D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

[Kurald Galain]

First, you cut out literally half a sentence and responded to that rather than the whole post. That's really ****ing annoying.

Please don't swear.

And yes, rolling twice is notably better than +2: this is because realistically, the value you need to roll is somewhere within the 7-14 range, and the situation where you can only succeed on a 20 is hypothetical at best. Plus, rolling two dice is a more visceral mechanic than adding a small bonus; WOTC appears to be paying attention to such reactions.

Although I agree that more granularity would be better. I would suggest rolling two dice, then rolling three dice (for double ad/disad), then automatic success or failure (for triple ad/disad).

[Knaight]

Although I agree that more granularity would be better. I would suggest rolling two dice, then rolling three dice (for double ad/disad), then automatic success or failure (for triple ad/disad).

I don't think that going beyond three dice is really necessary. That implies a double advantage, plus an advantage per disadvantage. Going beyond that seems like enough of an edge case that it doesn't really matter. This is particularly notable as it leaves the extreme of having 3 dice and taking the best while opposing the worst of 3 dice, which is major to say the least.

[Ziegander]

And yes, rolling twice is notably better than +2: this is because realistically, the value you need to roll is somewhere within the 7-14 range, and the situation where you can only succeed on a 20 is hypothetical at best. Plus, rolling two dice is a more visceral mechanic than adding a small bonus; WOTC appears to be paying attention to such reactions.

The best and most important part of advantage/disadvantage, and the reason I hope they designed the mechanic, is not that it's a "bigger bonus" than +2 circumstance or that it's "more visceral," it is that it provides a significant statistical boost or drawback without ruining the random number generator. Lots of circumstance bonuses/penalties can and do push people up or down to the point that they either can only succeed on a 20 or a fail on a 1. Advantage/disadvantage will never do that, and yet it still produces an effect with a profound impact.

Hopefully they do not cause stacking ad/disad to generate circumstance bonuses/penalties, because that would go counter to the best part of the mechanic. I don't have a problem, per se, with roll 2, then roll 3, then auto-succeed/auto-fail, but I think I would rather it just continue to pile on additional rolls. Auto-success and auto-failure are very strong, very absolute mechanics that can steal the fun out of a game REALLY fast. Of course, they are MUCH faster than trying to roll 7 dice and see which is highest/lowest.

Advantage and Disadvantage should also, definitely cancel each other out. So if a character has advantage to melee attacks and double disadvantage to melee attacks, that character now has simply disadvantage to melee attacks.

[Menteith]

IMHO, keeping Advantages and Disadvantages from stacking is a worthwhile level of abstraction. Mechanically, it limits the possibility of sicknasty combos which render opponents impotent with abilities that aren't supposed to be able to do that; helpful when trying to design a system amenable to expansion. Additionally, it keeps the action crisp -- people don't need to spend a lot of time thinking of every little thing that can aid them and hinder their enemies before making an attack; they just attack.

Mechanically, it prevents a DM from having mechanically interesting environments, limits what players can accomplish (I throw sand in the goblin's eyes! He now has disadvantage again...which does nothing, as he already had it due to that Ray of Enfeeblement earlier), and flies in defiance to any sort of realism (Sure, the drunk, cursed archer in the middle of a nightly blizzard only has Disadvantage once, and still has a decent chance of hitting that target, mechanically). It's a gross oversimplification that, while functional, makes the game less robust, limits both DM and players, and is incredibly unrealistic.

What, really, are the benefits to counting up countless modifiers for any given role? "Realism" is not a virtue, IMHO, when it comes to Fantasy Heroics -- foreseeability is. It matters less whether your rules accurately model the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow and more whether it is clear to the Players beforehand what things can fly and what things cannot.

I don't want countless modifiers, and I'm not asking for absurd design principles - please stop reducing my argument to an absurdity so you can dismiss it. I want a system that's capable of reflecting the difficultly of firing in melee, or how sprinting on an icy ledge while being shot at is difficult, or that a Ogre slamming me can inhibit me. The current system can lead to these environmental factors being completely ignored, due to its shallowness - I see this as a problem.

EDIT
Kurald Galain's solution is a functional one that could be implemented easily. /support.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Mechanically, it prevents a DM from having mechanically interesting environments, limits what players can accomplish (I throw sand in the goblin's eyes! He now has disadvantage again...which does nothing, as he already had it due to that Ray of Enfeeblement earlier), and flies in defiance to any sort of realism (Sure, the drunk, cursed archer in the middle of a nightly blizzard only has Disadvantage once, and still has a decent chance of hitting that target, mechanically). It's a gross oversimplification that, while functional, makes the game less robust, limits both DM and players, and is incredibly unrealistic.

