Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!

[Kansaschaser]

Really? The fact that angels could now be servants of evil deities didn't clue you in on the fact that you couldn't simply assume a monster was evil or not based on its appearance?

I've run many D&D 3.5 games where the Angels are the bad guys and the good guys look like devils.

I've also run D&D 3.5 games where the players are good aligned and they had to take on angels (also good), in order to accomplish a goal for the greater good of the world.

So, it never really mattered to me what the alignment was listed as in the Monster Manual. If it fit for my story, then I used it. Once, when I shrunk the characters down to microscopic size and they had to fight the immune system of a druid, I used Phasms from the Monster Manual 1 as white blood cells.

[The Troubadour]

I've run many D&D 3.5 games where the Angels are the bad guys and the good guys look like devils.

Yes, but per the core books, angels are always Good, devils are always Evil.

[DefKab]

Well... If the ultimate goal of an RPG is to create a story without boundaries, then... Isn't following the boundaries of the fluffy setting of DnD kind of negating the purpose?

No, really, I understand. Rules are important, and that the rules should reflect the world, but...

These aren't really RULES, now are they? Alignment, NAMING conventions, titles? These are... Tools. To use in crafting a world.

You can use the world they give you, with Eladrin being fey losers, and complain about how you hate the change, or you could ignore the fluff, apply the rules, and go your own way...

That's how I think, and it leaves me with ABSOLUTELY no issues playing in any edition, because the only thing that changes for me is hard mechanics...

YES 4th Ed isn't DnD as 3.5 sees it. It's a completely different game. It should be called something else. Sure... I see that point clearly.

But when I look at a title, I don't hold on to the pretenses that I should, I guess. To me, 4E is a different beast, and I look at it based on its mechanics.
I have a 4E world that will never see the light of day in 3.5 or Next, because it's focused around the mechanics (not fluff) of 4E. A shame...
But I also have many worlds that flip from system to system without issues, because I apply my own fluff to every system. I tell the players "Alright, you know the world, you know what's going on, these mechanics are how you're going to handle it." It still FEELS the same, because my party is continuing their escape from the BBEG, but they're just using different mechanics...

So... I don't care about fluff. I don't care if they tell me Silver Dragons are good. Or Silver Dragons are evil. Because I feel the first thing anyone should learn about the system is "Use your imagination." And I do. My silver dragons, in 3.5, in 4, in GURPS, in... Deadlands. Whatever. They follow MY fluff. That's what makes DnD my game. Not the mechanics...

Mechanics make the SYSTEM good or bad, but not the game.

So. I won't like 5E, because they use the same mechanics that I already have... I want new stuff, if I want anything at all. So. That's why I like 4th. It had new mechanics... Didn't give a rats belly whether or not Eladrin ruined Dark Sun...

But it's ok if thats why you don't like it. But, apples to oranges.

[Scots Dragon]

Even if it's not following the legacy of older editions, it has precedents. Gandalf used mostly fire magic. If I remember from "The Sword in the Stone", Merlin mostly shapeshifted.

Yes, but Gandalf and Merlin are not D&D characters. I've become rather strongly of the opinion that one should not try to force D&D rules onto other areas of fantasy, but by that same token, you should not try to force the rules of other fantasy onto D&D. While I do actually like specialists, I also like the option to be someone with a more widespread interest or even one of the many non-traditional specialisations available, speaking from the point of view of my own favourite edition (2nd, to be more precise). The choice to be anything like a dabbling generalist, a fire-hurling invoker, a defensive abjurer, or an unpredictable wild mage is a fun choice to be able to have.

Adding into that, many of the major characters of the major AD&D campaign settings are generalists. Including many of the mages who made the 'named' spells like Melf, Mordenkainen, Tasha/Iggwilv, Elminster, the Simbul, Rary, Tenser, Bigby, Evard, Drawmij and Khelben.

Also, neither of Gandalf or Merlin are exactly what more recent D&D would call an outright wizard in the first place. They were sorcerers. Gandalf was someone whose inherent powers were granted by the fact of his being the in-universe equivalent of an angel. And Merlin was a half-fiend whose powers derived from his possession of demonic blood.

