D&D 5E Legends and Lore 6/23: System vs. Content in D&D Next

[VinylTap]

I would assume they'll be a lot more 'narrative driven' and less 'system focus'. They really haven't talked about this part of their business model at all. Is the monster's manual going to have all the info you'd need to run monsters from 'Basic' to '4th ed-esque module' ? There's a growing need for 'tight combat balance' the more complicated you get. On the other end of the spectrum you can probably run basic D&D similar to Dungeon World (especially if there's no grid) where you're just looking at damage output, special abilities and HP's and, just enough to drive to push the story-- having a strategic-driven game is less important as narrative becomes the focus, so combat balance is a little less important. But obviously the more options that get tacked onto combat, the more action options monster's will need, and that will drive up the need for balance as unbalanced strategy-drive encounters are pretty fruitless.

They could always reverse engineer it from the point of 'advanced' (or w.e you'd call it), but I assume that would difficult as 'advance' seems, logically, like the less polished part of the whole process.

 

[DMZ2112]

Ha! Well, there's your edition tagline, in the fifth paragraph:

"Dungeons & Dragons, Fifth Edition: Harming One Style of Play at the Expense of Another."

You can't make this stuff up.

 

[VinylTap]

Ha! Well, there's your edition tagline, in the fifth paragraph:

"Dungeons & Dragons, Fifth Edition: Harming One Style of Play at the Expense of Another."

You can't make this stuff up.

I think some people have had that narrative lodged in their brain since the beginning of all this... you certainly can make it up when its all you're looking for

 

[Nymrohd]

I think some people have had that narrative lodged in their brain since the beginning of all this... you certainly can make it up when its all you're looking for

All this? It's been like this from the first revision of the rules, only then there was no internet (well no real internet).

 

[DMZ2112]

I think some people have had that narrative lodged in their brain since the beginning of all this... you certainly can make it up when its all you're looking for

Perhaps, but I would hope that Mike is not one of those people!

 

[pemerton]

But they can't do that until the base mechanics are solid and refined otherwise they'll be previewing broken mechanics that modify other broken mechanics, which gives an unflattering first impression of the module.

Ad, if they release modules, people will use those rules modules.

I had assumed that the playtest packages already include elements of modules, the dials being preset this way or that way.

I also think it's not unreasonable to acknowledge the reality of the situation.

From my point of view, the "reality" of the situation is that the system - judging from the playtest - looks like it may have some trouble supporting the sort of play that I enjoy. And repeated assurances that it will change or develop in some way, without some examples of how that might look, aren't all that persuasive.

Also: [MENTION=6689464]KaiiLurker[/MENTION], what's broken about Academy/Scholarly wizards?

 

[MichaelSomething]

Ha! Well, there's your edition tagline, in the fifth paragraph:

"Dungeons & Dragons, Fifth Edition: Harming One Style of Play at the Expense of Another."

You can't make this stuff up.

I would rather that D&D be honest about the type of game it's going to be instead of lying to me in order to get me to buy it...

 

[Iosue]

I had assumed that the playtest packages already include elements of modules, the dials being preset this way or that way.

Yup, they have. The biggest example being chargen, wherein you could lay out all the options a la carte to pick and choose from, or collapse them all into a standard specialty/background. Up until the most recent packet (and in future packets, judging from Mearls' comments), healing was like this, as you could adjust how fast you wanted healing to go, and also adjust the mechanics there of. Skills are another example. Generally throughout the playtest they've been considered an extra module for use by players who want that granularity and customizability, but have not been their own resolution system.

One thing that's present but as yet undeveloped in the system for the end user is monster dials: the ability to adjust monster damage and HP to fit the playstyle you want, be that lethal, or more heroic. This was present in 4e, and I see no reason they won't include it in 5e as well.

From my point of view, the "reality" of the situation is that the system - judging from the playtest - looks like it may have some trouble supporting the sort of play that I enjoy. And repeated assurances that it will change or develop in some way, without some examples of how that might look, aren't all that persuasive.

I must admit, I was dismayed to see the short rest increased to 1-hour, as that definitely is a step away from the strict Encounter based structure of 4e, and I knew it would mean movement away from the kind of game you prefer. My hope was that this was something they wanted to specifically test out, and that in the completed game short rests will be back to 5-10 minutes, or provide the option for changing them to that.

 

[pemerton]

I was dismayed to see the short rest increased to 1-hour, as that definitely is a step away from the strict Encounter based structure of 4e, and I knew it would mean movement away from the kind of game you prefer. My hope was that this was something they wanted to specifically test out, and that in the completed game short rests will be back to 5-10 minutes, or provide the option for changing them to that.

In 4e you can change the extended rest time/pacing (@Neonchameleon does a lot of this) and it doesn't make a difference to the rest of the system - that's a nice flexibility (though the designers have never really trumpeted it, other than some gestures in the DMG2).

Could short rest time be treated as similarly flexible in Next?

Yup, they have. The biggest example being chargen, wherein you could lay out all the options a la carte to pick and choose from, or collapse them all into a standard specialty/background.

I was also thinking that some of the changes from package to package might also be changing switches/dials to see how different settings play. Is that right? Even plausible?

 

[DMZ2112]

I would rather that D&D be honest about the type of game it's going to be instead of lying to me in order to get me to buy it...

Aw, you guys are joyless. It was just a funny mistype.

Could short rest time be treated as similarly flexible in Next?

I'm sure you can; that's what D&D's all about. But I'm hoping that the game ships with a sensible discussion about short rest length, the reasons for it, and the gameplay differences between the options. Telling players and GMs "You can do whatever you want!" is not good game design. Rule 0 is not a /feature/; that was one of my biggest complaints about mumble mumble mumble.

For my part, I think an hour is a long time, but in light of what you do during a short rest I'm not sure if it is strictly unreasonable. It was silly to roll it out right before the dracolich game day adventure, because there's no way to model an hour of down time when you've got two or more groups interacting in real time. Not to mention that an hour is ample time to ruin an invader's day, once you know they're coming. A more cruel dungeon master than I could have made that adventure impossible to win after the first "short rest."

Ultimately, I don't think the clock duration of a short rest is really relevant. What's important is that it is long enough to do certain things and not long enough to do others. If we were really concerned about how much time is elapsing between encounters, each of those actions would have a time cost, and we would be tallying them up. The short/long rest system is itself a hand-wave, not intended to be simulationist in any way.

I was also thinking that some of the changes from package to package might also be changing switches/dials to see how different settings play. Is that right? Even plausible?

It has certainly been my impression, although things have been oscillating less dramatically lately.