D&D 5E new Critical Hits article about running DnD next

[Libramarian]

thank you Aehrlon.

I don't share the common people's distrust of thread necromancy.

 

[Hautamaki]

I don't care for this at all, but as long as there is an option for encounter healing 4e style, I'm ok with it.

IMO, its basically telling the paladin player, "Sorry, we're going to keep playing D&D and having fun. But you're screwed and can't play anymore. Sucks to be you. So, why don't you go off and check your e-mail or something."

Another reason I don't like long term healing is it screws up adventure flow and can completely derail a story. Let's say you are rescuing a PC's kid sister from some gnolls, and you have to get to her before they sacrifice her to Yeenoghu.

Well, lets say the adventure goes poorly in the first encounter and the players are low on HP and other resources, but they survive. If there is limited post-encounter HP or resource recovery, then to press on would be certain death. Hmm, that kind of sucks. Talk about a crappy ending to the story. To go back and take your bedrest, means you can't save her. That kind of sucks too.

Sure, in an old school game, you could just say "them's the breaks" and let the gnolls kill her. Some players like that grim cruel world approach, but most of the people I have gamed with don't. They want to be challenged, but they want to ultimately have a reasonable chance to succeed and if they feel the game is stacked against them, they won't want to play anymore.

So, what usually happens is the DM handwaves it. You find a cache of potions, or the gods aid you by healing you. I personally find that kind of DM fiat unsatisfying. Its like the game has failed, so the DM has to cheat to make the game work.

So what I prefer is a game that provides PCs enough post-encounter healing and resource recovery that even if they roll horribly and just totally botch that first encounter, they still automatically recover enough HP and other resources automatically that they can reasonably press on. They are not back to full, but not totally screwed either. And while the second encounter should now be a bit harder, its not certain death.

Don't think of it as a long-term injury. Think of it as a temporary death. What happens when your character dies at the table? You don't just go home, you roll up another. The only difference in this case is that you can go back to the original PC after he recovers if the new one dies or is similarly long-term wounded or you just don't like him.

My group of PCs currently has a 'bench' of 4 currently unplayed PCs that can jump off the bench at any time if their player so desires. They man the PC's home base, guarding their valuables, and acquiring new recruits (to replace dead PCs for the players who don't have a guy on the bench or just want to try playing something new for a while). Of course this means the players are spreading their XP around a lot more, but at the same time it allows them to customize their party for each mission, gives them a more varied overall gameplay experience, allows for lots of cool non-combat roleplaying as the PCs are setting up their mercenary company, explains how the PCs are able to find a new recruit right after someone dies (or negates the need for a sudden and convenient new recruit to show up), protects the PC's wealth while they are dungeon crawling, and so on.

Long term injuries are just part of the fun if your PC group is playing like this.

 

[Dragonblade]

I'm going to tell you something that will revolutionize your gaming.

Game time does not equal real time.

Indeed. WotC came to the same conclusion when they came up with Healing Surges. And they did in fact revolutionize gaming.

The problem is that there are two completely different types of D&D play. On the one hand you have people like me who want to play D&D as cinematic action. Kick in the door, fight the monsters, save the princess. For me, mechanics that get in the way of that are a detriment. Mechanics that force me out of the game, or to carefully hoard my health and resources feel like a suffocating limitation on getting my PC back into whats important to me which is story and action.

For others, D&D is a gritty game of pseudo-realistic dungeon delving where carefully hoarding health and resources is a primary source of their enjoyment. For them, mechanics that make hoarding resources meaningless in favor of a more cinematic play style are video-gamey and unrealistic.

The game has evolved from one style to the other over the years as editions progressed. I think the reason 3e/Pathfinder seems to resonate is that its house rule-able into either style depending on the group. But its not perfect. 4e does many things better from a tactical and cinematic standpoint. But it does some things worse too. Then you have all the retro-clones out there for the hard core old school style players.

