D&D 5E What is most important to you for 5e?

[Connorsrpg]

All the cool bits from all previous editions. With just enough of the new for the 'wow' factor.

(Interesting material without an over reliance on 'balance' in all areas).

 

[pemerton]

Nobody thinking quality adventures being important? Do you guys make all your adventures yourself or have DMs that make them for you?

In my campaigns I have used published adventures from a range of systems - HeroWars, 3E, 4e, B/X, Rolemaster, probably others that I'm forgetting. I like published adventures for maps - I don't particularly like having to design my own - and for background, premises and situations that I wouldn't think of myself. But the good thing about 4e - which is what I'm currently GMing - is that it makes the mechanical implemenation of an adventure pretty straightforward. I don't need to worry much about conversion.

If I end up running D&Dnext, I will therefore only care about the quality of the adventures published for it if the system makes conversion/statting up very hard. I hope it doesn't, though.

 

[pemerton]

I tend to adjust the DC for a diplomacy check based upon what the PC actually says. You can say something totally insane and I'm not going to have the NPC just go along with it because you have a high diplomacy.

If the player says something insane, then in my game they can't make a Diplomacy check. Just like if the player says "My guy draws a picture with a crayon", they can't then make a sword attack to resolve it.

What checks a player can make are, in my game, contingent on what they characterise their PC as doing (ie I play in what I take to be the standard 4e way, given the adivce in the DMG).

 

[Emerikol]

If the player says something insane, then in my game they can't make a Diplomacy check. Just like if the player says "My guy draws a picture with a crayon", they can't then make a sword attack to resolve it.

What checks a player can make are, in my game, contingent on what they characterise their PC as doing (ie I play in what I take to be the standard 4e way, given the adivce in the DMG).

I suppose your answer is what I get for using extreme examples. I'm just saying I think I'm middle of the road on roleplaying vs rollplaying. I like rolling for social activity but I think some player input which might adjust the DC is fine. I don't roleplay it after making the roll though. I roleplay it and then make the roll. Because how it is roleplayed and what is said has some effect. Not total but some. I tend to not worry about how well said something but I tend to focus no what was said.

 

[pemerton]

I roleplay it and then make the roll. Because how it is roleplayed and what is said has some effect. Not total but some. I tend to not worry about how well said something but I tend to focus no what was said.

I prefer an approach in which what was said doesn't affect the difficulty of the roll, but its consequences for the unfolding situation. If you're interested, here are some actual play examples.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I suppose your answer is what I get for using extreme examples. I'm just saying I think I'm middle of the road on roleplaying vs rollplaying. I like rolling for social activity but I think some player input which might adjust the DC is fine. I don't roleplay it after making the roll though. I roleplay it and then make the roll. Because how it is roleplayed and what is said has some effect. Not total but some. I tend to not worry about how well said something but I tend to focus no what was said.

You advocate a hard line actor stance that requires you exclude every other possible alternative in a game that has its roots in pure pawn stance, and you claim to be middle of the road? For that matter if you're even talking about how roleplaying vs rollplaying is a dichotomy you're way over in one corner.

There's nothing wrong with your position here. But middle of the road it isn't.

I'm also not for class based, actually, I'd rather have the option to abandon classes as such and create PCs via backgrounds and other toolkits. As mentioned above. So packages of abilities "from a menu" would work very well for me. Actually, enforcing a strong class based system would probably turn me away.

Seriously? You think 4e isn't D&D and you're advocating that? At a guess you started with 3.X?

Edit: @pmerton, your UBB code needs fixing And I think both links are to the same thread?

 

[Emerikol]

You advocate a hard line actor stance that requires you exclude every other possible alternative in a game that has its roots in pure pawn stance, and you claim to be middle of the road? For that matter if you're even talking about how roleplaying vs rollplaying is a dichotomy you're way over in one corner.

There's nothing wrong with your position here. But middle of the road it isn't.

I didn't say I was middle of the road on everything. I said on the issue of rolls vs verbal conversation I'm middle of the road. I do roll for social skills (many many do not and no retrocloner would I'd think) but I also allow the actual words said (not how well) have an impact on what happens. I don't roll and then speak. I speak and then roll.