Again, "realism" is not a virtue as far as I'm concerned for a Heroic Fantasy game. Aside from asking when was the last time a 3e or 4e Player actually said "I throw sand in the Goblin's eye" as their Standard Action there needs to be some sort of concrete benefit to including any given mechanic.

As to the point that this limits mechanically interesting environments I issue the counterpoint of 4e. Not all environmental effects need be a + or - on a roll to be interesting: it can restrict or enable movement, move PCs or NPCs around, impose Conditions that restrict or enable actions or even cause damage. These are all mechanically interesting environmental effects that can exist even if you can't figure out exactly how badly the bright sunlight hinders the archer's aim in light of the modest N/NE wind and whether it would be an easier shot if he move 5' to the left.

[Menteith]

Again, "realism" is not a virtue as far as I'm concerned for a Heroic Fantasy game. Aside from asking when was the last time a 3e or 4e Player actually said "I throw sand in the Goblin's eye" as their Standard Action there needs to be some sort of concrete benefit to including any given mechanic.

My Pathfinder Dirty Fighter, for one. It's hardly optimal, but I wanted to run a low powered character with a new group. Specific examples shouldn't matter, regardless, as literally every instance of stacking (dis)Advantage right now just...fails. It does absolutely nothing.

As to the point that this limits mechanically interesting environments I issue the counterpoint of 4e. Not all environmental effects need be a + or - on a roll to be interesting: it can restrict or enable movement, move PCs or NPCs around, impose Conditions that restrict or enable actions or even cause damage. These are all mechanically interesting environmental effects that can exist even if you can't figure out exactly how badly the bright sunlight hinders the archer's aim in light of the modest N/NE wind and whether it would be an easier shot if he move 5' to the left.

Seriously, please stop getting insanely specific/ridiculous with the examples. I feel like you're coming up with these absurd situations to an attempt to weaken my argument - if this is not your intent, I ask that you avoid putting words in my mouth.

With that out of the way, yes, there are still ways that environments can be tactically interesting. There are also more ways that an environment can be tactically interesting with a functional stacking (dis)Advantage system. Thus, with the current nonfunctional system, the mechanical system is limiting what can be done.

[Rummy]

I wanted to add my 2 cents to the hamlet/Seerow argument a couple pages back...

Won't 5e appeal to both of you, depending on what modules you use in your game? I suspect that neither of you will truly end up playing the same game because 5e core will play/feel very different than 5e with tactical module.

The true condundrum is JoeMac307's problem (and my problem with my group) of having some players that thrive with tons of rules and others that would do better with a pared down system.

Related thoughts...

1. The more I read hamlet's posts, the more I wish I could play in a group like that sometime. It sounds really fun. My group started with 3.5 and then transitioned to 4e, which we still play. Maybe it is a case of the grass looking greener, but a more narrative game would be awesome to try out.

2. Having powers on cards really does lessen improvisation. Sure you CAN improvise in 4e, but you have this urge to make sure you squeeze in all of your nifty moves into the encounter or day.

3. A more improvisational system with pared down mechanics seems fun to play, but it would take away much of the joy of character optimization. I spend more time and get just as much joy out of creating and optimizing different characters than I do from playing. Part of this stems from the fact that one can only play at the whim of other's schedules, whereas you can tinker with new character builds at your leisure. They also are two different types of fun. Playing Dnd is half social fun and half tactical wargame fun for me. Creating character builds appeals to my Excel spreadsheet creating nerd side.

[Oracle_Hunter]

With that out of the way, yes, there are still ways that environments can be tactically interesting. There are also more ways that an environment can be tactically interesting with a functional stacking (dis)Advantage system. Thus, with the current nonfunctional system, the mechanical system is limiting what can be done.

Which is a contrast to your previous statement of "[m]echanically, it prevents a DM from having mechanically interesting environments" (bolded for emphasis) as long as we are having a discussion of words in mouths

There is no doubt that any rules will limit what Players can do in a game, which is why I have tried to frame this as a line-drawing problem. So far, it does not seem that you want to engage in line-drawing, but in absolutes: AD/DA must stack or the system is worthless. As far as supporting arguments go, what I understand your points to be is that a lack of stacking makes environments mechanically uninteresting (which I addressed) and the novel one of the "Dirty Fighter" requiring stacking AD/DA to be worthwhile.

