Community

Jan 7, 2012 -- 12:17PM, Kalnaur wrote:

The point of using progression versus advancement is that progression is an action that logically follows what came before in an effort to move forward.  Regression, by contrast, looks at what came before, and proceeds towards it, not away from it.

Basically, a way to say, "carry on with every bit of knowledge gained up to this point and make something that does the past justice, while still moving forward" instead of "embrace what came before by making it again".

So is drawing inspiration from the past a part of progression or is it considered regression? 
Is it still regression if you're moving away from a mistake back to the previously iteration which worked?

Jan 7, 2012 -- 12:20PM, Hippolyte wrote:

  I want new builds like the Friar 

Is that a cloth wearing, cudgel bearing, beer ale swilling, cleric.

I wonder what the threshold is for the bulk of DnD players when it comes to the amount of change they are willing to accept.  From a customer perspective, as mcbeacom has stated, 'Go ahead WotC make as many changes as you want when you develop 5E, if I don't like it, I will just stick with 4E.'  From WotC's perspective comments like this almost handcuff them to what was successful in the past as they move forward.  If I'm WotC and am going to be investing a sizeable amount of capital into creating a new version, I want mcbeacom to migrate to the new edition.  I absolutely do not want him to stagnate at 4E - and not buy any more materials as I (as WotC) won't be supporting it any further.  There is not risk to mcbeacom in WotC making a new version of DnD - he's already got enough '4E material for 20 years of play'.  There is a huge financial risk to WotC if people don't find their way to 5E.  



Some questions I have for this discussoin:

What types of changes and how radical of changes are DnD customers willing to accept?  For example, Would DnD customers be willing to go away from the d20?  The reason I ask, is I saw a comment earlier that said (paraphrased), 'ya change stuff up for 5E, make the game better, but it needs to stay DnD.'  

What makes DnD, DnD?  What elements cannot or should not be touched when 5E is developed?   

Jan 7, 2012 -- 1:02PM, SkyNet2.0 wrote:

Some questions I have for this discussoin:

What types of changes and how radical of changes are DnD customers willing to accept?  For example, Would DnD customers be willing to go away from the d20?  The reason I ask, is I saw a comment earlier that said (paraphrased), 'ya change stuff up for 5E, make the game better, but it needs to stay DnD.'  

What makes DnD, DnD?  What elements cannot or should not be touched when 5E is developed?   

Considering the amount of flames WotC already got for 4E, I'd say that the following would have to stay to please (or at least not completely piss off) most people (in no particular order):

• "d20+bonus vs DC" as task resolution mechanism
• Classes
• 6 ability scores (Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha)
• AC and other defenses ("NADs", Fort, Ref, Will)
• Skills
• Feats
• primary magic items providing a bonus to attack + damage, additionally some other effects/abilities
• secondary magic items providing a bonus to damage, skills, NADs, some other effects/abilities

If any of this goes away the nerdrage on the forums about 5E "not being D&D any longer but dumbed down [insert MMORPG of your choice]" would be over 9000.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 12:30PM, The_Jester wrote:

Jan 7, 2012 -- 12:17PM, Kalnaur wrote:

The point of using progression versus advancement is that progression is an action that logically follows what came before in an effort to move forward.  Regression, by contrast, looks at what came before, and proceeds towards it, not away from it.

Basically, a way to say, "carry on with every bit of knowledge gained up to this point and make something that does the past justice, while still moving forward" instead of "embrace what came before by making it again".

So is drawing inspiration from the past a part of progression or is it considered regression? 
Is it still regression if you're moving away from a mistake back to the previously iteration which worked?

Drawing inspiration from what was made before is progression.  Remaking/returning to what was made before is regression.

Yes, it is still regression going back.  On top of that, I would argue that if something had worked as intended, it would not have been changed, thus even if what it was changed to was a mistake, what came before didn't work any better, and moving on to a new solution, with both points of input (what you just did, what was done before that) to make something that hopefully does work is progression.  You are moving forward with all data available to something else.  Now, if you move forward to something more like what came before, but with the best parts of you mistake and what came before as your reference, it's still progression.  But backward movement that doesn't include innovation to change the backward innovation into something new is always regression.

As an example, if in a painting I make a character's eyes blue (let's say sky blue), and it looks ok, but then I decide to change it to green (a deep sea green).  If, after that, I decide the green doesn't work, I will not go back to sky blue, because there was a reason I changed it from sky blue.  I might try cobalt blue, or teal or sea blue instead of sea green, but sky blue is off the table.  I might even take and mix my sky blue with the sea green and se if that works better.  But my creative instinct should be trusted; my eye seems to commonly know before my thinking brain when something just doesn't work.  The moment I question that, I start making worse art.  And game making is an art as much (or more) as it is a science.

What element, if any, did you have in mind when you asked your questions, out of curiosity?

Edit: one part of progression that is not commonly part of regession is also staying with what does work.  Progress does not mean throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  Progression is moving forward, and if that means something doesn't work, you fix it.  Regression is more commonly about total reversion.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 1:12PM, Ra-Tiel wrote:

Jan 7, 2012 -- 1:02PM, SkyNet2.0 wrote:

Some questions I have for this discussoin:

What types of changes and how radical of changes are DnD customers willing to accept?  For example, Would DnD customers be willing to go away from the d20?  The reason I ask, is I saw a comment earlier that said (paraphrased), 'ya change stuff up for 5E, make the game better, but it needs to stay DnD.'  

What makes DnD, DnD?  What elements cannot or should not be touched when 5E is developed?   

Considering the amount of flames WotC already got for 4E, I'd say that the following would have to stay to please (or at least not completely piss off) most people (in no particular order):

• "d20+bonus vs DC" as task resolution mechanism
• Classes
• 6 ability scores (Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha)
• AC and other defenses ("NADs", Fort, Ref, Will)
• Skills
• Feats
• primary magic items providing a bonus to attack + damage, additionally some other effects/abilities
• secondary magic items providing a bonus to damage, skills, NADs, some other effects/abilities

If any of this goes away the nerdrage on the forums about 5E "not being D&D any longer but dumbed down [insert MMORPG of your choice]" would be over 9000.

I don't really disagree with you about the potential "nerdrage", but I always find that reaction just funny.

Mostly, I think, because I can pick up a game like Old School Hack, which doesn't have many of those elements, and instantly say "This is D&D (with a different name)".

Jan 7, 2012 -- 1:18PM, Kalnaur wrote:

What element, if any, did you have in mind when you asked your questions, out of curiosity?

I'm pretty open to change; not because I find 4E of poor quality, but I am open to letting WotC's designers off the chain a bit and see what they have for ideas.  I'm sure that they, like a lot of us, have played other game systems as well.  I'm up for letting the game evolve - even if some of the ideas or inspirations are coming from sources other than DnD.  

For example, I have given some thought to the 1d20 action resolution mechanic, and I would not be adverse to DnD updating this system.  

Personally, I'm all for DnD being reworked to be more resource driven versus statics driven action resolution.  I also like the idea of using 3d6 versus 1d20 for action resolution.  Both die combinations have an average outcome of 10.5, but the probability of rolling a 10 or greater is 62.5% for 3d6 compared to 55% for 1d20.  For critical misses or hits (3 or 18 for 3d6 and 1 or 20 for 1d20), there is a 0.46% chance to crit for 3d6 and 5% for 1d20. 

3d6 Result Table Show

Jan 7, 2012 -- 1:31PM, greatfrito wrote:

I don't really disagree with you about the potential "nerdrage", but I always find that reaction just funny.

Mostly, I think, because I can pick up a game like Old School Hack, which doesn't have many of those elements, and instantly say "This is D&D (with a different name)".

Heck, I personally don't care. I could play "D&D" with GURPS, Exalted or Earthdawn (some of these systems may be actually better or worse at certain aspects of "D&D").

However, too much deviation from the currently established standards incurs another problem: older books are again completely invalidated. Remember the attempt to provide a 2e-to-3e conversion manual? It was rather quickly dropped and afaik 3.5 didn't do anything similar for previous edition characters.

I know that mechanical changes always make conversions or reusage of older material difficult, but e.g. switching from a level/class/role based system that uses 1d20 for task resolution to a completely skill based system that has advantages/drawbacks and uses 3d6 (*cough*GURPS*cough*) makes it nigh impossible for the average DM to easily or quickly convert monsters or items from earlier editions.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 1:44PM, Ra-Tiel wrote:

However, too much deviation from the currently established standards incurs another problem: older books are again completely invalidated. ... makes it nigh impossible for the average DM to easily or quickly convert monsters or items from earlier editions.

I think that 4E really shines in the area of lightening the load on the DM in general.  I don't see why future versions would go away from this design philosophy.  Would an improved custom monster builder address your concern?  

Is the demand large enough to warrant WotC expending resources on converting old material into the new system, or is it reasonable to assume that 3rd party groups or the players themselves will generate some of these conversion resources?

Jan 7, 2012 -- 1:44PM, Ra-Tiel wrote:

Jan 7, 2012 -- 1:31PM, greatfrito wrote:

I don't really disagree with you about the potential "nerdrage", but I always find that reaction just funny.

Mostly, I think, because I can pick up a game like Old School Hack, which doesn't have many of those elements, and instantly say "This is D&D (with a different name)".

Heck, I personally don't care. I could play "D&D" with GURPS, Exalted or Earthdawn (some of these systems may be actually better or worse at certain aspects of "D&D").

However, too much deviation from the currently established standards incurs another problem: older books are again completely invalidated. Remember the attempt to provide a 2e-to-3e conversion manual? It was rather quickly dropped and afaik 3.5 didn't do anything similar for previous edition characters.

I know that mechanical changes always make conversions or reusage of older material difficult, but e.g. switching from a level/class/role based system that uses 1d20 for task resolution to a completely skill based system that has advantages/drawbacks and uses 3d6 (*cough*GURPS*cough*) makes it nigh impossible for the average DM to easily or quickly convert monsters or items from earlier editions.

Past that, my question would be this: if there is another system with the same exact mechanics you are moving towards, is it a progression and more importantly, do you think you can do better than that system at what that system is already doing.  If not, best to move in a different direction. 

Jan 7, 2012 -- 1:12PM, Ra-Tiel wrote:

 

Considering the amount of flames WotC already got for 4E, I'd say that the following would have to stay to please (or at least not completely piss off) most people (in no particular order):

• "d20+bonus vs DC" as task resolution mechanism
• Classes
• 6 ability scores (Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha)
• AC and other defenses ("NADs", Fort, Ref, Will)
• Skills
• Feats
• primary magic items providing a bonus to attack + damage, additionally some other effects/abilities
• secondary magic items providing a bonus to damage, skills, NADs, some other effects/abilities 

You need advancing hit points and levels on that list.

Feats as fiddly bits to create your fighting style might be handled quite differently (selection of your repertoire of moves currently already serves some of that purpose)

And the nature of magic items are probably required to be less specific than that, as are the defenses (but AC is traditional) 

I am being nitpicky mostly 

I want Wizards to acutally support the content they produce, rather than abandon it.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 1:12PM, Ra-Tiel wrote:

Jan 7, 2012 -- 1:02PM, SkyNet2.0 wrote:

Some questions I have for this discussoin:

What types of changes and how radical of changes are DnD customers willing to accept?  For example, Would DnD customers be willing to go away from the d20?  The reason I ask, is I saw a comment earlier that said (paraphrased), 'ya change stuff up for 5E, make the game better, but it needs to stay DnD.'  

What makes DnD, DnD?  What elements cannot or should not be touched when 5E is developed?   

Considering the amount of flames WotC already got for 4E, I'd say that the following would have to stay to please (or at least not completely piss off) most people (in no particular order):

• "d20+bonus vs DC" as task resolution mechanism
• Classes
• 6 ability scores (Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha)
• AC and other defenses ("NADs", Fort, Ref, Will)
• Skills
• Feats
• primary magic items providing a bonus to attack + damage, additionally some other effects/abilities
• secondary magic items providing a bonus to damage, skills, NADs, some other effects/abilities

If any of this goes away the nerdrage on the forums about 5E "not being D&D any longer but dumbed down [insert MMORPG of your choice]" would be over 9000.

I think the +attack/defense/damage on weapons and other items has to go. Then players will not NEED  items as much as they do now. Magical items should be about cool effects not optimal mathematics.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 6:50AM, AbdulAlhazred wrote:

Jan 7, 2012 -- 12:56AM, mbeacom wrote:

Jan 6, 2012 -- 2:48PM, AbdulAlhazred wrote:

Jan 6, 2012 -- 2:37PM, mbeacom wrote:

I like 4E but I like rules in general. I have enough 4E content to play for 20 years uninterupted. I don't need more of it to be honest. I say bring on a new ruleset (whenever they're ready to release it) and let me take that for a spin. Clearly, publishing support material for existing rulesets didn't do TSR any favors.

TSR was a horribly badly managed and run company. While there DOES come a time now and then for a new ruleset, once every 3-5 years is not it. You never even get time to get to a lot of the good stuff. What use to me is a new ruleset? I don't understand why I need or want that. Heck, Old Geezer over at RPGnet says that everytime someone tries to rib him for playing OD&D still continuously since 1974 (yeah, the guy played with Gary and Co, lol). Call me "Not So Old Geezer" if you want (I'm not actually much younger than OG anyway). I just don't care. Personally I think there have been advances in the rules now and then, but not many really. AFAIAC we could have been playing 1e up until 2008 for all it mattered. Instead of flailing on rules minutia how about we all just put out more good content for what we have? There's a point where no amount more of flailing on rules is going to do anyone much good and we've pretty much reached it if you ask me. We've got (depending on how you count) around 7 or 8 official variations of D&D rules to choose from. You can surely find something in there you like, or play PF or whatever, there's not enough lifetimes for all that.

Yes, if I wanted to play through ALL of the stuff I have and use every bit of it for 4e I could spend 20 years. That doesn't mean I can't BETTER use some new stuff that might be exactly what I want. I get that it is fun to wonk on rules and all, which is why I do it, but you'd be wrong to think it matters in anything but a purely academic way.

In other words if you want another version of D&D to play, why not just buy PF? If you haven't played it then its just as much a new thing to go have fun with as '5e' would be. Except it already exists and won't suck up more creative time and talent that can be better spent.

