D&D 5E Legends & Lore - A Retrospective

[Iosue]

Legends & Lore #6 - Gnomes, Options, and Groups
March 22, 2011
Original EN World thread

Sorry for the delay, folks. The actual title of this L&L is "What's With the Polls?", but that's dispensed with pretty early on:

Instead, think of this column as something similar to a virtual panel at a convention. It gives me a chance to talk about topics that interest me and, hopefully, you. The polls—and the invitation to send feedback to dndinsider@wizards.com—are the Q&A portion of the panel, your chance to react and my chance to pose a question. If you’ve been to a panel held by D&D R&D at any of the major cons, you’ve probably seen us ask how many people in the audience are DMs, how many own a specific sourcebook, and so on. Think of these polls as something like that. It’s interesting to see the answers, but we’re not about to base any major business decisions on them.

(Nevertheless, the polls continued to be the proverbial "stick to beat an ass", especially after the 5e announcement. People continued to assume they were using the polls for major business decisions, and one poll got Monte Cook in some hot water.)

No, the real meat of this article is Mearls' explanation of "the Gnome effect", one of the more insightful looks at where design meets demand. Also, while 4e got a lot of flack for its lack of gnomes, I think this one of the benefits of 4e pushing the envelope. I'll let Mearls explain the phenomenon:

The problem with that line of reasoning is that we don’t play D&D by ourselves. We play with a group, and when looking at rules changes or any other alteration to the game you have to consider its effect on the group. Let’s look back at our gnome example. One out of ten gamers plays a gnome. However, let’s say your data shows that the average group consists of five players (not counting the DM). That means, roughly speaking, half the gaming groups have one player with a gnome character. That number is likely lower, since some groups might have more than one gnome, but it’s a rough approximation that serves to illustrate the larger principle. You cannot measure change and its effects on the individual level. You must look at it on the gaming group level. Delete the gnome from the game, or change it in a way that gnome fans dislike, and you’ve given about half the gaming groups out there a good reason to tune you out.

In a lot of our discussions, we tend to make an appeal to the majority. If only 10% of players like a thing, then it seems a no-brainer that you could drop it from the game. But as far as player options, though, the designers have to look at the bigger picture.

The money quote, for our retrospective purposes, is as follows:

In an ideal world, we would aim our design work at the most popular options but include the ability to slide along the scale from one extreme to the other. In this manner, you can be assured that in a diverse gaming group everyone has the options they’re comfortable with.

Given the recently popular topic of 5e's release schedule, this quote seems pretty interesting, as well:

Even a topic such as the volume of content released per month falls into this category. Gamers who don’t want more content can easily ignore it or disallow it in their games. A theoretical D&D release schedule could focus on the middle ground of the audience, while something like the open gaming license would allow other publishers to fill in the gaps for those who want even more content. In many cases, the trick to keeping everyone happy lies in areas beyond game design.

How did things end up in 5e?
As far as player options go, I think that 5e was, on the whole, a success. The question here was less one of a particular design choice, but rather one of presentation. With the Basic Rules you get the classic races and classes. With PHB then presented as greater player options rather than the default, various races, sub-races, classes, and sub-classes could be offered while not overloading players or groups. 5e's big failure here, of course, is the lack of a warlord, and certainly one reason why many 4e fans are dissatisfied with it. They attempted to emulate the play of a warlord via the Battlemaster and the Bard, but I have not heard many (any?) warlord fans happy with that arrangement.

Turning to volume of content, I would say that in contrast to Mearls' words here, 5e's release schedule is probably not quite the "middle ground". At least as far was know at the moment. It's certainly possible that they will release a lot more in the coming year with the Core Three finally released, but official word at the moment is two big cross-platform releases a year. This seems like something that was influenced by the playtest, or other market research done at that time. Of special note is the mention of the OGL here. Personally, I'm convinced that if Mearls and team had their druthers, 5e would be OGL, or at the least have a very permissive GSL. And perhaps the slower release schedule was conceived with that in mind, relying on other publishers to take up the slack. But convincing a conservative company of that is undoubtedly easier said than done.