IMHO, you can design a "Dirty Fighter" that operates just fine without stacking by using Conditions similar to those listed for environmental effects (e.g. hindering movement, restricting enemy actions, moving enemies) particularly if you combine them with existing environmental effects (e.g. moving an enemy into damaging terrain). I find this more satisfying than requiring the Dirty Fighter to invent some way to get +2 on his next attack and use it until the DM gets bored -- or however you interpret it, I suppose.

N.B. If my tone offends you, I apologize but I find it more entertaining to add absurd flourishes to my texts while still addressing the core issues in a serious manner. I hope you can see that this is not intended to be personally insulting in any way.

[Seerow]

I wanted to add my 2 cents to the hamlet/Seerow argument a couple pages back...

Did that really qualify as an argument? It felt more like trying to talk to a brick wall :(

Won't 5e appeal to both of you, depending on what modules you use in your game? I suspect that neither of you will truly end up playing the same game because 5e core will play/feel very different than 5e with tactical module.

It frankly depends a lot on what the modules are allowed to be. The recent news articles about 5e have indicated that modules won't fundamentally change the rules, but rather just be something layered on top. This combined with the tripe they've been putting out about how Fighters can get maneuvers through a theme (but fighters get an extra theme) makes me more inclined to believe that 5e is not going to be a game for me.

For 5e to be truly modular to the point where it could support everybody, the baseline system would need to be streamlined even further. Right now what we have is a system where mundane classes have no resources, little in the way of special abilities, and extremely limited scaling. Compare to casters who get whatever mundanes get, plus full spellcasting. This is an imbalance being built right into the core of the game. This is not something they can fix with optional rules modules, at least not in the way they're trying to do it now.

To fix the problem, they either need to have a complex fighter as the baseline, with an optional module that removes all resources from all classes in exchange for some flat modifiers, to make classes simple. Or the other way around, where everyone at the baseline is very boring and limited, but there's a module that gives everybody new options.

The true condundrum is JoeMac307's problem (and my problem with my group) of having some players that thrive with tons of rules and others that would do better with a pared down system.

It is a conundrum, but not one that should be solved by designating one set of classes as "Here these are the simple classes. If you don't like mechanics go play with these", while trying to pretend they are equal to the classes that gain actual abilities.

As an aside, my opinion on the whole "rules are bad" mentality, is that you can always improvise and role play regardless of your class or ruleset. Someone inclined towards creative solutions will do just as well with a complex class as a simple class, as long as they have a DM willing to go along with them on it. Someone who's not inclined towards those sorts of solutions or who has a DM who is strict about how things are done or what he considers reasonable however is going to be hurting if given a class that does not have options. So my general rule of thumb is having options > not having options.

[Ashdate]

2. Having powers on cards really does lessen improvisation. Sure you CAN improvise in 4e, but you have this urge to make sure you squeeze in all of your nifty moves into the encounter or day.

What stops improvisation isn't having 8 different cards that attack and enemy, what stops improvisation is the belief that doing anything that is outside what is written on these 8 different cards will be mechanically weaker than simply following one of those 8 directions. While it's easy to blame a system for it (and by no means do I consider 4e's page 42 to be flawless) the bigger problem is not teaching DMs on how to encourage it. If a player believes that he or she will be rewarded for dropping a chandelier on a goblin (rather than choosing one of the powers in front of them) then you'll see that improvisation. It won't happen however, without the DM being active in encouraging it.

On the subject of advantage/disadvantage, I think it'd be cleaner to simply be able to declare a roll as having advantage or disadvantage, without worrying where there are "two sources of" advantage or whatever. Of course, I'm also of the opinion that advantage/disadvantage should be relatively difficult to obtain; if the rogue can "sneak attack" every round thanks to advantage being easy to get, then I see that as a failure. Counting multiple sources of (dis)advantage seems like needless work to me, as the instances where there are multiple sources should be too rare to have a specific rule.

However, I'd be perfectly happy to add a house rule somewhere near "1's and 20's on skill checks are automatic failures/success" in the book. I just don't think it should be the default assumption.

[Talakeal]

Eh?

The fighter "doesn't do anything else"? What the heck is that supposed to mean?

No, really, that one just puzzles me. Especially since the fighter was, even outside of combat, one of the most active characters at our table. He did a lot above and beyond "hit it with a stick."

