The 5e toolkit

[Valetudo]

I would like to see stats go the way of the dodo and a skill based system be implemented.The D20 system is a good match for it and Ive noticed some of the younger kids seem to be caught up in their PCs strength or whatnot instead of fleshing out the PC as a character.

 

[tuxgeo]

. . . The 4e books would do so much better, in my estimation, if there were a few examples of play that contained player dialogue, no die-rolling, and some setting info. My two cents, of course.

As a crazy kind of sidelight on this: you say "The 4e books would do so much better, . . ." -- but would it be equally fair to say that "The 4e presentation would do so much better, . . .?" [substituting "presentation" for "books"]

I guess that my point is really this: would it have helped the 4e presentation if the PHB had included valid web addresses at wizards.com (outside the paywall, and easy to find!) for the following:

(a) 1 .ZIP file containing 128 different valid, first-level characters* to be used as conceptual examples or as pregenerated PCs -- each one with several suggestions of race-appropriate names to give them (and emphasizing the possible thematic differences available from various race/class/feat/skill combinations)
* [not entire characters sheets: don't give away the text of the powers];

(b) 1 .ZIP file containing actual game transcripts that emphasize the roleplaying aspect;

(c) Multiple (16? 32? 26? 8?) .ZIP files containing recordings of actual game sessions. [Except that, you know, they incrementally did that after the fact; still, though, the URL addresses of those files weren't published in the PHB where newbies could find them easily -- because the recordings hadn't been made by the time the PHB was published.]

 

[FireLance]

Drop from 4E: CONDITIONS CONDITIONS CONDITIONS (especially at higher levels, they get out of hand and the combat system bogs down and suffers from it.

I like the idea of standard conditions, which was an improvement over the philosophy that every ability was its own condition. Cutting down the frequency that we see conditions used might be a good idea, though.

I would like to see stats go the way of the dodo

I would like to see the mechanical impact of stats reduced or eliminated. Currently, due to the fixing of the "math" in other areas (examples: the unified half level rate of improvement to check modifiers and defenses, standardizing magic item bonuses, trimming down of bonus types), stats are probably the largest source of "swing" in check modifiers between characters. I say keep the stats but have them depend on choice of race and class (and possibly theme or whatever third leg of character creation you might choose to have). Stats become purely descriptive; they have no mechanical effect and improve as a result of other character creation and improvement choices: for example, picking the Toughness feat increases Constitution, and choosing to be trained in Diplomacy increases Charisma.

 

[Rechan]

I know this thread is "What do you want", but there's also a reality to this situation:

Some of the things people are proposing to toss out are what many people consider "D&D".

Classes
Ability Scores
The D20
+1 Swords

Etc.

I mean, consider the amount of people who said 4e is not D&D because it lacks x or y, or has z feel. By just butchering some sacred cows, you'll get an even more significant rejection.

So while some things you might want, they'd never happen.

 

[Gundark]

Character wise: I really think it's time to get rid of one of the iconic things about the system, that being character classes. It's ok to replace all classes with leader, striker, defender, controller and offer a series of powers and themes from different lists, letting players pick and choose.

I personally hate getting new classes and races in supplements. Find a way to let the player base create their own races and classes and show us how we'd put together the classics as a template. Maybe we get a return of the vancian tables through the "pick these number of powers from these lists at this level if you're a leader" approach.

Hmmm interesting. I find the idea intriguing, however as often tend to find myself in the minority with views, opinions, etc, I suspect the majority would hate it.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I'm not that hard to please, and I'm pretty satisfied with D&D as it stands now. Looming bigger for me than things I want out of 5E are things I don't want:

1. No OGL. I don't like what it did to D&D the first time around.
2. No classless or pseudo-classless(like 3E) design. D&D should be a class based system
3. No return of Vancian spellcasting
4. No return of caster/non-caster imbalance
5. No return of the 9 alignments and alignments having a mechanical impact on the game
6. No move to a more generic type system--D&D is about its distinct flavor

 

[Argyle King]

I would like the character who wields the equipment to matter more than the equipment.

 

[Lanefan]

Let's see...what do I want to find when I open up the 5e toolbox?

