# Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals



## Morrus (Sep 21, 2018)

In a longish Twitter thread a week or so ago, D&D designer Mike Mearls talked about D&D and its overall design goals, and how that changed from previous editions. It covers the "who" of who D&D 5E is designed for, the styles of play it encourages, and more.






​When designing a game, consider the personality traits and behaviors the game encourages in its player. Then ask yourself if you want to make a game for a community that embraces what you’re encouraging. That tweet is a nicer way of saying: If you make a game for &$&%*(@, be ready, willing, and able to deal with &$&%*(@. It’s also why D&D got out of the business of trying to “fix” obnoxious people.

3.5 and 4 were very much driven by an anxiety about controlling the experience of the game, leaving as little as possible to chance. They aimed for consistency of play from campaign to campaign, and table to table. The fear was that an obnoxious player or DM would ruin the game, and that would drive people away from it. The thinking was that if we made things as procedural as possible, people would just follow the rules and have fun regardless of who they played with.

The downside to this approach is that the rules became comprehensive to a fault. The game’s rules bloated, as they sought to resolve many if not all questions that arise in play with the game text.

At the same time, 3.5 and 4 were driven by the idea that D&D players wanted as many character options as possible, presented in a modular framework meant to encourage the search for combinations that yielded characters who broke the power curve.

These two aims play together in an extremely terrible way, at least from a design perspective. Your core system has to cover everything... meanwhile you are adding more cases and content to your game. Good luck with keeping those things in balance!

IMO, the basic design premise suffers from a fatal flaw. It misses out on a ton of the elements that make RPGs distinct and doesn’t speak to why people enjoy D&D in the first place.

With 5th, we assumed that the DM was there to have a good time, put on an engaging performance, and keep the group interested, excited, and happy. It’s a huge change, because we no longer expect you to turn to the book for an answer. We expect the DM to do that.

In terms of players, we focus much more on narrative and identity, rather than specific, mechanical advantages. Who you are is more important than what you do, to the point that your who determines your what. In broad terms - and based on what we can observe of the community from a variety of measures - we went from a community that focused on mechanics and expertise, to one focused on socializing and story telling. Mechanical expertise is an element of the game, but no longer the sole focus. Ideally, it’s a balanced part of all the other motivators. If balanaced correctly, every has their fun. Enjoyment isn’t zero sum.

As D&D is descriptive rather than prescriptive, individual groups had different experiences. However, that was the design trend and what we saw in the community as a whole. It’s been interesting to see things change with the change in rules and the flood of new players.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 21, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 21, 2018)

Interesting. I do like most of what he’s saying, but I also wish they would embrace the fact that a lot of players still have a strong desire for mechanical options. Focusing on narrative identity is great, and the goal of those specific mechanical advantages should be to express a character’s narrative identity rather than to break the game’s progression curve. But 5e still offers so little in terms of ways to mechanically differentiate a character. He paints mechanical options as if they’re at odds with the design philosophy he describes here, but I don’t think they are at all.


----------



## Reynard (Sep 21, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Interesting. I do like most of what he’s saying, but I also wish they would embrace the fact that a lot of players still have a strong desire for mechanical options. Focusing on narrative identity is great, and the goal of those specific mechanical advantages should be to express a character’s narrative identity rather than to break the game’s progression curve. But 5e still offers so little in terms of ways to mechanically differentiate a character. He paints mechanical options as if they’re at odds with the design philosophy he describes here, but I don’t think they are at all.




A couple of days ago, I was creating a 17th level barbarian as a test case for a high level one shot I want to run. It took less than a half hour. To create a 17th level character. In D&D. I was flabbergasted.

Sure, if I had been making a caster I am sure it would have taken a bit longer, but even so. I had expected to spend a couple hours on the process at least. So, yeah, there are fewer options, but at the same time the ease of character generation is almost back to BECMI levels. That's kind of a win.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 21, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran (Sep 21, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Focusing on narrative identity is great, and *the goal of those specific mechanical advantages should be* to express a character’s narrative identity rather than to break the game’s progression curve.




Bolding mine.  In that bold is the basic problem.

Players have goals.  Designers have goals.  Mechanical advantages do not - in the same way that a hammer does not have a *goal* of hammering nails.  Chunks of steel on sticks do not have will or desire, and have no goals.  The hammer can be used to tear down drywall, if that is my goal, no matter that the designer of the hammer had a goal of making a thing to hammer nails.  

The designer cannot set the player's goals.  The designer can only choose designs that support particular goals more, or support them less.

Having lots of strong mechanical choices supports power gaming, whether you want it to or not.  All players have to do is take on the power, and not role play the matching narrative identity - it is the old "role playing restrictions are not a reliable way to balance mechanical strength" issues of Paladins in 3e.  And, having supported power gaming, then you are back in the 3e/4e power-curve-breaking mode, because having supported it, it becomes a major way to get rewards as a player.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 21, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Interesting. I do like most of what he’s saying, but I also wish they would embrace the fact that a lot of players still have a strong desire for mechanical options. Focusing on narrative identity is great, and the goal of those specific mechanical advantages should be to express a character’s narrative identity rather than to break the game’s progression curve. But 5e still offers so little in terms of ways to mechanically differentiate a character. He paints mechanical options as if they’re at odds with the design philosophy he describes here, but I don’t think they are at all.



While I am certainly in agreement with you that I enjoy more mechanical options, it would be remiss not to point out that a surfeit of mechanical options exist outside the boundary of WotC published material.  I have more classes, subclasses, and feats in my personally vetted collection of homebrew material than exist within the combination of all of the published WotC books.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Sep 21, 2018)

True words. I think it’s important to look at your DMing style, too, and see what kind of play style you are encouraging.

I would say that controlling the experience of the game goes back even further to 1e. If you look at all the “punishment” items, and the idea of capricious and omnipresent death, I think there was very much a backbone of “having to keep the PCs in line” there, too. Just not necessarily through an overabundance of rules.

As for not being able to fix obnoxious people, yeah. Either you put up with them for various reasons, or you let them go. D&D is big enough that there’s no reason to have a player just to have another PC at the table. It’s been hard for me, unlearning the old ways of needing every player you could find, regardless of fit for the table or quality. But I am learning.



Morrus said:


> When designing a game, consider the personality traits and behaviors the game encourages in its player. Then ask yourself if you want to make a game for a community that embraces what you’re encouraging. That tweet is a nicer way of saying: If you make a game for &$&%*(@, be ready, willing, and able to deal with &$&%*(@. It’s also why D&D got out of the business of trying to “fix” obnoxious people.
> 
> 3.5 and 4 were very much driven by an anxiety about controlling the experience of the game, leaving as little as possible to chance.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 21, 2018)

Well, those tweets pretty much explain why I prefer 5e way over 3e or 4e.  Maybe it's because I've had an artistic background since I was a kid, so I've always enjoyed the creativity part of D&D, and 3e and 4e made me feel more shackled by the rules, especially since I mostly DM.

I've always held that no game should try to fix broken or disruptive players because that's a human thing, and it's up to the group to handle those issues.  It's part of the social contract when you become a group of people.  If someone is being disruptive, I don't expect a rule to keep them in check, I am expected myself to address it and worst case, advise them that this table isn't the best fit for them.   The trade off of that in order to have gaming tables be able to more easily mold their session to the style they prefer is well worth it.


----------



## robus (Sep 21, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Great post.
> 
> It should be bookmarked for future conversations on the forum.




I'll add it to the "Best of" (if it's not already  )


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 21, 2018)

Reynard said:


> A couple of days ago, I was creating a 17th level barbarian as a test case for a high level one shot I want to run. It took less than a half hour. To create a 17th level character. In D&D. I was flabbergasted.
> 
> Sure, if I had been making a caster I am sure it would have taken a bit longer, but even so. I had expected to spend a couple hours on the process at least. So, yeah, there are fewer options, but at the same time the ease of character generation is almost back to BECMI levels. That's kind of a win.



That is definitely a benefit of 5e’s design. For me personally, high-level barbarians being fast and easy to make is not a worthwhile tradeoff for barbarians of all levels being boring to play. But that’s just my personal taste, and I’ll grant that thee are definite benefits and drawbacks of less mechanically complex design.



lowkey13 said:


> So, one thing that many people don't understand unless they are designing things is that there is no such thing as a "free lunch." And this applies to, well, pretty much all design choices.
> 
> Or, if design is too abstract, think about going out to eat. There may be 500 wonderful entrees and appetizers on the menu, but you can't order them all. You have to pick and choose what you want to eat, instead of devouring all of them, unless you end up like Mr. Creosote (wafer thin!).
> 
> We all want more of what we like. But I don't think we can get a much more clear statement of design intent than we have here. They specifically chose to go away from more mechanical options, and mechanical complexity, and did so for reasons of balance (more of a 3x issue) and narrative/identity (perhaps more of a 4x issue). Again, this isn't a normative judgment about what is good, or bad, but instead it is an emphasis on design.




I understand that they have to pick a set of design goals and run with them, I just don’t care for all of the goals they picked in this case. I agree with some of them and disagree with others.




lowkey13 said:


> But yes, it is clearly explained that this design philosophy is at offs with what you are describing, and why. That doesn't mean your desires are less valid, or your preferences are "bad," just like the preferences and design decisions inherent in anything (iOS v. Android, Audi v. Toyota, Gehry v. Liebskind) are "bad."




No, it’s not. It’s clearly explained why they decided to move away from trying to “fix” poor DM and player behavior with rules and design for flexibility over consistency of play. It’s also explained that the design for consistency of play was at odds with designing for a heavy emphasis on mechanical options. But you only have to change one of those two design goals to resolve that conflict. They instead changed both, and I would have preferred they only change one.




lowkey13 said:


> Moving back to your point, adding additional mechanical complexity has to be balanced against this design goal; because, at some point, the added PC crunch will be that little wafer thin mint, causing the whole design to explode and we end up with 6e.



6e is exactly what I want, so...



Umbran said:


> Bolding mine. In that bold is the basic problem.
> 
> Players have goals. Designers have goals. Mechanical advantages do not - in the same way that a hammer does not have a *goal* of hammering nails. Chunks of steel on sticks do not have will or desire, and have no goals. The hammer can be used to tear down drywall, if that is my goal, no matter that the designer of the hammer had a goal of making a thing to hammer nails.
> 
> The designer cannot set the player's goals. The designer can only choose designs that support particular goals more, or support them less.



His words, not mine. Kindly leave the pedantry aside and engage with my point, which is that mechanical options can be designed to support narrative identiy.



Umbran said:


> Having lots of strong mechanical choices supports power gaming, whether you want it to or not. All players have to do is take on the power, and not role play the matching narrative identity - it is the old "role playing restrictions are not a reliable way to balance mechanical strength" issues of Paladins in 3e. And, having supported power gaming, then you are back in the 3e/4e power-curve-breaking mode, because having supported it, it becomes a major way to get rewards as a player.



First of all, I don’t consider power gaming an inherently bad thing. It’s certainly not at odds with roleplaying. Players can do one, the other, both, or neither, there is no conflict between them. More importantly, the ability to break the power curve stops being a problem when the design philosophy is to empower the DM to make decisions based on the needs of their table, rather than designing to make the rules as consistent as possible. My point is, Mearls clearly illuminated a conflict between two parts of their previous design philosophy. They changed both parts instead of just one, and I would have preferred they just change the one.



TwoSix said:


> While I am certainly in agreement with you that I enjoy more mechanical options, it would be remiss not to point out that a surfeit of mechanical options exist outside the boundary of WotC published material.  I have more classes, subclasses, and feats in my personally vetted collection of homebrew material than exist within the combination of all of the published WotC books.



I think I may have miscommunicated to you what I meant by mechanical options. I don’t want more races, classes, and subclasses. There are plenty of those available between official products, 3rd party, and fan-made content. What I want is more than one choice of race, one choice of class, one choice of subclass, and four ability score increases/feats to differentiate one character from another. For all the flack 4e got for “every class feeling the same,” I see that issue much more with 5e.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 21, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 21, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I think I may have miscommunicated to you what I meant by mechanical options. I don’t want more races, classes, and subclasses. There are plenty of those available between official products, 3rd party, and fan-made content. What I want is more than one choice of race, one choice of class, one choice of subclass, and four ability score increases/feats to differentiate one character from another. For all the flack 4e got for “every class feeling the same,” I see that issue much more with 5e.



Fair point.  I definitely agree I'd like more selectable options, ideally per level.  Something like alternative class features, or Pathfinder style archetypes, or class options that aren't 20 level progressions to have more options while multiclassing (like 3e PrCs).


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 21, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> So, one thing that many people don't understand unless they are designing things is that there is no such thing as a "free lunch." And this applies to, well, pretty much all design choices.
> 
> Or, if design is too abstract, think about going out to eat. There may be 500 wonderful entrees and appetizers on the menu, but you can't order them all. You have to pick and choose what you want to eat, instead of devouring all of them, unless you end up like Mr. Creosote (wafer thin!).
> 
> ...




This is a thoughtful, balanced and accurate post.

I'm pretty sure that you are Interneting wrong.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 21, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> When someone says, "Hey, we considered X, but we decided not to design for X, because that's not what we are designing for ..." then, well, you can't really say, "Yeah, well, I don't care man, you should have X anyway!"



Why not?  If my local bakery, that produces and sells my favorite bagels, decides to only sell donuts from now on, why can't I say "Hey, you guys stopped making my favorite bagels, what's up with that?"  They are certainly within their rights to say "Well, donuts sell better, and we don't really like making bagels, so I guess you're out of luck."  And I'm certainly within my rights to respond "Well, I only really liked your bagels, so if you start making them, I'll come back, but otherwise I'll just have to skip bagels."


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 21, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Why not?  If my local bakery, that produces and sells my favorite bagels, decides to only sell donuts from now on, why can't I say "Hey, you guys stopped making my favorite bagels, what's up with that?"  They are certainly within their rights to say "Well, donuts sell better, and we don't really like making bagels, so I guess you're out of luck."  And I'm certainly within my rights to respond "Well, I only really liked your bagels, so if you start making them, I'll come back, but otherwise I'll just have to skip bagels."




It is off-point: it is more like buying the donut and complaining that it is too sweet and needs more onions.


----------



## Pauper (Sep 21, 2018)

Good discussion of your position. My $0.02US...



Charlaquin said:


> That is definitely a benefit of 5e’s design. For me personally, high-level barbarians being fast and easy to make is not a worthwhile tradeoff for barbarians of all levels being boring to play. But that’s just my personal taste, and I’ll grant that thee are definite benefits and drawbacks of less mechanically complex design.




I'm not sure I agree that 3/4e had classes that were all fun to play -- instead, what you had was a bunch of barbarian concepts that were pretty boring/bog-standard, and a few who were insanely fun for the right kind of player because they broke the game. Same with every other class, only the ratio of bog-standard to broken builds changes by class.



> No, it’s not. It’s clearly explained why they decided to move away from trying to “fix” poor DM and player behavior with rules and design for flexibility over consistency of play. It’s also explained that the design for consistency of play was at odds with designing for a heavy emphasis on mechanical options. But you only have to change one of those two design goals to resolve that conflict. They instead changed both, and I would have preferred they only change one.




Except if they only change one, they don't really commit to their design goal, because both changes support it. Specifically, both changes reduce the amount of complexity in the game, which would otherwise focus player and DM attention on the mechanics of the game rather than the other elements that make the game, as an RPG, distinct from other kinds of tabletop games. I mean, I was a fan of 4E, but I know a lot of people who basically got bored with low-level 4E play not because it was a bad system, but because it was pretty much the same game mechanically they'd just played a couple of nights before when they played Arkham Horror or Touch of Evil or Last Night on Earth.

If you try to reduce the rules overhead, but leave in the high amount of mechanical complexity, then what you have is a game that tries to pull you in two different directions -- do you focus on the simplicity and free-wheeling aspect of the game, or do you dive into the mechanical complexity and ultimately find the unbalancing factors there (which become unbalancing much more rapidly given that the rest of the game system isn't trying to hold those factors in check anymore). Ultimately, the mechanical complexity will 'win' in most games, because, as noted many times previously, optimization as a play style drives out other play styles.

The designers had to do both, or they had to admit that their stated design goal wasn't their real design goal.



> His words, not mine. Kindly leave the pedantry aside and engage with my point, which is that mechanical options can be designed to support narrative identiy.(sic)




But why? There are already literally countless ways your 1st level rogue can be different from my 1st level rogue. Mine could be a street urchin while yours is a bored noblewoman looking for excitement. Mine could be looking for a big money score while yours sees wealth as people or organizations rather than money. Mine could have a flaw where he claims not to want to be a hero, but can't help throwing his hat in when needed, even if there's no money in it, while yours can be as brittle as a dry bone when presented with unpleasant choices. The ways to distinguish your rogue from mine are unlimited within the context of a role-playing game; that both characters get Sneak Attack at first level doesn't invalidate this, and arguably having a rogue option that got some ability other than Sneak Attack that you could take at first level wouldn't necessarily make our rogues any more distinguishable as characters, just as game pieces.



> First of all, I don’t consider power gaming an inherently bad thing. It’s certainly not at odds with roleplaying. Players can do one, the other, both, or neither, there is no conflict between them.




I fundamentally disagree. Rather than spend yet another post trying to explain this, I'll just point you at a very well-written essay (from back before 4e even came out) that makes the salient point:

"The 'character' must make choices based on personal motivations rather than strategic or tactical advantage. This is the 'My Character Wouldn't Do That' factor. The correct move in chess may be Queen's Pawn to Pawn 4, but if the King decides, 'I want to protect my Queen more than I want to protect my Bishop, even though the smart move is to protect my Bishop,' then we have a roleplaying game."



> More importantly, the ability to break the power curve stops being a problem when the design philosophy is to empower the DM to make decisions based on the needs of their table, rather than designing to make the rules as consistent as possible.




No, it doesn't. What it does is means that the DM now must serve the role of maintaining balance that previously was presumed to be the designer's role -- in that sense, had the designers gone this route, I'd agree that you could call them 'lazy' for making up a game with a ton of mechanical complexity and then, when DMs asked for help balancing the options, just shrugging their shoulders and saying, 'nope, that's your problem."



> My point is, Mearls clearly illuminated a conflict between two parts of their previous design philosophy. They changed both parts instead of just one, and I would have preferred they just change the one.




You're missing the bigger picture -- both parts of the philosophy implicated the same goal, reducing mechanical complexity and rules overhead in order to get the game closer to a goal of supporting different styles of play.

And while I don't necessarily think you're a bad person just because you're a fan of power gaming, I will point out that Mearls himself starts the thread by effectively saying the lesson of 3/4e is basically, 'if you design a game for jerks, expect to have to deal with jerks'. I'm involved in an infrequent Pathfinder game, and my feeling at the end of each session is always that the biggest problem with Pathfinder as an RPG system are the people who really like Pathfinder as an RPG system.



> For all the flack 4e got for “every class feeling the same,” I see that issue much more with 5e.




My guess is that all of your 5e characters feel the same because they are all the same: the "my character is the best in the world at what he/she/it does" character. I find it curious to consider playing endless variations of the same character as a role-playing game, just as I'd find it curious to see someone lauded as a 'great actor' when he only ever portrays one role. Adding more mechanical complexity wouldn't actually make a better game; it would just allow you to distract yourself for a bit longer before realizing you're just playing the same character, over and over, in a glorified board game.

If that's what you want to do, cool -- as noted by other posters, there's a ton of third-party material to let you do just that. Just don't cram it into the 'core game' where I as a DM have to deal with it, because running a game where I'm dealing with the characters' mechanical strengths and flaws is way less interesting to me than one where I'm dealing with their personality strengths and flaws.

--
Pauper


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 21, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> It is off-point: it is more like buying the donut and complaining that it is too sweet and needs more onions.



No it's not.  This isn't akin to buying the wrong type of thing and not getting what you anticipated, it's saying that a vendor used to sell you something you liked (3e and 4e style rules) but doesn't anymore.  Playing an RPG isn't like buying a single item, it's more like subscribing to a service.


