D&D 5E Expertise Dice = Vancian Magic = ADEU

[GreyICE]

I just don't really get what you mean. How is it metagamey? Do you just mean that it makes you more aware of the rules?

It removes any consistency in how powers operate within the default milieu of the edition. Instead, how powers function are defined ex post facto in a very gamist manner which dissociates the player. The ability of players to realize an invariable framework from which to build their creative-interactive experience as the character defined by their player sheet is destroyed by a DM-Fiat option that reveals the world as an artificial construct.

I just think such mechanics should not be given a place in the core system. For gamers who like such things, they can be given some sort of expansion module.

 

[I'm A Banana]

A simple basic newbie-friendly core, and DM authority over the rules that they use in their games, means that you don't ever have to engage with the idea of selecting which rules subset you use. With an open DM, you can, but it's not expected of you.

And gearheads like me and a lot of ENWorlders can probably tweak the noise out of that junk.

 

[Cybit]

The default will be the first one presented in the PHB.

Honestly, if they keep the "classic" versions as the first ones you see in the PHB, and put the optionality in the back of the book, that'll fix 99% of the problems. As expertise dice are showing, far more of 4E's failings were about presentation then general philosophy.

Also, everyone who says something "shouldn't" be in the book; you are all aware that to an outsider, it sounds like not only do you want things to be "your way", but you don't want other people to be able to have things their way, even if it doesn't impede your way in the slightest, right? (My best friend, who has played a single session of a tabletop game once in her life, and it was an old school skills based star trek system, pointed this out to me last night).

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

It was just a possible idea. The basic game is going to have different requirements than your home game, being as it is faced toward newbies and casual players, so maybe Ex Dice fit those requirements better than just a +2 bonus to damage. Maybe not. The point being, the basic game is going to be kind of irrelevant for a lot of the people here on ENWorld.

As for which systems...well, that's part of what I imagine they'll be selling us. You can start with a few -- Vancian, Point-Based (for psionics!), probably something similar to ADEU, probably Ex Dice, maybe a recharge option. More can come down the pipe later, and with specific campaign settings or other ideas.

House rules, yes, but this is codified, math-balanced, extensible rules, used by people outside of your own table. It creates a common lexicon of players talking to each other about similar things, gaining some of the benefits of standardization, but keeping it diverse and interlocking.

Is that each system balanced against each system, or just within itself?
I still can't see it as a product I'd want to buy, after all, I already have previous editions and other games that offer me these features. I want something with a coherent vision.

 

[GreyICE]

A simple basic newbie-friendly core, and DM authority over the rules that they use in their games, means that you don't ever have to engage with the idea of selecting which rules subset you use. With an open DM, you can, but it's not expected of you.

And gearheads like me and a lot of ENWorlders can probably tweak the noise out of that junk.

An assumption that a given person interacts with D&D through a single paradigm is reductionist. Consistency across paradigms increases player satisfaction unless the variances are clear and consistent. Otherwise the milieu integrity at the individual level become dissociated as the individuals become disenfranchised when DM fiat interrupts the simulationist framework.

 

[Viking Bastard]

It removes any consistency in how powers operate within the default milieu of the edition. Instead, how powers function are defined ex post facto in a very gamist manner which dissociates the player. The ability of players to realize an invariable framework from which to build their creative-interactive experience as the character defined by their player sheet is destroyed by a DM-Fiat option that reveals the world as an artificial construct.

So by removing table-to-table consistency, players become more aware of the rules and thus it feels metagamey? Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[Kinak]

Is it really that hard for people to deal with not liking a couple classes?

I mean, I hate traditional Vancian magic. I think it's fiddly and unintuitive, so I don't play classes with it as their core mechanic. Other people play them and love them, though, so I don't want to trash what they like.

The problem comes in when everything uses one system. I think spontaneous casters are great, but D&D with nothing but spontaneous casters would be a flavorless sludge that bored me and annoyed a lot of players who don't like spontaneous casting.

Separating classes from their mechanics is, by necessity, equally flavorless... possibly even moreso because the class abilities need to be so generic they can work with all the mechanics you're presenting. At least using one mechanic for everything you only have to cram ill-fitting classes' flavor into one awkward spot.

So what's the solution?

Maybe I'm overlooking something obvious, but it seems pretty clear to me. We're going to have a whole bunch of classes. If they have a good mix of roles and mechanics, they can maintain flavor while the Vancian people play the classes they like and I play the classes I like.

Is that really so hard?

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Remathilis]

So by removing table-to-table consistency, players become more aware of the rules and thus it feels metagamey? Am I understanding you correctly?

A bit.

Right now, if I say I'm playing a sorcerer in 3e, you have certain assumptions you can make. No armor, low hp, spell slots, familiar, and limited spell selection. You can make assumptions based on this default as to his relative strengths and weaknesses, ignoring feat choice or specific spell selection. Now, its completely possible he is using the battle sorcerer class with the spell point variant but those optional variants are not assumed in the default. The former is assumed, and it makes the game easier to plan, run, and discuss.

However, this idea sounds like "sorcerer" doesn't assume those things. It assumes a kinda background or theme (along with some spellcasting parameters) but not much else. If I ask "can I play a sorcerer?" I might be told I can play the PHB sorcerer, or I might be told I can only play the UA variant linked up above. I'd much rather have sorcerer = spell point and wizard equal vancian and know those classes = that resource mechanic than to utterly divorce the two and have to explain "I'm a sorcerer, but with the recharge rules and the dragon mage build"

 

[GreyICE]

So by removing table-to-table consistency, players become more aware of the rules and thus it feels metagamey? Am I understanding you correctly?

That's a rather simplistic reduction of how varying mechanics apply ex post facto to the in-character decision points to create a "metagamey feel."

 

[Morrus]

I think my issue with that s that the more flexible you make the system, with more and more options, you end up not with a game - you just end up with an instruction manual on how to make your own game. Which is a different thing. The very phrase "I play D&D" would be in danger of becoming meaningless, as "D&D" would not have an identity.

I do worry that this whole pick and choose option thing might go overkill.