Well... If the ultimate goal of an RPG is to create a story without boundaries, then... Isn't following the boundaries of the fluffy setting of DnD kind of negating the purpose?

The ultimate goal of a roleplaying game is actually to create a story within a certain framework. Dungeons & Dragons presents a world of high fantasy, but whether that was the original intention or not, what it presents is a series of established high fantasy worlds. Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Planescape, Spelljammer, Birthright and Mystara, for instance.

If you want to do something outside of that, create your own house rules and homebrew setting, or play a different game.

[Siegel]

Well... If the ultimate goal of an RPG is to create a story without boundaries, then...

But the goal is to create a story WITHIN boundaries isn't it? At least you have boundaries in the rules. Most RPGs have way more and a lot of indie games have really really tight boundaries...

Edit: Swordsaged...

[Aidan305]

Yes, but per the core books, angels are always Good, devils are always Evil.

But Good guys aren't always the Good Guys, and sometimes Evil is Necessary.

Some of the best stories have come out of such situations - where Alignment did exist in the world and there were absolutes.

[Stubbazubba]

Yes, but Gandalf and Merlin are not D&D characters. I've become rather strongly of the opinion that one should not try to force D&D rules onto other areas of fantasy, but by that same token, you should not try to force the rules of other fantasy onto D&D. While I do actually like specialists, I also like the option to be someone with a more widespread interest or even one of the many non-traditional specialisations available, speaking from the point of view of my own favourite edition (2nd, to be more precise). The choice to be anything like a dabbling generalist, a fire-hurling invoker, a defensive abjurer, or an unpredictable wild mage is a fun choice to be able to have.

Adding into that, many of the major characters of the major AD&D campaign settings are generalists. Including many of the mages who made the 'named' spells like Melf, Mordenkainen, Tasha/Iggwilv, Elminster, the Simbul, Rary, Tenser, Bigby, Evard, Drawmij and Khelben.

Also, neither of Gandalf or Merlin are exactly what more recent D&D would call an outright wizard in the first place. They were sorcerers. Gandalf was someone whose inherent powers were granted by the fact of his being the in-universe equivalent of an angel. And Merlin was a half-fiend whose powers derived from his possession of demonic blood.



The ultimate goal of a roleplaying game is actually to create a story within a certain framework. Dungeons & Dragons presents a world of high fantasy, but whether that was the original intention or not, what it presents is a series of established high fantasy worlds. Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Planescape, Spelljammer, Birthright and Mystara, for instance.

If you want to do something outside of that, create your own house rules and homebrew setting, or play a different game.

While that last line seems a tad bit extreme, I actually agree that a game's mechanics need to be unreservedly married to its setting. The mechanics themselves should evoke the feeling of the setting, and thus D&D can only tell the stories that it's mechanics provide. That being said, most of D&D's mechanics don't tell interesting stories; in 3.5, the story was about how nerds (casters) were cool and heroic knights were useless, while in 4e the story was combat as a sporting event which takes too long. OK, so they were about more than that, but these were the obnoxious themes that came up in play, especially at higher levels.

This is why I say we need to test the numbers; WotC has never tested their numbers, not rigorously. Remember the 3.5 Monk? Who OK'd the math on that? Remember level 16? The game plays fundamentally differently at that stage, but only 5/11 core classes got the memo (and that's counting the Bard!). I do not trust WotC to get the math right, as many here seem to, because they have failed too often in the past for that to seem likely to me. And those maths will tell my stories!

That being the case, WotC has an obligation to tweak the setting until it makes for a great game. So while mechanics should evoke a setting, the setting needs to be designed for a game.

[noparlpf]

This is why I say we need to test the numbers; WotC has never tested their numbers, not rigorously. Remember the 3.5 Monk? Who OK'd the math on that? Remember level 16? The game plays fundamentally differently at that stage, but only 5/11 core classes got the memo (and that's counting the Bard!). I do not trust WotC to get the math right, as many here seem to, because they have failed too often in the past for that to seem likely to me. And those maths will tell my stories!

That being the case, WotC has an obligation to tweak the setting until it makes for a great game. So while mechanics should evoke a setting, the setting needs to be designed for a game.

