D&D 5E [D&D Next] Second Packet - initial impressions

[Balesir]

Yes, having random ability scores does have something to do with challenge. It's the challenge of succeeding or failing with what fate dealt you. How many timess do I have to repeat that??

Right - I understood the first time - I just don't think it's a functional way to proceed. I note how many games of all sorts, that are based around "winning" or "succeeding", have random or differential setups that are designed to gimp some players arbitrarily from the start. Noughts and crosses (what you call "tic tac toe" in the US?) is the only one that springs to mind.

So again explain to me how playing with whatever lady luck gives you (even if it is a missfiring gun)... isn't a challenge as opposed to what you carefully optimize or pick? It seems like you're equating challenge to a very specific type of challenge (perhaps challenges Balesir approves of??) for some reason.

Based on my ignorance of Modern Warfare 3 I'm going to stop this thread here rather than gamble on making mistakes that Imaro disapproves of.

And you fail to see how that can be fun and challenging for some people? It seems pretty simple to me. Randomness is fun for alot of people (in the same way gambling can be). Having bad (or even good) scores can be fun and challenging because you're not playing exactly what you built to do exactly what you want in exactly the way you want.

Gambling can be fun, because you gamble on each hand or throw of the dice. Playing with loaded dice or a stacked deck are considerably less popular - and that's the analogy, here.

You still don't get it. It's not about picking bad scores... randomness is not picking bad scores. It's about letting fate decide and succeding on what was given.

Right - which is fun for short instances, not for life.

What ad hominem? I asked a question.

If I ask someone "have you always been a jerk?" that's "just asking a question". Asking a question doesn't preclude the question being a (possibly veiled) attack, even if the asker shrugs and looks innocent after asking.

Really? I think whaty it "bills itself as" depends a great deal on what edition of D&D we are talking about here. And since 5e is supppose to unite the editions... random character generation has been the default method more than it hasn't.

D&D has systems whereby you collect experience points, go up levels and loot dungeons/find treasure. It always has had. Levels go up to high numbers (at least 10 or so). Expecting that at least some characters should go up levels and have long, successful careers as adventurers might not be automatically valid based merely on the fact that such systems exist, but the fact that these systems have been the core of every edition so far seems to suggest that it is intended. Given such an expectation, rolling a really substandard character seems like just a hurdle or a waste of game time until they get killed - which I can't really see being a "fun" element in any game.

 

[Balesir]

Hi, I am Jacob Marley and I enjoy rolling for stats in D&D.

The point is that some of us don't come to the table with a pre-existing idea of what our character is. The challenge is to take this random collection of numbers and make something interesting out of it. Balance between characters is not a priority amongst us.

This misses the point. Again, the point is that we want the unknown. We want to take that unknown and watch as it becomes known. And then to mold and shape that into something special. Telling us to choose either by an array or by a point-buy system is to deny us the very point to which we are playing.

Its not about being overpowered or underpowered. Its about the whole journey of discovering who this character is.

Congratulations! You have shown me that there is at least one person out there playing D&D just to explore; I note that nowhere do you refer to succeeding or "winning", just "getting something interesting" and "discovering". In my original post I mentioned in a footnote that this is a viable mode of play, but I didn't think it was common with D&D, specifically. It might not be common, still, but it clearly exists.

FWIW (and I don't expect it to be much) I think D&D is a poor fit for this playstyle, in the sense that I think there are other systems that do it much better. But, if D&D is what you know and you enjoy using it for "exploratory" play - good luck to you!

 

[Umbran]

Hi, I am Jacob Marley and I enjoy rolling for stats in D&D.

Same here.

The point is that some of us don't come to the table with a pre-existing idea of what our character is. The challenge is to take this random collection of numbers and make something interesting out of it. Balance between characters is not a priority amongst us.

There's another reason, as well, that so many folks miss.

Imagine your game is about to begin. The GM tells you to make a character. You ask, "What kind of character should I make?" The GM replies, "Anything you want!"

The GM does not recognize that while this seems open and accepting, it is not necessarily helpful. It opens the player to "option paralysis", where having too many options makes choosing nearly impossible. Rolling stats goes a long way in eliminating that issue. It restricts the player's choices somewhat, eliminating many of the potential options, and can bring the decision set down to a more manageable size.

