D&D 5E Is the Real Issue (TM) Process Sim?

[MichaelSomething]

Sure it does. And it's still fundamentally different then a game where the DM flips a coin, the player calls it, and if the player wins he gets to narrate an event of his choice.

Bean?
http://www.rpgnow.com/product/85809/BEAN-The-D2-RPG

 

[Cybit]

Looking through Mike Mearls' twitter account; I don't think Damage on a Miss is a thing any more.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Looking through Mike Mearls' twitter account; I don't think Damage on a Miss is a thing any more.

Oh, no, the sky is falling!

At least now there's a possibility that it'll miss you on the way down.

 

[Cybit]

• Mark Cronan ‏@YetiMoose Feb 5
  @mikemearls Damage On a Miss seems to remain the greatest source of fan tension. Can you tell us where you're at on this concept now?
  

  • Reply
  • Retweet
  • Favorite
  • More

  Expand
  
  ​
• Mark Cronan ‏@YetiMoose Feb 13
  @mikemearls Damage On a Miss seems to remain the greatest source of fan tension. Can you tell us where you're at on this concept now?
  

  • Reply
  • Retweet
  • Favorite
  • More

  Expand
  
  ​
• Mike Mearls ‏@mikemearls 2h
  @YetiMoose I'm personally not crazy about it - causes a lot of questions about how stuff interacts at the table.
  
  
  Cybit's comments: Yeah, I would say not to expect damage on a missed attack in the game when it releases.
  ​

 

[Balesir]

So, that's useful. We recognize the validity of each others' playstyles and know that they are pretty much mutually exclusive: if you have to imagine events in basically chronological order, that breaks your experience.

Close but not quite: I would be very happy to see a combat (or any other) sim that handles actions in chronological order, but I think any such model that approaches believability would be extremely complex, rather cumbersome and painfully slow. In lieu of that I am happy to accept a high degree of abstraction in the actions attempted. In other words, instead of saying "I attempt to swing my sword and hit the orc's left shoulder", I use action descriptions that say things like "I make an attack move on the orc in an attempt to disable him somehow". The resolution system is then tasked with coming up with a plausible (given the fantasy setting) array of outcomes that come up with a reasonable (preferably "balanced") distribution of probabilities.

It's quite important that, within that resolution system, there are not "pseudo-steps" that are taken to mean something specific in the fiction that breaks my ability to imagine the actual action flow in a believable manner. If it's shouted out to me that "a hit must mean that I swung my honking big sword in an arc and chopped into the sucker like I was felling an oak!" as a result of how the rules work, that's a problem.

If I have to imagine events as basically outcomes and figure out the reason that outcome happened after we figure out the outcome, that breaks my experience. We can probably make the leap that we don't just speak for ourselves, but for dozens of people like us.

Yep - all with you, here.

We've also got some supporting evidence. For me, lessons from improv and the flow of causality and the empowerment of character action over mechanical resolution. For you, lessons from actual combats where the input is only figured out in reverse and the flow is much less deliberate. While hypothetically one of us could be persuaded to see the game the other way, if both of our styles are valid, this persuasion is unnecessary. I don't need to convince you to play my way, you don't need to convince me to play your way.

And here - dunno why I put a quote break in; put it down to force of habit!

Now we come to what D&D should actually do.

The neutral ground scenario is that default D&D does what I propose it do with HP: just not be monolithic.

There is nothing inherent in the "roll a dice and compare against a target number" core mechanic that mandates it be one or the other (Gygaxian saving throws!). One can say what they're doing and chuck a d20 or chuck a d20 and then say what they did and it's really up to individual tables (or even individual players) and it's not really a problem.

Agreed - "roll a die for succeed or fall short" is a fine core for a simple resolution system, and one that can work for me no worries. Where that roll is only part of the resolution system, though, there is a danger, for me. The danger is that if the first part of the resolution system (the roll, say) is taken to represent a specific step or break-point in the process in the fiction, it risks imposing a process on the fiction that is irreconcilable with my understanding of what is being modelled.

All that D&D needs to avoid are default rules that can only work in one way or the other. So, for example, they can't include a default rule that says "roll the die and if it's 5 more than is needed to hit, you can choose to make the target surrender instead," since it is impossible for me to use that rule and enjoy it, because it would involve declaring the action after the die was rolled.