 

[neobolts]

Great series! Really enjoying it. After these first few, I certainly feel like the broad strokes of 5e were already in place, and that the later testing was to fill in the details. These columns certainly feel reactionary, and I recall the mood of our group at the time: 4e was quickly growing stale in terms of repeat play, Essentials was utterly reviled, and we were happily playing various Pathfinder Adventure Paths.

 

[I'm A Banana]

. 5e's big failure here, of course, is the lack of a warlord, and certainly one reason why many 4e fans are dissatisfied with it.

More subtle. 5e has a warlord (battle master). What 5e doesn't have is martial healing by default (thanks to this hurting at least 10% of D&D games, presumably. ), or detailed positioning rules (thanks to Theater of the Mind and minis wrecking another at least 10%). And some 4e fans decided that these things are what defines the warlord, and won't accept a tactical commander-style class that doesn't feature these things. (Which, y'know, fair enough, we've all got our things, and there's clearly room for 5e to add this on, I think!)

Of special note is the mention of the OGL here.

Clearly mearls knows that the OGL would solve the problem of a LOT of the people who are upset about "lack of support" (3 months without a release THE HORROR). We just need to find out who at WotC/HASBRO is holding this train up and camp in front of their homes with an unruly mob, clearly.

 

[SkidAce]

Clearly mearls knows that the OGL would solve the problem of a LOT of the people who are upset about "lack of support" (3 months without a release THE HORROR). We just need to find out who at WotC/HASBRO is holding this train up and camp in front of their homes with an unruly mob, clearly.

Why does it have to be an "unruly" mob? I'm tired of being an unruly mob, I would much rather be a nice pleasant, quietly staring, immobile "children of the corn" mob sometime.

 

[Iosue]

More subtle. 5e has a warlord (battle master). What 5e doesn't have is martial healing by default (thanks to this hurting at least 10% of D&D games, presumably. ), or detailed positioning rules (thanks to Theater of the Mind and minis wrecking another at least 10%). And some 4e fans decided that these things are what defines the warlord, and won't accept a tactical commander-style class that doesn't feature these things. (Which, y'know, fair enough, we've all got our things, and there's clearly room for 5e to add this on, I think!)

I don't necessarily disagree. I think the Battlemaster's Warlord-y maneuvers were a game attempt at including a Warlord class, and while not as, say, meaty as the 4e Warlord, fits well within 5e's design paradigm of fast-paced, low-fiddly combats. Putting on my 4e fan hat, though, it's kinda rough that the Warlord is the only historical PHB class not to be fully represented as either a class or subclass in 5e. I think they could come up with a nice Warlord class with both a tactical subclass and a healer subclass, avoiding the "martial healing" problem by using temp HP. Basically, like the Warlordy aspects of the Battlemaster, but more fleshed out. Hopefully, it's something they can release in the future. It's a Dragon article just begging to be written. Putting on my Objective Review L&Ls Hat, I can't help but conclude that this is one area where they were unable to fulfill their design goals. They said they wanted to make classes so that they were gobs of fun for people who enjoyed playing those classes. I don't think there are many Warlord fans who have fun with the Battlemaster. Personally, even as one who liked and appreciated the 4e Warlord, I like the Battlemaster. But I'm not sure I'm like most 4e fans.

Clearly mearls knows that the OGL would solve the problem of a LOT of the people who are upset about "lack of support" (3 months without a release THE HORROR). We just need to find out who at WotC/HASBRO is holding this train up and camp in front of their homes with an unruly mob, clearly.

I was just thinking about Stan!'s blog post on why he left WotC. He had some personal creative work he wanted to exempt from WotC's copyright over employees' work. Chris Perkins was cool with the exemption. Mike Mearls was cool with the exemption. The vice-president of R&D was cool with the exemption. Then for some reason, the vice-president of H.R. put the kibosh on it. When the VP of R&D went to bat for Stan! and took it the CEO, the CEO ultimately ruled in favor of the VP of H.R. I mean, this didn't even get to the level of Hasbro. It was a side-project of a valued employee, everyone in D&D and R&D was on board, and it was scuttled by the higher-ups. Who, ultimately, lost both the IP and the valued employee, so I don't see how that tack benefited them at all.

 

[Iosue]

One other thing I forgot to mention in my earlier post. In the original EN World thread, [MENTION=73683]Dannager[/MENTION] made a joke about 5e conspiracy theories. I think this is the first mention, even as a joke, of the possibility that the L&Ls had something to do with 5e. But I haven't gone through all the pages of the previous threads.

