D&D 5E L&L December 16th Can you feel it?

[ExploderWizard]

The dice are not the problem. If you throw out the dice but don't limit the time available to search, players make a list of all the nouns in your description and announce they're poking, listening at, examining, and divining each one until they find the spot. Conversely, if you keep the dice but do limit the time available to search, players still have to make decisions and set priorities. The existence of a die roll ensures that players whose characters specialize in this kind of thing will be more likely to shine at it.

The players choose how long they want to spend searching. It is up to them to decide how long to risk staying in one place. If the area is rather small and has already been cleaned out, there is no logical reason why they shouldn't be able to take their time turning the place upside down.

In the game as originally designed, no class, not even the optional thief, had specific talent at finding anything. Elves and dwarves had a racial gift for finding secret doors (elves) and traps/shifting walls (dwarves). Aside from that, finding things was up to the player. A "skill" for that is akin to playing the game for the player. An original thief had a special skill to remove a small trap but no actual extra skill at finding them. Exploring the environment and discovering what is hidden is for the player to do. It may not be to everyone's taste but I can say my players don't go into autopilot sleep mode until a fight breaks out. Their own wits and cleverness determine how much treasure they will find, so they actually pay attention to their surroundings and are rewarded for doing so.

I run OD&D without the thief class. I have made thieving along with several other skill sets such as ranger, scholar, athlete, healer, etc. background competency choices that any class may select. This allows a bit of character customization and allows a player to shine in an area of choice regardless of chosen class. Thus if the party wants thief skills, someone just chooses the thief background and isn't forced into playing a weak class.

That's all very well if sandbox play is your thing, but plotted adventures often rely on the PCs finding certain clues to guide them forward. If they fail to find any such clue and the DM has no backup plan, the adventure stalls.

A plotted adventure that comes to a grinding halt if a mechanical resolution point results in failure is a stinkbomb. Full stop. If the adventure can't happen without X DO NOT make X a possible failure point. Adventure design 101.

Beating down a straw man, apparently. 5E fighters deal more damage than 5E rogues. They stay roughly on par for the first four levels. At level 5, the fighter starts attacking twice per round and leaves the rogue in the dust. Sneak attack allows rogues to contribute effectively to the fight, not to outshine fighters in their own domain.

I haven't delved into the playtest packets deep enough to dispute your estimate of 5E. It is my hope that the game comes with sufficient knobs and dials to provide both the combat weak burglar thief as well as the super ninja for those that want them.

 

[delericho]

Exploring the environment and discovering what is hidden is for the player to do.

Yep. It was astonishing how much my game improved when I had that epiphany.

A plotted adventure that comes to a grinding halt if a mechanical resolution point results in failure is a stinkbomb. Full stop. If the adventure can't happen without X DO NOT make X a possible failure point. Adventure design 101.

Again, agreed. If the adventure requires the PCs to know X, don't make them roll to learn X - just tell them. If the adventure requires that the PCs find Y, don't make them keep rolling until they find Y - at the very least, after some length of time just say "eventually, you find Y".

It's quite frightening how many published adventures, even otherwise 'good' adventures, still get that wrong.

 

[Kinak]

Exactly. Not to mention, that I don't get all this obsession with realistic falls. It's not very realistic to walk away easily from being punctured by a long blade and what about being hit by a giant? Realistically a character ought to be reduced to a pulp.

I think it's because, in a modern society, most of us aren't likely to have touchpoints for the rest of D&D damage. Not a lot of us have been knifed, let alone stabbed with a sword, and even fewer have gotten hit with a giant's club, although certain types of car crashes are probably similar.

Falling ten feet can be a big deal in the real world. But so can getting stabbed in anger. Or being bitten by an animal.

I agree with you and [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION]. It's obvious the PCs are made of sterner stuff, however GMs and players want to represent that in the fiction.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[steeldragons]

First, thank you [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION] for the great synopsis. Apparently I've given you XP too recently. So if someone would cover that for me, I'd be much obliged.

Now, let's see if I can get/what I think 'bout all this...shtuff.

Let me summarize:
1. They've decided that the "feel" of D&D consists of you making the same decision making process as your character. Your character decides whether Sleep, Charm Person, or Magic Missile is a better option to prepare today. So do you. Your character decides to wear heavier armor in exchange for less mobility, so do you.

Ok. I can get behind this. I didn't realize it was something that needed to be called out/specifically addressed. But the fact that they want to is, overall (as far as I can see) a good thing.