I might phrase this differently, but basically I agree. Generally, a decision should be made before a resolution is triggered, and the outcomes possible from the resolution system should always be compatible with that decision. I.e., if the decision is (as my example above) "I make an attack move on the orc in an attempt to disable him somehow", then a result of "you get him to surrender" would not fit. "You have an open opportunity to maim him, but he begs for mercy - what do you do?", on the other hand, might fit - but it would depend upon the tone and world genre that we were trying to get from the game, for that, more than any absolute aesthetic.

A rule that said "the prone condition can apply to any creature, it doesn't always mean that something has been knocked off its feat. An ooze can't be knocked off its feat, but it can still be prone!" would also fall into that camp, because then I can't always say that the Prone status represents something in the world.

Meh - that's a semantic issue, to me. You might not be able to literally put an ooze "prone", but I can see that a seasoned fighter would think of something to do that would have much the same effect. Just call it "disrupted" or something - if you misshape or spin around its nucleus I can believe it would mess it up until it was able to "pull itself together" (possibly literally!). But, then again, if oozes were "un-pronable" it wouldn't be a big deal (as long as balance and monster power effects were considered on the design side - all quite do-able). Can't get excited either way.

I'm not sure what a rule would violate your style, but I'd be surprised if D&D couldn't exclude those kinds of rules, too.

Well, 4E managed it pretty well, so I'm sure it's perfectly possible. 3.x only had a few "proud nails" in this respect - the main issues were with balance (past level 8-10) and fiddle factor (particularly for the DM). So it seems likely that 5e can manage it, too - my only real fear is that 5e is made a boring, fiddly or unbalanced game as a result. I'm confident that it won't be, but it's too early to know for sure. The question then is, will it have a USP to positively recommend it? Of that I am far less confident, but again it's too early to say for certain so I'll just keep a watching brief.

Just checking that you know this game exists: Runequest is the original version (for every skill you use in an adventure, make a check at the end of the adventure: roll over your current rating to boost that rating), and Burning Wheel also uses a slightly more complex version of this.

Not just those, but games that have included actual "experience points" (or close analogues) that contribute to improving specific skills or abilities include DragonQuest and Powers & Perils.

 

[Campbell]

Quick Note For Clarification
Modern iterations of RuneQuest (MRQ, MRQ2, Legend, RQ6) no longer have a tick off experience system. Instead you gain a number of improvement rolls a session handed out by the GM. There is still a better chance to improve a skill that has a low rating though.

You still automatically improve any skill you fumble on.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Sounds like, as is often the case, we can probably agree on what D&D should look like, even if we have different styles! Nice!

It's quite important that, within that resolution system, there are not "pseudo-steps" that are taken to mean something specific in the fiction that breaks my ability to imagine the actual action flow in a believable manner. If it's shouted out to me that "a hit must mean that I swung my honking big sword in an arc and chopped into the sucker like I was felling an oak!" as a result of how the rules work, that's a problem.

...

Agreed - "roll a die for succeed or fall short" is a fine core for a simple resolution system, and one that can work for me no worries. Where that roll is only part of the resolution system, though, there is a danger, for me. The danger is that if the first part of the resolution system (the roll, say) is taken to represent a specific step or break-point in the process in the fiction, it risks imposing a process on the fiction that is irreconcilable with my understanding of what is being modelled.

...

I might phrase this differently, but basically I agree. Generally, a decision should be made before a resolution is triggered, and the outcomes possible from the resolution system should always be compatible with that decision. I.e., if the decision is (as my example above) "I make an attack move on the orc in an attempt to disable him somehow", then a result of "you get him to surrender" would not fit. "You have an open opportunity to maim him, but he begs for mercy - what do you do?", on the other hand, might fit - but it would depend upon the tone and world genre that we were trying to get from the game, for that, more than any absolute aesthetic.

So what would a mechanic that shouted that out to you look like? Since it flows with how I play, these things don't stand out to me very much, but I'd like to get a sense of the kind of rules that get in your way there. It should be pretty clear from all the 4e Complaint Threads over the last 5 years what kind of rules rustle the jimmies of my style!

Well, 4E managed it pretty well, so I'm sure it's perfectly possible. 3.x only had a few "proud nails" in this respect - the main issues were with balance (past level 8-10) and fiddle factor (particularly for the DM). So it seems likely that 5e can manage it, too - my only real fear is that 5e is made a boring, fiddly or unbalanced game as a result. I'm confident that it won't be, but it's too early to know for sure. The question then is, will it have a USP to positively recommend it? Of that I am far less confident, but again it's too early to say for certain so I'll just keep a watching brief.

I mean, I'd balk at a fiddly, boring, unbalanced game, too, regardless of how well the combat system matched my playstyle, so no argument here!