I advocate for a D&D game that has a successful tradition of dominating the market exclusively for nearly thirty years. I do not advocate to exclude new ideas or add-ons to this base. But when I cannot play in the original D&D playstyle at all then I believe they've went wrong. I'm not saying D&D cannot expand to include additional playstyles. You though want to stomp out my playstyle. Which is your choice but from a business perspective it's a real bad idea. Pathfinder adopted that "antiquated" playstyle as you like to think it and is now number one. A ton a retroclones have also adopted it and they are selling to someone. If 5e supports that playstyle it will probably outsell the entire lifetime of 4e in the first year as so many eagerly return home.

I'm certain even if you are not that the WOTC people regret going too far in the design of 4e. One reason they regret it is that any good ideas that 4e might have had were tarnished by the general reaction against the game. A lot of us would be happy with some of the ideas from 4e making it into a game but we are against the rigid solution that 4e provided for those ideas.

 

[Emerikol]

I prefer an approach in which what was said doesn't affect the difficulty of the roll, but its consequences for the unfolding situation. If you're interested, here are[/rul] some actual play examples.

I'm for people playing in their campaigns how they like. I'm just against rules that can only be interpreted one way. The healing mechanics and daily mechanics of 4e made it hard for anyone to play any way but the author way. No actor approach was possible. So I'm hoping 5e provides for an actor approach as well as the others. I get no satisfaction from denying anyone their game playstyle. I just want the game to support mine since it appears to be a popular one (at least generally). 4e did lose a ton of players for some reason.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I advocate for a D&D game that has a successful tradition of dominating the market exclusively for nearly thirty years.

No. No you don't. You are advocating for a 2e-approach. You advocate for the only strand of the D&D tradition that failed to dominate the market - even now the competition to D&D is from D&D. You advocate for the only part of the D&D tradition that was ever actually outsold while it was putting content out. For a time 2e was actually outsold by Vampire- and even when Vampire wasn't outselling it in the 90s White Wolf gave D&D some stiff competition.

I do not advocate to exclude new ideas or add-ons to this base. But when I cannot play in the original D&D playstyle at all then I believe they've went wrong.

The original D&D playstyle, Gygaxian and Arnesonian, the one that dominated the market for fifteen years wasn't Actor Stance. It was Pawn Stance. You do not, as far as I can tell, even try to play in Pawn Stance. And there certainly isn't anything in 4e to prevent pawn stance being used.

Actor Stance was mostly a 2nd edition D&D thing. And 2nd edition had many good points - but it was the edition that ran TSR into the ground in part because it tried to turn D&D into something it simply wasn't and however clunky the system Storyteller used it was made for this.

I'm not saying D&D cannot expand to include additional playstyles.

Just as well. It expanded to include yours.

You though want to stomp out my playstyle.

No I don't. You want to stomp my ability to play non-casters out. I want a live and let live situation that seems to be anathema to you. It's your decision to cry "I can't live with a game where there is an option to allow this" - that's the cry of someone who wants to stomp a playstyle out.

The irony is that we both want the same thing here - immersion. However we just approach that in different ways. You never want to make a choice that doesn't directly map to an IC choice. I want to make a choice close to the one my character makes. That is the difference.

Which is your choice but from a business perspective it's a real bad idea. Pathfinder adopted that "antiquated" playstyle as you like to think it and is now number one. A ton a retroclones have also adopted it and they are selling to someone.

How many 2e retroclones are selling? Most of the OSR games are for Pawn Stance pieces.

And the OSR is seriously overrrated in size IME. Also I'm not sure what WotC could have done to help Paizo more. Giving control over their regular creative content to a third party. Aggravating and dismissive statements and marketing. And then to cap it all, when it looked like there was competition, instead of raising their game they stopped publishing books thereby handing a large chunk of the market to Paizo giftwrapped with a nice bow on top.

Almost everything round 4e has been done either excruciatingly badly or with spectacular bad luck (see Gleemax or Borders going bust just after they announced Essentials) except the game itself. The game is good - but if I were trying to sabotage it the results would only be different by a computer virus or two.