 

[TerraDave]

On Complexity: Mearls has noted several times that this was a big shift from the play-test. I think you can see from this column that he is mostly taking it as a given, and probably assuming 3E/4E/PF complexity going forward. but he does raise the question. After the play-test, he has said the big lesson was that people where not particularly attached to complexity and all the related options and details.

On Gnomes: They are in. I guess with the warlord, they just decided the constituency was not there, or at least not worth it to be a distinct class.

 

[I'm A Banana]

...not as, say, meaty as the 4e Warlord...
...more fleshed out...

I think the last article, on complexity, shows where a bit of this "meat" has gone. How many decision points am I going to face in my turn? How many options do I need to juggle at once? How many different factors go into whether or not I deal damage and how much damage I deal?

There's totally folks who WANT that level of meat, and who don't think the Battle Master is a good replacement unless it can give more meat there. That's fair, it's just not something that a 5e with a broader appeal is going to necessarily accomplish right out the box.

avoiding the "martial healing" problem by using temp HP

The Rally manuever basically does this, doesn't it?

They said they wanted to make classes so that they were gobs of fun for people who enjoyed playing those classes. I don't think there are many Warlord fans who have fun with the Battlemaster.

Certainly some 4e fans are disappointed by it. I think when you've got people who have fun with complexity, but also need to make a simple game, you've got a bit of a choice to make between the two. If the "flesh" of the warlord is in part a product of its complexity and the complexity of the game system it was in, it's hard to emulate that without then making a more complex game. They can give out temp HP and free movement and bonus attacks all day and still not get the right feeling of "meat", simply because it's on a more streamlined system with fewer powers and fiddly bits overall.

I mean, I'm with you, I'm playing a dwarf warlord right now in a 4e game and plan on transitioning to a 5e game and am seriously looking at the Battle Master as basically what I'd need, and it looks solid, I'm happy with it. And when I hear from people who aren't, a lot of what they seem to be saying is, "it's not complex enough, I need more options, I need more moving parts."

 

[Iosue]

Legends & Lore #7 - One Adventure to Rule Them All
March 29, 2011
Original EN World thread
Alternate EN World Thread

In this L&L, Mearls looked at adventures, leading off with a poll he did of his Twitter followers and the folks at D&D R&D.

1. Ravenloft
2. Red Hand of Doom
3. Desert of Desolation
4. Keep on the Borderlands
5. Night’s Dark Terror
6. Tomb of Horrors
7. Village of Hommlet
8. Against the Giants
9. Burnt Offerings
10. Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh
11. Temple of Elemental Evil

Per Mearls, the difference between Ravenloft and Red Hand of Doom was as great as the difference between Red Hand of Doom and Burnt Offerings.

Looking at this list, Mearls comes to some conclusions about what makes a good adventure:

A Setting: Ravenloft is a micro-setting, featuring the village of Barovia and the surrounding wilderness for exploration. Castle Ravenloft, home of the vampire Strahd, looms over the entire place, casting a shadow over everything the characters do. The adventure creates a sense of place and community, building up a location that the characters can use as a home base for the duration of the adventure. This approach gives a context for the narrative and allows for as much (or as little) roleplaying as the group wants.

Freedom: While Ravenloft suggests a plot, it doesn’t dictate one. A draw of the cards determines key elements of the adventure, but the manuscript avoids setting specific events or timelines in place. The players are free to roleplay, explore, or fight monsters as they see fit. The DM has the freedom to run the adventure how he or she wishes. Many of these adventures simple present a situation or a place. Specific advice on how to deal with events is usually broad and directional. For example, the DM might be told that the giants (in Against the Giants, of course) rally in the main hall and form search parties to find intruders, as opposed to an adventure that lays out specific actions for each giant. The DM is free to improvise within that direction.

Good Maps: In both the visual design and as interesting places to explore, Ravenloft’s maps score high grades. These adventures generally eschew linear maps, where the characters start at area 1 and move through areas 2, 3, 4, and 5 before fighting the boss monster at area 6. In many ways, these adventures avoid trying to create a specific story or sequence of events via the map. The DM through planning or improvisation, or the players through their choices, determines how things play out.

