Mearls' L&L on non-combat pillars

[pemerton]

Mearls' latest column has triggered a long discussion on the 15 minute adventuring day.

But it says other stuff as well. For example, it implies that the two non-combat pillars of the game won't involve resource management. He also says that

Experience awards for interaction and exploration are more in the realm of the Dungeon Master's hands than a strict, mechanical definition, but both will appear in the final experience point system with full guidelines.​

There doesn't seem to be a lot of hope here for complex non-combat resolution mechanics.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Mearls' latest column has triggered a long discussion on the 15 minute adventuring day.

But it says other stuff as well. For example, it implies that the two non-combat pillars of the game won't involve resource management. He also says that

Experience awards for interaction and exploration are more in the realm of the Dungeon Master's hands than a strict, mechanical definition, but both will appear in the final experience point system with full guidelines.​

There doesn't seem to be a lot of hope here for complex non-combat resolution mechanics.

Well, considering that even the skill system is an optional module, it may not be surprising that they keep the mechanical resolution simple - you would need to assume to many specific modules to offer some substantial mechanical support, and who knows how many people will use those modules? It could be a waste of time spending effort into that.

It may help to know what they understand under guidelines, though. Maybe they can make some that can convince me I don't want rules?

 

[pming]

Hiya.

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but...maybe 5e should adopt an XP system more along the lines of what the Palladium system has? I always thought this was one of the strongest points in their games (Palladium Fantasy, Rifts and Robotech). The idea of getting, for example, "Minor Challenge" for a battle might net 25 - 50xp per person, where "Major Challenge" may yield 100 - 500xp per person. There are other aspects that earn you xp as well, like comming up with an ingenious, if futile, plan, or getting the entire table to need to take a break to wipe the tears from their eyes from laughter. This way it didn't matter what kind of class/race make up you had...if a battle was hard won, with the players chewing their finger nails and clenching their jaw, with eyes wide open as they all finish the last kobold off...and take note that everyone is down to less than 5hp each...call it "low end Major" and everyone gets 100xp. PC power level then becomes, well, secondary to 'actual' challenge.

There could also be a 'module/add-on/switch' that had more specific rules for the classical D&D'ism style xp (HD = ##xp, etc.), for those that want that kind of advencement method.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Minigiant]

I am saddened that the core exploration and interaction pillars will be so free form.

I hope there is at least a few modules for complete noncombat.

I don't buy books to play a freeform no rules game.

I can play and already do play freeform with my pyromancer chef miltary nobleman who does casino heists and political tax reform using 5 rules all together.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Mearls' latest column has triggered a long discussion on the 15 minute adventuring day.

But it says other stuff as well. For example, it implies that the two non-combat pillars of the game won't involve resource management.

So wizard spells and cleric spells won't be useful for either interaction or exploration? Right. Gotcha. Can I interest you in a bridge?

He also says that

Experience awards for interaction and exploration are more in the realm of the Dungeon Master's hands than a strict, mechanical definition, but both will appear in the final experience point system with full guidelines.
​

There doesn't seem to be a lot of hope here for complex non-combat resolution mechanics.

Indeed. It looks as if they are trying to get rid of 4e players.

 

[D'karr]

Hiya.

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but...maybe 5e should adopt an XP system more along the lines of what the Palladium system has? I always thought this was one of the strongest points in their games (Palladium Fantasy, Rifts and Robotech). The idea of getting, for example, "Minor Challenge" for a battle might net 25 - 50xp per person, where "Major Challenge" may yield 100 - 500xp per person. There are other aspects that earn you xp as well, like comming up with an ingenious, if futile, plan, or getting the entire table to need to take a break to wipe the tears from their eyes from laughter. This way it didn't matter what kind of class/race make up you had...if a battle was hard won, with the players chewing their finger nails and clenching their jaw, with eyes wide open as they all finish the last kobold off...and take note that everyone is down to less than 5hp each...call it "low end Major" and everyone gets 100xp. PC power level then becomes, well, secondary to 'actual' challenge.

There could also be a 'module/add-on/switch' that had more specific rules for the classical D&D'ism style xp (HD = ##xp, etc.), for those that want that kind of advencement method.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

It's a very interesting proposition. In the current campaign I'm running I award XP on a "challenge level" sliding scale.

The base XP for the encounter is awarded if the challenge worked out as expected. There is a 25% reduction in XP if the challenge was an unexpected cakewalk, and a 25% increase if the challenge was unexpectedly difficult.

I find that the majority of encounters fall near the baseline but a few are outliers in each direction. This allows me to tailor XP awards based on real "at the table" effort instead of theoretical planning numbers. I only apply this to those "unexpected" changes in the challenge level because if I had designed the encounter to be tough or easy, the base XP would already account for that.

This has worked very well for my campaign.

 

[DEFCON 1]

There doesn't seem to be a lot of hope here for complex non-combat resolution mechanics.

Are you kidding? Just wait a few months after the game's release.

While an interaction/exploraton minigame game mechanic a la combat might not be in the first set of books... remember two things:

1) WotC still hasn't denied the possibility of an OGL/GSL, which means that if the game does get opened up, there will probably be several 3PPs willing to jump in to design them.

And 2) WotC needs plenty of material to produce AFTER the first set of books, and an interaction/exploration/skill challenge type book is a fairly large and comprehensive gamespace in which to design.

The game isn't beginning and ending with those first three books. There are SEVERAL YEARS following that to publish other ideas.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not overly shocked that they're taking this route.

If the central idea is to capture the feel of D&D, the historic feel of D&D has always had almost entirely free-form noncombat, and a lot of folks are perfectly comfortable with that. Ability checks and DM judgement are "all you need." The 5e playtest document probably says all that it needs to say about it.

I imagine some of the modules they're working on weave more detailed noncomabt resolution into the game, and I'm looking forward to seeing those. Those will be less traditional by their very nature, though. I'm excited a bit because modularity means they can go HARD in this region, confident that those who don't want it won't opt into it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So wizard spells and cleric spells won't be useful for either interaction or exploration? Right. Gotcha. Can I interest you in a bridge?



Indeed. It looks as if they are trying to get rid of 4e players.

Careful, that way lies claims of being fired as a customer and all that.

They are simply returning D&D to something more "basic" in the hope that it will appeal to all the peopl ethat didn't like the rules-heavy focus of 4E and 3E. T hey try to snag some of the lessons of these games, but only those that alter the experiences the least compared to the earlier editions. I have doubts they will succeed and getting everyone they claim they want to get, but they failed to get everyone they claimed the wanted with 4E as well. I am not optimistic that the 3E success can be repeated without a decade or so of D&D production slowing to a crawl. No edition was ever created under similar situation if you look at it from the player perspective. For WotC/TSR it may always have been "we need to sell more books, let's make a new edition", but players have always been in different situations.

 

[ExploderWizard]

When treasure used to be the primary means of gaining XP the pillars balanced themselves out and could be equally rewarding. You could fight, trick, negotiate, and explore as you chose to gain experience.

So long as 'defeating encounters' is the end in itself rather than ONE means to an end, there will be these rules support issues.