I think 5 years is enough for an edition to set the market on fire (or not). If it doesn't, then go ahead and try again. Maybe the next edition will be even better.  We can learn alot about a design in 5 years. More than enough to make a new/better edition of the game IMO.

"Instead of flailing on rules minutia how about we all just put out more good content for what we have?"

I have more fantastic 4E content than I can hope to consume in a lifetime. I don't need more content. That's a waste of dev time if you ask me.  4E is so content rich, its insane. I could easily run a 3 year 1-30 campaign with just The Underdark hardback alone. And, I very well may. Love that book.

"That doesn't mean I can't BETTER use some new stuff that might be exactly what I want. "

Replace "stuff" with "rules system" and I"m right there with you.

"In other words if you want another version of D&D to play, why not just buy PF? "

Because I don't much care for it. 3.5 was my least favorite version of the game. I'm thrilled they came out with 4E and I WISH IT WOULD HAVE COME SOONER!  But now I have it and I'd love to see what they could dream up based on what they've learned from 4E. I'm just doing the same thing again.

And I don't think releasing content for the system is that great a use of WotC talent at this point in the cycle. They've released way too much content too fast already. Give me a new ruleset to beat around. Then I can decide which is better for me. I like that kind of choice.

Yeah, obviously we disagree. I don't feel like there is EVER 'enough content', and rules are just rules, why do we need new ones? I'm all for new ideas of ways to use the rules and whatever bits of crunch might be helpful to creating more/better stories or fill in some background (and if there's a way to rewrite some bit of the game like some better ritual costing or whatever, go for it, just isn't urgent). All a new set of rules is going to do is obsolete all the existing content and give us yet another and at this point largely redundant set of mechanics.

I just have no desire to replace "stuff with rules system" at all. 35 years into RPGs I've seen every rules system under the Sun and played most of them at least a bit. Yawn. I'll always be able to use more story building material. I have as much use for more rules as I have uses for a hole in the head.

The problem with all the "but this isn't a perfect system, it should be improved" logic is there is no perfect system, and any change you make will be 'better' for one person and 'worse' for another. It is a futile fool's quest. Here and there around the edges of 4e are some things that there is some degree of consensus on improving. I'm all for it, but that doesn't require a new edition of D&D. In fact I'd advance the thesis that while a minor revision of 4e might not sell like a whole new edition it will still sell. Do it carefully, systematically, build up to it with a lot of community discussion and consensus. Then roll out a PHB/MM/DMG that are rules compatible with 4e but incorporate all the knowledge and improvements and tweaks that will make it a better game that don't change the underlying math in incompatible ways. All the old material stays compatible enough not to need an update, you get to sell new core books in say 2014 and call it "40th Anniversary Edition" or whatever. This doesn't suck much energy from the real activity of more content, makes a fairly substantial realistic cleanup of the game, and avoids any substantial splitting of the player base yet again. If they want to release "4e dumbed down without grids" or whatever along the way, well, seems overkill to me but whatever. Again, lack of invalidating existing material and its not too big a deal. Not my thing, but VASTLY better than YAEODD (gotta make that sound more Cthulhuoid).

Anyway, have fun. I think it is long past time I bow out of this whole ratmill of BS and rehashes of the same old debate, lol.

Yep, we want completely different things. No offense, honestly I mean this, but your idea is like the worst thing I could imagine. If they did that I would totally ignore it.  And its honestly strange to hear "I need more story material". Wow. Completely different worlds we live in. I have a library full of tens of thousands of books full of story material 3 minutes from my house. All free. Literally several hundred years worth of the most creative authors the world has ever known churning out stories, year after year. And about 2 shelves full of rules systems all in the last 30 or so by a very thin slice of the creative populous. Give me a new system over a new story any day. Stories are a dime a dozen. An awesome new rules system is pretty rare indeed. Only my opinion of course and I respect that we disagree. No point in flogging this horse any further.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 3:13PM, mbeacom wrote:

...And its honestly strange to hear "I need more story material".  ...I have a library full of tens of thousands of books full of story material. Literally several hundred years worth of the most creative authors the world has ever known churning out stories, year after year. ...Give me a new system over a new story any day. Stories are a dime a dozen. An awesome new rules system is pretty rare indeed.

Once people have a rules system they enjoy, they are going to want places to use it.  In the RPG world that's where the stories part of the equation comes in to play.  For a new DM  or one strapped for time, premade stories are a great way to further reduce the load on a DM.  The premade modules are also a way for WotC to showcase the rules system.  

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say 'a library full of tens of thousands of books full of story material.'  Do you mean a huge stash of material from older DnD or other suitable fantasy RPG games that you could use/modify for a 4E story arc?  Or are you implying that you can just grab any book of your shelf and use it for a story in DnD?  In either case, these most likely are not realistic expectations for new DMs finding their way to DnD.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 3:06PM, Hippolyte wrote:

Jan 7, 2012 -- 1:12PM, Ra-Tiel wrote:

Jan 7, 2012 -- 1:02PM, SkyNet2.0 wrote:

Some questions I have for this discussoin:

What types of changes and how radical of changes are DnD customers willing to accept?  For example, Would DnD customers be willing to go away from the d20?  The reason I ask, is I saw a comment earlier that said (paraphrased), 'ya change stuff up for 5E, make the game better, but it needs to stay DnD.'  

What makes DnD, DnD?  What elements cannot or should not be touched when 5E is developed?   

Considering the amount of flames WotC already got for 4E, I'd say that the following would have to stay to please (or at least not completely piss off) most people (in no particular order):

• "d20+bonus vs DC" as task resolution mechanism
• Classes
• 6 ability scores (Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha)
• AC and other defenses ("NADs", Fort, Ref, Will)
• Skills
• Feats
• primary magic items providing a bonus to attack + damage, additionally some other effects/abilities
• secondary magic items providing a bonus to damage, skills, NADs, some other effects/abilities

If any of this goes away the nerdrage on the forums about 5E "not being D&D any longer but dumbed down [insert MMORPG of your choice]" would be over 9000.

I think the +attack/defense/damage on weapons and other items has to go. Then players will not NEED  items as much as they do now. Magical items should be about cool effects not optimal mathematics.

Strange, I love the +X to items, and find the inherent bonus system good to replace it should people not want magical items with pluses.

It's an unnecessary complication to the game's math, and it has a number of negative effects on design and gameplay. +X is also about the most boring possible item type. Magical weapons and armor can still be beneficial in other ways (although it would help if the 'insignificant daily power that no one cares about' standard also got staked through the heart at the same time).

The evolution of +X items is interesting to me.

In 2E, you didn't need a +X item.  A lot of items with a lower plus were better than items with a higher plus (a generic +5 magic sword vs a short sword of speed (+2) or sword of sharpness (+3), for example).  The math was loose enough that the plus of your item was lost in the noise, especially if you actually used all of the situational bonuses and penalties to attack rolls.

In 3E, the situation was similar.  A +1 flaming frost shock sword was often better than a generic +4 sword.  This was due in part to loose math and in part to the degradation of attack bonuses meaning that if your attacks past the first were worth the action to take, your first attack was almost guaranteed to hit.

In 4E, the math was tightened up and multiple attacks per target became the exception rather than the rule.  In addition, having a weapon quality no longer costs you pluses; you can get a Vanguard Weapon in +1 to +6 flavors.  This resulted in having an enhancement bonus appropriate for your level being mandatory.  And everyone seems to hate it.


I strongly doubt this will even convince anyone to think about it, but try to think about it.  Not everything from a prior edition was bad, and sometimes there are ideas that can be taken back from them.  Specifically, the idea that weapon qualities carry an opportunity cost of enhancement bonus was an idea that everyone seems to like, and that was lost in 4E.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 2:40PM, mysticbelmont wrote:

I want Wizards to acutally support the content they produce, rather than abandon it.

They do support their material, and don't abandon anything. Whether things coming out is "legitimate support" seems to be the issue with most people.

Also, I have to echo Neitronium_Dragon's sentiments on +X items. Right now, I feel like wealth is the worst thing in the game. I love the idea of Magical items with interesting effects. I hate the idea that I have to some how shove all these magical items at my party, just laying around for them to pick up. It's tedious work that I don't think adds to the game (and slows down combat) and stretches my disbelief that some how a party finds several hundred pounds of gold and six magical artifacts when they are out punching things. Works for when you're assaulting a Dragons lair. Doesn't work for a whole lot else.

I'm letting my players have unlimited common, 1-2 uncommon, and a rare once per tier that are relavent in combat. PCs get so many powers already, they don't need another group.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 3:58PM, ankiyavon wrote:

The evolution of +X items is interesting to me.

In 2E, you didn't need a +X item.  A lot of items with a lower plus were better than items with a higher plus (a generic +5 magic sword vs a short sword of speed (+2) or sword of sharpness (+3), for example).  The math was loose enough that the plus of your item was lost in the noise, especially if you actually used all of the situational bonuses and penalties to attack rolls.

In 3E, the situation was similar.  A +1 flaming frost shock sword was often better than a generic +4 sword.  This was due in part to loose math and in part to the degradation of attack bonuses meaning that if your attacks past the first were worth the action to take, your first attack was almost guaranteed to hit.

In 4E, the math was tightened up and multiple attacks per target became the exception rather than the rule.  In addition, having a weapon quality no longer costs you pluses; you can get a Vanguard Weapon in +1 to +6 flavors.  This resulted in having an enhancement bonus appropriate for your level being mandatory.  And everyone seems to hate it.


I strongly doubt this will even convince anyone to think about it, but try to think about it.  Not everything from a prior edition was bad, and sometimes there are ideas that can be taken back from them.  Specifically, the idea that weapon qualities carry an opportunity cost of enhancement bonus was an idea that everyone seems to like, and that was lost in 4E.

nitpick : 2nd ed had several monsters, especially demon/devils that had a "requires a +X or higher to hit" line

Jan 7, 2012 -- 1:33PM, SkyNet2.0 wrote:

Jan 7, 2012 -- 1:18PM, Kalnaur wrote:

What element, if any, did you have in mind when you asked your questions, out of curiosity?

I'm pretty open to change; not because I find 4E of poor quality, but I am open to letting WotC's designers off the chain a bit and see what they have for ideas.  I'm sure that they, like a lot of us, have played other game systems as well.  I'm up for letting the game evolve - even if some of the ideas or inspirations are coming from sources other than DnD.  

For example, I have given some thought to the 1d20 action resolution mechanic, and I would not be adverse to DnD updating this system.  

Personally, I'm all for DnD being reworked to be more resource driven versus statics driven action resolution.  I also like the idea of using 3d6 versus 1d20 for action resolution.  Both die combinations have an average outcome of 10.5, but the probability of rolling a 10 or greater is 62.5% for 3d6 compared to 55% for 1d20.  For critical misses or hits (3 or 18 for 3d6 and 1 or 20 for 1d20), there is a 0.46% chance to crit for 3d6 and 5% for 1d20. 

3d6 Result Table Show

ΣOutcome	Count	% Chance
3	1	0.46
4	3	1.39
5	6	2.78
6	10	4.63
7	15	6.94
8	21	9.72
9	25	11.57
10	27	12.50
11	27	12.50
12	25	11.57
13	21	9.72
14	15	6.94
15	10	4.63
16	6	2.78
17	3	1.39
18	1	0.46

I completely agree. Let the designers design. Let them off the chain.  Bring us teh awesome.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 3:31PM, SkyNet2.0 wrote:

Jan 7, 2012 -- 3:13PM, mbeacom wrote:

...And its honestly strange to hear "I need more story material".  ...I have a library full of tens of thousands of books full of story material. Literally several hundred years worth of the most creative authors the world has ever known churning out stories, year after year. ...Give me a new system over a new story any day. Stories are a dime a dozen. An awesome new rules system is pretty rare indeed.

Once people have a rules system they enjoy, they are going to want places to use it.  In the RPG world that's where the stories part of the equation comes in to play.  For a new DM  or one strapped for time, premade stories are a great way to further reduce the load on a DM.  The premade modules are also a way for WotC to showcase the rules system.  

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say 'a library full of tens of thousands of books full of story material.'  Do you mean a huge stash of material from older DnD or other suitable fantasy RPG games that you could use/modify for a 4E story arc?  Or are you implying that you can just grab any book of your shelf and use it for a story in DnD?  In either case, these most likely are not realistic expectations for new DMs finding their way to DnD.

First, I wasn't responding to a new DM.

Second, when it was stated that a vast amount of published content for 4E D&D already existed (more than enough for any new DM or to "showcase" rules), his answer was that he doesn't care, that he always wants more. That's not someone asking for published material to save some time, as tons of it already exists. That's someone who simply wants more. If you just want more, go read a fantasy novel. If it doesn't give you 10 ideas, it's probably not very good. I get more ideas from reading a book or watching a movie than I can feasibly work into my games. Don't get me wrong. I love fluff. But I can get fluff anywhere and it doesn't have to be system specific.  Mechanics on the other hand, I kind of need professional designers to help me out with.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 4:10PM, The_Othe_GM wrote:

nitpick : 2nd ed had several monsters, especially demon/devils that had a "requires a +X or higher to hit" line

Very true, and something I had forgotten about momentarily.  However, X (in this case) being greater than 2 was, in my experience, extremely rare.

I could be wrong, but if I recall correctly, requiring a weapon of +3 or greater to hurt an enemy was mostly reserved for archdevils, deities, and the like.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 3:58PM, ankiyavon wrote:

The evolution of +X items is interesting to me.

In 2E, you didn't need a +X item.  A lot of items with a lower plus were better than items with a higher plus (a generic +5 magic sword vs a short sword of speed (+2) or sword of sharpness (+3), for example).  The math was loose enough that the plus of your item was lost in the noise, especially if you actually used all of the situational bonuses and penalties to attack rolls.

In 3E, the situation was similar.  A +1 flaming frost shock sword was often better than a generic +4 sword.  This was due in part to loose math and in part to the degradation of attack bonuses meaning that if your attacks past the first were worth the action to take, your first attack was almost guaranteed to hit.

