D&D 5E Legends and Lore October 22nd

[Manbearcat]

@pemerton

Evertything you've written above captures my thoughts. However, there is one issue whose resolution (to my knowledge) has not been fully canvassed by the devs. It very much interfaces with the above.

Are all of the various lobbies expected to play with the same monsters?

This is a big one for me. I believe the answer that the devs have given us is no. I'm not sure if you have the current playtest materials (I believe that you do). While nuanced with thematic features that are advanced beyond the initial iteration, I still find this bestiary quite lacking. I will need a bestiary with thematic and tactical depth that is in-line with 4th edition to be convinced to play this edition.

There are limited ways to do this given the infrastructure of the current bestiary. The best way that I see is to have clearly labeled 4e keyword powers/features siloed away in each monster listing. Taking advantage of these to provide more thematic/tactical depth would naturally require an adjusted encounter budget as each creature would be more potent in and of themselves and the synergy of a group of them would exacerbate things.

This would allow:

- thematic/tactical depth for each creature.
- coherent, synergistic thematic/tactical depth for intra-species combat.
- 4e combat playable from the beginning.

Similarly, they could silo away 4e AEDU power structure in each class and allow them to be playable from the beginning (which could match up with the new encounter formula).

However...

Then we have the difficulty of QCing not just one encounter formula (PC output vs hazard/monster output), but two. The 1st group that I outlined above generally (not the "generally" for anyone who reads this and takes offense) is less interested in encounter balance and, in some cases, it is actually averse to their interests (swinginess and intense strategic play diminishing the impacts of tactical play). Therefore, they may be less interested in encounter balance in the core. I'm uncertain because they seem to indicate they do have a vested interest of encounter balance in the core as every module must springboard/interface off of it.
So then, you have a core that must be tuned properly and subsquent modules (4e bestiary versus 4e PC builds). This isn't even touching about the necessity of a deeper action economy (presumably, again, by way of template?) for the 4e bestiary and PC builds. What if the designers feel that a deeper action economy isn't necessary? Is it feasible to produce the tactical depth of 4e without a deeper action economy? Possibly, but rather than having a general, explicated action economy (and the powers/abilities interfacing with that), the current core has random "extra-action" action economy buffs intrinsic to certain abilities. Messy, incoherent, annoying fiddliness is high in that design framework.

None of the above even touches the hazard/condition system and any non-combat pillar mechanical resolution systems...which presumably will not be built just for one style of modular play but also "core-capable".

As each playtest comes out and I more deeply consider all of the 2nd and 3rd order functions of these interchanges (each module with core and each module with the other modules), my spidey sense is tingling. It tells me that without a borderline titanic QC effort, the potential for gross entropy to manifest in the final product will be deep.

I wish it was as simple as "add more creatures" but there are so many wild-cards (and wild-cards within wild-cards) embedded within this future product.

 

[Ratskinner]

@pemerton

Evertything you've written above captures my thoughts. However, there is one issue whose resolution (to my knowledge) has not been fully canvassed by the devs. It very much interfaces with the above.

Are all of the various lobbies expected to play with the same monsters?

This is a big one for me. I believe the answer that the devs have given us is no. I'm not sure if you have the current playtest materials (I believe that you do). While nuanced with thematic features that are advanced beyond the initial iteration, I still find this bestiary quite lacking. I will need a bestiary with thematic and tactical depth that is in-line with 4th edition to be convinced to play this edition.

There are limited ways to do this given the infrastructure of the current bestiary. The best way that I see is to have clearly labeled 4e keyword powers/features siloed away in each monster listing. Taking advantage of these to provide more thematic/tactical depth would naturally require an adjusted encounter budget as each creature would be more potent in and of themselves and the synergy of a group of them would exacerbate things.

This brings to mind an old phrase: "Saves as a Fighter." I would expect/hope that for the sake of brevity that the vast myriad of "humanoids" have something like "Expands as a Soldier", so that a bunch of the tactical options are clear. I suspect that the more unique types (Casters, etc.) may come with their own ability schedules, but I figure most of their "uniqueness" would need to be in the "core" monster, anyway. Just putting a keyword in and having a "4e tactical" module as part of the...DMG? MM? would turn most of the trick. (I think.)

