D&D 5E Legends & Lore 4/1/2013

[VinylTap]

But no one plays these games in the extremes that people are suggesting. Its so academic at that point.

Both sides obviously have some of each (structure and free-form), there's just different amounts of it. A boring DM will play a prefab to the letter, but who wants to play that? Some people for sure, but this game is not going in the direction of "pure dungeon crawls" and is all the better (in any perspective?) for it.

Its like saying you don't need a ref in Football, because there rules are right there. You can't replace a ref with a robot, no more than a 4th ed DM has zero control over his game. And the narrative component to D&D slants the argument in favor of a DM even more so, a lot of it is in the telling, and the way the info is presented to the players.

 

[Imaro]

The fact that, in 4e, there is guidance as to what DC is appropriate for what level of encounter helps.

But it's still up to the DM to set that DC, and if he/she doesn't want it done the DC can be set high enough to make it impossible

 

[pemerton]

Maybe you've heard horror stories of swaths of death in 1E AD&D

Heard it? I lived it - although with Modlvay Basic more than AD&D.

Also, getting involved in real action doesn't require combat! A murder-mystery scenario surrounding the lost elf in Mearls' example can be just as engaging and action-packed without resorting to combat

Perhaps. But do we then get this weird change of tone when you graduate from "beginner" to "seasoned" and it's less murder mystery and more White Plume Mountain (which will strip the hit points of anyone)?

That said, I can see that what you say can be true, but I don't feel it responds to my basic point. I'll have one more go, but completely understand if you think it's a waste of your time to reply - from your point of view I'm sure I'm the one whose missing the point!

For me, the basic issue is this:

Newbies need low complexity PCs compared to seasoned players. I think this is not in dispute.

But there is nothing about being a newbie which makes it desirable for them to play PCs who are less robust than those of seasoned players. Or to play throught scenarios that are less engaging, or full of fantasy tropes like undead and goblins and dragons erring-do, than seasoned players.

Under Mearls' original plan, of allowing PCs to be at the same level but of different complexity, it was completely viable to satisfy the need for low complexity without that having any impact on the robustness of the newbie's PC, or the sorts of adventures the newbie could participate in. At least for me, this seemed like a clever design approach.

But now, Mearls seems to be saying "If you want the simple PC experience, you also have to have the less robust PC experience, and only a limited range of scenarios will be viable, which may not include the full range of fantasy tropes."

This strikes me as a strictly backwards step - from an innovative solution to a well-known problem that would be maximially inclusive, to a recycled solution that has some known issues for at least some of the player base, and is less than maximal in the range of play it permits.

As best I can tell, the cause of the backward step is that Apprentice levels have been created to deliver a sort of OSR-ish experience plus solve the multi-classing problem, and then someone's decided to retrofit them as a newbie solution as well. At least to me, it smacks of a solution looking for a wider range of problems than it started with, so as to better entrench its place in the design. Now that's clearly not irrational - if you've got to have these Apprentice levels in your game to handle some other issue anway, you may as well get them doing as much work as possible. For the reasons I've given, though, I think that as far as the newbie thing is concerned this is a strictly backwards step from earlier approaches that they talked about, and I think that's a pity.

 

[Balesir]

But it's still up to the DM to set that DC, and if he/she doesn't want it done the DC can be set high enough to make it impossible

Sure - and you can have monsters way too powerful to fight looking to kill the PCs, too, but all that requires that you deliberately decide to do such things - to "be a jerk" as KM was putting it.

What I'm talking about does not (generally) involve the GM deliberately deciding to nerf the PCs in a specific way; it's about the rule system mandating that the player (as opposed to the GM) has no power to decide anything without the GM's acquiescence. If all a player is doing is saying "my guy tries to do such-and-such" without any definite knowledge of how reasonable or likely to succeed that is, I'm wondering why they are spending the time. If, every time a character tries to do something, I have to make a judgement call as GM, I'm spending my time running the game poorly, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[pemerton]

Why have a DM at all? Why not just play a video game? Fudging behind the screen is the /soul/ of the game, at any level, and I believe with /great/ fervor that anyone who does not understand that is not playing /any/ edition of D&D.

I guess that's your prerogative.

I haven't played a videogame for about 30 years, so I don't know much about them. I've got strong views on what a GM's role is in an RPG - they're set out in some detail on the current "Suprising the DM" thread. Short version: it's pretty important, but has nothing to do with fudging outcomes - for me, the GM's role is about framing, not resolving.

I think he's trying to point out the absurdity in trying to outline the differences between the two systems

OK. But aren't you the poster who said 4e i a miniatures game rather than a RPG (though it can be played in the vein of one) and who then asked people to explain what they mean by "4e feel"?

If I'm getting my posters confused, my apologies.

 

[Obryn]

Under Mearls' original plan, of allowing PCs to be at the same level but of different complexity, it was completely viable to satisfy the need for low complexity without that having any impact on the robustness of the newbie's PC, or the sorts of adventures the newbie could participate in. At least for me, this seemed like a clever design approach.

But now, Mearls seems to be saying "If you want the simple PC experience, you also have to have the less robust PC experience, and only a limited range of scenarios will be viable, which may not include the full range of fantasy tropes."

Good summary. This is my concern, too. (And I think it's something that the Essentials line handled very well in 4e, to the edition's great benefit.)