 

[Emerikol]

No. No you don't. You are advocating for a 2e-approach. You advocate for the only strand of the D&D tradition that failed to dominate the market - even now the competition to D&D is from D&D. You advocate for the only part of the D&D tradition that was ever actually outsold while it was putting content out. For a time 2e was actually outsold by Vampire- and even when Vampire wasn't outselling it in the 90s White Wolf gave D&D some stiff competition.

Not at all. Until 4e I was able to play my preferred playstyle in every edition of D&D. So perhaps we aren't agreeing or understanding each other when we use the term actor. I'm just trying to avoid plot coupons.

The original D&D playstyle, Gygaxian and Arnesonian, the one that dominated the market for fifteen years wasn't Actor Stance. It was Pawn Stance. You do not, as far as I can tell, even try to play in Pawn Stance. And there certainly isn't anything in 4e to prevent pawn stance being used.

I haven't even heard of pawn stance. I've heard of Actor/Author/Director. And I'm talking about 1e,2e,3e. All three of those games supported my playstyle.

Actor Stance was mostly a 2nd edition D&D thing. And 2nd edition had many good points - but it was the edition that ran TSR into the ground in part because it tried to turn D&D into something it simply wasn't and however clunky the system Storyteller used it was made for this.

I don't get this distinction. 2e was identical to 1e except for some math fixes.

Just as well. It expanded to include yours.

From red box on it supported my playstyle.

No I don't. You want to stomp my ability to play non-casters out. I want a live and let live situation that seems to be anathema to you. It's your decision to cry "I can't live with a game where there is an option to allow this" - that's the cry of someone who wants to stomp a playstyle out.

This is a lie. Please find the quote where I say I want to eliminate your option to play your way. I said I cannot play a game that does not support my playstyle. That does not mean I cannot play it if it supports yours. But it also has to support mine.

The irony is that we both want the same thing here - immersion. However we just approach that in different ways. You never want to make a choice that doesn't directly map to an IC choice. I want to make a choice close to the one my character makes. That is the difference.

I agree and instead of fighting about definitions we should all be accepting where people stand and stop trying to argue them out of their preferences. Instead we should suggest options and ideas that have cross over appeal. Where not possible we should suggest ways to seamlessly modularize.

How many 2e retroclones are selling? Most of the OSR games are for Pawn Stance pieces.

I enjoyed 1e,2e,3e. Not sure I know what pawn stance is.

And the OSR is seriously overrrated in size IME. Also I'm not sure what WotC could have done to help Paizo more. Giving control over their regular creative content to a third party. Aggravating and dismissive statements and marketing. And then to cap it all, when it looked like there was competition, instead of raising their game they stopped publishing books thereby handing a large chunk of the market to Paizo giftwrapped with a nice bow on top.

Almost everything round 4e has been done either excruciatingly badly or with spectacular bad luck (see Gleemax or Borders going bust just after they announced Essentials) except the game itself. The game is good - but if I were trying to sabotage it the results would only be different by a computer virus or two.

But a lot of people really do have issue with 4e as a game. It only supports your playstyle for example. When 4e was launched they basically told me to get lost. We don't want you playing D&D. And after trying it I obliged them.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Not at all. Until 4e I was able to play my preferred playstyle in every edition of D&D. So perhaps we aren't agreeing or understanding each other when we use the term actor. I'm just trying to avoid plot coupons.


This is a lie. Please find the quote where I say I want to eliminate your option to play your way. I said I cannot play a game that does not support my playstyle. That does not mean I cannot play it if it supports yours. But it also has to support mine.

Hogwash, you've specifically said that the inclusion of things I and other people want would ruin 5E for you.

Let's ask a direct question, assuming you had modular options to avoid using them, what would your opinion of a 5E that included the following be:

1. Plot coupons
2. A Warlord class that could truly heal as well as the Cleric
3. Fighters and Rogues with limited use powers ala Encounter/Daily
4. 4E style HP/healing
5. Effect based mechanics
6. Non-Vancian Wizards
7. NPCs built using monster rules instead of PC rules

 

[Lwaxy]

Seriously? You think 4e isn't D&D and you're advocating that? At a guess you started with 3.X?

I started playing in the 80s as soon as my English was good enough. Didn't really want to switch to 3.X for a while as we had all the old materials and our own house rules.

Not sure what one has to do with the other.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Not at all. Until 4e I was able to play my preferred playstyle in every edition of D&D. So perhaps we aren't agreeing or understanding each other when we use the term actor. I'm just trying to avoid plot coupons.


