D&D 5E Indifying 5e

I suspect that BW, at least in its default presentation, might take itself a bit seriously for you and your group . . .

(It's also very mechanically intricate and crunchy - Dan Davenport, in his rpg.net review, said "If you've ever wanted to combine the powerful emotions and epic grandeur of Lord of the Rings with the brutally detailed combat of RuneQuest, then boy, do I have the game for you", and I think that's pretty fair.)

A bit understating the issue, IME.

The core mechanics are 70pp. And are not lavishly illustrated; they're a dense 70 pages (and available for free). The expansion rules fill another dense 150pp+...

Character gen is a whole 200+ page book for the 4 core races (Human, Elf, Dwarf, Orc)... but many standard elements of D&D are absolutely absent even from as-expanded BW... No halflings, half-orcs, half-elves, gnomes, vancian magic, paladin equivalents...

It's a hard game to learn on one's own. Doable (I did), but hard. Start with just the core, add modules as people become comfortable with them.

The best parts are easily ported to D&D 5, tho'...
EG: the beliefs and instincts. Simply allow more than one earned inspiration to be stored. If you play them, or dramatically play against them, earn one. Spend one when zeroed to make your death save, or to not pass out for one round when at zero HP...

Circles: becomes an attribute. DC10 for fits to background & class, next couple days, and not inclined to help. Add 5 for not fit to BG or not fit to class; 10 for not fit to either. Add 5 for today, 10 for next couple minutes, 15 for Right Freaking Now. Add 5 for Will help if paid, and 10 if willing to help uncompensated. On a fail, may still show up with the animosity clause.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The core mechanics are 70pp. And are not lavishly illustrated; they're a dense 70 pages (and available for free). The expansion rules fill another dense 150pp+

<snip>

It's a hard game to learn on one's own. Doable (I did), but hard.
I think the 70 pages can give an exaggerated impression, though.

First, for an RPG they're small pages (novel size rather than D&D hardback size). And the rules are accompanied by useful commentary (something perennially missing from D&D - eg how important to the intended balance of 5e is the distribution of -5/+10 feats across the chosen weapon types, or the absence of spears from Polearm Master?), which makes them easier to learn than they might otherwise be with fewer pages.

I learned the game by reading it, and have recently been teaching it to my 4e group. It is definitely crunchier than (say) Marvel Heroic RP, which was very quick to pick up; but (in my view, at least) not in the same league as Rolemaster, another game that I learned by reading and then taught to others.

The core mechanics are not that hard to learn as rules; it is learning how to play them well that is a challenge.

Character gen is a whole 200+ page book for the 4 core races (Human, Elf, Dwarf, Orc)
But the lifepaths, trait lists etc are comparable to the spell lists in AD&D or the power lists in 4e. You only need to read the bits that are relevant to you in order to build your PC.

many standard elements of D&D are absolutely absent even from as-expanded BW... No halflings, half-orcs, half-elves, gnomes, vancian magic, paladin equivalents...
Gnomes are definitely absent. Vancian magic is an option in the Magic Burner, but absent from core.

Half-elves and half-orcs are not absent, though (the Fey Blood trait, or - for Elf PCs - the half-elf character trait discussed in the text). Nor are paladins (combine some sort of knight or soldier lifepath with some sort of Faith-granting lifepath - Knight of a Holy Military Order is one option, but not the only one).

Halflings are an interesting case. I've not read Luke Crane's reasoning - and I know that he has played the game with a halfling present (per this play report). My take is that the function of hobbits in the LotR is to provide an entry point for the (modern, English) reader. The reader's (modern, English) perspective on all the fantastic goings on is actually incorporated into the fiction. In an RPG, there is no need for such a character, as the "reader" (or, rather, player) is meant to directly inhabit one of the protagonists in the fantastic goings on. So hobbits become redundant.

Start with just the core, add modules as people become comfortable with them.
Yes, the rulebook suggests this and it is good advice.

Simply allow more than one earned inspiration to be stored. If you play them, or dramatically play against them, earn one. Spend one when zeroed to make your death save, or to not pass out for one round when at zero HP...
Yes, I suggested something a bit like this upthread. You can go Fate-ish, too, by allowing compels for inspiration.

Circles: becomes an attribute. DC10 for fits to background & class, next couple days, and not inclined to help. Add 5 for not fit to BG or not fit to class; 10 for not fit to either. Add 5 for today, 10 for next couple minutes, 15 for Right Freaking Now. Add 5 for Will help if paid, and 10 if willing to help uncompensated. On a fail, may still show up with the animosity clause.
Would this crowd out any existing background features? I think some of the backgrounds already have an indie-ish feel (like the Hermit's "discovery"), and anyone who wants to play "indie" 5e shoud be looking to maximally exploit those existing resources, as well as adding in new mechanics.
 

Would this crowd out any existing background features? I think some of the backgrounds already have an indie-ish feel (like the Hermit's "discovery"), and anyone who wants to play "indie" 5e shoud be looking to maximally exploit those existing resources, as well as adding in new mechanics.
Circles? No, not really. Circles gets them a person who can help, and maybe is willing to help, but it still requires play to get the help out of them.

The Hermit's discovery isn't of need anything of use. Someone you circle up is.

Circles is used to find the type of shop you're looking for in a new town just as much as it is to have a buddy save you from the bullies.

Think Star Wars... Han used a circles roll to find a willing port... he failed. So, enmity clause... Lando sold him out...
 

Circles? No, not really. Circles gets them a person who can help, and maybe is willing to help, but it still requires play to get the help out of them.

The Hermit's discovery isn't of need anything of use. Someone you circle up is.

Circles is used to find the type of shop you're looking for in a new town just as much as it is to have a buddy save you from the bullies.

Think Star Wars... Han used a circles roll to find a willing port... he failed. So, enmity clause... Lando sold him out...
I'm familiar with the Circles mechanic. What I was wondering about was overlap with or possible crowding out of background features like the ones that let a character receive hospitality from certain NPCs, or the contact feature of the Criminal background.

I'm not meaning it as some sort of huge deal, but if I was going to bring a Circles-style option into 5e I would want to integrate it with or build onto those features, rather than having it sitting alongside and potentially overlapping in a way that dilutes the benefits of choosing one of those backgrounds.
 

Have you fully digested the Plot Point options in the DMG? Particularly options 1 and 2; they are straightforward ways of granting explicit narrative control. You can tweak out the rate at which these points are gained using ideas on this thread (e.g. compels) to support the level of gonzo you want.

Another thing you can do easily as DM, is to eliminate "nothing happens" from your vocabulary. In other words, if the players fail a roll, or look at you to figure out what happens: something happens. Look at the MC's moves in Apocalypse World or Dungeon World for examples of somethings which can happen. This is similar to "fail forward" except without the connotation of progress in a particular direction; in fact, usually the something is bad for the PCs, which keeps the action moving but not towards or away from any particular resolution.

Also, I love love love the keys mechanic from Lady Blackbird. Best XP system I have ever used. It would take a little doing, but you could replace the traits/bonds/ideals/flaws with a set of keys, and use that for handing out XP, inspiration, and plot points, all at once. Actually you could just use roleplaying of traits/bonds/ideals/flaws as the sole source of XP, but re-writing these things phrased as keys would make them less ambiguous.
 


Remove ads

Top