Community

Aug 22, 2012 -- 8:03AM, EnerlaNet wrote:

As I said we test the game, not the DM, so it should be only determined by the game structure for now. In a normal game I would allow things, but now I shouldn't.

If D&D Next fails to support this by its structure, rules and the social contract that is built around the rules, but I seek exactly these values, then D&D Next isn't the best choice for me. In fact while I can compare other games about how much they support these values and this aproach, D&D as it doesn't realy support this with its structure will be among the worst choices. 

This is why I say my problem is with structure... And this is why I don't praise individual changes now, even if some of them are a big step in a good direction.

Hey, I almost fell out of my chair when I read "big step in a good direction."  I might be wrong (I haven't read every post you've offered), but it is the first positive thing I can remember reading from you about their efforts in Next. 

Now on to the topic.

You can't divorse the DM from the game.  It's impossible.  This isn't a game run by pre-programmed scripts and data.  It's a game run by people.  If the DMs aren't using the material as intended, it's a good indication that the material as presented isn't clear enough or detailed enough to accomplish what they are striving for.

And this is an absolute fact at this point.  There are a lot of conflicting, vague, or missing rules in the playtest packet right now.  It's important for us to report on them so they can clean it up going forward.

As to the point at hand, I contend that they aren't giving you enough to feel free to rule as you want as a DM with the Improvise Action.  I had no trouble allowing for creative players to improvise different actions that weren't standard.  You did.  If your experience is the common one (and even if it isn't, really), then they need to be more detailed and broad in their description so that you don't feel so restrained.

Or if my willingness to allow actions (with associated skill checks) isn't how they want to see it work, they need to clamp down hard on the rules such that I don't read "only limits" are imagination plus DM approval and run with it.

I ran with it.  I ran with a very open-mind and desire to reply to "can I do..." with "yes, but..."

Aug 22, 2012 -- 10:37AM, EnerlaNet wrote:

You are wrong here. Very wrong. Why? Because ifD&D would offer far more freedom and immersion than MMOs a lot of people who want that would come over. I seen many people on RP servers in various MMOs who tried D&D and said it is a ****ing strategy game. We need to avoid that. And for this our rules shouldn't depend on an experienced DM. They should help out the newbie DM who is coming from an RP server seeking freedom and immersion. 

That is a significant target group.

But they don't have anyone to overrule the rules in book. They need help from the rules. 

There is another group of newbies. Who have 0 background, and how they play the game is defined by the rulebook they are trying to follow and understand. If the rules as is (as interpreted by the worst rules lawyers) then D&D teaches those new DMs to be bad DMs. 

We are playtesters. We playtest the written version of rules, and not our modified rules in our head, so we should go by the book. Even to the last letter. Rules lawyering is a must. As if we fix these actions now with proposals, then they will work well, and won't have to be overwritten by DM judgement later.

You are right in regard to the need for the rulebook to be clear and concise, I agree.  It needs to be easy enough to read and not daunting to a new player or DM.

And you are right that it's important for us to report on areas of vagueness or even outright poor structure or in-game application.

Part of the problem is that they just are prepared to release a finished product for us to read in its entirely and comment on as a whole.

But, yeah, I am probably just filling in the gaps because of so many years of experience.  It is important to have some attention given to the possibility that there are completely new to D&D playtesters.

So when someone reports that they can't do what they want because Improvise doesn't allow for much, they need to listen and make sure they adjust the documentation to reflect what they fully intend it to be. 

Still, to say that the DM isn't important to how those rules are applied is not seeing the obvious.  God, I hate disagreeing with you because you'll take this personally, and I am really trying not to make it personal.  The point I am trying to make is that the DM's interpretation of the rules is vital to how the game will be played. 

It's why I said, and I quote, "If the DMs aren't using the material as intended, it's a good indication that the material as presented isn't clear enough or detailed enough to accomplish what they are striving for."

Obviously, you think I am wrong.  Very wrong as you say, quoting my assertion.

I just don't understand why.  You talk about newbies needing help from the rules, then tell me I'm wrong because I say that they need clear and detailed rules.

Can I just say I don't understand why there are so many bonuses for stats, both for humans and Demi's.  In the old days you had to roll minimums to play a certain class or race now you get bonuses to reflect the races natural apptitudes, why? Why not just roll and play with what you get?  I think stat bonuses based on racial types just pushes players towards min/maxing vs. just roleplaying.  Not all players, but many.

Some people do but that's never been my experience.  We would roll the stats and then decide what race and then decide what class.