[Was]Forked Thread: GTS 2009 D&D Seminar : [Is] Playstyle & Evolution Discussion

[Imaro]

Yes. That's exactly why DnD should focus on its core elements like combat.

Trying to be all things to all people doesn't seem like a real recipe for success; a compromise game won't really please anyone.

And again, read the videogame analogy. A shooter can be just a shooter with great gameplay, and this will totally satisfy only those who only want a straight up shooter to play... forever... however by adding a story-based mode to the game and/or multi-player capability, you loose nothing as far as it being a great shooter and gain a wider audience as well as more diverse gameplay. I don't understand how this is a bad thing... especially since this actually is how most succesful videogame franchises create sequels to their games... and unless they mess up the coreplay, the games usually continue to be successful.

I'm sorry, but for many, continuing to focus on tactical combat to the exclusion of other elements leads to a rpg that is similar or even the same as games like Descent, HeroQuest, etc. and while they are great games as far as they go... I don't think most people would consider D&D reaching a point where it is indistinguishable from these games to be a good thing. Again pointing to many recent successful and entertaining videogames, they hybridize elements as opposed to being just a shooter or just an rpg, or just a puzzle based game.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm sorry, but for many, continuing to focus on tactical combat to the exclusion of other elements leads to a rpg that is similar or even the same as games like Descent, HeroQuest, etc. and while they are great games as far as they go... I don't think most people would consider D&D reaching a point where it is indistinguishable from these games to be a good thing. Again pointing to many recent successful and entertaining videogames, they hybridize elements as opposed to being just a shooter or just an rpg, or just a puzzle based game.

And the answer is...

Quick, Imaro! Mearls just got a bout of stomach flu and you have to finish DMG2. What would you add/fix to get the focus off tactical combat and onto more important things?

 

[Imaro]

And the answer is...

Quick, Imaro! Mearls just got a bout of stomach flu and you have to finish DMG2. What would you add/fix to get the focus off tactical combat and onto more important things?

Let's see... perhaps a chapter on how narrative techniques, and narrative structure can best be used to build adventures... as opposed to the encounter + encounter + encounter way of building adventures that is espoused in the current DMG.

A section on relationship maps and how to use them to track important NPC's and their relationship to each other as well as the PC's.

Oh yeah, a chapter on foreshadowing, using symbolism in the game, maybe flashbacks as well.

A chapter on how to run mini-less combat, maybe some substitute powers for those based heavily in tactical movement. (Honestly this is the only one I can see having any effect on core combat gameplay...so make it optional)

Techniques and tips for improving skill challenges, perhaps "skill powers" which you receive by level, and examples of different techniques of running skill challenges that run the gamut from total freeform to very rigid.

...And that's just off the top of my head, give me more time and I could definitely come up with enough ideas to fill a book... if Mr. Mearls let me.


Edit... Nice jab with the "more important" quip, but again no one is saying they want this stuff to be more important... just equally... why is that so hard for you to grasp?

 

[Remathilis]

Edit... Nice jab with the "more important" quip, but again no one is saying they want this stuff to be more important... just equally... why is that so hard for you to grasp?

First shot: I agree with all of your suggestions, except the mini-less combat. At this point, I'm willing to chalk that up to lost, due to the amount of work needed to replace all that mini's terminology.

Secondly, I guess my point is that most of that stuff is "second year" D&D stuff. When we learn to play D&D, most of us learn the combat rules first, and roleplaying (by that, I mean storytelling, narrative elements, well-rounded characterization, and campaign structure) follows afterward. That's kinda what Rouse said; DMG 1 focuses on "fighting your way to level 30" while DMG2 will address "yeah, but what if we don't WANT to fight?" game questions.

Many of the topics you address are touched on (not in detail, but there) in 4e's DMG. They're addressed much better than 2e's DMG or even 3e's! Part of the Beauty/Failure of the Tiered Release system is that we've grown impatient; we want 4e to be a wonderful/robust as D&D was at the end of one of its product cycles (AD&D, 2e, or 3e) so when we don't see X (X being druids, frost giants, or guidelines of creating compelling narratives) we get upset.

(As an aside, I recall waiting 3 months to get my 3e books, I can only imagine waiting 3 years to get the AD&D 1e core rules!)