I simply cannot fathom this particular meme of "the fighter can't do anything but fight and is thus boring." Really seems to me like bad players.

In previous editions fighters had terrible skills and saves, not nearly enough feats, and very little use for mental ability scores, thus they have always been very limited in what they could do. If you gave them, say, a handful of ranger or monk saves, skills, and class features on top of their own fighters would be very versatile and fun imo.

[huttj509]

It is a conundrum, but not one that should be solved by designating one set of classes as "Here these are the simple classes. If you don't like mechanics go play with these", while trying to pretend they are equal to the classes that gain actual abilities.

Well put. Rules complexity and degree of granularity in options can vary by system. It can vary by module. It should not vary by class. Especially if the class divide is along magical/mundane lines, as that prevents the simple mage/complex fighter types.

Something like the 4e essentials idea (whether or not you think it worked in execution) could work, as while you have simple/complex divided by class, the intent was to cover the main archetypes in both options for those who wanted simple/complex as opposed to fighter/wizard.

If it's a module divide, I'd ideally hope it could work with some people using the module and some not, but the execution on that could get REALLY groady. At least in that case it would be highlighted "you're picking the streamlined version, don't complain when the complex rogue's doing flashy stuff and your deliniated options are 'attack again' or 'cast again.'"

Choosing on purpose to be weaker/have less options/less flexible than other people in the party, sure, no problem. As long as it's not tricked onto people, a 'newbie trap,' or the only way to play a sword and board character.

[Menteith]

Which is a contrast to your previous statement of "[m]echanically, it prevents a DM from having mechanically interesting environments" (bolded for emphasis) as long as we are having a discussion of words in mouths

There is no doubt that any rules will limit what Players can do in a game, which is why I have tried to frame this as a line-drawing problem. So far, it does not seem that you want to engage in line-drawing, but in absolutes: AD/DA must stack or the system is worthless. As far as supporting arguments go, what I understand your points to be is that a lack of stacking makes environments mechanically uninteresting (which I addressed) and the novel one of the "Dirty Fighter" requiring stacking AD/DA to be worthwhile.

Fair enough - I'll rephrase my argument;

The current Advantage system is, at it's core, more appealing to me than having a large number of static modifiers. I feel that it has potential to be a unique, interesting mechanic that would benefit the game. However, it currently cannot be applied multiple times. As this is the only environmental modifier to dice rolls, I anticipate that there will be many instances where the mechanic's inability to stack will come up. This limits what actions both the players and NPCs will be able to take. Any spell or ability that grants (dis)Advantage is not longer a viable option, as it will have no effect. Additionally, this removes options from a DM by preventing environments from affecting the dice outside of a single roll. Finally, it is is immersion breaking, and leads to comically unrealistic situations (Good thing I'm balancing on slippery ice, or else me being totally drunk would affect my attack rolls!).

It's not your tone, it's just that you were arguing against situations that I was not supporting. By saying things like "countless modifiers" or "how badly the bright sunlight hinders the archer's aim in light of the modest N/NE wind and whether it would be an easier shot if he move 5' to the left" you're painting my opinion into something that it's not. I don't mind it that much, I just want you to be sure about what I'm saying, rather than what you think I said.

[JoeMac307]

If it's a module divide, I'd ideally hope it could work with some people using the module and some not, but the execution on that could get REALLY groady. At least in that case it would be highlighted "you're picking the streamlined version, don't complain when the complex rogue's doing flashy stuff and your deliniated options are 'attack again' or 'cast again.'"

Choosing on purpose to be weaker/have less options/less flexible than other people in the party, sure, no problem. As long as it's not tricked onto people, a 'newbie trap,' or the only way to play a sword and board character.

This is something I'm concerned about, and I'm not sure WotC will, or even can, accurately address how to balance a mix of characters, some using modules and some choosing not to. Even something as basic as having half a party using themes and backgrounds and he other half choosing not to seems like it would result in a complete mess, regardless of which classes are being played.

As Seerow has pointed out, it would be best to start with stripped down classes for both mundane and magical characters, and building them up from there with modules. The problem I foresee in my party is one player saying they want to play a Fighter because they have an image of at class being "simple" and actively choosing to forego the benefits of a theme and background (or just plain ignoring many of the benefits if they grow too complex/numerous at high levels), while another player chooses a Wizard for the opposite reasons and really dives deeply into making the most of every possible benefit from every possible module to whatever degree the rules allow.

