D&D 5E L&L D&D Next Goals, Part Two

[Blackwarder]

Mike continues with design goals for D&DNext, this time about the basic rules.

Read it here: http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130114

My take: I like it, a lot. Being able to just silt and play with minimum rules require is a big plus in my book.

Warder

 

[RangerWickett]

I'm not thrilled with skill dice. I'd prefer Mearls's own proposal from back in 2011: https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110816

I think it's a better system, and fits with basic rules well. "Is it easy? He succeeds. Is it hard? Roll an ability check, DC 15. Is it nearly impossible? Roll DC 20."

Otherwise, though, sure, the basic idea of his article sounds good. I'm of a mind that the game would benefit from even the 'simple' rules including examples of things like tripping, disarming, bull rushing, and the like. Sure, it's easy for the GM to make up a ruling on the fly, but your average GM is mediocre at providing statistically-balanced rulings for complex stuff like this.

Like, if you want to jump off a ledge and tackle a ghoul so your wizard buddy can get away from it safely, one GM might say, "Sounds hard. Dexterity check to aim the jump, then attack roll to hit. You take damage from falling and he gets a Strength save to remain standing." Another might say, "Sounds cool. Okay, he gets a Strength save to remain standing, and you deal unarmed strike damage to him. No attack roll required."

One rewards creativity, the other punishes it. Having a few examples of crazy maneuvers only takes up a single page, it reminds players to do stuff other than just Press the Sword Button, and it helps ensure that people aren't disgruntled when their GM's rulings don't yield fun results.

Again, though, I like in general what they're doing with the simpler rules at low-level. High level and high complexity I'm not as thrilled with, but there's plenty of playtesting time left.

 

[Kobold Stew]

The one-hour goal for a short narrative arc seems unrealistic, and potentially limiting. Five or six rooms in 2-3 hours (all in, after characters are made) is reasonable and doable, and will fit most play styles.

 

[kuannjin]

I have no idea what to make of this.

 

[FireLance]

I have no idea what to make of this.

Lemonade.

 

[Rabbitbait]

The one-hour goal for a short narrative arc seems unrealistic, and potentially limiting. Five or six rooms in 2-3 hours (all in, after characters are made) is reasonable and doable, and will fit most play styles.

I couldn't disagree more. 5 Or 6 Rooms, with 3 simple 5 minute battles and one 15 minute battle leaves half an hour of exploration. Easy, quick and fun.

 

[YRUSirius]

The one-hour goal for a short narrative arc seems unrealistic, and potentially limiting. Five or six rooms in 2-3 hours (all in, after characters are made) is reasonable and doable, and will fit most play styles.

There are people out there that dont want to play a boardgame for more than 1 hour. This 1 hour shortplay is for those people and not for hardcore rpg nerds. People who would play settlers of catan instead.

-YRUSirius

 

[LightPhoenix]

I'm not thrilled with skill dice. I'd prefer Mearls's own proposal from back in 2011: https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110816

I think it's a better system, and fits with basic rules well. "Is it easy? He succeeds. Is it hard? Roll an ability check, DC 15. Is it nearly impossible? Roll DC 20."

I agree completely with this. For a long time there's been a sharp divide between combat and skills, and many attempts to bridge the two have been awkward at best. Skills are entirely designed to work with the narrative versus combat. As such, they should maintain narrative flow, which the broader system does well. That's not to say rolling can't interact with narrative, but it's a lot clunkier.

 

[variant]

I'm not thrilled with skill dice. I'd prefer Mearls's own proposal from back in 2011: https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110816

I think it's a better system, and fits with basic rules well. "Is it easy? He succeeds. Is it hard? Roll an ability check, DC 15. Is it nearly impossible? Roll DC 20."

I disagree with this as characters made with the basic rules are suppose to work seamlessly in a campaign with more advanced characters.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I have to agree with [MENTION=63]RangerWickett[/MENTION], I don't really like skill dice. I'd rather a simple modifier than a variable size dice. A system of skill levels, sure, that might work, but to me adding a dice to another dice is gimmicky.

I would also rather offer players of the simple game a choice of which ability they are skilled in, rather than assign by class. You're a Fighter, but are you the stereotypically strong guy, or have you got endless endurance, or are you actually a little bit into book-learning? Simple choice for interesting outcomes.