I have frequently said that fans and users come up with better ideas inspired by original material than do the creators of the original material. With WotC, I consider that doubly true, because I've hardly ever seen them do something properly. The fiasco with the first day of the release of the playtest, for example, although that's unrelated to their game-designing abilities.

[Scots Dragon]

Now you see, all of that is why I made the switch back to AD&D. Where there are still a couple of balance issues, but they're not nearly as pronounced as they are in D&D 3.5e, and the rules are generally unobtrusive enough so that they serve the purpose they're meant to in terms of task resolution.

[DefKab]

While that last line seems a tad bit extreme, I actually agree that a game's mechanics need to be unreservedly married to its setting. The mechanics themselves should evoke the feeling of the setting, and thus D&D can only tell the stories that it's mechanics provide. That being said, most of D&D's mechanics don't tell interesting stories; in 3.5, the story was about how nerds (casters) were cool and heroic knights were useless, while in 4e the story was combat as a sporting event which takes too long. OK, so they were about more than that, but these were the obnoxious themes that came up in play, especially at higher levels.

This is why I say we need to test the numbers; WotC has never tested their numbers, not rigorously. Remember the 3.5 Monk? Who OK'd the math on that? Remember level 16? The game plays fundamentally differently at that stage, but only 5/11 core classes got the memo (and that's counting the Bard!). I do not trust WotC to get the math right, as many here seem to, because they have failed too often in the past for that to seem likely to me. And those maths will tell my stories!

That being the case, WotC has an obligation to tweak the setting until it makes for a great game. So while mechanics should evoke a setting, the setting needs to be designed for a game.

I agree with everyone's posts. I really do... But what it should be, and what it is, isn't the same thing.

Deadlands is a game who's mechanics are directly tied to each other... And that works, because no one really deviates from the Setting of the game...

Not so with DnD. While they have their Setting books, and campaign modules, the majority of people -I- know create different settings, with different feels, and very few mechanical changes. DnD is not tied to one setting. Hasn't been for a while... This means you can't really build mechanics around the setting. Faerun, Dark Sun, the majority of players don't play that one setting strictly.

Therefore, DnD has become a gaming system that can, and does, if poorly, represent any number of settings and feelings... Now, they could ignore that, focus purely on their setting, and lose all the players who aren't 'in on it', but I doubt that will happen. They're going to continue to try and build a 'generic' fantasy gaming system, and people don't seem to like it. But that's how it's been for a very long time.

We should stop looking at DnD as a Setting, and more as a system, because your setting isn't my setting, but we're supposed to be using the same system.

And that means getting the math straight. But that's it. If it works as a system, then it'll support the setting. But 3.5, didn't work as a system. Not completely.
Others say 4E doesn't, but I feel it's closer.
And it's closer because they took risks...

But 5E, Next, whatever, it's looking like it's just trying to relive the past. Which makes for bad mechanics, and still no setting...

[Starbuck_II]

I wonder what they're going to do with FR now? They pretty much gutted the old FR fanbase with the "let's change everything" Spellplague thing. What are they going to do this time - have yet another Spellplague that changes magic again? Honestly, it might actually be simpler for them to retcon the whole Spellplague as having never happened . . .

Well, Time of Trouble would like to answer, yes, Saph, there have been 10 "spell plagues" in FR's history. Though, they were not called Spell plagues. You can blame Vecna (Die Vecna Die module) for one, etc.

They never go back as far as FR history always forward.

[navar100]

That kind of idea appeals to me. It still leaves casters with a lot more options than mundanes, because even within one school you have lots of spells, but it's better than now.



Personally I prefer the concept of a specialist wizard. If I'm working with fire spells for my first few levels, with Burning Hands, Scorching Ray, Fireball, and whatever, how do I suddenly gain access to powerful necromantic magic (a 4th-level necromancy spell) when I go up a level?
I might just be the odd man out here, but I feel like working primarily on one kind of magic and building up on that feels much more natural than picking random spells with no relation and being able to cast them all.
So maybe not restrict a character to a single school, but restrict options for higher-level spells. Say you can only learn spells if they share a school or an energy type or something with a lower-level spell you know; you're building on existing knowledge, and higher-level spells require a foundation.