The heart of the matter, from my POV, however, is that even if the "simple" player opts for the Wizard, and the "complex" player opts for the Fighter, as they level, the "complex" player will end up with a character that is more useful than the "simple" player, regardless of class. As a DM, that can be a real challenge, and I don't think WotC, or anyone else for that matter, really has any good advice for how to handle that situation.

Of course, guidelines for this situation could be out there already and I'm just not aware...

[navar100]

Hopefully they do not cause stacking ad/disad to generate circumstance bonuses/penalties, because that would go counter to the best part of the mechanic. I don't have a problem, per se, with roll 2, then roll 3, then auto-succeed/auto-fail, but I think I would rather it just continue to pile on additional rolls. Auto-success and auto-failure are very strong, very absolute mechanics that can steal the fun out of a game REALLY fast. Of course, they are MUCH faster than trying to roll 7 dice and see which is highest/lowest.

It depends. When earned it's so satisfying. When my Crusader/Master of Nine finally got Aura of Perfect Order stance, it was always a thrill to have an auto-11 to hit with a strike or make a save. It was an additional tactical move to consider. That one roll where I know I can't fail when I need it was a big help.

[huttj509]

This is something I'm concerned about, and I'm not sure WotC will, or even can, accurately address how to balance a mix of characters, some using modules and some choosing not to. Even something as basic as having half a party using themes and backgrounds and he other half choosing not to seems like it would result in a complete mess, regardless of which classes are being played.

As Seerow has pointed out, it would be best to start with stripped down classes for both mundane and magical characters, and building them up from there with modules. The problem I foresee in my party is one player saying they want to play a Fighter because they have an image of at class being "simple" and actively choosing to forego the benefits of a theme and background (or just plain ignoring many of the benefits if they grow too complex/numerous at high levels), while another player chooses a Wizard for the opposite reasons and really dives deeply into making the most of every possible benefit from every possible module to whatever degree the rules allow.

The heart of the matter, from my POV, however, is that even if the "simple" player opts for the Wizard, and the "complex" player opts for the Fighter, as they level, the "complex" player will end up with a character that is more useful than the "simple" player, regardless of class. As a DM, that can be a real challenge, and I don't think WotC, or anyone else for that matter, really has any good advice for how to handle that situation.

Of course, guidelines for this situation could be out there already and I'm just not aware...

Yeah. I think what we all want to avoid is players being forced to straddle different sides of the simple/complex divide.

Backgrounds and Themes are package deals of skills and feats (which can be player-allocated instead), to my knowledge, so not using them would be like saying "well, I'm not going to take any feats" then wondering why you're lacking.

If players choose to be on different sides of the s/c divide, it can definitely get complicated to DM for and balance (this is what I was trying to get at with the results being 'groady.' I'm really not sure there's an easy answer, as oftentimes options lead directly or indirectly to power. You can have simple just do more base damage than complex, but you need to keep things where complex can keep up with their options, without overshadowing or being overshadowed by simple (how much damage is being able to trip the enemy 'worth'?).

Ideally the choice would come down to player preference for character style, and not strictly mathematical betterness, but that's a really rough ideal to reach.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: Closed for the moment. Please take this moment to remember to play nice, children, and report people who annoy you, rather than wandering into counter-flaming (or, as we like to call it, flaming)


EDIT: Believe it or not, it was closed while I was working through it. I just did it relatively quickly.

[Clawhound]

I was playing Fallout: New Vegas recently and I really enjoyed it. In that game, your character has no special powers. None. There are no buttons to push to get a special effect. It's all environment and equipment. In theory, that should lead to a boring game, but in practice, because every situation is different, and you need to understand your advantages, it winds up being quite an engaging game.

This indicates, to me, an order of priority in design.

1. Design rules where the world is highly interactive. The players should always be interacting with the world.

2. Weapon choice only matters when those weapons get you interesting effects. Otherwise, it's just a numbers game that's quickly over. To be valid, you must be competent in each weapon.

3. Powers should push you to act like your archetype. Thieves naturally want to backstab and wizards naturally want to throw spells. A fighter should naturally want to do something that even a battle cleric can't replicate.

4. Payload effects can act like powers. For example: On a 16-20, a hammer whollops your opponent, even if you miss. Opponent may not take voluntary movement that round. Only fighter's get the advantage of weapon payloads. Likewise, armor could have a playload effect. "Any attack that does less than 1d8 against you is automatically at a disadvantage while you wear heavy armor."

