D&D 5E (2014) two things about D&D that could be more interesting

[ccs]

Well don't keep us in suspense Bob, tell us what that game you love more than D&D is. You can say its name.
Unless you're going to say FATAL. In that case keep it to yourself.

 

[Guest 6801328]

My money is on Hello Kitty: Island Adventure.

 

[happyhermit]

Disclaimer: I am not an American I found this interesting though, so I am going to comment on a couple things.

...
1. What do you start with in D&D? Well, technically stats - which is worse - but primarily your job (class). Your job tells you what you can do, and you can do nothing else. 5.0 expands this to your 2nd job (background), which is good, but what we like about some other systems is that you start with your personality, ...

First of all, as has been mentioned, "tells you what you can do and you can do nothing else" isn't really true. To start with there are feats, skills, proficiencies, multiclassing, etc that will spell out additional things a PC can do, other than what their initial class selection gave them.

Second, why in the world would that mechanical framework determine exactly what that character can/can't do? They might tell you some things that you are particularly good at, but they are not intended to be a comprehensive list of things that a PC can do.

Third and from a slightly different angle, asymmetrical play is definitely one of my favorite things about D&D, and classes have largely been the typical way in which that is done (in D&D). Classless systems (IME) have not been particularly successful at achieving this, largely due to balancing issues I believe.

2. In combat, you hit or you miss. If you are trying to convince someone or climb a wall, it's the same principle: a static DC - a number that defines whether or not you succeed or fail. Casting spells means they either 100% happen exactly like you thought - or you are out of [spell resource] and they do not happen at all. Everything is binary
...
(D&D has crit successes [and you can add crit fails] but those are only combat rules and still basically binary.)

I don't really think things are as binary as you make them out to be. First of all, in D&D "an attack" is actually intended to be not necessarily a single swing of a sword but an abstracted amount of thrust/parry etc. so the hit/miss is an overall summation of the success/failure with damage determining the degree of success. As for casting spells, some of them also have save effects, so are even less of a binary proposition.

Critical success or failures (10% chance) as mentioned, are certainly not binary as well. As for being combat specific, this may be true RAW but many GMs IME still treat them differently outside of combat. Many GMs also treat skill checks as not necessarily binary, if more granularity is desired.

By contrast, in D&D you start with stats - which narrows what you can even choose to do with a job - or race - ditto - or just your JOB. This defines you completely; it's explicit. You can do no more and no less and you can't do X until level Y. You are a CLERIC: here are your assumptions. It's precise, and at least in some ways, restrictive / limiting. (Even multiclassing only gives you different jobs.) It's beautifully simple and again, if you think I'm saying something bad I refer you to Disclaimer, above.

Again, I am not sure why you think that things are so defined by one's class (which =/= job much more than phyla=job) I really don't think it is explicit at all and I would be very interested to know why you think it is. If you mean what spells you can cast, or how many attacks, then I would agree that it is largely dependent on a PCs class/classes but that is only a part of what the PC can do.

5e doesn't really start with stats, in that pure rolling a character is not the default, regardless the only time I would start with a class would be if for some mechanical reason I wanted to try out that particular class. Otherwise, that is never how I make a character. We always come up with a concept, then determine which class best fits that concept. For instance, if it is a fighty type character it might become barbarian/fighter/rogue/ranger/paladin etc depending on which fits best and matches the preferred play-style for the player and game. It's just a mechanical framework though, not what defines the character. The stats are intended to match the concept, not the class, so they might not be ideal.

Ideals, bonds and flaws are very important as well, along with background as they often have more impact on the game and what the PC does than either class or stats.

I hope this doesn't seem "unconstructive" and if you want to add some granularity and/or reduce the degree of binary success and failure in conflict resolution then that's great. In fact, we do that a lot already in different ways.

 

[evilbob]

Thanks for all the great replies! Here are some responses.

The major barrier here is in coming up with five significantly different outcomes for every possible task. If you're trying to swim across a lake, for example, then success and failure are easy to figure out; but the difference between a "poor success" and an "impressive success" is a bit more nebulous. If all you care about is getting across, then it doesn't matter if you do it well or poorly, and the DM spends a lot of extra time and effort in trying to figure out what each grade of success means for every possible die roll (or just says that any amount of success counts as success, so you can keep the game moving).

