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

[Obryn]

Wow, [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION], this is how your 4e games went? None of that resembles anything at my table.

-O

 

[Remathilis]

[MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] - Narrative Control != "Ignore sense and the GM"; in FATE, narrative control is the entirety of the game, and it clearly works there. It has absolutely nothing to do with player entitlement.

EDIT: To expand, narrative control of this sort is a clear way to avoid needing crunch bloat. Want to do something that would make sense for your character, but don't have a rule for it? Find something your character does have access to that's reasonably close, refluff, and run.

It might work well in Fate. Ive played dozens of classless, dice pool rpgs but I don't advocate using them for D&D either.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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)?

What you label 'weird' I label 'progression of talent.' The newbie adventurers tackle problems they can handle while "in training." Then they move onto White Plume Mountain.

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

IME I disagree with this premise, but I understand it is an issue for many. I've hand many a newb jump into more complex characters from day one and 'get it' including my then 10-year-old son. It depends upon both the teacher(s) (other players and/or DM) and the one learning.

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.

They'll get to those. And rather quickly if you follow the suggested advancement rates. With foreshadowing you can build anticipation for just such things. [Real in-game example] You can even have the dangerous dragon of the fens make an appearance, with wiser NPC mentors telling the apprentices to flee for their lives. In the aftermath of the dragon's attack, the mentor and encampment are destroyed, building even more anticipation for working their way up to challenging the dragon. [/Real in-game example] I think even the crpg newbs understand that you start with blue oozes before going after Ganon.

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.

And yet I think a solution that adds versatility for OSR fans, helps fix front loading of classes for multiclassing, and allows those who decide to start at third to begin the game as a multiclass character worth the downsides you see.

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.)

It also created over-powered Essentials-version characters in the hands of experienced players. Just ask the high level thief what he has to roll to hit ANY creature he meets. In the hands of an experienced player if he answers "2" don't be shocked.

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.

I don't think he intended that in his column either. I think many people can easily see how it can be used that way though with a little adjustment.

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.

I think those other elements are present. But I'm sure I could be re-educated on what else it would take to get that feel. I felt like I was able to achieve OSR feel in each edition except 4th so far.

 

[Obryn]

It also created over-powered Essentials-version characters in the hands of experienced players. Just ask the high level thief what he has to roll to hit ANY creature he meets. In the hands of an experienced player if he answers "2" don't be shocked.

I don't think that's as overpowered as you do. Really, at high levels, we're talking a lot crazier stuff than that! I've seen complaints about E-style classes, but "overpowered" generally isn't in the running.

I don't think he intended that in his column either. I think many people can easily see how it can be used that way though with a little adjustment.

I think those other elements are present. But I'm sure I could be re-educated on what else it would take to get that feel. I felt like I was able to achieve OSR feel in each edition except 4th so far.

I admit, on first read-through, that was my impression, too. On a later read-through, it didn't seem like it.

 

[Balesir]

I get what you want out of your RPG, I think its an interesting way to play the game, but 5th is really trying to emphasize story telling, not tactical combat... Its never (ever) going to be about pitting the DM against the players, that idea goes very much against the goals the game designers have been laying out since pretty much day one. I feel that "I want the GM to go no holds barred for the NPCs and monsters, and the players to go no holds barred for the PCs, and by application of the mechanics we'll find out who overcomes whom, or what compromise is reached." is looking for... a tactical miniature game wrapped up in a narrative structure.

But characters going for their dramatic needs with every fibre of their being and us seeing what happens when they do IS the story! The players decide what their characters want, the GM decides what "the world" wants, they both go after it with gusto and the story arises when we see what happens as a result. How do you do meaningful RPG story generation in any other way? Even authors I've read talk about generating stories this way in their own minds; the protagonist has a dramatic need and tries to get it, the antagonist (be it a character, an organisation or the world) tries its damnedest to stop them and the story is what happens as a result. That's how stories are made.

Again, I'm not talking about D&D4 here, this is pure roleplaying theory, which is the only reason I'm entertaining this discussion in this thread.

But it's a theory that is very far from universal. Even neglecting the roleplaying games that have no GM, it still isn't functional for games like PrimeTime Adventures, FATE, Pendragon, HeroQuest, Burning Wheel or Amber, just to name a few examples.

In fact, I'm far from convinced it's good for D&D, even with its inherited GM force assumptions, but I'll let that ride.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I don't think that's as overpowered as you do. Really, at high levels, we're talking a lot crazier stuff than that! I've seen complaints about E-style classes, but "overpowered" generally isn't in the running.