The implication here is that this is in contrast to some other games that use narrative mechanics(like 4e) where some of the thought process is different for the player than it is for the character(like deciding if this is a good round to use an Encounter power as a fighter).

If that really, though, a "Narrative mechanics" game thing? I mean, even the best role-player has the player knowledge and the character knowledge...and I'm not sure that one can [really be expected to] decide things without the other. "Is it a good idea to use an encounter power now" seems no different than spell casters having to decide if this is the right round to let loose with the fireball...or to Turn Undead now or let the fighter keep hacking away...or backstabbing now or waiting for a more "dramatic/climactic" round (like, say, when the fighter goes down, the thief dives out from the shadows and delivers the killing blow before the foe can off the bleeding fighter)...or raging or shapeshifting, etc...

2. People are looking for different things from their gaming experience. Some players come into the game after having never played D&D before and only watched Fantasy movies or read fantasy books. The wizards in these stories often cast spells quite differently from D&D wizards. So, his first point was that in order to make D&D Next "feel" like D&D, they might have to alienate some people who are expecting magic to work some other way

This seems reasonable...expected...and out of no malice or saying "this casting mechanic is 'better' than the others" simply that "this is how we're going to have them work in D&D." as several people and examples have shown, folks can alter the system to suit their preferences...and if the game offers alternative methods, in the books themselves, more the better. But, as is the case with many points of contention 'round these parts, they have to start somewhere. There has to be a baseline...and then alternates built off of there. If the designers decide that magic "feels like D&D magic" using X method...then that's that. They are not [nor do I believe have ever been saying] it must work this way or this is the only way that "feels like D&D"...They are merely pointing out this is the baseline. No?

(the implication being that in order to make magic work like it does in Fantasy stories, you'd have to use some sort of mechanic that would require you to use a different decision making process than your characters does...something like 4e). But they'll consider alternate methods of making these people happy.

Your character knows "I have this much power

." Whether it is a "memorized spell" or a "spell slot" or a "prepared spell" or "mana points" etc...are simply fluff issues. the player knows these are different ways of casting spells...the character just knows "this is how I make magic" and, typically has some sense of "this is how much power I have left."

I mean, do you [the player, and meaning the common/collective "you" = anyone, not MO specifically] decide, "I need to cast my fireball now or we're going to lose!" or do you [the PC] decide, "I need to expend my final power now or all is lost!" ? Is there a difference? I certainly don't see one. Seems to me this is simply a lot of splitting giant carnivorous hares.

3. As part of this, they want you to make decisions at the same speed as your character.

What does this mean...the same speed?

A character has 2 seconds to decide what attack to use against the monster. The rules should be fast enough that you can make the same decision in the same amount of time.

Ok. Makes sense.

It shouldn't take minutes to resolve a single attack because that attack only takes seconds in game.

We're all good with this. No?

However, if a mechanic is supposed to simulate something that might take months to do in game, it can be more complicated and take more time to resolve.

Iiiii'm not sure what this argument could mean? What would be something to simulate that might take months in game-time? And, regardless [to a degree], do people not know how to handwave in-game time? If something takes 10 minutes to do at the table...and you say "It's been 2 months in the game world"...who's complaining? And why?

4. The things described in the game should make sense with the mechanics that go with it. Plate armor protects more than Leather armor. Giants are stronger than orcs. Mechanics shouldn't become so abstract that they become disconnected from what is happening in the game world.

Ooookay. No one's arguing against this, are they? I mean...it really isn't arguable...nor, again, is it the kind of thing I would think Mearls needs to call out/spotlight. Isn't this...obvious?

Neither should they become so detailed and realistic that they cause problems like the game slowing down or getting bogged down in unimportant details.

Again. Agreed...and obvious.

The example given is Rogue's Sneak attack. Define it in too much detail and you need to worry about whether it works on undead or whether you can use it if a creature is really tall.

Would not defining it in [too much] detail mean you DON'T have to worry about these things...the rules will tell you.

If you leave the ability more abstract, it just works on everything without worrying about the details of how it works. He says this balance is very complicated and hard to find.

Again, agreed...and obvious.

So, again, I'm really not sure what it is he's trying to get at here. "Designing D&Ds balance to please everyones is hard"? Uhhhh yeah. duh. Shouldn't promised everyone everything they know and love and, maybe, drawing some lines and sticking to your guns would have made things easier. That's why you're the guy makin' the big bucks. Quit'cher bitchin'. ​

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Ok. I can get behind this. I didn't realize it was something that needed to be called out/specifically addressed. But the fact that they want to is, overall (as far as I can see) a good thing.