Mechanically, it's not much of an issue. Success or failure by 5 or 10 could easily set the boundaries. And if someone is rolling at +9 against a DC 13, then that character never needs to worry about getting a critical failure (let alone a super critical failure). That part isn't really an issue.

Exact opposite for me. "Degrees of success" are easy - been doing that a long while in other games. (Swimming across a lake, random degrees of success: you get tired, you do it quickly, you get bit by a fish, you find something in the lake, you start to drown but an attractive stranger pulls you out - seriously, that was 5 seconds.) Figuring out what's a decent mechanic - and then getting players to think in those terms as well - is the challenge.

Whew. There's a lot of unpack in your post. So, my initial thoughts.

I know, sorry.

Now, I'm pulling these numbers out of my posterior, but you get the idea.

But that's basically what I did and came up with basically the same idea. I'm wondering if there's another way?

Binary Pass/Fail

I think we missed each other in your reply. I already do those things and it doesn't change anything. But I'll see if I can check out One Ring, I know it's very popular.

Class = Job

Yeah, sort of. I'm wary of full a la carte systems where you get to pick and choose whatever features and abilities you want. It's sooooo hard to do that and both have lots of options and prevent broken builds.

As a sidebar, I'm starting to wonder if "truly open class design" and "broken builds" cannot be separated. But moreso, I think "broken builds" has more to do with the perspective and experience of the player; therefore it's not a "thing" that a system can really solve. But, everyone has an opinion on this, too - it's also why the world of tabletop RPGs is so wonderfully vast and varied!

While I do get what you mean, it does depend on the player's approach to generating her character and (even more so) how she thinks about her character in-play.

"Yes but." The system is so tilted in that direction that even indirectly it encourages that mindset. You can always avoid it, yes: but it's baked in. You have to try not to.

Edit: I just saw that you only want to read from people who have the same opinion as you. So I've deleted my post.

Thanks! A few people ignored my plea and still wrote just to explain to me why I'm wrong about how I feel D&D works. Please don't worry about it.

"tells you what you can do and you can do nothing else" isn't really true

You were very nice about telling me I was wrong, so I'll say: I've seen too many players, when asked what to do, look at their sheets. "What do I do? What are my options? They are listed here, in front of me." D&D works toward this; it's part of how it's set up. Powers are mostly explicitly defined. It doesn't have to be that way, and other systems encourage different perspectives.

in D&D "an attack" is actually intended to be not necessarily a single swing of a sword but an abstracted

No, no, no. I mean, yes you're technically correct, but that's not what I'm talking about. End of the day: still a binary outcome.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Risking people misunderstanding my post, I'll try an example: I like a certain game. The system is clunky and messy and blah blah blah [insert reasons you hate it] (also if you tell me to just go play that game instead you can seriously rot in hell, troll), but when you make a character, you start with: nature and demeanor. What is a one-sentence stereotype that sums up how your character appears to other people? What is a one-sentence stereotype that sums up how your character really is on the inside? Then pick one of 13 personality groups: what is your general outlook on life, how do you express your [power], what do you think about the others who express their [power] and their outlooks on life? THEN you pick your powers, which still don't define your job, either: just things you can do. Possibilities. It's a tremendous role-playing aid, and it can completely change how you think about your character. (Less char-op, for example.)

By contrast, in D&D you start with stats - which narrows what you can even choose to do with a job - or race - ditto - or just your JOB. This defines you completely; it's explicit. You can do no more and no less and you can't do X until level Y. You are a CLERIC: here are your assumptions. It's precise, and at least in some ways, restrictive / limiting. (Even multiclassing only gives you different jobs.) It's beautifully simple and again, if you think I'm saying something bad I refer you to Disclaimer, above.

IME, this is really a matter of style rather than system. When I played WoD (for several years) I knew plenty of players who would start by picking a clan or tradition (or whatever), choosing nature/demeanor only at the end of character creation. A clan (or equivalent) is very similar to a class in WoD. While playing a Brujah might not be straight-forwardly equal to choosing Fighter, 99.9% of Brujah were basically that. Tremere were wizards, while Ventrue were business men. Once in a blue moon you might see a concept that ran counter to the expected paradigm, but it was rare. A pacifist Brujah is probably as likely as a pacifist Fighter IMO (I've never seen either).

I mean, sure, you can potentially learn out of clan disciplines, but that's not much different from multiclassing. It broadens your options while costing you more than the in-clan/single-class choice would.