If people are really that concerned about one option being listed before another, well fine, put it in alphabetical order then: Array, Dice, Point-buy. Seriously, is it that big a deal?

Agreed. If all options are presented, they'll all be explored. Options that are not presented at all will be explored, too. That's the nature of RPG players. We tinker.

... the extremely generous house rules for dice rolling that have been in place in every extended game with rolled stats I've ever played in (choose the best from multiple stat arrays, rerolling 1s, bonus points afterwards, ...) defeat the point of rolling.

Yes, well, as was implied above - perhaps rolling is not a great option for those games or players that are (for whatever reason) quite so concerned about stat balance.

 

[Imaro]

Right - I understood the first time - I just don't think it's a functional way to proceed. I note how many games of all sorts, that are based around "winning" or "succeeding", have random or differential setups that are designed to gimp some players arbitrarily from the start. Noughts and crosses (what you call "tic tac toe" in the US?) is the only one that springs to mind.

You do realize that one player starting first is an advantage in most games which is usually determined in some random way... right?

Gambling can be fun, because you gamble on each hand or throw of the dice. Playing with loaded dice or a stacked deck are considerably less popular - and that's the analogy, here.

The odds in casinos favor the house... but that doesn't seem to dampen the fun of the millions who go. That's the analogy here.

Right - which is fun for short instances, not for life.

Sorry I can't comment... I've never had a campaign that lasted...for life.

If I ask someone "have you always been a jerk?" that's "just asking a question". Asking a question doesn't preclude the question being a (possibly veiled) attack, even if the asker shrugs and looks innocent after asking.

I asked if you had limited interaction with various playstyles... it wasn't (intended to be) any more or less offensive than how you chose to describe the playstyle to Cadfan earlier. I'm not assuming anything, I'm asking and you stated that you have in fact had experience with various playstyles... so cool.

D&D has systems whereby you collect experience points, go up levels and loot dungeons/find treasure. It always has had. Levels go up to high numbers (at least 10 or so). Expecting that at least some characters should go up levels and have long, successful careers as adventurers might not be automatically valid based merely on the fact that such systems exist, but the fact that these systems have been the core of every edition so far seems to suggest that it is intended. Given such an expectation, rolling a really substandard character seems like just a hurdle or a waste of game time until they get killed - which I can't really see being a "fun" element in any game.

Nothing inherent in having average to below average attributes stops one from progressing through levels, especially in earlier editions where the effect of attribuite bonuses is minimal. Again this is an edition that is supposed to unite all fans and while you aren't a fan of randomness and rolling in character generation... this thread alone shows there are some/many that do. So I'm sorry you can't see that some average/bad stats do not equate to guaranteed death and I'm sorry you can't understand why other people would find something fun that you don't... not really sure what else to say since you've admitted you can't understand why it's fun for others or as a game element.

 

[Zustiur]

For what it's worth; my new rolled stats variant is:
4d6, drop the lowest, arrange to taste, but with a twist.
All of the players roll their 6 sets of dice. Each player then chooses any one of those sets of 6 stats for their on character. This means they can all have different stats, or all pick the same set if they so choose. My players now get to choose how 'balanced' they want the stats to be across the party.

On a sad note, I can't believe how much of this thread has been dedicated to an argument of rolling vs points buy. What does that have to do with the playtest? Get back on topic people!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


I like where the equipment is going, particularly d4 for clubs and the whole finesse weapons bit. I was never a fan of weapon sizes, so I like the return to the older mechanic. I echo the call for more armour types and less 'fantastic' armour though.
I haven't had a chance to read through classes properly yet.

I'm still not a fan of unlimited, guaranteed hit, magic missiles, but the idea is slowly seeming more reasonable.

 

[billd91]

On a sad note, I can't believe how much of this thread has been dedicated to an argument of rolling vs points buy. What does that have to do with the playtest? Get back on topic people!

But it is on topic. We're now dealing with a part of the play test that includes character generation. That includes stat generation.

