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

[Dwimmerlied]

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.

Why present them in any order tho? I think DM's should be able to decide on how a monster should be played.

 

[Ichneumon]

Why present them in any order tho? I think DM's should be able to decide on how a monster should be played.

Of course. DMs can have gelatinous cubes sliding round their taverns, or depict orcs as peace-and-love hippies if that's what they want. I'm just raising the possibility as some monsters being played up as primarily interaction targets. Ghosts would be another example, with the monster description focused on how the ghost interacts with PCs with the goal of getting them to fulfil its goals. By all means put combat stats in as well so that DMs wanting to use ghosts as something to fight can do so.

 

[MarkB]

I like the interaction rules - the set of NPC traits sounds a lot like Fate's system of Aspects, which is a good direction to take for these kinds of interactions.

I also like the fact that the DM can set limits as to how far an NPC can be influenced based upon his attitude to the party - I've seen too many systems where a "diplomancer" build can convince just about anyone to do just about anything, and a character without appropriate social skills can't even ask a good friend for a favour without causing offence.

 

[delericho]

I like this. Perhaps because those Interaction rules sound an awful lot like something I came up with a couple of years back - during the 3e development, I kept seeing approving comments from long-time players that "this is basically what I've been doing for years"... this is probably the first significant time I've had that experience, and I like it.

One thing I wasn't keen on, though:

The interaction rules allow a DM to classify an NPC as hostile, neutral, or friendly. Charisma checks can't change this attitude.

This sounds like a reaction to the Diplomacy skill being horribly broken in 3.5e, but it just doesn't feel right.

 

[Plaguescarred]

This stuff sounds interesting. Also i'd like Interactions to offer some guidelines to run series of checks in the fullfillment of a task, similar to Skill Challenges in 4E. If anything like Explorations rules, i am ready to be be taken by surprise as i really like them. So i definitly looking forward to see what this is like...

 

[Evenglare]

What in hell does this mean? I can't figure it out.

-----Each exploration scale has a set of actions, with overlap where appropriate. You don't navigate in dungeons since there are no rules for getting lost while using 1-minute exploration turns.

You don't get to navigate dungeons?

 

[Plaguescarred]

Well if navigate if all about staying on the right track and not get lost, since exploring a dungeon use 1-minute time unit, i assume he means you can't really loose your way and forget the path you took within the last minute.

 

[Quickleaf]

I like the interaction rules - the set of NPC traits sounds a lot like Fate's system of Aspects, which is a good direction to take for these kinds of interactions.

I also like the fact that the DM can set limits as to how far an NPC can be influenced based upon his attitude to the party - I've seen too many systems where a "diplomancer" build can convince just about anyone to do just about anything, and a character without appropriate social skills can't even ask a good friend for a favour without causing offence.

Yeah, tagging Aspects in FATE is what sprang to mind for me too. It also seems like the emphasis on NPC agenda and negotiation with leverage took a line from Rich Burlew's Diplomacy skill rewrite (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html). All good directions IMO.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Segsy.

I like the FATE-ization of "keyword" interaction rules, I like the development of the interaction rules, and I am over the moon that they will actually be integrating these into creatures where appropriate.

Now, perhaps in 5e, more so than in any edition before, I can easily present (for instance) a Blue Dragon as the mirage dragon of vast and condescending intellect. The land around the blue dragon is hard to move through -- no water, no food, and it's easy to get lost. When dealing with the blue dragon, a group that flatters its intelligence might find that he's too busy basking in praise to notice the thief sneaking up behind, to steal the MacGuffin from the dragon's hoard....

YES PLEASE.

 

[avin]

Keywords worked well in 4E monster sheets, IMO, so expanding them for NPCs is something interesting in case you run lots of games or there has been a big pause between sessions.

It helps to organize and you can just ignore it on the fly if you want.