D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

[Stubbazubba]

Guys, guys, the question was rhetorical.

We do in fact need a 5e to address the issues the community feels are present in previous editions. Yora said that since 3/4 previous editions had LF/QW but everyone still played those games, clearly LF/QW isn't actually a problem we need to focus on. Problem being that by that logic, nothing in the previous editions should be changed, since clearly some people bought it and enjoyed it and still prefer it to anything else, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it, right?

Wrong.

Reason #1: Oracle_Hunter's response. Even if everyone was perfectly satisfied with the currently available options of D&D (far from the truth), as a creative work I would support the new edition experimenting and contributing a new option (a suite of options for all classes), instead of just lazily reproducing an old experience (LF/QW FTW!).

Reason #2: Inasmuch as D&D is a commercial product as much as it is a creative one, it has a customer base which has, for over a decade, pointed out this problem in their product, which has yet to be resolved in a way that satisfies that base. It is one of the most talked about and lamented issues in 3.5/3.P. So to say that it wasn't a problem in 3/4 editions because everyone bought and enjoyed those editions is just a tad disingenuous.

Even if this was not one of the top 3 complained about things in D&D's history, and actually was something that really wasn't a big deal to most people, the fact that a lot of people bought and played D&D in one of its many iterations does not excuse any of those products' flaws.

The entire idea of a new edition is not just to create something "different," as Knaight seems to indicate, but to create something "better" (hence a playtest, which is typically not necessary for pieces of art). In the most liberal sense of the term, it means at the very least to fill a previously unfilled niche. The very concept of "better" means that on some metric it had flaws or shortcomings in the first place, and identifying and addressing those is a fundamental aspect of improving it, for whatever sense of improving you have assumed.

So, to relate this all back to the issue at hand, WotC has proven unwilling to drop the core chassis for spellcasters below "lists of spells with discrete effects." That being the case, in order to allow all characters a relatively equivalent chance of contributing to an encounter by the RAW, then some lists of discrete effects have to be available to all classes. I - and a large and vocal number of customers - want a game where all classes can contribute to the average encounter in roughly balanced ways, without relying on DM fiat. We believe that would improve the game. If WotC accepts that niche as one worth filling, they should change something to fulfill that need.

Edit: Missed some developments while I was typing.

The problem with you approach is that in my experience, instead of "This is what a character of this level can do" translates into "If it is not in the book, you can't do it". Feats, skills, maneuvers, don't expand on the ammount of things a player can do, on the contrary, they limit them by stating that you can't do X if you don't have Y.

Then what, pray tell, do spells do?

[obryn]

Then what, pray tell, do spells do?

I tell you - the Wizard would be so much better off if you took all his spells away and made him hit things with a glowy stick all day. Otherwise, the Fighter will always outshine him, just like he always has...

-O

[Stubbazubba]

I tell you - the Wizard would be so much better off if you took all his spells away and made him hit things with a glowy stick all day. Otherwise, the Fighter will always outshine him, just like he always has...

-O

Verily, it is the plight of the Wizard to be bound by so many restrictions on what ought to be unfettered arcane might. Like a young Skywalker, he is tempted by the power that these seemingly easy to understand packages of discrete player fiat provide, only to discover later that it is the Fighter who understands the power of freedom. The Fighter, unfettered by player fiat, can instead rely on DM fiat to trip his opponents, throw them into one another, or even cut Z's in their unwashed tunics. Once the Wizard watches his Fighter friend do that, he'll never look at his altogether underwhelming Fireball or Flesh to Stone the same way again. If only he had known earlier the mistake he was making. But once one has embarked down the spellcaster path, turning from the slippery slope into another class is futile; the Wizard is forever pulled by the enticings of more and more packaged player fiat, all the while searching the splatbooks for just a single spell that will let him etch letters of the alphabet into his opponents' clothing with so much pinache as the Fighter can. But alas, that power is not available to player fiat. It only comes from the true source of power in the Dungeon, yea, even the Dungeon Master, and his sublime fiat. Finally, it dawns on the young Wizard; his magic isn't magical, it is the Fighter whose magic rules the battlefield.

In the sequel, the disgruntled Wizards create ToB to **** over the Fighters.

[obryn]

In the sequel, the disgruntled Wizards create ToB to **** over the Fighters.

I don't usually play 3.x nowadays, but if I did, "Does the DM allow Tome of Battle?" would be a sort of litmus test for whether or not I'd join a game. Not because I'd necessarily use one of the classes myself, but because of what it implies about the sort of game they'll run.

-O

[huttj509]

I don't usually play 3.x nowadays, but if I did, "Does the DM allow Tome of Battle?" would be a sort of litmus test for whether or not I'd join a game. Not because I'd necessarily use one of the classes myself, but because of what it implies about the sort of game they'll run.

-O

As long as there's the follow up question: "Why or why not." That answer would tell you a LOT more than the initial 'yes' or 'no.'

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Magic is not codified because some arbitrary design choice, magic is codified because in the game world that D&D took place (Greyhawk) magic worked that way.