This is a lie. Please find the quote where I say I want to eliminate your option to play your way. I said I cannot play a game that does not support my playstyle. That does not mean I cannot play it if it supports yours. But it also has to support mine.

Hogwash, you've specifically said that the inclusion of things I and other people want would ruin 5E for you.

Let's ask a direct question, assuming you had modular options to avoid using them, what would your opinion of a 5E that included the following be:

1. Plot coupons
2. A Warlord class that could truly heal as well as the Cleric
3. Fighters and Rogues with limited use powers ala Encounter/Daily
4. 4E style HP/healing
5. Effect based mechanics
6. Non-Vancian Wizards
7. NPCs built using monster rules instead of PC rules

 

[Neonchameleon]

Not at all. Until 4e I was able to play my preferred playstyle in every edition of D&D. So perhaps we aren't agreeing or understanding each other when we use the term actor. I'm just trying to avoid plot coupons.

Where we are clashing, as [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] has pointed out is between process based and results based rather than by stance.

Process based: You want every decision you take to feel exactly like one your character would and whether or not this means your character behaves the way he should overall is somewhat irrelevant.

Results based: I want my character to behave like the character I want to play, and if this means fudging the process to make up for the fact that game rules are a fudged process then I don't see the problem.

To resolve the clash we need some really good processes. Processes that lead to the right results (which is where 3.X falls over with any system mastery).

I haven't even heard of pawn stance. I've heard of Actor/Author/Director. And I'm talking about 1e,2e,3e. All three of those games supported my playstyle.

Pawn stance is at its strongest in Tomb of Horrors but generally is how to tackle a really old school dungeon. It takes the attitude "This PC is my pawn in the game and I am playing to win. The dungeon is the enemy and I'm going to outsmart it and outwit it and use whatever I can. My pawn provides me with certain tools to help in this. And the referee (yes they were called that) is there to run the opposition and to adjudicate."

This is the root of D&D. This is how it was played at Gygax's table. And this is what brown box, white box, and even 1e were about.

I don't get this distinction. 2e was identical to 1e except for some math fixes.

No it wasn't. 2e significantly changed the default stance of the game, deprecating pawn stance in favour of actor stance (and to a lesser extent director stance).

The furthest reaching change was XP for GP. Which changed 1e from a game about dungeoncrawling and outwitting monsters. Instead you gained XP for casting spells as a wizard or picking locks as a thief, etc. This is a way of rewarding your actor (and director) stance - you gain XP for repeating the actions that you practice a lot.

The next furthest reaching change was the raising of racial level limits to the point they rendered them almost irrelevant. In the pawn stance gamist game that 1e was written to be, the level limits had a purpose. They meant that you could gain a lot of early power by taking a multiclassed non-human but paid for it by being unable to enter the endgame (L10+). In 2e on the other hand the level limits were raised to the point that they were irrelevant (L12-15). This again moved the game away from one encouraging pawn stance where the powerful low level pieces had significant drawbacks to other stances, with actor stance being an obvious winner.

From red box on it supported my playstyle.

From red box on it enabled your playstyle. Big difference. 2e supported it, 1e supported pawn stance. 3.X supported process driven play at the expense of the results but continued to enable actor stance.

This is a lie. Please find the quote where I say I want to eliminate your option to play your way. I said I cannot play a game that does not support my playstyle. That does not mean I cannot play it if it supports yours. But it also has to support mine.

You have explicitely said that in order to support yours you need to make sure there is nothing anyone has that resembles an encounter power. That the very existance of such is incompatable with your immersion.

I agree and instead of fighting about definitions we should all be accepting where people stand and stop trying to argue them out of their preferences. Instead we should suggest options and ideas that have cross over appeal. Where not possible we should suggest ways to seamlessly modularize.

I've offered something based on the Crusader mechanic from the Bo9S. That would have the fudge factor I want to bring the game into line with my character's expected behaviour. You haven't said why this is unacceptable (I've said the problems with your proposed fixes - mostly that being spamtastic both disappoints my gamist side and breaks my results oriented actor stance).

But a lot of people really do have issue with 4e as a game. It only supports your playstyle for example.

