Legends & Lore 16 Jan 2012

[Incenjucar]

While I'm not discounting the value of bonding those players who do use them, plenty of people never touch them, especially since so many adventures are just dungeon crawls of one sort or another. They can certainly form a good baseline to get ideas from, but adventures tend to force a party to go on-rails, and don't leave room for wildly divergent or shifting goals. This may be part of why WotC didn't find it a profitable enterprise.

 

[grimslade]

I think it was a conscious choice by WotC. They have said about their current philosophy that "you [the players] are the story". Right or wrong, they're trusting us to figure out how to spin the rules into a fun adventure.

You may be right. I believe you are, but the option/module stacking has opportunities that can be explored. What if you had an adventure that also included adventure specific options? Not just class powers, but underwater combat rules, or skill challenge rituals? You can have iconic modules that also have crunch for more sales that Hasbro wants.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'll give credit where due, though: WotC are shootin' for the stars on this one.

I agree - it sounds as if they are setting themselves a *really* high bar here.

 

[Greg K]

I
My next question is how this pans out for the DM. Say I want a simple game as DM, but I have two players who want complexity. I wonder how those competing desires will be merged? It seems as DM I would have to be ready to support resolutions to some of the more complex characters tactics during combat encounters or possibly even skill challenges.

You are the DM. You tell them this is how I am going to run the game. They can choose to play or not play. If nobody wants to play, you need to decide if you want to run their style, find players that want your style, or just forget about running and do something else.

 

[Mercurius]

[MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] - good stuff, I think you're on the right track with the caveat, which you are fully cognizant of, that details may vary.

Some people are suggesting that D&D Next will basically allow them to "port" older edition characters alongside newer ones, or run 1st Edition modules out-of-the-box. I don't think that's what's intended. When they talk about "taking the best bits from each edition", they don't specifically mean rules: it's more about play styles:

Exactly. This continues to be misunderstood time and time again, what I would call a case of "mistaken concretism."

I think if people get hung up on the specific rules preferences like that, 5e is not for you. I don't think 5e is going to let you show up with your old 1e or 3e PHB and start playing.

I think there are going to be options reminiscent of various editions, but if you as a fan aren't willing to compromise for the sake of playing with the wider community, you're better off playing with your current edition.

5e is for people who haven't found their ideal edition yet, but like elements from all of them.

Well said. As I've said elsewhere, 5E is mainly going to be disappointing to folks who want it to be update of their edition of choice and/or aren't willing to see the "spirit" of the game vs. the "letter."

My only real concerns are twofold:

1. As a DM of this unity edition am I going to have a harder time with rules adjudication if all of my players are essentially using very different character options.

2. My second concern is on varying playstyles at the same table. To me it seems like some of the barriers between fans of different editions seem to strongly orbit around playstyle. If you have players who think that wuxia, space flying, half-hamster, teleporting, shard minds are silly. Will they be cool with playing at a game with one at the table, even if they get to play their fighting man?

I think the answer is pretty simple, if the culture supports the role of DM as not only the facilitator of entertainment but, in a sense, the leader of the group. Just as DMs should never have to bring beer or snacks, a DM should be supported in what they want to run.

In the same sense that the DM should be able to say "We're using these modular options, but not these ones" and not have whiny players. Now if a player says "But I really want to play X, and here's why," a DM should at least listen to it and try to accommodate the player. But considering the massive time and money investment of the DM vs. the players, this sort of thing should ultimately be up to the DM.

In other words, as DM you decide which options are allowable. If you don't want to deal with various configurations, don't.

Obviously a DM should take into account the desires of his players; the opposite of overly entitled players are railroading DMs that are legends in their own mind and DM just to entertain and impress themselves. Both extremes are a problem and some balance is a good thing, but I think in general there should be more respect towards the DM than what I hear about from many game groups, and less entitlement from players.

5 pages, and not one comment on the part that I thought talked most about what needs to change.....

that the game is about our shared stories and experiences, and WotC basically abandoned writing great adventures that we all share. They'll also need to figure out a way to do that again, and not just write elegant rules.

Yup, well said. In some ways the hardest book to write of any edition is the DMG, which is often the most criticized by fans. The 1E DMG is a classic for more than just memory's sake; sure, most of us who started with AD&D remember spending hours reading through the Gygaxian Arcana, but it isn't only nostalgia that makes this a classic, but because it is a terrific resource. I'd love to see the DMG return to the format of being a resource, something that can be used in the game session itself. Paizo's GameMastery Guide is a nice reference point, as is The Ultimate Toolbox, at least to some degree.

Sure but I think the original concern was: what do you do when the DM and players all want to use different modules? A lot of people say 'the gaming group should decide' as if each group was a hivemind and the major divisions are between my group and your group, which maybe true but I think that the real problematic differences are those within groups. That's part of the social contract I was referring to.

See my response above to malkav666. This is a problem of culture. The weight of decision making should be given to the DM. Ideally a DM is flexible, but if a DM really wants to run a certain adventure and no one else is willing to DM, then the players should respect that wish.

Reading the new column makes me wary. What Monte is suggesting sound good in principle, but it is going to be very, very hard to implement in a way that unites D&D fans under the same game banner.

What happens if a gaming group wants to use the core (simplified) classes with only a few of the options presented for the advanced (complicated) classes?

Is it one or the other? What if I want a little complexity without having to go deep into the ruleset?

I guess what I'm wondering is how simple will the core classes be compared to the advanced classes?

