I thought that article was really poorly written. I couldnt tell what the heck he was talking about or anything concrete about what to expect from the multiclassing.
D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
- Thread starter innerdude
- Start date
I thought that article was really poorly written. I couldnt tell what the heck he was talking about or anything concrete about what to expect from the multiclassing.
Tony Vargas
Legend
It sounds like you're saying that there's no such thing as a broken RPG. That's a very extreme position to take, and I suppose it's telling that you feel the need to stake out such a position.
It's interesting that you consider an FPRG in which no one happens to play a caster to be equivalent to an historical simulation.
Expert was 4th-14th level (Basic was 1st-3rd, Companion 15th-25th, Master 26th-36th, Immortal was, well, Immortals).
As I remember, the AD&D PHB had a 1st level Magic User spell list of 18 spells, with less at other levels. There are 3e schools with that large a variety at first level.
Another part of the problem is the ease of adding just a few more spells, and the way so many supplements, adventures, and settings did so. And then the useful ones become popular, the popular ones are dropped into the core, and suddenly the casters have a wider range of abilities than they started off with, and are going to be getting more as the edition advances.
Then of course 3e went out and nerfed saving throws severely. And did lots of other things to make sure that people who hit things were deprecated over people who manipulated the fabric of reality, most of which were in fact directly against the way the game used to work.
I think there's a lot of emotional loading in the word "broken".
A published game, not necessarily an RPG, could be "broken" in the sense that the published rules are incomplete or do not work *at all* - e.g. a card game where you need 20 victory points to win, but there are only 17 possible with the best hand. I think there would be general consensus that such a game was "broken", in the sense that it could not be played. RPGs are rarely broken in this way, because they are so open ended. In fact I cannot think of one, although some rules in, say early Chivalry and Sorcery (how to take actions in combat - no rules?) might come close.
For most RPGs as far as I can see, one person's "broken" game is another person's entertainment over many evenings. Pointing out the tears and cracks might make someone consider them as problems, but if it doesn't, then time to move on and focus on what works for you and the people that care about those discovered faults.
This gets back to the OP. Is there any way in which such different opinions about what a good, playable game looks like can be covered by one published version of D&D?
I'd have to agree with the OP and say "no". Trying to publish one set of rules for D&D would be like trying to publish one set of rules encompassing Soccer, American Football, Hockey etc. You end up with "here's a ball, there's a goal, now do what you want", and then try to cover all the rest in "modules". It's far too much, and an established game with a niche that more closely matches what I want is where I'd start.
My first quibble with this would be that BW is not all that "lite".
But I also think the "narrativist incentive" isn't quite right - sure, it's there, but there are also other aspects of the mechanics that you're leaving out that play into pacing, player decision points and GM adjudication of failure/insertion of complications.
I think it would be hard to push 3E this way even if you bolted on the "narrativist incentive" stuff.
The rest of your post is once again excellent.
Ahnehnois
First Post
Not quite, but pretty close to that.
Given that an rpg is a noncompetitive, open-ended game, it is inherently very difficult to "break".
Calling an entire game "broken" is a pretty spiteful and unproductive statement that is difficult to support for any system (especially with regards to the target in question), and that in practice is usually characteristic edition warring. That I'm taking a stand against that is indeed telling.
Ratskinner
Adventurer
Well, like I said, I only have the "wheel and spoke" preview. There's not a whole awful lot there. I presume that a full game with setting would have a lot more.I still think its lighter Sim than say..3e. There weren't any Jumping Ob# vs distance tables, frex. (Unless those show up in the full game...then, forget about this.
)I fully suspect that there are things about full BW mechanics that aren't in the pdf I have. I'm not sure about the pacing & player decision points... However, I don't think the "fail interestingly" principle really inherently plays up to any particular agenda. What the GM does with it obviously can.
I agree. I think the people who do it are using the incentive system on top of D&D's long tradition of ignoring what you don't like.
Grimmjow
First Post
what i got out of it is that we pick a class at level one and that is our main class. Any time we level up, we can pick any class we meet the requirements for and can take a level in that one. If we do multi-class though, we dont gain the same things that we would if it was our main class. A level one rogue is going to have more rogue stuff then a wizard with one level in rogue. This is to avoid cherry picking
Tony Vargas
Legend
Knowing your standards helps. Consider that others have a much lower tolerance of (or enthusiasm for) imbalances.
In this particular case - we started with the 5MWD - edition isn't even an isssue. All editions of D&D have 'daily' powers that the PCs can re-charge by choosing to 'rest,' whether for 6 or 8 hours or until a 24-hr re-set point. Perhaps 3e suffers the most egregiously from class imbalances exacerbated by the 5MWD, but the phenomenon is present in all eds.
