D&D 5E Mike Mearls live streaming of DnDNext with R&D superstars

[Weather Report]

Maybe a return of a Morale mechanic is in order.

It seems many are uncomfortable with a DM actually making a decision, instead of being a number generator.

 

[Manbearcat]

Maybe a return of a Morale mechanic is in order.

It seems many are uncomfortable with a DM actually making a decision, instead of being a number generator.

Pro, yet worthless and inaccurate, snark.

As to my position here, its pretty straight forward and I don't see it as picking a nit:

1) I wouldn't call what occurred there "combat". It was handled as an Action Scene, but it was, in effect, exclusively color with mechanics as a peripheral element in ultimately deciding the resolution of the conflict.

2) The "wild-eyed, flee in terror action" does not require mechanical resolution. The tactical Attack of Opportunity rules added nothing to this but unnecessary table handling time; no tension, no odds of anything happening beyond the death of the fleeing orc. He was going to die and that was that. If a non-surprise, 1 round combat is going to be dictated so quickly, and so stridently by an arbitrary decision for a combatant to run, perhaps we should either just treat it as color off the bat, maybe have them clearly yield immediately, or perhaps if we don't want to just treat it as mere setting color, there could be a sub-system to resolve such a scenario mechanically that is rewarding to the players by providing some asset (contingent upon outcome) or by providing legitimate tension as to the impact of the encounter (perhaps prolonged combat having some clear, present and explicated hazard involved). I fail to see the use of resolving random, non-challenging combat encounters mechanically (from a resource ablation perspective or from a "changing the dynamics of the immediate situation within the fiction" perspective).

3) I don't agree at all that the orcs would be freaked out by humans (despite members of their clan being ganked) to the degree that they would be "scared witless". Creatures that they visibly (I'm talking sensory information here, not deduction) cannot defeat via physical means, because their might is irrelevant, and/or are clearly supernatural (incorporeal creatures such as ghosts, banshees, wraiths)...sure. Same goes for creatures that are so physically imposing such that their awe-inspiring size/strength/cruelty naturally imposes terror upon those of a "might makes right" ethos (eg dragons or giants)...sure. But not a bunch of weakling humans...until they specifically earn the right to be perceived on the level of supernatural as ghosts or the level of might as huge, physically imposing creatures.

 

[Manbearcat]

With respect to 2 above:

A "Strategic Retreat/Withdraw" or a "Flees in Terror" sub-system or module would be of use here; something that (1) works outside of the combat system and is initiated by the GM when it calls for it, (2) has minimal overhead and table handling time, and (3) generates complications on PC failure to stop the retreating/withdrawing/fleeing NPCs. Guidance on complication generation would be paramount here (such as Kobold Commandos gathering intelligence and then using specific traps against the PCs strengths in specific corridors that they are now likely to use).

 

[Iosue]

With respect to 2 above:

A "Strategic Retreat/Withdraw" or a "Flees in Terror" sub-system or module would be of use here; something that (1) works outside of the combat system and is initiated by the GM when it calls for it, (2) has minimal overhead and table handling time, and (3) generates complications on PC failure to stop the retreating/withdrawing/fleeing NPCs. Guidance on complication generation would be paramount here (such as Kobold Commandos gathering intelligence and then using specific traps against the PCs strengths in specific corridors that they are now likely to use).

Why is such a thing even necessary? The game has its Disengage action, it has movement rules for pursuit. It seems a bit of overkill to create a whole new subsystem of limited scope just because Mearls made a judgment call as DM.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Why is such a thing even necessary? The game has its Disengage action, it has movement rules for pursuit. It seems a bit of overkill to create a whole new subsystem of limited scope just because Mearls made a judgment call as DM.

Because the combat movement rules don't work for retreats/chases.

Imagine a fighter and an orc. They both have the same speed, 30. They're standing adjacent (melee). The orc disengages and moves away (45 feet). The Fighter can't move into melee and attack in the same turn, so he hustles to close the gap (melee). The orc disengages and moves away (45 feet). etc.

Old-school D&D does have a subsystem for this: a percentage chance to get away based on relative speed and group size.

 

[Manbearcat]

Why is such a thing even necessary? The game has its Disengage action, it has movement rules for pursuit. It seems a bit of overkill to create a whole new subsystem of limited scope just because Mearls made a judgment call as DM.

Because the combat movement rules don't work for retreats/chases.

Imagine a fighter and an orc. They both have the same speed, 30. They're standing adjacent (melee). The orc disengages and moves away (45 feet). The Fighter can't move into melee and attack in the same turn, so he hustles to close the gap (melee). The orc disengages and moves away (45 feet). etc.

Old-school D&D has rules for this: a percentage chance to get away based on relative speed and group size.

This exactly. "I Disengage (getting half of my move) and use my move to flee (1.5 movement)." "Yeah, well I use my action to Hustle (full move) and then use my move to run up to him and engage (2.0 * movement). Even if he naturally runs well faster than me, I catch him." GM ponders terrain, twists, turns, ladders, climb rules, etc and wonders if its really worth the mental overhead and table handling time as the odds of escape at this game are approximately 1.8 %..."ok, you catch him and combat ensues...screw it, he's dead."