I'm still not convinced this is what he actually meant, though. I think people who want 1st level to be a meatgrinder are interpreting it this way, because it meets their desires well.

However, I don't see any actual indication that New1st level PCs will be substantially less survivable than Old1st level PCs are. Just simpler, and naturally a bit less capable as a result. (Really - bounded accuracy. The numbers are probably mostly the same; it's the flexibility and complexity that will probably be lacking.) I think a "gritty/oldschool" setup requires a whole set of rules modules to accommodate it, not just a few low-power levels at a class's lead-off.

-O

 

[pemerton]

But no one plays these games in the extremes that people are suggesting. Its so academic at that point.

I don't actually agree with this. To see why, pop over to the "surprising the GM" thread.

On that thread, another poster and I are setting out criteria for good GMing (ie GMing we enjoy, both as players and GMs) which to us are as clear as day. Yet other posters not only can't understand our criteria, they are coming close to (if not outright) telling us that our criteria don't really exist, and can't be effectively applied to run a game.

Meanwhile that other poster and I are happily running our games by our criteria, and having no trouble at all interpreting the logic of on another's posts.

So I think there are some big gulfs in playstyle. And I think it's better for the game - especially if it's meant to be the "umbrella edition", covering everyone - if we're clear about this from the outset, and look at how the game might work to provide maximum coverage, rather than if we proceed on the assumption that we're all pretty much doing the same thing and so she'll be right mate.

Concrete example: I think the idea of stat checks with skills as (almost) free descriptors is the single best mechanical idea to appear so far in D&Dnext.

But the rules, to date, emphasise that it is up to the GM to regulate which stat is used; whereas I think the rules could mention a range of approaches, from GM authority to group consensus (single player authority perhaps has its own problems because of the player's conflict of interest). For me, for instance, if a player is engaged enough in the game to find ways to frame every situation so his/her dump stat never comes into play, I say "Excellent. I want more of those players, please!" But other groups would feel that that's tantamount to cheating, or obnoxious metagaming by the player, or something similar.

So the rules should acknowledge this, and spell out the different approaches and the sorts of play experiences they can lead to. Which would also require the designers to acknowledge, for instance, that the sort of GM judgement involved in adjudicating a stat check is completely different from the sort of GM judgement involved in managing the pacing of a Vancian-based game. For me, one sort of judgement - the first - can be part of a good game if handled in the right way, but the other - GM management of Vancian pacing - is just toxic.

And hence other sorts of options, for a wider range of preferences, would be workd out.

That would be an inclusive edition.

 

[I'm A Banana]

And for at least some of that time I've been pointing out that you're ignoring the crucial role of keywords. From time to time others (eg [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION]) have made a similar point.

I don't think your 'keywords!' point is very persuasive, because the keywords don't necessarily have any relation to the story, either. They're pure rules elements.

Do you realise that what you are desribing here is about 180 degrees opposed to what I, and I think [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION], and perhaps also (in this thread) [MENTION=98255]Nemesis Destiny[/MENTION] and [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] and maybe Obryn, among others, are looking for from their RPG play?

I don't want to hear the GM narrate a story. As GM I don't want to narrate a story. I want rules that will permit multiple contributions to be combined into a single shared story without any single person having sole author or veto rights.

I'd love to address the heart of your point, but I'm afraid the strawman of "if it's not the way I want, it's the GM narrating a story!" has obscured my field of view.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If using non-natural meanings was somehow mandatory, maybe, but we're talking about where that is actually a (non-default) option. The only rule is that the powers do what they say they do in system terms. How they do it is up to the players to decide, but the default would be a naturalistic explanation based on the keywords (where given - not everything needs one).

If what the powers do doesn't have a tight relationship to what the characters are doing, it's a problem.

But, if everyone in the game wants a wierd world with laprechauns causing every event, why not?

I dunno, I think pemerton is saying I'm doing it wrong because keywords?

No, everything relying on GM ruling is, for me, a problem. If I want the session to be everyone listening - even while kibitzing - while someone tells a story I'll turn on Listen With Mother. For a roleplaying game, as far as I'm concerned, either everyone gets an active say in what's happening or it's a waste of time.

This ain't about GMs ruling on everything. It's about each table determining the corner cases for themselves. GMs may make the call in the moment, or they may establish a rule up front for their own games, but the rules don't tell you that you have to do X or Y. The rules don't need to tell you that. The rules can be cool either way.

 

[pemerton]

the keywords don't necessarily have any relation to the story, either. They're pure rules elements.

Are you seriously asserting, as a claim about 4e design and expected play, that there is no connection between the story element "I have a sword that can burst into flames" and the rules statement "My sword turns all my untyped weapon damage into fire damage"? So it's sheer coincidence that the designers never released a magic item with an item called "Flaming sword" that delivers acid damage?

And the fact that poison debuffs, cold slows, thuner pushes or deafens, etc - that's all just arbitrary and coincidental too?

I find it hard to believe that's what you mean, but I'm having trouble giving any other meaning to your statement.

I'd love to address the heart of your point, but I'm afraid the strawman of "if it's not the way I want, it's the GM narrating a story!" has obscured my field of view.

I'm interested in why it's a strawman.

And I'm puzzled by your apparent reluctance to allow that there might be a range of views about the role of a GM in an RPG, and that people who have a different view from yours aren't necessarily doing and wrong and just in need of greater relaxation.