Even if it's not following the legacy of older editions, it has precedents. Gandalf used mostly fire magic. If I remember from "The Sword in the Stone", Merlin mostly shapeshifted.

What you're looking for is spells to have prerequisites. I wouldn't object to the concept. My judgment would be based on the implementation.

[Scowling Dragon]

And that means getting the math straight. But that's it. If it works as a system, then it'll support the setting. But 3.5, didn't work as a system. Not completely.
Others say 4E doesn't, but I feel it's closer.
And it's closer because they took risks...

But 5E, Next, whatever, it's looking like it's just trying to relive the past. Which makes for bad mechanics, and still no setting...

I actualy disagree. I actually think it took the easy way out. Its always easy to just boil things down until they MUST be balanced. It takes effort and risk to create something more.

[Tyndmyr]

One minor pedantic note...yes, Gandalf used more fire spells than other elements, but he also was wearing the ring of fire. There's no indication that he's akin to a specialist wizard...it's more that the ring of fire boosts his aptitude for fire.

[Scots Dragon]

And to add to that, there are many indications from various pieces of fiction that Merlin isn't actually a wizard to begin with. Ironic, I know, but many tales of him actually mention him as a druid, and his shapeshifting abilities would therefore be an example of him using wildshape.

[Tyndmyr]

And to add to that, there are many indications from various pieces of fiction that Merlin isn't actually a wizard to begin with. Ironic, I know, but many tales of him actually mention him as a druid, and his shapeshifting abilities would therefore be an example of him using wildshape.

Honestly, the older tales often don't differentiate between arcane and divine magic.

Tolkien is also an excellent example of that. While Gandalf is consistently referred to as a wizard, he's also basically a solar, and no arcane/divine divide really exists.

So....fantasy kind of varies a lot.

[WinWin]

I have no idea how a design team has a hope of gauging major issues from the volume of feedback, let alone fixing those issues.

Keep in mind this is only the first round of public playtesting.

[Clawhound]

For D&D, I hold the idea that what's true for a character is not true for the entire world. A character may be a wizard, but that does not mean that wizards are plentiful, or that each type of wizard acts like a character's does. What we see for characters is just a smaller slice of a bigger world.

The BBG wizard doesn't need to be a full, adventuring style wizards. He just needs to be bad enough to face off against the occasional encounter while using his PLOT DRIVER ability to do something that no character would bother with.

In the end, though, the game just has some conceits that you don't think about too hard. If you did, you would see that all the rules and pieces don't fit together or make verisimilitude, so you ignore them just so that you can have fun, much the same way that you ignore the obviously fake set on stage so that you can enjoy the play.

[Aidan305]

I agree with everyone's posts. I really do... But what it should be, and what it is, isn't the same thing.

Deadlands is a game who's mechanics are directly tied to each other... And that works, because no one really deviates from the Setting of the game...

Not so with DnD. While they have their Setting books, and campaign modules, the majority of people -I- know create different settings, with different feels, and very few mechanical changes. DnD is not tied to one setting. Hasn't been for a while... This means you can't really build mechanics around the setting. Faerun, Dark Sun, the majority of players don't play that one setting strictly.

Therefore, DnD has become a gaming system that can, and does, if poorly, represent any number of settings and feelings... Now, they could ignore that, focus purely on their setting, and lose all the players who aren't 'in on it', but I doubt that will happen. They're going to continue to try and build a 'generic' fantasy gaming system, and people don't seem to like it. But that's how it's been for a very long time.

We should stop looking at DnD as a Setting, and more as a system, because your setting isn't my setting, but we're supposed to be using the same system.

I actually spent about three hours in February discussing this with a friend. We came to the conclusion, as you did, that D&D is the setting you play in. And this argument has been made by the current development team as well. One of their tasks for this edition is to create something that will be able to function well, possibly with alterations, in any particular setting.

And that means getting the math straight. But that's it. If it works as a system, then it'll support the setting. But 3.5, didn't work as a system. Not completely.
Others say 4E doesn't, but I feel it's closer.
And it's closer because they took risks...

But 5E, Next, whatever, it's looking like it's just trying to relive the past. Which makes for bad mechanics, and still no setting...

