D&D 5E Why I Think D&DN is In Trouble

[tangleknot]

[MENTION=20988]Wulfgar[/MENTION] I was trying to make a joke!

I remember the transition to 2nd to 3rd, My gaming group shot some arrows at at a lurker and someone made the mistake of asking the GM if any of their arrows are still intact. A 1/2 hour later we found the rule, we then proceeded to argue why did the game designers even need to make a rule for recovering ammunition? The nit-picky rules just got worse from there, a few months later half my group decided they couldn't keep playing 3rd so we dropped the game and played 7th sea.

From players who grew up with 3rd edition/ Pathfinder these rules don't seem like a lot or limiting, but in 2nd edition we didn't bother looking up mundane rules, we just rolled a D6/ D12 or whatever seemed plausible and went by the dice roll. Easy and fast.

 

[billd91]

From players who grew up with 3rd edition/ Pathfinder these rules don't seem like a lot or limiting, but in 2nd edition we didn't bother looking up mundane rules, we just rolled a D6/ D12 or whatever seemed plausible and went by the dice roll. Easy and fast.

So why did you change? That's always what I have to ask in situations like these (and we used to hear them a lot). Why did the transition from 2e to 3e cause you to change this fairly simple behavior - from making a ruling to looking for a rule? The rules in 3e are just as optional as they were in 2e.

I can understand groups going through a phase with any edition change in which they focus on the rules a little more closely - new editions bring new rules, after all. But I don't understand the willingness to wing it in 1e/2e with the lack of willingness in 3e. That stumps me.

 

[Imaro]

@Wulfgar I was trying to make a joke!

I remember the transition to 2nd to 3rd, My gaming group shot some arrows at at a lurker and someone made the mistake of asking the GM if any of their arrows are still intact. A 1/2 hour later we found the rule, we then proceeded to argue why did the game designers even need to make a rule for recovering ammunition? The nit-picky rules just got worse from there, a few months later half my group decided they couldn't keep playing 3rd so we dropped the game and played 7th sea.

From players who grew up with 3rd edition/ Pathfinder these rules don't seem like a lot or limiting, but in 2nd edition we didn't bother looking up mundane rules, we just rolled a D6/ D12 or whatever seemed plausible and went by the dice roll. Easy and fast.

Yeah, I'm with [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] ... what was the difference in ignoring rules in 2e vs. ignoring rules in 3e?

 

[darjr]

For me ignoring rules in 3e felt like you were on untested ground. Reading those rules for the first time (3.5 in my case) I felt like if I didn't follow the rules I'd end up painted in a corner and I'd have to retcon to fix things. In older games I didn't feel that way. I know better now, but really only after I got comfortable with the 3.5 rules.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Yeah, I'm with @billd91 ... what was the difference in ignoring rules in 2e vs. ignoring rules in 3e?

Because every rule was spelled out in cumbersome and often clunky detail.

You wanted to knock a guy down? Please refer to the complex and obtuse tripping rules.
You wanted to grab a guy and tackle him? Please read the monstrosity called grappling.

I remember trying to adjudicate such improvisations simply, only to have my players remind me that there were strict rules for such maneuvers, and their character 'build' had a litany of special sub rules that came into play. One player made a "tripping" specialist, and it was a horror to behold. It took the spontaneous, chaotically cinematic combats of 2e and degenerated them into a tedious slog of prone enemies,negated turns and opportunity attacks. It sucked the fun out of the wild imaginative 2e battle like a black hole.

Thankfully the player who built the "tripper" concluded that while his character certainly dominated, it was quite boring winning the way he did, and switched to a character based on a thematic concept, instead of a mechanic.

 

[Lokiare]

Unified class attack bonuses are an outgrowth of bounded accuracy, a fundamental design goal of 5e that (in my opinion) solves all sorts of problems. If you don't like bounded accuracy, and prefer the increasing BAB of 3rd and 4th, then yes, 5e is probably not for you.

Neo Vancian versus Classic Vancian? Can you explain?

I don't like Bounded accuracy because instead of having 3-4 variables (AC, HP, Saving Throws, etc...etc...) I can tweak to make interesting opponents, I'm left with 1 (hp) and with the math from the last few packets even the most powerful creature in the game can be defeated by a party half their level in a few rounds.

I'd rather they have 2-3 attack stats: Melee, Ranged, Magic, Divine. Then have each class scale differently so that Fighters have great Melee and/or Ranged, bad Magic and bad Divine attack bonuses. Then a Cleric can have a decent Melee, bad Ranged, bad magic, and Great Divine attack bonus set. You can see where that is going. So a Fighter could pick up a Wand of Ray of Frost and try to use it, but they would almost be better off picking up a rock and throwing it. A Wizard can still smack something around with a dagger or quarterstaff, but they will miss more often than hit...etc...etc...