A disadvantage of that, of course, is if you put all the powers in the weapons, so that the class looks empty and doesn't do anything.

None of this is any sort of solution, but it is all worth consideration.

[obryn]

I think part of the reason that works is that it's a solo game.

I'm a huge Skyrim fan, but I don't know that it would translate onto paper that easily. :)

-O

[Craft (Cheese)]

Fallout 3 (and NV) aren't really the best video games to look at for this sort of thing: The RPG mechanics in these games are very, very poorly done, there's little difference between what weapons can do except that some weapons have cheaper ammo than others (and you can't shoot a gun unless you have ammo, so you'd better have decent skill ranks in the common weapons), and even the numbers aren't that compellingly different (depending on how you allocate your skill ranks pistols do more damage than a friggin minigun, except minigun ammo is extremely scarce and pistol ammo is not).

And really your only interactions with the environment are all in the narrative: You can't do anything resembling shenanigans like knock out the support beams and have the ceiling come crashing down on something.


Besides, even though this can work in a game if done well, it sort of leads to the logical conclusion of characters who are completely interchangeable if all they can do is use whatever toys the GM/designer leaves lying around the level. Part of the appeal of RPGs is self-expression through character creation choices, which is antithetical with this kind of design.

[1337 b4k4]

Part of the appeal of RPGs is self-expression through character creation choices, which is antithetical with this kind of design.

Not picking on you, I just think this quote highlights a potential large gulf between player types, because I always understood the appeal to be self-expression through character play choices, not creation choices. Maybe I've never gotten the joy, but to me character creation is the homework you have to do before you get to play the game. Even games where character creation is a mini game (like say Traveler, and I've spent many an hour rolling up Traveler characters just for fun), it's not the character creation system that I play the game for.

[Ziegander]

Not picking on you, I just think this quote highlights a potential large gulf between player types, because I always understood the appeal to be self-expression through character play choices, not creation choices. Maybe I've never gotten the joy, but to me character creation is the homework you have to do before you get to play the game. Even games where character creation is a mini game (like say Traveler, and I've spent many an hour rolling up Traveler characters just for fun), it's not the character creation system that I play the game for.

Agreed. RPGs in general, and D&D in particular, need better systems to encourage and reward in-game PLAY choices.

[Craft (Cheese)]

You're right: I should have said character customization choices, as that's really what I meant anyhow. A choice that mechanically defines your character before you start playing isn't necessarily privileged over ones made in play.

However, I do make the stipulation that in order to count these have to be mechanical definitions. If all characters are identical as far as the rules are concerned, you don't have a roleplaying game.

Why do I think this?


Well, imagine for a minute that you and two friends have decided to play Monopoly, two of you actually playing against each other and one standing off to the side watching. Also imagine that you decide to do something different in this game: You roleplay the character of an up and coming real estate owner who is appalled by the sorry state of the city's ghettos and want to help make them brighter and more pleasant, while your friend roleplays your rival, a greedy land-grabber who wants to milk the city's citizens for all they're worth. The other friend (who's standing by, watching) roleplays any secondary characters who come up throughout the story. (Essentially, they're the GM.)

Now, you're definitely roleplaying, and you're definitely playing a game, and you might even be having a lot of fun, but you're not playing a roleplaying game. What you say in-character may be different, and your property purchasing and upgrading choices may be different, but the reason you're not playing a roleplaying game is because the in-character aspect is not reflected in the game mechanics at all.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Now, you're definitely roleplaying, and you're definitely playing a game, and you might even be having a lot of fun, but you're not playing a roleplaying game. What you say in-character may be different, and your property purchasing and upgrading choices may be different, but the reason you're not playing a roleplaying game is because the in-character aspect is not reflected in the game mechanics at all.

So, Mountain Witch is not a roleplaying game then?

Spoiler

Show

In Mountain Witch each Player makes a Ronin (a disenfranchised Samurai in Feudal Japan) who has agreed to climb Mt. Fuji and try to kill the titular immortal Witch that lives atop it. Your "character sheet" can fit on an index card and contains the following:
- Your Character's Name
- Why You Are a Ronin
- Why You Are on a Suicide Mission
- 3 Powers That You Make Up

these "powers" have no mechanical benefit aside from granting you superhuman abilities you can narrate into your actions. Any clash of narration is settled with a d6 roll-off whose only modifiers come from wounds gained in-game. Powers cannot be used to modify or automatically win any opposed narration.

