I disagree with your "lottery theory".

Surviving in B/X has less to do with your character's abilities and more to do with with player skill and knowledge.

We've had people roll up characters with 18 or 17 in multiple stats and die the first session, while characters much far more average stats, 10s and 12s, live to become 5th level (that's our highest level so far).

You know who survived? The player with experience with OS D&D. Players from 3E and 4E generally go through 2-3 characters before they start "getting it". And, the two players I'm thinking of, now both have 4th level characters after they went through a couple (remember, our elf has been adventuring since Day 1 and he's only 5th level).

But, once they get it, survival rate goes up dramatically. That's not a lottery. That's skill.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I think a Thunderdome style would be fun.
I remember hearing a tale about a DM in a PBP game on some forum allowed it in a adventure. I don't know how it would out though.
(I bet the 4E fighter felt stronger compared to his 1E or 2E comparison though. Although, the 4E Wizard's spells are weaker than 2E/3E's at med-high levels.)

I chose 6th level because 10th would complicate matters by Paragon choices for 4E. 6th still gets extra Con boosts for 1/2E. It boosts 3rd with extra attack though from BAB.
After I finish Way of the Wicked PBP game I'm thinking if 5E isn't out yet (or even if it is) I'm running a PBP thunderdome game of all editions. Just to see the chaos.

I am also right now thinking of doing something very similar, but what about what base combat system to use (Basic 10 second rounds, 1st/2nd Ed 1 minute rounds, 3rd/4th Ed 6 second rounds etc)?

 

[pemerton]

Also not true. Elves have a much higher XP cost than MUs.

That's why I said "in 1st level play".

But even if we're talking about the whole range of Moldvay Basic, an Elf will reach level 2 before a MU reaches level 3 (even if the MU has an XP bonus), and at level 2 will have comparable hit points (once AC is taken into account, much higher effective hp) and will have given up one 2nd level spell in exchange for better saves and viable non-spell attacks.

thieves shine at 4th level+

I took your reference to Basic literally. I haven't looked at Expert recently, nor played it in more than 20 years

I also don't get the "generic penalty for failure is death".

I'm drawing here on my own experiences playing classic D&D, plus the examples of play in the Moldvay Basic book. In those examples, which span a sequence of play that I imagine would take an hour or so at the table, two PCs die - one to a failed poison save, one in combat.

More generally, what are the non-lethal threats in Basic D&D? Traps typically deliver either (lethal) poison, or damage measured in dice that (especially at 1st level) have a good chance to be fatal. Monsters are statted up with attack and damage numbers, and the damage is all potentially lethal.

I think there is a marked contrast with a game like Burning Wheel, for example, which goes to great lengths to explain how to set up and resolve situations - including combat situations - in which death is not the likely consequence of failure.

I disagree with your "lottery theory".

Surviving in B/X has less to do with your character's abilities and more to do with with player skill and knowledge.

<snip>

You know who survived? The player with experience with OS D&D. Players from 3E and 4E generally go through 2-3 characters before they start "getting it".

<snip>

But, once they get it, survival rate goes up dramatically. That's not a lottery. That's skill.

This raises some interesting issues.

One is that there is basically nothing in the rule books that talks about this "old school" play. I played Moldvay Basic not long after it was published (1982-84) and character abilities were crucial in our games (for example, surviving the stirges at the start of Keep on the Borderlands (I think that's the right module) required good luck and bucket loads of AC and hp). In the samples of play in the books, character abilities are crucial - there is no evidence of "old school" play, other than some tinkering with the melee round action sequence that the presentation of the sequence does not itself canvass.

I don't remotely pretend to have a thorough grasp of "old school" play, but to some extent it seems to me to involve free-formed (or semi-free-formed) action resolution techniques which work around the actually published resolution mechanics. Picking up those techniques, particularly when the book doesn't talk about them, is undoubtedly a type of skill.

And it's true that, the more you are resolving situations without reference to the actual character abilities and without deploying the published action resolution rules, the less the content of those abilites and rules will matter to your game. For example, if the best way to deal with stirges is to smear yourself in the foul-tasting mud that you have reason to believe will keep them away, then how many hit points you have, or what your AC is, won't matter so much.

 

[P1NBACK]

That's why I said "in 1st level play".

Right on. But, we're hopefully not playing D&D in a one-shot game. D&D is really about the campaign.

But even if we're talking about the whole range of Moldvay Basic, an Elf will reach level 2 before a MU reaches level 3 (even if the MU has an XP bonus), and at level 2 will have comparable hit points (once AC is taken into account, much higher effective hp) and will have given up one 2nd level spell in exchange for better saves and viable non-spell attacks.

That depends a lot on what spells they each get too. And, if the elf can survive past 1st level while the MU has access to 2nd level spells to assist. You can't really just compare these things in a vacuum.

I took your reference to Basic literally. I haven't looked at Expert recently, nor played it in more than 20 years

Fair enough.

I'm drawing here on my own experiences playing classic D&D, plus the examples of play in the Moldvay Basic book. In those examples, which span a sequence of play that I imagine would take an hour or so at the table, two PCs die - one to a failed poison save, one in combat.