In 4E, the math was tightened up and multiple attacks per target became the exception rather than the rule.  In addition, having a weapon quality no longer costs you pluses; you can get a Vanguard Weapon in +1 to +6 flavors.  This resulted in having an enhancement bonus appropriate for your level being mandatory.  And everyone seems to hate it.


I strongly doubt this will even convince anyone to think about it, but try to think about it.  Not everything from a prior edition was bad, and sometimes there are ideas that can be taken back from them.  Specifically, the idea that weapon qualities carry an opportunity cost of enhancement bonus was an idea that everyone seems to like, and that was lost in 4E.

Define what you mean by opportunity cost.

Because personally, I much prefer tight specific numbers to "and if you are a good boy, you might get a bonus past what the system allows".  So if that's what you mean by it, I much prefer assumed pluses, be they from weapons or simply from leveling characters (inherent bonuses).

Jan 7, 2012 -- 5:18PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Jan 7, 2012 -- 3:58PM, ankiyavon wrote:

The evolution of +X items is interesting to me.

In 2E, you didn't need a +X item.  A lot of items with a lower plus were better than items with a higher plus (a generic +5 magic sword vs a short sword of speed (+2) or sword of sharpness (+3), for example).  The math was loose enough that the plus of your item was lost in the noise, especially if you actually used all of the situational bonuses and penalties to attack rolls.

In 3E, the situation was similar.  A +1 flaming frost shock sword was often better than a generic +4 sword.  This was due in part to loose math and in part to the degradation of attack bonuses meaning that if your attacks past the first were worth the action to take, your first attack was almost guaranteed to hit.

In 4E, the math was tightened up and multiple attacks per target became the exception rather than the rule.  In addition, having a weapon quality no longer costs you pluses; you can get a Vanguard Weapon in +1 to +6 flavors.  This resulted in having an enhancement bonus appropriate for your level being mandatory.  And everyone seems to hate it.


I strongly doubt this will even convince anyone to think about it, but try to think about it.  Not everything from a prior edition was bad, and sometimes there are ideas that can be taken back from them.  Specifically, the idea that weapon qualities carry an opportunity cost of enhancement bonus was an idea that everyone seems to like, and that was lost in 4E.

Define what you mean by opportunity cost.

Because personally, I much prefer tight specific numbers to "and if you are a good boy, you might get a bonus past what the system allows".  So if that's what you mean by it, I much prefer assumed pluses, be they from weapons or simply from leveling characters (inherent bonuses).

I think he means that you pay for cool magical properties with a lower +x value.

With regard to plusses, I'm not one to make an issue of them as I think the issue is insignificant relatively speaking. However, I will say the more I see others griping about it, the more I think I might prefer not having +x be assumed in ones advancement, whether it be from magic items or inherent bonuses.   Seems to me that +x, when +x is required to maintain level parity, actually isn't +x at all, but is rather 0. 

Havind said that, I'm not one to say +x should be eliminated entirely, as I much like the concept that a magical item will simply perform at a higher level than an identical mundane one (moves as if its lighter than it is for example) or that a magical edge could be honed to a greater degree than a mundane one (+x to damage, or increased crit range for example).

I do like the idea of difficult and meaningful choices.  I think the "opportunity cost" mentioned above can help achieve that. I like the idea of having to choose between a +4 weapon or a +1 weapon that does ongoing frost damage and have them both be viable choices. With the assumption of +x as a character levels, this becomes less achievable I think.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 5:18PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Define what you mean by opportunity cost.

Because personally, I much prefer tight specific numbers to "and if you are a good boy, you might get a bonus past what the system allows".  So if that's what you mean by it, I much prefer assumed pluses, be they from weapons or simply from leveling characters (inherent bonuses).

The phrase "opportunity cost" refers, basically, to the lost benefit you would have gotten by selecting a different mutually exclusive option.  (Officially, the best non-chosen option is the opportunity cost.  You can check it out on wikipedia if you care, but really, all you need to know is the one-sentence version.)

For example, if you're a level one character, and only two feats exist (Weapon Focus and Weapon Expertise), taking Weapon Expertise has an opportunity cost of +1 to damage.

In 3E, selecting the weapon quality "Flaming" has an opportunity cost of +1 enhancement bonus (or whatever the actual best +1 equivalency is, but let's pretend the only other choice is +1 enhancement).  As long as the Flaming quality is of effectively the same power as +1 enhancement bonus, this is balanced. 

And it's fine if some characters prefer one and some characters prefer the other, of course, that's the whole point of options, as long as the whole package of character A (for whom Flaming is better) and the whole package of character B (for whom +1 is better) are balanced with each other.  Balance is important.  Balance does not mandate that every character of a specific level have the same enhancement bonus; the current implementation of math in 4E does require that, but it is not a universal requirement for balance.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 5:40PM, mbeacom wrote:

I think he means that you pay for cool magical properties with a lower +x value.

With regard to plusses, I'm not one to make an issue of them as I think the issue is insignificant relatively speaking. However, I will say the more I see others griping about it, the more I think I might prefer not having +x be assumed in ones advancement, whether it be from magic items or inherent bonuses.   Seems to me that +x, when +x is required to maintain level parity, actually isn't +x at all, but is rather 0. 

Havind said that, I'm not one to say +x should be eliminated entirely, as I much like the concept that a magical item will simply perform at a higher level than an identical mundane one (moves as if its lighter than it is for example) or that a magical edge could be honed to a greater degree than a mundane one (+x to damage, or increased crit range for example).

I do like the idea of difficult and meaningful choices.  I think the "opportunity cost" mentioned above can help achieve that. I like the idea of having to choose between a +4 weapon or a +1 weapon that does ongoing frost damage and have them both be viable choices. With the assumption of +x as a character levels, this becomes less achievable I think.

Yup, you've understood me perfectly.  I think that increasing the value of your enhancement bonus should be one path to getting a better magic weapon, but that it shouldn't be the only way to advance it, and that other options should be viable and balanced with it.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 3:50PM, Neutronium_Dragon wrote:

It's an unnecessary complication to the game's math, and it has a number of negative effects on design and gameplay. +X is also about the most boring possible item type. Magical weapons and armor can still be beneficial in other ways (although it would help if the 'insignificant daily power that no one cares about' standard also got staked through the heart at the same time).

Completely agree with you.

I kind of like the idea that I give up accuracy for speed, damage, and other nifty effects.  Of course, this then requires them to figure out how much accuracy should X cool feature or power cost, but I honestly think they could do it.

The big stumbling block would be people assuming that the plus, tied to how often you can hit, would mean they can't make up that to-hit somewhere else (leader bonuses, feats, class feats/features, etc), or that they are actually giving up accuracy to get something else.  It might also be good to adjust assumptions of when a character hits, and what the base assumption for an attack stat would be; all other things I think they could easily handle.  I like the pluses, and like the idea that the math is all worked in, but as inherent bonuses shows, there are alternatives.  I just think this might drive min-maxers and optimizers into an angry fury. 

Which actually might be another bonus to doing it . . .

Jan 7, 2012 -- 5:54PM, Kalnaur wrote:

I just think this might drive min-maxers and optimizers into an angry fury. 

Which actually might be another bonus to doing it . . .

Are you kidding?  I'm an optimizer, and trust me, we LOVE it when the system gives us eight million different options to run the numbers on

Jan 7, 2012 -- 5:57PM, ankiyavon wrote:

Jan 7, 2012 -- 5:54PM, Kalnaur wrote:

I just think this might drive min-maxers and optimizers into an angry fury. 

Which actually might be another bonus to doing it . . .

Are you kidding?  I'm an optimizer, and trust me, we LOVE it when the system gives us eight million different options to run the numbers on

That's what I was thinking too. I'm NOT a ChOpper but even I saw that.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 6:01PM, mbeacom wrote:

Jan 7, 2012 -- 5:57PM, ankiyavon wrote:

Jan 7, 2012 -- 5:54PM, Kalnaur wrote:

I just think this might drive min-maxers and optimizers into an angry fury. 

Which actually might be another bonus to doing it . . .

Are you kidding?  I'm an optimizer, and trust me, we LOVE it when the system gives us eight million different options to run the numbers on

That's what I was thinking too. I'm NOT a ChOpper but even I saw that.

So . . . you guys actually like incomparables?  I'd assumed those people who char op would hate not having one, clear "better" avenue.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 6:12PM, Kalnaur wrote:

So . . . you guys actually like incomparables?  I'd assumed those people who char op would hate not having one, clear "better" avenue.

There will always be a clear better avenue, as long as our goal can be expressed mathematically (for example, to deal damage or to restore health).


However, the more effort it takes to figure that out, the better; because that means there will be more different ways to optimize with very similar results but different feels.  If you can get an archer ranger, a fighter, a paladin, a sorcerer, a blaster wizard, etc etc all within 1% DPR (damage per round) of each other by using a different combonation of skills, feats, powers, and items, that's awesome.

If it's like 4E currently is (since the November errata isn't out yet) and every single melee class gets their best DPR through the same package (charging + Kulkor Arms Master), that's boring.  (For that matter, most wizards can get their highest DPR with that package, and that's even worse).


The basic idea of my rambling post here is that 'incomparable' is a word that can never be applied to RPG elements.  It might be very difficult, and it might be situational, and it might be dependent on variables that cannot be simulated by a tofu block (for example, +10 damage while underwater as a feat has a varying effect depending on how often you're underwater), but it can always be compared.  (For example, +10 damage while underwater is about the same as +1 damage all the time as long as you're underwater about 10% of the time.)

Jan 7, 2012 -- 6:23PM, ankiyavon wrote:

Jan 7, 2012 -- 6:12PM, Kalnaur wrote:

So . . . you guys actually like incomparables?  I'd assumed those people who char op would hate not having one, clear "better" avenue.

There will always be a clear better avenue, as long as our goal can be expressed mathematically (for example, to deal damage or to restore health).


However, the more effort it takes to figure that out, the better; because that means there will be more different ways to optimize with very similar results but different feels.  If you can get an archer ranger, a fighter, a paladin, a sorcerer, a blaster wizard, etc etc all within 1% DPR (damage per round) of each other by using a different combonation of skills, feats, powers, and items, that's awesome.

If it's like 4E currently is (since the November errata isn't out yet) and every single melee class gets their best DPR through the same package (charging + Kulkor Arms Master), that's boring.  (For that matter, most wizards can get their highest DPR with that package, and that's even worse).


The basic idea of my rambling post here is that 'incomparable' is a word that can never be applied to RPG elements.  It might be very difficult, and it might be situational, and it might be dependent on variables that cannot be simulated by a tofu block (for example, +10 damage while underwater as a feat has a varying effect depending on how often you're underwater), but it can always be compared.  (For example, +10 damage while underwater is about the same as +1 damage all the time as long as you're underwater about 10% of the time.)

As far as I was concerned, I was talking near incomparables.  mainly because, well, it's like apples and oranges.  They're incomparable insomuch as they might both b fruit, and are better for you in different, equally good ways.  But the moment you put a person into the equation, it's all shot to hell.  Maybe they're just more interested in citrus right then, or they don't want to mess with coring the apple, or maybe they just really have always hated apples; the moment an incomparable meets a person it instantly becomes comparable unless that person neither has a preconcieved bias or does not form one within minutes of meeting said incomparable. 

And still, I think incomparables is a good thing to shoot for in an rpg.  Or at least, as close as can be attained so that there is not just one clear path to attaining one clear goal.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 6:37PM, Kalnaur wrote:

As far as I was concerned, I was talking near incomparables.  mainly because, well, it's like apples and oranges.  They're incomparable insomuch as they might both b fruit, and are better for you in different, equally good ways.  But the moment you put a person into the equation, it's all shot to hell.  Maybe they're just more interested in citrus right then, or they don't want to mess with coring the apple, or maybe they just really have always hated apples; the moment an incomparable meets a person it instantly becomes comparable unless that person neither has a preconcieved bias or does not form one within minutes of meeting said incomparable. 

And still, I think incomparables is a good thing to shoot for in an rpg.  Or at least, as close as can be attained so that there is not just one clear path to attaining one clear goal.

Ah, I see, we were just using the word differently.  So I think we basically agree.

It is a good thing to have completely unrelated paths to the same goal that are equally* effective.

*(Equally meaning 'close enough', because balancing every single option combonation perfectly is impossible, and actually trying for it is really a waste of time.  Five nines would be much closer than any person would ever even notice.  99.0% (zero nines) is closer than any RPG I've ever heard of.  I'd be ecstatic if the difference between the best and the worst was only 20%.)

This was put out a number of pages back, and I'm going to dig it up again.

Jan 6, 2012 -- 4:10PM, The_Jester wrote:

Okay, we're drifting waaay off topic and back into edition war territory.

So here's a question to answer:
Should 5e have the same design goals as 4e or should it try and do its own thing? Should it try and be something different or try and be 4e revised? 

I agree with people that have said that 5E should go forward, to evolve. I don't think it should have the same design goals as 4E, but to improve upon them. This has all been said before by people in this thread. However, when talking about 5E the elephant in the room is the current divide in the D&D community between those who have embraced 4E and those who have chosen to stick with previous editions or 3rd party revisions of previous editions. You get the sense from the L&L articles that WotC wants to reconcile this, and people who have stuck with previous editions and their clones are clamoring for WotC to change its path and bring them back into the fold. I really don't know how you do that. Looking at the current state of the community, the best analogue I can come up with is that the D&D community is in the middle of a messy divorce. There is a lot of bad blood and little common ground. People upset with WotC are really upset, and it would take something drastic to make those people happy again, and a specific sort of drastic that would be seen as a betrayal to those who have embraced the current edition. On the other side, people upset with WotC already feel betrayed, and view keeping the current course as continuing that betrayal. In other words, how do you make both sides happy?