I hate to break it to you, but magic was codified because of some arbitrary design choice: wizards started off as magical artillery in Chainmail that "prepared" spells (see here for some background) so Gygax and co. came up with a magic system that would preserve that. Greyhawk came loooong after that decision was made (most of the famous Greyhawk NPCs were the PCs of Gary Gyax's players), and was in fact its flavor was designed to conform to Vancian magic and not the other way around.

Most editions of D&D don't bother codifying these sorts of physics which makes it a game of "mother may I." The only one that did (3.x) showed why you don't usually codify these sorts of things

Codifying them wouldn't actually be a bad thing, and wouldn't be too complicated if done well, but my guess is that the problem with 3e combat maneuvers (like many problems in 3e) is due to the WotC devs translating things over from 2e too faithfully without looking at the ramifications of the core rule changes or trying to redesign them at all.

Consider a fairly simple rules item: moving item X into item Y in an attempt to damage X, Y, or both. There are lots of ways to do that in 3e, between falling damage, falling objects, telekinesis, Dungeoncrasher, bull rush, improvised weapon rules, Explosive Spell, and others. Some of those do little damage, some do lots of damage, and some don't do damage, and the amount of effort required to manage all of them varies. It wouldn't be at all difficult to sit down with those abilities, a calculator, and a physics book and figure out generic rules for moving item X into item Y in direction Z to deal damage W. Heck, most of those abilities are just 1d6 per 10 feet, so you could ignore the physics book and use that, and just write tweaks for when something is accelerating or not to handle falling damage vs. bull rushing.

One of the biggest strengths of 3e is that you can find rules that describe practically anything you want to do in game terms...and one of the biggest weaknesses of 3e is that you can find rules that describe practically anything you want to do in game terms. Implementing streamlined, intuitive general purpose rules for moving things, throwing things, breaking things, and so forth would be an excellent step forward.

Then what, pray tell, do spells do?

In short, spells say "yes" while feats say "no."

Picture the expert warrior of your choice and imagine the kinds of things they can do. This expert warrior can probably attack people in lots of ways, trip them, concuss them, take on multiple enemies at once, adapt their fighting stance to the moment, stuff like that, right? In 3e, to do all of that reliably you'd need all of the Improved [Maneuver] feats, a bunch of [ambush] feats, the Combat Expertise-/Power Attack-type "stance" feats, probably some [weapon style] and [tactical] feats, and more--and keep in mind that the peak of human skill in 3e comes before 10th level. There's no way your fighter will get all of those feats, so instead of the game just saying "Here, Mr. Fighter, now that you've reached 8th level, here's a big pile of awesome stuff you can do by virtue of being an awesome fighter," every feat you don't have restricts your options from what you can do in real life.

In contrast, spells don't say you can't do X real-life thing without this spell like feats do, they say you can do this thing that's impossible in real life with this spell. Give a wizard an illusion spell and he's not just getting back an option that well-trained people in real life have, he's opening up a brand new option. On top of that, where tactical feats tend to be very nitpicky for trivial things ("If a fighter hits an opponent and makes a Climb check against their Perform check during the summer months and Mars is in the house of Gemini, he gets a +1 bonus to one attack roll against that opponent on his next turn"), spells tend to be very open ended. Compare the usefulness and versatility of silent image with, oh, I don't know, every fighter feat ever.

That's partly why the 5e maneuvers as they stand are so disappointing. Fighters are paying two entire levels' worth of class features to get something like "attack three people next to you for piddly damage" when that's something that fighters should (in my opinion) just have after a certain level/BAB, and in fact in early D&D as I keep mentioning, fighters could just attack and kill one 0th-level enemy (i.e. 99.X% of NPCs) per round. From that to 5e Whirlwind Attack...oh, how the mighty have fallen....

Essentially, most if not all of the doable-in-real-life fighter maneuvers should either be given to fighters by default as they level, be extremely condensed (seriously, all of the 5e maneuvers can be condensed into two to three class features, tops, and not very good ones at that), or be gained like wizard spells (you take the Archer style, there are a bunch of Archer maneuvers, and you learn a bunch of them by default and can learn more during downtime). Feats that prohibit you from doing something without having the feat should be reserved for things that are impossible in real life and/or impossible using the base rules, like jumping a mile or throwing dragons five times your size.

[Ashdate]

Rules for more specific situations take away my options as a player to be creative. And that isn't just a realization made now looking backwards. AD&D 2nd Edition books are full with passages that spell it out that the lack of rules for some thing is not a bug but a feature.

Not to use personal experiences as some sort of yard stick, but in the years I sunk into 2e, I saw a lot more "by the book attack rolls" than I saw "clever improvisation".

A lack of options does not make creative decisions. Creative players make creative decisions. This is true in 4e as it is in any edition.

[Kurald Galain]

A lack of options does not make creative decisions. Creative players make creative decisions. This is true in 4e as it is in any edition.

While it clearly requires a creative player to make a creative decision, there are all kinds of ways that the rules can stimulate or disincentivize creativity. The most obvious example is that 2E is the last edition that explicitly gives bonus XP for creative ideas.

Look at how the various editions treat disarming an enemy:

• 2E doesn't have rules for it (to my knowledge) so it's up to your DM. That's great with a good DM, and bad with a poor DM.
• 3E has clear rules for disarming, which state that you need a good BAB, specific weapon, and the improved disarm feat to be effective at it.
• 4E says that you can use any power you like and pretend you've disarmed your enemy, even though by the rules this makes zero difference. Otherwise, the only way to disarm anyone is with a single L17 fighter power.