Also, there's the human bonus to consider. With the standard array, the effect at 1st level is muted (only noticeable with 2 stats). With 4d6-low, the effect is likely to be noticeable on about half the stats, but could be less or more fairly easily. With point-buy, the stats could be bought such that all 6 are higher than a non-human could buy. This means that with some stat generation methods, a human may be +1 on all checks involving just a limited number of stats or potentially all of them - including attacks, saves, skills, and even damage. That's pretty big and I wonder if that is why point-buy has not been included in the play test.

 

[Scribble]

How about we split the difference?

Roll dice to determine the number of points you get to spend on your stats, or which array you gt to use.

 

[Victim]

You do realize that one player starting first is an advantage in most games which is usually determined in some random way... right?

You do realize that in many games where balance is actually considered in design, the starting player pays for that advantage in some way, like by getting fewer moves on the first turn, a scoring handicap, use multiple games in a match or bonus resources for later players, right? Other games have mechanics such that going first is not an unmitigated advantage. For instance, in Rex, the first player can move to exploit opportunities that open up more cheaply with his move. OTOH, going later than other players means you can counter attack any weakness that opens up, and potentially go for a game winning move without reprisal. Proper design can mitigate the importance of that random roll.

I understand that Reign (which I've neither played nor read) has random generation that assigns stuff randomly instead of determining the amount of stuff randomly, such that random characters are roughly on par with other characters. And our group had more fun rolling up Traveler characters and seeing what happened to them than we did playing the game. The new Gamma World presets your primary and secondary attributes, and then has 3d6 random for the others (with full healing between encounters, and 4e style HP - with 3.x/5e HP and Con rules, Con is so universally powerful that it'd probably have to be set as well) so characters are pretty good at their main things and mostly vary on secondaries.

But the traditional random generation in DnD doesn't just assign stuff, or come up with improbable chains of background events.

It's deeply tied in with the chance to get considerably more (with the current attribute mod system, way more) or less.

Is that really necessary to meet your character?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Right - I understood the first time - I just don't think it's a functional way to proceed. I note how many games of all sorts, that are based around "winning" or "succeeding", have random or differential setups that are designed to gimp some players arbitrarily from the start. Noughts and crosses (what you call "tic tac toe" in the US?) is the only one that springs to mind.

Ah, and here we have it. D&D is a game in the broad sense of the word, but is not winnable and is not inherently based on any type of success. If you play D&D to win, then yes, rolling stats might cause problems.

So can a lot of things, in that case. Not everyone is interested in having their D&D character succeed against any particular standard.

 

[Iosue]

16s rolled are twice as sweet as 16s bought. /paulnewman

I seriously don't get that this is an argument at all. I mean, if Mearls said "3d6 in order is the only way", or "Only standard arrays", then yeah, go to the mattresses. But when he says "Default will be 4d6 drop 1, and we'll also have standard arrays and point buys", then we have nothing to argue about. Everyone's getting what they want. I mean we have so many options.

Standard Arrays - For the player who wants quick generation, and doesn't want to fiddle with points, but doesn't like the randomness of rolling.

Point Buys - For those who just love to tinker and tune their characters. Also good for varying play, as one group might go with 22 points, while another might go more heroic with 26.

3d6, in order - For those who like meeting their character, letting the dice inspire them.

4d6, drop one - Same as above, but for those who want a little more heroic action.

3d6/4d6, arranged to taste - Great for those who just want the dice to suggest a direction they can go with. Or someone who knows what class they want to play, but doesn't want to fiddle with points, and likes the variability of rolling dice.

It's all good. Win-win.

 

[Balesir]

Ah, and here we have it. D&D is a game in the broad sense of the word, but is not winnable and is not inherently based on any type of success. If you play D&D to win, then yes, rolling stats might cause problems.

So can a lot of things, in that case. Not everyone is interested in having their D&D character succeed against any particular standard.

If you read the whole discussion, you'll see that I have already recognised that playing to explore rather than overcome challenges (= "win") would be a different case. I don't really get the impression that this is common with D&D, though. Maybe it's more common than I recognise - but, even so, I think D&D has never been really well suited to this type of play in any case.

