Uniting the Editions, Part 2 Up!

[RoboCheney]

And while I'm at it, paying for your character options / feats / powers by taking attack / damage penalties would be . . . sad.

 

[pauljathome]

Further, they are looking at the entire history of the game which is over 30 years and 3e and 4e encompass, what, A third of that?

In terms of number of players then 3rd and 4th combined are one whole heck of a lot more than a 1/3.

In terms of players currently playing then its got to be well over 90%.

But that really isn't my point.

My point is that Monte seems to be starting from this grand vision of what D&D is (and should be). And I find myself strongly disagreeing with that vision.

To me, that vision seems to be primarily VERY old school.

As somebody else expressed it (not on this thread), he's describing the game that I LEFT in the early 80's.

And I think that D&D ALSO left that game awhile back.

Basically WotC is trying to teach you to look beyond the surface of the game you are playing now and examine the core experience of your game. All the rest is fiddly bits.

My Two Coppers,

My core experience of D&D is nothing at all like what Monte is claiming it is. My core experience of D&D 25 years ago WAS what Monte is claiming it NOW is. That IS my basic point.

Now, I could be a demographically irrelevant outlier. If I am, then all it means is that 5th edition won't be for me. That is fine with me (I've got Pathfinder). But if I'm NOT, then 5th edition WILL fail. Because they're aiming for the wrong target.

 

[Ratskinner]

I have a lot of trouble with this statement, and not just because of the implication that that wanting the rules to cover a lot of concepts (not "everything") is something only computers would want.

For one thing, the idea of "a system which is easy to house rule" is an incredibly loaded statement. The idea of what's "easy" to house rule is something you'll never get gamers to agree on; even moreso when you try and apply this definition across different areas that people want to house rule to begin with.

Likewise, the idea of "returning power to the players and the DMs" also strikes me as weird. Returning the power from who? My books were never going to beat me up if I tried to change any of the rules in them (notwithstanding that one...but I killed it when I broke its spine). Like He-Man, I have the power, and always have.

A modular system, built with multiple options that are mutually balanced, should allow for a high degree of character customization, both in terms of complexity and design. If it can't marry two different themes though, such as a low-complexity wizard who casts at-wills, without a house rule, then it's not a question of how easy it is to house rule something...that's a gap in the system.

To put it another way, I reject the Rule 0 Fallacy:



Now, a gap in the rules isn't quite the same thing as a broken rule, but it's still an area that requires the GM to solve the problem in the rules. That's not a feature of the system; it's a bug.

Oh noes! the GM might have to solve a problem! Its not a problem that the game won't do every single thing anyone might ever ask of it. Somebody out there, I dunno who, but somebody. Is going to dig out some old modules and try to run a 5e game with the PCs finding laser pistols or somesuch. I fairly confident that the 5e basic game will not have lasers in it. That DM will need to make up rules so that his game works the way he wants it to.

This isn't a computer program. A good game and a thoroughly defined game aren't the same. Those gaps are the places your imagination(s) are supposed to go. I'm also curious as to why you're so certain that the "basic" wizard will have no at-wills? and that taking something from the "complex" chapter in the PHB would count as "houseruling".

Unless you want every adventure, every move, every ability, every PC to be totally scripted for you by WOTC, the GM will always need to step in to fill in the gaps. There will be decisions to be made for every adventure and new ideas that Players need a ruling on. Board games and computer games can eliminate this by restricting the universe of possible actions that players can take, a tabletop rpg shouldn't. At the very least, the GM needs to be there for that one guy who comes up with something the writers didn't anticipate. The question we're up against here is where do you draw that line?

The more recent editions have drawn it much closer to the computer/board games. Carefully defining how this works and what DC that is. Seems to me that that trend is being reassessed. "Returning the power" just means that the game is more defined by its players than it is by the rulebooks. It also makes a game more vulnerable to bad DMing, but I'm thinking the current feeling is that one can go too far insulating a game from bad DMing.

As far as houseruling goes, the simpler the system, the easier it is to houserule. More intrinsic interacting mechanical bits increase the likelihood that any (significant) houserule will need another houserule to fix an unforeseen interaction. Also keep in mind that some or many of these don't require full house rules, just judgement calls.

 

[triqui]

Abe and Bob are both playing dextrous rogues with a Dex of 17.

Abe goes old school. No skills. He gets a +2 to roguey stuff for being a rogue.

Bob wants to really emphasize his Stealth, even at the cost of his Escape Artist skill being lower. He wants to be the sneakiest darn rogue ever not seen.

To sneak up on a particular somebody Abe needs to roll a 15.

To escape from some particular manacles Abe needs to roll a 15.

Bob presumably needs to roll significantly less than 15 to sneak up and significantly more to escape from the manacles or Bob is going to be unhappy (he WANTS his character to be REALLY good at sneaking).