So I'm hoping DMG2 has all the things you mentioned; but I believe that is solidly DMG2 material. Let freshmen year D&D be about monsters and phat loot, once the boys grow tired of that, give the good stuff.

 

[MichaelSomething]

And again, read the videogame analogy. A shooter can be just a shooter with great gameplay, and this will totally satisfy only those who only want a straight up shooter to play... forever... however by adding a story-based mode to the game and/or multi-player capability, you loose nothing as far as it being a great shooter and gain a wider audience as well as more diverse gameplay. I don't understand how this is a bad thing... especially since this actually is how most succesful videogame franchises create sequels to their games... and unless they mess up the coreplay, the games usually continue to be successful.

This reminds of Galacitc Civilizations II and their decision to not have multiplayer. Every feature you add to a game that costs resources. Would you spend a third of your resources to please one tenth of your audience? Wouldn't it be better to focus those resources on the other ninty percent of your audience?

If there was really a large demand for non-combat material, then wouldn't some one else step up and produce it? Yet my FLGS has all the Dungeon Crawl Classics (Remember the golden days of role-playing where NPCs were there to be killed?) and dozens of books full of character combat options, monsters, and other large site based adventures full of more monsters. Of course, those who would be willing to write a Complete Roleplayer for 4E could simply be replused by the GSL. In that case, could you point to all the 3E books that are full of non-combat stuff? In the end, it's all about the Economic Reality.

I believe those who play D&D and perfer the non-combat aspects over the combat aspects are the Periphery Demographic of the community. D&D, being THE name of Roleplaying Games, has a Mutilpe Demographic Audience. Lots of people get burgers and fries, but some people may perfer the fries more or may perfer the burger more.

YMMV, IMO, and all that jazz.

P.S. Do I win the award for having the post with the most links in a thread?

 

[ferratus]

I think the solution is quite obvious. Introduce a "Talents" system.

The skills list is consolidated for a reason and I think the right reasons. You don't want to put skills that are not useful for dungeon survival vs. those skills that are. It is also true that you don't need the following rules to roleplay with, but if we really didn't want complex rules to spell out things in exacting detail, we wouldn't play D&D. I think a Talents system would reward you for having particular character traits, and would encourage you to use those traits to your mechanical advantage in skill checks and challenges. This would theoretically lead to more roleplaying.

Largely I see talents being of the 4 following types:

Talents that expand skills: This would be techniques that introduce a new use for a skill. For example, the "poisoner" talent might allow you to use the heal or nature skills to craft poisons and introduce poison rules. The "heraldry" talent would allow you to use diplomacy to identify famous people in the kingdom, whereas you would normally use streetwise.

Talents that tweak skills: My minotaur barbarian can't intimidate because he has a lousy charisma. I don't want to sacrifice my feat slot to fix that because I'll still never be as good at it as the cleric or paladin with a skill focus anyway. If I could use a Talent to substitute strength (or intelligence if I'm a fearsome master of the arcane arts) to use as the relevant ability score, that would be great.

Talents that are non-combat feats: Like feats improve the ability to hit and damage in combat or improve your defenses, Talents that improve your ability to do a certain application of a skill would be nice. The best example I can think of would be a Talent for "Animal Empathy". You can do this now with the Nature skill, but it is extremely difficult. Allowing a character to take "Animal Empathy" as a Talent would allow an almost supernatural affinity for calming and handling riled up animals, without increasing his general proficiency with the nature skill like Skill Focus (nature) does. I would never want to take Animal Empathy as a feat (since I'd probably only use it every few sessions, but it would be good as a talent.

Talents that are rituals: The obvious one that springs to mind is the enchant item ritual. It would be good to play a dwarf that can craft his own magical arms and armor. There are boundless other options that are limited only by your imagination. A gnome could pick up an illusion based ritual as a Talent (such as silence or hallucinatory item), casting it for free 1/day. A person with the Talent of "expert cook" could whip up a hero's feast ritual (paying component cost).


This is perhaps a bit of a power creep, but I think the impact of this would be minimized if you don't use the errata'd version of the DC's for skill challenges and checks. With what is already printed in the DMG, there is room to grow a little bit. I would imagine you would gain Talents at about the same rate as feats, though on odd rather than even levels. Your background would be your level 1 Talent.

