L&L: The 2nd one this week (DM Packet)

[nogray]

It talks about the DM Packet of the playtest materials.

Here is the obligatory link.

 

[Tallifer]

And I quote: "The monsters in the bestiary probably look a bit like their 3rd Edition version at this stage... They're currently functional, but we think we can make monsters a little more robust and interesting without piling on needless complexity."

The key thing about monsters in the Fourth Edition was the easy-to-read and use stat blocks which were included right on the same page as the encounter. Complexity was hardly an issue. This is what I hope feedback will bring back to the Fifth Edition.

 

[Kzach]

There are times when I would go gay for Mearls; this is one of them.

 

[darjr]

loved it and the style of play it refers to. winderful

 

[nnms]

The reason rulings not rules approach works with 0D&D is that there simply are not rules for the situations that might come up in play, so the job of assessing them and deciding the outcome is put into one person's hands.

Games with complete rules covering what the game is about generally don't need the approach. Given that 5E has a pretty robust rules framework, I'd say that this approach is nothing more than a common refrain in games from the 90s that it's the GM's job to make the game work by ignoring the rules rather than designing rules to support a desired type of play.

I wonder if the Old School guys are going to get sucked in by this propaganda. Will they start cheering "Mearls finally gets it! It's about rulings not rules!"? Not realizing that the fundamental underpinnings of the game that support rulings vs rules is not a robust & universal resolution system like 5e has?

I'm beginning to think that the modularity talked about so far will simply be DMs being told to use whatever they want rather than well developed rules modules meant to produce a certain style of play. I'm guessing that these ideas will be culled from playtest suggestions rather than being designed from the ground up to produce certain results.

 

[Hautamaki]

The reason rulings not rules approach works with 0D&D is that there simply are not rules for the situations that might come up in play, so the job of assessing them and deciding the outcome is put into one person's hands.

Games with complete rules covering what the game is about generally don't need the approach. Given that 5E has a pretty robust rules framework, I'd say that this approach is nothing more than a common refrain in games from the 90s that it's the GM's job to make the game work by ignoring the rules rather than designing rules to support a desired type of play.

I wonder if the Old School guys are going to get sucked in by this propaganda. Will they start cheering "Mearls finally gets it! It's about rulings not rules!"? Not realizing that the fundamental underpinnings of the game that support rulings vs rules is not a robust & universal resolution system like 5e has?

I'm beginning to think that the modularity talked about so far will simply be DMs being told to use whatever they want rather than well developed rules modules meant to produce a certain style of play. I'm guessing that these ideas will be culled from playtest suggestions rather than being designed from the ground up to produce certain results.

Another 18 months of testing and tweaking really ought to be enough time to give you what you're looking for, I wouldn't be too pessimistic already!

 

[pemerton]

The reason rulings not rules approach works with 0D&D is that there simply are not rules for the situations that might come up in play, so the job of assessing them and deciding the outcome is put into one person's hands.

Games with complete rules covering what the game is about generally don't need the approach. Given that 5E has a pretty robust rules framework, I'd say that this approach is nothing more than a common refrain in games from the 90s that it's the GM's job to make the game work by ignoring the rules rather than designing rules to support a desired type of play.

I'm not entirely sure you're right - as Hautamaki says, there's time for stuff to happen - but I think what you say is plausible, and in any event the broader point you make about design and badly-designed punting-to-the-GM is a good one.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Improvisation is good.

The monsters as presented lack depth and customizability. Understanding that this is partially a product of the early stage the game is at, I hope they genuine create more "robust" ones.

 

[Kzach]

I wonder if the Old School guys are going to get sucked in by this propaganda.

Why do you continue to post when you're so obviously and blatantly against 5e. Everything you post is negative and puts down everything that comes out about 5e. Don't like it? Nobody is forcing you to read everything about it.

 

[howandwhy99]

Checks (vs environment) and Contests (opposed rolls between living things) make sense as different mechanics. And I've been thinking that I can rework them into a hidden matrix given enough authority to do so as a DM under the shared rules. So I've decided to back this philosophy and design for now.

Attacks & Saves are bound to appear as needlessly arbitrary as they were 20-25 years ago, if they are not highly defined now. Attacks are using the body & tool deliberately against "anything else". Saves are deliberate actions to resist the "anything else". Whey aren't they rolled versus attacks? Why don't all cast spells require an attack roll?

I'm not sure answering these questions or deciding these dividing lines is the community's duty to determine or each individual DMs as rules will be provided where some frame of reference is already in place (I would hope). Besides, the community doesn't need to come to consensus, but rather the game is the common touch stone. Each group's game is the chosen divergence from it.