----------



## robus (Sep 21, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> But yes, it is clearly explained that this design philosophy is at offs with what you are describing, and why. That doesn't mean your desires are less valid, or your preferences are "bad," just like the preferences and design decisions inherent in anything (iOS v. Android, Audi v. Toyota, Gehry v. Liebskind) are "bad."




This is perhaps why Paizo continues to do well and perhaps it is healthy for the hobby as a whole as there are more playstyle options available: those wanting a more mechanical approach to the game can find lots of support in Pathfinder, while those wanting a looser, more DM arbitrated game can hang out with D&D. I'm not trying to start a war, but simply saying that there is a system, that's very closely related to D&D, that has stuck with the mechanical crunch for those that want it. Waiting for WotC to provide it in D&D 5e is probably futile given that it would fly directly in the face of their stated design goals. And I imagine 6e (if there is one) will double down on their design goals (further streamlining the ruleset where they can).

The great thing is that the adventures for each can be easily adapted to the other (or so I hear  ), massively increasing the amount of playable content.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 21, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> That is definitely a benefit of 5e’s design. For me personally, high-level barbarians being fast and easy to make is not a worthwhile tradeoff for barbarians of all levels being boring to play. But that’s just my personal taste, and I’ll grant that thee are definite benefits and drawbacks of less mechanically complex design.
> 
> 
> I understand that they have to pick a set of design goals and run with them, I just don’t care for all of the goals they picked in this case. I agree with some of them and disagree with others.
> ...




But Barbarians, and the other very distinct Classes, are very fun to play, at all levels, for most people. They spent a lot of time working out what is mechanically fun and interesting in play, and supportive of narrative.

Power gaming, as such, is neither good nor bad. But, tabletop gaming will never be able to compete with video games in that territory, straight up. WoW is a better power game experience than any TTRPG ever made, or conceivable.

6E is both going to be a long wait, and backwards compatible with 5E when it does come. Soooo, good luck with that.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 21, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Why not?  If my local bakery, that produces and sells my favorite bagels, decides to only sell donuts from now on, why can't I say "Hey, you guys stopped making my favorite bagels, what's up with that?"  They are certainly within their rights to say "Well, donuts sell better, and we don't really like making bagels, so I guess you're out of luck."  And I'm certainly within my rights to respond "Well, I only really liked your bagels, so if you start making them, I'll come back, but otherwise I'll just have to skip bagels."




And my response as the baker would be, "That's great. Why don't you do that instead of coming in here every day and complaining how we don't have bagels."


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 21, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> No it's not.  This isn't akin to buying the wrong type of thing and not getting what you anticipated, it's saying that a vendor used to sell you something you liked (3e and 4e style rules) but doesn't anymore.  Playing an RPG isn't like buying a single item, it's more like subscribing to a service.




It kind of is, though: if it has been six years since new management turned a failing bagel shop into a thriving donut bistro, coming to complain that you like bagels is just missing the point.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 21, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> And my response as the baker would be, "That's great. Why don't you do that instead of coming in here every day and complaining how we don't have bagels."



Of course.  And if I was whiny about it, that's absolutely the right course to take.  But dropping a note in the suggestion box every once a while saying "Hey, remember those bagels you used to make?" is hardly intrusive.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 21, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 21, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> It kind of is, though: if it has been six years since new management turned a failing bagel shop into a thriving donut bistro, coming to complain that you like bagels is just missing the point.



I feel like you're missing the broader point; neither Parmandur (I assume), myself, or anyone else has any real expectation of somehow changing WotC's approach.  It's more like saying, "Man, I still can't believe they cancelled Firefly after 13 episodes" and getting the response of "It doesn't matter, it was Fox's decision to make, and if 12 seasons of Bones was the more popular choice, you just have to accept it."  Sometimes you just want to express a desire for what you used to have.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 21, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 21, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Also? Firefly kinda sucked.



Oh man, things just got REAL!


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 21, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## iserith (Sep 21, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Uh huh. And then you become that guy who is talking about how the only good D&D is when you walked 5 miles, in a sonwstorm, uphill, just so you could cast your single magic missile as a first level magic user before the kobold killed you dead, and those whipper snappers should get off your lawn, already.




It was a carrion crawler in my case. *shakes fist*


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 21, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Regardless of the rest of what you wrote, I think this is the only thing that matters. I suggest really truly reading what you wrote here (along with wanting a 6e) and thinking about it, and trying to read my post again.
> 
> There is a big difference between the following statements:
> 
> ...



Sure. What I’m saying is, “Your design does seem to accomplish what you were trying to do, but I think you could have accomplished the same goals in a different way, which would have been more appealing to me.” I guess if you want to be reductionist about it, you could argue that’s 3. But frankly, sharing opinions is the point of a forum.




lowkey13 said:


> RWhen someone says, "Hey, we considered X, but we decided not to design for X, because that's not what we are designing for ..." then, well, you can't really say, "Yeah, well, I don't care man, you should have X anyway!"



Thats not what I’m saying though. I’m saying “I see what you’re designing for, but I think you may have over-designed for it. You accomplished your stated goal with the first change, so I don’t see the second as necessary.”



lowkey13 said:


> RMaybe you want to have an iPhone, that runs Android OS, and is fully expandable, and doesn't use the Apple Store and doesn't have a walled garden and doesn't use proprietary connections ... and that's great. But that's not an iPhone.



Sure, but it’s still valid critique to say that the iPhone not having a headphone jack doesn’t meet its design goal of user friendly interface.


----------



## robus (Sep 21, 2018)

And, of course, there's Paizo's Bagel Emporium that's opened right next door!

Edit: Speak of the devil: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?5626-Pathfinder-s-Runelords-Are-Returning!


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 21, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> It is off-point: it is more like buying the donut and complaining that it is too sweet and needs more onions.



It’s even more like the bagel store tweeting that the reason they switched to selling donuts instead of bagels was a shift in breakfast philosophy, because they think sweet breakfasts are better than savory ones, and commenting that they didn’t need to switch to donuts to offer a sweet breakfast - chocolate chip bagels have the advantages of being both sweet and a bagel.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 21, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 21, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> No it's not.  This isn't akin to buying the wrong type of thing and not getting what you anticipated, it's saying that a vendor used to sell you something you liked (3e and 4e style rules) but doesn't anymore.  Playing an RPG isn't like buying a single item, it's more like subscribing to a service.




I agree with you, but I think I should clarify: I do like 5e. I like it better than 3e or 4e. I just think that in trying to fix the issues of 3e and 4e, they overcorrected a bit, and the product could be improved by combining 3e and 4e’s wealth of character customization options with 5e’s design philosophy of flexibility over consistency.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 21, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Oh, I agree! I am certainly not trying to shut down your opinion, and I keep saying that your preferences are valid.
> 
> I'm just trying to back this up to a higher level. To use the suddenly-popular bakery analogy, you are the person who really likes bagels. So if the bakery makes the decision to serve donuts, it will seem obvious to you that they _could_ serve a few bagels, right? They are a bakery, and they used to serve them, and they know how to make them,  and you really like bagels! And would it kill them to serve some bagels? Just a few ... maybe some salt bagels? And cinnamon raisin? And maybe keep lox on hand, because who eats bagels without lox?
> 
> But design is about tradeoffs. That bakery isn't serving bagels. You can't eat the best 10 looking entrees on the restaurant menu. And (to use one example) the mechanics which are too light for you, are just the right level to bring back older players and have it be taught to younger generations- it's always a tradeoff.



I’m not though, that’s what I’m trying to say. I do like donuts. I’m here for donuts. I’d just like some maple bacon on the menu so I can mix savory with my sweet.



lowkey13 said:


> (And, fwiw, I hope that there are 3PP that will give you the complexity that you desire!)



Conplexity is not what I desire. Complexity is an inherently bad thing in a tabletop game, and 5e made a good move streamlining (in fact, I think they could benefit from streamlining even more in some cases.) What I desire is depth. And depth necessarily comes with some complexity. The key is finding the right balance for what you’re trying to do. And I don’t think 5e hits that mark. Certainly not for my taste, but from what I’m reading in these tweets, it seems like they overshot their own goals as well.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 21, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I agree with you, but I think I should clarify: I do like 5e. I like it better than 3e or 4e. I just think that in trying to fix the issues of 3e and 4e, they overcorrected a bit, and the product could be improved by combining 3e and 4e’s wealth of character customization options with 5e’s design philosophy of flexibility over consistency.



Sure, me too.  5e and 4e are about equal for me in hitting my preferences (although for different reasons), and 3e/PF is only slightly behind.  I'd just like 5e with a few more decision points, that's all.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 21, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> It kind of is, though: if it has been six years since new management turned a failing bagel shop into a thriving donut bistro, coming to complain that you like bagels is just missing the point.



It’s also not what anyone is doing. I’m coming to the donut bistro, enjoying my donuts, and pointing out that, hey, wouldn’t some sweet-and-savory menu options be great? Especially when the reason you stated for not making bagels any more is that they’re not sweet. Like, maple bacon donuts are sweet, so serving them isn’t against your new philosophy (a philosophy I agree with, by the way.)


----------



## Gradine (Sep 21, 2018)

Pauper said:


> My guess is that all of your 5e characters feel the same because they are all the same: the "my character is the best in the world at what he/she/it does" character. I find it curious to consider playing endless variations of the same character as a role-playing game, just as I'd find it curious to see someone lauded as a 'great actor' when he only ever portrays one role. Adding more mechanical complexity wouldn't actually make a better game; it would just allow you to distract yourself for a bit longer before realizing you're just playing the same character, over and over, in a glorified board game.
> 
> If that's what you want to do, cool -- as noted by other posters, there's a ton of third-party material to let you do just that. Just don't cram it into the 'core game' where I as a DM have to deal with it, because running a game where I'm dealing with the characters' mechanical strengths and flaws is way less interesting to me than one where I'm dealing with their personality strengths and flaws.
> 
> ...




While this dips a little too much into "badwrongfun" for my tastes, I think this analysis hits the nail on the head for why CharOpers in particularly seem to be dissatisfied with the lack of meaningful choices at each level. 5e, very deliberately I would argue, unclogs the time and energy previous editions devoted to the character choice analysis paralysis in favor of allowing players to spend that time and energy making meaningful character choices from a more narrativist or story-based context. This is not to say that powergamers can or don't do both; I've played with many that do. But I don't think it's a controversial statement to say that it's much easier to devote headspace to building a narrative around a character when one isn't also worried about so-called "trap" options or pouring over online guides for hours to find just that right feat. To say nothing of the breadth of character choices present in 3.X and 4e encouraging or at least presenting so justification for certain gamers to call out their fellow narrativist gamers who are taking skill bonus feats and prioritizing Intelligence over combat stats for "dragging down the party." 

I have nothing against CharOpers and Powergamers and the like (at least when they're not being prescriptive) but I've long since learned that games which cater to those players are not my cup of tea, and I'm personally grateful for the shift in priorities from 5e (and my players are as well!)


----------



## Reynard (Sep 21, 2018)

iserith said:


> It was a carrion crawler in my case. *shakes fist*




Ten years old. First character. Carrior crawler beneath the rotting gate of the old keep.

The DM: my dad.

THAT's uphill both ways, kids.


----------



## iserith (Sep 21, 2018)

Reynard said:


> Ten years old. First character. Carrior crawler beneath the rotting gate of the old keep.
> 
> The DM: my dad.
> 
> THAT's uphill both ways, kids.




Neat. Also my first character, also in the context of an old keep.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 21, 2018)

Gradine said:


> To say nothing of the breadth of character choices present in 3.X and 4e encouraging or at least presenting so justification for certain gamers to call out their fellow narrativist gamers who are taking skill bonus feats and prioritizing Intelligence over combat stats for "dragging down the party."



As a total aside, I never understood power gamers who exhibited this behavior.  I love players who build their characters around their concept with no concern for mechanical effectiveness. (This isn't passive aggressive condescension, they're really my favorite type of fellow players.)  I can do the heavy lifting during combat, and they can be the focus of the attention during the exploration/puzzle solving/planning stages of the game, when I usually prefer to take a back seat.  It's a synergy that we appreciate.


----------



## Reynard (Sep 21, 2018)

iserith said:


> Neat. Also my first character, also in the context of an old keep.




It was the example dungeon in the Metzner Basic set. The first level was completely mapped and filled, the lower level was just mapped and the DM was supposed to fill it, and the rumored 3rd level was left up entirely to the DM.

Best teaching set ever.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 21, 2018)

Reynard said:


> A couple of days ago, I was creating a 17th level barbarian as a test case for a high level one shot I want to run. It took less than a half hour.




That's an indication* of a well-designed RPG, imnsho.

*necessary but not sufficient


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 21, 2018)

Morrus said:


> ...That tweet is a nicer way of saying: If you make a game for &$&%*(@, be ready, willing, and able to deal with &$&%*(@. It’s also why D&D got out of the business of trying to “fix” obnoxious people...
> 
> ...They aimed for consistency of play from campaign to campaign, and table to table. The fear was that an obnoxious player or DM would ruin the game, and that would drive people away from it. The thinking was that if we made things as procedural as possible, people would just follow the rules and have fun regardless of who they played with...
> 
> ...




And thus the 5 Int Genius is vindicated.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 21, 2018)

Pauper said:


> I'm not sure I agree that 3/4e had classes that were all fun to play



And I’m sure I don’t agree with that thing I never said.



Pauper said:


> instead, what you had was a bunch of barbarian concepts that were pretty boring/bog-standard, and a few who were insanely fun for the right kind of player because they broke the game. Same with every other class, only the ratio of bog-standard to broken builds changes by class.



I disagree. There were all sorts of interesting ways to play some classes, some of which did break the game and in so doing made them not fun. Other classes, like the barbarian, were just boring to play no matter what. 5e is overall an improvement over that, but still a little lacking.



Pauper said:


> Except if they only change one, they don't really commit to their design goal, because both changes support it. Specifically, both changes reduce the amount of complexity in the game, which would otherwise focus player and DM attention on the mechanics of the game rather than the other elements that make the game, as an RPG, distinct from other kinds of tabletop games.



Reducing complexity isn’t the reason Mearls stated for the changes, so I don’t see your point here.



Pauper said:


> I mean, I was a fan of 4E, but I know a lot of people who basically got bored with low-level 4E play not because it was a bad system, but because it was pretty much the same game mechanically they'd just played a couple of nights before when they played Arkham Horror or Touch of Evil or Last Night on Earth.



I really, really don’t care about your opinions of 4e. I’m here to talk about 5e.



Pauper said:


> If you try to reduce the rules overhead, but leave in the high amount of mechanical complexity, then what you have is a game that tries to pull you in two different directions -- do you focus on the simplicity and free-wheeling aspect of the game, or do you dive into the mechanical complexity and ultimately find the unbalancing factors there (which become unbalancing much more rapidly given that the rest of the game system isn't trying to hold those factors in check anymore). Ultimately, the mechanical complexity will 'win' in most games, because, as noted many times previously, optimization as a play style drives out other play styles.
> 
> The designers had to do both, or they had to admit that their stated design goal wasn't their real design goal.



Reducing rules overhead was not their stated design goal, so I’m not sure what tree you’re barking up.



Pauper said:


> But why? There are already literally countless ways your 1st level rogue can be different from my 1st level rogue. Mine could be a street urchin while yours is a bored noblewoman looking for excitement. Mine could be looking for a big money score while yours sees wealth as people or organizations rather than money. Mine could have a flaw where he claims not to want to be a hero, but can't help throwing his hat in when needed, even if there's no money in it, while yours can be as brittle as a dry bone when presented with unpleasant choices. The ways to distinguish your rogue from mine are unlimited within the context of a role-playing game; that both characters get Sneak Attack at first level doesn't invalidate this, and arguably having a rogue option that got some ability other than Sneak Attack that you could take at first level wouldn't necessarily make our rogues any more distinguishable as characters, just as game pieces.



Thats all great, but it’s a game too. I’m glad we can make our characters’ narrative as different as we like, but it would be nice if our characters could also _do_ different things as a result of those narrative differences. If the _game_ actually demonstrated differences in the story.



Pauper said:


> I fundamentally disagree.



K.



Pauper said:


> Rather than spend yet another post trying to explain this, I'll just point you at a very well-written essay (from back before 4e even came out) that makes the salient point:
> 
> "The 'character' must make choices based on personal motivations rather than strategic or tactical advantage. This is the 'My Character Wouldn't Do That' factor. The correct move in chess may be Queen's Pawn to Pawn 4, but if the King decides, 'I want to protect my Queen more than I want to protect my Bishop, even though the smart move is to protect my Bishop,' then we have a roleplaying game."



Nothing about having more choices for how to build your character prevents making choices according to your character’s personality as opposed to tactical reasons. Also, one does not have to make poor tactical decisions to roleplay.



Pauper said:


> No, it doesn't. What it does is means that the DM now must serve the role of maintaining balance that previously was presumed to be the designer's role -- in that sense, had the designers gone this route, I'd agree that you could call them 'lazy' for making up a game with a ton of mechanical complexity and then, when DMs asked for help balancing the options, just shrugging their shoulders and saying, 'nope, that's your problem."



See, I’d prefer they developed a game with a higher degree of mechanical depth than 5e, but still made low complexity a priority, and allowed the DM the flexibility to make rulings according to the needs of their table, instead of trying to write the rules to make their role as minor as possible.



Pauper said:


> You're missing the bigger picture -- both parts of the philosophy implicated the same goal, reducing mechanical complexity and rules overhead in order to get the game closer to a goal of supporting different styles of play.



No, I understand that both changes served the same goal, I just don’t think both were necessary to accomplish that goal to a satisfactory degree.



Pauper said:


> And while I don't necessarily think you're a bad person just because you're a fan of power gaming, I will point out that Mearls himself starts the thread by effectively saying the lesson of 3/4e is basically, 'if you design a game for jerks, expect to have to deal with jerks'. I'm involved in an infrequent Pathfinder game, and my feeling at the end of each session is always that the biggest problem with Pathfinder as an RPG system are the people who really like Pathfinder as an RPG system.



I never said I was a fan of powergaming. I said I don’t think powergaming is a bad thing. What I’m a fan of is making decisions, for both tactical and roleplay reasons.



Pauper said:


> My guess is that all of your 5e characters feel the same because they are all the same: the "my character is the best in the world at what he/she/it does" character.



You’d guess wrong. Kindly don’t assume such things about my play preferences.



Pauper said:


> I find it curious to consider playing endless variations of the same character as a role-playing game, just as I'd find it curious to see someone lauded as a 'great actor' when he only ever portrays one role. Adding more mechanical complexity wouldn't actually make a better game; it would just allow you to distract yourself for a bit longer before realizing you're just playing the same character, over and over, in a glorified board game.
> 
> If that's what you want to do, cool -- as noted by other posters, there's a ton of third-party material to let you do just that. Just don't cram it into the 'core game' where I as a DM have to deal with it, because running a game where I'm dealing with the characters' mechanical strengths and flaws is way less interesting to me than one where I'm dealing with their personality strengths and flaws.



I don’t like playing the same (or same kind of) character over and over though. I like playing many different characters. I like playing them in many different ways. And I like being able to express those differences through both story and mechanics. If you want to insult my play style, the angle you should go for is not power gamer but special snowflake. I like to express my creativity by playing the most unique, different characters I can, and I want the difference to be both in how I narrate my actions and in how my characters behave mechanically.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 21, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 21, 2018)

I like donuts. But I think Timmy's started baking them offsite so what I can get now is only sorta-fresh sugary dough.

What edition does this analogy describe?


----------



## happyhermit (Sep 21, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> ..For all the flack 4e got for “every class feeling the same,” I see that issue much more with 5e.




4e got flack for every class feeling similar, it sounds like what you are talking about is every member of a class being the similar. Unless you are arguing that the 5e Wizard class is more similar to the 5e Fighter class than the 4e Wizard class is to the 4e fighter class, in that case you would be wrong by a whole host of metrics.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 21, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> And thus the 5 Int Genius is vindicated.



