Falling from Great Heights

[AbdulAlhazred]

What I am hoping will happen is that they will make a coherent game that is good for something, and maybe that is pretty flexible and captures the spirit of D&D setting elements, and that the "D&D Next will be all things to all men" stuff will get lots of gamers to at least try it and have a chance to discover just what the game is good at (which was one of the things most notably screwed up with 4e's launch).

I'm very, very happy to have an "inclusive attitude" towards my hobby - and that hobby is roleplaying games. "D&D" is just one published set of rules. It cannot be "inclusive". It can be "flexible", up to a point, before it becomes so vague as to be worthless, but published sets of rules do not "include" or "exclude" anybody.

I am interested in D&D Next. If it's a game I want to play, I'll play it. If it's not a game I want to play, I won't. But I'm not about to insist that it does what everybody wants of it, because I don't think that's possible.

Exactly. Out of the box D&D has ALWAYS had particular characteristics. The power curve for characters has varied somewhat over the years, but it has played pretty close to the same way in all editions. At level 1 the PCs are a cut above the normal man, and capable of much more potentially. At some point, pretty quickly, they completely surpass any normal NPC human(oid) and any realistic human. Before too long beyond that they're capable of surviving things and defeating things that the normal "0 level" humans of the world could never defeat except maybe under highly favorable circumstances (500 level 0 bowmen mass firing at close range in pretty much any edition could defeat many monsters up to a point). Beyond that the PCs become almost godlike superheroes and can defeat things that would laugh at entire armies, and defeat said armies themselves to boot.

This is part of the essence of what makes D&D "D&D". I like D&D. I like other RPGs too. I'm perfectly happy if people can adjust the way they play D&D as long as the ability to do that doesn't adversely impact D&D's core play style.

As far as I'm concerned, if you have "toggles" you have different games - but maybe this would be a really smart move for WotC. There do seem to be a number of people who are very heavily invested in having what they play be called "D&D" on the cover, so publishing a whole range of, say, 3-4 games, all with the brand name "D&D" on them could be a winner. The design focus should, in that case, include making sure that the components of the different games are clearly identified and their use explained - without insinuating too hard that they are actually different games...

Edit: actually, I can almost see right now the posts here and elsewhere arguing blue-in-the-face that random assemblages of such a "multi-game" actually work perfectly together, despite being designed for very different "modules"!

Agreed. I think in order to accommodate both a nearly flat power curve where PCs can always be threatened (which means defeated) by a few non-adventurer bowmen AND the typical D&D power curve is asking a lot from one game. At best what I'm seeing is the suggestion that the entire Monster Manual would have to be different, rules for hit points, damage, and defenses would have to be different, and probably other things as well.

That just doesn't sound like the same rule system. It might be VERY similar and it is probably possible to create these things as variations on a set of common core mechanics. In effect though I'd have to buy different books, different adventures, maybe even different settings in order to play these different variations. It might make sense to WotC to brand all these things D&D, but I'm not really sure that would be a great idea. It SURE wouldn't make it easy for someone trying to get into the game to understand which books and supplements and which optional rules to use.

IMHO D&D really should be designed around its traditional play style as much as possible. It should do that play style really well. It should showcase that play style and nurture it and explain it so that people know what D&D is and what it does. Sure, it should allow for some variations around that, but all those should be lesser choices that all serve basically the core play style of D&D. Trying to be all things to all players is simply going to, IMHO, not work. At best it will be horribly confusing and complicated and thus make it very hard for people to use D&D as an entry point into RPGs.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The idea I mentioned above, of toggling a given tier on or off (so level 10 enemies are either soldiers, or balors, depending whether one is playing an "ordinary hero" campaign or an "epic" campaign), is a version of this that is at least conceivable. It draws in part on the idea of "reskinning" and scaling in 4e. But it also resembles the approach of HeroQuest revised, in which Speed 17 might mean you're as fast as a professional sprinter (if you're playing a pulp game) or as fast as The Flash (if you're playing a superhero game). In HQ revised, he numbers and mechanics don't change betwen pulp and superheroes, just the flavour around them.

I think the issue here is like I said above, you CAN do that to an extent. You will have to rewrite your Monster Manual and probably use a different or modified setting as well, on top of the mechanical tweaks you'll still probably need to make. At that point is there a value in WotC calling it D&D? Is it in fact even in their best interests or the best interests of the game to have such different games confusingly going under the same name?

The key thing is with HQ A) it has been this way for a long time/forever so people expect it, and B) you play a specific genre, nobody expects superheroes in their pulp game. They are entirely different genres. Magneto may appear in your supers game, but he isn't even presented in the pulp setting manual and if you translated him across he'd come off as some deluded idiot with a big ego and some minor powers.