Complete nonsense. It doesn't support yours. There is a wide range of playstyles that it does support. Actor based, director based, pawn based*. Tactical playing to win rather than to dominate (something that 3.X ruined).

Hell, you can even have your immersive actors as long as you are prepared to play one of the many forms of caster. And 4e has a lot of them. If every single encounter and daily power you have is a spell then your entire class is associated (or do you seriously believe you can't re-prepare some spells on a five minute rest because it's against the Laws of Magic?)

* Pawn based but not expendable pawn based, which classic D&D was. With Knuckles the 23rd as a PC. Or Melf the Male Elf and "medium" Rary.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Where we are clashing, as @thecasualoblivion has pointed out is between process based and results based rather than by stance.

Process based: You want every decision you take to feel exactly like one your character would and whether or not this means your character behaves the way he should overall is somewhat irrelevant.

Results based: I want my character to behave like the character I want to play, and if this means fudging the process to make up for the fact that game rules are a fudged process then I don't see the problem.

To resolve the clash we need some really good processes. Processes that lead to the right results (which is where 3.X falls over with any system mastery).

That won't resolve it either. The huge, insurmountable problem there is that really good processes are very difficult to achieve, and when achieved are always either highly specialized or so general as to require a lot of fudging around edge cases. This is true in every field where process matters, not merely games.

Consider d20+Mod versus DC for attack/skill resolution. That's a very good general process for a game (albeit not the only good one). It's easy to use, easy to understand, widely applicable, reasonably fast, etc. But no one who has really looked at it seriously thinks that it handles all situations in a game well, with no edge cases. Merely being linear brings its own set of problems, which is why we have special rules for rolling a 1, a 20, Take 10, etc. Then there is the issue of standardizing and remembering the DCs. So an implied look up table (or tables). But mainly, the process of "swing the sword" or "research in the library" or "fast talk the gate guard" bears only a slight resemblance to the task resolution process.

As soon as you start talking specific playstyles, you'll often need to add a lot more to that general process. Suddenly, all those virtues are getting compromised. Moreover, there is probably an alterate mechanic that will work better for that particularly specialty, without needing all those extra bits. Roll under percentage or a dice pool or something else starts looking better.

I think it's too complex and off-topic a subject to really go into the full limitations of trying to make analogous process produce expected results. But for a flavor, consider how "email" is different from "snail" mail. Yes, they are both communication methods that most commonly involve a short to moderate message. Yes, we've retained the conventions of addresses and some from "letters". It's just enough alike to call both of them "mail". Yet, look at it closely, and you'll see it doesn't map. When was the last time you did anything explicit with an "envelope" for email? (Your email program did something analogous. You didn't.)

Bottom line: If you must have a process that produces expected results, you must specialize. If you must have a general process, you must expect problems in the results in all sorts of edge cases. If you must have expected results with a general process, then you must have deviations and/or ways to bypass the process. History of processes proves it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That won't resolve it either. The huge, insurmountable problem there is that really good processes are very difficult to achieve, and when achieved are always either highly specialized or so general as to require a lot of fudging around edge cases. This is true in every field where process matters, not merely games.

Huge. And they are difficult. But D&D Next is by far the best funded RPG currently under development. And is therefore supposed to have the best team possible. (Not that I think it actually does have the best team possible; I'd rate them somewhere behind Robin Laws, Vincent Baker, and the guys from Evil Hat - and probably also Cubicle 7). But it's supposed to...

Bottom line: If you must have a process that produces expected results, you must specialize. If you must have a general process, you must expect problems in the results in all sorts of edge cases. If you must have expected results with a general process, then you must have deviations and/or ways to bypass the process. History of processes proves it.

And as few as possible with a good system. And the argument here is how much to fudge - but we all want as little as possible.

 

[Emerikol]

Hogwash, you've specifically said that the inclusion of things I and other people want would ruin 5E for you.

I'm going to have to call you out on this. Produce the quote or admit this is a lie. What you imagine is not always reality. Don't project motives you don't really have any evidence for.