The trick is for WotC to come up with a modular ruleset that can do everything a retro-clone can do, everything Pathfinder can do, and everything 4e can do, as long as you plug in the right options.

 

[Libramarian]

Indeed. WotC came to the same conclusion when they came up with Healing Surges. And they did in fact revolutionize gaming.

I mean if somebody is injured for 3 weeks, just say "3 weeks pass". (I know there is an issue with how it can invalidate some short term adventures, but other that that).

The problem is that there are two completely different types of D&D play. On the one hand you have people like me who want to play D&D as cinematic action. Kick in the door, fight the monsters, save the princess. For me, mechanics that get in the way of that are a detriment. Mechanics that force me out of the game, or to carefully hoard my health and resources feel like a suffocating limitation on getting my PC back into whats important to me which is story and action.

For others, D&D is a gritty game of pseudo-realistic dungeon delving where carefully hoarding health and resources is a primary source of their enjoyment. For them, mechanics that make hoarding resources meaningless in favor of a more cinematic play style are video-gamey and unrealistic.

For me, it's not so much that it's video-gamey and unrealistic. I love videogames and play them a lot. I just don't have much of a taste for the cinematic style, as you put it, where it's basically predetermined beforehand that you will save the princess, and the point of the RPG medium is just to allow you to be "in" the movie. I want to be more surprised at what happens than that. In fact I would actually say that I (at least as DM) enjoy anticlimactic endings to adventures, like the PCs are heading home after beating the dungeon, looking forward to their triumphant reception in town, and then giant spiders capture and eat them. That makes me laugh because of how cruel and unexpected it is. So I suppose I'm actually looking for an anti-cinematic feel from D&D.

The game has evolved from one style to the other over the years as editions progressed. I think the reason 3e/Pathfinder seems to resonate is that its house rule-able into either style depending on the group. But its not perfect. 4e does many things better from a tactical and cinematic standpoint. But it does some things worse too. Then you have all the retro-clones out there for the hard core old school style players.

The trick is for WotC to come up with a modular ruleset that can do everything a retro-clone can do, everything Pathfinder can do, and everything 4e can do, as long as you plug in the right options.

Yes, but it's always harder to houserule in stuff that makes the PCs lives more difficult than it is to make the game easier. By that logic the game default should be set as quite punitive, and then more cinematically minded DMs can move away from that.

You said earlier than you dislike mechanics that require you to fudge to make sure the adventurers succeed. But obviously that's a lot easier to swing by a group than fudging to make sure they have a chance of failure.

I think the whole "rise of the ruleslawyers" came about when DMs had to start houseruling/fudging to make the game more difficult, rather than to make the game easier.

I have a bunch of little houserules for AD&D 1e, but the players don't complain because they're all basically in their favor. The single one I got into a (small) argument about was restricting clerics from using flails -- the one that works against them. I can imagine how difficult it would be to ban entire books of player-focused crunch that they bought themselves.

 

[Ranes]

Indeed. WotC came to the same conclusion when they came up with Healing Surges. And they did in fact revolutionize gaming.

They certainly shook things up, agreed.

The problem is that there are two completely different types of D&D play...

I recognise your definitions but I don't think all players fall into one group or the other. I think people's preferences are often more complex. But bear with me.

The trick is for WotC to come up with a modular ruleset that can do everything a retro-clone can do, everything Pathfinder can do, and everything 4e can do, as long as you plug in the right options.

That truly sounds great and I'd like that. But it's a huge ask and I wouldn't expect any architect of Xe to deliver completely, on that front.

Also, from what I've read, I don't think that's what WotC is promising. What they seem to me to be saying is:

• We want to give you modular subsystems that serve a number of different demands on the game, based on what what we think proved most popular in various earlier editions
• We want to be clear that one of the central tenets of the game is that each group is free and indeed encouraged to tailor the game to their tastes.

That's not coming up with a system that does everything that another game does; it's coming up with a game that explains how you might change it in order to arrive at something more familiar to you and more to your tastes than its default assumptions. It also makes room for an explanation of how doing so can be conducive to achieving the best game for you and your friends.