I think D&D can allow for some leeway, and traditionally it has been somewhat achievable, but not THAT much. Honestly the traditional way to play D&D with different power curves has been basically to have faster or slower advancement and stop playing or cap level advancement at some point. Rather than confusing people who come into the game about exactly what a 'dragon' is, I think it would just be better to do that. If the DM wants to play 'low power gritty heroes' then dragons are going to be utterly terrifying beasts well beyond anyone killing them in combat. Instead either you avoid them or the DM provides some plot device by which they're defeated.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If D&Dnext is going to support "ordinary heroes" play for the full 10 or 20 levels of the game (I'd be surprised if they go for 30 levels this time around), but also support the same sort of play as one gets from using prior editions' high level rules as written, the only straightforward way I can see to do it is via some sort of "reflavouring" toggle: when you press the "ordinary heroes" button, then your 10th level opponents are well-trained soldiers, whereas when you push the "Silmarillion" button, your 10th level opponents are Balrogs.

FWIW, my current favorite solution to this is to make a game that doesn't toggle automatically like previous D&D editions, but toggles as the DM decides to toggle it (if at all). The key here is vertical advancement -- if you cap attack bonus, damage bonus, AC bonus, HP bonus, etc., at a given point (say, every +5), but still allow horizontal advancement at that point (more spells, more powers, just not higher level spells and powers), you wind up with "E6 With Speedbumps:" you never have to reach the point at which your PC can survive a 100-foot fall, but at any point (including at character creation!), you can opt into it. And if you wanted to play through all of them, you'd change over as soon as you reached the cap.

I don't think it's just a reskinning (though I do think getting the skin right is part of the bag): it's a mechanical limit on, say, maximum HP, while keeping the possibility to still get cool new toys as you gain XP.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

FWIW, my current favorite solution to this is to make a game that doesn't toggle automatically like previous D&D editions, but toggles as the DM decides to toggle it (if at all). The key here is vertical advancement -- if you cap attack bonus, damage bonus, AC bonus, HP bonus, etc., at a given point (say, every +5), but still allow horizontal advancement at that point (more spells, more powers, just not higher level spells and powers), you wind up with "E6 With Speedbumps:" you never have to reach the point at which your PC can survive a 100-foot fall, but at any point (including at character creation!), you can opt into it. And if you wanted to play through all of them, you'd change over as soon as you reached the cap.

I don't think it's just a reskinning (though I do think getting the skin right is part of the bag): it's a mechanical limit on, say, maximum HP, while keeping the possibility to still get cool new toys as you gain XP.

Then add to that. The assumption we are working on right now is relatively flat (but not completely flat) attack and defenses, with hit points and damage scaling somewhat faster.

The easiest way to dial lethalness of the system, which is about 75% of what is being discussed here, in essense, is to vary hit points and/or damage while leaving everything else alone. The problem with both, of course, if making that easy to use for everyone--and even worse, not having undesired side effects on combat pacing. But supplement what KM is talking about with such a system, and I think his idea covers most of the other 25%, and smooths out a lot of rough edges that will result in the rest.

About the only clean, obvious way I can see towards something like that is to list hit points and damage not as flat amounts, but as base amounts to which a factor is applied. You apply a "lethalness" factor to hit points, giving more or less of them. You apply a "lethalness" factor to damage, doing more or less damage. If you apply the factors roughly in sync, you'll maintain default combat pacing. If you apply them out of sync, you won't, and will need to adjust or live with it.

The rub, then, is if the factors getting out of sync produces results that people can live with. For example, you leave hit points alone but double damage outputs. This doubled damage is often wasted when a dragon or other high level creature tangles with extreme low-level creatures, because it was already going to kill them anyway. In the meantime, it makes the dragon even more dangerous to heroes--or at least more risky, since presumably their damage is doubled to. However, the low-level creatures, trying to take that dragon down, can kill it more readily.

That brings us to the impossible thing--A > B > C > A, which Balesir so aptly identified. The only way that equation "works" is if you change the meaning of one of the variables mid-calculation! So in the above example, because low-level creatures in mass are a "threat" to PCs, they get the doubled damage dice when fighting them. But they aren't much of a threat to dragons. So no "lethalness" boost for them, then. That is, the "lethalness" factor is not something supplied as a flat adjustment for the campaign, but is a flavor thing provided by the DM, with whatever resulting inconsistency the group is prepared to tolerate.