I'm inclined to disagree with you here, mostly because I don't feel that 4e worked well as a system. Yes, mathematically it was very good (barring a very large number of problems which have been gone in to many times over the past several years) but I think that overall it failed as a system for a Roleplaying Game.

5e Next, is certainly looking to the past. There's no real reason not to. D&D has a vast history of interesting mechanics, and we don't have to simply forget about them for the sake of progress. Sometimes progress requires refinement rather than simply scrapping things. As a result we have a large number of features from 1/2e, 3.x, and 4e being moulded together and refined.
And Next is also proving that it can innovate as well - The backgrounds and Themes are widely considered among the societies I game with to be something that D&D has needed for years. Advantage and Disadvantage are a simple way of smoothing out the unwieldy maths of the past two editions, and speeding up combat, as well as encouraging players to innovate within the game to see what they can do.
I think it's unfair to say that it's only reliving the past when it's clearly doing so much more.

[noparlpf]

Advantage and Disadvantage are basically circumstance bonuses/penalties of (I think somebody calculated it as) +/-5. It's an interesting way to add more dice-rolling, but circumstance bonuses worked fine in 3.X.

[DefKab]

I actually spent about three hours in February discussing this with a friend. We came to the conclusion, as you did, that D&D is the setting you play in. And this argument has been made by the current development team as well. One of their tasks for this edition is to create something that will be able to function well, possibly with alterations, in any particular setting.



I'm inclined to disagree with you here, mostly because I don't feel that 4e worked well as a system. Yes, mathematically it was very good (barring a very large number of problems which have been gone in to many times over the past several years) but I think that overall it failed as a system for a Roleplaying Game.

5e Next, is certainly looking to the past. There's no real reason not to. D&D has a vast history of interesting mechanics, and we don't have to simply forget about them for the sake of progress. Sometimes progress requires refinement rather than simply scrapping things. As a result we have a large number of features from 1/2e, 3.x, and 4e being moulded together and refined.
And Next is also proving that it can innovate as well - The backgrounds and Themes are widely considered among the societies I game with to be something that D&D has needed for years. Advantage and Disadvantage are a simple way of smoothing out the unwieldy maths of the past two editions, and speeding up combat, as well as encouraging players to innovate within the game to see what they can do.
I think it's unfair to say that it's only reliving the past when it's clearly doing so much more.

It's important to note that the background, theme, and advantage systems are all present in 4E, which, I feel, does them better...

[Scots Dragon]

Honestly, the older tales often don't differentiate between arcane and divine magic.

Tolkien is also an excellent example of that. While Gandalf is consistently referred to as a wizard, he's also basically a solar, and no arcane/divine divide really exists.

So....fantasy kind of varies a lot.

Oh I'm well aware of that. The modern image of the wizard as someone who can hurl about spells with impunity is also relatively recent, with many of the older wizards using magic only very sparingly or otherwise requiring a lot of preparation and ritual in order to manage their spells. In fact, I think the first major wizard to use magic as a regular solution to his problems was in fact Sparrowhawk from the Earthsea stories. Or possibly Gandalf himself during The Hobbit, where he was much more fond of blasting goblins.

[noparlpf]

Oh I'm well aware of that. The modern image of the wizard as someone who can hurl about spells with impunity is also relatively recent, with many of the older wizards using magic only very sparingly or otherwise requiring a lot of preparation and ritual in order to manage their spells. In fact, I think the first major wizard to use magic as a regular solution to his problems was in fact Sparrowhawk from the Earthsea stories. Or possibly Gandalf himself during The Hobbit, where he was much more fond of blasting goblins.

Even Sparrowhawk doesn't fling magic around for everything like casters in D&D.

[Draz74]

Advantage and Disadvantage are basically circumstance bonuses/penalties of (I think somebody calculated it as) +/-5. It's an interesting way to add more dice-rolling, but circumstance bonuses worked fine in 3.X.

Hmmm. I'm inclined to agree; I like the idea of replacing lots of fiddly little modifiers with a reroll-based system, but circumstance modifiers (since they are in sum situational, and prone to DM fiat) wouldn't have been the modifiers I would have chosen.