Granted, knowing Maxperson hated it was the only vindication I needed.


----------



## shadowoflameth (Sep 21, 2018)

I agree. It isn't the designer's responsibility to fix the obnoxious people in your party with rules. Rule zero is don't be a jerk. If your campaign theme is friendly to power gamers and challenges them to be the most powerful, all seeing 20th level whatever they are, fine. If one guy shows up with Lord Featherfall a Kenku Paladin who acts like Howard the Duck then he's might make everybody else miserable but he isn't breaking the rules of the Players Handbook.


----------



## lkj (Sep 21, 2018)

All I know, after reading this discussion, is that I'm now hungry for donuts and bagels.  And there's not a bakery for at least 40 miles from my current location. So, eh, you are all terrible people who should be ashamed of yourselves.

AD


----------



## Derren (Sep 21, 2018)

Cudos to WotC for advertising a half assed job of unfinished and unclear rules as an advantage and narrative freedom and getting away with it.


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 21, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Uh huh. And then you become that guy who is talking about how the only good D&D is when you walked 5 miles, in a sonwstorm, uphill, just so you could cast your single magic missile as a first level magic user before the kobold killed you dead, and those whipper snappers should get off your lawn, already.
> 
> Don't be that guy.




Hey now, some of us earned the right to enjoy being "that guy." Back in the 80s we didn't have ready Internet access to vent our nerd rage, we can to shout at the wall and complain to long-suffering friends in person. Now, I can't yell at you whipper snappers to get off my lawn. Y'all are spending your time indoors reminding me how old I am on Internet forums.  ;-)



> Also? Firefly kinda sucked.




So, I'll just quickly walk away from this one....


----------



## BookBarbarian (Sep 21, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Or, if design is too abstract, think about going out to eat. There may be 500 wonderful entrees and appetizers on the menu, but you can't order them all.




Anytime I see a restaurant with too many things on the menu I always think "There's no way they know how to make all of these things well, or can source all of these ingredients fresh." Sure enough it's never great. I'll take a restaurant with 5 things on the menu that they do right over that monster any day. Then I just switch up which restaurants I go to to get more variety. 

I'm sure that applies to the analogy somehow.



TwoSix said:


> It's more like saying, "Man, I still can't believe they cancelled Firefly after 13 episodes" and getting the response of "It doesn't matter, it was Fox's decision to make, and if 12 seasons of Bones was the more popular choice, you just have to accept it."  Sometimes you just want to express a desire for what you used to have.




You analogy has caused me to think. But it is still hurtful.



lowkey13 said:


> Also? Firefly kinda sucked.




But not as hurtful as this.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 21, 2018)

I'm just glad I'm not the only person in D&D fandom who thinks Firefly was crap.  But at least it wasn't as bad as Buffy I guess.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 21, 2018)

Derren said:


> Cudos to WotC for advertising a half assed job of unfinished and unclear rules as an advantage and narrative freedom and getting away with it.




With, respect (not that you're showing much, but hey), that is a *fully* assed job of unfinished and unclear rules. Calling it half-done job implies that their intent was to do lots of detail and clarity and then they fell short - but, that's not the case.  The vagueness is *by design*, intended, and thought through.  And sells really well.  It is *well-crafted* unclear rules, because clarity has a cost that many folks don't want to pay.

As Vroomfondel said - rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!


----------



## dave2008 (Sep 21, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Interesting. I do like most of what he’s saying, but I also wish they would embrace the fact that a lot of players still have a strong desire for mechanical options. Focusing on narrative identity is great, and the goal of those specific mechanical advantages should be to express a character’s narrative identity rather than to break the game’s progression curve. But 5e still offers so little in terms of ways to mechanically differentiate a character. He paints mechanical options as if they’re at odds with the design philosophy he describes here, but I don’t think they are at all.




I don't think he thinks they are at odds.  He states, "If balanced correctly, every(one) has their fun. Enjoyment isn’t zero sum."

That to me indicates that he sees a benefit to narrative and mechanics.  I think you just don't believe they haven't balanced correctly (at least not for you).


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 21, 2018)

happyhermit said:


> 4e got flack for every class feeling similar, it sounds like what you are talking about is every member of a class being the similar. Unless you are arguing that the 5e Wizard class is more similar to the 5e Fighter class than the 4e Wizard class is to the 4e fighter class, in that case you would be wrong by a whole host of metrics.



Good point. Yes, I do mean that characters of the same class feel too similar to each other.


----------



## happyhermit (Sep 21, 2018)

Derren said:


> Cudos to WotC for advertising a half assed job of unfinished and unclear rules as an advantage and narrative freedom and getting away with it.




By "Cudos" are you referring to their scientific research principles, or is this just a half-assed, unclear way of saying "Kudos"? Either way, if "getting away with it" means producing an incredibly successful product, they sure have.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 21, 2018)

dave2008 said:


> I don't think he things they are at odds.  He states, "If balanaced correctly, every(one) has their fun. Enjoyment isn’t zero sum."
> 
> That to me indicates that he sees a benefit to narrative and mechanics.  I think you just don't believe they haven't balanced correctly (at least not for you).



Hmm... Yeah, you’re absolutely right about that. I think my problem is, this series of tweets does an excellent job of explaining to me why they shifted the focus away from making the rules as thorough as possible, and I agree that it was a good move. But then it goes on to say, “and we also shifted away from trying to give players tons of mechanical options,” which I don’t agree was a good move, and I’m not either not seeing the reasoning for that explained here, or I disagree with the justification being given so fundamentally that I’m not recognizing it as an attempt at justification at all.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 21, 2018)

happyhermit said:


> By "Cudos" are you referring to their scientific research principles, or is this just a half-assed, unclear way of saying "Kudos"? Either way, if "getting away with it" means producing an incredibly successful product, they sure have.



Disclaimer: I like 5e, and despite finding it flawed in some ways, believe it is overall an excellent game.

That said, I could link you to a several minute Mark Hamil rant about why a product being successful doesn’t indicate its quality, which folks who don’t like the Disney Star Wars movies have been awfully fond of.

(Secondary disclaimer: I like the sequel trilogy so far, and despite finding it flawed in some ways, believe it is overall an excellent series of films.)


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 21, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> 6e is exactly what I want, so...



 ...you might want to start designing it on your own, as I'm not expecting WotC to be designing it anytime soon.



> Kindly ... engage with my point, which is that mechanical options can be designed to support narrative identiy.



They can be, but the point is they don't have to be and don't need to be; one character can still play very differently from another character even if their underlying mechanical chassis - class, race, stats, feats, abilities, etc. - is *exactly* the same.



> First of all, I don’t consider power gaming an inherently bad thing. It’s certainly not at odds with roleplaying.



My experience differs.

As soon as any player - or any DM, for that matter - is faced with any decision on one side of which lies mechanical advantage and on the other side of which lies roleplaying and-or character consistency then they're at odds.  And the best way to ensure this sort of decision arises as infrequently as possible is to file down or entirely remove any mechanical advantages that may be gained, thus putting roleplay and character personality front and center and strongly nudging decisions to be based off of those elements first.



> I think I may have miscommunicated to you what I meant by mechanical options. I don’t want more races, classes, and subclasses. There are plenty of those available between official products, 3rd party, and fan-made content. What I want is more than one choice of race, one choice of class, one choice of subclass, and four ability score increases/feats to differentiate one character from another. For all the flack 4e got for “every class feeling the same,” I see that issue much more with 5e.



Well, in the entire history of D&D you've pretty much always only ever had one choice of race per character; you've usually only had one choice of class-and-subclass* per character; and you haven't always had the choice of feats and skills customization that you do in 5e.  So I rather fail to see your point here.

* - including prestige-class progressions where applicable, and including multi-class options.

Lan-"mechanically, I might just be a basic standard Fighter, but get to know me and you'll soon find I'm like no other Fighter you ever knew"-efan


----------



## happyhermit (Sep 21, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Good point. Yes, I do mean that characters of the same class feel too similar to each other.




I can see how that may be the case (compared to 4e) at least mechanically and at least for some classes or rather subclasses which is a point in and of itself. PC's of some particular subclasses (ones without a lot of option selection ie; Champion and not Wizard) are perhaps more likely to be similar to one another (on a purely mechanical basis) than their equivalents in 4e, but I think it would actually be pretty close and complicated to compare when you add in things like essentials classes.



Charlaquin said:


> Disclaimer: I like 5e, and despite finding it flawed in some ways, believe it is overall an excellent game.
> 
> That said, I could link you to a several minute Mark Hamil rant about why a product being successful doesn’t indicate its quality, which folks who don’t like the Disney Star Wars movies have been awfully fond of.
> 
> (Secondary disclaimer: I like the sequel trilogy so far, and despite finding it flawed in some ways, believe it is overall an excellent series of films.)




Thank you for sparing me another rant  I need less of those in my life, not more. We likely agree that the relationship between "quality" and "popularity" is a complicated one.


----------



## neobolts (Sep 21, 2018)

Papa Mearls said:
			
		

> The downside to this approach is that the rules became comprehensive to a fault. The game’s rules bloated, as they sought to resolve many if not all questions that arise in play with the game text.




He's talking about 3.5e and 4e, but I feel like there's a subtext here that screams "LIKE PATHFINDER!" as well. They've definitely honed in on the "a rule for everything" demographic, and PF fans seems quite pleased with their product. _Mechanics as king _vs _story as king_ are where Paizo and WotC respectively have diverged and carved out their territory.

Also (and I expect pitchforks and torches heading my way for saying this)... *WotC is releasing too many 5e books* right now. I'm in the middle of a Tales of the Loop campaign and dropping around a 100 bucks for a two-book Waterdeep module and a Ranvica setting book a 3 month span is too much to keep up with. Plus that art book looks super sweet.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 21, 2018)

Whether you like it or not, the design philosophy is important.

The rules become much clearer. I am totally on board with the design philosophy. Most of the rules arguments/confusion comes from people who are not. Understanding the why of the rules is important.

One thing I have noticed is a correlation between people who are upset that 'character building' is more limited than what they are used to, and how boring the game is because they don't have many options during play. 

This again comes down to how we approach the game. 5e allows characters to do things without having explicit buttons for them. If you have never played an RPG like that before, then it is likely that you don't even see the possibilities.

I have introduced people to RPGs through 5e and many of them start by thinking the rules are what is on the character sheet. At some point it clicks, either through someone else or by me reminding them that they are free to do whatever, and then the experience entirely changes for them.

There are a multitude of non-combat examples so here is a combat one. Had a player who started with 5e but in a game that I assume was very much about the buttons. She played a ranged Ranger. At our table enemies would run up to her and start attacking. Then she would have disadvantage to shoot. At first she was frustrated, but eventually it lead to all sorts of creative ways and teamwork to prevent that. Combat was no longer 'I do my action routine'. It changes dynamically.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 21, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> As soon as any player - or any DM, for that matter - is faced with any decision on one side of which lies mechanical advantage and on the other side of which lies roleplaying and-or character consistency then they're at odds.  And the best way to ensure this sort of decision arises as infrequently as possible is to file down or entirely remove any mechanical advantages that may be gained, thus putting roleplay and character personality front and center and strongly nudging decisions to be based off of those elements first.




That is the simplest and most reliable way.  I don't think there's a blanket "best", for all games and all people.  Especially since removing *ALL* mechanical advantages means that all characters are mechanically identical in all ways, and no actions (including roleplay choices) on the part of the PCs impact resolution of events, which is probably not what we want in RPGs...

FATE-based games, for example, give you ways to force alignment between the mechanical advantages and the roleplay.  In a game a while ago, I was playing a character who used guns a great deal, but I didn't want the character to be the type to leave a bloody trail of bullet-laden corpses behind him.  So, I took an Aspect, "I set 'em up, you knock 'em down."  Any time I tried to attack someone directly with a gun, the GM could assign me a penalty (My shot wouldn't be as good, but I'd get a Fate point).  But, any time I used a trick shot or otherwise used gunplay for non-damaging effects, or to give another character a bonus, I could spend a Fate point and get a bonus myself.  The end result was a mechanical advantage that aligned with my chosen narrative-identity, and a mechanical detriment when I went against that narrative.  

This is less simple and unreliable, as it needs a GM actively using the Fate-point economy well to make happen.  But, in the case where you have met the requirement, this kind kind of thing performs better than simply removing all possible mechanical advantages.


----------



## Joseph Nardo (Sep 21, 2018)

Umbran said:


> With, respect (not that you're showing much, but hey), that is a *fully* assed job of unfinished and unclear rules. Calling it half-done job implies that their intent was to do lots of detail and clarity and then they fell short - but, that's not the case.  The vagueness is *by design*, intended, and thought through.  And sells really well.  It is *well-crafted* unclear rules, because clarity has a cost that many folks don't want to pay.
> 
> As Vroomfondel said - rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!





Touche!!!!...one of the best posts ever!!!!....And I concur


----------



## Hurin88 (Sep 21, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Interesting. I do like most of what he’s saying, but I also wish they would embrace the fact that a lot of players still have a strong desire for mechanical options. Focusing on narrative identity is great, and the goal of those specific mechanical advantages should be to express a character’s narrative identity rather than to break the game’s progression curve. But 5e still offers so little in terms of ways to mechanically differentiate a character. He paints mechanical options as if they’re at odds with the design philosophy he describes here, but I don’t think they are at all.




Very well put. I agree completely. 

This is one of the reasons I've been so disappointed with 5e: too few options. And no, I don't think a rules book that tells the DM and player, 'Just make it up', is a very good substitute.

We're on our third 5e campaign and we've already pretty much exhausted many of our options. When choosing a different weapon for a character just means you'll be rolling the same old d8 for damage, my enthusiasm begins to fade. 

I don't mean this as an indictment of those who like 5e; if you like theatres of the mind and fuzzy systems, all power to you. But it is not my cup of tea.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 21, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ........
> 
> 
> 
> OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!




The only important question left in this thread is whether you had a bagel or donut in that gap in your "OOOOOs."



neobolts said:


> Also (and I expect pitchforks and torches heading my way for saying this)... *WotC is releasing too many 5e books* right now. I'm in the middle of a Tales of the Loop campaign and dropping around a 100 bucks for a two-book Waterdeep module and a Ranvica setting book a 3 month span is too much to keep up with. Plus that art book looks super sweet.




No pitchforks or torches from me, but I don't really get this. All you are really saying is that WotC should only release enough books that you yourself can happily play and buy at the pace you want to play and buy, one after the other. The problem is that A) Others go at a different pace, and B) Not everyone plays every single story arc, one after the other.

So what's the problem, again?


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 21, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Sep 21, 2018)

I attack the baker and eat all the donut and bagel minions. How many XP do I get?


----------



## neobolts (Sep 21, 2018)

Mercurius said:


> No pitchforks or torches from me, but I don't really get this. All you are really saying is that WotC should only release enough books that you yourself can happily play and buy at the pace you want to play and buy, one after the other. The problem is that A) Others go at a different pace, and B) Not everyone plays every single story arc, one after the other.
> 
> So what's the problem, again?




The topic of bloat (and by extension, release pace) is part of what Mearls was getting at. I was just sharing my personal experience that the pace of book releases has outstripped my responsible spending for the first time in 5e. 

The _problem_ is I really really really want to buy $175 worth of D&D modules, sourcebooks, and art books.


----------



## Toriel (Sep 21, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> So, one thing that many people don't understand unless they are designing things is that there is no such thing as a "free lunch." And this applies to, well, pretty much all design choices.
> 
> Or, if design is too abstract, think about going out to eat. There may be 500 wonderful entrees and appetizers on the menu, but you can't order them all. You have to pick and choose what you want to eat, instead of devouring all of them, unless you end up like Mr. Creosote (wafer thin!).




The issue I have with your comparison is that you don't have to order all the entrees and appetizers all on the same visit, and nothing prevents me from trying a new entree and appetizer every time I go there.

Same thing with D&D. Having a multitude of options doesn't mean I have to have them all on the same character at the same time. I can try these options with one character and these other options with another character. It doesn't have to detract from the experience and doesn't have to be unbalanced.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 21, 2018)

Toriel said:


> The issue I have with your comparison is that you don't have to order all the entrees and appetizers all on the same visit, and nothing prevents me from trying a new entree and appetizer every time I go there.
> 
> Same thing with D&D. Having a multitude of options doesn't mean I have to have them all on the same character at the same time. I can try these options with one character and these other options with another character. It doesn't have to detract from the experience and doesn't have to be unbalanced.




I’m inclined to agree. For me, options speak to replayability.


----------



## pickin_grinnin (Sep 21, 2018)

>The fear was that an obnoxious player or  DM would ruin the game, 
>and that would drive people away from it. 

That assumption is what made me lose interest in D&D long ago, and what keeps me from buying into a lot of modern "storytelling games."  You don't need to bake "protection" from bad GMS into the rules.  Just don't play with them.


----------



## Jester David (Sep 21, 2018)

Toriel said:


> The issue I have with your comparison is that you don't have to order all the entrees and appetizers all on the same visit, and nothing prevents me from trying a new entree and appetizer every time I go there.
> 
> Same thing with D&D. Having a multitude of options doesn't mean I have to have them all on the same character at the same time. I can try these options with one character and these other options with another character. It doesn't have to detract from the experience and doesn't have to be unbalanced.



The problem with that logic is twofold. 
First, option creep = power creep. The more options are in the game, the more broken the game becomes. More options are inherently more unbalanced. 

Second, replayability is fine, but in 3e and 4e more options were being released than could ever be played. In this analogy, this would be restaurants adding new entrees every few months, making the menu larger and larger.

Look at _Guide to Everything_. There are 32 or so subclasses in that book alone. That’s enough for six complete five-player tables. Have you run six level 1-20 campaigns in the past year? 
And that’s assuming each subclass is a single character. Adding the new races to the mix changes things greatly. A bold elf swashbuckler with a rapier is going to be very different than a cynical dwarf swashbuckler with axes (especially with different magic items). 

Options are nice, but they quickly become masterbatory. Content for the sake of content. More choices for the sake of choices, while existing content remains unplayed. I guarantee that there’s feats in 3e that were never chosen by a single charcater. Prestige classes people never took. Options that someone spent more time writing than was spent being played...


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 21, 2018)

Jester David said:


> The problem with that logic is twofold.
> First, option creep = power creep. The more options are in the game, the more broken the game becomes. More options are inherently more unbalanced.
> 
> Second, replayability is fine, but in 3e and 4e more options were being released than could ever be played. In this analogy, this would be restaurants adding new entrees every few months, making the menu larger and larger.
> ...




To add to that theme gets lost or watered down as well.

What is the identity of a Warlock, or a Rogue, or a Fighter? With enough options they become more and more interchangeable.

We already have a bunch of subclasses that feel like the theme is tacked on or doesn't belong. Hexblade is the worst offender of course. Celestial Warlock is also not great as it steps into Cleric and Paladin territory. I have no idea what a Storm Herald is and why they are a type of Barbarian. Then there is the War Mage which dilutes the identity of Wizards as students of the various schools. There isn't much that ties the schools to the game, and this erodes it more. The Bladesinger at least had a strong theme and being limited to Elves left the schools of Wizards intact. And others of course.

I do like options. New subclasses are fun, we just shouldn't have that many of them. I would have loved 16 pages on new backgrounds much more than a bunch of the subclasses.

I could get on board with alternate features too as a way of refining already published ones that had poor mechanics. The Undying Warlock is a good theme that was missing, it just doesn't work well mechanically. 

I love having more invocations, and it allows them to print 1/long rest spells that don't use up a spell slot. New spells in general are fun.


----------



## robus (Sep 22, 2018)

Talking about options brings to mind how boring I, for one, find the Realms and perhaps a reason why people want more class options, to bring some variety to a tired realm  . Rather than mechanical bloat, expanding the range of settings is a much more interesting way to enhance replayability IMHO. Glad that they’re beginning to explore that side of things (CoS not withstanding).