So in a nutshell, 2E encourages creativity, 3E attempts to give clear rules for every creative trick the designers could think of, and 4E says that creative ideas have the exact same outcome as non-creative ideas. There's a clear difference here, and this is a strawberry-vs-chocolate matter. 5E clearly cannot please all of those fanbases, but it will be interesting to see what they choose.

[noparlpf]

While it clearly requires a creative player to make a creative decision, there are all kinds of ways that the rules can stimulate or disincentivize creativity. The most obvious example is that 2E is the last edition that explicitly gives bonus XP for creative ideas.

Look at how the various editions treat disarming an enemy:

• 2E doesn't have rules for it (to my knowledge) so it's up to your DM. That's great with a good DM, and bad with a poor DM.
• 3E has clear rules for disarming, which state that you need a good BAB, specific weapon, and the improved disarm feat to be effective at it.
• 4E says that you can use any power you like and pretend you've disarmed your enemy, even though by the rules this makes zero difference. Otherwise, the only way to disarm anyone is with a single L17 fighter power.

So in a nutshell, 2E encourages creativity, 3E attempts to give clear rules for every creative trick the designers could think of, and 4E says that creative ideas have the exact same outcome as non-creative ideas. There's a clear difference here, and this is a strawberry-vs-chocolate matter. 5E clearly cannot please all of those fanbases, but it will be interesting to see what they choose.

Personally I want things spelled out, but also some room for creativity. 3.X nominally included a clause to help out creative players, the circumstance bonus/DM fiat, but that means you need a great DM to have things work well.

[Doug Lampert]

While it clearly requires a creative player to make a creative decision, there are all kinds of ways that the rules can stimulate or disincentivize creativity. The most obvious example is that 2E is the last edition that explicitly gives bonus XP for creative ideas.

Look at how the various editions treat disarming an enemy:

• 2E doesn't have rules for it (to my knowledge) so it's up to your DM. That's great with a good DM, and bad with a poor DM.
• 3E has clear rules for disarming, which state that you need a good BAB, specific weapon, and the improved disarm feat to be effective at it.
• 4E says that you can use any power you like and pretend you've disarmed your enemy, even though by the rules this makes zero difference. Otherwise, the only way to disarm anyone is with a single L17 fighter power.

So in a nutshell, 2E encourages creativity, 3E attempts to give clear rules for every creative trick the designers could think of, and 4E says that creative ideas have the exact same outcome as non-creative ideas. There's a clear difference here, and this is a strawberry-vs-chocolate matter. 5E clearly cannot please all of those fanbases, but it will be interesting to see what they choose.

That's odd. My 4th edition players REGULARLY disarmed their foes.

Dominate power, "Throw away your weapon".
Rogue power knocks unconcious, "I use a minor action to pick up its weapon".
and several other ways over the course of the game.

And a disarmed creature can't use it's weapon dependant attacks, which is most of them for most armed combatants so it has a definite effect.

Are you sure you were actually PLAYING 4th edition when you couldn't disarm? Because there were plenty of powers that could be used to disarm and there was NOTHING on page 42 that said you couldn't improvise a disarm or that a disarmed monster got to keep using its weapon attacks.

[Ashdate]

While it clearly requires a creative player to make a creative decision, there are all kinds of ways that the rules can stimulate or disincentivize creativity. The most obvious example is that 2E is the last edition that explicitly gives bonus XP for creative ideas.

I would disagree with the idea that 4e somehow inhibits "creativity" any more than any other edition, but in my opinion, the best way to "push" creativity is to teach GMs how to encourage it. As I said before, the problem is rarely that players have too many options (see: the 3e Wizard); creative players will ask. The problem is when the player asks "can I do X" and the DM says "no."

For all of "Page 42's" faults, it's the been D&D's best stab at giving the DMs some advice when the player wants to do something outside of the abilities on their sheet. They would be wise to create something similar for 5e.

[Kurald Galain]

The problem is when the player asks "can I do X" and the DM says "no."

It's not quite as black-and-white as that. Aside from "no", the DM can also say "yes, and it will be more effective" to encourage creative ideas, or "yes, and it will be less effective" to discourage them.

Several RPGs, such as Exalted and On The Edge, state right in the rules that players get a substantial bonus to their rolls for pulling creative tricks. 2E states right in the rules that players get extra experience point bonus for creative ideas. That is encouragement. Page 42 is enabling, not encouraging.

[Ashdate]

It's not quite as black-and-white as that. Aside from "no", the DM can also say "yes, and it will be more effective" to encourage creative ideas, or "yes, and it will be less effective" to discourage them.

Several RPGs, such as Exalted and On The Edge, state right in the rules that players get a substantial bonus to their rolls for pulling creative tricks. 2E states right in the rules that players get extra experience point bonus for creative ideas. That is encouragement. Page 42 is enabling, not encouraging.

I don't find awarding "50-100xp" for a "clever idea" in 2e to be particularly encouraging, at least not any moreso than 4e's Page 42. Especially when "creative" ideas are eventually worth a mere fraction of the total experience required to level.