I think you can do the same thing in D&D if you approach it the right way. Start by choosing alignment and background traits (personality, ideal, etc). Admittedly, a strict rolling method will be a hindrance to this, but using point buy or a flexible rolling option (arranged as desired) you should be able to accommodate whatever the player comes up with.

 

[evilbob]

A clan (or equivalent) is very similar to a class in WoD.

But it's not, though - and therein lies all the difference. Granted, you picked one fair example - Tremere wizards - but the others could easily play against type. (Maybe many Brujah didn't chose not to be fighters, but they could.) I mean think of this: what class is a Malkavian? Or a Toreador? And the ability to go against type (when there was one) was still a strong option, which helps the mindset.

I think you can do the same thing in D&D if you approach it the right way.

I already said this above. But it's not the point: you can, but it isn't encouraged. It's a different mindset.

 

[Fanaelialae]

But it's not, though - and therein lies all the difference. Granted, you picked one fair example - Tremere wizards - but the others could easily play against type. (Maybe many Brujah didn't chose not to be fighters, but they could.) I mean think of this: what class is a Malkavian? Or a Toreador? And the ability to go against type (when there was one) was still a strong option, which helps the mindset.

A Fighter could also choose to play against type. You just need to play in a campaign that isn't combat-centric. I've played in D&D campaigns where multiple sessions went by without a single combat. I've also played in WoD games where not a single session went by without combat. I'll grant you, D&D does encourage combat more than WoD, but in the end I think a group's play style is what matters most.

What vampire clan is a Cleric? Or a Rogue? There isn't a 1:1 ratio between clans and classes. However, clans much like classes, do try to typecast a player. One cleric might be of Pelor while another is of Hextor, while one Malkavian might be OCD while another is a homicidal maniac, but if you know the clan/class of either, you have a general idea of what you're dealing with. A holy person or a crazy person, respectively.

I think that the option to go against type is a strong option in D&D as well. Maybe your Cleric is a sinner and a doubting Thomas, who can't understand why his deity chose to invest him with power. Certainly an interesting way to play the class. A Fighter might be an ex-soldier whose seen too much killing and wants to be a pacifist. Maybe your Brujah is the same. However, neither the Fighter's abilities nor the Brujah's Potence and Celerity push those characters in that direction. Far from it. At least the Fighter can multiclass as a bard to take on a support role. Once the Brujah maxes out Presence, he's stuck trying to find a teacher for out-of-clan disciplines.

I already said this above. But it's not the point: you can, but it isn't encouraged. It's a different mindset.

Maybe, but if so I don't think it's explicitly tied to the system. It might have something to do with the type of game a player expects from either system. D&D traditionally has a strong expectation of combat, whereas WoD is less so. But depending on the GM, those expectations might significantly change. I've known Storytellers in whose games you either built a combat monster or stayed out of the way for most of the session.

 

[Jabborwacky]

It sounds like you want a system that lets a single character cover all the bases to some degree. In such a case, D&D will not satisfy you, because even though you could try to cover all bases, you'd be a master of none. Each of your actions would be less potent than a single specialist. I've been able to do some creative things, but there will always be some problem you cannot solve on your own.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Background=job is much closer to true than class=job in most cases, IMO. And even there I am suspect.

[Also... Caution: Unless my point persuades you to believe I am indeed right, please don't respond to me.]

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Also this:

In D&D, you can have a good chance to succeed or a poor chance, but the results are always the same. And since a poor chance means a 0% outcome most of the time, it discourages you - indirectly, slightly - against even trying at all. "Well a fighter in full plate will never succeed on stealthing so let's kick down the door." (Please ignore this example if you think you can prove me wrong by telling me what's wrong with this example.) This kind of thinking doesn't appear so limiting but once you aren't playing with that mindset it's interesting to see how much it really does limit your creative process. (And it's NOT about being able to do anything or doing things you're not "good" at; it's about the creative process of even approaching the idea of how to tackle a problem in front of you.)

I have two issues here as well.

1) Looking at your example, groups trying to be stealthy generally make group stealth checks. The platemail wearing fighter can fail yet the group succeeds.

2) Bounded Accuracy. Even in platemail, that fighter still has a shot to succeed. Likely? Maybe not. But its not like the last few editions where TNs were so escalated only expert need bother even to try.