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

[Ahnehnois]

Nah, I'm objectively right here. There's no conceivable way that "playstyle" can justify this. That word is not a magical aegis that makes bad game design not count.

Well, let's see.

Game mechanics have to support each other. If they work at cross purposes, nothing about "playstyle" will make the problem vanish.

A vague statement that doesn't mean much, but okay. Sounds good at least.

D&D is presently designed for characters to be played over a long period of time. I think that's a objectively true statement that really can't be argued against.

Okay. Probably overstated; a lot of people don't play long-term campaigns all the time, but yes, that is a general assumption.

Randomly cursing some characters with comparative incompetence to others works at cross purposes with this goal. The same is true of randomly blessing some characters with hyper-competence.

And...a total non-sequitur. Why can't one play a cursed/blessed character for a long time?

So, yeah. Rolling for stats is objectively bad even if people had fun in the past in spite of it, or if they had fun in the past in a game that had a different context (e.g., rolling for stats is perfectly appropriate if you play with disposable characters). It works at cross purposes with other aspects of the system.

I think what you're doing is assuming a level of so-called "balance" that D&D doesn't, shouldn't, and can't have. For example, the game does not prohibit playing characters of different levels, which can happen either because the DM dictates it or for a variety of in-game reasons. Does having the ability to give one player a level 15 character and one player a level 5 character "cross purposes with other aspects of the system"? No. It's a playstyle. (One with debatable merits, but a playstyle nonetheless). Playing unequal characters is perfectly viable, even in the long term.

 

[slobster]

Nah, I'm objectively right here. There's no conceivable way that "playstyle" can justify this. That word is not a magical aegis that makes bad game design not count.

Blarggh.

Even leaving aside your claim to be objectively right, I disagree with one of your assumptions. Two, actually.

An explicit assumption you made is that nobody will be playing D&D in the future with disposable characters that die with great frequency. That will certainly be a playstyle that people continue to enjoy, so allowing them (not that you could stop them, anyway) to use dice to generate scores lets them get what they want from the game. Maybe what you would like to see is a warning in the section on ability scores, to the effect that "generating scores randomly is more suited to games that expect high character turnover . . ." etc. That sounds fine to me.

An implicit assumption you made is that playing a game where some characters come and go precludes the possibility of playing a long-term character. I disagree. Nothing drives home how much you want to keep your shiny new awesome character with 2 eighteens more than the 14 characters you had to roll up and watch die terribly before you made her. Alternatively there are the characters you love despite their flaws instead of because of their strengths. It's not for everyone, I grant you, but it is for some people.

Those are in fact playstyle differences that validate random ability score generation (and other, related game design features that I suppose would be called "old-school).

PS, I would like to note that I agree that point buy is a better fit for your average game, and that random scores should be used by people who understand (or at least have forewarning about) their quirks. I just disagree that one method of generation is "objectively better" than the other (what does that even mean? No matter what, somebody has to be subjectively setting the metrics by which you then "objectively" make your determination about the better mechanic. It's madness ).

 

[Cadfan]

To be fair, it leaves it leaves it to dice and the DM's common sense. I've never encountered (or been) a DM who forced a player use a set of unplyable stats. We cut the person with the cold dice some slack.

This is an indictment of rolling for stats, not a defense. Literally nothing I could say, no pretentious turn of phrase, could cut more deeply than a casual statement from a fan of rolling for stats to the effect that only an unreasonable lack of common sense could possibly lead one to roll for stats according to the book.

 

[DerekSTheRed]

Anyone find it weird that the cleric has +2 in both weapon and magic attacks for levels 1-5. The rogue gets +3 weapon at level 5 while the fighter and wizard get +4 at level 4 in weapon and magic respectively. Could the cleric be a jack of all trades but master of none?

Also, two different fighting styles use Jab but none use Deadly Strike. Seems like the Slayer should get Deadly Strike at level 5 instead of Jab.

The specialties are the best part of the play test IMO. It's very easy to come up with character ideas reading those along with the backgrounds. The duelist seems like a fun swashbucking character to play. The Necromancer can be taken by either cleric or wizard. I like the idea of a non-wizard taking the Magic User specialty for an Eberron/High Magic type campaign setting.