The one additional mechanic is a "Trust Point" system which allows you to aid other people's rolls or hinder them but this is largely set by the other Players -- it is no more a part of the character than money gained or lost while playing Monopoly.

I think your definition is too reductive. Clearly, you need no dice or character sheets to roleplay and a roleplaying game is surely more than Magical Tea Party; yet the line cannot be that you need some level of mechanical diversity or complexity to separate the Magical Tea Time from the Serious Roleplaying Game. IMHO, a better line would be that a Roleplaying Games needs a system to resolve narrative conflicts.

In Monopoly, you can say your Slum Lord punches the Good Samaritan in the snoot, but if he says otherwise then what actually happened? There are no rules in Monopoly to resolve this conflict of narrations and therefore it is not a Roleplaying Game.

[kyoryu]

Agreed. RPGs in general, and D&D in particular, need better systems to encourage and reward in-game PLAY choices.

Depends on what they're trying to appeal to. There's a lot of people who prefer an emphasis on the character creation subgame.

I'm not one of them, TBH. But an increased emphasis on in-game actions will not appeal to those people.

[Clawhound]

I think that Fallout works as an example for all the reasons that you don't.

My concern is WHERE DO THE MECHANICS POINT YOU? Fallout does interesting things without resorting to glitzy powers, and that's a good way to examine our mechanics preconceptions.

What does a power look like? How should it act? Where does it drive your character?

Maneuvers happen before a hit. What about having abilities that work after a hit?

Disarm - You disarm your opponent. His weapon now lies 1d6 squares away.
Smash - You do +extra damage, but you have disadvantage next round.
Trip - 1/2 damage, and your opponent is now prone
Delay Special - Opponent may not use the indicated special attack or ability next round
Threat - For the next round, nearby creatures believe that you are their main threat and will act accordingly.
Hobble - Opponent may move no more than five feet next round.

I'm not saying that this is THE SOLUTION, but the fighter would certainly be acting in a very unique way.

[Craft (Cheese)]

So, Mountain Witch is not a roleplaying game then?

Spoiler

Show

In Mountain Witch each Player makes a Ronin (a disenfranchised Samurai in Feudal Japan) who has agreed to climb Mt. Fuji and try to kill the titular immortal Witch that lives atop it. Your "character sheet" can fit on an index card and contains the following:
- Your Character's Name
- Why You Are a Ronin
- Why You Are on a Suicide Mission
- 3 Powers That You Make Up

these "powers" have no mechanical benefit aside from granting you superhuman abilities you can narrate into your actions. Any clash of narration is settled with a d6 roll-off whose only modifiers come from wounds gained in-game. Powers cannot be used to modify or automatically win any opposed narration.

The one additional mechanic is a "Trust Point" system which allows you to aid other people's rolls or hinder them but this is largely set by the other Players -- it is no more a part of the character than money gained or lost while playing Monopoly.

Hmm, you know, I don't really know what I'd call it. I'll have to chew on that one for a while and get back on that one later.

[1337 b4k4]

Now, you're definitely roleplaying, and you're definitely playing a game, and you might even be having a lot of fun, but you're not playing a roleplaying game. What you say in-character may be different, and your property purchasing and upgrading choices may be different, but the reason you're not playing a roleplaying game is because the in-character aspect is not reflected in the game mechanics at all.

I'm I to understand that unless the player characters are all mechanically different and that difference is enforced by the rule books, you believe you aren't playing role playing game? That is a surprisingly narrow definition of a role playing game, which would include such things as a D&D party of all fighters is not playing a role playing game. Clearly that is absurd.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I'm I to understand that unless the player characters are all mechanically different and that difference is enforced by the rule books, you believe you aren't playing role playing game? That is a surprisingly narrow definition of a role playing game, which would include such things as a D&D party of all fighters is not playing a role playing game. Clearly that is absurd.

I wouldn't really say that, I would say that what really matters is that the game system supports having a diverse group of varied individuals and characters and these character differences (both in personality and their role in the setting) are mechanically reinforced.

A group of all-identical characters (and a group of fighters, technically, need not be identical) is merely failing to take advantage of that aspect of the system, not really playing a different game. Like a game of chess where both players refuse to move their queens: There's something significant missing, but I'd argue that it's still chess.

