D&D 5E Legends & Lore 03/24/2014

[variant]

You should see the uproar it's caused over on WotC's own forums. One person even referred to it as "retarded". To me, it's a total non-issue. Sigh ...

I am just never surprised with what's posted in that forum.

 

[Ichneumon]

You should see the uproar it's caused over on WotC's own forums. One person even referred to it as "retarded". To me, it's a total non-issue. Sigh ...

Unsurprisingly. Most people there are sensible, but the probability of someone on a crusade against nice things showing up in a thread is, well, high.

 

[pukunui]

I know, right? Some people ...

WotC: "We're making B the default and A the option, instead of the other way around like it's been in the past, but they'll both still be in the game, OK?"

Nerdragers: "Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!"

 

[variant]

Unsurprisingly. Most people there are sensible, but the probability of someone on a crusade against nice things showing up in a thread is, well, high.

They are disgruntled 4e players who regularly troll with anti-5e rhetoric. Anything 5e does is automatically bad to them.

 

[howandwhy99]

As you yourself have used game in storygame, I guess you can appreciate there is still lots of game to play where players can contribute to the story/world "on the spot".

Getting to tell the next story is the reward in a storygame. A game is played to receive that reward. When it's just a mechanic like rolling dice an activity requires players to be calculating odds for it to be a game, like Craps. No calculation, no deciphering whatsoever means no game is being played. Expressing isn't playing a game even if those expressions might follow a script known for being rules in a game.

Also, in D&D as a resource based game, I can see the the player has to aspire to expertly manage the resources of the character. However, in a roleplaying game isn't some competence assumed for the character? Does the player of a fighter need to say that the character has bought a whetstone to keep his sword sharp? Put his shoes on in the morning? Is having a bit of string or a pencil in you kit (though previously undeclared) that different? (I also concede immediately that dials for realism and starting competence do apply too).

Yes, character abilities, competences, are defined. Stats represent scores the character has, but not the system they reside within. Instead we learn their expression through play.
Yes, a Fighter has to sharpen his sword or it gets dull. At least in some games. Using whetstones can do that.
Yes, characters have clothes. Armor pieces down quite specifically and so can clothes. Basics are accounted for.
String is likely already on you. Just say where you're searching.
A pencil is different. Those aren't in standard D&D, but you could try making one.

Making stuff up to attempt isn't hard in D&D. Just try something you haven't before. But this isn't a collaborative storytelling venture. It's a game. Determining what's going on and what to do next to achieve an objective is central to it.

 

[Li Shenron]

Wouldn't the 21st century solution be to allow players to retrospectively declare what the character has when it's useful for the story? c.f. "Preparedness" in the GUMSHOE system.

It might work, but I don't think it's everybody's cup of tea.

 

[Bluenose]

It might work, but I don't think it's everybody's cup of tea.

Do you think keeping track of resources individually is everyone's cup of tea? Because I'm quite sure that I'm uninterested in keeping track of exactly how many days of iron rations I'm carrying when travelling in areas where it's easy to supply my character/the party, and that's just one example of things I consider both tedious and pointless to track.

 

[Li Shenron]

Do you think keeping track of resources individually is everyone's cup of tea? Because I'm quite sure that I'm uninterested in keeping track of exactly how many days of iron rations I'm carrying when travelling in areas where it's easy to supply my character/the party, and that's just one example of things I consider both tedious and pointless to track.

It's a related issue, but not the same.

In the majority of the games I've played, keeping track of ammunitions/rations was not our cup of tea, but at the same time "retrospectively" decide that you have a few caltrops or a telescopic pole or 50ft of rope in your backpack also was not our cup of tea. They are both related to planning ahead, but the first is focused on quantities while the second is focused on functions.

(Incidentally, I liked the Kender in the playtest packet as a possible exception to the idea, backed up with a narrative explanation)

 

[Bluenose]

It's a related issue, but not the same.

In the majority of the games I've played, keeping track of ammunitions/rations was not our cup of tea, but at the same time "retrospectively" decide that you have a few caltrops or a telescopic pole or 50ft of rope in your backpack also was not our cup of tea. They are both related to planning ahead, but the first is focused on quantities while the second is focused on functions.

(Incidentally, I liked the Kender in the playtest packet as a possible exception to the idea, backed up with a narrative explanation)

In games with a "Resources" skill, I'd regard it as not being that different from what the Kender does, with a similar sort of explanation. It's something that the player chooses to expend character build efforts on rather than on something else, so I'd treat it as reasonable for them to have some unexpected things regardless of whether they wrote them on their character sheet. Certainly with increasingly odd things being available at a higher difficulty, but still possible.

My narrative explanations include pack elephants.

 

[Li Shenron]

In games with a "Resources" skill, I'd regard it as not being that different from what the Kender does, with a similar sort of explanation. It's something that the player chooses to expend character build efforts on rather than on something else, so I'd treat it as reasonable for them to have some unexpected things regardless of whether they wrote them on their character sheet. Certainly with increasingly odd things being available at a higher difficulty, but still possible.

My narrative explanations include pack elephants.

IIRC the kender has a chance of having the right tool, not a guarantee. Still, it's at least a controversial ability, not everybody want to see that in play even for a single PC, thus making it generally available in the form of "preparedness" (even if it's just a chance) is indeed not everybody's cup of tea.

You can't really pretend there isn't any difference between:

a) characters with unlimited arrows or food rations
b) characters with (potentially) any inexpensive object that may exist

These are ideas that deliver very distinct 'feel' to the game.

GUMSHOE is a very different game than D&D. I have never played it, so correct me if I'm wrong! But AFAIK GUMSHOE is an investigative game, and not at all a resource-based game! IMHO they included the "preparedness" rules exactly because they don't want resources to have such an impact on the gameplay that it would be detrimental to the main point i.e. investigations. You can port the rule to D&D, but it doesn't really feel to me like it should be the default.