I don't have an answer to that, but I see a different issue in the situation. A large(possibly too large to ignore) portion of the D&D community is playing earlier editions of D&D, and WotC has no horse in that race. WotC isn't selling books from earlier editions, DDI and the online magazines aren't producing any content for them, and PDF/Kindle/Nook files are not being sold. Pathfinder has a large share of the 3.5E crowd, the "Old School Revolution" has a lot of fans online playing the earliest editions and OGL clones based on those games. Others are still playing TSR/WotC older editions using the original books. Short of coming up with a real solution that can mend the divide, I don't think WotC can really afford not to be a part of that. I think that the "Old School" and Pathfinder crowds are mostly satisfied with what they have and bear a current grudge against WotC, so competing with that would be a tough sell. I think WotC would be best served by putting out something different, something to appeal to people who want a more classic style of D&D but not specifically what Pathfinder or the Old School Revolution are doing. Something like a hybrid of AD&D, SAGA, and Essentials for example, maybe with some of the better bits of 3.5E thrown in. Something not like 3.5E, not like "Old School" but classic D&D modernized.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 7:09PM, thecasualoblivion wrote:

Something like a hybrid of AD&D, SAGA, and Essentials for example, maybe with some of the better bits of 3.5E thrown in. Something not like 3.5E, not like "Old School" but classic D&D modernized.

By jimmeny, that is exactly what I want out of 5E!  Unfortunately, I don't think there are enough other gamers who share my preferences for it to happen.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 7:23PM, OleOneEye wrote:

Jan 7, 2012 -- 7:09PM, thecasualoblivion wrote:

Something like a hybrid of AD&D, SAGA, and Essentials for example, maybe with some of the better bits of 3.5E thrown in. Something not like 3.5E, not like "Old School" but classic D&D modernized.

By jimmeny, that is exactly what I want out of 5E!  Unfortunately, I don't think there are enough other gamers who share my preferences for it to happen.

I don't think you're alone in this. I think this game could sell, and do something for those people who want something of this sort and feel abandoned by WotC. I don't think it should replace 4E though, and I don't think its what 5E should be.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 6:45PM, ankiyavon wrote:

Jan 7, 2012 -- 6:37PM, Kalnaur wrote:

As far as I was concerned, I was talking near incomparables.  mainly because, well, it's like apples and oranges.  They're incomparable insomuch as they might both b fruit, and are better for you in different, equally good ways.  But the moment you put a person into the equation, it's all shot to hell.  Maybe they're just more interested in citrus right then, or they don't want to mess with coring the apple, or maybe they just really have always hated apples; the moment an incomparable meets a person it instantly becomes comparable unless that person neither has a preconcieved bias or does not form one within minutes of meeting said incomparable. 

And still, I think incomparables is a good thing to shoot for in an rpg.  Or at least, as close as can be attained so that there is not just one clear path to attaining one clear goal.

Ah, I see, we were just using the word differently.  So I think we basically agree.

It is a good thing to have completely unrelated paths to the same goal that are equally* effective.

*(Equally meaning 'close enough', because balancing every single option combonation perfectly is impossible, and actually trying for it is really a waste of time.  Five nines would be much closer than any person would ever even notice.  99.0% (zero nines) is closer than any RPG I've ever heard of.  I'd be ecstatic if the difference between the best and the worst was only 20%.)

20% sounds fine to me. 10% sounds herculean, but would make me happy too.  basically, provided they are so close that only math majors really give a damn, I think they'd be doing stellar.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 7:29PM, thecasualoblivion wrote:

Jan 7, 2012 -- 7:23PM, OleOneEye wrote:

Jan 7, 2012 -- 7:09PM, thecasualoblivion wrote:

Something like a hybrid of AD&D, SAGA, and Essentials for example, maybe with some of the better bits of 3.5E thrown in. Something not like 3.5E, not like "Old School" but classic D&D modernized.

By jimmeny, that is exactly what I want out of 5E!  Unfortunately, I don't think there are enough other gamers who share my preferences for it to happen.

I don't think you're alone in this. I think this game could sell, and do something for those people who want something of this sort and feel abandoned by WotC. I don't think it should replace 4E though, and I don't think its what 5E should be.

Yeah, it's not really anything near what I hope for.

Mainly because 2 out of those three I am not fans of, and the other was an ok fix to a "sort of" problem.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 7:29PM, thecasualoblivion wrote:

Jan 7, 2012 -- 7:23PM, OleOneEye wrote:

Jan 7, 2012 -- 7:09PM, thecasualoblivion wrote:

Something like a hybrid of AD&D, SAGA, and Essentials for example, maybe with some of the better bits of 3.5E thrown in. Something not like 3.5E, not like "Old School" but classic D&D modernized.

By jimmeny, that is exactly what I want out of 5E!  Unfortunately, I don't think there are enough other gamers who share my preferences for it to happen.

I don't think you're alone in this. I think this game could sell, and do something for those people who want something of this sort and feel abandoned by WotC. I don't think it should replace 4E though, and I don't think its what 5E should be.

Well, it depends what features of each system you're trying to build around, what your design goals are, and what feel you're trying to get out of the game. I mean, if you're going to try to apply AD&D's survivalism and resources management to 4e's chassis, I don't think it will work. If you're going to apply some of SAGA's character building systems to 4e's chassis, I think it could work. Though, if we are using essentials, I'd like to ditch the Martial classes for the most part, and replace them with something that does a little more. Not much, but at least closer to other character, even if you repeat powers. I feel that the Knight/Slayer/Thief/Scout/Hunter are just on the cusp on being really fabulous to play with, but just fall an inch short by either not having enough options per turn (Slayer/Thief could use 2-3 more things to play with, rather than movement or damage/CA) or not having the right options to fully do their role (Knight/Hunter seems like it needs a few feats before it's 100%).

But this is rambling. I should really get back to writing my session.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 8:13PM, BlackKnight1239 wrote:

Well, it depends what features of each system you're trying to build around, what your design goals are, and what feel you're trying to get out of the game. I mean, if you're going to try to apply AD&D's survivalism and resources management to 4e's chassis, I don't think it will work. If you're going to apply some of SAGA's character building systems to 4e's chassis, I think it could work. Though, if we are using essentials, I'd like to ditch the Martial classes for the most part, and replace them with something that does a little more. Not much, but at least closer to other character, even if you repeat powers. I feel that the Knight/Slayer/Thief/Scout/Hunter are just on the cusp on being really fabulous to play with, but just fall an inch short by either not having enough options per turn (Slayer/Thief could use 2-3 more things to play with, rather than movement or damage/CA) or not having the right options to fully do their role (Knight/Hunter seems like it needs a few feats before it's 100%).

But this is rambling. I should really get back to writing my session.

I'd imagine it more as AD&D as the chassis(that or SAGA), with bits of the others bolted on. The idea is to make a D&D Classic, so you'd start with Classic D&D and then add to it what modern editions have pioneered.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 7:29PM, thecasualoblivion wrote:

Jan 7, 2012 -- 7:23PM, OleOneEye wrote:

Jan 7, 2012 -- 7:09PM, thecasualoblivion wrote:

Something like a hybrid of AD&D, SAGA, and Essentials for example, maybe with some of the better bits of 3.5E thrown in. Something not like 3.5E, not like "Old School" but classic D&D modernized.

By jimmeny, that is exactly what I want out of 5E!  Unfortunately, I don't think there are enough other gamers who share my preferences for it to happen.

I don't think you're alone in this. I think this game could sell, and do something for those people who want something of this sort and feel abandoned by WotC. I don't think it should replace 4E though, and I don't think its what 5E should be.

Classic D&D modernized? It does sell pretty well from what I can see. It's called Castles & Crusades. And for that reason, (it already exists and is very good), I'd kind of rather see them try something new with 5E. Perhaps something modern and balanced enough that the 4E grogs can get on board, but different enough from 4E that they can sell it as a new edition to the guys who have decided to hate 4E regardless of whatever else may be done to fix it. There is simply a large group of dedicated D&D players out there for whom, 4E is completely dead. I don't justify it, its foolish, but this group of gamers is vast, spends large amounts of money and isn't necessary in love with Pathfinder or OSR, although they've made due with one of those camps in many cases.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 8:53PM, mbeacom wrote:

Classic D&D modernized? It does sell pretty well from what I can see. It's called Castles & Crusades. And for that reason, (it already exists and is very good), I'd kind of rather see them try something new with 5E.

It's been a while since I read Castles & Crusades, but the impression I got was that it was AD&D modernized to early 3E. The game has gone forwards since then. Also, at least personally I'm not proposing this idea as 5E.

Jan 7, 2012 -- 8:53PM, mbeacom wrote:

Perhaps something modern and balanced enough that the 4E grogs can get on board, but different enough from 4E that they can sell it as a new edition to the guys who have decided to hate 4E regardless of whatever else may be done to fix it. There is simply a large group of dedicated D&D players out there for whom, 4E is completely dead. I don't justify it, its foolish, but this group of gamers is vast, spends large amounts of money and isn't necessary in love with Pathfinder or OSR, although they've made due with one of those camps in many cases.

I don't think this is really possible, due to the tensions within the community. The 4E grogs as you call them would take what you describe as a betrayal. I don't think the group you describe is large enough to crap on the 4E community, but its big enough that WotC should try to engage them. I think the best way to keep everybody happy(everybody who is capable of being happy, that is) is to release a "D&D Classic" alongside 4E(and later 5E).

I qualify as one of those groups who consider 4e in exactly the same way I consider rolemaster, palladium, or many other systems. Sure it might be a marginally playable game and sure many people might use it but it holds pretty much zero interest for me. This does not mean I am mad at anyone though. I lost nothing when it happened, nothing dissappeared(this is what so many of the 4e haters never understood).

I played dnd first back when it was still chainmail. That is the sum total of the brand recognition and the sum total of wotc's foot in the door to get me to buy any new system(I did btw buy several of the 4e books and our group even tried to play it a few times). I have a library going back 40 years and pretty much have a 100 choices of what to play not just one.

What I think you are in denial about is the percentages you are dealing with. The group that likes 4e is not the majority it is the minority. Most of the majority is never going to come here and post anything, they just have zero interest. The only reason I am here is i am bored and a magic player so frequent these boards anyway for a completely different purpose. Wotc DESPERATELY wants the majority back. They do not particularly want to lose the minority when they try and recapture them but the minority is the smaller slice and if you have to lose one that is the one to lose.

I think it is a lost cause. I think they lost the brand by what they did with 4e and will never get it back. It is not unique. I for instance play battletech as well. When mageknight bought battletech and tried to coopt and CHANGE the fundamental nature of the game what happened is the gamers just said no and continued playing old battletech just as what happened with DND.

They are talking 5e and preparing you for the worst precisely because they have to do something or just give up. You are looking at millions of dollars they wanted that was just never realized. You are not nearly a large enough group to support a brand. 5e may never be made, they may just say ah to hell with it and go on their merry way. If it does get made it has to be far far closer to 3e then 4th. That is the bigger slice of the pie. The only way to even attempt that was to clean house and restock with a completely different set of designers. You can tell by who they are hiring precisely what they are intending to do it is just not what you want. The edition war is over just not everyone realizes it.

What you should really be trying to do is to identify those parts you consider essential from 4th and strongly advocate for them to be included in 5th. From what I can see the elements that are the most important are,
1) ease for the dm and new players.
2) balanced choices that allow no one to make a useless character or a hyper powerful character.
3) both combat and non combat roles for every character.
4) A combat system that is slow and forgiving and not at all like real life combat.

Jan 8, 2012 -- 1:45AM, skeindubh wrote:

[...]

Do you have any numerical support for your claims that the pro-4E group was the minority?

The community manager of one of the biggest F2P MMORPGs here in Germany (Runes of Magic) once stated that only about 10% of the whole playerbase read the forums, and only about 3% of the whole playerbase actively participated on the forums. How do you know that the same numbers don't apply in a similar way to 4E?

Actually, it could very well be that the 4E opponents are just a very vocal minority because most players don't give a thing about the whole edition discussion. Why should a player who is happy with 4E come to the forums and engage with people who in return call him an "idiot" or a "rollplayer" or any of the other creative and inappropriate terms the anti-4E crowd has come up with?

And sales numbers are also only a soft indicator, because you don't have to actively play something to buy the books. For example, I have lots of Earthdawn 3rd edition PDFs sleeping on my harddisk even though I don't currently play it, and I plan on extending my collection simply because I think Earthdawn is an awesome setting with an awesome system and I want to support the small company currently publishing it.

Jan 8, 2012 -- 1:45AM, skeindubh wrote:

What you should really be trying to do is to identify those parts you consider essential from 4th and strongly advocate for them to be included in 5th. From what I can see the elements that are the most important are,
1) ease for the dm and new players.
2) balanced choices that allow no one to make a useless character or a hyper powerful character.
3) both combat and non combat roles for every character.
4) A combat system that is slow and forgiving and not at all like real life combat.

Sounds a lot like 4E.

Q: Do you have any numerical support for your claims that the pro-4E group was the minority?

A: Ayup. Number of people fired who were in large part responsible for 4th edition and number of people hired who had nothing to do with it.

I refuse to start an edition war though, I just have no desire and have nothing at all against any edition. I largely do not care since when I roleplay it is most likely to be gurps, paranoia, or privateers and gentlemen anyway. I used to play 3.5 but when that campaign broke up any actual relevance faded for me. The guy who ran our 3.5 runs paranoia or privateers now( age of sail basically) . I run the gurps campaign. The guy who ran our battletech campaign got to old to do so.

I would welcome a new edition and might even try it out. If it is better for any of us then something else we will switch. The likelyhood of it being better then anything we are currently doing is just about zero, so it is basically not going to matter whatever they do unless they just wake up one day and produce something better then anything that has happened before. If it is medium good they may get the chance to sell me a few overpriced books to add the library. That is about it though.

Jan 8, 2012 -- 4:34AM, skeindubh wrote:

Q: Do you have any numerical support for your claims that the pro-4E group was the minority?

A: Ayup. Number of people fired who were in large part responsible for 4th edition and number of people hired who had nothing to do with it.

I seem to recall all sorts of nerdrage during 3.5 for mass holiday layoffs/purges.....sooooo......I'm not sure if you can point to that....

Jan 8, 2012 -- 3:22AM, Ra-Tiel wrote:

Do you have any numerical support for your claims that the pro-4E group was the minority?

Purely and utterly anecdotal, but it certainly feels to me that these official message boards for the D&D brand are a hollow reminder of what they once were.  The General Discussion board takes 2 or 3 days for threads to fall off the first page.  There simply does not feel like there is nearly the volume of discussion as there once was. 