Of course, that's all from a strict mechanical perspective, and doesn't really imply anything about usability of any such system. Ease of DMing and speed of play are primary concerns for me. The less time spent "referencing" in play, the better.

Similarly, they could silo away 4e AEDU power structure in each class and allow them to be playable from the beginning (which could match up with the new encounter formula).

For better or worse....I'm pretty sure that explicit universal AEDU is gone. I see AEDU as primarily a less detailed and more "chunky" version of recharge mechanics from earlier editions. I'd expect to see that return, but I would be very surprised to see an "AEDU" module. I think "making every class the same" just left too much bad blood out there.

Then we have the difficulty of QCing not just one encounter formula (PC output vs hazard/monster output), but two. The 1st group that I outlined above generally (not the "generally" for anyone who reads this and takes offense) is less interested in encounter balance and, in some cases, it is actually averse to their interests (swinginess and intense strategic play diminishing the impacts of tactical play). Therefore, they may be less interested in encounter balance in the core. I'm uncertain because they seem to indicate they do have a vested interest of encounter balance in the core as every module must springboard/interface off of it.

Sorry to split you up, but I wanted to respond to this bit directly in hopes of clearing it up a bit. "Balanced" and "Swingy" are not opposites. "Swingy" indicates a high(er) variability or consequence in PC Success/Failure, not what the nominal rate of that Success is.That variability is a source of tension and excitement in earlier editions. "Balance" is more related to that rate of Success. When we talk about Encounter Balance, we refer to the predictability of that RoS through encounter design. (As opposed to LFQW-balance, where those RoS-es are wildly divergent for different classes.)

"Tactical play" on the other hand, does conflict directly to Variability ("Swingy-ness"), because rewarding "tactics" on the part of the player usually requires removing the impact of randomness, i.e. lowering Variability. In this type of play, RoS is nearly synonymous with "difficulty level". 4e addressed both at the same time (in reaction to 3e's issues), and you appear to be conflating them above.

err...I hope that helps. I could ramble on, it you'd like. I'm not the world's biggest Old-Schooler, but I play with some, and I've come to appreciate their perspective more recently.

So then, you have a core that must be tuned properly and subsquent modules (4e bestiary versus 4e PC builds). This isn't even touching about the necessity of a deeper action economy (presumably, again, by way of template?) for the 4e bestiary and PC builds. What if the designers feel that a deeper action economy isn't necessary? Is it feasible to produce the tactical depth of 4e without a deeper action economy? Possibly, but rather than having a general, explicated action economy (and the powers/abilities interfacing with that), the current core has random "extra-action" action economy buffs intrinsic to certain abilities. Messy, incoherent, annoying fiddliness is high in that design framework.

One important principle to remember...People don't know what they want. (Not just for D&D, in general.) I think its a vital reason why playtests are important. Until people have directly experienced something (in the consumer arena, anyway), they have very little chance of knowing whether they will like it or not. So when old or new schoolers approach 5e, they both can say "The game must have/avoid X or it just won't work/I won't like it" and be completely wrong. I've seen it with my own group, and even with myself.

Keep in mind, recreating a 4e-like tactical depth doesn't mean recreating 4e. I've been amazed at how some of the goofier indie games can produce certain feels while using mechanics totally foreign to those that spawned that feel. In particular, Old School Hack blew me away in this regard. To my thinking, at least in theory, a module which generates 4e-like tactical depth without actually using any specific 4e mechanics is possible. Whether WotC can develop such a module and whether that module can function without mutual trampling with a sacred herd are different questions.

Although the QC effort is still high, I would presume/hope that DMs would turn on the "intense tactics" modules for PCs and monsters at the same time (like maybe its in the "combat" section of the rules, rather than the classes). So, unlike the "companion critter" module, it shouldn't/wouldn't unbalance the monster/party dimension (assuming its balanced internally, anyway.)

<snippage>

I wish it was as simple as "add more creatures" but there are so many wild-cards (and wild-cards within wild-cards) embedded within this future product.

I'm of the suspicion that the "core/basic" version will actually not be acceptable to the majority of groups for their long-term campaigns. Rather it will function more like the old BECMI version as an easily accessible entry point, and also perhaps as a convention and adventure default. Therefore, a critical component to the success of the overall construct will be the intelligibility of the way modules "talk" to that core and amongst themselves.

