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

[Nellisir]

But this is why I hate saying fights should take X or Y amounts of time. Fights should take exactly as long as they take. Because there's absolutely, 100% NO reason to even have a fight if there's no going to be some value in it. ... Why have a fight if for no other reason than to have a fight? It's a pointless waste of time. ... Fights should serve a purpose, they're a gating mechanic, they make you use resources, they test your coordination, your raw power. If you walk into a room, crack a few kobold heads without expending any real effort and then walk into the next room, what was the point?

And the flip-side of "quick fights" means "deadly combat" and we shouldn't be using the length of a fight as a measure of how deadly it is.

You seem to have made a giant leap here equating fast combat with pointless and easy combat, based on absolutely nothing that I can see. As DEFCON1 and Kamikaze Midget said, the importance of the fight, the purpose of the fight, the value of the fight...that's all in the DM's arena.

Unless...are you thinking in game time? A fast combat is over in four rounds, and a slow combat in twenty rounds? Because I'm looking at it "table time", in which a fast combat is ten minutes, and a slow combat is three hours. Both can be the same number of rounds in the game, but the table time is dramatically different.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Why have a fight if for no other reason than to have a fight? It's a pointless waste of time.

Fights should serve a purpose, they're a gating mechanic, they make you use resources, they test your coordination, your raw power. If you walk into a room, crack a few kobold heads without expending any real effort and then walk into the next room, what was the point?

It may be that out long experience with RPGs has affected our perspective some. In the one hour game, a fight exists to determine if you survive exploring the room. It's like the purpose of a fight in Munchkin or a Chance Card in Monopoly. The fight itself is a mechanic for determining success or failure within an adventure as much as an attack roll determines success or failure within a fight.

As time has gone by, the fight has become a more complex mini-game within the larger game that is D&D. It would be as if, in Monopoly, buying a property became a complex minigame. Part of me thinks that could be fun, but that doesn't mean all Monopoly games need to play that way.

 

[howandwhy99]

"...or rolling up a dungeon." - interesting phraseology. I wonder if we'll see something like the multiple appendices in the AD&D DMG? (my favorite thing in the article)

Of Current Design Goals, the first does one sound good, but the game seriously needs to ratchet down damage and hit point totals. Not just deflate hit points a bit, as was mentioned.

Lastly, Claymore65 in the comments section made a good point. In the article the balance between PCs was referenced, but the basic, core game rules are for randomly rolled Ability scores - the importance of said scores the designers would like to get across. The comment was that a Point Buy system should also be in the basic rules, if this balance is so inviolate. Personally, I don't agree with that and think one of the main reasons for bounded accuracy and flatter progressions and so on are because between-PC balance isn't so necessary. However, if you're going to make it a goal, then don't be afraid of putting in the game.

 

[Rhenny]

What I like about D&DNext so far, and what I've been reading about is that DM can make it what works for his game or his players. There is certainly a need to be able to have very short, moderately long and longer battles. In some game sessions, I love to have the PCs explore and travel, but also encounter a number of shorter combats that are designed to give flavor to the experience and wear down the PCs. It is so easy to use easy/short combats to help combat the 5 minute work day. They are necessary. In addition, small skirmishes can surprise players. Hit and run tactics, and small numbers of foes popping up in random encounters and planed ambushes or scouting sortees works well to keep players/PCs on their toes. Also, it is important to vary combat difficulty and length so that players don't always expect the same old same old. If every battle is an hour long tactical tour-de-force, those types of battles lose their dramatic power. So far, it has been pretty easy to manipulate monster numbers (and change hit point values of specific individual monsters to reflect elite versions), to create much more interesting varieties of battles, and avoid the 5 minute work day that better emulates a fluid and engaging story. I think the Basic Design, with levels of complexity layered on top will help.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not saying every battle needs to be an incredible, challenging, drawn-out fight with clever tactics and so forth, but if fights are so quick, and so immemorable as to be forgotten quickly, what was the point other than filler?

Fights should take exactly as long as they take. Because there's absolutely, 100% NO reason to even have a fight if there's no going to be some value in it.

I think there is something to be said for scaling the length, in real time, that it takes to resolve a fight, to the dramatic significance of the fight.

Many RPGs have multiple resolution methods - simple contests for conflicts that are of modest dramatic significance, and extended contests for conflicts that are of great dramatic significance. HeroWars/Quest and Burning Wheel are two examples. 4e also has this contrast in non-combat (skill check vs skill challenge), and can somewhat support the contrast in combat (all minion combats), though in the latter case the outcome will often be sufficiently predetermined that it may not be worth engaging the resolution mechanics at all.

I haven't got a strong sense of how, if at all, D&Dnext is going to toggle between quick and extended resolution. If it requires choosing different monsters - so that all kobold fights are by definition quick (and hence of modest significance) and all beholder fights by definition extended (and hence of great significance) - then I think it will have failed somewhat. The ideal is to be able to use any story element in either quick or extended resolution. Especially within a broader framework of bounded accuracy, that is meant to increase the flexibility for use of various story elements.

 

[jrowland]

I haven't got a strong sense of how, if at all, D&Dnext is going to toggle between quick and extended resolution. If it requires choosing different monsters - so that all kobold fights are by definition quick (and hence of modest significance) and all beholder fights by definition extended (and hence of great significance) - then I think it will have failed somewhat. The ideal is to be able to use any story element in either quick or extended resolution. Especially within a broader framework of bounded accuracy, that is meant to increase the flexibility for use of various story elements.