Now that's still a big ask but it accommodates what you want without needing to accomplish the practically insurmountable task of providing every possible version of each idea.

It's so tricky. The more space you devote to explaining how to best go about creating or modifying a given game mechanic, the less space you have to present your preferred and no doubt well-considered recommendation for that very mechanic.

On this basis, I don't think I've ever been so excited about the potential of a new edition of D&D to surprise and delight me. I keep playing D&D because I like the sheer nonsense and wackiness of it. The designers of Next truly have a rare opportunity.

 

[gyor]

They certainly shook things up, agreed.



I recognise your definitions but I don't think all players fall into one group or the other. I think people's preferences are often more complex. But bear with me.



That truly sounds great and I'd like that. But it's a huge ask and I wouldn't expect any architect of Xe to deliver completely, on that front.

Also, from what I've read, I don't think that's what WotC is promising. What they seem to mgr to be saying is:

• We want to give you modular subsystems that serve a number of different demands on the game, based on what what we think proved most popular in various earlier editions
• We want to be clear that one of the central tenets of the game is that each group is free and indeed encouraged to tailor the game to their tastes.

That's not coming up with a system that does everything that another game does; it's coming up with a game that explains how you might change it in order to arrive at something more familiar to you and more to your tastes than its default assumptions. It also makes room for an explanation of how doing so can be conducive to achieving the best game for you and your friends.

Now that's still a big ask but it accommodates what you want without needing to accomplish the practically insurmountable task of providing every possible version of each idea.

It's so tricky. The more space you devote to explaining how to best go about creating or modifying a given game mechanic, the less space you have to present your preferred and no doubt well-considered recommendation for that very mechanic.

On this basis, I don't think I've ever been so excited about the potential of a new edition of D&D to surprise and delight me. I keep playing D&D because I like the sheer nonsense and wackiness of it. The designers of Next truly have a rare opportunity.

I'm a bit of both, although I guess that depends what means by grittiness.

For me grittiness in the story line, context, and flavour, not the mechanics.

Example say PC's are tought enough the odds are in thier favour. To add grit maybe the PCs are rescuing the Princess to stop a war between two kingdom, but find out the Princess is Vengeful and cruel and plans have having the families of her political foes raped and slaughtered for conspiring to have her kidnapped, leaving the characters with the choice of a war the will butcher thousands if not millions or freeing a Princess that willing murder enemy families including thier children.

Or maybe the characters find themselves in a fight were the princess' life is at risk and her survival depends the characters picking the right, but risky combat stragety. Like maybe a Frost Titan has tied the Princess and her handmaidens to his shield still alive and any blow he blocks with his shield is inflicts a horrific wound on one of these girls instead.

Maybe you rescue the Princess only to find the cultists have impregnated her with the reincarnated Avatar of Orcus who will bring upon the end of the world if you allow her to give birth.

Or maybe enemies have discovered your party plans and kidnapped one of the characters younger brother and made it clear to that character that if the Princess lives his brother dies, leaving the character to decide who to betray, his party who puts thiers lives in his hands, trusting him, or a brother who loves him and looks up to him and who believies his big brother will allows protect him.

To me these types ideas and more are grittiness, not tedious mechanics.

On the other hand I like epic play and playing characters with lots of cool abilities. I also hated level drain and disliked ability score drain as anything more then single encounter status effects.

 

[Ranes]

I wasn't talking about grittiness. Not sure why you've brought that up. But now that you have, let's talk about that gritty storyline, context and flavour you prefer to 'tedious' mechanics.

You want engaging scenarios but, no matter how many princesses you impregnate with demon seed, the scenarios aren't going to be engaging unless there is challenge. Mechanics are very good at providing that. One simple example of such a challenge is resource management. Think that's dull? How many times in fiction have you seen a protagonist down to his last bullet and needing not to miss or needing to choose between two targets? How many times has the protagonist run out of ammunition just at the crucial moment and is forced instead to find a clever alternative means of defeating his opponent?