So far, we haven't seen very much of what they are planning for that. (Honestly, we haven't seen very much of anything at that level of design.) Consequently, we don't know how that will inform any of their decisions when they go about developing an "advanced tactics" module or similar modules (or vice-versa).

 

[Manbearcat]

@Ratskinner

Great post. I can't add anything to it other than to say:

- If my words conflated swingy and balanced (which clearly they must have if they read that way to someone who isn't the author) then that was not my intent. My stupid posts are so absurldly long that sometimes (rarely) I'll attempt to cut corners for brevity. My take on balance and swinginess is exactly as you've outlined. Sorry for the confusion. Further, I'm a huge fan of Basic and 1e and I agree that the inherent intense variance of outcome definitely induces a level of tension (and a different game in the aggregate) that is hard to produce without it.

- I agree on AEDU. I don't see the unified class build structure of AEDU making a return. However, I suspect something that is a functional equivalent will be in its place.

- Also agree on tactical module not having to look like 4e. It just has to produce a tactical depth analog.

Anyhow, good post and sorry for the confusion of language in my post.

 

[Manbearcat]

"Balance" is more related to that rate of Success. When we talk about Encounter Balance, we refer to the predictability of that RoS through encounter design. (As opposed to LFQW-balance, where those RoS-es are wildly divergent for different classes.)

My earlier reply was a temporary moment of respite from work so not particularly thorough. I wanted to comment on this here so I could clarify.

When I speak of Encounter Balance (rather than PC balance), I'm referring to:

- Predictability of PC output (singularly and as an aggregate group with its respective synergy) versus challenge (monster or hazard) output (singularly or inclusive of the context of a greater or overlapping challenge). If I have a group whose level is n vs an encounter whose level is n (or n + 1, n + 3, n + 5), I would expect the output (resource expenditure/rate of success) to reflect stability over both a small and large sample set (lack of variance). I should be able to reliably compose challenges based on this "Balanced Encounter Formula" that consistently pan out as I have anticipated. With that balanced encounter formula, I can perturb the system up and down and consistently achieve the results I'm looking for (walkthrough encounters, standard encounters, Boss Fights, TPKs that should be worked around, strategically circumvented or walked away from) from both a tactical, difficulty, thematic, and climactic perspective.

Swinginess incorporates and presupposes:

- A less reliable (or non-existing) Encounter Formula
- Variables within the Challenge and PC Builds (and group synergies) that are either unbounded or extraordinarily loosely bounded such that they load an encounter with a high capacity for latent entropy that can be realized willfully or dynamically and unpredictably.
- Extra-Encounter Strategic power plays (or powerful PC resource schemes) used by the PCs as standard operating procedure to attempt to limit/bind/render obselete the unconstrained (SoD, SoS) potency of the Challenge they are facing.

 

[Ratskinner]

My earlier reply was a temporary moment of respite from work so not particularly thorough. I wanted to comment on this here so I could clarify.

When I speak of Encounter Balance (rather than PC balance), I'm referring to:

- Predictability of PC output (singularly and as an aggregate group with its respective synergy) versus challenge (monster or hazard) output (singularly or inclusive of the context of a greater or overlapping challenge). If I have a group whose level is n vs an encounter whose level is n (or n + 1, n + 3, n + 5), I would expect the output (resource expenditure/rate of success) to reflect stability over both a small and large sample set (lack of variance). I should be able to reliably compose challenges based on this "Balanced Encounter Formula" that consistently pan out as I have anticipated. With that balanced encounter formula, I can perturb the system up and down and consistently achieve the results I'm looking for (walkthrough encounters, standard encounters, Boss Fights, TPKs that should be worked around, strategically circumvented or walked away from) from both a tactical, difficulty, thematic, and climactic perspective.

No problem with any of that. I'll only note that what counts as "predictably" and "reliably" is a matter of taste. Otherwise, there'd be no reason for dice. I'll respond to your other points individually.