Action economy, the Disengage Action, and tactical movement modes work in the closed scene of the combat encounter. They break down outside of that when you enter the arena of abstract conflict resolution. Abstract chases and pursuits require something akin to the singular, modified percentage chance to an abstract conflict resolution system whereby you're measuring success based on accrued levels of stress or failures (eg Fate, MHRP, 4e).

You can go with a binary, one-off Str (Athleticism) versus Strength (Athleticism), Dexterity (Stealth) or Wisdom (Dungeoneering/knowing the layout of the area) contest. However, in a lot of cases that would provide too much success for the fleeing party and may not provide much excitement/tension/fun/dynamism for abstract conflict resolution.

 

[Manbearcat]

1 - Base/Core rules can have a % chance to get away/retreat/evade pursuit based on speed and base group size.

2 - A module could have a more complex resolution system of chases whereby:

- Each side has a stress die equal to the highest hit die member of the group.
- The group with greater numbers steps up their stress die by one.
- Each group begins the conflict resolution at d4 stress.
- The GM frames the initial contest of the chase/evasion around the dynamics of the situation and then frames each successive contest around the evolving narrative.
- The resolution of each contest raises the losing side's stress die by one (eg from d4 to d6).
- Whichever side reaches their stress die first loses (eg is caught or whatever losing means for them in the scenario).

Quick example:

Bob the Ranger has infiltrated a gnoll's camp in a dense thicket. He gathers his intellegence and is ready to leave the area unnoticed when a gnoll sentinel who is coming back from a hunt sees him. Combat is engaged. Bob slays the gnoll but not before he howls a warning. The encampment comes alive with answering howls and falls upon him. He flees.

- Bob has d10 stress die (d10 hit dice).
- The gnolls are all d8 hit dice so they each have a d8 stress die. However, they have numbers so step it up to d10.
- Bob and the gnolls start the chase/conflict out at d4 stress.
- Several contests later (Stealth, Athletics, Nature...whatever is framed), Bob gets the gnolls to d10 stress (from the original d4) which is their stress die. The gnolls lose. Bob evades their pursuit and escapes with whatever information he needed (and his head).

 

[the Jester]

1) I wouldn't call what occurred there "combat". It was handled as an Action Scene, but it was, in effect, exclusively color with mechanics as a peripheral element in ultimately deciding the resolution of the conflict.

This is clearly a matter of opinion, deriving (I suspect) largely from playstyle preferences. I would call it combat, even if all the bad guys had been cut down without a chance to act, simply because everyone was on initiative and attacks were rolled.

2) The "wild-eyed, flee in terror action" does not require mechanical resolution. The tactical Attack of Opportunity rules added nothing to this but unnecessary table handling time; no tension, no odds of anything happening beyond the death of the fleeing orc. He was going to die and that was that. If a non-surprise, 1 round combat is going to be dictated so quickly, and so stridently by an arbitrary decision for a combatant to run, perhaps we should either just treat it as color off the bat, maybe have them clearly yield immediately, or perhaps if we don't want to just treat it as mere setting color, there could be a sub-system to resolve such a scenario mechanically that is rewarding to the players by providing some asset (contingent upon outcome) or by providing legitimate tension as to the impact of the encounter (perhaps prolonged combat having some clear, present and explicated hazard involved). I fail to see the use of resolving random, non-challenging combat encounters mechanically (from a resource ablation perspective or from a "changing the dynamics of the immediate situation within the fiction" perspective).

While this is all very valid, remember that, for some playstyles, this encounter would be great fun. (In fact, it sounded like it was, on the 'cast.) Not only that, nobody knew that things were going to pan out the way they did until dice hit the table and the pcs hacked down most of the orcs before they could act.

3) I don't agree at all that the orcs would be freaked out by humans (despite members of their clan being ganked) to the degree that they would be "scared witless". Creatures that they visibly (I'm talking sensory information here, not deduction) cannot defeat via physical means, because their might is irrelevant, and/or are clearly supernatural (incorporeal creatures such as ghosts, banshees, wraiths)...sure. Same goes for creatures that are so physically imposing such that their awe-inspiring size/strength/cruelty naturally imposes terror upon those of a "might makes right" ethos (eg dragons or giants)...sure. But not a bunch of weakling humans...until they specifically earn the right to be perceived on the level of supernatural as ghosts or the level of might as huge, physically imposing creatures.

Again, this is all about playstyle preference. In many campaigns, some or most evil humanoid types are fundamentally cowards at heart, possibly including orcs. In others, different orcs from different orcish cultures may have different levels of cowardice. So, while it's fine that orcs in your campaign wouldn't be freaked out by humans under the circumstances in the encounter we're discussing, it's not fair to assume that no orcs in anyone else's campaigns would be. And in fact, Mearls' dming proves my point.

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting, but it seems that you're saying Mearls was doing it wrong. Yet it seems as though everyone at the table had great fun- which is pretty much the definition of "doing it right" when you're dming.