Make buff spells grant "advantage" instead of a +4 modifier to attack rolls? Yes, PLEASE.

But when the DM is just giving you circumstantial modifiers anyway, then he might as well name a specific number rather than deciding whether any applicable "advantages" outweigh any applicable "disadvantages."

[MukkTB]

Just a side thought about 4e class differentiations. Assume Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric.

They could have easily made each type of power source play differently than the other types while still being much less imbalanced than 3.5. Imagine This-

The Fighter gets a small set of at will powers, and a set of maneuvers that require several at will powers to be used before being able to fire off. Think of them as complex multi round maneuvers with the at wills composing them. Thus the fighter is rewarded for staying in the thick of battle.

The rogue gets a small set of at will powers and triggered abilities. The triggered abilities being things like a backstab attack that can only be used against a flanking enemy that a friend has hit. Or one that can only be used against a character on ground that forces a balance check. Ect. The rogue would then play as a character constantly looking for advantages against the enemy.

The wizard gets a set of daily powers that can be renewed by spending 20 minutes with his spellbook supplemented by a small set of at wills. (The Sorcerer would have a set of encounter powers.) These powers would have to be a bit more potent than the at wills of other people. This then simulates Vancian magic (or mana for the sorcerer.) He feels like a striker because of his hard hitting abilities.

The Cleric gets a set of at will magic abilities. A god doesn't run out of mana.

There, each power source feels unique and plays differently. You can even have fun creating hybrid characters that work off multiple power sources.

[Fitch3k]

Balance, Feats, and and auto-rolls are ruining role playing. There's too many convoluted rules to pull off the effect which kills imagination and ingenuity. Anytime a rule replaces a player thinking and interacting at the table it's a bad rule. Having too many rules and feats telling a player what actions they can take and when puts him on auto-pilot simply exploiting the right mechanic as he sifts through his available dictated options. The player should instead be thinking as his character and explaining how he reacts to which he makes a roll to see how successful he is.

ex. Feats - DM "Bill Battle-Axe, two charred and grizzly orcs charge you this round but you have enough time to act before they do"
Rugged Player "I've handled two orcs before I swing my axe in a wide arc infront of me threatening both of them"
DM "Thats phyically possibly but has a lower chance of success than hitting one target take -4 on your attack roll"
Clever Player "I step out of the way, let them run past me, and attack from behind on my turn"
DM "Huh, that's not in the rules but a very smart idea, and likely what most ppl would try to do, roll a dex check vs their wisdom checks to see if a) you side step and b) they keep running"
This is way more rewarding and immersive than, "I'm sorry that's not one of the actions you can take/ you don't have cleave so no" or the player simply stating cleave then rolls his attacks. That player isn't even involved with his character he's metagaming and his character likely doesn't have any feats that gives his player personality or an identity in the world b/c he keeps burning feat slots to stay relevant to the CR curve since the desingers are balancing the monsters against what optimal combat clones can do. The feats are replacing player thought and interaction with the world.

this got long so I'm ending it here, I'm sure this will start a flame (especially the balance comment) so I will elaborate on balance and auto-rolls in future posts if this becomes a discussion. Ultimately the only rule mechanic needed is roll to see how successful your action is and some guidelines so pcs are rolling against similar DCs.

[noparlpf]

Balance, Feats, and and auto-rolls are ruining role playing. There's too many convoluted rules to pull off the effect which kills imagination and ingenuity. Anytime a rule replaces a player thinking and interacting at the table it's a bad rule. Having too many rules and feats telling a player what actions they can take and when puts him on auto-pilot simply exploiting the right mechanic as he sifts through his available dictated options. The player should instead be thinking as his character and explaining how he reacts to which he makes a roll to see how successful he is.