To summarize most of your concerns, I believe the article isn't trying to "address" anything. It's just an article that is explaining their definition of the D&D "feel" and what that caused them to think about when designing D&D Next.

People were interesting in their decision making process and this article is mostly an explanation: Here's what D&D "feel" means to us. It might mean other things to other people, but be prepared that when D&D Next comes out, it will attempt to get this feel down rather than any other.

If that really, though, a "Narrative mechanics" game thing? I mean, even the best role-player has the player knowledge and the character knowledge...and I'm not sure that one can [really be expected to] decide things without the other. "Is it a good idea to use an encounter power now" seems no different than spell casters having to decide if this is the right round to let loose with the fireball...or to Turn Undead now or let the fighter keep hacking away...or backstabbing now or waiting for a more "dramatic/climactic" round (like, say, when the fighter goes down, the thief dives out from the shadows and delivers the killing blow before the foe can off the bleeding fighter)...or raging or shapeshifting, etc...

This is a debate that's been going on for some time. More than one thread has discussed it here at ENWorld. I agree, I don't see any real difference between "Should I use this Encounter power now or wait until later" and "should I use this spell now or wait until later?" However, the key difference is that an Encounter power for a Fighter might be something that a Fighter could reasonably do every round instead of once per Encounter. So, the limit of once per Encounter isn't something your character would ever consider. The limit is placed on the power for metagame purposes(it would be too powerful to allow it to be used every round).

This causes the decision making process to be different for you and your character. You are thinking "Should I use this Encounter power now? I might need it for later. I only get to use it once." Your character is thinking "Should I try tripping the enemy, going for the throat or kicking him to knock him off balance to set up for a more devastating attack?" Once you've used up an Encounter power, your character doesn't know it's been used up. He chooses not to use it for entirely different reasons than you. Even what those reasons are have been debated ad nauseum. Most people believe they are narrative reasons however...no appropriate opening to activate the power, pain in one of your limbs preventing you from getting it just right, or something like that.

That's why I referred to them as narrative mechanics. They are mechanics that create an interesting narrative at the expense of "realism". They prevent you from spamming the same powerful move over and over again but without any in game rationale for why it isn't possible.

They are merely pointing out this is the baseline. No?

Yes, they are just explaining their definition of D&D "feel" to them. And likely explaining that there may be better spellcasting systems that would be more balanced or more true to the source material, but they've made their decision to make D&D Next FEEL like D&D no matter what the cost.

What does this mean...the same speed?

If your character can decide to do it in 2 seconds, so should you. So, you and your character act at similar "speeds". You don't spend 10 minutes trying to decide which attack to use because each one is complicated enough that you need to read through it again each round to find out if its an appropriate time to use it.

We're all good with this. No?

I doubt everyone is. There will definitely be complaints that the combat system is "dumbed down" because all you do is roll to hit and damage. Where's the realistic trip and grapple rules? How come I don't have enough options in combat?

Some people want very detailed rules because they are more "realistic". I believe they were pointing out that we wouldn't be getting these in D&D Next in order to make sure the game resolves quickly.

Iiiii'm not sure what this argument could mean? What would be something to simulate that might take months in game-time? And, regardless [to a degree], do people not know how to handwave in-game time? If something takes 10 minutes to do at the table...and you say "It's been 2 months in the game world"...who's complaining? And why?

I believe they were just explaining their game design philosophy: Let's make the mechanics more abstract in exchange for quick resolution...but we can allow ourselves to write more complicated mechanics when the in game action you are simulating would take a long time.

The example given was mechanics on running a kingdom. You might have "turns" that last a month. You might design rules on what kind of actions you can take each "turn" that use multiple rolls, look up tables and generally take a long time to finish a "turn". The example they gave was you might sit around and discuss what actions you are planning on taking for minutes or even an hour of real game time and those discussions would mirror the kind of discussions your characters probably have within that month as well.

The flip side being to reiterate that when a mechanic is supposed to simulate something fast like one attack during a couple second long round the game shouldn't require a large amount of thought and discussion and consideration on what to do.

The speed of the mechanics should reflect the speed of the action they represent.

Ooookay. No one's arguing against this, are they? I mean...it really isn't arguable...nor, again, is it the kind of thing I would think Mearls needs to call out/spotlight. Isn't this...obvious?

Fairly obvious. However, there are games where this isn't the case. For instance, in 4e, all of your defenses go up every second level. When you get to level 30, you have +15 to your AC and you are harder to hit while wearing leather armor than a 1st level character is while wearing plate mail.

