D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

[delericho]

Eh, any way you cut it it is the "Epic Destiny Problem" in another form. All of a sudden at a certain level the rules of the game change for you. Its in many ways unavoidable, but I'd have thought a more cool way to handle it would be to gradually add in those benefits. This would work well with building a freehold or whatever. Instead of "poof you're name level" have something like a "gain a follower" feat, and let you take it numerous times if you want. You could have a 'treasure' that is "you're allowed to build a castle of level X" etc. In other words work it more organically.

One of the things I've noted about the Paizo Adventure Paths over the last several years is that they've all had something beyond simply "kill things and take their stuff" - in "Kingmaker" it was realm management, in "Skull & Shackles" it was a loot system, and so forth. The point was that each campaign had something, but it wasn't quite the same thing twice.

I'm inclined to think that 2nd Ed's stuff about building a keep, 4e's Epic Destinies, and other high-level exploits are essentially the same thing - something added to the side of the game to give it that bit more depth and detail.

In which case, these seem like ideal fodder for modules. In each case, the "something else" won't apply to all groups and for all campaigns; and in those campaigns where they do apply they might well not want to wait for high level before they can get started. So, present a bunch of options (in the DMG, in an "Ultimate Campaign"-style book, or just with the adventures), and let groups use them (or not) as they see fit.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

One of the things I've noted about the Paizo Adventure Paths over the last several years is that they've all had something beyond simply "kill things and take their stuff" - in "Kingmaker" it was realm management, in "Skull & Shackles" it was a loot system, and so forth. The point was that each campaign had something, but it wasn't quite the same thing twice.

I'm inclined to think that 2nd Ed's stuff about building a keep, 4e's Epic Destinies, and other high-level exploits are essentially the same thing - something added to the side of the game to give it that bit more depth and detail.

In which case, these seem like ideal fodder for modules. In each case, the "something else" won't apply to all groups and for all campaigns; and in those campaigns where they do apply they might well not want to wait for high level before they can get started. So, present a bunch of options (in the DMG, in an "Ultimate Campaign"-style book, or just with the adventures), and let groups use them (or not) as they see fit.

Yeah, all that stuff is cool.I think I'd rather have more elaborate rules systems for that kind of stuff be in supplements, just because I might prefer to do it in a looser way for instance. So maybe if the DMG has some ideas and some guidelines, then there can be some elaborate domain management system book if people want. Honestly all WotC has to do is go back through 1e AD&D, the Blood Right stuff, and a few other things and they can come up with all the material they would ever need (not to mention all the Palladium and JG material that's floating around out there, amongst others).

Paizo APs do all tend to have a shtick and/or a focus. I've only read parts of some of them, but Stolen Land was all about hex crawl and I guess later on part domain creation and part warfare. Mostly I thought the best part was the detail put into the NPCs, many of them are fairly well fleshed-out. In other respects though I think they were kind of weak. I didn't find most of the encounters to be all that well designed. They lacked really interesting terrain and tactical options for instance.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Yeah, all that stuff is cool.I think I'd rather have more elaborate rules systems for that kind of stuff be in supplements, just because I might prefer to do it in a looser way for instance. So maybe if the DMG has some ideas and some guidelines, then there can be some elaborate domain management system book if people want. Honestly all WotC has to do is go back through 1e AD&D, the Blood Right stuff, and a few other things and they can come up with all the material they would ever need (not to mention all the Palladium and JG material that's floating around out there, amongst others).

Paizo APs do all tend to have a shtick and/or a focus. I've only read parts of some of them, but Stolen Land was all about hex crawl and I guess later on part domain creation and part warfare. Mostly I thought the best part was the detail put into the NPCs, many of them are fairly well fleshed-out. In other respects though I think they were kind of weak. I didn't find most of the encounters to be all that well designed. They lacked really interesting terrain and tactical options for instance.

my problem with the APs is that (IMHO), they start out pretty strong in the first module or two - interesting ideas, good setup and good initial encounters. Then, they get weak in the middle. And, if it's a good AP, it has a good finale. If the finale isn't good, then it's not a good AP. I've read through quite a few APs and I'm thinking, "Why, oh why are the players supposed to be doing this when they're 2/3 of the way through the campaign??" (or halfway)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

my problem with the APs is that (IMHO), they start out pretty strong in the first module or two - interesting ideas, good setup and good initial encounters. Then, they get weak in the middle. And, if it's a good AP, it has a good finale. If the finale isn't good, then it's not a good AP. I've read through quite a few APs and I'm thinking, "Why, oh why are the players supposed to be doing this when they're 2/3 of the way through the campaign??" (or halfway)

Well, it is hard to have a single story that spans so much material. A movie only really has to support a couple hours of storytelling. A novel maybe 50-100k words, but an RPG used to run an AP-type structured story has to provide a LOT of plot. Every week the PCs need to be sucked into another smaller story within the story and play out some drama and then it needs to tie somehow back to the bigger story. Its just HARD to do that in a way where there aren't thin parts. This is one reason I like the 4e idea of tiers. You really definitely break the progression up into different sections and try to give them different parameters so that there is natural story velocity, and you can go back and revisit earlier themes and situations in a new light. I think 4e is only PARTLY successful at that, but it is another interesting innovation that seems to get not even lip service from WotC. Like everything in 5e they seem more intent on just abandoning any part of the formula that smacks of innovation.

IMHO this is the most profound way that DDN is screwing up. It should be adopting promising and successful new ways of approaching the game, not fearfully abandoning them. DDN is about WotC's fear, not about WotC's creative ability.