Armor looks good on paper. I'm hoping it works well in play. Equipment in general is pretty solid IMO.

 

[billd91]

I assume you've not around these boards for a decade. Just google "quadratic wizards". It yields 11 thousand results, I'm sure that's enough to keep you entertained for a while.

Well, you've given me the best laugh I've had in a while. A bunch of messageboarders complaining about quadratic wizards doesn't really prove much. If that were the case, I'd have proof that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax and that the World Trade Center was done in by an inside job.

What it proves is there's a core of players who don't like the way those mechanics work. Of course, having been pretty active on this message board for the last 10 years, I can find plenty of people who say that the classes are a lot better balanced than you assert. Who's right? There's no good way to objectively measure that.

You were asserting that you could guess ability scores on your own; otherwise, I suppose that avoiding a long string of question and rolls might be beneficial. I wouldn't like to have, in the middle of what's supposed to be a frantic combat, the wizard's player asking and rolling to see if the critter comes from Plant's Vs zombies or a Romero movie.

Anyway, can't you see this is exactly the same issue that came up in 3e so frequently? That the best way to get the most from your spells was with metagame knowledge - like knowing what creatures had the best (Ex) abilities to Polymorph into, or to avoid damage spells in favor of save or be out? It's the opposite of a game you can jump into, it's a game you have to pour hours before you start playing. This may appeal to a certain segament of the gamer population, the ones that came with pun-pun and the like, but I think it's a terrible decision if they want to reach to new players who are forced to play the n00b class while the "good players" push the I win buttons.

I can guess some relative abilities on my own. Hill giant - probably stronger and tougher than quick and clever. Quickling - probably the opposite. Some things, of course, will be tough to guess. That's part of the fun, but it doesn't mean I'm not going to try to figure out a weakness and hit it.

You can learn that stuff by trial and error as well. Go ahead and try to hit the bear with poison or wrestle the giant if that seems the 'cool' thing to do. I think I'll do my best to figure out, in character, that those might not be the best things to do.

 

[Grydan]

Also, two different fighting styles use Jab but none use Deadly Strike. Seems like the Slayer should get Deadly Strike at level 5 instead of Jab.

All fighters get Deadly Strike and Parry at level 1, so there's no need for it to be included in a fighting style.

 

[Someone]

Well, you've given me the best laugh I've had in a while. A bunch of messageboarders complaining about quadratic wizards doesn't really prove much. If that were the case, I'd have proof that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax and that the World Trade Center was done in by an inside job.

What it proves is there's a core of players who don't like the way those mechanics work. Of course, having been pretty active on this message board for the last 10 years, I can find plenty of people who say that the classes are a lot better balanced than you assert. Who's right? There's no good way to objectively measure that.

Well, if that's what you really think I don't believe there's much point in continuing the discussion, or to have started it in the first place.

 

[Balesir]

Nah, I'm objectively right here. There's no conceivable way that "playstyle" can justify this. That word is not a magical aegis that makes bad game design not count.

Actually, despite the fact that I'm really with you in thinking stat rolling is a bad approach for D&D, I disagree with you here. In fact, I think this cuts to the very heart of many of the conflicts and dividing lines around D&D on the 'net.

It comes down to what the players are supposed to be doing. Not the characters; the players. That's where the "playstyle" thing actually comes in. And if the player isn't supposed to be concerned with how his or her character performs compared to the other characters in the game, then rolling stats will work just fine.

There does seem to be a "playstyle" that consists of "meeting" your character (rather than designing, choosing or building it) and, in this as in everything else in the game, taking whatever crap the dice and the GM throw at you. It's sort of like an "Endurance" competition. You actually get kudos for taking worse flak than anyone else - and the "winner" is the "last man standing" after taking all the crud.