You're right that Page 42 often fails to reward creativity, but I would suggest that comes down to bad math rather than it being on purpose. With a bit more polish, 5e would benefit from something similar.

[ThiagoMartell]

I don't find awarding "50-100xp" for a "clever idea" in 2e to be particularly encouraging, at least not any moreso than 4e's Page 42. Especially when "creative" ideas are eventually worth a mere fraction of the total experience required to level.

50-100 xp is A LOT when many monsters grant around 10 xp, just saying.

You're right that Page 42 often fails to reward creativity, but I would suggest that comes down to bad math rather than it being on purpose. With a bit more polish, 5e would benefit from something similar.

Disagree. I'd much rather they use something like 2e.

Are you sure you were actually PLAYING 4th edition when you couldn't disarm? Because there were plenty of powers that could be used to disarm and there was NOTHING on page 42 that said you couldn't improvise a disarm or that a disarmed monster got to keep using its weapon attacks.

Kurald is one of the most frequent faces in the 4e forum. Also, considering his experience to 'less right' than yours just because it's different and implying he did not even play the game is very rude.

[obryn]

50-100 xp is A LOT when many monsters grant around 10 xp, just saying.

...But not compared to the individual class XP bonuses you're supposed to get because the brilliant XP-for-GP system was gutted for 3 class groups out of 4.

And not compared to the XP you need after the first level or two.

(And no, I'm not being sarcastic when I call the XP-for-GP system brilliant. Because it still is to this day, and I hope there's an option for it in Next.)

-O

[Ashdate]

50-100 xp is A LOT when many monsters grant around 10 xp, just saying.

It's a lot for the first few levels, and piddly past them. The other thing that is important to recognize is that 2e assumes outright that players will have varying levels/experience point totals; such a system doesn't work very well when there is an assumption that all players "level" together, which 5e seems to be endorsing at this point.

More over, 2e's system has the problem of offering little direction for "handling" improvisation, which can be especially problematic for new DMs. What happens when the rules don't cover what the player wants to do? No edition save for 4e has (as far as I can find) tried to help DMs by saying "try this". If a system is to encourage DMs to "say yes" (like 4e's does), then it needs to do more than tell them to "make up" a ruling. All that will lead to, I think, is many new DMs deciding to "say no" when under pressure to make a decision.

[ThiagoMartell]

It's a lot for the first few levels, and piddly past them. The other thing that is important to recognize is that 2e assumes outright that players will have varying levels/experience point totals; such a system doesn't work very well when there is an assumption that all players "level" together, which 5e seems to be endorsing at this point.

More over, 2e's system has the problem of offering little direction for "handling" improvisation, which can be especially problematic for new DMs. What happens when the rules don't cover what the player wants to do? No edition save for 4e has (as far as I can find) tried to help DMs by saying "try this". If a system is to encourage DMs to "say yes" (like 4e's does), then it needs to do more than tell them to "make up" a ruling. All that will lead to, I think, is many new DMs deciding to "say no" when under pressure to make a decision.

How different is it to say "no" compared to say "yes, but it does not really matter"? because that's what 4e does, as far as I remember. you can do whatever, it just makes little to no difference.

[TheOOB]

4e inhibits creativity, but it does not prohibit it. Those are two different thing.

When an RPG is creating rules for how players handle situations, there are two general ways to do it. You can create broad abstract rules that cover many different situations, or you can create specific focused rules or powers(which I like to call "crunchy bits") that tell you exactally how to handle a situation and give different abilities to different players. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.

When you have a broad system like most White Wolf stuff or Paranoia, you have a lot of flexibility, a system where anyone can do pretty much anything, where the basic rules are fairly simple and intrusive. It makes it puts emphasis on roleplaying over the mechanics. There are disadvantages, however, some specific situations may be covered poorly by the rules, and the GM has to improvise heavily. These systems create ambiguity and rules conflicts. Further, these systems can lead to a lack of uniqueness among characters, and can also lead to a more freeform method acting exercise rather than a game.

Crunchy bits, and systems heavy in their use, remove ambiguity and create clear rules. They create a system that puts emphasis on mechanics over roleplay, create clear and unique characters, and can create a fun game outside of(and optimally along with) roleplaying. Unfortunatly, crunchy bits are bad at handling situations outside of their scope, and they can force players into certain roles and limit options.

Most every good RPG system uses both broad rules and crunchy bits, D&D has always been heavier on the crunchy bits, and 4e took it to kind of critical mass, where the game less resembles an RPG and more represents a group TCG. There should be specific rules for disarming folks, D&D is a combat game at it's heart, and there needs to be rules for it, but I don't think EVERYone needs to be able to do it.

[Stubbazubba]

While it clearly requires a creative player to make a creative decision, there are all kinds of ways that the rules can stimulate or disincentivize creativity. The most obvious example is that 2E is the last edition that explicitly gives bonus XP for creative ideas.

Look at how the various editions treat disarming an enemy:

• 2E doesn't have rules for it (to my knowledge) so it's up to your DM. That's great with a good DM, and bad with a poor DM.

So in a nutshell, 2E encourages creativity.