More generally, what are the non-lethal threats in Basic D&D? Traps typically deliver either (lethal) poison, or damage measured in dice that (especially at 1st level) have a good chance to be fatal. Monsters are statted up with attack and damage numbers, and the damage is all potentially lethal.

Eh, you're completely obviating reaction rolls, and circumstances beyond "death". How about being captured? Or, losing your gear? Or, being cut off from the outside world without food? Or, getting a curse? Or, disease? Or, losing ability points? Or any number of non-death things that still suck. In fact, a lot of the non-death stuff might be considered _worse_. If you're dead, you at least get to roll up a new character.

I think there is a marked contrast with a game like Burning Wheel, for example, which goes to great lengths to explain how to set up and resolve situations - including combat situations - in which death is not the likely consequence of failure.

If death is not a likely result of combat with sharp bladed objects, then... I think there's something wrong.

This raises some interesting issues.

One is that there is basically nothing in the rule books that talks about this "old school" play.

Sure there is. But, more importantly, I don't think the game needs to talk about old school play. The same way AW doesn't need to tell you how to play either. You learn over the course of play what sort of behaviors emerge from play. We call this the fruitful void. There's no "mechanic" or procedures for dealing with old school play.

Because of the fact that there are deadly, dangerous things in a dungeon, we learn to play to minimize those risk in a variety of ways.

I played Moldvay Basic not long after it was published (1982-84) and character abilities were crucial in our games (for example, surviving the stirges at the start of Keep on the Borderlands (I think that's the right module) required good luck and bucket loads of AC and hp). In the samples of play in the books, character abilities are crucial - there is no evidence of "old school" play, other than some tinkering with the melee round action sequence that the presentation of the sequence does not itself canvass.

The character abilities themselves are just a tool. I'm not talking about "gaming the system" like we might with 3E or 4E... Oh, I got this cool feat that interacts with this magical item and when I shift and get flanking I win the game!

Luck is certainly an aspect of the game. But, I think strategy (not tactics) is far more important.

I don't remotely pretend to have a thorough grasp of "old school" play, but to some extent it seems to me to involve free-formed (or semi-free-formed) action resolution techniques which work around the actually published resolution mechanics. Picking up those techniques, particularly when the book doesn't talk about them, is undoubtedly a type of skill.

Eh. Semi-free form is certainly an appropriate description. We make a lot of rulings, but they are usually rooted in the mechanics of the game.

I like Mearls' analogy of it being like a band jamming versus 4E's symphony with lots of moving parts all trying to work in concert. We're more riffing off of each other and using the drum beat as our backbone (the rules that are actually there).

And it's true that, the more you are resolving situations without reference to the actual character abilities and without deploying the published action resolution rules, the less the content of those abilites and rules will matter to your game. For example, if the best way to deal with stirges is to smear yourself in the foul-tasting mud that you have reason to believe will keep them away, then how many hit points you have, or what your AC is, won't matter so much.

Very nice. But, what you're missing is that when you level up, you have more resources to bring to bear, so those abilities do matter. And, what happens when you do need to fight something? Of course those things matter.

But, they aren't the only aspect to play. I'm not looking at my character sheet every round trying to pick an action. I'm imagining what's around me and using that to inform my decision and maybe something on my sheet can help me, sure, but it's not a description or set of mechanics of my next move.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I played Moldvay Basic not long after it was published (1982-84) and character abilities were crucial in our games (for example, surviving the stirges at the start of Keep on the Borderlands (I think that's the right module) required good luck and bucket loads of AC and hp).

Shoot a stirge or two then run like hell. Repeat your guerilla tactics until they are cleared out.

Buy some goats, herd them in to let the bloodsucking striges become sated on a meal other than you.

This is the OS play I'm used to. There was a drive to keep oneself out of harm's way to accomplish your goals. 3E and later versions tend to teach you to take things head on. In my 4E games I've only seen the players decide to flee when the encounter is designed to force them to (with a seeming unending line of reinforcements entering the battlefield).

 

[Andor]

Its something I saw back when I was playing 3E and a DM would label certain books off limits. Some people took it hard and the game suffered for it, and this was something I never saw in other editions(2E and 4E) or other RPGs that had didn't have lots of controversial optional rules.

2e had British, gun toting, anthropomophic hippopotami, impotent half-dwarf gladiators and philisophically murderous interplanar mutts mangling 17th century london slang. Few GMs allowed them to be in the same party.

In 2e you tended to see better seperation between different camapign worlds, in spite of the fact that both Spelljammer and Planescape were explict methods for hopping between campaign worlds.

In 3e there was a tendancy for a lot of feat and prestige classes to be put into setting books along with guide lines for how to fit them into other worlds/games. This resulted in blurring and a sense of entitlement amoung players that of course Class X could be used in Ravenloft no matter how ill fitting.

From WotCs perspective of course it makes perfect sense, since it allows them to derive greater sales from what might otherwise be niche books.

How they will handle portioning out fluff/crunch in 5e, I do not know.