With respect to 2 above:

A "Strategic Retreat/Withdraw" or a "Flees in Terror" sub-system or module would be of use here; something that (1) works outside of the combat system and is initiated by the GM when it calls for it, (2) has minimal overhead and table handling time, and (3) generates complications on PC failure to stop the retreating/withdrawing/fleeing NPCs. Guidance on complication generation would be paramount here (such as Kobold Commandos gathering intelligence and then using specific traps against the PCs strengths in specific corridors that they are now likely to use).

I think a very simple pursuit and evasion rule set would be valuable.

 

[Imaro]

1) I wouldn't call what occurred there "combat". It was handled as an Action Scene, but it was, in effect, exclusively color with mechanics as a peripheral element in ultimately deciding the resolution of the conflict.

I see... would you say the same thing about a party of characters in 4e who happen upon a group of minions and are able to kill all of them before the second round of combat? If not, what differentiates one from the other?

2) The "wild-eyed, flee in terror action" does not require mechanical resolution. The tactical Attack of Opportunity rules added nothing to this but unnecessary table handling time; no tension, no odds of anything happening beyond the death of the fleeing orc. He was going to die and that was that. If a non-surprise, 1 round combat is going to be dictated so quickly, and so stridently by an arbitrary decision for a combatant to run, perhaps we should either just treat it as color off the bat, maybe have them clearly yield immediately, or perhaps if we don't want to just treat it as mere setting color, there could be a sub-system to resolve such a scenario mechanically that is rewarding to the players by providing some asset (contingent upon outcome) or by providing legitimate tension as to the impact of the encounter (perhaps prolonged combat having some clear, present and explicated hazard involved). I fail to see the use of resolving random, non-challenging combat encounters mechanically (from a resource ablation perspective or from a "changing the dynamics of the immediate situation within the fiction" perspective).

Or perhaps some players enjoy the ability to get a first strike on an enemy and they not have so many hit points that the PC's can't dispatch them and get a quick and decisive victory? Maybe it's fun just to see how awesome your PC's are ina situation like that. I mean I agree with The Jester it's a playstyle thing and as long as the players are having a good time, that's all that matters.

Now, putting that aside for a moment...again I ask you in a 4e game the same thing could happen with a group of minions that the PC's encounter (especially if they get initiative and have a controller or two in their group). Should that type of combat be skipped because it has a high likelihood of being non-challenging for that particular groups make-up... should all easy encounters, according to the XP budget, just be skipped over mechanically? I think for some groups getting lucky enough to pull something like this off is one of the things that makes the game interesting and fun. YMMV of course.

3) I don't agree at all that the orcs would be freaked out by humans (despite members of their clan being ganked) to the degree that they would be "scared witless". Creatures that they visibly (I'm talking sensory information here, not deduction) cannot defeat via physical means, because their might is irrelevant, and/or are clearly supernatural (incorporeal creatures such as ghosts, banshees, wraiths)...sure. Same goes for creatures that are so physically imposing such that their awe-inspiring size/strength/cruelty naturally imposes terror upon those of a "might makes right" ethos (eg dragons or giants)...sure. But not a bunch of weakling humans...until they specifically earn the right to be perceived on the level of supernatural as ghosts or the level of might as huge, physically imposing creatures.

So is your issue that Mearls didn't play Orcs the same way you would in your game? The thing is in the default world of D&D humans are the wildcards, they can be anywhere from the power of a commoner to a near-god depending on class and level... so why after seeing his comrades dispatched so easily would an Orc not be afraid again?

These arguments really do seem more of a "Mearls didn't do what I'd do" nitpick, which i't's your right to feel... but isn't something you can judge as objectively wrong or bad if, as TheJester said above, his players are enjoying themselves that's really the only metric that counts.

 

[Greg K]

Jester,
As I read Manbearcat's post, I had the same reaction as you. Whether or not it is combat and how the orcs would react are playstyle preferences.

ManBearcat's preferences in both instances are the opposite of my own). As with you, I see it as a combat. I also disagreed with his description of orcs. It might be appropriate for some campaigns, but not for everyone's setting.

This is clearly a matter of opinion, deriving (I suspect) largely from playstyle preferences. I would call it combat, even if all the bad guys had been cut down without a chance to act, simply because everyone was on initiative and attacks were rolled.



While this is all very valid, remember that, for some playstyles, this encounter would be great fun. (In fact, it sounded like it was, on the 'cast.) Not only that, nobody knew that things were going to pan out the way they did until dice hit the table and the pcs hacked down most of the orcs before they could act.



Again, this is all about playstyle preference. In many campaigns, some or most evil humanoid types are fundamentally cowards at heart, possibly including orcs. In others, different orcs from different orcish cultures may have different levels of cowardice. So, while it's fine that orcs in your campaign wouldn't be freaked out by humans under the circumstances in the encounter we're discussing, it's not fair to assume that no orcs in anyone else's campaigns would be. And in fact, Mearls' dming proves my point.

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting, but it seems that you're saying Mearls was doing it wrong. Yet it seems as though everyone at the table had great fun- which is pretty much the definition of "doing it right" when you're dming.



I think a very simple pursuit and evasion rule set would be valuable.