It makes for a striking imbalance when he has a 95% success rate AND dishes out enough damage to regularly bloody a target with a single hit. And every other encounter he dazes and bloodies two opponents and nearly kills and dazes a third by spending an action point. He takes full advantage of all of his attacks being basic attacks "for simplicity" while other non-essentials characters are saddled with at-will powers. I'm sure others will tell me I'm a cruddy DM or somesuch. My real issue is that the simplicity was tacked onto a game that took other presumptions and experienced players exploit those tacked-on constructs. I'd rather they build the simplicity into the system from the ground up. You may not like the "start elsewhere than level 1" but I don't like "seperate but equal" design to create more and less complex characters.

 

[DMZ2112]

But it's a theory that is very far from universal. Even neglecting the roleplaying games that have no GM, it still isn't functional for games like PrimeTime Adventures, FATE, Pendragon, HeroQuest, Burning Wheel or Amber, just to name a few examples.

Well, there are other forums for those games, none of which I play.

In fact, I'm far from convinced it's good for D&D, even with its inherited GM force assumptions, but I'll let that ride.

I'll let [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION]' post from the last page in this thread speak to my opinion on player empowerment.

 

[Siberys]

It might work well in Fate. Ive played dozens of classless, dice pool rpgs but I don't advocate using them for D&D either.

That''s really beside the point. What I was driving at was narrative control is not a player entitlement issue; it's more about allowing /greater/ story involvement - the opposite of some other poster's claims about 4e's story focus, and certainly counter to your assertions upthread. I like narrative control - and therefore want it in my game - because I feel it engenders the roleplaying I want to see in my D&D games. 4e delivers on that, and in the context of this discussion Next currently doesn't, and no amount of "Tactical Module" will change that.

Beside which, you've got a false comparison going on there; narrative control is not mechanical in the same sense that classless or dice-pool are mechanical. It has more to do with how you frame a PC's capabilities than those capabilities themselves.

 

[JamesonCourage]

What I was driving at was narrative control is not a player entitlement issue;

Just jumping in to say I agree with this.

it's more about allowing /greater/ story involvement

This is probably true to a large degree, but I'd phrase it as "control" instead of "involvement", since my players, who have limited narrative control (though there are two mechanics in my game that definitely give them some), are still quite involved in the story* of the game, even without having many narrative control powers. And, indeed, were quite involved in the story* of the game in systems where they don't have "narrative control" powers at all.

*Story as defined, loosely, as "what happens when we play the game, and talk about it later."

I like narrative control - and therefore want it in my game - because I feel it engenders the roleplaying I want to see in my D&D games. 4e delivers on that, and in the context of this discussion Next currently doesn't, and no amount of "Tactical Module" will change that.

This makes sense to me. Though I think a lot of 4e players will want an advanced tactical module, even if they want more "narrative control" in 5e, too. But, I don't see "I can push a giant back" as particularly strong narrative control, personally, so I'm not sure how strongly we agree on what the term means.

Beside which, you've got a false comparison going on there; narrative control is not mechanical in the same sense that classless or dice-pool are mechanical. It has more to do with how you frame a PC's capabilities than those capabilities themselves.

Not necessarily. But you're right in that it doesn't need to be that way. As always, play what you like

 

[Obryn]

It makes for a striking imbalance when he has a 95% success rate AND dishes out enough damage to regularly bloody a target with a single hit. And every other encounter he dazes and bloodies two opponents and nearly kills and dazes a third by spending an action point. He takes full advantage of all of his attacks being basic attacks "for simplicity" while other non-essentials characters are saddled with at-will powers. I'm sure others will tell me I'm a cruddy DM or somesuch. My real issue is that the simplicity was tacked onto a game that took other presumptions and experienced players exploit those tacked-on constructs. I'd rather they build the simplicity into the system from the ground up. You may not like the "start elsewhere than level 1" but I don't like "seperate but equal" design to create more and less complex characters.

The thing is, every character is doing stuff like this at Epic levels. Or should be, anyway. And pretty much if an Epic character is using an At-Will... well, they shouldn't be using their At-Wills most of the time, because they have like 5-6 Encounter powers and a good selection of Dailies by that point, all of which should be better.

(Not that I think Epic 4e is done particularly great, mind you. It has a host of issues. But E-style classes aren't one of them.)

Again, this power imbalance is nothing I've seen in play. It merged very well with everything else, in all my experiences at least.