 

[Imaro]

You do realize that in many games where balance is actually considered in design, the starting player pays for that advantage in some way, like by getting fewer moves on the first turn, a scoring handicap, use multiple games in a match or bonus resources for later players, right? Other games have mechanics such that going first is not an unmitigated advantage. For instance, in Rex, the first player can move to exploit opportunities that open up more cheaply with his move. OTOH, going later than other players means you can counter attack any weakness that opens up, and potentially go for a game winning move without reprisal. Proper design can mitigate the importance of that random roll.

I understand that Reign (which I've neither played nor read) has random generation that assigns stuff randomly instead of determining the amount of stuff randomly, such that random characters are roughly on par with other characters. And our group had more fun rolling up Traveler characters and seeing what happened to them than we did playing the game. The new Gamma World presets your primary and secondary attributes, and then has 3d6 random for the others (with full healing between encounters, and 4e style HP - with 3.x/5e HP and Con rules, Con is so universally powerful that it'd probably have to be set as well) so characters are pretty good at their main things and mostly vary on secondaries.

This has nothing to do with my point. Which is that there are plenty of games besides tic tac toe that allow a player to go first randomly and it is an advantage. Nerver argued there weren't games that didn't mitigate it or even counter it.. so I'm not sure what these two paragraphs are addressing.

But the traditional random generation in DnD doesn't just assign stuff, or come up with improbable chains of background events.

It's deeply tied in with the chance to get considerably more (with the current attribute mod system, way more) or less.

And? How is this a counter to anything I've said? Some people like the idea of trying to achieve more with whatever fate gave them, your statement above doesn't nullify the fact that this is fun, interesting, convenient (or whatever draws them to it) for some people.

Is that really necessary to meet your character?

I think very few things are "necessary" in a game of make believe... thus why it mostly boils down to preference.

 

[Ahnehnois]

If you read the whole discussion, you'll see that I have already recognised that playing to explore rather than overcome challenges (= "win") would be a different case. I don't really get the impression that this is common with D&D, though. Maybe it's more common than I recognise - but, even so, I think D&D has never been really well suited to this type of play in any case.

This is no less condescending or inaccurate than those above posts to which you refer.

There's not some narrow segment of "explorers" that are the exception to the rule. "Not playing to win" encompasses a whole constellation of playstyles virtually all of the Robin Laws archetypes or whatever other categories you want to use, including but not limited to people who play to act their character ("roleplaying"), people who play for the story, people who play for the company, people who just like to kick ass and take names, people who play for escapism, casual beer and pretzels people, specific atchetype afficianados, etc. etc. The true blue powergamers are the exception, not the rule. This isn't to say that charop isn't fun or legitimate, but it's hardly what the game should be designed for.

To say that D&D isn't suited for these style of play and is only about "overcoming challenges" is ludicrous.

 

[Victim]

16s rolled are twice as sweet as 16s bought. /paulnewman

I seriously don't get that this is an argument at all. I mean, if Mearls said "3d6 in order is the only way", or "Only standard arrays", then yeah, go to the mattresses. But when he says "Default will be 4d6 drop 1, and we'll also have standard arrays and point buys", then we have nothing to argue about. Everyone's getting what they want. I mean we have so many options.

It's a matter of design goals. A lot of people, including myself, would like a more balanced DnD. If the default character generation method provides large variance in character ability, then balance is clearly not an equivalent priority.

And the original stat generation methods set for DnD didn't use the same ability mod system used in modern DnDs. In 2e, a 9 Con character and 14 Con have the same HP, although Con checks, system shock, etc vary. HP penalties or bonuses didn't occur until 7 and 15 IIRC; a lot of stuff didn't make that big of a difference until the far ends of the stat range. In the 3e/5e system, small differences in stats turn into major bonuses. Those 9 and 14 Con characters are separated by 3 HP per level. On a wizard, that means triple average HP!

This has nothing to do with my point. Which is that there are plenty of games besides tic tac toe that allow a player to go first randomly and it is an advantage. Nerver argued there weren't games that didn't mitigate it or even counter it.. so I'm not sure what these two paragraphs are addressing.