Refer back to the term "complexity dial" which implies multiple settings. I think we'll see a basic core and then maybe a default "Advanced" game which is also an example of how you can configure modular options.

I agree - it sounds as if they are setting themselves a *really* high bar here.

Yes, but why not? Furthermore, I think they have to, that this is a do or die situation for D&D to some extent.

 

[thedmstrikes]

I would like to thank Mercurius for beating me to the punch with his reply. While not my words the sentiment is essentially the same. Malkav666 also hit the nail on the head. There will be a ruleset of some type and that is the basis from which I will be adjuticating multiple build styles of players under the concept of the new edition. A trully daunting task when I think on it. At least in the beginning of each group I become part of. I say this because I move alot due to work and find myself with a new group after a year or so. I am in wait and see mode for what tidbits the new powers at WOTC will eventually release for our side of the screen.

In other news, I would like for the designers to publish their new modules that include the "splat book" upgrades for bad guys with the newer adventure modules published during the same time frames. Not a focus on one or two new things but a rollup of the newer material that could be applied to the adventure. Obviously not every new rule needs to be in each new adventure, but if the shoe fits, why not use it? I say this because the PCs will be making use of the newer material and I have discovered that it puts the "older" style of bad guys at a disadvantage, and thus, less of a challenge than they could be. Now I know some of you out there think it is a simple thing to make the updates yourselves, but the point of view I am expressing is that I am spending money on this new adventure module, so why not give it the bells and whistles and let me dumb it down if I need to. That is certainly an easier task for me than constantly checking the multitude of books to build them up. Consider that many of the original fan base are family people and in many cases are introducing the new blood from their own prodgeny, and in some now, their grandchildren. Designers know the information better than us, the consumers. So, let us dumb it down when necessary and give us the advanced version to start with. I am starting to ramble about htis, so I will let it go...

 

[El Mahdi]

2. Not all players have to have equally complex characters and they are designing for allowing a player at a table with a minimal 1st/2nd ed character playing next to one with a 3rd or 4th ed style character with all sorts of feats, skills and special abilities.

I like it but I'm really not sure how it's possible. I mean, from a player perspective I can see this, but how does this work for the DM? Is the DM essentially running a game in multiple rules systems? I'll be very intrigued to see how they address this. They definitely have my curiosity peaked...

(posted before I read Mercurious's post)

 

[TwoSix]

When it comes to balance, how does the Basic Fighter make up for not having stances and weapon specializations (and other options)?

If the Basic Fighter has built in choices which grant the same end result, how do you present the Expert Level option in a way which doesn't seem like more work for no benefit?

If there's a desirable end number which allows a fighter to fulfill his role, I would somewhat assume that giving someone choices which take away from that end number in would have great potential to be trap choices.

I would say you do that by giving the basic characters core competencies that get a bonus of +X, while the expert characters can specialize in a few areas and get bonuses of maybe +1.5X to +2X, but they also lack core competencies.

The heart of the oldest systems grant player permission to take actions via DM adjudication.

"Can I try to knock the sword out of the orc's hand?"
"Sure, you're a fighter with a sword, roll an attack."

The newer system grant those abilities via explicit character mechanics, that usually come as a trade-off between several other choices. Disarming enemies is something you become good at by buying feats, but since you didn't also purchase the sunder feat, the DM feels justified (compelled?) to not also allow the fighter to break the orc's weapon.

So the expert fighters will have certain tricks that they've purchased via character resources, and their utility will normally not require a DM call. Basic fighters will just be fighters, and can try anything that would make sense for a fighter, but will never have the bonus the expert will at the expert's chosen tactics.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So the expert fighters will have certain tricks that they've purchased via character resources, and their utility will normally not require a DM call. Basic fighters will just be fighters, and can try anything that would make sense for a fighter, but will never have the bonus the expert will at the expert's chosen tactics.

For the subset of gamers that wanted a more formal system, you could even embed that logic into a new version of 4E's page 42, via stunts. You have a handful of different stunting numbers based on whether a character is a generalists or a specialist. OK, you are a generalist, you get to use the "moderate" column for all stunts. But if you are an expert (via more complex character generation), then you use the "expert" column for the relevant stunts, and the "novice" column for everything else. (Or perhaps you get some variation by class.)

So now the basic fighter can try disarm, sunder, bull-rush, etc. with decent but nothing spectacular chances. Meanwhile, the expert can disarm a lot, and when the stars align, try the sunder, despite the normally low probability.

 

[TwoSix]

For the subset of gamers that wanted a more formal system, you could even embed that logic into a new version of 4E's page 42, via stunts. You have a handful of different stunting numbers based on whether a character is a generalists or a specialist. OK, you are a generalist, you get to use the "moderate" column for all stunts. But if you are an expert (via more complex character generation), then you use the "expert" column for the relevant stunts, and the "novice" column for everything else. (Or perhaps you get some variation by class.)

So now the basic fighter can try disarm, sunder, bull-rush, etc. with decent but nothing spectacular chances. Meanwhile, the expert can disarm a lot, and when the stars align, try the sunder, despite the normally low probability.

Oh, absolutely. I expect the DMG (if there's a DMG, of course!) will have tables to give guidance to DMs on how to adjudicate for players with more "basic" characters.

I'd expect several different layers of modularity for each of the main systems. The skill system could be driven purely by class (Thieves can do X, and Fighters can do Y), to some kind of background system (I'm a fighter, but I'm from a desert, and worked as a caravan guard), to training in chosen skills, to skill points.