He was also saying that it can be easy as a designer to think "This monster is level 15, so it needs to hit hard, I'll give it a 18 strength so it does more damage" without thinking about the fact that the creature is an Orc and that the level 5 Ogre only has a 17 strength so now an Orc is stronger than an Ogre.

I believe this was supposed to point out that they were trying to avoid that way of designing the game in exchange for mechanics that more directly reflect the in game description of the mechanics. It seemed as much as a manifesto that likely was originally written for the rest of the designers to constantly remind them to consider these things as anything else.

Would not defining it in [too much] detail mean you DON'T have to worry about these things...the rules will tell you.

But the fact that the rules exist mean you have to spent time to remember those rules and consider them each and every time you use the ability. When you are attacking an enemy, the thought process is no longer "I attack the enemy in his vital spot!", it is "I attack the enemy in its vital spot...wait...is this creature an undead, elemental, ooze, construct or other creature with an immunity to Sneak Attack? Can I reach its vital organs or is it too tall? Is there something else that prevents me from getting to its vital organs?"

Having to go through that thought process can slow the game down. Perhaps only by seconds, but those seconds add up after a while. Especially if every mechanic in the game is designed like this. Each of them adds their own couple of seconds to consider all the exceptions and details.

So, again, I'm really not sure what it is he's trying to get at here. "Designing D&Ds balance to please everyones is hard"? Uhhhh yeah. duh. Shouldn't promised everyone everything they know and love and, maybe, drawing some lines and sticking to your guns would have made things easier. That's why you're the guy makin' the big bucks. Quit'cher bitchin'.

I'm fairy certain this article wasn't about bitching. It was about needing to put out an article that makes it sound like they are open and communicating with the fans. So, in order to make the fans feel like they are part of the game design process they posted an article explaining what they had already decided to do months or more likely years ago.

Likely so that people can read their rationale for everything and say "Wow, I agree with all those design philosophies...I'm going to love D&D Next! It's obvious that they are purposefully designing the game to be less like 4e!"

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

A plotted adventure that comes to a grinding halt if a mechanical resolution point results in failure is a stinkbomb. Full stop. If the adventure can't happen without X DO NOT make X a possible failure point. Adventure design 101.

It's an often repeated philosophy. But it just isn't practical. It's impossible to make an interesting dungeon, for instance, without using secret doors. If a hidden door leads to another area of the dungeon needed to finish it, that immediately becomes a halt point if it isn't found.

As long as you use dice to determine whether you find things, these things will always be a point of failure.

I agree, it might be better to remove all mechanics for finding things and just tell the PCs what they see and if they look in the right place, they find the secret door. However, this causes all kinds of arguments about how easy it is to spot a secret door even while looking straight at it and whether or not an Elf who is a trained thief should have a much better chance to recognize the signs of a secret door than a Dwarven fighter. The difference between the two can only be simulated using dice. As soon as you use dice, you're back to a single point of failure again.

Basically, something has to give. For some people, it's worth the risk that the adventure reaches a dead end when the PCs don't find a secret door. It's even easy to fix if the PCs reach the dead end. You can always just ask them to roll again and fudge the roll if need be.

I haven't delved into the playtest packets deep enough to dispute your estimate of 5E. It is my hope that the game comes with sufficient knobs and dials to provide both the combat weak burglar thief as well as the super ninja for those that want them.

It's unlikely. The design philosophy seems to be that all classes can contribute in a fight. Fighters fight better than everyone else. However, EVERYONE can fight.

Non-fighting characters simply aren't Player Characters. Which I'm good with. It's always been my philosophy.

 

[Minigiant]

So combat rules are simple because combat is fast. Kingdom rules are complex because strongholds take weeks to manage.

DM "Time for relationship rolls"
Cleric "I have the elves. 15 plus 2 is 17."
DM "The elves are now friendly. I'm gonna roll their action. Ummm The elves wish to trade you bows for some gold."
Rogue "Our warriors need bows. Deal."
Rest "Deal"
DM "You not have 20 masterwork bows and 40 quivers of arrows. Now who is dealing with the halflings?"
Rogue "I have advantage because I speak their language. 7 or 12. 12 then"
DM "No change on the halflings. They make no actions toward you this month. Dwarves of Mt Axecross? Humans of Millton?"
All "Skip the Humans"
Fighter "4 for the dwarves"
DM "Oooh. Seems your emissary threw up at a holiday feast which is a bad omen. The Dwarves are mad and are ending their trade. You have been denounced. Rolling."
Rogue " He's rolling something. I send my spies on a information mission. 22."
DM "Your spies return with one less in number. The local clan leader is calling the other dwarves. They are preparing for war against you to appease Moradin. Someone spread rumors that one of you are actually evil and an agent of a demon prince. There is a plot to kill... *rolls* the wizard."
Wizard "I was mind controlled one time. Set the blacksmith to production, I want to be done enchanting all the armor before the war."