Leaving aside that disarming an enemy is an extremely generous definition of a creative idea, you're conflating two distinct things that 2e has going on here; yes, 2e directly encourages creative ideas for whatever your DM defines as creative, but the lack of disarm rules are a totally separate issue. The lack of rules does not incentivize creativity, that's the XP reward. Lack of rules =/= Creative incentive. If that was the case, then less rules would always be preferable, until you simply tell the GM what you want to do and he decides between "Failure, and" "Failure, but" "Success, but" and "Success, and," and gives you XP for things he likes.

3.5 having codified rules for combat maneuvers is not what removes the incentive to be creative; the lack of an XP reward for creativity is what removes the incentive. If there was a rule in the DMG that said XP rewards should be given for those creative uses of maneuvers or spells, then people would employ them creatively more often.

However, this is another misconception; that there is no creativity in 3.5 because of more rules. People use the codified rules and interactions between different powers and abilities in 3.5 to come up with what some would describe as more creative ideas than players in 2e, despite the lack of explicit XP reward. It's not that people are less creative in 3.5; notice that people disarm in both games, one just requires a house-rule, while the other codifies it. The standard for creativity in 3.5 is just higher, so the same players playing 2e and 3.5 hit the 'creative' level in the former and less in the latter, but not due to doing anything different. One is just called 'creative' earlier than the other. Though defining 'creative' as 'anything the rules don't cover' is highly disingenuous and possibly harmful to game design.

In fact, I would argue that insomuch as disarming counts as creative, people disarm less in 2e because there isn't a rule for it and they don't know how an unfamiliar DM will rule on it. In 3.5, Disarm sucks, so people don't often do it, but that's a problem with the mechanic (which, let's admit, was likely just some DM's on-the-fly ruling for it that happened to become canon), not the creativity of the player.

To be fair, 2e players rightly feel like the Fighting Man is restrained by the codified rules in 3e, and that's because he is; those rules suck. You're ineffective at basic combat maneuvers besides hitting it with a stick until you dump precious feats into becoming barely effective at it. It's more trouble than it's worth, you have no skills to back it up, and you have no fiat powers like spells to do anything but attack with bigger numbers, so you become extremely narrow and frankly, boring. But this is not a problem with rules themselves; notice that casters or even hybrids like Clerics/Paladins/Druids are very interesting to play and give you lots to build creative solutions out of. No, the problem lies in the implementation of said codified rules.

Therefore, the answer is not to reduce the rules and leave it up to the whims of a DM who may make a poor ruling out of ignorance or spite or both, but rather to codify good rules that give Fighters real options and powerful tactical choices, on par but distinct from what casters get.

[Yora]

No, I disagree. With the feat Improved Disarm you get a +4 bonus to your roll and don't suffer and attack of opportunity. Though in theory you could perform a disarm attempt without the feat, its existance sends players the message "If you want to successfully disarm, you have to have this feat or you will suck at it". And to get the feat you first have to have the Combat Expertise feat. If you are not a fighter that means investing all the feats you get for six levels. And most games only get to a pont where PCs have three feats or four at the most.
Unless you are a fighter explicitly built to disarm, people will not get those two feats. And with the feats implying that disarming without them is useless, player are much less likely to spontaneously get the idea to disarm an enemy when it would make sense to do so. Or better, take sundering. Many players want to have the magic weapons and shields as loot. But the NPC that have mundane equipment at higher levels are not dangerous enough to make it worth investing feats. So nobody takes the feat and nobody uses sundering. That you don't get extra XP for disarming or sundering is not the problem.

And even worse is the mentality that if there are rules for these things that have to be obeyed, that you have to use a rule for everything you could come up with. And if there are no rules, you can not do it. Or maybe you just don't know if there is a rule and you don't want to put in a 15 minute break to find out if there is one somewhere. You don't have to play the game like that, but if it's implicitely implied, most people will do it without realizing it.

[ustus]

No, I disagree. With the feat Improved Disarm you get a +4 bonus to your roll and don't suffer and attack of opportunity. Though in theory you could perform a disarm attempt without the feat, its existance sends players the message "If you want to successfully disarm, you have to have this feat or you will suck at it". And to get the feat you first have to have the Combat Expertise feat. If you are not a fighter that means investing all the feats you get for six levels. And most games only get to a pont where PCs have three feats or four at the most.
Unless you are a fighter explicitly built to disarm, people will not get those two feats. And with the feats implying that disarming without them is useless, player are much less likely to spontaneously get the idea to disarm an enemy when it would make sense to do so. Or better, take sundering. Many players want to have the magic weapons and shields as loot. But the NPC that have mundane equipment at higher levels are not dangerous enough to make it worth investing feats. So nobody takes the feat and nobody uses sundering. That you don't get extra XP for disarming or sundering is not the problem.

And even worse is the mentality that if there are rules for these things that have to be obeyed, that you have to use a rule for everything you could come up with. And if there are no rules, you can not do it. Or maybe you just don't know if there is a rule and you don't want to put in a 15 minute break to find out if there is one somewhere. You don't have to play the game like that, but if it's implicitely implied, most people will do it without realizing it.