It turns out that there are a LOT more opportunities to sneak up on people than to escape from manacles. So Abe notices that his character sucks.

That is the circle that has to be squared.

The only ways that I can see this working are
1) Keep the differences so small that they don't actually matter. That might actually work for many players. Its sort of what 4th Ed did (there tends to be huge efforts to get an extra +1 in all sorts of cases where it really doesn't matter that much)
2) Try and determine how much more valuable Stealth is than Escape Artist. So, for example, every 3 pts you lower your Escape Artist gives you a +1 to Stealth.

or the sneaky one might be able to sneak while moving, hide in plain sight, or sniping without penalties. That's the point, the difference between the good ones and the regular trained does not need to be just numbers. If the only way to show a character is better at stealth is by increasing the bonus,you end having a system with so much disparity that anything that mildly challenge the skilled character dooms to fail every one else. That leads to situations where the group itself can't even try something becouse half the group has ZERO chances to suceed.

Same goes to fighting. A regular fighter migh has a +3, whilevery good specialist might have +5, which allow both to hit reasonably. However, the specialist might get extra damage with combat adventage, free trips,bleeding, or the ability to push enemies. That allow one being better than the other, but does not render uslesess the not so good.

 

[Kingreaper]

Monte wrote:


So I'm trying to envision this as pertains to skill checks, and I'm finding it a little odd. Let's say we have the following:

* Player T, who has a long list of skills and feats (a la third edition).
* Player F, who has a short list of skills, feats, and utility powers (fourth edition).
* Player B, who just has ability scores and AC (original D&D).

They come up to several obstacles, including a stuck door (that DC 13 door that showed up before) and a chasm that can be crossed with a rope, like Luke and Leia in Star Wars. They decide to cross the chasm first.

Does player B make an ability check to swing across, player F make an Athletics check, and player T make a Rope Use check?

Player B makes an ability check using their flat "Generally competent" bonus.
Player F makes a skill check, which is an ability check with or without a bonus depending on their skills
Player T makes a skill check, which is an ability check with or without a bonus depending on their skills

The only difference between T and F is that T has more, smaller, skills.

 

[Alzrius]

Oh noes! the GM might have to solve a problem!

Wow, looks like somebody took my rebuttal a little too personally.

Its not a problem that the game won't do every single thing anyone might ever ask of it.

Unfortunately, you failed your Read Post check, otherwise you'd have seen where I said this (emphasis mine):

I have a lot of trouble with this statement, and not just because of the implication that that wanting the rules to cover a lot of concepts (not "everything") is something only computers would want.

Somebody out there, I dunno who, but somebody. Is going to dig out some old modules and try to run a 5e game with the PCs finding laser pistols or somesuch. I fairly confident that the 5e basic game will not have lasers in it. That DM will need to make up rules so that his game works the way he wants it to.

Not after I get through with providing playtest feedback.

This isn't a computer program.

Seriously, you really got a natural 1 on that aforementioned check, didn't you?

I have a lot of trouble with this statement, and not just because of the implication that that wanting the rules to cover a lot of concepts (not "everything") is something only computers would want.

A good game and a thoroughly defined game aren't the same.

Not sure who you're directing that too, since nobody that I've read said it, but maybe they'll chime in.

Those gaps are the places your imagination(s) are supposed to go. I'm also curious as to why you're so certain that the "basic" wizard will have no at-wills? and that taking something from the "complex" chapter in the PHB would count as "houseruling".

First, there's no "supposed" to - saying that is equivalent to throwing out "badwrongfun" accusations.

Second, my imagination is going to what I can do with the rules. When the rules fail to give me the tools to make what I want, then there's a problem with that. Saying that's not a problem is just the Rule 0 Fallacy again.

Yes, you can tinker with the system, and yes, that can be fun, but that's not something that's intentionally designed into the game. The designers aren't looking for areas specifically not to do for the purpose of letting people do it themselves.

Finally, my "certainty" is something only you've called it. I'm simply highlighting an example based on the little we've heard, third-hand, through the playtest reports to illustrate a point.

Unless you want every adventure, every move, every ability, every PC to be totally scripted for you by WOTC, the GM will always need to step in to fill in the gaps.

More hyperbole? Your attempt to conflate my stance of "gaps in the rules are bad" with "EVERYTHING MUST BE PRE-WRITTEN!!1!1!!" isn't working.

There will be decisions to be made for every adventure and new ideas that Players need a ruling on. Board games and computer games can eliminate this by restricting the universe of possible actions that players can take, a tabletop rpg shouldn't.

No kidding, since that's not what I'm talking about.

At the very least, the GM needs to be there for that one guy who comes up with something the writers didn't anticipate. The question we're up against here is where do you draw that line?

I draw the line at the game having gaps in the rules being a positive feature. Clearly you want a game with large areas that aren't touched upon.