 

[billd91]

Like everything in 5e they seem more intent on just abandoning any part of the formula that smacks of innovation.

IMHO this is the most profound way that DDN is screwing up. It should be adopting promising and successful new ways of approaching the game, not fearfully abandoning them. DDN is about WotC's fear, not about WotC's creative ability.

I'm getting pretty tired of the "innovation" buzzword as if it's always a good thing. Particular innovations are no good if they can't sustain their business model on them.

 

[JamesonCourage]

That, and I really, really disliked the idea of tiers. Even Epic being separate, as it was in 3.X. As always, play what you like

 

[NewJeffCT]

Well, it is hard to have a single story that spans so much material. A movie only really has to support a couple hours of storytelling. A novel maybe 50-100k words, but an RPG used to run an AP-type structured story has to provide a LOT of plot. Every week the PCs need to be sucked into another smaller story within the story and play out some drama and then it needs to tie somehow back to the bigger story. Its just HARD to do that in a way where there aren't thin parts. This is one reason I like the 4e idea of tiers. You really definitely break the progression up into different sections and try to give them different parameters so that there is natural story velocity, and you can go back and revisit earlier themes and situations in a new light. I think 4e is only PARTLY successful at that, but it is another interesting innovation that seems to get not even lip service from WotC. Like everything in 5e they seem more intent on just abandoning any part of the formula that smacks of innovation.

IMHO this is the most profound way that DDN is screwing up. It should be adopting promising and successful new ways of approaching the game, not fearfully abandoning them. DDN is about WotC's fear, not about WotC's creative ability.

Well, that was just my opinion on APs - they seem to be pretty popular overall. So much so that Paizo now has miniatures lines for specific APs (Rise of the Runelords & Shattered Star, so far)

And, you also have the fantasy tradition of multiple books in a series - the DragonLance books for D&D specific, but Lord of the Rings, A Song of Ice & Fire, The Wheel of Time, the Sword of Truth, the Raymond Feist series' whose names I'm forgetting now, etc, etc. No reason why they can't do similar with adventures.

 

[Hussar]

That, and I really, really disliked the idea of tiers. Even Epic being separate, as it was in 3.X. As always, play what you like

Well, let's be honest here, the game has always had tiers though. It was pretty explicit in AD&D, where you got a keep and followers. 3e had Epic, but, again, unofficially, there were three tiers as well - low middle and high level play. All three of which play out pretty differently. 4e, IMO, simply codified what was already going on in 3e.

I mean, in 3e, you cannot run a single style of adventure for all levels. It just won't work. The resources that a high level party has invalidates some low level adventures. Murder mystery springs to mind. You can run a fairly stock, locked room murder mystery in 3e up to about 6th level. But at 16th? I don't think so. At that point, the PC's can talk directly to gods and ask questions. A murder mystery for a 16th level party is going to be very, very different than one for a 6th level party.

So, is it really a bad thing to codify tiers?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Well, let's be honest here, the game has always had tiers though.

Didn't play most editions. Doesn't matter; don't like it.

It was pretty explicit in AD&D, where you got a keep and followers. 3e had Epic, but, again, unofficially, there were three tiers as well - low middle and high level play. All three of which play out pretty differently. 4e, IMO, simply codified what was already going on in 3e.

From my experience, this depends on party composition / campaign setting or style, but yes, high level 3.5 was drastically different from low level 3.5, and the middle levels (5 to about 9-12) played pretty differently from either, as well.

I mean, in 3e, you cannot run a single style of adventure for all levels. It just won't work. The resources that a high level party has invalidates some low level adventures. Murder mystery springs to mind. You can run a fairly stock, locked room murder mystery in 3e up to about 6th level. But at 16th? I don't think so. At that point, the PC's can talk directly to gods and ask questions. A murder mystery for a 16th level party is going to be very, very different than one for a 6th level party.

So, is it really a bad thing to codify tiers?

Codify, yes. At least, in my opinion. The vastly different capabilities of players at differing levels is something I accept, and that I enjoy. The codification of it stops the blurring of the lines. I strongly dislike that. I'd prefer to blur from one set of capabilities into another. But, at the same time, I get why people want defined tiers. It's not something I want codified, though. It makes too many assumptions, and I feel it kills a little diversity that the game can provide. But that's me.

History of D&D? Don't care too much. I'm not a "support a product based on history alone" sort of guy. Don't care what Gygax said. I respect him for what he did, but his views or solutions have no inherent value in them for me. They might be valuable, and they might have insight, but that'd be completely separate from who he is. I know not everyone agrees with that, and that's fine. But it's not me. As always, play what you like

 

[darjr]

I think AD&D does support a style of tactical combat. When I was trying to run 4e without mini's or a mat I still wanted to do tactical combats. I realized that I could do very similar things in AD&D or other games without a mat. It takes a lot more DM adjudication, handing out any possible to hit/damage bonuses, asking for appropriate ability checks and using much more detailed descriptions about what is in the area. In many cases players would naturally try and exploit the terrain.

For example I ran a Moldvay basic/expert game of the Isle of Dread recently and I would describe the jungle and the vines and some interesting terrain of fallen trees and torn up ground. My players would ask about and try things like climb upon the fallen trees or swing from vines or baseball slide under/into a copse of thorny bushes.

There is some hint that this kind of thing was intended, the AD&D players handbook example of play the thief slinks around the battlefield until they can get in position to backstab the illusionist. In Moldvay basic example of play the party arranges themselves into a battle formation to protect the spell casters.

I think much more detailed tactical play is possible.