As he said, this is an issue with what the rule actually is, not with having rules. To be honest, I prefer broad rules for broad, common concepts - but I game with the same group of six, all the time with no exceptions, and ojr two standard GMs are good enough at improvising that I'd trust them to do it. To counter myself here, the risk of a bad GM is one of quite a few reasons I'd really only play with freinds. I like being able to trust the gm, and a bad gm can really screw you over if he's left to make arbitrary decisions. That said, my counter argument to that is that if the gm wants to screw you over, most games still give him the tools to do that. Enough on this from me.

The other side of preference here, for me, is that specific rules for specific actions give me a toolbox to work from. I'd rather use existing rules in a creative way than come up with new actions every time I want to do something. Again, preference. I don't have trouble with option paralysis, but I do have trouble having an answer ready for any situation.

[Stubbazubba]

So nobody takes the feat and nobody uses sundering. That you don't get extra XP for disarming or sundering is not the problem.

To be fair, 2e players rightly feel like the Fighting Man is restrained by the codified rules in 3e, and that's because he is; those rules suck....But this is not a problem with rules themselves; notice that casters or even hybrids like Clerics/Paladins/Druids are very interesting to play and give you lots to build creative solutions out of. No, the problem lies in the implementation of said codified rules.

And even worse is the mentality that if there are rules for these things that have to be obeyed, that you have to use a rule for everything you could come up with. And if there are no rules, you can not do it.

We've never seen an edition of D&D that didn't have some guidelines for improvisation, though, so I don't think it's the game's fault that certain tables have that mindset.

[obryn]

4e inhibits creativity, but it does not prohibit it. Those are two different thing.

When an RPG is creating rules for how players handle situations, there are two general ways to do it. You can create broad abstract rules that cover many different situations, or you can create specific focused rules or powers(which I like to call "crunchy bits") that tell you exactally how to handle a situation and give different abilities to different players. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.

When you have a broad system like most White Wolf stuff or Paranoia, you have a lot of flexibility, a system where anyone can do pretty much anything, where the basic rules are fairly simple and intrusive. It makes it puts emphasis on roleplaying over the mechanics. There are disadvantages, however, some specific situations may be covered poorly by the rules, and the GM has to improvise heavily. These systems create ambiguity and rules conflicts. Further, these systems can lead to a lack of uniqueness among characters, and can also lead to a more freeform method acting exercise rather than a game.

Crunchy bits, and systems heavy in their use, remove ambiguity and create clear rules. They create a system that puts emphasis on mechanics over roleplay, create clear and unique characters, and can create a fun game outside of(and optimally along with) roleplaying. Unfortunatly, crunchy bits are bad at handling situations outside of their scope, and they can force players into certain roles and limit options.

Most every good RPG system uses both broad rules and crunchy bits, D&D has always been heavier on the crunchy bits, and 4e took it to kind of critical mass, where the game less resembles an RPG and more represents a group TCG. There should be specific rules for disarming folks, D&D is a combat game at it's heart, and there needs to be rules for it, but I don't think EVERYone needs to be able to do it.

Again - by this argument, Wizards in every edition have their creativity inhibited by having access to more "crunchy bits."

I don't know how things go at your table, but I find this vanishingly unlikely.

-O

[Morty]

Leaving aside that disarming an enemy is an extremely generous definition of a creative idea, you're conflating two distinct things that 2e has going on here; yes, 2e directly encourages creative ideas for whatever your DM defines as creative, but the lack of disarm rules are a totally separate issue. The lack of rules does not incentivize creativity, that's the XP reward. Lack of rules =/= Creative incentive. If that was the case, then less rules would always be preferable, until you simply tell the GM what you want to do and he decides between "Failure, and" "Failure, but" "Success, but" and "Success, and," and gives you XP for things he likes.

3.5 having codified rules for combat maneuvers is not what removes the incentive to be creative; the lack of an XP reward for creativity is what removes the incentive. If there was a rule in the DMG that said XP rewards should be given for those creative uses of maneuvers or spells, then people would employ them creatively more often.

However, this is another misconception; that there is no creativity in 3.5 because of more rules. People use the codified rules and interactions between different powers and abilities in 3.5 to come up with what some would describe as more creative ideas than players in 2e, despite the lack of explicit XP reward. It's not that people are less creative in 3.5; notice that people disarm in both games, one just requires a house-rule, while the other codifies it. The standard for creativity in 3.5 is just higher, so the same players playing 2e and 3.5 hit the 'creative' level in the former and less in the latter, but not due to doing anything different. One is just called 'creative' earlier than the other. Though defining 'creative' as 'anything the rules don't cover' is highly disingenuous and possibly harmful to game design.

In fact, I would argue that insomuch as disarming counts as creative, people disarm less in 2e because there isn't a rule for it and they don't know how an unfamiliar DM will rule on it. In 3.5, Disarm sucks, so people don't often do it, but that's a problem with the mechanic (which, let's admit, was likely just some DM's on-the-fly ruling for it that happened to become canon), not the creativity of the player.

To be fair, 2e players rightly feel like the Fighting Man is restrained by the codified rules in 3e, and that's because he is; those rules suck. You're ineffective at basic combat maneuvers besides hitting it with a stick until you dump precious feats into becoming barely effective at it. It's more trouble than it's worth, you have no skills to back it up, and you have no fiat powers like spells to do anything but attack with bigger numbers, so you become extremely narrow and frankly, boring. But this is not a problem with rules themselves; notice that casters or even hybrids like Clerics/Paladins/Druids are very interesting to play and give you lots to build creative solutions out of. No, the problem lies in the implementation of said codified rules.