New settings to explore is a lot more exciting to my mind’s eye


----------



## The Human Target (Sep 22, 2018)

Every time Mearls talks I think "oh that's why I don't really like 5e."

So 4e has rules bloat and is unbalanced now?

Pffffft.


----------



## Kite474 (Sep 22, 2018)

In short: We decided to try something against what we were previously doing in order to get back to basics and something that was much more friendly to a wider audience. 

Which honestly works great for them and I cant blame them at all

At the same time it does really feel like they just went to the people who enjoyed 3e and 4e:  off we dont want you anymore, go away.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 22, 2018)

Kite474 said:


> In short: We decided to try something against what we were previously doing in order to get back to basics and something that was much more friendly to a wider audience.
> 
> Which honestly works great for them and I cant blame them at all
> 
> At the same time it does really feel like they just went to the people who enjoyed 3e and 4e:  off we dont want you anymore, go away.




Well they can't please everyone.

I am very happy they departed from the design philosophy of 3e. 5e feels like it is back to the feeling of 2e and before. Which is great for me. There is always Pathfinder for people who want 3e.


----------



## Kite474 (Sep 22, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> Well they can't please everyone.
> 
> I am very happy they departed from the design philosophy of 3e. 5e feels like it is back to the feeling of 2e and before. Which is great for me. There is always Pathfinder for people who want 3e.



True, I do feel sorry for the 4e folks who really just dont have jack  anymore. 

As for cant pleasing everyone. That's definitely true it still I feel they could have done something to not just dash a chunk of their fanbase to the rocks.

Maybe something like a WW/Onyx Path Press Translation guide?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 22, 2018)

The Human Target said:


> Every time Mearls talks I think "oh that's why I don't really like 5e."
> 
> So 4e has rules bloat and is unbalanced now?
> 
> Pffffft.




Well, to be fair, the rules bloat part is probably true.  Unbalance?  Nope, but, that's not what he said anyway.  

But, the basic point that [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] is making here seems to ring true.  3e and 4e really, REALLY tried to universalize the gaming experience.  The whole RAW issue really came to the fore in 3e and 4e was the RPGA edition.  By shifting the design approach away from trying to formalize play across every table, to accepting that every table is pretty much playing a different game from a similar base, they avoid alienating too many people (WHAT?!?! They nerfed MY favorite character!?!?!) and avoid burying the game under the weight of so much material.


----------



## Raith5 (Sep 22, 2018)

Kite474 said:


> In short: We decided to try something against what we were previously doing in order to get back to basics and something that was much more friendly to a wider audience.
> 
> Which honestly works great for them and I cant blame them at all
> 
> At the same time it does really feel like they just went to the people who enjoyed 3e and 4e:  off we dont want you anymore, go away.





It feels like that sometimes. Despite it not being a binary choice. I mean I like and play both 4e and 5e. While there is no denying the success of 5e at my table and more generally, I do find it missing the complexity and depth that 4e had (probably too much of!). I really respect both games and enjoy the fact that there a variety of gaming styles in the hobby - including the dreaded powergamer.

 I think the main thing going forward is do they want 5e to be broad church that includes those players or are they happy to completely leave this ground to Paizo etc?


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 22, 2018)

Kite474 said:


> True, I do feel sorry for the 4e folks who really just dont have jack  anymore.
> 
> As for cant pleasing everyone. That's definitely true it still I feel they could have done something to not just dash a chunk of their fanbase to the rocks.
> 
> Maybe something like a WW/Onyx Path Press Translation guide?




They do still sell the 4E books on the DMsGuild.


----------



## Jester David (Sep 22, 2018)

Kite474 said:


> In short: We decided to try something against what we were previously doing in order to get back to basics and something that was much more friendly to a wider audience.
> 
> Which honestly works great for them and I cant blame them at all
> 
> At the same time it does really feel like they just went to the people who enjoyed 3e and 4e:  off we dont want you anymore, go away.



That was going to happen anyway. 
4e was very similar in philosophy to 3e, but that didn’t stop the people who enjoyed it from feeling alienated and switching to Pathfinder. No matter what they did with 5e, a lot of 4e fans would have walked. 

Regardless, the approach they had wasn’t working. It led to several very short editions, both with a mid-edition reboot. Doing the same thing again likely wouldn’t have worked any better.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 22, 2018)

neobolts said:


> The topic of bloat (and by extension, release pace) is part of what Mearls was getting at. I was just sharing my personal experience that the pace of book releases has outstripped my responsible spending for the first time in 5e.
> 
> The _problem_ is I really really really want to buy $175 worth of D&D modules, sourcebooks, and art books.




So its a _good _problem, like having too much starting pitching.



Morrus said:


> I’m inclined to agree. For me, options speak to replayability.




I veer more towards the 5E minimalism than PF crunchiness, but this strikes a chord with me. My daughters and I started playing Catan a few months ago; we've probably played half a dozen times, or slightly more. While we still very much enjoy it and there are subtle aspects still to be explored, I can see how we'll soon be ready for an expansion set to diversify play experience.

So while I love the simplicity of 5E, I really don't see why they can't have optional "expansion sets" like Catan for those who want a crunchier, or at least more varied, mechanical experience. I am generally a very happy 5E customer, but I remain slightly disappointed that they didn't really explore the whole "complexity dial" and "modular options" avenue that they talked about during the playtest.

I'm guessing there are several reasons they haven't explored that route, one being that it might dillute the cohesiveness of the game and community. Perhaps they believe--maybe rightfully so--that the more people play the same version of the game, the stronger the community. Another reason might simply be a matter of dedicating resources, that is, designer time. A third might be wanting to keep a simple, straightforward and minimalist release schedule. 

Anyhow, I just don't see why, in principle, more rules options detracts from the integrity and purity of the core 5E game--as long as those options are just that: optional. Who knows, maybe at some point we'll see an "Advanced D&D" line, but I doubt it.


----------



## DM Howard (Sep 22, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> 5e feels like it is back to the feeling of 2e and before. Which is great for me.




I've read this several times since 5th Edition was released but I don't get it.  I started with 2E and I felt like 2E had an enormous amount of options and "rules bloat" attached to it.





Mercurius said:


> I veer more towards the 5E minimalism than PF crunchiness, but this strikes a chord with me. My daughters and I started playing Catan a few months; we've probably played half a dozen times, or slightly more. While we still very much enjoy it and there are subtle aspects still to be explored, I can see how we'll soon be ready for an expansion set to diversity play experience.
> 
> So while I love the simplicity of 5E, I really don't see why they can't have optional "expansion sets" like Catan for those who want a crunchier, or at least more varied, mechanical experience. I am generally a very happy 5E customer, but I remain slightly disappointed that they didn't really explore the whole "complexity dial" and "modular options" avenue that they talked about during the playtest.
> 
> ...




I completely agree.

I think a better analogy is that I, and others, would like some coffee with our donuts.


----------



## Zilong (Sep 22, 2018)

Mercurius said:


> So while I love the simplicity of 5E, I really don't see why they can't have optional "expansion sets" like Catan for those who want a crunchier, or at least more varied, mechanical experience. I am generally a very happy 5E customer, but I remain slightly disappointed that they didn't really explore the whole "complexity dial" and "modular options" avenue that they talked about during the playtest.




When I see requests for more crunchy modular options I wonder if it has to be done by the D&D team at WotC. I mean, there are already a bunch of fantastic class, subclass, spell, etc. options in the dmsguild store. Some of it is effectively free. On top of that, a number of authors from the dmsguild, the adepts, are basically officially endorsed by the official team.

There are also some very good third-party publishers who create 5e material. Not only DM tools like Kobold Press' _Tome of Beasts, _but also character options as well.

These, to me, seem to serve the purpose of that modular crunch you mentioned. With this in mind do we really need to have "official" options? Admittedly, these options are not available in Adventure League games, but that serves a fairly niche audience and most data seems to point to people playing in home games where getting DM approval is but a conversation away.

Long story short, I sort of feel we already do have crunchier options.


----------



## DM Howard (Sep 22, 2018)

Zilong said:


> When I see requests for more crunchy modular options I wonder if it has to be done by the D&D team at WotC. I mean, there are already a bunch of fantastic class, subclass, spell, etc. options in the dmsguild store. Some of it is effectively free. On top of that, a number of authors from the dmsguild, the adepts, are basically officially endorsed by the official team.
> 
> There are also some very good third-party publishers who create 5e material. Not only DM tools like Kobold Press' _Tome of Beasts, _but also character options as well.
> 
> ...



I would agree except none of these products make it into game stores, which means for a not-so-small portion of the D&D player base means they might as well not exist.


----------



## Kite474 (Sep 22, 2018)

Zilong said:


> When I see requests for more crunchy modular options I wonder if it has to be done by the D&D team at WotC. I mean, there are already a bunch of fantastic class, subclass, spell, etc. options in the dmsguild store. Some of it is effectively free. On top of that, a number of authors from the dmsguild, the adepts, are basically officially endorsed by the official team.
> 
> There are also some very good third-party publishers who create 5e material. Not only DM tools like Kobold Press' _Tome of Beasts, _but also character options as well.
> 
> ...



I think the big issue is actually finding this material as the store is kind of as useless as the APP and Steam store


----------



## Zilong (Sep 22, 2018)

Yeah, the DMsguild could certainly have a better ui.

But for making it into game stores I don't know if that is really an issue. Often times when someone wants more options they are either someone who is more knowledgeable about the hobby already and should know about third-party publishers or are completely new and suggest a completely bonkers (in a good way) concept. For the new player, hopefully, the DM will be experienced enough to make a suggestion for an adequate substitute or know about one of the avenues I mentioned.

Where I can see it breaking down is if everyone at a table, players and DM, are newer and less experienced. In that regard, the WotC team could probably do a better job of pointing them in the right direction. Though, how they would do that, I have no idea.


----------



## Jester David (Sep 22, 2018)

Kite474 said:


> I think the big issue is actually finding this material as the store is kind of as useless as the APP and Steam store



Start off with: https://koboldpress.com/kpstore/product/midgard-heroes-handbook-for-5th-edition-dnd-5e/

Then move to Adept program material: https://www.dmsguild.com/browse.php?filters=45680_0_0_0_0_0&page=1&sort=4a#browselist

A good one is: https://www.dmsguild.com/product/22...es-to-Everything-Else?filters=45680_0_0_0_0_0

Then check out the bestsellers: https://www.dmsguild.com/metal.php
If they’ve sold that many, they’re generally worthwhile. 

Bam. Easy.


----------



## Jester David (Sep 22, 2018)

DM Howard said:


> I would agree except none of these products make it into game stores, which means for a not-so-small portion of the D&D player base means they might as well not exist.



And?

If they’re only looking in stores, then they’re probably not actually looking. Which means they’re likely satisfied with the existing stuff.
If they want more D&D content but can’t be bothered to spend 30 seconds googling, I don’t think waves of books will help.


----------



## DM Howard (Sep 22, 2018)

Jester David said:


> And?
> 
> If they’re only looking in stores, then they’re probably not actually looking. Which means they’re likely satisfied with the existing stuff.
> If they want more D&D content but can’t be bothered to spend 30 seconds googling, I don’t think waves of books will help.



I disagree.

I would like to support my store, so if it comes down to going for a Sms Guild product or buying yet another adventure from WOTC in-store then it will be the WOTC adventure.


----------



## Jester David (Sep 22, 2018)

DM Howard said:


> I disagree.
> 
> I would like to support my store, so if it comes down to going for a Sms Guild product or buying yet another adventure from WOTC in-store then it will be the WOTC adventure.



Yeah... because it’s an even tie between buying a $50 hardcover every four months and buying a periodical $5 adventure or small accessory...
It’s pretty easy to do both. I don’t think paying for a DMsGuild PDF is going to put the storyline adventures out of financial reach of anyone. 
Plus, the DMsGuild remains an option for people other than DMs who want to purchase material.

Also, _Heroes Handbook_ from Kobold Press can be purchased from stores. They can order one in.


----------



## DM Howard (Sep 22, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Yeah... because it’s an even tie between buying a $50 hardcover every four months and buying a periodical $5 adventure or small accessory...
> It’s pretty easy to do both. I don’t think paying for a DMsGuild PDF is going to put the storyline adventures out of financial reach of anyone.
> Plus, the DMsGuild remains an option for people other than DMs who want to purchase material.
> 
> Also, _Heroes Handbook_ from Kobold Press can be purchased from stores. They can order one in.



Yes... because the majority of the stuff available on the DM's Guild is a worthy comparison to a third party product like the one you mentioned.


Oh wait.  They aren't.  Not even close.


----------



## Jester David (Sep 22, 2018)

DM Howard said:


> Yes... because the majority of the stuff available on the DM's Guild is a worthy comparison to a third party product like the one you mentioned.
> 
> 
> Oh wait.  They aren't.  Not even close.



So in the last three posts you’ve come down on the DMsGuild because it’s not as visible as stores. And then because it competes with stores. And now you’re saying the problem is that it’s quality is low. 
Pick a story. 

WotC turned to several DMsGuild adventure writers to flesh out _Dragon Heist _and _Dungeon of the Mad Mage_. So clearly they disagree...
Seriously, attacking every single document on the site is low. Yeah, there’s some terrible stuff there. But there’s also some stuff that’s better than the stuff WotC put out. 
Again, check out the Adept releases and the bestsellers. 
It’s. Not. Hard.

I remember the 3.5e days when WotC was responsible for all the content. They put out some stinkers of books. Being “official” doesn’t confer any magical design powers. There’s some great stuff on the Guild for those willing to take the chance.


----------



## Reynard (Sep 22, 2018)

DM Howard said:


> I've read this several times since 5th Edition was released but I don't get it.  I started with 2E and I felt like 2E had an enormous amount of options and "rules bloat" attached to it.




Core 2E has none of that. There was certainly a huge amount of player facing supplements in 2E to go along with the settings and DM facing stuff, but the Core 3 was a beautiful, complete, amazing version of the game, surpassed on IMO by BECMI.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 22, 2018)

Morrus said:


> I’m inclined to agree. For me, options speak to replayability.




Dude, how many different D&D characters do you play in a year?  Don't include one-shots at cons, because those don't really give you a full experience of playing a character.  How many campaign characters do you play in a year?

The 5e PHB has a full dozen character classes.  Even if we leave out the various choices within each class, you get a dozen distinct campaign characters out of that.  If a campaign runs something around a year... we have a decade of play there?  But 5e is said to not have enough options?  

So, whatever your own proclivities, I don't see "replayablity" as the broad issue.  I think is it far simpler.

My wife crochets.  A lot.  She has a spinning wheel, and fiber to spin.  She's got a large stash of yarn she's bought and yarn she's made, a fistful or two of hooks, and a library of patterns.  Because when you are *making* a thing, you need options to make the thing you want, the way you want it - for a shawl, there's the material the yarn is made of, and it's thickness and texture, it's color, and the pattern and size-gauge of the stitches, all impacting the final product and its characteristics.

Broadly, having options is about being able to *craft* your character.  If play is significantly about Making a Thing and putting it through its paces, then you need a lot of mechanical options, or you aren't really Making a Thing.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 22, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> ...you might want to start designing it on your own, as I'm not expecting WotC to be designing it anytime soon.



Neither do I, but that’s goals for you. They’re long-term things.



Lanefan said:


> They can be, but the point is they don't have to be and don't need to be; one character can still play very differently from another character even if their underlying mechanical chassis - class, race, stats, feats, abilities, etc. - is *exactly* the same.



Sure, and I’ve never suggested that you _need_ different mechanical options to play characters differently. That doesn’t mean the game wouldn’t be improved by having them, though. We don’t _need_ any rules at all, but most folks seem to like having at least some.



Lanefan said:


> My experience differs.
> 
> As soon as any player - or any DM, for that matter - is faced with any decision on one side of which lies mechanical advantage and on the other side of which lies roleplaying and-or character consistency then they're at odds.



Only if they decided to play a character that wouldn’t take the tactically advantageous option. Which is a valid choice, but is not the only valid choice.



Lanefan said:


> And the best way to ensure this sort of decision arises as infrequently as possible is to file down or entirely remove any mechanical advantages that may be gained, thus putting roleplay and character personality front and center and strongly nudging decisions to be based off of those elements first.



Why on earth would you want to make character decisions arise less frequently in D&D? That’s the whole point of the game, imagining yourself as a character and making decisions as you think that character would. You know, roleplaying. The act of deciding between the tactically advantageous action and the action that is most consistent with your character’s motivations is itself roleplaying, and to assume that the tactically advantageous option is somehow a less authentic roleplaying choice assumes that characters’ motivations cannot change over time.



Lanefan said:


> Well, in the entire history of D&D you've pretty much always only ever had one choice of race per character;



Except in the 3 Editions where you’ve had racial Feat options and the one where some races were expressed or enhanced through classes and paragon paths?



Lanefan said:


> you've usually only had one choice of class-and-subclass* per character;



Except the edition where you got to choose a class, a sub-class, a paragon path, and an epic destiny, each of which had further sub-options in the form of powers?



Lanefan said:


> and you haven't always had the choice of feats and skills customization that you do in 5e.  So I rather fail to see your point here.



Um, for 10 years, I had considerably _more_ choice of Feats and skills customization that I do in 5e, and my point is, those player-facing options didn’t need to go away to satisfy the design goal of making the DM-Facing options more flexible. 3e and 4e messed up by trying to DM-proof the rules, I absolutely agree. But 5e didn’t have to take away the rich character customization those edititions offered  to fix that problem. I find 5e an improvement over 3e and 4e because of the changes to the DM-facing rules, but I think a game with 5e’s philosophy towards DM-Facing rules and a 4e-like wealth of player-Facing options would be better than either.



Lanefan said:


> Lan-"mechanically, I might just be a basic standard Fighter, but get to know me and you'll soon find I'm like no other Fighter you ever knew"-efan



Charla- “Good for you, I can do lots of fancy maneuvers _and_ I’m like no other Fighter you ever knew” -quin


----------



## R_Chance (Sep 22, 2018)

Jacob Lewis said:


> I attack the baker and eat all the donut and bagel minions. How many XP do I get?




Not many. That baker was a pushover. A real creampuff


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 22, 2018)

Kite474 said:


> True, I do feel sorry for the 4e folks who really just dont have jack  anymore.
> 
> As for cant pleasing everyone. That's definitely true it still I feel they could have done something to not just dash a chunk of their fanbase to the rocks.
> 
> Maybe something like a WW/Onyx Path Press Translation guide?



They promised up, down, and sideways that 5e would be modular, with the ability to be customized to emulate the style of whatever edition you preferred. But then when the playtest was coming to a close, and we asked, “hey, what about those modular options? Still waiting for something that can let us emulate the style of our preferred edition...” they said, “What’s the matter, the Battlemaster Fighter not enough for you?”


----------



## R_Chance (Sep 22, 2018)

DM Howard said:


> I've read this several times since 5th Edition was released but I don't get it.  I started with 2E and I felt like 2E had an enormous amount of options and "rules bloat" attached to it.




You must have started with later 2E with the Players Option books and so on. Early 2E was pretty straight forward; basically a cleaned up 1E with some fine tuning. I like 5E but going back to 2E is tempting (or in modern parlance more like back to 1.5E).

And D@mn it. You people (in this thread, not you specifically DM Howard) and your analogies are making me hungry. I'm grading papers at 11:00 on a Friday night (which says volumes about my life right now) and all you can talk about is bakeries and restaurants. I'm a mile from a decent bakery... and it's closed! *sigh* Time to raid the fridge 

And get back to grading... if I plan on having any weekend.

*edit* For additional commentary and food thoughts...


----------



## Greg Benage (Sep 22, 2018)

It’s certainly not true of all players who want a lot of mechanical options, but some players want a lot of options because they want a lot of combinations, and they want a lot of combinations because they think they can “win the game” with them. They want those options to be in official published products because they don’t want to ask the GM’s permission to use them, or at least want to have some presumption of inclusion on their side.