Swinginess incorporates and presupposes:

- A less reliable (or non-existing) Encounter Formula

Not necessarily (depending on what you consider "reliably"). For example, let's assume that we design a system where we expect a PC to output 3 units of "effect" and fights to take about 4 rounds. So we want a typical PC to output about 0.75 units/round on average. We can achieve that through either: (dice probabilities like this)

1. 3*0.25 (he can do it all in one round, but only has a 25% chance of pulling it off.)
2. 1 * 0.75
3. 1.5 * 0.5
4. 0.5 + 0.5*0.5 (a 50/50 shot of doing either 0.5 or 1.0)
5. 0.7 + 0.1*0.5
6. 0.75

In all those cases, you can reliably set up encounters with similar levels of difficulty, etc. Method 1, though, produces a much more variable i.e. swingy result (probably more swingy than any version of D&D, but some old-school SoD probably looks this way). By the time you get to Method 5, the dice hardly matter at all (probably much less than any version of D&D).


So which of those is fun? People (lots more than play D&D) enjoy slot-machines with odds that would be something like -400 on my scale.) Most strategy board games (chess, etc.) are like 6 or 7. Things work or not based on tactics, not dice. Simply put, its a matter of taste. Taste which is certainly affected dramatically by other concerns in an RPG, but taste nonetheless.



For my money, D&D has usually lived between 2 and 3 (sometimes depending on class). 4e took a leap towards 4 (in a lot of ways.) Which is fine, unless you liked it around 2. Personally, I did find 4e very easy to DM, and I liked some parts of it. However, I can certainly say that in my limited experience of it, the fights did have a sort of "samey" quality that my current group (playing a BECMI-ized CnC) doesn't experience.

- Variables within the Challenge and PC Builds (and group synergies) that are either unbounded or extraordinarily loosely bounded such that they load an encounter with a high capacity for latent entropy that can be realized willfully or dynamically and unpredictably.

Sure. Although, I would argue that there is no hard limit for what counts has "high capacity for latent entropy." Some prefer a lot more tension/unpredictability in their games.

- Extra-Encounter Strategic power plays (or powerful PC resource schemes) used by the PCs as standard operating procedure to attempt to limit/bind/render obselete the unconstrained (SoD, SoS) potency of the Challenge they are facing.

I would consider that Strategic Play, rather than Swingy play. There's still nothing that would prevent the post-shenanigan fights from being very 4e-like. Additionally, I would expect 4e GMs to allow out of combat skill challenges to affect the outcomes/difficulty of subsequent combat encounters. I mean, isn't the traditional skill challenge example "lobbying the Duke for help against the badguys?" Of what use is that if the Duke's help is irrelevant? Should a 4e GM not allow his players to setup a sophisticated ambush (or some other strategic shenanigans) using a skill challenge? If he does, should he then ensure that they experience no perceivable strategic advantage when the actual fight occurs, just to maintain the numbers? That's a much more limited 4e than most proponents extoll isn't it?

 

[Ratskinner]

@Ratskinner
- If my words conflated swingy and balanced (which clearly they must have if they read that way to someone who isn't the author) then that was not my intent. My stupid posts are so absurldly long that sometimes (rarely) I'll attempt to cut corners for brevity.

Its okay, we've all been there.

Okay, at least I've been there.

I've probably rambled unnecessarily in the post above this one.

 

[Manbearcat]

No problem with any of that. I'll only note that what counts as "predictably" and "reliably" is a matter of taste. Otherwise, there'd be no reason for dice. I'll respond to your other points individually.

If I'm reading you right, I don't think I agree with this here. "Predictable" and "reliable reproducibility" can be ascertained with a measure of objectivity. Now whether or not predictability or reliable reproduction is a "good thing" for a particular playstyle preference is definitely a values judgement and, as such, will be laden with subjectivity. I'm certainly not making any value judgements on playstyle. I'm just saying that a system with a tightly QCed encounter formula (with intra-PC balance and PC:challenge balance) will produce reliable (not perfect) results. Moreover, those reliable results are key to a specific playstyle. But I'm sure this is not controversial. Different mechanical resolutions and the different aims that underpin them aid/produce different playstyles. Pretty straight forward.