And, again, the entire game doesn't need to be broken for it to be improved by fixing the the bits that /are/ broken.
Finally, accusations of edition warring are, likewise, non-productive. It would be as easy to say that you are edition-warring in a vigorous defense of 3e by denying that RPGs can be broken by imbalance, as it is for your to say that daring to recognize obvious failings in 3e (in the vain hope that 5e might not make the same mistakes) is edition warring.
The kernel of that "you're edition warring!" argument boils down to "dis-unity is bad, and I'm not going to compromise, therefor you are morally obligated to agree with me!"
I suppose it's all on-topic, though, as these irreconcilable differences further illustrate the impossibility of 5e's re-unification goal. :shrug:
Tony Vargas
Legend
I suppose there might be some. But, how are you going to fix something if you're afraid to ever acknowledge that it might be broken?
I think that could go either way. An RPG has to be able to handle a very wide range of player choices. You could view that charitably, and say since it's impossible to provide a distinct mechanic to cover everything players might think to try, RPGs are absolved from any responsibility to provide complete or functional or mechanics, at all. Or, you could be a stickler about it, and demand that system be as complete, balanced, and flexible as possible, within the parameters of the genre, even though perfection is natural impossible.
While I get that that a broken mechanic isn't experienced as broken by those who never run afoul of it, that's still no reason to leave it broken. The fixed mechanic won't bother those who never run afoul of it, either. The 5MWD issue, for instance, is right there in the D&D rules (in every edition). If 5e were to fix the isuse - make the game balanced for the 1-encounter day as well as the 'average' day - then those who never play 1-encounter days would not lose anything.
Heh. If they can't please everyone, they should just be sure to include what you want. That's really what a lot of this comes down to, doesn't it? We know they're going to try to please everyone, we know they're going to fail, but we want avoid being in the groups whose stuff is left out.
The only positive advice I could give WotC is that if you're going to try to make 5e work with as many play styles and preferences as possible, you need to avoid favoring any one of them.
LostSoul
Adventurer
In regards to Burning Wheel, I have never played it without a Story Now agenda, but I think it would be hard to do with a Right to Dream agenda.
The feeling I get playing BW is that your PC wants these things (Beliefs) within a tense situation that's been built around them. Your PC will fail and fail often, and those failures will force you to change your conception of your character. Like it says on the box, "Fight for what you believe in." At some point you're going to have to decide if what you believe in is worth fighting for - combat is deadly and the Duel of Wits forces you to make major concessions all the time.
All of that is going to break the Right to Dream, because BW doesn't give you that Right - your Dream is going to be tested and challenged at every point.
If you were to play it with a Right to Dream agenda, I think you'd have to make a relatively low-intensity situation, avoid challenging the PC's beliefs, and make the consequences of failure small. At that point I think you're throwing out Artha, skill advancement, combat, and Duel of Wits - because all of these require one or more of the above challenges to the Right to Dream. Well, not really getting rid of them, but I imagine those mechanics would put too much pressure on the Dream that players would start to avoid using them and "never touch the dice" - and they'd be better served that way.
The feeling I get playing BW is that your PC wants these things (Beliefs) within a tense situation that's been built around them. Your PC will fail and fail often, and those failures will force you to change your conception of your character. Like it says on the box, "Fight for what you believe in." At some point you're going to have to decide if what you believe in is worth fighting for - combat is deadly and the Duel of Wits forces you to make major concessions all the time.
All of that is going to break the Right to Dream, because BW doesn't give you that Right - your Dream is going to be tested and challenged at every point.
If you were to play it with a Right to Dream agenda, I think you'd have to make a relatively low-intensity situation, avoid challenging the PC's beliefs, and make the consequences of failure small. At that point I think you're throwing out Artha, skill advancement, combat, and Duel of Wits - because all of these require one or more of the above challenges to the Right to Dream. Well, not really getting rid of them, but I imagine those mechanics would put too much pressure on the Dream that players would start to avoid using them and "never touch the dice" - and they'd be better served that way.
Neonchameleon
Legend
False on literally every point if we look at even Gygaxian D&D.
Gygaxian D&D is competative. It's PCs vs the Dungeon. And sometimes PCs vs each other. It's also constrained into the dungeon most of the time - calling it open ended is dubious. As for very difficult to break, oD&D was playtested by dozens of players, used to the competative nature of wargames and looking for any advantage they can find. It is only hard to break because it got sandblasted in playtesting in a way arguably no RPG has been ever since. This isn't inherent.
Are you saying that Gary Gygax did not write an RPG?
For that matter are you calling Paranoia not an RPG? Because that can get competative. And for open ended, Dread and Fiasco aren't really.
Now I agree that many RPGs are noncompetative and open ended. But saying that all are is not a statement you can make.