You like playing characters with cool abilities. Those abilities require cool mechanics to keep them (and your acquisition of them) in check or 'cool' quickly becomes mundane and all excitement is lost.

 

[pemerton]

One simple example of such a challenge is resource management. Think that's dull? How many times in fiction have you seen a protagonist down to his last bullet and needing not to miss or needing to choose between two targets? How many times has the protagonist run out of ammunition just at the crucial moment and is forced instead to find a clever alternative means of defeating his opponent?

There are many ways of handling this in an RPG other than counting bullets.

 

[Aehrlon]

They certainly shook things up, agreed.
I recognize your definitions but I don't think all players fall into one group or the other. I think people's preferences are often more complex. But bear with me.

That truly sounds great and I'd like that. But it's a huge ask and I wouldn't expect any architect of Xe to deliver completely, on that front.

Also, from what I've read, I don't think that's what WotC is promising. What they seem to me to be saying is:

• We want to give you modular subsystems that serve a number of different demands on the game, based on what what we think proved most popular in various earlier editions
• We want to be clear that one of the central tenets of the game is that each group is free and indeed encouraged to tailor the game to their tastes.

That's not coming up with a system that does everything that another game does; it's coming up with a game that explains how you might change it in order to arrive at something more familiar to you and more to your tastes than its default assumptions. It also makes room for an explanation of how doing so can be conducive to achieving the best game for you and your friends......

On this basis, I don't think I've ever been so excited about the potential of a new edition of D&D to surprise and delight me. I keep playing D&D because I like the sheer nonsense and wackiness of it. The designers of Next truly have a rare opportunity.

Hmm, Healing Surges = Shook things Up?? Well it was a change (& one I liked) but for me the real shake up (In 4E) was how your powers had what can arguably be described as "recharge bars". As in some recharge very fast (At Will), some a little slower (Encounter) and some very slow (Daily). It was new & some loved it, some hated it... didn't seem to be many on the fence there. One thing I was not overly fond of was how 4E handled magic items. Not edition war talk; I did enjoy playing 4E, just my opinion on the items.

On 2 different types of games (I believe Dragonblade was the original poster) I can see how some think all games fit into the two categories of kick in the door cinematic action OR a gritty game of pseudo-realistic dungeon delving. I suppose a fair amount fit into these categories but certainly not all. ----It has been my experience that a mixture of the two as well as mysterious recurring enemies, cliff-hanger endings, harrowing escapes, etc all make for interesting, entertaining and engaging games. I mean, we play this game primarily for fun.

Plots need to twist & turn to stay interesting. Anytime I DMed a game, I always made sure to have an over-riding narrative that involved the players but which also had events which change things from time to time... as well as things that happened behind the scenes that players hear about via rumor or contacts. Also, having a session or two which focused on a specific character, whether it's an element from their background, race, etc but something that makes that game session personal... even if it's a bad thing such as a rival from their past that shows up at a really bad time.

I am optimistic about the modular approach that it sounds like D&D Next is trying to make happen. If it's possible to customize a game so that everyone is happy, or even have characters of varying complexity work at the same table, well that would be great! I don't mind complex rules if they don't slow the game down too much. I'm hoping that weapon damage types vs. armor (or certain enemies like Blunt vs Skeletons) is included as an option.

Back to the topic that we were on a little while ago (risking some thread necromancy myself) it would be nice to see OPTIONS for recovery of ability damage as well as an option to eliminate it altogether, if desired. Sure, a DM can allow for time to pass if a party has no access to clerical aid or potions that repair ability damage. But options in the game that take care of it would be very cool. Here's a thought: your Strength gets damaged for 5 points... you drink of potion of Bull's Strength and it repairs the damage if you're down those Strength points (Rather than giving you a temporary bonus if you were at full Strength). Just a thought.