<snip proxy math for PC resource schemes>

For my money, D&D has usually lived between 2 and 3 (sometimes depending on class). 4e took a leap towards 4 (in a lot of ways.) Which is fine, unless you liked it around 2. Personally, I did find 4e very easy to DM, and I liked some parts of it. However, I can certainly say that in my limited experience of it, the fights did have a sort of "samey" quality that my current group (playing a BECMI-ized CnC) doesn't experience.

I don't disagree with you here overall. I was generally talking about the encounter formula. With that I was excluding the potential for swinginess (of consequence) within the various classes resource schemes (which, of course, unified PC build mechanics specifically addresses) as I was presupposing that said swinginess was mitigated or minimized (as is done in the aforementioned PC build framework in 4e).

However, I do disagree with the "samey" quality assessment, which I'm sure is of no surprise I've found that my ability to reliably build encounters that produce to my meta-gamed expectations liberates me extraordinarily to create more dynamic and varying encounters than in any edition before (this coupled with the various tools - condition track, swarm rules, rich action economy, immediate actions, PC resource schemes allowing their own sustainability, extreme mobility built into the system). Reliability doesn't mean that I can't intentionally create TPKs or walkthroughs. In fact, it means that I have more confidence than ever that what I'm intending to create will manifest as such. My PCs aren't privy to my meta-gaming. They don't have the luxury of expectation of n level or n + 3 level encounters (nor can they reliably predict them by way of some meta-gamed inference...at least not anymore than in the past).

Sure. Although, I would argue that there is no hard limit for what counts has "high capacity for latent entropy." Some prefer a lot more tension/unpredictability in their games.

Yup. Some groups certainly feel that way and for them, hard-coding out latent entropy (and its accompanying capacity for swinginess) would be a bug...not a feature. You'll get no argument here.

I would consider that Strategic Play, rather than Swingy play. There's still nothing that would prevent the post-shenanigan fights from being very 4e-like. Additionally, I would expect 4e GMs to allow out of combat skill challenges to affect the outcomes/difficulty of subsequent combat encounters. I mean, isn't the traditional skill challenge example "lobbying the Duke for help against the badguys?" Of what use is that if the Duke's help is irrelevant? Should a 4e GM not allow his players to setup a sophisticated ambush (or some other strategic shenanigans) using a skill challenge? If he does, should he then ensure that they experience no perceivable strategic advantage when the actual fight occurs, just to maintain the numbers? That's a much more limited 4e than most proponents extoll isn't it?

Couple things that I need to address here:

1) My determination of swinginess that I find anathema to my DMing style (and my group's playstyle preference for long-term, thematic campaigns) is when (i) PC resource schemes (Scry, Buff, Teleport, Kill) or (ii) Group Strategic Powerplays that become SOP (flying thieves with ropes tied to them, 10 ' poles, decanters of endless water flooding dungeons, etc) or (iii) absurd SoD or SoS effects narrow the scope of play by regularly circumventing, or drowning out by its load-bearing capacity, mechanical resolution of conflicts or by making climactic plot points utterly anti-climactic. Neither of those are fun for us anymore given our preferences.

2) I'm all for working towards and leveraging strategic advantage. My PCs have always worked toward this and always will. I just don't want that strategic advantage (nor do they) to drown out the relevance of tactical play. Advantage. Yes. Drown out or absolute circumvention. No. Specifically, in many cases I make it implicit that the odds against them are overwhelming and their only opportunity at victory (or even survival) is pulling out all the stops toward strategic advantage. 4e has helped me adjudicate this quite well (in terms of what this strategic advantage weighs in encounter budget adjudication). The other day (I can't recall what thread it was in), I outlined a Skill Challenge that I devised whereby my PCs were defending a frontier town that was about to be overwhelmed by a barbarian horde (of which I used swarm rules for the mass combat) and they had to set up (and activate in the impending conflict) Hazards and Limited Use Terrain/Effects. If they passed the Skill Challenge, they gained the use of these and provided a morale buff for the the few available town defenders (which was passed onto the PCs when they died for their cause). In short, I'm all for it and I find that 4e helps me be more precise than ever before in leveraging it. And that liberates me (from any temptation toward DM force) and makes me happy!

 

[Manbearcat]

Its okay, we've all been there.

Okay, at least I've been there.