You design a game with a lot of options and combinations, you won’t only get those guys...but you will get more than your share of those guys.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Sep 22, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Bolding mine.  In that bold is the basic problem.
> 
> Players have goals.  Designers have goals.  Mechanical advantages do not - in the same way that a hammer does not have a *goal* of hammering nails.  Chunks of steel on sticks do not have will or desire, and have no goals.  The hammer can be used to tear down drywall, if that is my goal, no matter that the designer of the hammer had a goal of making a thing to hammer nails.
> 
> ...




I like this. I think Mearls is thinking more in favor of how can D&D be better for the DM with 5e than the more Player facing 3e and 4e because both 3e and 4e do provide a lot more mechanical emphasis and options for Players, which probably did make those games more difficult to DM for. 

At least on the surface it seems that way. But Mearls is making a lot of personal biases creep in and putting his own beliefs into what D&D is supposed to be, and its definitely in favor of making the game appear to be more narrative focused by how the game presents information, the game's mechanisms, and the whole paradigm of De_emphasizing "Rules" in favor of "Rulings" for different DMs to manage the game as they want.

All this is why I personally dislike 5e.  As a Player I don't like how so many of my decisions are allowed by the DMs personal perspective on their Rulings and because I don't have Rules to fall back on, this leads me to feel quite often that my personal Narrative Identity only matters if the DM chooses to allow it.

Plus, 5e has no game mechanisms to really support Narrative Identity. The way its written it presents a very good illusion of it, but if you read carefully, most of the actual rules are phrased like "When you do an Action you MAY DO... (Insert possible action)." 

There are no concrete rules in 5e for Players to fall back on. 5e provides no Player Agency, as the game is entirely based on how the DM decides to make their Rulings. 

As an autistic person, I love this as a DM and I hate it as a Player. All of this is why I love 4e a lot more as a Player. Because in 4e, I can look at my character sheet, see my abilities, and I don't need to ask the DM if I can do something because my abilities gave Me as Player the ability to make real mechanical decisions and See the Results. 

This in turn would cause a 4e DM to have to be more adaptable, and be able to make decisions based on what the Players chose to do. 

And yet 4e did provide the DMs full ability to make rulings on everything else not codified by all the rules, just see page 42 in the DMG1. That one page provided a sure fire system to enable DM to come up with a great way of handling more Narrative Agency in the more Narrative focused scenes. 

The problem was that so many people only saw the presentation of the rules that they never really delved further into the actual design mechanisms of the game. And this makes many of Mearls' suppositions of 4e incorrect. 

As designed, if you really read the 4e DMG books, they provide the DM an incredible amount of flexibility and narrative tools to adapt and create many narrative opportunities. Way more than 5e's design, which is pretty wishy washy and up do the whims of the DMs own personal biases that can often take away from the Players actual agency to make real narrative decisions. The fact that the 5e DMG can talk about Inspiration for many paragraphs and yet does not provide a real single mechanical system for handing Inspiration out is proof of this.

But I am a player who see's rules as narrative support and provides players with more agency and 5e's approach as taking away the players agency to make any kind of real decision making since every action the players can do begins by asking the DM if they can do it.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Sep 22, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Oh man, things just got REAL!




No kidding. Saying Firefly sucked is like siding with the Reavers and going crazy out in the black or being Malcolm and not following through with the contract with Niska...


----------



## Morrus (Sep 22, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Dude, how many different D&D characters do you play in a year?  Don't include one-shots at cons, because those don't really give you a full experience of playing a character.  How many campaign characters do you play in a year?




I don't often play, to be honest -- I'm a lifelong DM, as I enjoy that process more. Not sure why!


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 22, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Sure, and I’ve never suggested that you _need_ different mechanical options to play characters differently. That doesn’t mean the game wouldn’t be improved by having them, though. We don’t _need_ any rules at all, but most folks seem to like having at least some.



I tend to disagree that the game would in fact be improved by having lots of extra mechanical character options.  1e has relatively few.  3e has boatloads.  I've played quite a bit of both, and found that all the character mechanics in 3e far too often tended to do nothing but get in the way of trying to follow the story and stay in character.



> Only if they decided to play a character that wouldn’t take the tactically advantageous option. Which is a valid choice, but is not the only valid choice.



My question is why should it ever be a choice at all?  I posit it's probably better for the game if playing one's character true to itself leads to neither mechanical advantage or disadvantage, and that the simplest way to achieve this is to cut down on the mechanics.



> Why on earth would you want to make character decisions arise less frequently in D&D? That’s the whole point of the game, imagining yourself as a character and making decisions as you think that character would. You know, roleplaying.



I was referring to the sort of decisions mentioned above, where a player has to first decide inthe metagame between character and advantage.



> The act of deciding between the tactically advantageous action and the action that is most consistent with your character’s motivations is itself roleplaying, and to assume that the tactically advantageous option is somehow a less authentic roleplaying choice assumes that characters’ motivations cannot change over time.



Half the time the character in the fiction wouldn't know about the tactically advantageous choice anyway, even though the metagame has informed the player.

Realistically it would be pretty rare for someone to stop and ask himself this question, particularly in the heat of battle.



> Except in the 3 Editions where you’ve had racial Feat options and the one where some races were expressed or enhanced through classes and paragon paths?



Fair enough - in 0e race and class were the same for non-Humans, so there sometimes two choices got concatenated into one.  But a Dwarf is a Dwarf in all other editions and thus comes with a few racial benefits for being a Dwarf, under which I lob optional feats as well.  



> Except the edition where you got to choose a class, a sub-class, a paragon path, and an epic destiny, each of which had further sub-options in the form of powers?



As far as I'm concerned base class + subclass = class.  The idea of paragon path and epic destiny implies far too much planning ahead for my liking - I almost never assume my character is going to live much beyond the next combat, and (don't) plan accordingly.



> Um, for 10 years, I had considerably _more_ choice of Feats and skills customization that I do in 5e,



For 10 years?  Try over 15 years.  But not always.

Which leads me to ask: when did you get in to the game?  Were you around for the 0e-1e-2e era?



> and my point is, those player-facing options didn’t need to go away to satisfy the design goal of making the DM-Facing options more flexible. 3e and 4e messed up by trying to DM-proof the rules, I absolutely agree. But 5e didn’t have to take away the rich character customization those edititions offered to fix that problem. I find 5e an improvement over 3e and 4e because of the changes to the DM-facing rules, but I think a game with 5e’s philosophy towards DM-Facing rules and a 4e-like wealth of player-Facing options would be better than either.



Problem is, they also needed to player-proof the system so that things like optimization forums and ridiculous game-breaking "builds" could become relics of the past.

And could the 5e DM side actually coexist with the 4e player side in the same game?  I'm fairly sure it'd have a hard time with the 3e player-side.



> Charla- “Good for you, I can do lots of fancy maneuvers _and_ I’m like no other Fighter you ever knew” -quin




Lan-"while you're busy waving your sword around doing those fancy maneuvers I'll actually stick mine into the opponent a few times - xp for me!"-efan


----------



## pemerton (Sep 22, 2018)

Umbran said:


> removing *ALL* mechanical advantages means that all characters are mechanically identical in all ways, and no actions (including roleplay choices) on the part of the PCs impact resolution of events, which is probably not what we want in RPGs



This doesn't seem right.

A few weeks ago I GMed a session of Cthulhu Dark. Each PC had two things written on their sheet: a name and an occupation. There was also a sanity die in front of each player (it starts at 1; 6 is bad news).

The basic mechanics are _build a pool and roll, taking the highest_ - if the action is within the scope of your occuption, you get a die for that; if it's something within human capabilities, yout get a die for that; and if you're willing to risk your sanity to succeed, you can include your sanity die.

The actions chosen by the players impacted the resolution of events. One player played a reporter, one a secretary in a law firm and one a longshoreman, but even had they all been playing longshoremen the actions that they chose would have impacted the resolution of events.



Jester David said:


> Options are nice, but they quickly become masterbatory. Content for the sake of content. More choices for the sake of choices, while existing content remains unplayed.



I don't agree with this. Look at our Cthulhu Dark game - a reporter, a secretary in a law firm, and a longshoreman. It could hae easily been a novelist, an accountant and a nurse. Or a diplomat, a playboy and a retired colonel (that's part of the party in my Classic Traveller game). Or anything else the players came up with when asked "What occupation do you want to be?"

In descriptor-based games like Cthulhu Dark or HeroWars/Quest or Maelstrom Storytelling you don't need "content" to make all these things possible, because people can come up with their own descriptors.

But D&D (and Classic Traveller, and most RPGs, especially the more trad ones) are not descriptor based. And so until the content is published, there will be ideas that players can come up with that are not realised in the fiction. In the case of a list-based game like D&D (and Classic Traveller uses lists for its PC-gen too), that means publish more stuff to put on the list.

(There's also the mechanical side of it, but you don't need to get to that to explain the long lists of published stuff - why did 2nd ed D&D produce so many "kits"?)



Gradine said:


> 5e, very deliberately I would argue, unclogs the time and energy previous editions devoted to the character choice analysis paralysis in favor of allowing players to spend that time and energy making meaningful character choices from a more narrativist or story-based context.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> it's much easier to devote headspace to building a narrative around a character when one isn't also worried about so-called "trap" options or pouring over online guides for hours to find just that right feat.



This is where the 5e design, and the way it is sometimes described, leaves me puzzled. If I want to play a "narrative" or "story-based" game, with a character that expresses that, _why am I playing a game based around classes, level and feats_?

If the answer is _because I want the fiction to impact the mechanics in distinctive and intricate ways_ then there is a clear logic that pushes towards something like the combat side of 4e PC build.

But otherwise the lgoic is something like the non-combat side of 4e PC build, which is pretty similar to something like Prince Valiant - choose a few key abilities from a short list of genre-appropriate descriptors, and have a robust resolution mechanic (skill challenges in the 4e case) for working out what happens when they're brought to bear.

(I also don't really get how "building narrative around a character" fits with the seemingly dominant role of APs in 5e play, but that's a different story.)



Hussar said:


> 3e and 4e really, REALLY tried to universalize the gaming experience.



I can't comment on 3E, but that's so far from my 4e experience I find it hard to reconcile with it.

Do we fight mind flayers at 10th level or 20th level? The former if we're playing the Neverwinter supplement, which restatted a whole lot of paragon-tier creatures down to heroic-tier levels to facilitate a campaign experience that was shorter in mechanical and temporal duration but complete in story terms. The latter in my own campaign. (And I could say the same about giants, fey, etc - and I'm sure I'm not the only GM who noticed how easy restatting a 4e creature for a different level is.)

What's the DC to persuade the duke to talk to us? To seal the Abyss so it stops sucking elemental matter into its maw? To woo the heart of a princess? The 4e books don't even pretend to answer this, and leave nearly all the _fiction_ of non-combat resolution to be worked out at the table, guided by the description of what sort of stuff  is default at each tier, and with a universal resolution structure modelled on scene-based resolution pioneered in mid-to-late 90s games like Maelstrom Storytelling.

Yes, 4e has overly detailed rules for cover (but not for hiding! - it's rules there seem far less hard to use than the 5e ones) - but if someone played 4years of 4e and had as their main take-away "Whoa, too much detail in the cover and concealment rules", then I feel sorry for their sucky RPG experience!



ad_hoc said:


> 5e allows characters to do things without having explicit buttons for them. If you have never played an RPG like that before, then it is likely that you don't even see the possibilities.



This is a statement I would associate with 4e non-combat resolution, and also with some aspects of 4e combat (the p 42 driven ones).

For me, the difference with 5e non-combat resolution is that it has no framework to it that establishes finality of resolution, and so unless something is done at the table to compensate for this the upshot of non-combat action resolution is always ultimately a matter of GM decision-making. (Classic Traveller has the same problem in a few areas, especially on-world exploration. But I'm more forgiving of a game that was designed 40 years ago.)


----------



## KenNYC (Sep 22, 2018)

Morrus said:


> In terms of players, we focus much more on narrative and identity, rather than specific, mechanical advantages. Who you are is more important than what you do,





This is a very rose colored way he has at looking at his own design, since the rules he has written is almost the opposite of what he claims his goals are.

Just for example, take the assassin.  In 1e it was a very themey character class requiring a lot of creativity from the DM where the player had to join a guild and eventually couldn't rise in level unless he killed an assassin of higher level.   There was a procedure for the assassin to decide who he was going to kill, how he was going to kill them, and whether it was going to be a fast kill, slow death, instant poison or poison over many doses.   All the player had to do was explain clearly how he was going to get into a position to attempt the murder.  Theoretically the DM would then come back with an adventure where this might play out.   There was a separate XP chart for the assassin where the DM would assign XP for murders modified by your level vs the level of the victim.  If you wanted high XP you had to do a tough kill.    It was hard to play, hard to DM and yet it is almost strictly social interaction.

What is the assassin now?  If you hit via attack X do Y dice of damage.  The End.   Basically, the entire class has been thrown out replaced by "how can I roll more dice?  I know, I will choose assassin"

And that seems the way it is for so many of the classes.   "what can get me better action economy"  "this class crits on an 18"  and so on.   That is what this guy has come up with as he pretends he hasn't.


----------



## Tallifer (Sep 22, 2018)

I actually found 4E to be the clearest and most comfortable Edition for me, and I always run my game on the fly. However, 4E had the Character Builder, so I could always assume that my players's characters were 1) legal and 2) fully functioning. Since WotC axed the Character Builder, I switched to 5E, because its comparative simplicity means I can quickly check up on any weirdness. That, and because I can get far more players willing to play 5E.


----------



## jamesstreissand (Sep 22, 2018)

It's pretty clear that people who like the mechanical aspect are not the people WOTC is interested in marketing to, whatever your opinions on that are. 

We're not REALLY welcome,  as far as they're concerned.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Sep 22, 2018)

DM Howard said:


> I disagree.
> 
> I would like to support my store, so if it comes down to going for a Sms Guild product or buying yet another adventure from WOTC in-store then it will be the WOTC adventure.




Ask your LFGS if they would order a book for you if it is not in stock.  I’ve done this with a few different stores and it is always greeted with an eager “of course we can do that for you!”  I’m willing to wait in order to help them out in a small way.  I’ve got plenty of stuff that I haven’t fully read to fill up my time while I anticipate their call that my order is in.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 22, 2018)

jamesstreissand said:


> It's pretty clear that people who like the mechanical aspect are not the people WOTC is interested in marketing to, whatever your opinions on that are.
> 
> We're not REALLY welcome,  as far as they're concerned.




Or it could just be that no game is for every person.  Not to pick on you ... but there have been a ton of posts here about how 5E should be more like game ____.

If a different game works better for you, play that game.  It's kind of like saying that you want a vehicle that light and nimble, accelerates quickly, has great handling and looks sporty but then complaining that it can't handle off-road terrain while still being reasonably affordable.

There are always going to be compromises of design for any product.  D&D has a niche of a niche of the entertainment universe that seems to be doing quite well for the genre.  Why would they make significant investment to cater to the 5-10% of their potential market (totally guessing at the numbers of course) that want a style of game that already exists elsewhere?


----------



## jamesstreissand (Sep 22, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Or it could just be that no game is for every person.  Not to pick on you ... but there have been a ton of posts here about how 5E should be more like game ____.
> 
> If a different game works better for you, play that game.  It's kind of like saying that you want a vehicle that light and nimble, accelerates quickly, has great handling and looks sporty but then complaining that it can't handle off-road terrain while still being reasonably affordable.
> 
> There are always going to be compromises of design for any product.  D&D has a niche of a niche of the entertainment universe that seems to be doing quite well for the genre.  Why would they make significant investment to cater to the 5-10% of their potential market (totally guessing at the numbers of course) that want a style of game that already exists elsewhere?



Thanks for confirming my point,  by immediately telling me to go elsewhere.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 22, 2018)

I think after reading some of this a point should be made.

If you don't like 5e because rules don't support your character narrative and you have to rely on the DM allowing things; I hear you.

However, regardless of whether or not the rules support a narrative, (as 3e or 4e would) it's still up to the DM to allow the rules to exist as written or be interpreted the way the player intends.  

The only difference in the game system is options.  If that's what you want, that's great but I'd not hide behind the "DM has too much power" argument because he or she has always had it.  If you're having fun it's because the DM and the entire group is enabling you to some extent.  You're not doing it because of the rules or on your own.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 22, 2018)

Oofta said:


> If a different game works better for you, play that game.  It's kind of like saying that you want a vehicle that light and nimble, accelerates quickly, has great handling and looks sporty but then complaining that it can't handle off-road terrain while still being reasonably affordable.



Not to pick on you, because I do see this idea crop up quite a bit, but I think that ignores something pretty important.  D&D, and especially D&D 5e, is the biggest game out there.  By far.  If I complain about Facebook editing my news feed, that doesn't mean the proper advice is to move to Myspace.  "I like 90% of what 5e does, and I don't want to fall out of the 5e ecosystem, but I'd be happier if they moved in a somewhat different direction" doesn't seem to be criticism that warrants abandoning the game.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 22, 2018)

Tallifer said:


> Since WotC axed the Character Builder, I switched to 5E, because its comparative simplicity means I can quickly check up on any weirdness.




That is kind of an astonishing reason for switching editions....


----------



## Oofta (Sep 22, 2018)

jamesstreissand said:


> Thanks for confirming my point,  by immediately telling me to go elsewhere.





If elsewhere serves your needs and desires better, why wouldn't you go elsewhere?  

I can complain all I want that my phone doesn't play the latest graphics-intense video game, but if that's what's important to me I'll go get a dedicated console or a PC.

No game, no product on earth, can be exactly the right product for everyone.  I don't see how it's sacrilegious to acknowledge that.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 22, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Not to pick on you, because I do see this idea crop up quite a bit, but I think that ignores something pretty important.  D&D, and especially D&D 5e, is the biggest game out there.  By far.  If I complain about Facebook editing my news feed, that doesn't mean the proper advice is to move to Myspace.  "I like 90% of what 5e does, and I don't want to fall out of the 5e ecosystem, but I'd be happier if they moved in a somewhat different direction" doesn't seem to be criticism that warrants abandoning the game.




Which I get.  I'm just acknowledging reality.  Personally I'd love a new car that was styled like a 30s roadster.  They don't exist outside of custom builds so I go down to my local dealer and buy the next best thing.  Based on sales, it seems like they made the right call with 5E. But to quote Spock "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".


----------



## DM Howard (Sep 22, 2018)

Reread my post.  I did not attack every single document on the DMs Guild.  There are certainly gems in there, but the majority is not worth the storage it takes up.

I don't see DMs Guild products as competing with my FLGS dollars, because I make the choice to buy in-store because I want my store to stay around and because most of the DMs Guild content isn't worth it to me.

What I contend is that DMs Guild provides a replacement for real 3rd party support.  WOTC really burned their bridges in 4E and now it is coming to bite them in the butt.  Their supposed "support" for retail stores is becoming all the more hilarious with their PDF treatment of Eberron not to mention their "organized" play program.  I've been an AL DM for every season of AL up until ToA and I would say that it is barely a step up from "do what you want".



Reynard said:


> Core 2E has none of that. There was certainly a huge amount of player facing supplements in 2E to go along with the settings and DM facing stuff, but the Core 3 was a beautiful, complete, amazing version of the game, surpassed on IMO by BECMI.




OK, I would agree if we are talking about the core 3.  Good point!




R_Chance said:


> You must have started with later 2E with the  parlance more like back to 1.5E).
> 
> And D@mn it. You people (in this thread, not you specifically DM Howard) and your analogies are making me hungry. I'm grading papers at 11:00 on a Friday night (which says volumes about my life right now) and all you can talk about is bakeries and restaurants. I'm a mile from a decent bakery... and it's closed! *sigh* Time to raid the fridge
> 
> ...




I did, definitely near the end of 2E.  

Man, I really want some donuts now!