 

[steeldragons]

To summarize most of your concerns, I believe the article isn't trying to "address" anything. It's just an article that is explaining their definition of the D&D "feel" and what that caused them to think about when designing D&D Next.

Ok.

People were interesting in their decision making process and this article is mostly an explanation: Here's what D&D "feel" means to us. It might mean other things to other people, but be prepared that when D&D Next comes out, it will attempt to get this feel down rather than any other.

Well...good, as far as I'm concerned. It's about bloody time.

Yes, they are just explaining their definition of D&D "feel" to them. And likely explaining that there may be better spellcasting systems that would be more balanced or more true to the source material, but they've made their decision to make D&D Next FEEL like D&D no matter what the cost.

As, it being D&D and all, should be the case. No qualms here.

Fairly obvious. However, there are games where this isn't the case. For instance, in 4e, all of your defenses go up every second level. When you get to level 30, you have +15 to your AC and you are harder to hit while wearing leather armor than a 1st level character is while wearing plate mail.

He was also saying that it can be easy as a designer to think "This monster is level 15, so it needs to hit hard, I'll give it a 18 strength so it does more damage" without thinking about the fact that the creature is an Orc and that the level 5 Ogre only has a 17 strength so now an Orc is stronger than an Ogre.

I believe this was supposed to point out that they were trying to avoid that way of designing the game in exchange for mechanics that more directly reflect the in game description of the mechanics. It seemed as much as a manifesto that likely was originally written for the rest of the designers to constantly remind them to consider these things as anything else.

Again. Good.

I'm fairy certain this article wasn't about bitching.

Well no. That was some tongue in the proverbial cheek.

It was about needing to put out an article that makes it sound like they are open and communicating with the fans. So, in order to make the fans feel like they are part of the game design process they posted an article explaining what they had already decided to do months or more likely years ago.

Likely so that people can read their rationale for everything and say "Wow, I agree with all those design philosophies...I'm going to love D&D Next! It's obvious that they are purposefully designing the game to be less like 4e!"

Again, good. Obvious, to me at least, but all good stuff. It's nice to finally hear as opposed the "we're working on it/changing it/looking at it again/still working on it/don't really know what we're doing yet/stroking the head/patting the back" that we've gotten from a great many articles [not just these from Mearls] regarding 5e.

-snip quote attributed to me-
It's unlikely. The design philosophy seems to be that all classes can contribute in a fight. Fighters fight better than everyone else. However, EVERYONE can fight.

Non-fighting characters simply aren't Player Characters. Which I'm good with. It's always been my philosophy.

Iiiii don't think I made that comment/the statement you are referring to. Misquote, mayhaps? No problem. And thanks for the thorough response, again.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

A player whose character who has more than 6 hp remaining knows that the character's neck cannot be broken by a 10' fall. And, at least in my experience, players act on that sort of knowledge - much of the combat system in fact seems to be predicated on the assumption that players will use knowledge of their hit points remaining to tactical effect.

But what knowledge on the part of the character does this correspond to? How can the character know that s/he cannot be killed by an unexpected 10' drop, or that s/he cannot be killed by a goblin's sword blow?

I don't think HP are meant to be taken that literally. They are a good mechanic in that they are intuitive: The more hurt you get, the closer you get to dying. Both your character and the player know this and understand this: Avoid losing hitpoints and you avoid dying.

The problem only starts to come out when you pay way too much attention to the exact numbers. When you play your character as if he knows his exact number of hitpoints and the exact number of damage things do, it starts to cause the disconnect.

However, as long as it is done fairly vaguely, it works fine: Your character is fairly certain he's healthy enough and skilled enough to avoid a sword thrust by a lowly goblin or a simple 10 foot fall. He knows how much he hurts and he knows how skilled he is.

 

[Derren]

It's an often repeated philosophy. But it just isn't practical. It's impossible to make an interesting dungeon, for instance, without using secret doors. If a hidden door leads to another area of the dungeon needed to finish it, that immediately becomes a halt point if it isn't found.

So how is it a secret door then when it can't be missed?

Non-fighting characters simply aren't Player Characters. Which I'm good with. It's always been my philosophy.

Then you should think about if RPGs are really what you want to play or if games with less non combat content would be more to your liking.