[Fatebreaker]

So, the five-minute workday is the subject of today's Legends & Lore article. It's an interesting read, in the sense that (if accurate) it offers some insight into what the designers believe "balance" means. Two nifty quotes in particular caught my eye. Again, for clarity, note that all comments presume that the article is both a true and accurate description of the intentions of 5e's designers.

Since the game balances the fighter's and rogue's staying power against the wizard's and cleric's spell attrition, it's important that the "workday" last long enough for the rogue and fighter to shine.

This quote basically gives the game away: the fighter and rogue are less powerful than the wizard and cleric. They only "balance" if the DM prods the party to go beyond the caster's limited number of spells.

Of course, not only is this a problem because you have a see-saw of balance (that is, one side is up while one side is down, with only a brief window of actual equality), leaving one group or the other feeling less valuable, but the same group starts, by default, in the position of power, and the other group must wait and hope that their chance comes. Note that they have no way to facilitate this.

Learning, apparently, has not occurred.

The important thing from an R&D perspective is that both extremes, and all the points in between, are options for DMs. If that's how you want to run D&D, that's your call. Our job as designers is not to tell you how to play, but to give you the ability to run a game that matches what you want out of D&D. If the five-minute workday bothers you, you have the tools to judge its effect on your game and can take steps to fix it. If you don't care or have never noticed the issue, we don't make it one for you.

I like the last two sentences here (the italicized ones), because I feel like that's a good attitude to have. However, I also feel like it's disconnected from the rest of the article, which (#1) looks at spells as a combat resource, and (#2) misses how the five-minute workday is a player-driven attitude as a result of mechanics.

Let's look at (#2) first. If the mechanics still support limited spells and high-powered casters, then the casters will continue to set the pace of the party. Unless the mechanics change, the problem will not go away. At best, the DM can "force" the party via plot reasons to keep going, which now becomes a test of a DM's skill. If the DM is good enough to construct a reason for the party to keep going when the casters run out, the adventure goes on. If the DM is not, then the adventure grinds to a halt (as the players camp in defiance of the plot-hook) or continues, albeit grudgingly, with hard feelings all around because the party feels (rightly or wrongly) that the game is on rails. As a result, the design shifts the blame from the mechanics to the DM, which is a rather sneaky way of hiding the actual problem. And true, it's not a problem in all games, but it's enough of a problem that it both earned its own name and became the subject of a Legends & Lore article. Clearly, it's a problem for someone! The point, however, is that making the DM "fix" an attitude inspired by the mechanics is the wrong way to go about this.

As for (#1), that's just odd on a lot of levels. If spells are a combat resource only... well, I love 4e, but I was under the impression that spells-as-combat-only was one of the things people objected to. And if spells are intended to be "balanced" around combat, but find use in utility, then that only pushes the gap between fighter/rogue and wizard/cleric further apart by giving wizards and clerics added versatility not available to fighters and rogues.

So, thoughts on this?

-------

Some comments on the fighter discussion awhile back, spoiler'd for length:

Spoiler

Show

RE: Fighters & "Creativity" as a Class Ability

The problem with arguing that creativity is a class ability which substitutes for not having class abilities is that it's supporting an illusion. An illusion of design. An illusion of control. An illusion of power. A blank list of abilities may be, to some, a golden opportunity for creativity, but that creativity is only as effective as the player’s ability to be creative and the DM’s opinion on how effective that creativity should be.

If my character sheet is blank, except for the bit where it says I can fly, my character is objectively superior to a character whose sheet is entirely blank. Maybe the other character can "be creative" and somehow gain the ability to fly (for now), but now he's working just to break even. I don't need anyone's permission to fly -- I just can. I have more opportunities and more options. I can be creative in all the ways the totally-blank character can, and more! The blank character has to ask, beg, wheedle, cajole, and coerce. Maybe he can fly. Maybe he can't. But me? I can. And when the DM-hat changes hands? Suddenly, an entirely new set of criteria are used to determine what abilities a character has.

Instead of stats being on the character sheet, you have a new (secret) set of stats, and it's based entirely on (#1) how open the DM is to creativity, and (#2) how good you, personally, are at convincing the DM that your actions are effective.

Put another way, the designers could assign the following ability to every class:

Creativity: At-Will; at any point during the game, the player may attempt to convince the DM that his character may take an action not specified by other mechanics. The difficulty and results of this action are up to the DM.

But is that really an ability which needs to be printed? You always have that ability, even in games which don’t use abilities. And if you didn’t have it when it wasn’t printed, you still won’t have it when it is.