ex. Feats - DM "Bill Battle-Axe, two charred and grizzly orcs charge you this round but you have enough time to act before they do"
Rugged Player "I've handled two orcs before I swing my axe in a wide arc infront of me threatening both of them"
DM "Thats phyically possibly but has a lower chance of success than hitting one target take -4 on your attack roll"
Clever Player "I step out of the way, let them run past me, and attack from behind on my turn"
DM "Huh, that's not in the rules but a very smart idea, and likely what most ppl would try to do, roll a dex check vs their wisdom checks to see if a) you side step and b) they keep running"
This is way more rewarding and immersive than, "I'm sorry that's not one of the actions you can take/ you don't have cleave so no" or the player simply stating cleave then rolls his attacks. That player isn't even involved with his character he's metagaming and his character likely doesn't have any feats that gives his player personality or an identity in the world b/c he keeps burning feat slots to stay relevant to the CR curve since the desingers are balancing the monsters against what optimal combat clones can do. The feats are replacing player thought and interaction with the world.

this got long so I'm ending it here, I'm sure this will start a flame (especially the balance comment) so I will elaborate on balance and auto-rolls in future posts if this becomes a discussion. Ultimately the only rule mechanic needed is roll to see how successful your action is and some guidelines so pcs are rolling against similar DCs.

My playstyle is usually to come up with a standard set of tactics based on how my character thinks, and to describe my actions briefly. So I'm not metagaming when I play, just when I put together the build to do what I want it to. I'll start with concept, flavor, and fluff, then fit the rules to it however I can.
When I DM, I'm pretty flexible with rules. I don't like saying, "No, the book says that doesn't work." So that's not quite how it works. So what? It's more fun this way for all parties. And it allows for more thought and tactics.

Edit: Though I do like having a good set of rules as a foundation. Winging everything is just silly.

[Seerow]

Balance, Feats, and and auto-rolls are ruining role playing. There's too many convoluted rules to pull off the effect which kills imagination and ingenuity. Anytime a rule replaces a player thinking and interacting at the table it's a bad rule. Having too many rules and feats telling a player what actions they can take and when puts him on auto-pilot simply exploiting the right mechanic as he sifts through his available dictated options. The player should instead be thinking as his character and explaining how he reacts to which he makes a roll to see how successful he is.

ex. Feats - DM "Bill Battle-Axe, two charred and grizzly orcs charge you this round but you have enough time to act before they do"
Rugged Player "I've handled two orcs before I swing my axe in a wide arc infront of me threatening both of them"
DM "Thats phyically possibly but has a lower chance of success than hitting one target take -4 on your attack roll"
Clever Player "I step out of the way, let them run past me, and attack from behind on my turn"
DM "Huh, that's not in the rules but a very smart idea, and likely what most ppl would try to do, roll a dex check vs their wisdom checks to see if a) you side step and b) they keep running"
This is way more rewarding and immersive than, "I'm sorry that's not one of the actions you can take/ you don't have cleave so no" or the player simply stating cleave then rolls his attacks. That player isn't even involved with his character he's metagaming and his character likely doesn't have any feats that gives his player personality or an identity in the world b/c he keeps burning feat slots to stay relevant to the CR curve since the desingers are balancing the monsters against what optimal combat clones can do. The feats are replacing player thought and interaction with the world.

this got long so I'm ending it here, I'm sure this will start a flame (especially the balance comment) so I will elaborate on balance and auto-rolls in future posts if this becomes a discussion. Ultimately the only rule mechanic needed is roll to see how successful your action is and some guidelines so pcs are rolling against similar DCs.

Oh is that what you want from a game system? Here let me write a system here real quick for you that will cover all your bases:

Spoiler

Show

All actions are opposed rolls, one attribute vs another attribute. The DM adjudicates which attributes are used. If you want to do something, describe it to the DM, he will tell you if it's possible, and which stats will be rolled.

Classes:
Classes aren't really all that different. You have Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard. Fighter and Rogue can do anything that is possible in real life, at the DM's adjudication. The Wizard can do anything, as long as he's using magic, except healing at the DM's adjudication. The Cleric can do anything at the DM's adjudication.

There, the system covers everything you want, with minimal rules necessary. Just a stat sheet with your character's 6 attributes. No silly rules to get in your way. Please feel free to pay me 30 dollars for my work.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will wait for a game to be released that actually has rules and abilities, and something actually worth a team of developers to get paid for.

[Treblain]

this got long so I'm ending it here, I'm sure this will start a flame (especially the balance comment) so I will elaborate on balance and auto-rolls in future posts if this becomes a discussion. Ultimately the only rule mechanic needed is roll to see how successful your action is and some guidelines so pcs are rolling against similar DCs.