DM Dave1 said:


> Ask your LFGS if they would order a book for you if it is not in stock.  I’ve done this with a few different stores and it is always greeted with an eager “of course we can do that for you!”  I’m willing to wait in order to help them out in a small way.  I’ve got plenty of stuff that I haven’t fully read to fill up my time while I anticipate their call that my order is in.



That's a good point DM Dave1.  I have done that for a few things, but there isn't a whole lot they can actually get their hands on, physically, to sell or stock.

There is the Tome of Foes they have been reliably able to stock and that's it.  He said it is hard to get 5E 3rd Party products from his suppliers.


----------



## jamesstreissand (Sep 22, 2018)

Oofta said:


> If elsewhere serves your needs and desires better, why wouldn't you go elsewhere?
> 
> I can complain all I want that my phone doesn't play the latest graphics-intense video game, but if that's what's important to me I'll go get a dedicated console or a PC.
> 
> No game, no product on earth, can be exactly the right product for everyone.  I don't see how it's sacrilegious to acknowledge that.



I'm sorry to burst your bubble dude,  but at no point did I complain about 5e. I haven't mentioned the system,  it's mechanics,  etc so much as once.  

What I responded to (and had you taken time away from grandstanding, you'd have noticed) was Mike's proclamation on the WHY  of 5e.

Mike's pretty clearly characterizing people who like the mechanical side of things as not worth marketing to,  designing for,  etc.  I think its a shame, is all I'm saying.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 22, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Which I get.  I'm just acknowledging reality.  Personally I'd love a new car that was styled like a 30s roadster.  They don't exist outside of custom builds so I go down to my local dealer and buy the next best thing.  Based on sales, it seems like they made the right call with 5E. But to quote Spock "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".



I think they made A right call with 5e.  My personal belief is that the core could be expanded with some new options (outside the class/subclass/feat paradigm) without violating the overall simple core that currently defines 5e.  Not everyone believes that, of course, but I'll continue to advocate in that direction.


----------



## DM Howard (Sep 22, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I think they made A right call with 5e.  My personal belief is that the core could be expanded with some new options (outside the class/subclass/feat paradigm) without violating the overall simple core that currently defines 5e.  Not everyone believes that, of course, but I'll continue to advocate in that direction.



I agree.  Perhaps an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons would be a good idea.


----------



## jamesstreissand (Sep 22, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I think they made A right call with 5e.  My personal belief is that the core could be expanded with some new options (outside the class/subclass/feat paradigm) without violating the overall simple core that currently defines 5e.  Not everyone believes that, of course, but I'll continue to advocate in that direction.



A stronger mid-level set of options (like a multiclassing 2.0) as an optional system could be really satisfying for us. I don't think they'll go for it though,  everything else is easy cash.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 22, 2018)

jamesstreissand said:


> I'm sorry to burst your bubble dude,  but at no point did I complain about 5e. I haven't mentioned the system,  it's mechanics,  etc so much as once.
> 
> What I responded to (and had you taken time away from grandstanding, you'd have noticed) was Mike's proclamation on the WHY  of 5e.
> 
> Mike's pretty clearly characterizing people who like the mechanical side of things as not worth marketing to,  designing for,  etc.  I think its a shame, is all I'm saying.



They're not worth marketing *5E* to. Why would they? They know the game isn't going to give those players what they want, so why bother trying to sugarcoat things or basically fib to them? "No, no... 5E can do what you want! Of course it can! Just give it a try!"

Would you be happier if Mike and Co. tried to snowball all of you and treat you like idiots? Being honest at least lets you know what's truly going on.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 22, 2018)

DM Howard said:


> I agree.  Perhaps an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons would be a good idea.






jamesstreissand said:


> A stronger mid-level set of options (like a multiclassing 2.0) as an optional system could be really satisfying for us. I don't think they'll go for it though,  everything else is easy cash.



Yep.  That's what I'd love to see, a mechanically focused supplement like 3.5's Unearthed Arcana or Player's Handbook 2 that gives a lot of new options.  Some kind of scaling feats with menus of options, alternative multiclass options (maybe 3-5 level classes), alternative class features, etc.


----------



## jamesstreissand (Sep 22, 2018)

DEFCON 1 said:


> They're not worth marketing *5E* to. Why would they? They know the game isn't going to give those players what they want, so why bother trying to sugarcoat things or basically fib to them? "No, no... 5E can do what you want! Of course it can! Just give it a try!"
> 
> Would you be happier if Mike and Co. tried to snowball all of you and treat you like idiots? Being honest at least lets you know what's truly going on.



Since you can't seem to get it through your thick ing skulls;

I am ONLY saying I think it's a shame that one of the biggest designers out there doesn't think of us as being welcome at the table.  That's all.  That's it.  Nothing else. 

I hope I don't have to explain why I'd like a "there's still a seat for people who like the gaming aspect" approach.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 22, 2018)

Tallifer said:


> I actually found 4E to be the clearest and most comfortable Edition for me, and I always run my game on the fly. However, 4E had the Character Builder, so I could always assume that my players's characters were 1) legal and 2) fully functioning. Since WotC axed the Character Builder, I switched to 5E, because its comparative simplicity means I can quickly check up on any weirdness. That, and because I can get far more players willing to play 5E.




This seems to get at one of the most attractive features of 5E for me: I can build a character in my head.


----------



## jamesstreissand (Sep 22, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Yep.  That's what I'd love to see, a mechanically focused supplement like 3.5's Unearthed Arcana or Player's Handbook 2 that gives a lot of new options.  Some kind of scaling feats with menus of options, alternative multiclass options (maybe 3-5 level classes), alternative class features, etc.



I've actually been working on a few 5 level classes! They originated from my setting primarily,  but most could be easily translated to another game.  Might share them on here some time!


----------



## Morrus (Sep 22, 2018)

jamesstreissand said:


> Since you can't seem to get it through your thick ing skulls;




Watch the language, please.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 22, 2018)

DM Howard said:


> I agree.  Perhaps an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons would be a good idea.






jamesstreissand said:


> A stronger mid-level set of options (like a multiclassing 2.0) as an optional system could be really satisfying for us. I don't think they'll go for it though,  everything else is easy cash.






jamesstreissand said:


> I've actually been working on a few 5 level classes! They originated from my setting primarily,  but most could be easily translated to another game.  Might share them on here some time!



Yea, I'd love to see that.


----------



## Reynard (Sep 22, 2018)

I think there is certainly room for some complex character building options within the 5E paradigm, but those require a whole lot of design time and playtesting to get right. Every new option has to play well with the existing ones, which means the potential for breaking something compounds with each new option. We saw it repeatedly in the 3.x era and from Paizo, when design teams were much more robust than they are now. Frankly, WotC does not have the staff to do it well, and they have little motivation to spend the resources necessary to make it possible. After all, 5E is massively successful as it is, and those kinds of complex character development supplements are going to have limited appeal. They are right to leave that stuff to the Guild and the 3rd parties, at least from a business standpoint.

Does that mean WotC does not welcome those players to the table? I don't think so. I think it means they expect those players to make a modicum of effort on their own to make the game work for themselves. D&D is a potluck, BYOB backyard barbecue, not a restaurant.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 22, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> I tend to disagree that the game would in fact be improved by having lots of extra mechanical character options.



I’m aware.



Lanefan said:


> 1e has relatively few.  3e has boatloads.  I've played quite a bit of both, and found that all the character mechanics in 3e far too often tended to do nothing but get in the way of trying to follow the story and stay in character.



3e has a lot of issues, and yes, option bloat is one of them. That doesn’t mean options are an inherently bad thing, it just means 3e managed its options poorly.



Lanefan said:


> My question is why should it ever be a choice at all?  I posit it's probably better for the game if playing one's character true to itself leads to neither mechanical advantage or disadvantage, and that the simplest way to achieve this is to cut down on the mechanics.
> 
> I was referring to the sort of decisions mentioned above, where a player has to first decide inthe metagame between character and advantage.
> 
> ...



This is getting too abstract to talk about meaningfully. What kind of choice are you picturing that is created by the character having several options to choose from for their action, causes a conflict between tactical advantage and character motivation, and requires the player to make the decision based on information the character doesn’t have? Cause I can’t think of any actual play scenario like that.



Lanefan said:


> Fair enough - in 0e race and class were the same for non-Humans, so there sometimes two choices got concatenated into one.  But a Dwarf is a Dwarf in all other editions and thus comes with a few racial benefits for being a Dwarf, under which I lob optional feats as well.



I don’t really care how 0e did it.



Lanefan said:


> As far as I'm concerned base class + subclass = class.  The idea of paragon path and epic destiny implies far too much planning ahead for my liking - I almost never assume my character is going to live much beyond the next combat, and (don't) plan accordingly.



Subclass is another decision point in the character building process, which is exactly what I wish 5e had more of. If you get to make the decision after character creation, so much the better. That’s my issue with character creation in 5e - not enough decision points, and most of the ones you do have are made at character creation. 3e was the other side of the coin, where there were plenty of decision points, but the options were so interreliant and complex that you had to make them all at character creation or risk making a useless character. 4e hit the sweet spot where you had lots of decision points, and you weren’t punished for making those decisions as you went, picking your new power from a few options when you level up.



Lanefan said:


> For 10 years?  Try over 15 years.  But not always.
> 
> Which leads me to ask: when did you get in to the game?  Were you around for the 0e-1e-2e era?



Let’s not turn this into “I’ve played longer, therefore I know better than you” debate. Your grognad peen is bigger than mine, I’m not going to bother pretending otherwise because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Not that it matters, but I started playing with 3.5, didn’t really like it, got into the game in earnest in 4e.



Lanefan said:


> Problem is, they also needed to player-proof the system so that things like optimization forums and ridiculous game-breaking "builds" could become relics of the past.



Why?



Lanefan said:


> And could the 5e DM side actually coexist with the 4e player side in the same game?



Yes.



Lanefan said:


> I'm fairly sure it'd have a hard time with the 3e player-side.



So don’t make the player side like 3e?



Lanefan said:


> Lan-"while you're busy waving your sword around doing those fancy maneuvers I'll actually stick mine into the opponent a few times - xp for me!"-efan



Cute.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 22, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Personally I'd love a new car that was styled like a 30s roadster.




Check out the new Ferrari Monza.  40's/50's, not 30's, but damn is it gorgeous.

Back on topic, I'll admit I'm perplexed by all this talk about "replayability".  I still haven't played all the classes, and honestly I could happily re-play some of my favorite classes over and over again, with each one having a new personality.  I can play two fighters in a row and have them feel like totally different characters.  What I really care about, though, is the adventures.  As long as the adventures are new and interesting I don't really care much what class I'm playing.  In fact, sometimes I like a character so much that I think about starting the exact same character over at level 1, so that I can have more adventures with him/her.

Then again, I only play one night a week.  Maybe some of the people complaining about sparse options are playing multiple nights a week?  

I could imagine that there is a tiny minority of people...who play multiple nights a week and are active forum posters...who feel they have already exhausted all the options.  I could also imagine that WotC isn't really going to design around that market.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 22, 2018)

jamesstreissand said:


> I am ONLY saying I think it's a shame that one of the biggest designers out there doesn't think of us as being welcome at the table.  That's all.  That's it.  Nothing else.




There is a HUGE difference between "not being welcome at the table" and "not getting exactly what you want".  

You are more than welcome to play 5e.  You are more than welcome to provide your feedback in the surveys.  And of course you are ENTIRELY welcome to homebrew your own content, or use all the amazing 3rd party content available here and on DMSGuild.  A lot of it is quite good, and it's easy to find, and it's cheap.

They're just not going to change the game that works for 99% of the market to cater to the 1%.  (Especially because every single person in that 1% has their own notion of what 5e should be.)


----------



## Morrus (Sep 22, 2018)

Guys, I'd like to make it clear that it's perfectly fine for people to express their wishes for the direction of D&D, even if those wishes are unlikely to be fulfilled. Let's not tell people it's wrong to do that, eh?


----------



## Jester David (Sep 22, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I don't agree with this. Look at our Cthulhu Dark game - a reporter, a secretary in a law firm, and a longshoreman. It could hae easily been a novelist, an accountant and a nurse. Or a diplomat, a playboy and a retired colonel (that's part of the party in my Classic Traveller game). Or anything else the players came up with when asked "What occupation do you want to be?"
> 
> In descriptor-based games like Cthulhu Dark or HeroWars/Quest or Maelstrom Storytelling you don't need "content" to make all these things possible, because people can come up with their own descriptors.
> 
> ...



D&D can be descriptor based on the roleplaying side. The champion fighter can describe themselves as a knight, archer, swashbuckler, and the like. All with largely the same mechanics. And the bold, arrogant Robin Hood archer is a very different charcater from the cautious, sniper archer. 
The mechanics of D&D don’t remove the descriptive choice based aspects of characters. They don’t remove that. It adds overtop. 
And that doesn’t mean you NEED a special mechanic for every character concept. 

That’s not the problem though. 
The problem is that when you design a game around lots of different mechanical options and choices, you need to produce content to fill those gaps. That means books. And books have a set page count, so you need to have a certain amount of new content. Some of that will be requested and desired content, some of that amazing... and some will just be there. Feats and class features and spells that are just there to hit the page count. 
Content for the sake of content. 

It happened in 3e. And 4e. And Pathfinder. Heck, it happened in 2e with kits.


----------



## lewpuls (Sep 22, 2018)

Mearls' discussion might be posed even more simply. 3e encouraged the one-man-army, and power creep, and discouraged cooperation. 5e has returned to co-operation rather than individual "showing off", to adventure rather than power creep. Bravo.


----------



## DM Howard (Sep 22, 2018)

lewpuls said:


> Mearls' discussion might be posed even more simply. 3e encouraged the one-man-army, and power creep, and discouraged cooperation. 5e has returned to co-operation rather than individual "showing off", to adventure rather than power creep. Bravo.



Yet 4E had tons of options AND emphasized cooperation.  You can, in fact, have your 
, uh, bagel and eat it too.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 22, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Greg K (Sep 22, 2018)

Jester David said:


> The problem is that when you design a game around lots of different mechanical options and choices, you need to produce content to fill those gaps. That means books. And books have a set page count, so you need to have a certain amount of new content. Some of that will be requested and desired content, some of that amazing... and some will just be there. Feats and class features and spells that are just there to hit the page count. .




I disagree. This is the digital age. They can create small pdfs and put them up on RPGNow. I'd personally pay for a dollar or so individually, for one or two of the subclasses in Xanathar's, but I would never buy the book itself, because the remaining subclasses as well as much of the remaining content in the book are of no interest to me.


----------



## DM Howard (Sep 22, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> And yet, without getting to various normative views about editions*, 4e was (from a sales perspective) a disappointment that allowed PF to bloom, encouraged the growth of the OSR and retroclone market, and otherwise was not considered a rousing success.
> 
> So, perhaps you can't have that bagel and eat it?
> 
> ...



Oh, I'm not arguing that 4E was a failure as far as the RPG market is concerned.  I'm just pointing out that lots of options doesn't inherently create an environment that is counterproductive to cooperative gameplay.


----------



## Jester David (Sep 22, 2018)

DM Howard said:


> Reread my post. I did not attack every single document on the DMs Guild. There are certainly gems in there, but the majority is not worth the storage it takes up.



_*And?*_ 
The fact that 90% of carbon is boring coal doesn't make diamonds any less shiny. (Don't forget Sturgeon's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law )

There is some AMAZING stuff on the DMsGuild. And stuff that is just outright better than the weaker/ low quality options found in official books. I'm super happy with a lot of my purchases. And finding names that I trust helps. 



DM Howard said:


> I don't see DMs Guild products as competing with my FLGS dollars, because I make the choice to buy in-store because I want my store to stay around and because most of the DMs Guild content isn't worth it to me.



Then why did you say:


DM Howard said:


> I would like to support my store, so if it comes down to going for a Sms Guild product or buying yet another adventure from WOTC in-store then it will be the WOTC adventure.



?
That sure implies like there's competition for you.



DM Howard said:


> What I contend is that DMs Guild provides a replacement for real 3rd party support.  WOTC really burned their bridges in 4E and now it is coming to bite them in the butt.



Wha....?!

Okay, right now there are several big name 3rd Party Publishers doing stuff for 5e. Green Ronin, Kobold Press, Frog God Games. And many newcomers as well, like Nord Games or MCDM Productions or Sasquatch Games. Plus, if the bridges were "burned" why did so many other RPG studios step up to write and produce the first few storyline adventures for 5e?

There's NO shortage of amazing 3PP support for 5e, and the 3PP seem to have a great relationship with WotC. Heck, I've heard the owners of Green Ronin and Kobold Press on the official D&D podcast where they've been given an opportunity to pimp forthcoming kickstarters.



DM Howard said:


> Their supposed "support" for retail stores is becoming all the more hilarious with their PDF treatment of Eberron not to mention their "organized" play program.  I've been an AL DM for every season of AL up until ToA and I would say that it is barely a step up from "do what you want".



I'm not sure how the PDF treatment of Eberron factors in... They chose to release that as a PDF likely because releasing it as a physical book wouldn't have been viable for them, and likely not sold enough copies to justify the product. The Eberron book is really just a larger version of the _Tortle Package_ or other digital exclusives, like _The Lost Kenku_ or _One Grung Above_: a fun digital exclusive that is a bonus for hardcore fans.

WotC supports stores the only way they can: releasing the books early so excited fans _have _to turn to stores. And retailer incentive collector covers. What else can they do? 

Focusing on AL doesn't really help stores. Only a tiny minority of gamers play AL. And not every game store has the space to run AL. And there's no guarantee people playing AL in a store will support the store in any way. In my time running and playing Organised Play, I saw a whole lot of people show up and not buy a thing from the store. Even if they walked in with a Tupperware tote of books. The most the bought was a Coke.
Honestly, "do what you want" sounds amazing for this former Living Greyhawk/ Pathfinder Society GM, where you couldn't deviate at all from the adventures and had to run things as close as possible. The freedom to get creative sounds great and much more like actually playing D&D.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 22, 2018)

Morrus said:


> Guys, I'd like to make it clear that it's perfectly fine for people to express their wishes for the direction of D&D, even if those wishes are unlikely to be fulfilled. Let's not tell people it's wrong to do that, eh?




I'm guessing (hoping?) that just happened to come right after my post, and was not directed at my post.  But in case my intent was misunderstood, I was only responding to the "not welcome at the table" comment, and not trying to delegitimize the desires themselves.  

I find the discussion/debate around this topic interesting.  It's when it veers into "WotC obviously hates us" territory that I roll my eyes.

For the record, I also get my buttons pushed by tons of options and character complexity.  I think all of us who are somewhere on the "spectrum" get a high from it.  It's fun to just make characters.  However, I find I tend to make more characters for the option-rich games, but I actually _play_ the option-light games.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 22, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Okay, right now there are several big name 3rd Party Publishers doing stuff for 5e. Green Ronin, Kobold Press, Frog God Games. And many newcomers as well, like Nord Games or MCDM Productions or Sasquatch Games.




Don't forget Cubicle 7!


----------



## Greg K (Sep 22, 2018)

lewpuls said:


> Mearls' discussion might be posed even more simply. 3e encouraged the one-man-army, and power creep, and discouraged cooperation. 5e has returned to co-operation rather than individual "showing off", to adventure rather than power creep. Bravo.




No, the one-man-army and discouraging cooperation was an issue with DM's not wanting to control their game by telling players, "No" and/or issues with certain players.  I ran 3e for several groups and the one-man-army, lack of cooperation, and showing off never appeared in my game. The same goes for other DMs whom I know. We would look over various options and decide what to us and what not to use on a case by case basis just as the 3.0 DMG told us that we were in charge of what material is used. 