 

[Bodhiwolff]

I think that a lot of the suggestions people are making are well-intentioned, but miss the mark.

When Rob Heinsoo and others first looked at the design decisions for 4E, they felt that 3E had taken the simulationist aspects of gaming in a good direction, had taken it about as far as it could go, had resulted in a wonderful game, but simply replicating that would be a mistake. How could you build a better 3E D&D when 3E did what it did so well?

(all this is paraphrasing what I heard him say at a couple of seminars earlier this month on this topic)

So instead, they designed 4E to be different.

The roleplay aspects were completely and absolutely old-school simplified, back to their 1E roots. The place where you need rules is combat. The place where you don't need rules is roleplaying and non-combat.

Anything which adds to the technical complexity of non-combat stuff is getting away from the 4E game design, I believe.

Moreover, if you read the DMG, Wyatt did a wonderful job of describing "how to dungeon master" and how to design stories, etc. It is, frankly, a much better "how to" guide than earlier DMGs were. It returns right back to the 1E style of storytelling and roleplaying -- namely, everything is non-mechanical, is based on DM/Player interaction, and is completely open-ended.

Now, the problem is that most people don't *read* the DMG, and in their adventure design they skip over all of the non-combat encounters. There is nothing stopping a 4E game from having *just* as much story, character, and non-combat roleplaying as a 1E game -- nothing, save the skill, enthusiasm, and work put in by the players and the DM.

So anything which reminds DMs to add these elements is a good thing. Any tool which helps DMs design better stories, and reminds them to implement all of the numerous non-combat options, is a good thing.

But rules or systems to codify that non-combat game? I'd hate to see us start down that path.

 

[JeffB]

The roleplay aspects were completely and absolutely old-school simplified, back to their 1E roots. The place where you need rules is combat. The place where you don't need rules is roleplaying and non-combat.

Anything which adds to the technical complexity of non-combat stuff is getting away from the 4E game design, I believe.

Moreover, if you read the DMG, Wyatt did a wonderful job of describing "how to dungeon master" and how to design stories, etc. It is, frankly, a much better "how to" guide than earlier DMGs were. It returns right back to the 1E style of storytelling and roleplaying -- namely, everything is non-mechanical, is based on DM/Player interaction, and is completely open-ended.

Bingo. XP awarded.

I don't see any "Roleplay rules" in my LBBS, nor my Holmes book, Moldvay/Cook/Marsh, etc. 1E DMG provided lots of "advice". And imagine that, so does the 4E DMG! I'm def not one who feels "craft skills" lead to more roleplay, but I guess some folks miss that stuff.

I do feel that the style of adventures (say the mentioned T1) way back when provided much more inspiration for the DMs just because of the skillful but minimalist writing- Not just Gary, but certainly he was the "master"- T1, B2, etc had so much POTENTIAL in those small page counts - Like the "chapel" in the Caves of Chaos- Or the evil cleric at the Keep. I don't know about anyone else, but little idea nuggets like that were rampant and I took off with many of them. We didnt have any names of the Gods, or 50 pages of background for each God, etc- just a small nugget to build off of. I think thats something that is totally ignored/forgotten today where adventures and APs are detailed to death- and provide little to no nuggets to build off of.

But maybe I'm getting way OT.

 

[hong]

And no one is claiming it has too, just add more to it. As an example, you can have a shooter videogame that's great... and then in it's next iteration give it multi-player capability, or a story based mission mode. These features appeal to a wider fan base but haven't changed it's main emphasis on shooting things. The multi-player and story-based aspects can easily be ignored by those who want to... but generally makes it a more appealing game to others.

What you're referring to is the second-system effect.

 

[Kelon]

A lot of peole want rules for roleplay. what? You don`t need rules for that. Perhaps for newbees some advise but no rules. You habe Diplomacy, Intimidate and Bluff and yourelself playing a charakter.
I am so happy that features like detect evil are gone. Why speaking with that hooded guy, we know he is evil.
What we need are adventures that supporting roleplay and encouters that you can solve through speaking in charakter and perhaps some skill checks (challenge).
Or adventure with more background and story and not only dungeoncrawls you can place in every campaign setting.