 

[triqui]

The idea I mentioned above, of toggling a given tier on or off (so level 10 enemies are either soldiers, or balors, depending whether one is playing an "ordinary hero" campaign or an "epic" campaign), is a version of this that is at least conceivable. It draws in part on the idea of "reskinning" and scaling in 4e. But it also resembles the approach of HeroQuest revised, in which Speed 17 might mean you're as fast as a professional sprinter (if you're playing a pulp game) or as fast as The Flash (if you're playing a superhero game). In HQ revised, he numbers and mechanics don't change betwen pulp and superheroes, just the flavour around them.

I've already said in other threads that the "wuxia" aspect of the game should be a Dial. If you want to play a Diablo II style of game, your Fighter should be cleaving and then using whirlwind and leaping over huge pits and your archer should shoot volleys of incendiary arrows almost from level 1, while a Conan King Campaign should stay more "realistic" even in high level.

That is feasible. What is not, though, is combining both *at the same time*. You can make a game system where level 20 fighters die with two arrows, *or* you can make a game system where level 20 fighters face Balors, Pitfiends and Ancient Great Wyrms. What you can't, is making a system where the 20th level fighter both defeat great Wyrms *and* die to a pair of arrows at the same time

 

[Crazy Jerome]

For a blend of KM's suggestion and mine, try this power out for grins:

Smack Epic Creatures Really Hard - You've got that heroic quality to know exactly how to get through the defenses of epic threats. Gain +6d6 (or whatever fits) damage to hit creatures with the "epic" keyword.

You can do some similar things with conditional DR, special equipment, etc. Basically, you need asymmetric abilities, thus changing the relationship between pairs of opponents.

If town guards all had that power, they'd be a threat to dragons with their crossbows. But they don't. Meanwhile, presumably, their crossbows are still somewhat of a threat to PCs. The dragon is now a huge threat to the guards, not because he can kill them fast (though he can wade through a fair chunk of them in a hurry), but mainly because they can't do substantial damage to him without lots of time.

To keep from going completely bonkers, you'd have to do something like that with keywords, based off of a few categories, because the number of relationships is astronomical, when looked at one creature at a time.

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

You can't have a "dial" with more than 1 or 2 options; either you have "x" module that allows certain effects that are easily applied, or not. Modules have to be simple; you either fall from 1000 feet/suffer 100 points of damage from a single strike, and continue unabated if you have the HP, or you apply the "gritty module" that imposes limits.

 

[El Mahdi]

Because, in your quest for "ordinary heroes" you gum up my game?

How can the manner in which I play my game possibly gum up your game...?

How can an edition that is going to be modular, possibly have any extra negative significance to your game if what I and others want is included...?

It's just phenomonally silly to think it will.

And D&D has supported Ordinary Hero style play in past editions. The most obvious example is Zero Level Characters. Has support for this been uncommon and infrequent...? Absolutely. Non-existent...? Absolutely Not. But I'm pretty sure you know that. Just because you don't like it, denying it's very existence is not going to make it fact.

If all boiled down, these are your central objections, then they're objections based entirely on false perception, self-designed bias, and fallacy.

With that statement, you just lost any rational justification for objecting to the ideas put forth in this thread...

 

[triqui]

And D&D has supported Ordinary Hero style play in past editions. The most obvious example is Zero Level Characters. Has support for this been uncommon and infrequent...? Absolutely. Non-existent...? Absolutely Not. But I'm pretty sure you know that. Just because you don't like it, denying it's very existence is not going to make it fact.

D&D always have supported low level gritty style of play. A first level character can die to a single great axe chop. What it does *not* support, so far, is to stay like this for a long time. Your zero level commoner will be a zero level commoner 1st level fighter as soon as he starts to play. A couple months later, he will be a 10th level fighter, and he will be jumping awesome distances, surviving the most dangerous venoms, and falling 100ft with no problems. He will be killing 15 grunts in no time, and can go toe to toe with a giant.

Could it be done? Sure. For example, a simple way:
Module: PC don't gain hp per level. Done.

However, that will change *greatly* how D&D works and feels. You can have a 10th level fighter with 15 hp and make a great Game of Thrones rpg. You can't make that and face beholders, chimaeras, manticores and dragons. Can a game without those things be "D&D"? Tough call. It can share the same system. D20 Modern or StarWars Saga aren't D&D though. Call of Cthulhu d20 isn't D&D, and Runequest probably isn't D&D either. A Song of Fire and Ice is not D&D, in my opinion.

It's hard to get an agreement about what is D&D. Some people will argue that Vancian Magic and Alignment are D&D, othes will argue the opposite. But, at the very minimum, I think D&D need to have two things:
a) Dungeons
b) Dragons.