I'm saying that large unmitigated initial random advantages is basically putting DnD way behind the kinds of games I'm likely to buy, especially considering the length of the game.

And? How is this a counter to anything I've said? Some people like the idea of trying to achieve more with whatever fate gave them, your statement above doesn't nullify the fact that this is fun, interesting, convenient (or whatever draws them to it) for some people.

There we go. It's not just about meeting your character, or avoiding "cookie-cutter" stats. The point of the random element in character generation is the opportunity to get more than the overall power level of the game.

 

[Imaro]

It's a matter of design goals. A lot of people, including myself, would like a more balanced DnD. If the default character generation method provides large variance in character ability, then balance is clearly not an equivalent priority.

And alot of people like random character attribute generation... as long as both methods are in the books who cares what's default, or gets listed first... both groups will be catered to, which can be a priority that doesn't necessarily conflict with balance in gameplay being a priority... especially if everyone in your group goes with point buy or array.

And the original stat generation methods set for DnD didn't use the same ability mod system used in modern DnDs. In 2e, a 9 Con character and 14 Con have the same HP, although Con checks, system shock, etc vary. HP penalties or bonuses didn't occur until 7 and 15 IIRC; a lot of stuff didn't make that big of a difference until the far ends of the stat range. In the 3e/5e system, small differences in stats turn into major bonuses. Those 9 and 14 Con characters are separated by 3 HP per level. On a wizard, that means triple average HP!

I'm quite aware of this, I stated it in a post a while back. It doesn't change what is or isn't fun for some people. The same way some people like SoD in their games and some don't. What I don't get is as long as the game provides you a point buy method... why do you care about the imbalances others choose to inflict upon themselves?

I'm saying that large unmitigated initial random advantages is basically putting DnD way behind the kinds of games I'm likely to buy, especially considering the length of the game.

I get it, you have a different preference... the fact of the matter is I have no problem with that, what I had a problem with is certain posters passive-aggressively denigrating a playstyle they don't like (or don't understand) and/or claimig point-buy is "objectively" better and/or claiming no random rolling should be in the book. You seem to have jumped into the middle of a discussion without fullly understanding what it is about.

There we go. It's not just about meeting your character, or avoiding "cookie-cutter" stats. The point of the random element in character generation is the opportunity to get more than the overall power level of the game.

That's exactly what I posted... ...only it's not. Notice where I said "with whatever fate gave them".

 

[Balesir]

This is no less condescending or inaccurate than those above posts to which you refer.

Oh, I'll play whatever game is on the table; if you can't take it, don't dish it out.

There's not some narrow segment of "explorers" that are the exception to the rule. "Not playing to win" encompasses a whole constellation of playstyles virtually all of the Robin Laws archetypes or whatever other categories you want to use, including but not limited to people who play to act their character ("roleplaying"), people who play for the story, people who play for the company, people who just like to kick ass and take names, people who play for escapism, casual beer and pretzels people, specific atchetype afficianados, etc. etc.

Of course exploration covers a whole spectrum of variations; so does every classification of playstyle. "Powergaming", for example. The "chart" for such things is multi-dimensional - I should have thought that was obvious.

The true blue powergamers are the exception, not the rule. This isn't to say that charop isn't fun or legitimate, but it's hardly what the game should be designed for.

And here you go explicitly reducing those whose style you don't like to "some narrow segment". Ho, hum.

Just to be clear - are you saying that "true blue powergamers" (or even any other sort of powergamers or the like) should not have any games designed for them at all, or just that those games that you wish to lay claim to should not be designed for them?

To say that D&D isn't suited for these style of play and is only about "overcoming challenges" is ludicrous.

If you find that collecting experience points for killing things and taking their stuff to get better at killing things and taking their stuff is not uniquely supportive of killing things and/or taking their stuff, fine - I have no issue with that. All I'm going to say is that I do find that collecting experience points for killing things and taking their stuff to get better at killing things and taking their stuff is uniquely supportive of killing things and/or taking their stuff, and I think many others find this, too. As such, I find D&D best supports a game which focusses on killing things and taking their stuff in a way that RPGs that don't have xps and levels don't.