What has happened to the discussion on the various campaign setting boards is sad, sad, sad.  While perhaps understandable that my beloved Greyhawk has effectively lost all discussion and should be just purged from the boards, Greyhawk was never a money maker for WotC in the first place.  However, what has happened to the mighty Forgotten Realms makes one wonder - it has been 2 days since anybody posted anything on Forgotten Realms General.  Likewise 2 days since anybody posted anything on either of the Eberron boards.

I am going purely by memory, but it certainly feels like the official D&D message boards are dieing.

Jan 8, 2012 -- 5:08AM, Ogiwan wrote:

Jan 8, 2012 -- 4:34AM, skeindubh wrote:

Q: Do you have any numerical support for your claims that the pro-4E group was the minority?

A: Ayup. Number of people fired who were in large part responsible for 4th edition and number of people hired who had nothing to do with it.

I seem to recall all sorts of nerdrage during 3.5 for mass holiday layoffs/purges.....sooooo......I'm not sure if you can point to that....

They had a couple, but were less regular until recent years and the 4e layoffs began.  

I’ve removed content from this thread because discussing illegal topics is a violation of the Code of Conduct.  You can review the Code of Conduct here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

************

Discussion of illegal activities is not appropriate here, because it could be misconstrued as promotion of that kind of activity, which is a violation of the Code of Conduct.  Please do not discuss copyright violation further.


************

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, on-topic, and refrain from personal attacks and flaming, these are violations of the Code of Conduct. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

************

Please return discussion to the topic of the thread, or it may need to be closed.

************

Jan 8, 2012 -- 1:45AM, skeindubh wrote:

I qualify as one of those groups who consider 4e in exactly the same way I consider rolemaster, palladium, or many other systems. Sure it might be a marginally playable game and sure many people might use it but it holds pretty much zero interest for me. This does not mean I am mad at anyone though. I lost nothing when it happened, nothing dissappeared(this is what so many of the 4e haters never understood).

I played dnd first back when it was still chainmail. That is the sum total of the brand recognition and the sum total of wotc's foot in the door to get me to buy any new system(I did btw buy several of the 4e books and our group even tried to play it a few times). I have a library going back 40 years and pretty much have a 100 choices of what to play not just one.

What I think you are in denial about is the percentages you are dealing with. The group that likes 4e is not the majority it is the minority. Most of the majority is never going to come here and post anything, they just have zero interest. The only reason I am here is i am bored and a magic player so frequent these boards anyway for a completely different purpose. Wotc DESPERATELY wants the majority back. They do not particularly want to lose the minority when they try and recapture them but the minority is the smaller slice and if you have to lose one that is the one to lose.

I think it is a lost cause. I think they lost the brand by what they did with 4e and will never get it back. It is not unique. I for instance play battletech as well. When mageknight bought battletech and tried to coopt and CHANGE the fundamental nature of the game what happened is the gamers just said no and continued playing old battletech just as what happened with DND.

They are talking 5e and preparing you for the worst precisely because they have to do something or just give up. You are looking at millions of dollars they wanted that was just never realized. You are not nearly a large enough group to support a brand. 5e may never be made, they may just say ah to hell with it and go on their merry way. If it does get made it has to be far far closer to 3e then 4th. That is the bigger slice of the pie. The only way to even attempt that was to clean house and restock with a completely different set of designers. You can tell by who they are hiring precisely what they are intending to do it is just not what you want. The edition war is over just not everyone realizes it.

What you should really be trying to do is to identify those parts you consider essential from 4th and strongly advocate for them to be included in 5th. From what I can see the elements that are the most important are,
1) ease for the dm and new players.
2) balanced choices that allow no one to make a useless character or a hyper powerful character.
3) both combat and non combat roles for every character.
4) A combat system that is slow and forgiving and not at all like real life combat.

I think the problem with this line of thinking is EVERYONE simply assumes that whatever they like is what the majority of people want. That's just not going to cut it. I can argue at least as coherently and convincingly that the majority of people are perfectly happy to play 4e and marshal a pretty convincing argument. So what? The issue is being missed here. The whole potential base of D&D players is a pretty small group of people in the grand scheme of things. EVERY edition is going to divide that group into smaller groups that prefer one variation of the game over another. Making 5e isn't going to FIX anything, it is just going to create yet another reason for people to divide their attention between even more variations of the same product. No amount of game design is going to change that.

There's no 'bigger slice of the pie' that wants 3e vs 4e either. The truth is that most of the people that play D&D pretty much don't care that much. Maybe they have a slight preference one way or the other, but only the people that haunt boards and sit around stewing about this or that ruleset really care, and that's a fairly small percentage. In fact I'd venture to guess that the majority of people that own PF also own 4e and play in 4e games, and vice versa. Most of the people that own one or two books of some system just bought whatever it was that happened to be around or that other people happened to be playing when they were shopping that month.

In other words there's simply no upside to making new editions of the game from the standpoint of 'unifying' anyone. It could be a good idea to make a new edition simply to sell more core books at some point, but that needs to be balanced against the fact that with each such version roll more people just stop buying new stuff. It is the whole model of thrashing through new iterations of core books that is broken, and it cannot be fixed with more core books.

Take your list of points you think people would want for 5e. What does that list offer me? I have that list of things already. There's no point to me buying more of the same.

Again, what really creates mind share and gets people to play is GOOD CONTENT, and that happens by continuing to produce content that is all compatible. mbeacon seems to think that any old story or old source book is as good as something actually written for the rules you're playing with. I disagree. It is certainly true that you can get STORY IDEAS from anywhere. Those ideas still have to be realized into a form that can be used. It is still a lot easier to construct adventures when you already have a large library of existing game elements that you don't have to rewrite. I am pretty clever, but I still don't think my making my own monsters, curses, traps, diseases, items, rituals, etc is as good as having that stuff in a book where I can pull it out and assemble it all into a whole. It is, for many people, far better to have an adventure that is written and works with the rules you have. For example the A1-4 module series was a fun adventure. I'm not going to run it in 4e without a LOT of work. Not everyone will do that work. There's a LONG LONG list of other things like that which could be supported under 4e, but aren't. Why waste time making '5e' when you have this vast untapped reservoir of stuff that can be mined and made to work with the existing version of the game? It makes no sense. There's simply no upside.

WotC says each adventure doesn't sell well enough to bother with, but this is short-sighted and THAT is the problem with 4e more than anything else. Sure, it is relatively well supported, but it is very thin in terms of good adventures. We have a lot of 'mini-adventures' basically from Dungeon, and a few mostly rather lackluster modules that obviously not a lot of time was spent on. They sure weren't the priority. You have to really push your system and provide top-notch content for it. If there's anything that can be learned from PF THAT is the lesson, not "everyone just likes 3.5 better". The whole '5e quest for unity' is tilting at windmills. It is solving the WRONG PROBLEM.

Jan 8, 2012 -- 10:06AM, AbdulAlhazred wrote:

[...]

Interesting points, but there's one issue I have with your suggestion. If WotC wants to sell adventures, they need to sell good adventures that have an interesting and believable plot with a great encounter design.

Yeah, I'm looking at the Scales of War adventure path which was non of that (at least not up to Beyond the Mottled Tower). All too often the plot was outright boring or made little sense from what the players knew, and the encounter design was outright terrible. Either the monster composition made little sense or some feature was completely out of whack - e.g. lava that deals 10d10 fire + ongoing 15 fire (save ends) if you fall into it in an adventure for level 12 characters. Or encounters that are separated by nothing but 3 empty squares, and a PC that accidentally walks a little too far would stumble into the next group of monsters (completely disregarding the fact, that all monsters - even intelligent ones - just ignore the sounds of their buddies being slaughtered in the next room...).

Stuff like this must not happen in pay-for-play adventures. The typical adventures I've seen so far in Dungeon only know combat encounters or forced skill challenges as the solution to a specific problem; I've yet to see a well designed adventure that provides XP for circumventing and avoiding combat (btw, I'm glad for any hints in this regard ). A well designed adventure path or series of adventures could work well for both print and DDI. But to make that happen WotC would imho need to increase the quality of their adventures.

The portion of the RPG market that was occupied by 3.5E (but not 4E) is STILL occupied by 3.5E... and Pathfinder... and AD&D... and a dozen or so other game systems from various companies. It is probably the most richly provided-for part of the market.

Is diving into the sardine-can really a good choice for WotC? 

And I cannot tell you sales stats, but I can tell you that the big-box bookstores continue to stock several copies of many different 4E D&D books along with a few 4E D&D packaged adventures - and maybe one or two copies of one Pathfinder book, but frequently not. These bookstores are entirely willing eager to take non-selling books off the shelf in order to make room for other books, either known sellers or new books that they think might sell. Yet the 4E D&D books still get prime shelf space.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that 4E is a minority of the RPG world. Slightly less willing to believe it's a minority of the RPG *market*, because there are a lot of people in the RPG world who have accumulated so much material, they have pretty much stopped buying more - they are no longer part of the market.

It's the market, not the world, that WotC cares about. There's a portion of the market that they appear to have a pretty decent grip on via 4E. Abandoning what makes 4E different from dozens of somewhat-similar competitors, copying those competitors in order to try to grab the apparently-smaller market those competitors share, does not look like a good strategy to me.

That does not mean 4E is perfect. There's plenty wrong with it. I'm mildly sympathetic to the notion that a high-level character has too many powers. The rules for "pets" are a mess, or maybe several messes. Too many out-of-turn action types with too many very-subtle differences. Some new classes (BA-spammers) and races (particularly Pixie) break what were previously fundamental assumptions, and the consequences are not all well dealt with. Quality of material has been extremely variable, particularly the post Essentials stuff which also has a pretty poor average. And on and on.

But improvement should be movement forward to what might be better, not backward to what was abandoned for good reason.

Jan 8, 2012 -- 1:45AM, skeindubh wrote:

I played dnd first back when it was still chainmail. That is the sum total of the brand recognition and the sum total of wotc's foot in the door to get me to buy any new system(I did btw buy several of the 4e books and our group even tried to play it a few times). I have a library going back 40 years and pretty much have a 100 choices of what to play not just one.

What you should really be trying to do is to identify those parts you consider essential from 4th and strongly advocate for them to be included in 5th. From what I can see the elements that are the most important are,
1) ease for the dm and new players.
2) balanced choices that allow no one to make a useless character or a hyper powerful character.
3) both combat and non combat roles for every character.
4) A combat system that is slow and forgiving and not at all like real life combat.

I have played since the beginning as well.   I completely agree with the list you wrote for what 5e must have.

Jan 8, 2012 -- 1:45AM, skeindubh wrote:

I qualify as one of those groups who consider 4e in exactly the same way I consider rolemaster, palladium, or many other systems. Sure it might be a marginally playable game and sure many people might use it but it holds pretty much zero interest for me. This does not mean I am mad at anyone though. I lost nothing when it happened, nothing dissappeared(this is what so many of the 4e haters never understood).

I think it is a lost cause. I think they lost the brand by what they did with 4e and will never get it back.

I completely disagree with this part.   Many years ago, I tried various gaming systems, even worked for a game distributor.   I will never play any form of D&D that does not say D&D on the box.    For one thing, I have a sense of loyalty to the company that makes the game I enjoy, and I would be sad to see that company go away, regardless of the existence of "very similar to D&D" competitors.

I have trunks full of games and a bookshelf full of published adventures, books, etc.   Sometimes my group will play a non D&D game, but if we want to play a game like that, there is and always will be only one choice.

As far as versions go, no previous version comes close to proper balance and fun-for-everyone design like 4e.    This is from a guy who played v1 and v2 for decades; neither I, nor any of my players, will never go back to those versions.

Edit:  Add everything AbdulAlhazred said above.  That post was spot on.   As much as I love D&D and it's creators, I've no desire to see 5e, ever.   I'd much prefer to see 4e improved upon, source material added.   A book or 5 of short encounters I can drop in, more magic items, that sort of stuff.

Jan 8, 2012 -- 10:59AM, Ra-Tiel wrote:

Jan 8, 2012 -- 10:06AM, AbdulAlhazred wrote:

[...]

Interesting points, but there's one issue I have with your suggestion. If WotC wants to sell adventures, they need to sell good adventures that have an interesting and believable plot with a great encounter design.

Yeah, I'm looking at the Scales of War adventure path which was non of that (at least not up to Beyond the Mottled Tower). All too often the plot was outright boring or made little sense from what the players knew, and the encounter design was outright terrible. Either the monster composition made little sense or some feature was completely out of whack - e.g. lava that deals 10d10 fire + ongoing 15 fire (save ends) if you fall into it in an adventure for level 12 characters. Or encounters that are separated by nothing but 3 empty squares, and a PC that accidentally walks a little too far would stumble into the next group of monsters (completely disregarding the fact, that all monsters - even intelligent ones - just ignore the sounds of their buddies being slaughtered in the next room...).

Stuff like this must not happen in pay-for-play adventures. The typical adventures I've seen so far in Dungeon only know combat encounters or forced skill challenges as the solution to a specific problem; I've yet to see a well designed adventure that provides XP for circumventing and avoiding combat (btw, I'm glad for any hints in this regard ). A well designed adventure path or series of adventures could work well for both print and DDI. But to make that happen WotC would imho need to increase the quality of their adventures.

Oh, I'm not saying at all that WotC needs to just keep pumping out what is currently in Dungeon. I think in all fairness if you look at it objectively there are some pretty decent adventures in there. In fact I'd say there's a pretty good fraction of adventures that are either good, or can be used as the basis of a good adventure. I've stolen elements from a few of them, and run one or two almost straight up. They worked OK. On the whole though the writing on adventures is hit-or-miss and it is hard to find which ones are worth bothering with. The published modules were mostly pretty blah, though again there were some areas where the HPE series did OK. I think also part of the problem is adventures today get compared with the very best of the last 30 years, seen through rose-colored glasses to boot. Honestly, people talk about say G1 and its a 'classic' and blah, blah, blah. Its a straight through railroad hack-n-slash. It has some fun encounters and if you play it fast and loose enough to allow some RP it isn't bad, but if WotC had dropped it out yesterday as a brand new module it would be getting dissed. Chris Perkin's conversion HEAVILY modified the thing, and his version is a pretty decent module. Still, even that would probably not be called a 'classic' today. It rides a lot on the coat tails of the original, which itself is admired more IMHO through a rather distorted lens.