 WOTC just neededto make it clear and continually reinforce  the idea that new options are included at the DM's discretion.  They had rule 0 in the 3.0 PHB, but it was not as explicit as in the DMG (well, it was in the 3.0 DMG) that the DM decides what is and is not used. This was also stressed in some Dragon Magazine  articles until midway through 3.5 when the designers suddenly went from a) telling DMs that they should pick and choose options carefully with regard to their campaign to b) finding ways to include any official option (looking at Andy Collin's Sibling Rivalry column in comparison to previous comments from him in Dragon as an example). 
As for power creep, a lot of it was poorly thought out options, but as Sean Reynolds posted on his website many of the options are not meant to be used together so the designers didn't worry about how options would fit into with old ones.  Then again, I also see power creep in many of the classes and the general feel of the game with each subsequent edition of D&D which is why despite preferring the mechanics of WOTC games over TSR, I will not play any edition of WOTC D&D above levels 10-12 (despite feeling they toned the major spellcasters in way that I like)


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 22, 2018)

Greg K said:


> I disagree. This is the digital age. They can create small pdfs and put them up on RPGNow. I'd personally pay for a dollar or so individually, for one or two of the subclasses in Xanathar's, but I would never buy the book itself, because the remaining subclasses as well as much of the remaining content in the book are of no interest to me.




D&D Beyond, in fact, sells things like Race and Class ala cart.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 22, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Don't forget Cubicle 7!




Or Goodman Games. Honestly, not sure where the idea that WotC has a bad relationship with 3PP, or that 3PP aren't doing work for 5E, comes from.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 22, 2018)

After 4e there were musings that D&D might be dead.

On the lead up to the release of 5e people were hoping it would be able to compete with Pathfinder.

Now that it is highly successful people are upset that it isn't 3e or 4e.

I wonder, if 5e crashed and burned, would these people still be upset? Would they happily go to Pathfinder (or another game) and be happy that the game they don't like failed?


----------



## DM Howard (Sep 22, 2018)

Jester David said:


> _*And?*_
> The fact that 90% of carbon is boring coal doesn't make diamonds any less shiny. (Don't forget Sturgeon's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law )
> 
> There is some AMAZING stuff on the DMsGuild. And stuff that is just outright better than the weaker/ low quality options found in official books. I'm super happy with a lot of my purchases. And finding names that I trust helps.
> ...




I don't find it to be a competition because I will always choose to buy thing from my FLGS, that's all.

I think you underestimate the amount of people that play AL.  I'm not saying it is a majority, but I think there are a lot of people whose only experience with D&D is with AL.

I am also not saying there aren't 3PP working on 5E products, but they are not as many, as ubiquitous, or as accessible to normal D&D players as in the 3E days.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## DM Howard (Sep 22, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> After 4e there were musings that D&D might be dead.
> 
> On the lead up to the release of 5e people were hoping it would be able to compete with Pathfinder.
> 
> ...



What people?  Those of us that want more options love 5E, we just want more of it.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 22, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> For the record, I also get my buttons pushed by tons of options and character complexity.  I think all of us who are somewhere on the "spectrum" get a high from it.  It's fun to just make characters.  However, I find I tend to make more characters for the option-rich games, but I actually _play_ the option-light games.



Well, yeah, kinda hard to play option heavy games when there isn’t support for them. I played a lot more option heavy games than option light ones when 3e and 4e were the actively supported editions.

Granted, Pathfinder is an option currently, but Pathfinder has that written-to-make-the-GM’s-Role-as-minimal-as-possible issue that I agree with Mearls was a serious problem with 3e and 4e. Maybe PF2 will fix that, but I doubt it.

It’s just very frustrating that right now the only options with any mainstream recognition are DM-empowering and options-light, or DM-disempowering with lots of options. Those of us who like the DM-empowerment of 5e and the player-side crunch of Pathfinder have to either suck it up and compromise one way or the other, or desperately hope we can find a group for our 3rd party game of choice. Like, I’m sure in a few years when the Angry GM has published his RPG, that’ll be right up my alley, considering I agree with most of what he says. But unless his game becomes the most miraculous success story in Indy RPG history, I doubt I’ll be able to get a group together for it.


----------



## Jester David (Sep 22, 2018)

DM Howard said:


> I am also not saying there aren't 3PP working on 5E products, but they are not as many, as ubiquitous, or as accessible to normal D&D players as in the 3E days.



...
The 3rd Party _Tal'Dorei Campaign Guide_ is outselling Pathfinder. Heck, it might be outselling some official WotC adventures. And MCDM’s Strongholds & Followers made $2 million on Kickstarter alone, becoming the best selling RPG Kickstarter.
3rd Party Publishers are doing just fine. Heck, given the larger audiences and more content gaps, they’re probably doing better than in 3e.

But whatever you need to tell yourself.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 22, 2018)

DM Howard said:


> I don't find it to be a competition because I will always choose to buy thing from my FLGS, that's all.
> 
> I think you underestimate the amount of people that play AL.  I'm not saying it is a majority, but I think there are a lot of people whose only experience with D&D is with AL.
> 
> ...




Last I recall seeing any info, there are one or two hundred thousand players in AL, as opposed to ~15 million players in North America. AL is a fringe case, though WotC is constantly working to make it more of a thing.

3E had glut, and a lot of vanity publishing. Now, the vanity publishing portion is on DMs Guild or Reddit: such is change.


----------



## DM Howard (Sep 22, 2018)

Jester David said:


> But whatever you need to tell yourself.




Wow, so much for this being a discussion forum.  Chill out.


----------



## DM Howard (Sep 22, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Last I recall seeing any info, there are one or two hundred thousand players in AL, as opposed to ~15 million players in North America. AL is a fringe case, though WotC is constantly working to make it more of a thing.
> 
> 3E had glut, and a lot of vanity publishing. Now, the vanity publishing portion is on DMs Guild or Reddit: such is change.




Huh, maybe that's true it would be interesting to see some more recent numbers.

Oh, totally, there was just as much junk in 3E's publishing glut as there is on the Sms Guild.  No argument there!


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 22, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Well, yeah, kinda hard to play option heavy games when there isn’t support for them.




This confused me.  Why is it hard to play games without "support"?  What does support even mean?  More stuff to buy?

Lots of people play lots of RPGs without ever buying new stuff.  Heck, look at all the people who still play their own variant of 2e or whatever.

Anyway, what I meant is that I enjoy making characters for option-heavy games with thick rulebooks, but when my friends and are deciding what game to play we tend to choose the lightweight, elegant ones: 5e, The One Ring, Dungeon World, etc.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 22, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> Now that it is highly successful people are upset that it isn't 3e or 4e.
> 
> I wonder, if 5e crashed and burned, would these people still be upset? Would they happily go to Pathfinder (or another game) and be happy that the game they don't like failed?




I would not  be happy if it failed nor would I go to Pathfinder (I did not like Pathfinder 1e's changes and I don't like what I have seen of Pathfinder 2e). I don't think, however, that  wanting or having WOTC provide  is, necessarily, a bad thing. Personally, I think most of WOTC supplemental material has been a combination of junk and/or  not to my taste. However, I am all for more options that help DMs better tailor the game to their campaign and style- this includes new classes and subclasses, variant classes, and substitution class abilities, and filling in missing elements.  I for one would like 
a:  official replacement abilities for the Bard's Jack of All Trades, the cleric's Channel Divinity: Turn Undead and Destroy Undead,  Rogue's Thieves' Cant and Slippery Mind, and the Thief subclass's  Use Magical Device.
b. official additions to classes such as an Urban Terrain for the Ranger and for a Druid Land Circle.
c. official variants that offer minor tweaks to classes such as an Urban Barbarian, Urban Ranger, and Wilderness Rogue (note: I have done these for personal use and posted them on ENWorld, but official versions would be nice- especially, for those groups that only use official material.
d. an official and optional skill point system.  The lack of such as an option in the DMG was a disappointment to myself and most players and DMs I know (again, most not all, as one or two of my DM friends don't like skill points).


----------



## Morrus (Sep 22, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Don't forget Cubicle 7!




Don’t forget EN Publishing!

https://www.patreon.com/ensider


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 22, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> This confused me.  Why is it hard to play games without "support"?  What does support even mean?  More stuff to buy?



Marketing, mostly. Everyone who is even vaguely aware of geek culture has heard of D&D, and most people with an interest in D&D is probably most interested in the most current edition. The only time that this was not the case was during 4e’s run, and only because 4e displeased the experienced players who the potential newcomers relied on to teach them the game.



Elfcrusher said:


> Lots of people play lots of RPGs without ever buying new stuff.  Heck, look at all the people who still play their own variant of 2e or whatever.



Absolutely! It’s not about having more books to buy, it’s about having visibility. The game people see on shelves at bookstores and game stores, that they see promoted on Amazon, that all the podcasts and streams are playing, that’s the game it’s going to be easiest to find players for. Everything else has to be pitched as “Like the thing you’ve actually heard of, but different in ways that probably don’t mean anything to you,” which is a pretty hard sell.



Elfcrusher said:


> Anyway, what I meant is that I enjoy making characters for option-heavy games with thick rulebooks, but when my friends and are deciding what game to play we tend to choose the lightweight, elegant ones: 5e, The One Ring, Dungeon World, etc.



Not everyone is so lucky to have a consistent group of players who are all experienced RPG gamers willing to try different systems. For many of us, when we decide to play a game, we have no choice but to play the game we can find players for, which more often than not is the most current version of D&D.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 22, 2018)

Jester David said:


> ...
> The 3rd Party _Tal'Dorei Campaign Guide_ is outselling Pathfinder. Heck, it might be outselling some official WotC adventures. And MCDM’s Strongholds & Followers made $2 million on Kickstarter alone, becoming the best selling RPG Kickstarter.
> 3rd Party Publishers are doing just fine. Heck, given the larger audiences and more content gaps, they’re probably doing better than in 3e.
> 
> But whatever you need to tell yourself.




Calm down. Yes, us third party pubs are doing fine. But it’s not the d20 boom, or even close to it, in terms of volume of third party publishers. And that’s not a problem, either way.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 22, 2018)

DM Howard said:


> What people?  Those of us that want more options love 5E, we just want more of it.




It's more a response to people who feel that WotC have forsaken them, and that WotC are duty bound to cater to them. There was some talk of that in this discussion and I have certainly seen it again and again over the last 4 years.

Whoever that may be. 

Once I really got the grasp of 3e I found it to not be my thing. Still, it was easier to parse than 2e so that was a plus. 4e was not my thing at all. For me, D&D had ended as I had no interest in that game.

While I was a little sad about the sales numbers and that D&D as a whole might just stop being made, I was okay with it. I didn't feel like I was owed anything. Mearls has stated their design philosophy. It's a person's thing or it isn't. Something out there that isn't someone's thing doesn't injure them.


----------



## D1Tremere (Sep 22, 2018)

I used to think I wanted more 3.5, that is to say more mechanics and options and rules. I thought more rules meant more options. The more I DM though the more I believe more rules means less roleplaying. If there are not a million different mechanics for Barbarian builds then perhaps the difference becomes who the this particular Barbarian is instead of what it can do differently. I think 5e has a growing number of mechanical options balanced by a design that allows for creativity and a move away from roll playing. One great example is the winged tiefling. There are no rules in 5e for a winged Aasimar, but there is a way to give wings to a tiefling at the cost of a race feature. The Aasimar have a similar class feature, so without the need for a separate specific rule it is very easy to create a character concept that incorporates it. I also prefer the move away from modular character build design that has nothing to do with in game experiences and character development. I didn't think that I would, but since this shift I have noticed my play experience being more about interactions between players and game world and less about tactical combat. Just my 2c.


----------



## TerraDave (Sep 22, 2018)

[MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION]
 [MENTION=87131]DM Howard[/MENTION]

There _was_ more 3rd party stuff for 3E. A glut of it, in fact. 

There is quality material out for 5E, but it has come out much slower.


----------



## TerraDave (Sep 22, 2018)

Ninja'd, by the top ninja.


----------



## D1Tremere (Sep 22, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Well, yeah, kinda hard to play option heavy games when there isn’t support for them. I played a lot more option heavy games than option light ones when 3e and 4e were the actively supported editions.
> 
> Granted, Pathfinder is an option currently, but Pathfinder has that written-to-make-the-GM’s-Role-as-minimal-as-possible issue that I agree with Mearls was a serious problem with 3e and 4e. Maybe PF2 will fix that, but I doubt it.
> 
> It’s just very frustrating that right now the only options with any mainstream recognition are DM-empowering and options-light, or DM-disempowering with lots of options. Those of us who like the DM-empowerment of 5e and the player-side crunch of Pathfinder have to either suck it up and compromise one way or the other, or desperately hope we can find a group for our 3rd party game of choice. Like, I’m sure in a few years when the Angry GM has published his RPG, that’ll be right up my alley, considering I agree with most of what he says. But unless his game becomes the most miraculous success story in Indy RPG history, I doubt I’ll be able to get a group together for it.




"DM-empowering and options-light" I disagree with this statement. Not having a specific rule for everything under the sun is rules light, not options light. An empowered DM and rules that allow for creative engagement means more options to me, not less. An emphasis on who the character is, as opposed to the minutia of combat mechanics, means you can create highly fun and original characters instead of optimal, suboptimal, or broken build variants.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 22, 2018)

jamesstreissand said:


> Since you can't seem to get it through your thick ing skulls;
> 
> I am ONLY saying I think it's a shame that one of the biggest designers out there doesn't think of us as being welcome at the table.  That's all.  That's it.  Nothing else.
> 
> I hope I don't have to explain why I'd like a "there's still a seat for people who like the gaming aspect" approach.




Except it's not a seat for people who like the gaming aspect if you read into the tone of the decision.  It's the people who take the game so seriously that they ruin it for everyone else who are being targeted.

KB


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 22, 2018)

A couple of quick hits from what to me is page 6...


pemerton said:


> This is a statement I would associate with 4e non-combat resolution, and also with some aspects of 4e combat (the p 42 driven ones).
> 
> For me, the difference with 5e non-combat resolution is that it has no framework to it that establishes finality of resolution ...



This, depending on the particular table, can be either a feature or a bug.

It's a feature if the DM is savvy enough to be able to roll with whatever resolution suits the at-the-time situation while still being consistent with what's gone before.  In this case a framework is limiting, in that once a framework is in place it's inevitable things will end up trying to conform to that framework even when they shouldn't.

It's a bug if the DM is less savvy and needs a rules framework to fall back on ; or worse, is in a situation of being - for lack of a better term - bullied by the players into always ruling in their favour (I've seen this - not pretty at all).



> and so unless something is done at the table to compensate for this the upshot of non-combat action resolution is always ultimately a matter of GM decision-making. (Classic Traveller has the same problem in a few areas, especially on-world exploration. But I'm more forgiving of a game that was designed 40 years ago.)



GM decision-making can be a perfectly fine method of resolution.  All it needs to work well is a good GM...which, it seems, not everyone has access to.



			
				DM Dave1 said:
			
		

> Ask your LFGS if they would order a book for you if it is not in stock. I’ve done this with a few different stores and it is always greeted with an eager “of course we can do that for you!” I’m willing to wait in order to help them out in a small way. I’ve got plenty of stuff that I haven’t fully read to fill up my time while I anticipate their call that my order is in.



One caveat here: be advised that if you're outside the USA fulfillment of such orders can sometimes take ages, depending what you're having the FLGS order in for you.  Non-USA distributors seem to be a very mixed bag at best in terms of efficiency, at least here in Canada.



			
				KenNYC said:
			
		

> What is the assassin now? If you hit via attack X do Y dice of damage. The End. Basically, the entire class has been thrown out replaced by "how can I roll more dice? I know, I will choose assassin"
> 
> And that seems the way it is for so many of the classes. "what can get me better action economy" "this class crits on an 18" and so on. That is what this guy has come up with as he pretends he hasn't.



Agreed, except I'm not so sure all the blame goes to Mearls for this; he's merely following the design paradigms laid out in 3e and 4e, possibly in an attempt to keep fans of those editions in the fold, as it were.

Lanefan


----------



## Greg K (Sep 22, 2018)

TerraDave said:


> There is quality material out for 5E, but it has come out much slower.




I am sure that [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] is aware that there is quality third party material for 5e given that he has, in my opinion, written some of it


----------



## Jester David (Sep 22, 2018)

TerraDave said:


> @_*Jester David*_
> @_*DM Howard*_
> 
> There _was_ more 3rd party stuff for 3E. A glut of it, in fact.
> ...



Kinda...
Here's the thing. It's very much an apples to oranges situation. 

There was a _tonne_ of 3PP in the 3e glut, which ran from 2001 to 2003 for the d20 bust. It was a huge surge of material, but it only lasted for 2 to 2 1/2 years. And a lot of that was likely in the initial year or so while there wasn't a lot of official stuff and people didn't realise they should be checking quality. Meanwhile, the economy was high and Magic was doing *very* well, so game stores were flush with cashing and buying whatever d20 products they could. But, very quickly, people realised there was a lot of terrible books out there and stopped buying. 
So there was a lot of d20 products, but not as many actually being purchased by fans. That's why so many stores went under in 2003-4.

There were also the side games. At the time every small publisher would quickly use a variant of the d20 system for their product. But most of those weren't true "3PP", as they weren't expansions. They were just separate games that used a variation of the rules. 

Meanwhile, RPGNow only launched in 2001. And it was unknown for much of the d20 boom. And DriveThruRPG didn't launch until 2004, after the d20 bust. The option for digital products and PDFs wasn't really as much of an option. People had to physically publish or not at all. 


So when you compare the state of 3PP now to the state of 3PP then, you're not only looking at longer period of time, but also PDF options that didn't exist prior. And that's before you consider the rise of e-commerce and more people shopping on Amazon or buying directly from the publisher. 

To say nothing of Kickstarter.  When you check in Kickstarter, there's over 200-250 5e D&D book projects, 
https://www.kickstarter.com/discover/advanced?term=5e&category_id=12&sort=magic&seed=2562739&page=1
And that's before you go onto DriveThruRPG or DMsGuild. 

I'd argue there's almost _more_ 3rd Party Products out there than during the d20 boom. They're just less visible as they're not in stores. And, I would argue, the high selling 3PP are probably moving a _lot _more copies than the early 3e ones. 

The big difference is largely the side games. There are fewer small games opting to use the d20 rules. Most opt to just go with a more rules lite system that better fits the desired tone of the game. That's a big difference. But those were never really compatible.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 22, 2018)

D1Tremere said:


> "DM-empowering and options-light" I disagree with this statement. Not having a specific rule for everything under the sun is rules light, not options light. An empowered DM and rules that allow for creative engagement means more options to me, not less.



Sure, whatever term you want to use for it is fine. Point is, not having a rule for everything under the sun is empowering to the DM, and the part of 5e I like.



D1Tremere said:


> An emphasis on who the character is, as opposed to the minutia of combat mechanics, means you can create highly fun and original characters instead of optimal, suboptimal, or broken build variants.



But having lots of decision points in the character building process does not preclude the possibility of emphasizing who the character is. I want the emphasis to be on who the character is. But I want my choices about who the character is to be reflected in the mechanics. I don’t just want to describe my character doing different things, I want actual different options of things for my character to do.


----------



## DM Howard (Sep 22, 2018)

Jester David said:


> I'd argue there's almost _more_ 3rd Party Products out there than during the d20 boom. They're just less visible as they're not in stores.




I agree with everything in your post, but what I've put in quotes I see as a bug not a feature.

As an aside: I've enjoyed everything I've read of yours in terms of 3PP content.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 22, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> 3e has a lot of issues, and yes, option bloat is one of them. That doesn’t mean options are an inherently bad thing, it just means 3e managed its options poorly.
> 
> This is getting too abstract to talk about meaningfully. What kind of choice are you picturing that is created by the character having several options to choose from for their action, causes a conflict between tactical advantage and character motivation, and requires the player to make the decision based on information the character doesn’t have? Cause I can’t think of any actual play scenario like that.



Try this: we both have characters in an established adventuring party.  Within the party there's a long history of your character and mine being close friends (we're both front-line warriors), meanwhile neither of us have any time for wizard character C and would prefer he not be in the group.  So, now the party's in a rolling open-field battle with a bunch of tougher-than-expected foes and aren't doing very well.  Character C in particular is overwhelmed, while you look to be holding your own and I've just freed myself up to join another fight.