Therefore, the answer is not to reduce the rules and leave it up to the whims of a DM who may make a poor ruling out of ignorance or spite or both, but rather to codify good rules that give Fighters real options and powerful tactical choices, on par but distinct from what casters get.

I agree with pretty much all of it. Rules-light systems that favor creativity over following the system are fine. But you either do it, or you don't. Not give one type of character - spellcaster - lots of built-in options and leave the other type - the non-caster - to fend for themselves.

[Kurald Galain]

We've never seen an edition of D&D that didn't have some guidelines for improvisation, though, so I don't think it's the game's fault that certain tables have that mindset.

Of course. Having guidelines for improvisation is what defines a roleplaying game. If a game wouldn't allow it, then it would be a board game or wargame or computer game, but not an RPG.

There's nothing unique or innovative about Page Forty-Two; literally all roleplaying games do that in one way or the other.

(not that there's anything wrong with that; there's nothing unique or innovative about skill checks either, it's just something that works and that you need in most RPGs)

So the question is not whether or not 5E should have such guidelines; of course it will. The question is, what form should they take. Should they give rewards (e.g. experience), and how much? Should they give bonuses to dice rolls, or perhaps give penalties to dice rolls? Should they say that you can improvise all you like but the result will be the same? Those are meaningful questions - merely enabling improvisation is already assumed and need not be in question.

[obryn]

There's nothing unique or innovative about Page Forty-Two; literally all roleplaying games do that in one way or the other.

...only if you take an intensely reductionist view of it, I'd say.

I haven't seen a similar table in any previous D&D edition, any edition of WFRP, any edition of Earthdawn, Savage Worlds, Star Wars (d6, Saga, Revised) or really any other RPG I'm familiar with.

So what other RPGs give you an expected damage-by-level calculation for improvisation, complete with suggestions regarding how it should be adjusted for deadlier effects or more limited uses? Because I'm stumped, and want to see these tables. I'll even accept a decent level-based formula.

(I'm well aware the damage as published is too low, mind you. When it was published, it was consistent with the rules, but post-MM3, it isn't.)

-O

[Oracle_Hunter]

There's nothing unique or innovative about Page Forty-Two; literally all roleplaying games do that in one way or the other.

This statement ignores fine details.

In most RPGs (particularly previous editions of D&D) the "rules" for improvisation were "DM make something up" with zero guidance as to what sort of criteria the DM should use to make those decisions. At most you had something like in AD&D which was "make an Ability Check with some modifier" but even ignoring how blunt the Ability Check mechanic was, there was little indication as to what sort of modifier would be appropriate.

DMG 42's main innovation was giving the consumer clear access to the same development tools that the game designers used in determining DCs. This meant a DM could make an informed decision on mechanics that respected the baked-in assumptions of the system. This is nice if you're paying money for a set of good mechanics; it's less helpful if you really just wanted an expensive game of Magical Tea Party.

* * *

Looking at games as "limiting" creativity is rather missing the point of games.

Spoiler

Show

All games include some constraints on what a Player can fiat into existence -- without those sort of rules, you end up with a lot of "I shot you" "no you didn't" situations. Aside from resolving narrative conflicts, the rules in a good game work to channel Player creativity by forcing them to work within constraints of a system, ideally to produce a more entertaining game.

What we've been talking about vis-a-vis Disarm is whether or not Player Fiat is a better option than Game Mechanics. In 2E, there is no guidance as to how effective a Disarm attempt is going to be so its relative effectiveness depends on how well you can manipulate the DM. In 3E, Disarm is a codified technique which means any attempt to "disarm" without using the mechanic is likely to work as well as using a weapon to kill someone without making attack rolls -- not well at all. In 4E there is no codified Disarm mechanic again but there is DMG 42 to guide the DM as to how effective any disarm attempt could be. To be fair, the existence of a high-level "disarm" power means that your average DM is unlikely to permit this sort of action.

Now, a specific concern about DMG 42 is that it doesn't permit improvised actions to be better than Powers. IMHO this is how it should be for a rules-heavy game like D&D: if improvised actions are better than the play-tested powers that are unique to classes, why bother with these class powers? If anyone could inflict "Blind" by making a Dex v. Reflex attack at-will with a hand of sand, everyone would be walking around with sacks of sand. More importantly, why did you just spend $40 on a book of mechanics only to find out that you'll only be using a single page to improvise your character's actions?

No, you either should have a dedicated mechanics game or an improv game, but not both. oWoD Mage is an excellent example of a fun improv game in that its spellcasting mechanics (e.g. Spheres) give guidelines as to the sort of effects your Mage can produce. The fact that the oWoD designers then tried to codify specific powers outside of the scope of the Sphere System is a flaw in the game and the fact that most oWoD Players don't use those Rotes should be no surprise to anyone who has followed my argument thus far

In short: all games "limit" creativity by having rules. The real question is whether those rules channel creativity in interesting directions and, importantly, whether the rules you're paying for actually are worth playing by.

[1337 b4k4]

We've never seen an edition of D&D that didn't have some guidelines for improvisation, though, so I don't think it's the game's fault that certain tables have that mindset.