Anyway, think about this. The same people that are writing adventures for PF are writing adventures for 4e. MANY, if not most, of the PF people are ex-WotC people or at least people that wrote heavily for them in the past (and often still do). There's no lack of talent at WotC. There is only a lack of focus on that area as being important. If you're only going to put a fraction of your editorial and design talent onto adventures, and you're going to pretty much restrict yourself to what can fit in an issue of Dungeon, then you're not going to get the best results. I also think it has taken a while for writers to really grok the best way to make a 4e adventure. It took me time, it takes them time too, and many of them only do 4e stuff part of their time, so I suspect only now (judging by improving quality) are writers fully mastering the new system. Another reason it is a shame to make radical system changes. It puts everyone back to the bottom of the curve. Meanwhile Paizo can spend 95% of its energy on adventures and has a system that everyone had 8 years to learn inside and out. They clearly put more into writing them, but so can WotC.

@Warrl I agree. I mean I'm not of the camp that 4e is somehow perfect either. I think it is just time to go ahead and USE it full out no-holds-barred vs tinkering with stuff constantly. I'm not against WotC updating and tweaking some things. I think that is always inevitable and useful at times. Maybe they can for instance write a book on ritual magic that updates it and makes it more fun for people that don't like it. MME already did that for items, MM3/MV/MVTtNV did it for monsters, etc. In a way Essentials did it for classes. I haven't seen BoVD but it sounds like it adds/updates certain things too. While the 'core' of 4e is also not perfect it is still darn good. Even if there is a good argument to do somewhat 'deeper' updates, you can do most of that just with changes to classes and whatnot. You don't need a new system to have classes with fewer powers for instance. It might change some assumptions of the game enough to not be totally compatible with all existing material (IE you might not play such classes alongside the existing ones) you could certainly do it. That would be verging into 'more than really strictly necessary' but a gradual incremental set of improvements like that would at least not invalidate all compatibility with existing stuff, and not suck up all the developer bandwidth.

Question:
Should a theoretical 5e change any of the core mechanics of the game? 

As I mentioned earlier, if you strip away the classes and monsters, very little has changed between 3e and 4e. Skills are simplified for optimization and instead of class-based bonuses you add half your level. But the underling mechanics (1d20+modifiers vs. DC) have been the same since 3e launched, if not earlier (see SAGA edition).  

Could the core mechanic be changed? Should it be changed? Isn't sticking with the same base mechanic  for three editions too much? 

Jan 8, 2012 -- 1:42PM, The_Jester wrote:

Question:
Should a theoretical 5e change any of the core mechanics of the game? 

As I mentioned earlier, if you strip away the classes and monsters, very little has changed between 3e and 4e. Skills are simplified for optimization and instead of class-based bonuses you add half your level. But the underling mechanics (1d20+modifiers vs. DC) have been the same since 3e launched, if not earlier (see SAGA edition).  

Could the core mechanic be changed? Should it be changed? Isn't sticking with the same base mechanic  for three editions too much? 

If you're going to change the core mechanic, you need to change it for good reason. I can't think of one. Come up with a good reason to change it and maybe you'll have something.

Could the core mechanic be changed? Should it be changed?

Will the alternative be better? Answer to all three questions is basically the same. 

Jan 8, 2012 -- 1:45PM, Pluisjen wrote:

Could the core mechanic be changed? Should it be changed?

Will the alternative be better? Answer to all three questions is basically the same. 

You dodged the question.  It was could/should the core mechanic be changed (i.e. by professionals).  Turning it back on Jester to come up the 'what that mechanic is' only gives you a target to shoot at in this thread -- but I guess you need to just type something sometimes to keep your average number of posts north of 20 per day. 


Personally I am up for letting WotC have their designers unleash some of that creativity and let the game evolve (if/when 5E comes out).

Jan 8, 2012 -- 1:44PM, thecasualoblivion wrote:

Jan 8, 2012 -- 1:42PM, The_Jester wrote:

Question:
Should a theoretical 5e change any of the core mechanics of the game? 

As I mentioned earlier, if you strip away the classes and monsters, very little has changed between 3e and 4e. Skills are simplified for optimization and instead of class-based bonuses you add half your level. But the underling mechanics (1d20+modifiers vs. DC) have been the same since 3e launched, if not earlier (see SAGA edition).  

Could the core mechanic be changed? Should it be changed? Isn't sticking with the same base mechanic  for three editions too much? 

If you're going to change the core mechanic, you need to change it for good reason. I can't think of one. Come up with a good reason to change it and maybe you'll have something.

3-4e only has three times of result from a die roll: failure, success, or critical success. And the last only really applies to combat rolls. There's no range of success, no "botch" mechanic. Likewise, missing is frequent, which is odd for super-heroic characters. 

What if the d20 didn't typically determin success but determined the range of success? Lower DCs with higher results being more positive.
And the problem with the modifier system always comes down to the crazy number of modifiers. Ability score plus item plus power plus feat plus situational modifier with the DC equally being affected. Dumping some of the bonuses and instead rolling multiople d20s (greatly simplifying the math) might speed-up play.

Or dumping DCs all together. Given the static power level of PCs, you always need about the same number on the die to hit. All the math is based around maintaining that number. It's much easier to dump both the modifiers and the variant DCs and have a single static number to be exceeded. Assume that if you're trying something, you should have reasonable odds. If the odds should be lower, you just can't do it or the action would be ineffective even if you did succeed. 
So everything becomes like a saving throw: roll and on a 10+ you succeed. Super quick.  

Jan 8, 2012 -- 1:42PM, The_Jester wrote:

Question:
Should a theoretical 5e change any of the core mechanics of the game? 

As I mentioned earlier, if you strip away the classes and monsters, very little has changed between 3e and 4e. Skills are simplified for optimization and instead of class-based bonuses you add half your level. But the underling mechanics (1d20+modifiers vs. DC) have been the same since 3e launched, if not earlier (see SAGA edition).  

Could the core mechanic be changed? Should it be changed? Isn't sticking with the same base mechanic  for three editions too much? 

I'd have to say this is the part where the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" part of progression comes into play.  The core mechanic works fine, it's very much identifiable to the system (d20=D&D), and much of the math could moved around and played with to modify the basic assumptions of the system.

i have to agree with pluisjen though. changing mechanics just for sake of changing it is just as bad as keeping a mechanic for legacy reasons.

does the change fit with the vision of the new edition? yes or no?

there is no real way to say if a mechanic should be changed without knowing the intent of change itself and how it fits in the big picture. 

Jan 8, 2012 -- 2:00PM, SkyNet2.0 wrote:

Jan 8, 2012 -- 1:45PM, Pluisjen wrote:

Could the core mechanic be changed? Should it be changed?

Will the alternative be better? Answer to all three questions is basically the same. 

You dodged the question.  It was could/should the core mechanic be changed (i.e. by professionals).  Turning it back on Jester to come up the 'what that mechanic is' only gives you a target to shoot at in this thread -- but I guess you need to just type something sometimes to keep your average number of posts north of 20 per day. 


Personally I am up for letting WotC have their designers unleash some of that creativity and let the game evolve (if/when 5E comes out).

It wasn't dodging the question, because my third question wasn't aimed at Jester. My stance, quite simply put, is that they should change everything and anything if they feel that the result is a better game.

Including the core mechanics. Sacred cows exist to be slaughtered. I thought it would be obvious from the post, but I guess I need to spell it out.

But thanks for the insults, much appreciated  

Jan 8, 2012 -- 2:22PM, Pluisjen wrote:

But thanks for the insults, much appreciated  

Two wrongs don't dude, two wrongs...

But it did come off as a tad evasive. Thank you for clarifying your intent.  

Jan 8, 2012 -- 2:22PM, Pluisjen wrote:

Sacred cows exist to be slaughtered.

Mmm. For delicious, delicious sacred hamburger.

....wait, is that why I love Eberron and 4e? They turned a lot of (pointless) sacred cows into tasty, tasty progress?

Jan 8, 2012 -- 5:07PM, Ogiwan wrote:

Jan 8, 2012 -- 2:22PM, Pluisjen wrote:

Sacred cows exist to be slaughtered.

Mmm. For delicious, delicious sacred hamburger.

....wait, is that why I love Eberron and 4e? They turned a lot of (pointless) sacred cows into tasty, tasty progress?

The old french saying - you can not make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

Jan 8, 2012 -- 5:07PM, Ogiwan wrote:

Jan 8, 2012 -- 2:22PM, Pluisjen wrote:

Sacred cows exist to be slaughtered.

Mmm. For delicious, delicious sacred hamburger.

....wait, is that why I love Eberron and 4e? They turned a lot of (pointless) sacred cows into tasty, tasty progress?

Indeed.

D&D Playerz can has sacred cheezburger.

Jan 8, 2012 -- 7:37PM, Salla wrote:

Indeed.

D&D Playerz can has sacred cheezburger.

You, sir, have won this thread.

... I guess we know the state of 4e after this morning. Popular on this forum, less poplar everywhere else... 

Heh. I gave exact numbers showing that 4th edition had less then 5% of the market share of just the DND brand and less then 1% of the total RPG market.

I was really rather irritated that they removed it and the 10 people who quoted it. OTH now I am just sitting here chuckling at the people who went out of their way to get my post removed only to get something like this one day later.

Fate and or Karma can really be just very very funny sometimes. Lord may my words be tender and juicy today, for tomorrow I may have to eat them

Here's my favorite quote from the article:

"People have no time for bullshit," he said.

Jan 9, 2012 -- 7:05AM, The_Jester wrote:

... I guess we know the state of 4e after this morning. Popular on this forum, less poplar everywhere else... 

D&D IS DEAD......LONG LIVE D&D!


@Skeindubh,
After reading the terms of use for the forums, they were quite correct to remove those posts. I feel bad about quoting them, but your evidence probably had some merit, even though it should not have been posted. The rules are the rules and they're honestly not unreasonable.

Jan 8, 2012 -- 1:42PM, The_Jester wrote:

Question:
Should a theoretical 5e change any of the core mechanics of the game? 

Depends what you mean by "core mechanics". If you mean "1d20 plus bonuses and modifiers, versus a target", I think that works pretty well. The proposal to replace the 1d20 with 3d6, in my opinion, over-emphasizes the middle and makes +1 to hit or on a defense vastly more important for anyone who is average or better in that stat - which should include most PCs; while making it less important to anyone who is below average (so if you aren't beefing a defense at all, you aren't hurt much by dumping it lower). I dislike both of those changes. 

Whether there should be a half-level bonus, or a level bonus, or some other bonus in place of that, or nothing in that space... hmm, more complex question that interacts with other aspects of game math. It cannot be answered in isolation.

Specific things I really want to see changed, in no particular order:

• Primarily non-combat stuff should not compete with combat stuff for character-building resources.
• Unify the "pet" rules, including mount rules and purchased-animal rules. It's possible for a Paragon player (and the DM) to be juggling nine sets of "pet" rules simultaneously - before looking at the specifics of the individual "pets".
• Adjustment to the point-buy system to encourage more diverse attribute arrays - and corresponding adjustments to monster defences etc. to match the consequences.
• Reduced bonus-stacking. Untyped bonuses should be unusual if not rare, and not focused on one action.
• Multiclassing is too expensive and PMC offers too little. Make multiclassing a little more versatile (but not like 3E's different-class-every-level-with-full-class-features approach).
• Hybrid half-classes are too isolated. I understand we don't want certain class features to stack with certain other class features, but there should be some way to get those features on out-of-class and non-class powers.
• A version of every weapon for every size of PC. Most absurd case in 4E: there are three entire nations on Khorvaire populated primarily by Small characters, but nobody has managed to invent the not-quite-that-long stick (Small Quarterstaff).
• More encouragement for improvised actions and situational substitutions. (The Fighter who just practically cut a kobold's arm off should be at least as capable of Intimidating that creature as is the Bard who's on the other side of the room waving a twig.)

Jan 9, 2012 -- 2:09PM, warrl wrote:

  (The Fighter who just practically cut a kobold's arm off should be at least as capable of Intimidating that creature as is the Bard who's on the other side of the room waving a twig.)

Charisma for Intimidation has always been a bit awkward.  I have long house-ruled that another ability score could be used instead of Charisma whenever appropriate - which typically ends up being Strength, but could also be Intelligence for a Wizard showing off some flashy spells or whatnot. 

Jan 9, 2012 -- 2:56PM, OleOneEye wrote:

Jan 9, 2012 -- 2:09PM, warrl wrote:

  (The Fighter who just practically cut a kobold's arm off should be at least as capable of Intimidating that creature as is the Bard who's on the other side of the room waving a twig.)

Charisma for Intimidation has always been a bit awkward.  I have long house-ruled that another ability score could be used instead of Charisma whenever appropriate - which typically ends up being Strength, but could also be Intelligence for a Wizard showing off some flashy spells or whatnot. 

Nah, Charisma for intimidation is perfect. I use professional wrestling as a good example. Most of the actor/athletes there have a high strength but you put a mike in their hand and they sound like buffoons. Especially for the heels, they have a manager with some charisma to talk for them so they can just glare at the crowd. If strength were the true measure of intimidation in D&D the characters would be cringing and crying almost non-stop as most monsters tend to be as strong or stronger than pc's without magic items to even the odds. Why would a fighter charge an ogre, a giant or a dragon if intimidation was based off of strength?

Because heros arent affected by intimidation (unless they want to be).... that is for minions and npcs.

Jan 31, 2012 -- 10:54AM, Garthanos wrote:

Because heros arent affected by intimidation (unless they want to be).... that is for minions and npcs.

Sorry Garthanos but I have to disagree with you there. The only PC class that should be immune to fear is Paladin because your deity absolves you of fear since  you are a champion of your faith.  If PC's can easily affect monsters with Strength for intimidate than PC's should be affected by crazy displays of strength as well. A human fighter waving a sword at a Titan would be just as laughable to the titan as a small child waving a sword at a fighter. In the D&D world strength alone does not make you the most fearsome person in the world just as it does not in real life. Charisma does. The most dangerous people in the world are not the strongest, they are the most charismatic for they can sway people. Think of Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Julius Caesar & Alexander the Great, etc. Sauron from Lord of the Rings had a very entrancing voice as did Sauruman. Conan & Heracles also had high Charisma.