Before beginning, a mindset that is not so married to the d20 mechanic to ignore better solutions when they make sense. We all own lots of dice. We all know how to roll 'em. There is nothing wrong with d12 resolutions or d% charts. Also, a further mindset that turns a cold shoulder to the cries for instant gratification - 30 levels in a 2-year campaign is about 25 levels too many.

First, a set of coherent rules - not too many of them, mind you; but enough to provide a framework that provides a playable game as written while still giving the kitbashers something to work with. Simplicity is key; though with that said, charts and tables are useful for getting lots of information into one place - use 'em! Character generation at any level should take less than 15 minutes all in, and if the game can support char-ops boards then someone put the wrong tool in the box.

Second, things in the game that can and will break some of those rules; examples: potions and wands that do things spells cannot, wishes that truly are wishes and not limited to replicating another spell, etc.

Third, a sense of mystery provided by returning most if not all of the mechanical information behind the DM screen where it belongs. Magic items listed by value, combat charts listed as BAB, full knowledge of an item's powers after 5 minutes of sitting with it - all of these defeat mystery and thus take a very good tool out of the box.

Fourth, flexibility presented as a series of options to tack on to the core rules framework. Some examples include rules variants for short-medium-long campaigns, for high-medium-low magic, for high-medium-low combat complexity, for playing with and without minis and a grid, and so on.

Fourth-point-five, flexibility in the math. With each passing edition the math has become more finely tuned, which - while perhaps more balanced - provides its own set of headaches and forces the game into unnecessary straitjackets.

Fifth, when first opened the toolbox must contain every tool for the job. Present the whole game in the first release, and then resist the urge to constantly throw more tools in. Too many editions have already sunk under the weight of rules bloat, let's learn from these mistakes!

Sixth, the toolbox doesn't need a level or set of scales. Balance from common sense is great. Balance from micro-design is kinda lame.

And lastly, perhaps the most important tool: the best rules system in the world is useless without good adventures to run. Design some kick-donkey adventures, dammit! No fluff (we can add that ourselves), no delve (waste of space) - use the 0e-1e classics as a guide and go nuts!

Others have made some good suggestions also - variance in class complexity being one - so I won't repeat them all here.

Lan-"if I had a hammer"-efan

 

[pemerton]

The hobby finds a lot of difficulty in growth, and it is often misunderstood or hard to understand, because so much of how it functions is based on the oral tradition of learning how to play rather than what is presented in the books we use. As with all aspects of gaming, it's easier to ignore an aspect presented than to incorporate an aspect that is not.

I think there has always been this elusive Holy Grail of game design regarding presentation of roleplaying, early on because it was little understood and through current times because it is difficult to express easily or well. I'd like, however, to see the flagship product of the industry take a more serious stab at that presentation, even if for some groups the information isn't used in its entirety.

<snip>

I would really like to see a game that puts roleplaying more front and center in all aspects of the rules as presented if it is going to call itself a roleplaying game.

This came up in the "Is D&D about combat?" thread.

I think that 4e has hints of useful ideas on roleplaying (by which I mean something like - playing a character whose "position" in a fictional world matters), but they're poorly organised, and buried rather than placed front and centre. I'm not sure that someone who didn't already know what to look for could find them.

It reminds me a bit of when I was a kid. The first RPG that I had was a copy of the classic Traveller black box. I read through the booklets, but could not make head or tail of how this game was meant to be played. When, about three years later, I got the Moldvay Basic set, it was a completely different experience. Those rules told me how I was expected to play the game!

If I wanted to more-or-less keep the 4e approach, but make the aim of the game comprehensible, at a minimum these ideas should be put front and centre:

*That PCs have backstories and goals;

*That the players have ultimate authority over those matters (although they have to be prepared to work within the framework the GM is prepared or able to run);

*That these priorities can be expressed via PC building (including race, class, paragon path and epic destiny selection);

*That Quests, which are motivated by these priorities, are the focus of play, and that the resolution of conflict via "encounters" is what will take place in the course of undertaking a Quest.​

The role of the GM would then be introduced as, at a minimum:

*A source of Quests parallel to player authority over Quests (and something might be said about different approaches, like greater GM authority perhaps producing a smoother and more coherent game but running the risk of the players feeling like they're not in control, and greater player authority requiring players who will cooperate together rather than compete for spotlight time, and requiring a GM who is responsive and ready to think on his/her feet);

*A designer of the encounters that will occur in the course of pursuing a Quest;

*An arbiter of the action resolution mechanics, which come into play when the pursuit of some Quest leads to an encounter (this is where issues like "to fudge or not to fudge" might be discussed).​

Part of the idea would be to make it clear that the game is not just about fantasy colour, and not just about exploring a fantasy world that the GM has created, but about playing a character who is engaged in quests that matter - both to the PC and to the player!

