D&D 5E L&L: Exploration and Interaction

[GX.Sigma]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130520

Interesting stuff. The exploration rules still sound way too complicated (what was wrong with the old-school exploration rules?), and the interaction rules sound way too complicated (why do we even need rules for that?), but I am totally on board with the big ideas behind all this.

I like the idea of interlocking systems--this is an important thing that has been missing from D&D for over a decade. But I'm worried about modularity: What if I don't like the specific exploration system they use, and want to make up my own? etc.

I really want to see and use these systems. My inner old-school gamer is thinking "finally, this is starting to look like Dungeons & Dragons."

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I generally like the sound of this. These rules seem like they're providing mechanical guidance more than taking over for exploration or interaction. I've never felt like I needed interaction rules, but these actually sound handy.

While the concern about modularity is valid, I suspect it will be a minor amount of effort to replace the provided rules without any significant problems.

I look forward to seeing the results.

 

[Li Shenron]

I like well-rounded games will all 3 pillars, so interlocking them and having monsters' features for pillars other than combat sounds fantastic to me.

Exploration rules in the current packet are a great addition. I would prefer leaving the time slot flexible rather than fix, just because it can really change depending on the environment and the DM's targets: for instance, 1-minute turns in an average classic dungeon is ok, but in a natural cave complex (which has much fewer traps, but also does carry navigation problems) it certainly becomes annoying to roll checks so frequently, but still 1-hour checks would be too long. Similarly, 1-hour checks for overland travel can be perfect if the trip takes a day or two, but if you travel in a desert where encounters are extremely scarce and the environment is nearly featureless, maybe 1-day slots would be more appropriate for week-long trips. Standardizing the slot length to fixed values can cause such arguments or annoyances, so I hope they put very good guidelines (especially for beginner DMs, but not only) for changing/dialling those slots when needed.

Let's see how they do the interaction rules... Sound great to me in principle, I hope they manage to make it neither too simple nor too cumbersome tho. Would be nice if Cha/Wis/Int would all take part in the rules.

 

[Ainamacar]

I like the basic direction described in the interaction section. The emphasis seems to be on the natural attitudes, knowledge, and reactions of the NPC, which is really the only foundation that makes any sense for a mechanical framework that should flow spontaneously into and out of pure roleplaying. One can build a more formal system on top of that ("conversation combat") or leave it as freeform until the DM decides a check is appropriate.

I also like the opportunities it might create for different kinds of roleplayers to contribute. The type of player that previously said something like "I make a diplomacy check" might have something a little more tangible to grasp, and appreciate that mechanical nod or signpost, hopefully without getting in the way of naturalistic play. For example, whether or not the magistrate is corrupt (or likely to be) might be discoverable, either through direct knowledge (history or conversation) or perhaps mechanical abilities (backgrounds, class abilities, quest rewards). Such things were always discoverable, of course, and quality freeform roleplaying handles it transparently, but it hasn't always been clear in D&D that narrative resources (i.e. knowledge of NPC characteristics) can be the basis for the mechanical resource as well. NPCs have buttons, and the ones like "would do anything for his children" or "covets a seat on the high council" can help prompt the PCs to creative action more than any raw check ever could.

 

[Iosue]

I'll have to wait and see the actual rules, but going from this article I hope there's some kind of option for scaling the dungeon exploration up to 10-minute turns, and scaling the interaction rules to something as simple as a reaction roll.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'll have to wait and see the actual rules, but going from this article I hope there's some kind of option for scaling the dungeon exploration up to 10-minute turns, and scaling the interaction rules to something as simple as a reaction roll.

If they want 5e to really attract the favor of as many gamers as possible, they should sprinkle the books with sidebars for dialling things such as this "turn length", or natural healing, or XP advancement rates... It really is simple to do so, but it would do a lot to tell players and DMs that the game will be in their hands but still work fine.

 

[Rydac]

Pity that after saying in the second paragraph he was going to cover all three pillars Mearls never covered combat.

Though count me in the camp that likes the sound of what he is saying about interaction and exploration....the devils in the details. Hopefully there will be a new packet soon (times flying), but too bad not in time for lots of gaming this coming Memorial day weekend.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I really, really like how the article is presented. Right now, I'm "eh" on how everything works. I'll have to see the rules before I can judge them, but I am looking forward to seeing what they look like. As always, play what you like

 

[Dwimmerlied]

If they want 5e to really attract the favor of as many gamers as possible, they should sprinkle the books with sidebars for dialling things such as this "turn length", or natural healing, or XP advancement rates... It really is simple to do so, but it would do a lot to tell players and DMs that the game will be in their hands but still work fine.

Agreed. Previous editions seem to always say; "Its your game, and you can change it if you like", immediately paraphrased with "but you will probably unbalance the game."

 

[Ichneumon]

NPCs and some monsters could be presented "interaction first" with their interaction statistics & info prominent, and combat stats available if required. I see it as a plausible way to handle 'good' monsters and others that don't come across as typical combat foes for the PCs, such as nymphs.