 

[billd91]

Just to be clear - are you saying that "true blue powergamers" (or even any other sort of powergamers or the like) should not have any games designed for them at all, or just that those games that you wish to lay claim to should not be designed for them?

You know, if people would stop being so condescending and try to score rhetorical points off each other, questions like this would not need to be asked or would be a lot easier to answer. And that goes for both sides in the debate.

 

[Ahnehnois]

And here you go explicitly reducing those whose style you don't like to "some narrow segment". Ho, hum.

Actually I do like it. More than most, probably. I just acknowledge that my enjoyment of character building and rules min/maxing is a niche, and I don't feel the need to degrade the large portion of people who are not in it or tell them that their enjoyment of the game through such things as, say, unbalanced rolled character stats is "objectively wrong".

Just to be clear - are you saying that "true blue powergamers" (or even any other sort of powergamers or the like) should not have any games designed for them at all, or just that those games that you wish to lay claim to should not be designed for them?

D&D is a roleplaying game. It should be designed to facilitate roleplaying. Powergaming is not roleplaying; it is a natural consequence of any rule system that some people will try to get the most of of it. It is an offshoot of the game itself, and designers of that game shouldn't really be focusing on trying to prevent or control it.

As such, I find D&D best supports a game which focusses on killing things and taking their stuff in a way that RPGs that don't have xps and levels don't.

You're referring to an XP system that the majority of people playing the game don't use at all (the same, incidentally is probably true of rolling for ability scores), and which is very open and varies by edition and by DM (ditto) and is generally tangential to the play experience even when used.

 

[Balesir]

Actually I do like it. More than most, probably. I just acknowledge that my enjoyment of character building and rules min/maxing is a niche, and I don't feel the need to degrade the large portion of people who are not in it or tell them that their enjoyment of the game through such things as, say, unbalanced rolled character stats is "objectively wrong".

It looks like I'll put this down to radically different experience of D&D play(ers). I have found Gamist D&D to be at least as prevalent as Sim/faux-Sim D&D - probably more so - and at least as varied. Your mileage clearly varies.

D&D is a roleplaying game. It should be designed to facilitate roleplaying. Powergaming is not roleplaying; it is a natural consequence of any rule system that some people will try to get the most of of it. It is an offshoot of the game itself, and designers of that game shouldn't really be focusing on trying to prevent or control it.

This I find just annoying - especially when combined with your next paragraph.

First you say "D&D is a roleplaying game", a term that D&D actually coined and thus, one would think, an automatic "fit" (i.e. D&D is a roleplaying game because when D&D arose as something new, it called itself a roleplaying game"). Then, against a background where you apparently agree that people "powergame" D&D and furthermore (in your next paragraph) apparently accept that, in order not to powergame, those who "sim" D&D ignore a core part of the D&D rules, you assert that "powergaming is not roleplaying"...

I call shenanigans.

You're referring to an XP system that the majority of people playing the game don't use at all (the same, incidentally is probably true of rolling for ability scores), and which is very open and varies by edition and by DM (ditto) and is generally tangential to the play experience even when used.

A) This is not my experience at all - most of the folk I know who play D&D use XPs and levels more or less as written. What inside information do you have that "the majority of people playing the game" dont?

B) Nuances between editions there might be, but which one didn't give xps for killing things and taking their stuff, can you tell me?

 

[Ahnehnois]

A) This is not my experience at all - most of the folk I know who play D&D use XPs and levels more or less as written. What inside information do you have that "the majority of people playing the game" dont?

No one knows for sure as to the whole gaing population, but on ENW this is a pretty well-polled topic. There are several more over the years, all of which come to the same conclusion: close to half of people don't use any XP system and level by discretion and those who do tend to do a variety of things that are well off the book. I seriously doubt that the average gamer adheres to the XP system more than the average ENWorlder.

B) Nuances between editions there might be, but which one didn't give xps for killing things and taking their stuff, can you tell me?

Depending on the version, the rules may cover this in very different ways. XP for treasure does not necessarily require killing anything. "Quest XP" IME the most common form of XP when it is used, could reward any number of things.