Besides if heroes are not affected by intimidate then how do you explain dragonfear or the despair effect of mummies?  

Jan 31, 2012 -- 3:16PM, DLfan wrote:

Besides if heroes are not affected by intimidate then how do you explain dragonfear or the despair effect of mummies?  

Specific fear abilities are narrow and focused those can affect a hero and to me the  important part is its generally "a very temporary overcomeable thing" ...  heros over come fear.
 

Feb 1, 2012 -- 8:59AM, Garthanos wrote:

Jan 31, 2012 -- 3:16PM, DLfan wrote:

Besides if heroes are not affected by intimidate then how do you explain dragonfear or the despair effect of mummies?  

Specific fear abilities are narrow and focused those can affect a hero and to me the  important part is its generally "a very temporary overcomeable thing" ...  heros over come fear.
 

True but the game system is supposed to be set up where the rules make sense in as many situations as possible. How does it make sense that you intimidate a kobold with your 18 strength but a titan does not intimidate you with its 40 strength? Having a high charisma is so much more rare and makes more sense. Most adventurers are seasoned veterans that have fought many battles against stronger opponents. I look at your picture and see a seasoned warrior. I do not imagine you cowering from some big brute because it has a high strength score. Charisma is the "it" factor that draws people in or makes them nervous. It is the reason the quarterback is the leader of the football team and not an offensive lineman. The lineman is certainly stronger but he does not control the locker room with his presence the way a QB does.

DLFan you seem to operate on the assumption that the same rules for intimidate that apply to NPCs (as acted upon by PCs) should work vice versa - I just don't see that as defensible. I understand your position that PCs should not be immune to fear, but it (PCs being afraid) should be manifest in ways that are tailored to powers rather than ability scores for pretty obvious reasons.

Also, I feel there's a case to be made for intimidate to be keyed off of strength without a feat investment. Feats, while being more proliferate in 4e than was the case in 3.X are still extremely valuable, too valuable to be used to change the mechanics of a skill that, in my experience is little used. The trope of a large, brawny, scrappy or otherwise violent looking individual scaring the living piss out of his opponents should probably be accomodated within the rules without putting the onus on the player to invest in something he should be able to do anyways. It doesn't take any training to scare the crap out of a person when you're 6'6" and 320 lbs.

Jan 31, 2012 -- 3:16PM, DLfan wrote:

Jan 31, 2012 -- 10:54AM, Garthanos wrote:

Because heros arent affected by intimidation (unless they want to be).... that is for minions and npcs.

Sorry Garthanos but I have to disagree with you there. The only PC class that should be immune to fear is Paladin because your deity absolves you of fear since  you are a champion of your faith...

...Think of Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Julius Caesar & Alexander the Great, etc. Sauron from Lord of the Rings had a very entrancing voice as did Sauruman. Conan & Heracles also had high Charisma.

wait, how did this turn into that.

No idea.

As per the DM telling his/her players when they are afraid, I'm going to cite the (wonderful) DM of the Rings:

www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1... 

Feb 15, 2012 -- 11:09PM, OgreBattle wrote:

Jan 31, 2012 -- 3:16PM, DLfan wrote:

Jan 31, 2012 -- 10:54AM, Garthanos wrote:

Because heros arent affected by intimidation (unless they want to be).... that is for minions and npcs.

Sorry Garthanos but I have to disagree with you there. The only PC class that should be immune to fear is Paladin because your deity absolves you of fear since  you are a champion of your faith...

...Think of Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Julius Caesar & Alexander the Great, etc. Sauron from Lord of the Rings had a very entrancing voice as did Sauruman. Conan & Heracles also had high Charisma.

wait, how did this turn into that.

We done got Godwinned!

Feb 16, 2012 -- 2:14PM, Ogiwan wrote:

No idea.

As per the DM telling his/her players when they are afraid, I'm going to cite the (wonderful) DM of the Rings:

www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1... 

With attacks that specifically target Will defense, mainly charm and fear powers and effects, I'd say the DM is well in their rights to tell the player that they have been mechanically effected by something that induces fear (or being charmed), just as much as a player has the right to charm, terrorize or dominate monsters; this goes the same way as fighters and wizards both being able to "push pull or slide" dragons, they can do it because the mechnics say they can.  It's up to the players or the DM to figure out how that plays in the mind and world of the character. 

However, trying to instruct a group of people that are in the midst of roleplaying that they feel a certain way is just silly, as the comic you posted shows. 

Feb 15, 2012 -- 8:59PM, Deityrising wrote:

DLFan you seem to operate on the assumption that the same rules for intimidate that apply to NPCs (as acted upon by PCs) should work vice versa - I just don't see that as defensible. I understand your position that PCs should not be immune to fear, but it (PCs being afraid) should be manifest in ways that are tailored to powers rather than ability scores for pretty obvious reasons.

Also, I feel there's a case to be made for intimidate to be keyed off of strength without a feat investment. Feats, while being more proliferate in 4e than was the case in 3.X are still extremely valuable, too valuable to be used to change the mechanics of a skill that, in my experience is little used. The trope of a large, brawny, scrappy or otherwise violent looking individual scaring the living piss out of his opponents should probably be accomodated within the rules without putting the onus on the player to invest in something he should be able to do anyways. It doesn't take any training to scare the crap out of a person when you're 6'6" and 320 lbs.

Why would the rules for intimidate not apply to PC's the same way they do npc's? Other game aspects work the same way. AC vs to hit rolls, defenses, saves, etc.  IF you can intimidate a kobold with your 18 strength you should be very intimidated when that giant with a 30 strength takes a stroll through your backyard.


Point #2, No a 6' 6" 320 lb dude is not very likely to scare another dude who is about the same height and weight in a physical aspect. That is a function of charisma. That is why intimdate dc's are set low for commoners and other low hit die opponents. Intimidating a desk clerk is very easy. Intimidating a fire breathing dragon should be very difficult if not impossible.   

Feb 16, 2012 -- 7:42PM, DLfan wrote:

Feb 15, 2012 -- 8:59PM, Deityrising wrote:

DLFan you seem to operate on the assumption that the same rules for intimidate that apply to NPCs (as acted upon by PCs) should work vice versa - I just don't see that as defensible. I understand your position that PCs should not be immune to fear, but it (PCs being afraid) should be manifest in ways that are tailored to powers rather than ability scores for pretty obvious reasons.

Also, I feel there's a case to be made for intimidate to be keyed off of strength without a feat investment. Feats, while being more proliferate in 4e than was the case in 3.X are still extremely valuable, too valuable to be used to change the mechanics of a skill that, in my experience is little used. The trope of a large, brawny, scrappy or otherwise violent looking individual scaring the living piss out of his opponents should probably be accomodated within the rules without putting the onus on the player to invest in something he should be able to do anyways. It doesn't take any training to scare the crap out of a person when you're 6'6" and 320 lbs.

Why would the rules for intimidate not apply to PC's the same way they do npc's? Other game aspects work the same way. AC vs to hit rolls, defenses, saves, etc.  IF you can intimidate a kobold with your 18 strength you should be very intimidated when that giant with a 30 strength takes a stroll through your backyard.

Because NPCs and PCs occupy entirely different design space.  They do not (and should not) use the same rules.

Furthermore the description of the Intimidate skill makes it clear that adventurers are the ones who use it, and the target number is a monster's will.  Every use of the skill specifies 'monster'.  Not 'character' or 'target', 'monster'.

PCs are supposed to have as close to total control over the actions, reactions, and roleplaying of their character as possible.  That's why you don't use social skills in PC-to-PC interactions, either.

Feb 15, 2012 -- 11:09PM, OgreBattle wrote:

Jan 31, 2012 -- 3:16PM, DLfan wrote:

Jan 31, 2012 -- 10:54AM, Garthanos wrote:

Because heros arent affected by intimidation (unless they want to be).... that is for minions and npcs.

Sorry Garthanos but I have to disagree with you there. The only PC class that should be immune to fear is Paladin because your deity absolves you of fear since  you are a champion of your faith...

...Think of Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Julius Caesar & Alexander the Great, etc. Sauron from Lord of the Rings had a very entrancing voice as did Sauruman. Conan & Heracles also had high Charisma.

wait, how did this turn into that.

It got turned into that because the most dangerous and intimidating men were not always the strongest. Far from it. Charisma is what sets the truly dangerous apart from the pack.  It is the "it" factor. PC's and monsters deal with strength all the time. A dragon or giant being scared of a warrior with a high strength is not really all that credible. It is the warriors confidence, poise and grit that might give them pause. Not a strenght score far inferior to their own.


I just don't see how I could face down beholders, undead, demons, dragons and giants unafraid but I see some 6'5 muscle bound oaf with a huge sword sitting across from me in a bar. He glares at me and I am supposed to be intimidated? Not a chance in the Nine Hells. I would calmly remove his head from his shoulders with a swipe of my broadsword because I faced far worse than him. He wouldn't be worth a second thought as I aplogized for the mess , a la Han Solo and calmy strode from the inn looking for a real adventure.   

Feb 16, 2012 -- 7:50PM, Salla wrote:

Feb 16, 2012 -- 7:42PM, DLfan wrote:

Feb 15, 2012 -- 8:59PM, Deityrising wrote:

DLFan you seem to operate on the assumption that the same rules for intimidate that apply to NPCs (as acted upon by PCs) should work vice versa - I just don't see that as defensible. I understand your position that PCs should not be immune to fear, but it (PCs being afraid) should be manifest in ways that are tailored to powers rather than ability scores for pretty obvious reasons.

Also, I feel there's a case to be made for intimidate to be keyed off of strength without a feat investment. Feats, while being more proliferate in 4e than was the case in 3.X are still extremely valuable, too valuable to be used to change the mechanics of a skill that, in my experience is little used. The trope of a large, brawny, scrappy or otherwise violent looking individual scaring the living piss out of his opponents should probably be accomodated within the rules without putting the onus on the player to invest in something he should be able to do anyways. It doesn't take any training to scare the crap out of a person when you're 6'6" and 320 lbs.

Why would the rules for intimidate not apply to PC's the same way they do npc's? Other game aspects work the same way. AC vs to hit rolls, defenses, saves, etc.  IF you can intimidate a kobold with your 18 strength you should be very intimidated when that giant with a 30 strength takes a stroll through your backyard.

Because NPCs and PCs occupy entirely different design space.  They do not (and should not) use the same rules.

Furthermore the description of the Intimidate skill makes it clear that adventurers are the ones who use it, and the target number is a monster's will.  Every use of the skill specifies 'monster'.  Not 'character' or 'target', 'monster'.

PCs are supposed to have as close to total control over the actions, reactions, and roleplaying of their character as possible.  That's why you don't use social skills in PC-to-PC interactions, either.

And that is a huge failure of the game. I am supposed to accept that physical attributes mean everything and mental attributes mean nothing? It is ok that you punch my character with your huge strength but I can't bluff my way past you with some solid role-playing? Um...ok.  The rule also says it is charisma based so if you want to be technical there it is.


Game design does work in the same space as often as possible through simple mechanics. Combat works the same for pcs as npcs. Whether combat is physical or mystical makes no difference. If you want to put intimidate in the game then you should have to role-play the consequences of you being intimidated. If you can't then you should have to either buy up solid will defenses , i.e put points into your wisdom score, take feats that impove your will defense, etc. It is no different than you needing good armor to survive the combat portions of a game.      

At least as far as 3e is concerned, Diplomacy did nothing to PCs because it was specifically tailored to alter NPC 'attitudes.' The Intimidate skill could be used to demoralize PCs in combat, but the non-combat usage again specifically alters NPC attitudes.

I think generally the same sort of reason is why those skills don't work on PCs in 4e; it's assumed that a PC can roll a skill check to alter how an NPC acts, but good luck with having a DM roll a skill check to alter how a PC acts. Also, there's probably a good chance using the "surrender" part of the Intimidate skill on a PC may cause real-world violence.

Feb 16, 2012 -- 8:11PM, DLfan wrote:

Feb 16, 2012 -- 7:50PM, Salla wrote:

Feb 16, 2012 -- 7:42PM, DLfan wrote:

Feb 15, 2012 -- 8:59PM, Deityrising wrote:

DLFan you seem to operate on the assumption that the same rules for intimidate that apply to NPCs (as acted upon by PCs) should work vice versa - I just don't see that as defensible. I understand your position that PCs should not be immune to fear, but it (PCs being afraid) should be manifest in ways that are tailored to powers rather than ability scores for pretty obvious reasons.

Also, I feel there's a case to be made for intimidate to be keyed off of strength without a feat investment. Feats, while being more proliferate in 4e than was the case in 3.X are still extremely valuable, too valuable to be used to change the mechanics of a skill that, in my experience is little used. The trope of a large, brawny, scrappy or otherwise violent looking individual scaring the living piss out of his opponents should probably be accomodated within the rules without putting the onus on the player to invest in something he should be able to do anyways. It doesn't take any training to scare the crap out of a person when you're 6'6" and 320 lbs.

Why would the rules for intimidate not apply to PC's the same way they do npc's? Other game aspects work the same way. AC vs to hit rolls, defenses, saves, etc.  IF you can intimidate a kobold with your 18 strength you should be very intimidated when that giant with a 30 strength takes a stroll through your backyard.

Because NPCs and PCs occupy entirely different design space.  They do not (and should not) use the same rules.

Furthermore the description of the Intimidate skill makes it clear that adventurers are the ones who use it, and the target number is a monster's will.  Every use of the skill specifies 'monster'.  Not 'character' or 'target', 'monster'.

PCs are supposed to have as close to total control over the actions, reactions, and roleplaying of their character as possible.  That's why you don't use social skills in PC-to-PC interactions, either.

And that is a huge failure of the game. I am supposed to accept that physical attributes mean everything and mental attributes mean nothing? It is ok that you punch my character with your huge strength but I can't bluff my way past you with some solid role-playing? Um...ok.  The rule also says it is charisma based so if you want to be technical there it is.


Game design does work in the same space as often as possible through simple mechanics. Combat works the same for pcs as npcs. Whether combat is physical or mystical makes no difference. If you want to put intimidate in the game then you should have to role-play the consequences of you being intimidated. If you can't then you should have to either buy up solid will defenses , i.e put points into your wisdom score, take feats that impove your will defense, etc. It is no different than you needing good armor to survive the combat portions of a game.