A Unique Hook: Finally, most of the adventures on that list have a clearly defined trait that makes them unique. Ravenloft is D&D’s definitive vampire adventure. Tomb of Horrors is one of the deadliest adventures ever designed for D&D. A good hook is what pulls you into an adventure. It’s what pushes a DM to turn it from a set of pages and stat blocks into a game of D&D.

Ultimately, Mearls thinks it comes down to Choice. Choice for the players to engage the adventure in a variety of ways, and choice for the DM to tailor the adventure for the group. Ideally, the adventure shouldn't dictate to the group, but rather shift to provide the group what they want.

Mearls ends the column by noting that the delve format works against the above. Having a page for each room encourages the designer to ensure that it sees play, as well as limiting the choices of areas, chambers, etc. for the players to explore. On the other hand, he notes that the delve format is quite convenient for DMs, allowing them to run the adventure without having to look things up in other books, and working quite well for running a game on the fly.

Personally, I was happy to see this article at the time, because I have a preference for mini-sandbox adventures. I think B2 is actually underrated as an introduction to this style of play. And one gripe I had with 4e adventures were that they seemed so limited, as far as dungeons go. The need to both make rooms big enough for interesting tactical combat as well as provide two pages per encounter just seemed to make everything so small.

How did things end up in 5e?
Well, the jury's still out a bit on this, I think. We can see some trends, but as of yet our sample size is still quite small. The Lost Mines of Phandelver, by Rich Baker, is almost an instant classic, hitting many of the high points mentioned in this article. It's got a good setting with Phandalin. There's also all sorts of freedom -- I've run it for two groups, and after the initial section in Cragmaw Hideout, neither of them were remotely similar. It's provided with plenty of interesting maps that are not, on the whole, very linear. And while it lacks a specifically unique hook, it has multiple small hooks for a variety of players. They abandoned the delve format, so in 64 pages there are 82 encounters spread out over 11 locations. So far so good. I certainly want to see more like that!

On the other hand, WotC seems to be focusing not on single adventures, but rather on Adventure Path-style campaigns. Tyranny of Dragons being the exemplar here, with Princes of the Apocalypse looking to be in that vein. These adventures (well, ToD, at any rate) are inherently less sandboxy, having a very urgent through-line that the characters are urged to follow. While there is some degree of choice in Hoard of the Dragon Queen and the Rise of Tiamat, I don't know that I can say that they "shift themselves to match what the group wants from them". Rather, they seem to dictate to the players. There's certainly a market and a need for such adventures, and while I think WotC is wrong, per se, to go with this plan, I do hope we see more stand-alone adventures, even one-shots.

Like LMoP, HotDQ and RoT do not use the delve format, and as a result, they can pack a lot of locations and fairly intricate dungeons into their pages. However, HotDQ and RoT, perhaps moreso than LMoP, suffer from the disadvantages of this style -- sometimes they simply don't provide enough information to make DMs' jobs easier.

 

[pemerton]

5e has a warlord (battle master). What 5e doesn't have is martial healing by default (thanks to this hurting at least 10% of D&D games, presumably.

it's kinda rough that the Warlord is the only historical PHB class not to be fully represented as either a class or subclass in 5e. I think they could come up with a nice Warlord class with both a tactical subclass and a healer subclass, avoiding the "martial healing" problem by using temp HP.

As a [-]gnome[/-] warlord fan, I am not terribly interested in temp hp.

Temp hp are a buff. Functionally, they play the same role as an AC boost. (Though with a different technical, statistical profile.)

Healing is a different thing. It is about rousing and recovery, both mechanical and in the fiction. The warlord, speaking words of inspiration, restores vigour and the will to fight to his/her comrades. The fictional archetypes are Aragorn, Faramir ("he can master both beasts and men"), Imrahil and the similar Tokien-esque battle captains (and their precursors in romantic fiction).

The idea that only magic can rouse spirits is, for me, up there with the idea that only magic can maim or blind someone, or only with magic can you change someone's mind, or befriend them, or feint them.

So for me, the absence of [-]gnomes[/-] warlords and inspirational healing from 5e really is a marker of a bigger design approach that tends to push me away from the game.