Let's ask a direct question, assuming you had modular options to avoid using them, what would your opinion of a 5E that included the following be:

1. Plot coupons
2. A Warlord class that could truly heal as well as the Cleric
3. Fighters and Rogues with limited use powers ala Encounter/Daily
4. 4E style HP/healing
5. Effect based mechanics
6. Non-Vancian Wizards
7. NPCs built using monster rules instead of PC rules

I don't care about anything that I can avoid. Obviously what's left has to be something thats better for me than some other game. So I guess in theory if after removing all the above stuff nothing was left save a super simplified nothing game I wouldn't be happy. I want them to actively support my playstyle but if they do that and actively support yours thats not a problem.

I hate every single one of those things you've listed and wouldn't want to play using them. But the assumption here is that I have other options I can use.

I mean 4e has all those things. So what's wrong with 4e? Thats all there is. I can't avoid 1 through 7 (well I could ban #2 ) without heavy houseruling.

 

[pemerton]

2e was identical to 1e except for some math fixes.

If you compare the advice in 2e, and the modules from that era, to the advice in Gygaxian D&D, and the advice from that era, you'll see that they are quite different.

Classic, Gygaxian D&D is about "skilled play". For a definition of this, see the last few pages of his PHB, before the Appendices start: you talk to your fellow players before the session, plan which part of the dungeon you are going to scout and/or hit, choose the appropriate PCs from the stable, equip them (by deducting the appropriate amounts of money from their sheets and adding on the appropriate equipment) and then turn up to the referee's dungeon ready to play. Actual play involves marching orders, pre-prepared procedures for handling doors, combat, retreat, evasion etc. Never getting distracted by wanderig monsters. And focusing on the extraction of loot (given the GP = XP rule).

It's a style of play in which I have little personal interest, but I think quite a few people liked and like it (given the enduring popularity of Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain, the Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, etc).

2nd ed AD&D uses the same PC build and action resolution mechanics (more-or-less), but a different XP mechanic. And if you look at modules from that era, they emphasis the "adventure hook", the story, etc. The rulebooks talk about similar sort of stuff. (Dragonlance, back in 1st ed days, was the progenitor of this. Ravenloft is an interesting intermediary, I think, with the flavour of a "story" module but the grinding dungeonesqueness of a Gygaxian one.)

I personally find 2nd ed a bit irritating, because I don't think the PC build or action resolution rules really suit the sort of play it seems to be aiming at, and the typical solution - both suggested in published materials, and implemented at tables at least in my experience - is massive amounts of GM force "in the interests of the story". (The whole of the Forge really has its origins in a reaction to this sort of stuff in AD&D 2nd ed and in White Wolf games.)

I haven't even heard of pawn stance

I understand it as referring to Author stance without the retroactive narration of the PC's motivation - ie you choose actions for your PC because you (the player) think they are fun or sensible things to do, and you don't bother addressing the question of what your PC's motivation is in the fiction. (Author stance, in contrast, involves retroactively attributing an appropriate motivation to your PC; actor stance involves having a motivation already attributed to your PC, and working out your PC's actions on the basis of that pre-established motivation.)

Pawn stance is at its strongest in Tomb of Horrors but generally is how to tackle a really old school dungeon. It takes the attitude "This PC is my pawn in the game and I am playing to win. The dungeon is the enemy and I'm going to outsmart it and outwit it and use whatever I can. My pawn provides me with certain tools to help in this. And the referee (yes they were called that) is there to run the opposition and to adjudicate."

In those classic dungeons, PCs don't have motivations. The player has motivations, and the PC is a vehicle whereby those motivations are enacted.

That's not to say that the fiction doesn't matter. In Tomb of Horrors, and I think perhaps even more in White Plume Mountain, fictional positioning is very important. But it's the fiction of doors, ceilings, levers, tripwires and 10' poles. The PCs don't have any social life, nor any inner life - there is no fiction of that particular sort.

I'm just trying to avoid plot coupons.

I still don't understand how hit points aren't plot coupons.

 

[Lwaxy]

In those classic dungeons, PCs don't have motivations. The player has motivations, and the PC is a vehicle whereby those motivations are enacted.

The PCs don't have any social life, nor any inner life - there is no fiction of that particular sort.

This hasn't been my experience. We might have made characters fitting the situation (as in they had similar motivations to what we wanted, which was to get through the dungeon/whatever else and get all the loot possible) but they were usually very colorful characters.