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

[howandwhy99]

B2 "The Keep on the Borderlands" provides overland and urban adventures too. Could you please provide these for players who want to test that part of adventuring? Sometimes buying stuff is fun. Sometimes resting when you think you're safe is too. Also, making friends, listening to rumors, hiring others to help, etc.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Nice article - I am liking the 'language' and 'style' of this edition so far. Appeals to my sense as a DM.

I would certainly like to see more interesting things for the monsters. 4E did a great job of distinguishing some types like kobolds an goblins. i hope this returns (but NOT all the stats being based purely on level)!

Has anyone added 4E style elements to the creatures? Basics like a goblin jumps back (shifts) when missed in melee. I think I might add something for them. (I noticed the orcs got a power sim to 4E).

 

[ferratus]

Well, I'm glad that monsters are going to change away from their current model. I'm hoping that it changes into the fluff text of the 2e Monstrous Compendium, with 4e's statblock which gives each monster their own unique abilities and ways of fighting. Well, 4e plus morale rules of course. I freely admit that I need the help of my dice to know when the monsters should break in a rout.

 

[mudbunny]

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.

If the end result is the same, and if the playstyle ends up being identical, does it really matter if it is due to a detailed, complex base of rules, a very loose set of guidelines, or something in between the two extremes??

 

[Odhanan]

I loved this column, and it renewed my hope D&D Next can be a game I'd enjoy playing.

Thank you Mike.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

A desired type of play is what 4E was all about. Leaving the DM some room to fine tune things means the game has a better chance of supporting multiple types of play.


On a more general note I think Mearls seems to be bringing in certain elements of strategic play but still doesn't get the whole picture. Strategic play should involve some concerns that go beyond a 24 hour cycle.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Strategic play should involve some concerns that go beyond a 24 hour cycle.

If you're referring to healing all of your HP from one night's sleep, I agree, but I think they might have optional healing rates/rules down the line.

I am very pleased with what I read, I have already begun converting 4th Ed monsters to 5th Ed (a lot of fun).

 

[Agamon]

I've seen what Mearls is talking about in the design thus far, and I'm happy that that's what the intent going forward is. Good stuff!

And it's far too early to sweat the details like healing and monsters and such. Lots of development to come!

 

[Doug McCrae]

Why do you continue to post when you're so obviously and blatantly against 5e.

I think [MENTION=83293]nnms[/MENTION] poses a very interesting question - How well does the 'rulings not rules' approach sit within a set of robust rules? - and I'm definitely not anti-5e.

What Mike describes is actually the way I ran 4e. I didn't use the detailed skill rules, just DCs for Easy, Medium and Difficult checks, writing the values for these on my session overview sheet. I was quite unfamiliar with the 4e rules, I like a very fast-paced game, and I'm pretty comfortable making on-the-spot rulings. I wasn't using formal skill challenges, as I feel they don't add anything.

I can see how, if play is heavily gamist, which 4e often is, the players may not like this approach, at least if the quick DC is higher than the DC in the rules. But, imo, 4e restricts its gamism to combat, leaving other aspects of the game fairly freeform, much like B/X, or OD&D, so I think it would work for most people.

Rulings not rules would not, imo sit easily with 3e as the rules set tries to be very thorough. It's totally the wrong set of rules, imho, for a freewheeling GM. That said, such a GM could get away with it, if the players are easy going and prepared to cede authority. It could end up working a lot like 4e - krunchy kombat, open non-combat. Or it could go further, with the system being 3e in name only, and in actuality being free kriegspiel - no rules at all.

Old schoolers would say that the rules of OD&D and 1e are robust, because they are easy to houserule without breaking. Some might say that's because those rules were a mess to begin with, and can't be made any more disordered than they already are. You can't knock down a castle that's already in ruins type of thing. But that would be a separate argument, I think.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I'm all for this approach, but I've always had 'good' GMs. However, absolutly nothing can ruin an RPG session/game more, or faster, than a GM who isn't 'on the same wavelength' as the players, or who is trying to 'win' at D&D. So I can see the concern. Good GM advice can help, but a poor match between players and GM can result in a Killer GM, no matter how good the advice is.

But its still early days yet, so we shall see.