Nor have I. I would like to be able to "zoom in and out" so to speak from fight to fight. There are times I need/want 5 bugbears to be a 5 min (real time) bump in the road and sometimes I want/need it 5 bugbears to be a "featured" fight of about 30 minutes real time. Things like minion versions and such help, but there needs to be more DM tools to scale the fight on the fly rather than have them "hardwired" in the basic/expert/advanced version you are using.

If the modules for the "advanced" game are easily ignored to give a simpler game, then I could see using 4E-style grid combat for the "featured" bugbear fight and using Theater of the Mind with simpler rules for the bump in the road, but I am not sure how that will play out.

However, I can live with a 15min real time bugbear fight without "zooming", but it would be nice.

 

[Nellisir]

It may be that out long experience with RPGs has affected our perspective some. In the one hour game, a fight exists to determine if you survive exploring the room. It's like the purpose of a fight in Munchkin or a Chance Card in Monopoly. The fight itself is a mechanic for determining success or failure within an adventure as much as an attack roll determines success or failure within a fight.

As time has gone by, the fight has become a more complex mini-game within the larger game that is D&D. It would be as if, in Monopoly, buying a property became a complex minigame. Part of me thinks that could be fun, but that doesn't mean all Monopoly games need to play that way.

That's...a really interesting idea. And not one I would have thought of. Cool.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

One of the very nice, but mostly unheralded aspects of building a game of varying complexity, but meant to scale from simple to more complex: Sometimes a novice DM needs the more complex rules to give some hint as to the general drift of how things go, but can then use the less complex rules for faster, more intuitive play. You can get the same thing to a lesser extent by playing different but similar system--going from AD&D to Basic, for example--but people often get tripped up over the inconsequential details.

The idea of a Str check for this, that, or the other thing may come across any number of ways. The default idea of a Str check that is supposed to come out reasonably similar as if you had used the more complex rules--only without looking them up or worrying about every +1--is easier to grasp for the new player.

 

[KidSnide]

It may be that out long experience with RPGs has affected our perspective some. In the one hour game, a fight exists to determine if you survive exploring the room. It's like the purpose of a fight in Munchkin or a Chance Card in Monopoly. The fight itself is a mechanic for determining success or failure within an adventure as much as an attack roll determines success or failure within a fight.

As time has gone by, the fight has become a more complex mini-game within the larger game that is D&D. It would be as if, in Monopoly, buying a property became a complex minigame. Part of me thinks that could be fun, but that doesn't mean all Monopoly games need to play that way.

Very true.

It's also true that a fight can be a penalty for failure at the "adventuring" game. The goal of treasure-seeking adventurers is to get as much treasure as possible without getting killed. Or, alternatively, the goal of objective-seeking adventurers is to accomplish their "mission" (given by an NPC or self-directed) without getting killed. In either example, getting into an unnecessary fight works against the PCs. This kind of "penalty fight" is perfectly reasonable design, but it's not spending game time moving the PCs forward and so it should go pretty fast.

(Of course, sometimes the treasure is guarded by a fierce beast who must be defeated or the objective is to slay the evil sorcerer before he can finish his ritual. Those fights are desired by the PCs deserve more game time to resolve.)

In more recent editions, we've gotten closer to the idea that getting into fights is the objective. That can be fun too -- there's nothing wrong with adventurers who have the goal of trimming the local monster population. In that kind of game, the fights are the fun, so you want to have sufficiently detailed-and-interesting fights to keep the game exciting.

But it's also OK to have games where the fights play a useful role, but aren't the primary source of fun. In those games, fast fights are often a valuable design goal.

-KS

 

[Gorgoroth]

In more recent editions, we've gotten closer to the idea that getting into fights is the objective. That can be fun too -- there's nothing wrong with adventurers who have the goal of trimming the local monster population. In that kind of game, the fights are the fun, so you want to have sufficiently detailed-and-interesting fights to keep the game exciting.

But it's also OK to have games where the fights play a useful role, but aren't the primary source of fun. In those games, fast fights are often a valuable design goal.

-KS

Agreed completely. If the 4e combats could have been scaled, or monsters had less HP from Day 1 (or any other combination of a million different tweaks), it would have helped the story go along. After a couple years playing, even in new groups or RP-focused groups, every time we tried it in 4e small battles became big set pieces, and so much time was spent on your character powers and strategizing in-combat stuff that you tended to focus on that. Like I always said...just look at the sheets themselves. You have 6 page character sheets loaded with tons of powers. I have a ten year career so far, and my CV is kept to 2 pages. That should be the benchmark. A character sheet is a CV, with instead of job listings, skills everywhere, and some motivational fluff thrown in with some descriptive text sprinkled about. Not just endless blocks of specs. If I had that on my CV, I could easily have a dozen pages detailing every major software project I've been involved with, with bonuses/penalties and conditional modifiers in the stat block

DDN optimizing the overal experience, such as the idea of the skill dice reminding you to add that bonus (a variable bonus---sweet...definitely new to D&D as a general mechanic) instead of a static +2 or whatever, I think is great. Instead of Combat Advantage granting +2, you are jockeying in whatever way you can for that Advantage, which is an easy-to-remember and universal Invoker-esque type mechanic. Other players and the DM can instantly see you are obeying the rules by having your two lucky dice thrown at the same time. I can't state how often I've seen superstitious/annoying players rolling two d20s and calling the colour...thinking somehow that extra die in their hand will improve their luck...so annoying. At least this way, roll a d20+d6 or 2d20, pick highest, will mitigate that, with a real benefit.

So much good new stuff in DDN coming up. I'm excited.