Bull! Your stand is an attempt to deny that Step On Up play has any place in the RPG hobby at all, despite D&D written to bring a level of stepping up play that was unavailable to wargamers. If you consider that Step On Up and gamism have any place at all in RPGs then you absolutely can declare things and even entire systems if the rot reaches deep to be broken. In order to deny that brokenness is meaningful, you need to throw vast swathes of roleplayers including Gygax, Arneson, and the entire Lake Geneva Tactical Studies Association out of the hobby.
And I stand against throwing people out of the hobby.
Neonchameleon
Legend
To expand, what Broken actually means is "Incompatable with an expected playstyle or purpose". Normally 'Step on up' - in which the players are supposed to do the best they can against an actively challenging environment. Although a high lethality game that penalised you for attempting stunts would be badly broken if marketed as a swashbuckler. A simulationist game is broken if, to put it bluntly, the sim works incredibly badly for the setting.
Step on Up is the agenda most likely to find games to be broken. Because if someone brings too much to bear the step on up challenge of climbing a mountain is short circuited by the ability to fly. And you are expected to stress the world during play or else you aren't stepping up.
Step on Up is the agenda most likely to find games to be broken. Because if someone brings too much to bear the step on up challenge of climbing a mountain is short circuited by the ability to fly. And you are expected to stress the world during play or else you aren't stepping up.
Ahnehnois
First Post
I'm okay with that.
I also learned physics that Newton wouldn't understand, watch Batman movies that Bob Kane probably wouldn't like, and am currently watching sports that Babe Ruth wouldn't believe. I'm sure this Gygax guy was intelligent, a pioneer even (though not on the level of those above), but I'm not looking at his will as dogma (and I seriously doubt that you've captured it anyway).
That being said...
Of course not. Those groups have enjoyed D&D for a while as a compromise between philosophies, and if I wrote a new edition, they'd probably enjoy it more. I don't believe in throwing them out, but I also don't believe in throwing out everyone else in a vain and futile effort to satisfy one particular minority.
Tony Vargas
Legend
I'm not sure I exactly buy all of that. In reverse order:
True, there's nothing inherently un-breakable about RPGs nor cooperative games, in general. Quite the contrary, balance is /more/ important in cooperative games because you're playing against the game, not against eachother, and imbalances can quickly marginalize a player (so he might as well not be playing at all) or remove all challenge from the game. In a multi-player competitive game, if one player uses a loophole or imbalanced choice to gain an advantage, the other players can often 'gang up' on him in whatever way the game allows. In a cooperative game, you're actually playing 'right' if you do whatever you can to help the the player keep his loophole advantage going.
Old-school D&D breaks easily and often, it's just most of the breaking is done by the DM, not the player. There's none of the facile over-rewarding of system mastery or player-driven 'builds,' but every trap, trick, monster & magic item is utterly arbitrary, and any decision could turn out to be a catch-22. Thus the two most familiar DM'ing styles of the classic D&D era: Monty Haul and Killer.
While the early 0D&D campaigns were traditionally dungeons, other environments were being used quite early. Blackmoor, the 2nd 0D&D supplement, had all sorts of stuff for underwater adventures, for instance, and 0D&D has some oddball rules for wilderness adventure.
I will agree that the little I've heard about the earliest days of 0D&D, especially when Gygax & co were developing it, certainly seem to suggest a certain competitive spirit. And, the catch-22 nature of many traps and cursed items we see suggested in AD&D makes me think of DMs trying to deal with the consequences of such competition, and getting the party to have to depend on eachother and maybe not just fight over the latest goodie.
The original books said 'Wargame' right on the cover.
The better-balanced the game, the more the expectations, attitudes, and styles of those at the table playing it can vary before they start ruining the game for eachother. A less balanced game tends to meet only certain expectations or over-reward only certain styles, a badly-balanced enough one still likely has one (often quite obvious but also often quite bizarre) 'right' way to play. If you're playing with a sufficiently homogeneous group, you may not 'need' much in the way of balance, and if you find a game whose imbalances meet your expectations and over-reward your style of play, you might be very satisfied with it, indeed...
Crazy Jerome
First Post
Right. Which would break the reward cycle in BW, which is the best thing about it. People see the Beliefs and read "Fate Aspects" as if the Beliefs were central, but it's the "Fight for what you Believe" that is central, because that is the reward cycle in BW. Everything in BW is in there either as pursuit of that reward cycle or color (or often, both).
The reward cycle is player driven. The emergent story is character driven. The player picks beliefs that will be challenged or pushed. The character is just some guy that has those beliefs. The player then must push the action to get situations that are risky, in order to advance. The character doesn't want to confront the orcs, but the player does--preferably in some way that pushes skills that the player wants to advance as his conception. Some of these confrontations will include failure--which the character most emphatically does not want but that gives the player a nifty test or three--and maybe even some Artha. This Artha is then spent to eventually succeed and gain another test. Meanwhile, the goals are met or changed, and thus Beliefs evolve.