Then I can have high level ninjas that are nigh on impossible to hit, but when they get hit they go down in one or two blows. I can have a Giant Ogre that just stands there and takes hit after hit while they pound you to death with their red wood tree club.

Overall. I'm more disappointment than anything with 5E, and none of my players have shown an interest in playing. I'm currently playing 4E at mid paragon and its starting to bog down. We might switch to 2E or 1E just to see what it is like (I started with 2E) when we finish with this campaign...

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't like Bounded accuracy because instead of having 3-4 variables (AC, HP, Saving Throws, etc...etc...) I can tweak to make interesting opponents, I'm left with 1 (hp) and with the math from the last few packets even the most powerful creature in the game can be defeated by a party half their level in a few rounds.

I'd rather they have 2-3 attack stats: Melee, Ranged, Magic, Divine. Then have each class scale differently so that Fighters have great Melee and/or Ranged, bad Magic and bad Divine attack bonuses. Then a Cleric can have a decent Melee, bad Ranged, bad magic, and Great Divine attack bonus set. You can see where that is going. So a Fighter could pick up a Wand of Ray of Frost and try to use it, but they would almost be better off picking up a rock and throwing it. A Wizard can still smack something around with a dagger or quarterstaff, but they will miss more often than hit...etc...etc...

Then I can have high level ninjas that are nigh on impossible to hit, but when they get hit they go down in one or two blows. I can have a Giant Ogre that just stands there and takes hit after hit while they pound you to death with their red wood tree club.

Overall. I'm more disappointment than anything with 5E, and none of my players have shown an interest in playing. I'm currently playing 4E at mid paragon and its starting to bog down. We might switch to 2E or 1E just to see what it is like (I started with 2E) when we finish with this campaign...

I can recommend ACKs or C&C and they are cheap.

The way i done it in my homebrew was eliminate touch AC and jst go back to having a static AC. "Touch" attacks just let the spellcaster or whatever use fighter BAB kind of like AD&Ds spells like shocking grasp let them use fighter THAC0. I use 4th eds actions (minor, move, standard), you can multi attack as a standard action and I use 4th eds combat advantage for things like flanking and winning initiative. I also eliminated most bonuses to hit you can stack up and rogues get +4 to hit while flanking instead of +2. I use a few other modifiers like +1 to hit while mounted against unmounted foes.

 

[sunshadow21]

The real problem I see Next having is that it's going to be very hard to cover new ground within the same basic framework as the older editions. I like the ideas behind it, but I just don't see anyone, let alone a creative team and company that has clearly struggled to focus on and implement anything at all the last few years, pulling off a game that manages to fit in between all of the older stuff without coming off as being a watered down version of all of them. It's not going to help that the brand is in trouble; not dead, but definitely in trouble. When you've lost most of the player base you previously had to earlier editions or spinoffs of those editions, the last edition is widely viewed as either a failure or at best a limited success, and all the grand goals of expanding into other genres and markets has yielded a grand total of one video game that has received mixed reviews and a continued reliance a three decade old character to sustain the novels, it's fairly clear that the core market for new products in the brand is not what it used to be, and sustaining the interest of the new blood is going to be extremely difficult without a solid and substantial core group. That lack of excitement (which is not the same as lack of attention) is going to be a major problem; a lot of people may be paying attention to it, but I don't see a lot of people clamoring for more information or being particularly passionate about rushing out to buy it immediately. From what I've seen, the general reaction is that it's going to be a decent game that few would argue against playing, but just as few would actively argue for it to be the game of choice over something else. In this market, that is going to kill it quick if they don't manage to generate a lot more excitement from the core gaming community. I don't care how much excitement they generate in the general public; without a lot of core gamers working hard to push and sustain it, the new folks will just move on to the next big thing when they get bored with Next.

If it fails to sustain itself after the initial burst, or even appears to fail, the brand will be in serious trouble. Drizzt can't carry the brand forever, and bringing back the old cast will probably simply act to hasten the end of the line for him unless Salvatore uses the unexpected break created by the 4E to continue to reinvigorate not only Drizzt and his individual companions, but the entire group dynamic; otherwise, it'll quickly become more of what everyone has already read multiple times. They may or may not be able to make the movie that they want to, and that movie may or may not be the success they absolutely need it to be, and without the core market to serve as a starting point, the probability of success in that arena shrinks even more. The general public will likely lose most of it's interest in the brand as an active product with two widely perceived failures in a row. On the flip side, if WotC actually pulls it off and Next manages to sustain itself not only as a role playing game but as a brand that truly encapsulates the whole sword and sorcery type of fantasy, then it has a chance to reach a higher level of success than what 3.x pulled off. The challenge is that it's going to take a lot of work, luck, and long term support from both WotC and the gaming community to pull off, and I just don't see the level of excitement (again, not the same as the not particularly unsurprising level of attention) to make me think it's very likely to achieve that.