The more recent editions have drawn it much closer to the computer/board games. Carefully defining how this works and what DC that is. Seems to me that that trend is being reassessed. "Returning the power" just means that the game is more defined by its players than it is by the rulebooks.

Playing the game is defined by the people playing it. The game rules are defined by what's in the books. I just want them to not have areas that are lacking. I never once said they need to cover everything.

It also makes a game more vulnerable to bad DMing, but I'm thinking the current feeling is that one can go too far insulating a game from bad DMing.

This isn't wrong, it's just completely divorced from what I'm talking about.

As far as houseruling goes, the simpler the system, the easier it is to houserule. More intrinsic interacting mechanical bits increase the likelihood that any (significant) houserule will need another houserule to fix an unforeseen interaction. Also keep in mind that some or many of these don't require full house rules, just judgement calls.

The more expansive the system, the less need for house rules to begin with. Less interacting mechanical bits increase the likelihood that a house rule will be needed, which since most GMs aren't game designers, leaves open the possibility that the house rule is lopsided or otherwise makes things worse.

Also, keep in mind that judgment calls aren't the same thing as house rules.

 

[KidSnide]

My point is that Monte seems to be starting from this grand vision of what D&D is (and should be). And I find myself strongly disagreeing with that vision. To me, that vision seems to be primarily VERY old school.

As somebody else expressed it (not on this thread), he's describing the game that I LEFT in the early 80's.

Remember that Monte isn't discussing the whole of 5e. He's talking about the minimalist core game that runs without all the tactical and character customization options that are used to run 3e and 4e style games. If you're not interested in running old-school-style games that doesn't mean that 5e isn't for you. It just means that running 5e in old-school mode isn't for you.

I'm not saying that 5e is for you. I don't know that. All I know is that if you're primarily interested in a Pathfinder-style game (or, for that matter, a 4e-style game), WotC hasn't talked very much about how 5e would facilitate that.

I think it's probably the correct design choice to focus on the simple version of the rules before building the more complicated modules. However, a side effect is providing very little information about the more complicated configurations. As such, folks primarily interested in those more complicated configurations have to wait longer before they get to see 5e played the way they would want to use it.

-KS

 

[pemerton]

Why should two character each use a different set of rules if they want to, say, climb a wall?

I'm pretty sure that they won't.

The implication of Monte Cook's comment that it is up to the GM to decide whether or not to use a grid to resolve combat is that action resolution mechanics will be the same across all PCs.

I think that DCs will be the same across all PCs too - otherwise WotC would not be able to write sellable adventure modules.

The difference between PCs will be in the character build mechanics that are used to generate the numbers and other details (eg can take 10 when swinging across chasms) that engage the action resolution mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

For me, low scores can also be the answer I want to pick. I voted a 1 for "DMs should influence player customization" (or however that was phrased. Because I don't think they should.

Agreed - though I may have put "2" rather than "1".

One last minor thing that bugs me is his talk about this big divide between what players decide and what DMs decide. Those lines imply a mentality of "the players choose their characters and the go with whatever campaign the DM wants to run," which is not a philosophy I agree with. If you ask me, there should be more discussion of creating consensus within a D&D group, rather than drawing battle lines between players and DMs over contentious issues.

Agreed, but for some reason D&D seems stuck with this somewhat adversarial approach to allocating responsibilities across participants.

Anyways, this is yet another article from Mr. Cook that makes me a bit worried about the direction the 5E is going.

There was one comment in particular that gave me some hope:

If the adventures are going to be about grinding through a dungeon to get enough coppers to pay for tomorrow's meal or an epic quest across the planes to save the universe(s), that's a DM choice. (That latter choice might seem like flavor only, but it can determine which rules options are taken.)​

This is the first recognition I've seen that mechanical systems make a difference to the sorts of stories that can be supported by the sytem. It's only a small hint of such recognition, but it's better than nothing!

 

[Falling Icicle]

"Also, players at the table can choose the style of character they want to play."

"Some choices then—such as whether a character has a long list of skills and feats; or skills, feats, and powers; or just ability scores, hit points, Armor Class, and an attack bonus—are up to the player." -Monte Cook

It's one thing to say that this new edition will include alot of options to let your group play different styles. "Want to play a more 1e style game? Here's what you can remove and some advice on how to deal with that." Each group can decide what style of game they want to run, and there are options provided to cater to each style of play. Okay, cool.

But having each player at the same table using totally different rules (i.e. one guy just has his ability scores, attack bonus, and other bare essentials, another guy has skills, feats, 4e-like powers, etc), well now that is an entirely different matter. Trying to manage all of that is going to be a nightmare for the DM. And frankly, I don't even find this idea at all desirable. It's like I want to play chess and the other guy wants to play checkers. Choose which one you're going to play; trying to mix the two games into one is just ludicrous.