Now, that's not exactly Forge Narrativism as I understand it. (And I don't think the BW folks think it is, either.) It is a form of narrative play that has some parts outside the gamist/simulation spheres. A Right to Dream character, pushed faithfully in that way, would practically never grow in BW--and probably wouldn't be very interesting.
Meanwhile, a properly pushed and engaged BW group is being constantly put in the position of seeking out ways to get their characters in trouble, but not necessarily in ways that they can directly solve. Basically, since the DM can run BW full out (and Say Yes on the trivial stuff), the players are expected to bring enough rope to hang their characters. The DM will then try to hang them. The players will try to escape unhung. This works only because the DM can try to hang them.
I don't know how Fate aspects work, but I get the impression from what other people have said about it that it's reward cycle is not quite so dedicated and tight--almost more of a Karma effect than a true reward cycle. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
BW groups don't so much "address premise" as "saunter by premise in a nonchalant manner, suddenly make rude gestures, and then run away." Naturally, this leads to something a bit like "story now," but likewise twisted into "story as soon as premise catches up with you in a dark alley."
Ratskinner
Adventurer
FATE's aspects, if you choose a "Belief"-type aspect work in this way as well. You would gain FP for taking on risk for the aspect and reap far greater rewards for spending FP in pursuit of the aspect. Ignoring such an aspect would cost you FATE points. (FATE points can be spent on other things as well, but the mechanical impact is lessened.) Of course, FATE would (in most versions) not force a player to take such an aspect, although such a thing is probably well within most groups' conceptions of GM purview.
I kinda wish there was someone experienced in both systems here, because I'm not seeing (in the rules I have, anyway) what, the significant difference between FATE and BW is, other than the dice mechanics...
I think I get most of that about the system as a whole (so much as the "intro" rules I have represent the whole. I just don't see what, outside the BITs, drives that. Or is the advancement-dependence much more of a thing than I think it is? FATE implementations are very diverse in advancement expectations, and its one of the "hazier" areas of the FATE-verse.
Probably no more than I'm misunderstanding BW, anyway.
I would certainly say that the aspect/FP reward cycle is far less structured than the BW one. Tight....I dunno. In some ways, the FATE version is/can be a little stronger (I think) on the reward end of things. Karma...I suppose that depends on how you view Karma wrt rpgs.OTOH, FATE's aspects do a lot of mechanical heavy lifting, not just the belief/drive end of things. They can represent all sorts of things, as well as temporary conditions and the like. FATE can play up and down along the N-S axis quite a bit, even within the same game.
BW groups don't so much "address premise" as "saunter by premise in a nonchalant manner, suddenly make rude gestures, and then run away." Naturally, this leads to something a bit like "story now," but likewise twisted into "story as soon as premise catches up with you in a dark alley."
I have no idea what that means, but I find it very entertaining nonetheless.
I thought these were the two most familiar derogatory terms for unwanted DM styles?
The terms "railroad" and "sandbox" hadn't really been outed, but were definitely being explored IME.
LostSoul
Adventurer
I think it's because compromise is built into the system - in both Duels of Wits, the deadliness of combat, and the requirement for failure in order to advance. Compromise + NPCs with BITs of their own (important NPCs are supposed to be "burned" up, I believe) + Artha rewards for play that incorporates BITs means that your PC's BITs are going to be challenged - driven NPCs are going to push you to pick your battles. "Fight for what you believe." Once you make your choices, there's a Trait Vote where other players explicitly judge your choices and change your PC.
With FATE, I don't think there's as much pressure on your Aspects. You might have an Aspect that says "Honourable" and the DM can offer you Fate Points if you play it up - or drain some if you don't play it - but whatever you do, there's not that same kind of change forced on the character. You still have the Honourable Aspect to draw on, even if your PC doesn't act particularly honourable.
Which isn't to say that can't happen - changing your Aspects through play - but the system doesn't push as hard toward that end.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Monty Haul & Killer tended to indicate extremes, sure, but in classic D&D, the DM dispensed magic items and tried to kill you(r character), Monty Haul was just too much of the former and Killer DMs just did too much of the latter, but both were expected DM functions. Players having more of a hand in shaping the development of their characters was a later development...
I think I may have heard 'railroad' back in the day. Sandbox feels a lot more recent.
Speaking of connotations, I get the sense that 'railroad' is pretty negative compared to 'sandbox,' yet there are circumstances in which a tightly scripted or directive 'railroad' style is a very good approach.