Anyway, when I was 10 Moldvay did a pretty good job. Now that I'm nearly 40 I think the BW books - especially the Adventure Builder - do a pretty good job. It shouldn't be beyond the capabilities of WotC to at least do a passable job!

This is something that is DEFINITELY less presented in 4e, and 3e as well, in comparison to earlier editions.

Both those editions focus on mechanical resolutions for encounters, as opposed to 2e's (and other games of that era) often showing examples in which situations were bypassed through non-mechanical - ie roleplaying - means.

I'm in full agreement with Mark CMG. I beleive that if RPGs are to survive, we need to move away from the fetishization of mechanics and focus on what seperates PNP RPGs from computer games - the wider range of available character inputs.

I think it's a mistake to see mechanics and roleplaying as at odds. What might be called "free narration" or "free roleplaying" is one way of handling action resolution in an RPG, but not the only one. And in my view it doesn't have any special or magical tendency to produce serious engagement with the PC or the situation. For example, surfing the doors over the tetanus pits in White Plume Mountain requires free narration for resolution (AD&D doesn't have any door-surfing mechanics), but I don't think playing out that sort of scene in that sort of way is some pinnacle of the roleplaying moment.

What is needed are the right sorts of mechanics, namely, mechanics that tend to reinforce the participants' engagement with what matters in the fiction, rather than drive a wedge between participants and fiction. This can be done with bells and whistles of various sorts (like relationships in HeroWars/Quest, spiritual attributes in The Riddle of Steel, beliefs in Burning Wheel) but it doesn't have to be, provided the GM is given the right sorts of advice on encounter design and resolution, and the players are given the right sorts of advice for PC building, and the game has the right mechanical tools that will complement that advice rather than undermine it.

I think it's unlikely that D&D is going to go for the bells-and-whistles mechanics. For all sorts of reasons I don't want it to go back to free narration, which in my view is fine when nothing is at stake, but easily breaks down when there is disagreement at the table as to how the fiction should proceed. Which leaves the following option: I think WotC needs to write much better advice. Which goes back to Mark CMG's point.

At a minimum, the game might include the following bits of advice for GMs (which I believe are not to be found anywhere in the 4e DMG):

*When designing the encounters that will occur in the course of the PCs undertakig a Quest, make sure that resolving them will reinforce rather than undermine the motivation for the Quest;

When deciding how monsters or NPCs act in the course of an encounter, make choices that remind the players of what is at stake in the encounter and the Quest, so that these concerns remain front and centre in the course of resolving the encounter;

If you notice that your players are losing interest in the fiction and the stakes, and are treating an encounter purely as a mechanical or tactical event, look at the story elements you have in play in the encounter and work out what you can do with them ("On its turn a monster moves here and does this attack", "An NPC makes this outrageous remark in response to a skill check in a skill challenge") that will draw the players' attention back to the fiction.​

This advice isn't foolproof. Sometimes everyone has a bad night and the fiction is a bit boring. And the mechanical component of 4e, especially its combat, is chunky enough that if you're not careful it can start to loom larger than the fiction does. And not everyone wants to play this sort of Quest-driven game anyway.

Still, it would be better for WotC to start somewhere than to remain almost silent on the roleplaying issue, which is where they are at the moment.

 

[Jhaelen]

Anyway, what would you want to see tossed into the toolbox used to make 5e, what would you want to see removed?

Everything from 4e except Essentials.

Edit (to clarify): I'd want to see everything from 4e in 5e except Essentials.

I feel the 4e toolbox is already pretty much complete considering what I'd want to see in a D&D rpg. It's really just finetuning that is required to make it an even greater game, e.g. in the area of rituals.

Essentials, however, was too much like turning 4e into 3.9, i.e. a step in the wrong direction. 5e needs to look into the future not into the past.