I personally see it doing well enough that most of the gaming community ends up seeing it as a solid, but not particularly unique or attention getting, game system that if was being published by anybody else or under any other name, would be a great success, but because of the brand and the company, it's going to come off as more of a dud than not when it fails to meet probably unrealistic goals and expectations, and WotC will simply lose interest in doing anything more with the brand than keeping it on life support as long as they can to get as much money as they can from it while spending next to nothing on it. They'll be more than happy to let Salvatore write Drizzt novels as long he wants to, and be equally supportive of Greenwood writing more novels, but probably won't invest much in brand new characters or authors unless they have a successful movie to tie it into. The role playing game will simply fade away, as those who were already playing one or more of the existing versions will continue to play what they already have, but there will be very little effort to actively support any of the existing versions or bring in new players. The boardgames will do the same, limping along in a crowded market, drawing some attention due to the brand, but mostly slowly fading away as the competition makes more noise. I could end up being wrong, but it's going to take a lot of effort and resources to make anything else happen, and I'm not convinced that WotC is willing to throw those kind of resources at it over the long term, nor am I convinced that they are going to generate the necessary size and strength of a core player base needed to give them reason to even consider it. There will be no 6th edition any time soon, regardless of how Next does; either Next does well enough there doesn't need to be another edition anytime soon, because the brand will no longer be reliant on a core ruleset, having managed to finally successfully branch out to other markets on a permanent basis, or the brand simply gets puts on a shelf to collect dust for a while.

 

[wingsandsword]

Because every rule was spelled out in cumbersome and often clunky detail.

You wanted to knock a guy down? Please refer to the complex and obtuse tripping rules.
You wanted to grab a guy and tackle him? Please read the monstrosity called grappling.

It was a lot better than the AD&D 1e/2e way, when rules were vague and missing crucial details.

DM's would come up with ad hoc rulings for their table, which were often very imbalanced. No two groups would have the same rulings for things, so there was a substantial amount of re-learning of intepretation and precedent to learn when going between games (even leaving house rules aside).

Various supplements would try to patch these holes, but no two books would apply the same patch. You'd end up with one rule from The Complete Something Handbook, another from Skills & Powers, another from some Forgotten Realms suppliment, and another one from a Dragon Magazine article. . .leaving each group to choose which of the various official option for the same rule would be used.

3e grappling at least was better than the nightmare of 2e's wrestling rules, with that byzantine "pummeling" table that never, ever got used, in my experience. While 3e had a complicated grappling system, at least it was a coherent system instead of rolling on arbitrary tables.

What I was hoping for with Next was a simple, relatively rules-light core game with some old-school appeal, but lots of various optional rules presented in the core rules that could be added in a modular fashion to customize it up to the level of complexity and play style that a group wanted, so that there would be a common core of D&D which would then be tweaked to a wide variety of gaming groups, campaign settings, and play styles.

 

[Wulfgar76]

It was a lot better than the AD&D 1e/2e way, when rules were vague and missing crucial details. DM's would come up with ad hoc rulings for their table, which were often very imbalanced. No two groups would have the same rulings for things, so there was a substantial amount of re-learning of intepretation and precedent to learn when going between games (even leaving house rules aside).

I disagree, because even if a DM comes up with a bad ad-hoc rule, chances are it can be resolved by one dice roll, and this keeps the action going. For me the cardinal sin of rules, even balanced rules, is slowing the game down.

Various supplements would try to patch these holes, but no two books would apply the same patch. You'd end up with one rule from The Complete Something Handbook, another from Skills & Powers, another from some Forgotten Realms suppliment, and another one from a Dragon Magazine article. . .leaving each group to choose which of the various official option for the same rule would be used.

Yes, 1e 2e was an imbalanced mess. I'm hoping D&D Next delivers consistency while maintaining the simplicity and pace of play.

3e grappling at least was better than the nightmare of 2e's wrestling rules, with that byzantine "pummeling" table that never, ever got used, in my experience. While 3e had a complicated grappling system, at least it was a coherent system instead of rolling on arbitrary tables.

I don't think there's anything good you can say about 3e Grappling. It was rules abyss that never once resulted in something fun or exciting at the table.

What I was hoping for with Next was a simple, relatively rules-light core game with some old-school appeal, but lots of various optional rules presented in the core rules that could be added in a modular fashion to customize it up to the level of complexity and play style that a group wanted, so that there would be a common core of D&D which would then be tweaked to a wide variety of gaming groups, campaign settings, and play styles.

I am hoping for the very same thing. But they have stated that simplicity is of tantamount importance in this edition, if you are wanting highly detailed rules for various combat maneuvers, they may not materialize.