Okay, then let's preempt the flame war.

Some common responses and issues spun off this kind of complaint are:

1. If the DM is just supposed to use his judgment on everything, what are we paying for?
2. You're essentially insulting everyone who does like more specific rules by implying that those people are unimaginative simpletons. People will take this personally. This is why this can start futile debates.
3. Branching off #1, not all DMs will do things according to your style, and therefore those groups of players cannot be satisfied by your view of things.
4. DMs can be equally flexible with more rules. One can come up with a "Rule of Cool" houserule where Bill can use Cleave in that one instance where it's dramatically required, only this time there's a legal basis for it. Maybe after beating those orcs, he decides to practice that trick and gets the feat for real.

The Next playtest actually goes further than most D&D products in directly encouraging the DM to improvise. I'm actually impressed; it's common sense, but you don't expect a business that makes money by selling rules to say it so clearly; see #1.

[Fitch3k]

Oh is that what you want from a game system? Here let me write a system here real quick for you that will cover all your bases:

Spoiler

Show

All actions are opposed rolls, one attribute vs another attribute. The DM adjudicates which attributes are used. If you want to do something, describe it to the DM, he will tell you if it's possible, and which stats will be rolled.

Classes:
Classes aren't really all that different. You have Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard. Fighter and Rogue can do anything that is possible in real life, at the DM's adjudication. The Wizard can do anything, as long as he's using magic, except healing at the DM's adjudication. The Cleric can do anything at the DM's adjudication.

There, the system covers everything you want, with minimal rules necessary. Just a stat sheet with your character's 6 attributes. No silly rules to get in your way. Please feel free to pay me 30 dollars for my work.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will wait for a game to be released that actually has rules and abilities, and something actually worth a team of developers to get paid for.

I actually like this alot except for all the classes being the same (that's 4th edition). You did a good job, but I already play like that so I'm not paying you. You still need the books for the setting, spells, classes, monsters, gear, flavorful fun things, and a flexible frame work for some consistency so one player doesn't have to roll against a hard DC while another player performing a similar action got to roll against an easy DC, but not pages and pages of bureaucratic documents.

And that last posts sounds promising that they are encouraging DMs to be creative.

the auto roll (spot/search now perception) - instead of players actively asking questions about the environment (interaction) "make a spot check" "6" "you don't notice anything" "I draw my weapon" (reaction) and pretty boring unispired gameplay. instead of "I push along the wall for loose stones" "I search the room, rolled 17" "you find a hollow with a bag of coins"

balance - among classes ppl make it more important than it needs to be and as such it's not as simple as rock,paper, scissor like it could be. It's an RP first, game second or thats how it used to be, not everyone is equal, but everyone has weaknesses. Spellcasters should always be more powerful, but fighters should be able to drop them in one round if they go first or the caster lets them get to them and is not buffed and they can't go all day like melee classes. Rangers will lose most of the time to fighters in a slug fest but the fighter has to make it to the ranger first ect. ect. The real problem with balance is in the CR system and developers anticipating how much bonuses and enhancements PCs will have. You shouldn't need magic items and feats to stay viable, they should be a bonus. Wow my group has magic weapons, well that's something special now we are going to have an easier time in some fights, but not having magic weapons or optimized combat builds shouldn't mean you need crits just to land a hit on CR appropriate for your PL. And what's with everything being based off of killing? There are a lot of ways to defeat something, or hell how about just surviving something like a dragon attacking.

I get that some people need more direction and others really enjoy the miniature war game style, but it should be heavily encouraged that these are guidelines not laws to make different groups more accessible to eachother and not have the fan base divided over systems. It really comes down to the play group and how the players react to the rules. I play PF chronicles at the comic shop, and have had fun with 4th ed DnD encounters, b/c they are fun miniature games and I treat them as such. Then I RP for my home group we still play conceptually and don't use mats or movement squares. This can work for my group b/c we are low fantasy guys and don't try getting away with bs/outrageous feats of awesomeness, I think most ppl who have a problem with the style I'm describing is b/c they picture power gamers declaring they are flying all over the board or running past 10 guys with their sword held out.