 

[El Mahdi]

I got the idea from the fact that you said:

To which I replied:

To which you replied:

So, levels have always modelled superheroic abilities in D&D, and you want something else instead of superheroic abilities, but you also want D&D. D&D has levels, so you want a "D&D" that has no levels, but is still the "inclusive D&D" so still does have levels.

Ahhhh...Okay. We had a misunderstanding. No big deal.

For clarificaton purposes: I don't feel that the level progression system is a problem. Gonzo superhero abilities have also been front loaded. And, even though they are typically aquired by levelling up, aquiring such abilities is not a necessity. I'd say that OD&D and BD&D most definitely did not have that, and were very much Ordianary Hero type games. Even moreso if Zero Level Character rules were used.

With talk of having a much more flatter progression in D&D Next, and being able to pick and choose modules for your play style; D&D Next should be able to even better support, and equally support, both Ordinary Hero and standard Super Hero D&D..and just about every other type.

To me, there only seems to be one complicating factor - that you insist on calling any roleplaying game "D&D".[\quote]

I don't call any roleplaying game "D&D"...just actual D&D. But, D&D has had multiple iterations; all with very different emphasis, style support, play feel, and of course - mechanics and rules. D&D is already many different games, and has always been so. Even D&D RAW cannot be defined in one singular way due to the different edtions. People insisting that D&D is only what each thinks D&D is, is what's complicating the issue...and becoming a roadblock to inclusive acceptance.

Through copious houserules, sure.[\quote]

Houserules are a part of D&D. Even an official part. They've been part of the game since the very beginning. They've even shaped the game through it's evolution from edition to edition. Most of the ideas for "improvement" from one edition to another, started as a houserule in somebodies game (some actual TSR/WotC employees, some not). D&D has even included books of houserules as official and semi-official products...namely 3E's Unearthed Arcana and Dragon Magazine. All DMG's have covered the subject, some talking more about the concerns that need to be addressed when doing so, others actually encouraging it and giving instruction on how to do it effectively. Houserules even formed a large part of the revision of 3E to 3.5E (granted, the houserules of the guys who worked at WotC, but still houserules).

Houserules ARE D&D.

With all of the iterations of D&D that have existed, how is it that you carry such a narrow definition of what D&D IS...? The ideas presented in this thread are ideas that have been around since the beginning of D&D, have been a part of numerous D&D groups, and have even had some official acknowledgement and support throughout the various editions.

Saying that they aren't D&D is just flat out wrong.

Look, if you are really this invested in having whatever you play called "D&D" just buy the IP and stick the label on every game you ever play - no problem for me.

Now you're just being silly. Did you honestly expect a serious answer to this...

I'm a gamer; I play D&D. I play a whole range of styles, but I don't expect or even want D&D to cater to all of them. Frankly, I'm not interested in "unifying" all the different styles I play, never mind mixing in all the (potential) styles I don't play/haven't played yet. As someone else put it quite evocatively, I like steak and I like chocolate, but that doesn't mean I like chocolate-flavoured steak.

I'm a gamer also; and I play D&D also. I play a range of styles that I like. But every style I play IS D&D. And every other style is also D&D.

D&D Next IS going to be an edition that unifies all of these playstyles (as much as possible) under one umbrella of core rules and optional modules. If you don't want that, why are you posting in the D&D Next forums...?

Simple curiosity means one wants to read the forums to see where it's going. Posting means one wants to be a part of it. If one wants to be a part of it, where's the usefulness or constructiveness in coming into the discussion with a narrow and predetermined definition of what D&D IS, and being inflexible in that stance...?

I think the "whole point" of a "unifying edition" is to get as many people to buy the thing, to be brutally honest - for whatever personal reason they may have.

Well...Yeah!

People buy things they like. To get a large array of people to buy it, you need to provide a large array of what people like.

If D&D as you see it, is such a singularly defined game, how is it that we have such a divisive fan base...? Why is it that these fans didn't move on to other game systems...? Why is it that different editions of D&D are so distinct from eachother...?

The answer is that D&D has never been a singularly defined game. It has been and is many different things, both officially and semi-officially (and even uniquely different at different tables); and they are all D&D...and will continue to be so.

Edit: actually, I can almost see right now the posts here and elsewhere arguing blue-in-the-face that random assemblages of such a "multi-game" actually work perfectly together, despite being designed for very different "modules"!

No almost about it. I can see it right here; people arguing blue-in-the-face about exactly what the nature or definition of D&D is. This time around, it looks like a more inclusive and universal definition is going to win out (finally). May as well start accepting it.