But certain editions encourage or discourage improvisation (on both sides of the table) more or less than others and that is the game's fault. If I give you guidelines for improvisation and they objectively make every improvisation you could make worse than the codified options, then no matter how much I tell you I support improvisation in my game, the reality is I'm discouraging it at best.

Again - by this argument, Wizards in every edition have their creativity inhibited by having access to more "crunchy bits."

I don't know how things go at your table, but I find this vanishingly unlikely.

To a small degree, they have. When was the last time you saw someone play a wizard and use a spell that wasn't in the main lists? When was the last time you saw an improvised spell that wasn't first run though the spell researching rules? Conversely, when was the last time you saw a fighter "researching" new feats? Or look at it this way, in 3e, would you rather play a low level fighter, or a low level wizard who's spell list consisted of Alarm, Identify, Disguise Self, and Jump?

But you either do it, or you don't. Not give one type of character - spellcaster - lots of built-in options and leave the other type - the non-caster - to fend for themselves.

Why? What's wrong with having different classes having different levels of complexity? I would rather every class have varying degrees of complexity, but given a choice between all classes being as complex as 4e classes, or some classes being less complex than others, I'd take the later. One can always make something more complex, but simplifying tends to cause more problems.

Ultimately, what I would rather see is that all classes (magic or otherwise) start with a very simple base mechanic, and some tools for building out the complexity from there, rather than have every class with a kitchen sink full of options and some guidelines for adding even more options.

More importantly, why did you just spend $40 on a book of mechanics only to find out that you'll only be using a single page to improvise your character's actions?

Here's a better question: Why should getting into roll playing games be a $40 (x3 [PHB, DMG, MM]) investment in books? If we're cramming in options to justify the price, why not just lower the price and drop the options?

[obryn]

But certain editions encourage or discourage improvisation (on both sides of the table) more or less than others and that is the game's fault. If I give you guidelines for improvisation and they objectively make every improvisation you could make worse than the codified options, then no matter how much I tell you I support improvisation in my game, the reality is I'm discouraging it at best.

So your issue is with the fine details - that is, the damage and DCs on the p42 table - rather than the idea itself?

To a small degree, they have. When was the last time you saw someone play a wizard and use a spell that wasn't in the main lists? When was the last time you saw an improvised spell that wasn't first run though the spell researching rules? Conversely, when was the last time you saw a fighter "researching" new feats? Or look at it this way, in 3e, would you rather play a low level fighter, or a low level wizard who's spell list consisted of Alarm, Identify, Disguise Self, and Jump?

If your point is, "If you have no specific spells or feats or skills in your system, it forces you to be creative because you have to write all the rules yourself," then ... okay? And this is desirable?

And I don't see how the Wizard is somehow stumped for creative solutions to problems, despite their static spell list. Seems to me that's a pretty versatile character who has all the Fighter's opportunities for improvisation plus a whole host of others.

but given a choice between all classes being as complex as 4e classes

Which 4e classes?

Here's a better question: Why should getting into roll playing games be a $40 (x3 [PHB, DMG, MM]) investment in books? If we're cramming in options to justify the price, why not just lower the price and drop the options?

Because there are other games that do that better than D&D, and I already have them. On this note, however, I would greatly encourage every gamer in the world to pick up a copy of Savage Worlds for $10. It's pretty brilliant.

-O

[Zeful]

Why? What's wrong with having different classes having different levels of complexity? I would rather every class have varying degrees of complexity, but given a choice between all classes being as complex as 4e classes, or some classes being less complex than others, I'd take the later. One can always make something more complex, but simplifying tends to cause more problems.

Because they aren't abiding by the design rules that that system requires to be mechanically sound. Less complex classes are almost always mechanically weaker than the more complex classes, and for entirely inane and arbitrary reasons. It's the reason that the appeal to realism in D&D discussions isn't a valid argument when concerning how physical combat works. What's the point of a class that does something simple, but doesn't have as much impact in play as the more complex class? What value does a simple class have if it does everything else as good or worse than the complex class when the complex class can also do other things really well? This is where you have to sit down and hammer out what the complexity in to impact out is for each class separately. A class that is three times as complex should not be three times as impactful to the game, that doesn't build a game where the simple options is valid even in hypothetical scenarios. As unintuitive as is sounds, the more complex the class is, the less power it should gain as a result of that complexity, especially if you are operating from the viewpoint that the simple classes should be a valid option.

To reframe this into the discussion on D&D, spellcasters in 3.5 should only be marginally more powerful than the non-spellcasting classes (especially because they really aren't all that complex), with no individual spell, ability, or feat available to them being more powerful or versatile than any individual fighter's feat or ability. So no spell scaling based on caster level, no spells with absolutes, no spells that replace the simpler classes, no spells that replace checks-- either ability or skill checks, no feats or magic items to remove intrinsic limits to the class. Which is quite a bit of content you have to rewrite or remove, and a lot of it are things that people will oppose harshly, because going over core it means almost every spell is nerfed in some way, with some of the better ones being outright removed, as well as beefing up every feat and ability available to mundane classes to the power of Power Attack. But it's necessary if you even want to pretend the mundane classes are even valid options.