The simple answer is this: monsters are not as important as the PCs, and should not occupy the same ammount of narrative space as the stars of the story, in this case the heroes.  Always the heroes.  If your monsters are the stars, there's something wonky.  They should be secondary characters at most, and that's only for the primary antagonists.

As far as PC vs PC interaction, (i.e. infighting) it really defeats the purpose of getting together to play a game and have fun if everyone is just going to try and whip out intimidate to browbeat their companions to do what they want in-game, or start a brawl in-game.  There are other systems and games for that.

Feb 16, 2012 -- 8:11PM, DLfan wrote:

And that is a huge failure of the game. I am supposed to accept that physical attributes mean everything and mental attributes mean nothing? It is ok that you punch my character with your huge strength but I can't bluff my way past you with some solid role-playing?   

You can bluff your way past me with some solid role-playing, sure.  You just don't get to roll Bluff to determine if you succeed.  See, I actually get to role-play BACK.

I am new to this site, however i have played and been a Dungeon Master for over 30 years.  D&D can never die, for me it is not an option. They could stop making further editions etc. I will still play and DM in a fantasy setting that they nurtured inside me. I play with my friends and family, and they in turn who have children etc. More power to WOTC and every other system out there trying to make a living and keeping things interesting. I have a similair background as many of you i would guess, as i have played and owned numerous other RPG games. I am over 40, which might not be the norm around here, as i am making my first post i am not familiar enough yet to recognize age. I think the state of D&D depends on you and your players..i.m.o.

 Up to and including 2nd edition, i owned every book and nearly all of the add-ons, even modules etc. Gaming anywhere and everywhere was easy and so much fun for all, but not because of the system or rules. I have a core of players who still play after 16 years to this day. Most of my core players have never looked at a newer edition since the 2nd, and never have i encountered a player at that time who complained a wizard stole the show. Never did i have a warrior vs wizard debate. Never was there a balance issue when we played in house, at  afriend or non official event. I think it is because we were friends who were like minded from the begining, but... there were players over the years who stayed with us and were not imediate friends and those who had in fact at the time been introduced into D&D because of the newer editions that were coming out.
So i had Players who started from the begining of D&D into the 2nd edition. And i had met and stayed in party with players who got into the game because of the edition that had just come out.
It was when i started working at a friends store as a DM. At the time WOTC was holding events for D&D and Magic the gathering. Which i applauded and was happy WOTC was putting something into the game. In time i stopped, i could not deal with certain players and when i was participating as a player myself, DM's. It was not the rules or system, it was because of the differences between players and DM's. I stopped and was asked again by my friend to DM, i said i would if i could run my own adventure, my way. I did, and with a little time, ran a great adventure for almoist 2 years. Issues arose from time to time because of player attitude more than anything else, as new players would jump in from time to time.

I beleive D&D should continue to evolve and bring new players into the mix with new editions and changes, be they drastic or minor. I do not believe it will never be a major success money wise though. Creativity needs little to florish. I need only pen and paper to have a great adventure. I never felt the need to buy newer material except the PHB and DM guide to adapt to the 2nd edition rules (players have bought other source material which i lovingly go through for ideas). But i will not need content or stories, or rules to enjoy the game or create enjoyable sessions for my players.
I have a thing with my friends i started way back. I would ask them to pick a night and do something they wanted to do, one of them was poker. In turn i made a night where we played D&D. Not every one became a steady member, however the sessions were always fun. Out of that grew a core group of friends and friends of friends lol, who have played for years. I think Some of you should try it, ask someone you are a good friend with to trade and partake in eachothers interest and give it a try. I know we all have different situations, but in the effort of giving, you might recieve. Take that into account when you do not have that option, like when you are in groups where you are new or someone else is. Not everyone is on the same page, it will happen that issues arise.

I think people are looking for a system that will be able to have all those gathered to be equal and have fair playing time right out the box  with no issues so to speak, which is a good thing and can happen. But i believe that it comes with gaming with the same people and like minded at that, becoming familiar with the rules and adapting your own set of ideas as a player and DM. I have been at sessions where the DM (not me DM-img) had ignored a player for almost an hour, i have been in situations described in this thread like Warrior being useless etc. And not once did i ever blame the rules or system. The fault always was with the DM and the player.

You are all correct, and i think you more than me, are the backbone of this industry. Since this is my first post here, and i obviously have not been in the current swing of things nor am i a huge buyer of the product. You all are the voice for the future of D&D. Maybe i am spoiled, and have had a series of great players who have stuck with me through thick and thin, could be, but i still dont see the blame totally on the company or edition.
I am here now in part because of a new player who has just started to play with me, and i found it odd he had so much information about everything i have missed, from all his knowledge of the rules, to the nuance of the new themes implemented. Yet he was having trouble having fun with his group that i was somewhat familiar with. I played with them as i was once a member of the group, i left because i had a girlfriend with medical issues at the time, so i knew the DM and have had great sessions with him in the past. I found the problem right off the bat. A player who i did not know was constantly trying to find anything he could to trip up the DM. Afterwards i had a discussion with the DM, and what he said mad me a little sad. He said he can not find enough players to constanly be available on the same night, so he went looking for newer players to add to his group. I told him to play with only 2 people then, the two who were getting the same frustrations as mentioned in this thread but were having so much fun before the rotation of new players got implemented, take time to find another player who will fit. Sure their are flaws and there is always room for improovement in certain areas. I just do not see the issue some of you have.
Bring it on!. Give me a new system and rules,make changes. It will not impact me negativley in any way. I will take what i like and make it my own.
Now as a player only, you might have to sacrifice your vision of what the game should be, the DM in my opinon is the only thing that matters in the end. His interpertations and his vision of the rules is what will ultimatley be yours. Take the 3rd edition, at the time if you had issues with your fighter not being able to be usefull or be the hero you imagined, or if the game was mooving too slow for you etc. If you can not discuss it with the DM and have time to work it out, it might not be the group for you or the right game. In my belief that is where the issues are. I think the drifters of the D&D community who go to events and enter new groups for whatever reason, will always run into these things.
Maybe a sysytem can and will be made that will enable everything to be balanced and done right for you or what you as an indivisual feel is corect. there might be a way to have every session be the ultimate experience for a majority of the players and DM's alike. I already have it though, it is my creativity and dedication to having fun, fun for all. It comes from recognizing we are all different and have different perspectives on things. I work with all my players and DM's and at times in my life i have stopped playing with certain players and DM's. It was never because of the rules or system, it was beacause of who and what they were, and what they brang to the table when we met for gaming.

That is how i feel, i really wish WOTC all the success in the world. I would love for everyone to always have the best sessions and be happy with all that you do, as a DM and a player. I think with any system there can be fun to be had. It might take time and dedication to make it happen for you, but i believe it is possible right now, it is within all of you. Who knows better than you how it should work, take what they put out, buy it or not. Take whats allready out there and make it work.
 

Feb 17, 2012 -- 11:46AM, Salla wrote:

Feb 16, 2012 -- 8:11PM, DLfan wrote:

And that is a huge failure of the game. I am supposed to accept that physical attributes mean everything and mental attributes mean nothing? It is ok that you punch my character with your huge strength but I can't bluff my way past you with some solid role-playing?   

You can bluff your way past me with some solid role-playing, sure.  You just don't get to roll Bluff to determine if you succeed.  See, I actually get to role-play BACK.

Why not? I get to roll to see if I whack you with my sword but I can't make a bluff check to get by you?  Bluff was used to grant combat advantage in 3E. I think it still has that function in 4E. In prior editions if you tried to make outrageous bluff checks they usually failed. I.e. Bluffing you that your sword is cursed and you should give it to me so I can destroy it would have an outrageous penalty of +30 or more. Somethings really are too far fetched to believe. BUt a reasonable bluff attempt should be given a chance for success.  Just being stubborn about a bluff attempt that seems realistic just by saying "no, not my character" is really not role-playing.

Feb 17, 2012 -- 5:50PM, DLfan wrote:

Feb 17, 2012 -- 11:46AM, Salla wrote:

Feb 16, 2012 -- 8:11PM, DLfan wrote:

And that is a huge failure of the game. I am supposed to accept that physical attributes mean everything and mental attributes mean nothing? It is ok that you punch my character with your huge strength but I can't bluff my way past you with some solid role-playing?   

You can bluff your way past me with some solid role-playing, sure.  You just don't get to roll Bluff to determine if you succeed.  See, I actually get to role-play BACK.

Why not? I get to roll to see if I whack you with my sword but I can't make a bluff check to get by you?  Bluff was used to grant combat advantage in 3E. I think it still has that function in 4E. In prior editions if you tried to make outrageous bluff checks they usually failed. I.e. Bluffing you that your sword is cursed and you should give it to me so I can destroy it would have an outrageous penalty of +30 or more. Somethings really are too far fetched to believe. BUt a reasonable bluff attempt should be given a chance for success.  Just being stubborn about a bluff attempt that seems realistic just by saying "no, not my character" is really not role-playing.

Because I'm in control of my character's actions, reactions, and emotions, just as you are in control of yours.

Feb 16, 2012 -- 7:50PM, Salla wrote:

Feb 16, 2012 -- 7:42PM, DLfan wrote:

Feb 15, 2012 -- 8:59PM, Deityrising wrote:

DLFan you seem to operate on the assumption that the same rules for intimidate that apply to NPCs (as acted upon by PCs) should work vice versa - I just don't see that as defensible. I understand your position that PCs should not be immune to fear, but it (PCs being afraid) should be manifest in ways that are tailored to powers rather than ability scores for pretty obvious reasons.

Also, I feel there's a case to be made for intimidate to be keyed off of strength without a feat investment. Feats, while being more proliferate in 4e than was the case in 3.X are still extremely valuable, too valuable to be used to change the mechanics of a skill that, in my experience is little used. The trope of a large, brawny, scrappy or otherwise violent looking individual scaring the living piss out of his opponents should probably be accomodated within the rules without putting the onus on the player to invest in something he should be able to do anyways. It doesn't take any training to scare the crap out of a person when you're 6'6" and 320 lbs.

Why would the rules for intimidate not apply to PC's the same way they do npc's? Other game aspects work the same way. AC vs to hit rolls, defenses, saves, etc.  IF you can intimidate a kobold with your 18 strength you should be very intimidated when that giant with a 30 strength takes a stroll through your backyard.

Because NPCs and PCs occupy entirely different design space.  They do not (and should not) use the same rules.

Furthermore the description of the Intimidate skill makes it clear that adventurers are the ones who use it, and the target number is a monster's will.  Every use of the skill specifies 'monster'.  Not 'character' or 'target', 'monster'.

PCs are supposed to have as close to total control over the actions, reactions, and roleplaying of their character as possible.  That's why you don't use social skills in PC-to-PC interactions, either.

Exactly. 4e is built upon the assumption that the PCs are truly extraordinary within whatever world they inhabit, and this is made manifest by the carving out of two entirely seperate game spaces. One for the PCs and one for the NPCs.

Feb 17, 2012 -- 5:54PM, Salla wrote:

Because I'm in control of my character's actions, reactions, and emotions, just as you are in control of yours.

This is called "role-playing." As in, playing a role.

Usually, it is contrasted with "roll-playing." As in, rolling a die.

DLFan, you seem to be dead-set on having PCs roll-play with eachother, whereas Salla and I strongly believe in having PCs role-play with each other. 

Feb 17, 2012 -- 5:54PM, Salla wrote:

Feb 17, 2012 -- 5:50PM, DLfan wrote:

Feb 17, 2012 -- 11:46AM, Salla wrote:

Feb 16, 2012 -- 8:11PM, DLfan wrote:

And that is a huge failure of the game. I am supposed to accept that physical attributes mean everything and mental attributes mean nothing? It is ok that you punch my character with your huge strength but I can't bluff my way past you with some solid role-playing?   

You can bluff your way past me with some solid role-playing, sure.  You just don't get to roll Bluff to determine if you succeed.  See, I actually get to role-play BACK.

Why not? I get to roll to see if I whack you with my sword but I can't make a bluff check to get by you?  Bluff was used to grant combat advantage in 3E. I think it still has that function in 4E. In prior editions if you tried to make outrageous bluff checks they usually failed. I.e. Bluffing you that your sword is cursed and you should give it to me so I can destroy it would have an outrageous penalty of +30 or more. Somethings really are too far fetched to believe. BUt a reasonable bluff attempt should be given a chance for success.  Just being stubborn about a bluff attempt that seems realistic just by saying "no, not my character" is really not role-playing.

Because I'm in control of my character's actions, reactions, and emotions, just as you are in control of yours.

Bazinga.

DLfan, what you fail to realize is that D&D is not designed as a player vs player game, and a player should not be able to use Bluff or Intimidate on a fellow player.  This takes away from the fun of the game, something the DM should strongly discourage, if not outright disallow.

Feb 19, 2012 -- 2:47AM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

Bazinga.

Hmm. Thats an interesting word. I'll have to use it the next time I see a comment that is dead-in-the-black-with-one-arrow-splitting-another.

DLfan, what you fail to realize is that D&D is not designed as a player vs player game, and a player should not be able to use Bluff or Intimidate on a fellow player.  This takes away from the fun of the game, something the DM should strongly discourage, if not outright disallow.

Bazinga.

Feb 19, 2012 -- 6:03AM, Ogiwan wrote:

Feb 19, 2012 -- 2:47AM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

Bazinga.

Hmm. Thats an interesting word. I'll have to use it the next time I see a comment that is dead-in-the-black-with-one-arrow-splitting-another.

DLfan, what you fail to realize is that D&D is not designed as a player vs player game, and a player should not be able to use Bluff or Intimidate on a fellow player.  This takes away from the fun of the game, something the DM should strongly discourage, if not outright disallow.

Bazinga.

I would argue that the DM should strongly discourage, if not outright disallow, any die rolling to be made by one player against another.

Feb 19, 2012 -- 12:54PM, Salla wrote:

I would argue that the DM should strongly discourage, if not outright disallow, any die rolling to be made by one player against another.

I quite agree.  Unless everyone at the table WANTS a player vs player kind of game.