I've probably rambled unnecessarily in the post above this one.

Nah, I don't think so. Maybe a little bit astray of a few of the things I was aiming toward but what you wrote clarified your position on certain things, nonetheless. Its only useless if we're talking past each other or paying no attention to the words the other person writes due to an overeagerness to illuminate our own points BECAUSE HEY I HAVE IMPORTANT THINGS TO SAY, OK . That certainly wasn't happening. I get you.

 

[pemerton]

I've found that my ability to reliably build encounters that produce to my meta-gamed expectations liberates me extraordinarily to create more dynamic and varying encounters than in any edition before (this coupled with the various tools - condition track, swarm rules, rich action economy, immediate actions, PC resource schemes allowing their own sustainability, extreme mobility built into the system).

This is what I was trying to get at upthread (or maybe on another thread? I was replying to VinylTap) when I said that, so far from being limited, 4e has a degree of encounter-building power that I've not seen matched by many other (any other?) fantasy RPG.

I fear that D&Dnext may lack some of that power.

I would expect 4e GMs to allow out of combat skill challenges to affect the outcomes/difficulty of subsequent combat encounters. I mean, isn't the traditional skill challenge example "lobbying the Duke for help against the badguys?" Of what use is that if the Duke's help is irrelevant? Should a 4e GM not allow his players to setup a sophisticated ambush (or some other strategic shenanigans) using a skill challenge? If he does, should he then ensure that they experience no perceivable strategic advantage when the actual fight occurs, just to maintain the numbers?

This is a very interesting question.

If you look at the pass/fail cycle in HeroQuest revised, the more continuous successes, the higher the DCs become - until, after a failure, they are reset. This is intended to generate a narratively satisfying tension/release cycle.

Letting successful skill challenges make an encounter easier is, as you say, often put forward (buy the books, by posters, etc) as standard GMing procedure, but it seems contrary to the pass/fail cycle: ie your reward for building up the tension of success pile upon success is to have the situation become less tense, and hence less exciting. That doesn't seem like much of a reward.

My preference, therefore - although given that I'm using 4e and not HeroQuest revised my implementation is a little hit and miss, and very much intuition rather than science - is for success on the prior skill challenge to open up higher stakes on the final confrontation, rather than to make it easier to succeed at a given challenge.

In the Duke example, therefore, success with the Duke should make it possible to confront the border raiders (because now you have man-at-arms to help you), whereas if negotiations with the Duke fail, the ensuing scene that is framed should be something less high stakes. (If the players decide to go off and confront the border raiders without assistance that's fine, but on the approach I'm describing here the GM would have to frame some intervening challenge first, to give the players the chance to build back up to such a high-stakes confrontation.)

In the barbarian horder example, success permits the PCs to confront the horde - high stakes! Whereas failure should lead to a different scene being framed - the horde is overrunning the town with no one able to stop it, but the PCs can help evacuate some refugees or rescue the relics from the temple or whatever lower stakes conflict it makes sense to frame.

I don't know if the above makes much sense, but it is my attempt to outline a GMing approach that takes Robin Laws on the pass/fail cycle seriously.

 

[Manbearcat]

@pemerton

Yup, absolutely. In the Barbarian Horde vs Frontier Town arc of my game that is exactly how I set it up. It was overwhelming odds. It was a test of their heroic mettle (not their resource scheme mettle). I set it up to be a litmus test for "who they were" and how they were going to approach problems. I had 3 Skill Challenges devised (they may have tried each of them or some of them depending on approach/success/failure...they automatically went the first route...which surprised me...I expected "Retreate is the Better Part of Valor"):

- "A Team". Stand their ground against overwhelming odds and defend those who cannot defend themselves (innocents they had no ties to) by strategically turning the settlement into a meatgrinder and inspiring/rallying the settlers.

- "Retreat is the Better Part of Valor" - Convince the High Huntsman to give up their generational, carved by their parent's parents settlement. Distract the Horde and create a hole in their lines enough to get the settlers into the forest and disperse.

- "Cut and Run" - Forget the settlers and their beloved settlement. Find their own way out of the settlement and through the lines of the horde surrounding the settlement.

Going with 1, and being successful at it, completely changed the theme and scope of our game.