It's not really a style that appeals to me at all, but there are those who seem to enjoy it (for some value of "enjoy", at least). Probably the best fist I could make of such a game is to focus on exploring the dysfunctional world the GM has concocted* while spiralling down to my character's inevitable, miserable fate. Common traits of the style include GM "rulings, not rules" (because mere rules should not stand in the way of the arbitrary crap your character has to survive) and an emphasis on player ignorance of the setting and monsters (because knowing what was going to trip you up next would spoil the surprise). The player, essentially, is not supposed to be in control of anything in this style of game - their aim is simply to keep at least a breathing tube above the surface in order to keep in the game long enough to earn some small measure of a breathing space. It's basically the opposite of "player agency" or "empowerment" - but it's what some folk enjoy. Is it compatible with a system that also supports players having an active role to play and active aims in the game? I don't think so, personally, but maybe a system can come along that proves me wrong - who knows?

Such a system would have to resolve the "rolled stats/picked stats" issue, though.

*: There is actually also a quite functional style of play where the players' mission is to explore the game world, but the system is so constructed that character death or maiming are fairly unlikely. In other words, most of the "competition" elements are removed and the players (through their characters) cooperate to explore the world with their characters in (relative) safety. I get the impression that this is a minority playstyle with D&D, however.

 

[Underman]

Using phrases like "whatever crap", "flak", "crud", "some value of 'enjoy'", "dysfunctional", "inevitable, miserable fate", "arbitrary crap", "ignorance", "breathing tube above the surface", "some small measure of a breathing space" is a very strange way of acknowledging or validating another playstyle.

 

[Imaro]

Actually, despite the fact that I'm really with you in thinking stat rolling is a bad approach for D&D, I disagree with you here. In fact, I think this cuts to the very heart of many of the conflicts and dividing lines around D&D on the 'net.

It comes down to what the players are supposed to be doing. Not the characters; the players. That's where the "playstyle" thing actually comes in. And if the player isn't supposed to be concerned with how his or her character performs compared to the other characters in the game, then rolling stats will work just fine.

There does seem to be a "playstyle" that consists of "meeting" your character (rather than designing, choosing or building it) and, in this as in everything else in the game, taking whatever crap the dice and the GM throw at you. It's sort of like an "Endurance" competition. You actually get kudos for taking worse flak than anyone else - and the "winner" is the "last man standing" after taking all the crud.

It's not really a style that appeals to me at all, but there are those who seem to enjoy it (for some value of "enjoy", at least). Probably the best fist I could make of such a game is to focus on exploring the dysfunctional world the GM has concocted* while spiralling down to my character's inevitable, miserable fate. Common traits of the style include GM "rulings, not rules" (because mere rules should not stand in the way of the arbitrary crap your character has to survive) and an emphasis on player ignorance of the setting and monsters (because knowing what was going to trip you up next would spoil the surprise). The player, essentially, is not supposed to be in control of anything in this style of game - their aim is simply to keep at least a breathing tube above the surface in order to keep in the game long enough to earn some small measure of a breathing space. It's basically the opposite of "player agency" or "empowerment" - but it's what some folk enjoy. Is it compatible with a system that also supports players having an active role to play and active aims in the game? I don't think so, personally, but maybe a system can come along that proves me wrong - who knows?

Such a system would have to resolve the "rolled stats/picked stats" issue, though.

*: There is actually also a quite functional style of play where the players' mission is to explore the game world, but the system is so constructed that character death or maiming are fairly unlikely. In other words, most of the "competition" elements are removed and the players (through their characters) cooperate to explore the world with their characters in (relative) safety. I get the impression that this is a minority playstyle with D&D, however.

Wow, this is the most passive-aggressive, biased and incorrect... you know what... be honest were you just trying to insult people that enjoy a certain playstyle or was this really supposed to help Cadfan understand why some playstyle(s) might prefer random rolling of stats?

Hey here's one that doesn't denigrate a particular playstyle...

Casual beer and pretzels, the players aren't out to participate in an epic year-spanning campaign and really just want to explore a dungeon, kill some monsters and get loot every week for a couple hours... they aren't really hung up on being a particular race or class and the risk of death is part of the fun for them. They decide, in order to get a variable experience in race and class amongst the players and because it is quicker and simpler, to let the dice decide attributes for them.

The above is not really my style of play, but I understand the appeal it has for some groups. Notice I don't need to use words that put it down or make value judgements if I'm honestly trying to present it in order to get someone else to realize the playstyle exists.