Tactically-best choice: I go and bail out character C whose spells, if free to cast them, could quickly turn the tide.
In-character choice: I come and help free you up, confident that between us we can mop this up, and let character C sink or swim on his own.  We can always find another wizard.

Now, to add in the missing-info aspect: there's also a rogue character D in the party, a decent sort.  In this battle D is also getting snowed under, only from my position on the field my character can't see this due to some obstacle or other.  I-as-player, however, can look at the minis on the grid and see that D is toast unless someone bails him out.

So now we have three options:

Tactically-best choice: I go and bail out character C.
In-character choice: I come and help free you up and let character C sink or swim on his own.
Metagame-driven choice: I go and bail out character D.



> I don’t really care how 0e did it.



Fair enough, but kind of self-defeating when discussing comparables between all 5 (actually 6 if 0e counts) editions.



> Subclass is another decision point in the character building process, which is exactly what I wish 5e had more of. If you get to make the decision after character creation, so much the better. That’s my issue with character creation in 5e - not enough decision points, and most of the ones you do have are made at character creation. 3e was the other side of the coin, where there were plenty of decision points, but the options were so interreliant and complex that you had to make them all at character creation or risk making a useless character. 4e hit the sweet spot where you had lots of decision points, and you weren’t punished for making those decisions as you went, picking your new power from a few options when you level up.



Hmmm...we'll have a hard time finding common ground on this one, methinks. 

Personally, I want level-up to be as simple and straightforward as possible - roll h.p., gain whatever locked-in abilities the new level gives me, and carry on.  I also prefer initial char-gen to be as simple as possible, simple enough that it can be done on the fly during a session by someone who's just lost a character and has an upcoming opportunity to bring in a replacement.  If it takes longer than half an hour, including spell selection and mundane equipment loading, that's too long.



> Not that it matters, but I started playing with 3.5, didn’t really like it, got into the game in earnest in 4e.



This is helpful in understanding your views - thanks.

And actually it does matter, in that that experience gives you a quite different perspective than that of someone who, say, only played 1e and-or 2e then got out and only just now came back.  To that person 5e would be arguably a more radical departure from what they're used to than it would for you, who is used to 4e and a bit of 3e.




> Lanefan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because they're bad for the game, perhaps?

Lanefan


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 22, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> But having lots of decision points in the character building process does not preclude the possibility of emphasizing who the character is. I want the emphasis to be on who the character is. But I want my choices about who the character is to be reflected in the mechanics. I don’t just want to describe my character doing different things, I want actual different options of things for my character to do.



The big trick is giving you those options while letting me express my character without needing those options.

Like, since the Battlemaster can spend Superiority Dice to disarm and shove, does this mean the Champion is prohibited? I'd hope not, but it can be tough to make it work for both players.


----------



## Eric V (Sep 22, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Sure, whatever term you want to use for it is fine. Point is, not having a rule for everything under the sun is empowering to the DM, and the part of 5e I like.
> 
> 
> But having lots of decision points in the character building process does not preclude the possibility of emphasizing who the character is. I want the emphasis to be on who the character is. But I want my choices about who the character is to be reflected in the mechanics. I don’t just want to describe my character doing different things, I want actual different options of things for my character to do.




Have you checked out 13th Age?

Lots of options in character creation and such, but pretty rules-light.  Might be right up your alley.

It also accomplishes what Mearls says was the goal for 5e (focus much more on  narrative and identity, rather than specific, mechanical advantages; who  you are is more important than what you do, to the point that your who  determines your what; a community  that  focuses on socializing  and story telling.) way better than 5e does..."despite" that it's written by authors of 3e and 4e!


----------



## billd91 (Sep 22, 2018)

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> I like this. I think Mearls is thinking more in favor of how can D&D be better for the DM with 5e than the more Player facing 3e and 4e because both 3e and 4e do provide a lot more mechanical emphasis and options for Players, which probably did make those games more difficult to DM for.
> 
> At least on the surface it seems that way. But Mearls is making a lot of personal biases creep in and putting his own beliefs into what D&D is supposed to be, and its definitely in favor of making the game appear to be more narrative focused by how the game presents information, the game's mechanisms, and the whole paradigm of De_emphasizing "Rules" in favor of "Rulings" for different DMs to manage the game as they want.




As designer, it's kind of his job to work with his beliefs of what D&D is supposed to be.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 22, 2018)

pemerton said:


> (I also don't really get how "building narrative around a character" fits with the seemingly dominant role of APs in 5e play, but that's a different story.)




That's the dominant mode of *publishing*, I wouldn't assume it's the dominant mode of *play*.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 22, 2018)

jamesstreissand said:


> It's pretty clear that people who like the mechanical aspect are not the people WOTC is interested in marketing to, whatever your opinions on that are.
> 
> We're not REALLY welcome,  as far as they're concerned.




I doubt that. It's not like you're not welcome, it's that you will no longer be the group predominantly catered to anymore.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 22, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Try this: we both have characters in an established adventuring party.  Within the party there's a long history of your character and mine being close friends (we're both front-line warriors), meanwhile neither of us have any time for wizard character C and would prefer he not be in the group.  So, now the party's in a rolling open-field battle with a bunch of tougher-than-expected foes and aren't doing very well.  Character C in particular is overwhelmed, while you look to be holding your own and I've just freed myself up to join another fight.
> 
> Tactically-best choice: I go and bail out character C whose spells, if free to cast them, could quickly turn the tide.
> In-character choice: I come and help free you up, confident that between us we can mop this up, and let character C sink or swim on his own.  We can always find another wizard.
> ...



Excellent and thorough example, thank you.

Ok, so first of all, I would argue that bailing out character C is just as valid a character-driven choice as helping free me up. You can certainly say that you have a closer bond with my character and don’t much care for what happens to character C. But you could just as well say that your character’s bond with mine is such that you understand my capabilities and know that I can handle myself. Perhaps even that you would not wish to rob me of the glory of defeating these foes on my own, and the wizard might owe you if you save him. Now, either are valid options, and as the person portraying your character, it is up to you to decide which is the option your character would take. That decision is what, for me, roleplaying is all about, and I would consider trying to eliminate such moments to be a terrible design goal. You’d be actively trying to eliminate the most fun part of the game.

As for if saving character D is “metagaming” or not, that is a question of the social contract of the group. At my table, it is assumed that the characters are cohesive enough unit to be able to effectively communicate what is going on around their part of the battlefield to each other, even if they can’t directly see it. So at my table, going to save the rogue would be fine, under the assumption that he was either able to express his need of aid, or you noticed his absence and thought it suspicious, or something. Not all tables would play it that way, however, and I’ll grant that in this example, we are playing at a table where if your character can’t directly observe what’s happening to the rogue, they don’t know and can’t act on that out of character information. In that case, that would not be a valid roleplaying choice.



Lanefan said:


> Fair enough, but kind of self-defeating when discussing comparables between all 5 (actually 6 if 0e counts) editions.



I mean, that’s not what we’re discussing. We’re discussing the design philosophy behind 5e, and whether or not providing the players with lots of mechanical options goes against it.



Lanefan said:


> Hmmm...we'll have a hard time finding common ground on this one, methinks.
> 
> Personally, I want level-up to be as simple and straightforward as possible - roll h.p., gain whatever locked-in abilities the new level gives me, and carry on.  I also prefer initial char-gen to be as simple as possible, simple enough that it can be done on the fly during a session by someone who's just lost a character and has an upcoming opportunity to bring in a replacement.  If it takes longer than half an hour, including spell selection and mundane equipment loading, that's too long.



Sure, that’s fair. I prefer character generation to be quick and easy as well, particularly at 1st level. I’m personally less concerned with the speed of generating higher-level characters, but I can empathize with the desire to keep that quick too. Fortunately, the nice thing about options is that they are optional. 5e’s approach to starting equipment provides a good model for how this can be done. If you want to get your starting equipment figured out as quickly as possible, you just take the stuff recommended in the “quick build” for your class. If you want a little more customization but still to keep it quick and easy, you take the starting equipment package for your class, making a few simple choices like “explorer’s pack or dungeoneer’s pack.” If you want as much flexibility as possible and don’t mind it taking longer, take the starting gold and buy your equipment a-la-carte. The DM of course has the power to restrict options and/or provide new ones. This same philosophy could be applied to, say, class features, instead of equipment. Maybe offer a subclass with all fixed abilities for those who don’t want to pick and choose. Or a few. Just also offer options with a lot of customizability for those who like it.



Lanefan said:


> Because they're bad for the game, perhaps?



I don’t agree with that. You and I will probably never agree on that.


----------



## Jester David (Sep 22, 2018)

DM Howard said:


> As an aside: I've enjoyed everything I've read of yours in terms of 3PP content.



Thank you.
Which is partly why I've been so defensive of DMsGuild. It can be amateur hour at times, but from personal experience there are a lot of people who have spent a lot of time and effort into making great products.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 22, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> The big trick is giving you those options while letting me express my character without needing those options.
> 
> Like, since the Battlemaster can spend Superiority Dice to disarm and shove, does this mean the Champion is prohibited? I'd hope not, but it can be tough to make it work for both players.



It’s a little tricky, but it’s possible and I think well worth the effort. Champion and Battle Master are both viable options in 5e, and while Battle Master tends to have a bit higher DPR, Champions aren’t useless by comparison, and we’ve seen with the Brute an example of a simple fighter that performs much better damage-wise than Champion.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 22, 2018)

Eric V said:


> Have you checked out 13th Age?
> 
> Lots of options in character creation and such, but pretty rules-light.  Might be right up your alley.
> 
> It also accomplishes what Mearls says was the goal for 5e (focus much more on  narrative and identity, rather than specific, mechanical advantages; who  you are is more important than what you do, to the point that your who  determines your what; a community  that  focuses on socializing  and story telling.) way better than 5e does..."despite" that it's written by authors of 3e and 4e!



I have, and it’s a very well-designed game that is just not quite to my taste, unfortunately. It does a lot of things I really like (abstract distances, backgrounds-as-skills, etc.), and a lot of things I really don’t (+Level to rolls, the escalation die, etc.) But while its execution is not quite what I would prefer, conceptually it is a shining example of the sort of design I would like to see more of in the mainstream games.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Sep 22, 2018)

I think most of Mearl's tweet is garbage, especially the purported intentions of 3e and 4e, but if their 5e intent was to make a cakewalk game that ensures the party gets from plot point A to plot point Z, via a long winded adventure path, with a "strong narrative" to "enjoy", they succeeded.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 22, 2018)

Psikerlord# said:


> I think most of Mearl's tweet is garbage, especially the purported intentions of 3e and 4e, but if their 5e intent was to make a cakewalk game that ensures the party gets from plot point A to plot point Z, via a long winded adventure path, with a "strong narrative" to "enjoy", they succeeded.



Someone needs to start writing their own material and stop using adventure paths, methinks.


----------



## cmad1977 (Sep 22, 2018)

Psikerlord# said:


> I think most of Mearl's tweet is garbage, especially the purported intentions of 3e and 4e, but if their 5e intent was to make a cakewalk game that ensures the party gets from plot point A to plot point Z, via a long winded adventure path, with a "strong narrative" to "enjoy", they succeeded.




Sounds like someone’s got a less than decent DM.


----------



## Eric V (Sep 22, 2018)

cmad1977 said:


> Sounds like someone’s got a less than decent DM.




Didn't really sound like that to me.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 22, 2018)

There are some games that I hate as much as [MENTION=93321]Psikerlord#[/MENTION] apparently hates 5e.

Strangely enough, I don't bother following any forums where those games are discussed.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 22, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I mean, that’s not what we’re discussing. We’re discussing the design philosophy behind 5e, and whether or not providing the players with lots of mechanical options goes against it.



True, and we were looking back over the older editions for comparison.  0e-1e-early 2e provided fewer options, late-era 2e along with 3e and 4e provided more.  Mid-2e was more or less about the same as 5e in terms of scope, though vastly different in implementation and nowhere near as cohesive.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 22, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> There are some games that I hate as much as @_*Psikerlord#*_ apparently hates 5e.
> 
> Strangely enough, I don't bother following any forums where those games are discussed.




Apparently I wasn't clear enough. If you imagine you're on a forum where nobody is allowed to express negative opinions about D&D, you're incorrect. This is not that site. I asked people nicely; you ignored it. Don't post in the thread again, please, and DO NOT tell people to go elswhere; you do not have that authority.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 22, 2018)

Psikerlord# said:


> I think most of Mearl's tweet is garbage, especially the purported intentions of 3e and 4e, but if their 5e intent was to make a cakewalk game that ensures the party gets from plot point A to plot point Z, via a long winded adventure path, with a "strong narrative" to "enjoy", they succeeded.



I think much the same "cakewalk" claim has been made after the release of each edition starting with 2e.  Nothing new there; and while it's harder to kill off PCs in some editions than others they can all be made about equally deadly (or not) depending on the DM.

The "'strong narrative' to 'enjoy'" claim came even sooner, right around the time the Dragonlance modules came out in the 1e era.


----------



## DM Howard (Sep 22, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Thank you.
> Which is partly why I've been so defensive of DMsGuild. It can be amateur hour at times, but from personal experience there are a lot of people who have spent a lot of time and effort into making great products.



Thank you for the great content!

I certainly could have worded my criticism of the DMs Guild better so I apologize for that.  I guess I just don't see DMs Guild as a replacement for visible 3PP products in stores, that's all.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 22, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> True, and we were looking back over the older editions for comparison.  0e-1e-early 2e provided fewer options, late-era 2e along with 3e and 4e provided more.  Mid-2e was more or less about the same as 5e in terms of scope, though vastly different in implementation and nowhere near as cohesive.



Sure, but I don’t see how 0e-2e are relevant.

Mearls’ Claim (paraphrased): 3e and 4e were built around trying to make the gameplay experience as consistent s possible from one table to another. This, combined with an emphasis on providing players lots of mechanical options, lead to a negative play experience, so for 5e we focused on giving the DM the freedom to make their game their own, and focused player options on story.

My counter-claim: Those are great design goals, but I think you could have achieved them without taking away the multitude of mechanical options 3e and 4e provided players with.

It seems to me that “Well, 2e had more DM freedom and fewer mechanical options too!” is a nonsequitur. What does that have to do with Mearls’ claim or my counter-claim? Like, I’ve heard from a lot of folks who liked 2e that 5e reminds them of it, and that’s awesome, but reiterating that fact doesn’t seem to contribute anything to the conversation about whether or not 5e could have accomplished its goals without reducing player options.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 22, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Sure, but I don’t see how 0e-2e are relevant.
> 
> Mearls’ Claim (paraphrased): 3e and 4e were built around trying to make the gameplay experience as consistent s possible from one table to another. This, combined with an emphasis on providing players lots of mechanical options, lead to a negative play experience, so for 5e we focused on giving the DM the freedom to make their game their own, and focused player options on story.
> 
> ...




It is extremely relevant, as a major part of the Next playtest was going back to basics and seeing what worked in earlier editions. Mearls has been clear elsewhere that bringing the game closer to what worked for people in AD&D and BECMI was a design goal...that has worked very well. They spent a lot of time in Next tuning the complexity to work for the audience needs.


----------



## Paul3 (Sep 22, 2018)

Reynard said:


> A couple of days ago, I was creating a 17th level barbarian as a test case for a high level one shot I want to run. It took less than a half hour. To create a 17th level character. In D&D. I was flabbergasted.




The reality that there are players who consider this a bad thing is baffling to me. This kind of approach is why so many new players (and returning older players like myself) have returned to the game, no longer overwhelmed with mechanical bloat reserved for the power-gamers. 

I can't tell you how much I love 5e.


----------



## Fergurg (Sep 23, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> There is a HUGE difference between "not being welcome at the table" and "not getting exactly what you want".
> 
> You are more than welcome to play 5e.  You are more than welcome to provide your feedback in the surveys.  And of course you are ENTIRELY welcome to homebrew your own content, or use all the amazing 3rd party content available here and on DMSGuild.  A lot of it is quite good, and it's easy to find, and it's cheap.
> 
> They're just not going to change the game that works for 99% of the market to cater to the 1%.  (Especially because every single person in that 1% has their own notion of what 5e should be.)




Mearls tweeted out a few months ago that people wanting more mechanical complexity were just trying to keep women out of the game and, "You're fired from D&D. Find a new hobby."


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 23, 2018)

Fergurg said:


> Mearls tweeted out a few months ago that people wanting more mechanical complexity were just trying to keep women out of the game and, "You're fired from D&D. Find a new hobby."




That is really not what he said at all, by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Fergurg (Sep 23, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> That is really not what he said at all, by any stretch of the imagination.




Here's a screenshot of the tweet: View attachment 101691

So am I missing?


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 23, 2018)

Fergurg said:


> Here's a screenshot of the tweet: View attachment 101691
> 
> So am I missing?




He is saying that volunteer gatekeepers aren't welcome, not people who like crunchy rules as such.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 23, 2018)

Parsing the quote, I interpret him as saying that there is some correlation between "many" of the folks who want to gatekeep via rules complexity and those who have an issue with women in the game. I have no idea what he's basing that on, but it seems like a valid hypothesis.

He is _not _saying such folks are tryin to keep women out of gaming via rules complexity. Nor is he saying that all or even most "crunch-friendly" folks don't like women. 

As for the fired part, I can understand his frustration if he feels that there are such folks.

Anyhow, an aspect of this conversation that hasn't been touched upon--at least based upon my cursory skimming of the thread--is that it is far easier to "dial up" complexity than "dial down." In other words, it is easier to add in bits and bobs to complexify your own game than to take an already complex game and simplify. This is why a game with a high baseline level of complexity ends up as gatekeeping. 

On a related note, as someone who has been into D&D since the early 80s, it seems that the culture around homebrewing has changed. "Back in the day" (say, TSR era) it was assumed that every campaign or group or DM had their own house-rules; it was one of the first questions you asked: "What are the house rules?" Now it seems like there's more...tension? hesitancy?...around the whole idea of house-ruling, as if the rule isn't real or legit unless it has WotC's stamp of approval.

With that in mind, if you aren't happy with 5E's level of complexity, I see a few options:

1) Play something else. Pathfinder is a great game produced by a great company, and there's tons of folks playing it.
2) Play 5E but adjust it to your liking. Most players just want to play and are willing to tolerate house rules.
3) Play 5E as is, but be unhappy about it.

While we're all entitled to like what we like and I see nothing wrong with voicing what we like and don't like, it just seems that _at a certain point_, the third option is counter-productive. Why not move to 1 or 2? If you want to play in Adventurers League, then you have to balance that with your desire for more complex rules. But if you're running your own game, then 1 or 2 are valid options. I suppose one case in which you might be out of luck is if you are a player and unhappy with the rules options, but then you can still pretty easily find a PF game and get the rules complexity and customization you want.

In the end, I think many/most of those who insist on the 3rd option do so for reasons other than pragmatism or game preference. They may simply just want to be mad at WotC for not producing the game they want. I would hope that at some point that grows tiresome enough that they'll move on and find and play a game they enjoy.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 23, 2018)

Mercurius said:


> Parsing the quote, I interpret him as saying that there is some correlation between "many" of the folks who want to gatekeep via rules complexity and those who have an issue with women in the game. I have no idea what he's basing that on, but it seems like a valid hypothesis.
> 
> He is _not _saying such folks are tryin to keep women out of gaming via rules complexity. Nor is he saying that all or even most "crunch-friendly" folks don't like women.
> 
> ...




The quote isn't difficult to parse: there are folks who like to use the rules as weapons against other people. The context for the quote is a reaction to cyberbulluing that Mearls was witnessing in the wake of Kate Welch being hired.


----------



## cmad1977 (Sep 23, 2018)

Fergurg said:


> Mearls tweeted out a few months ago that people wanting more mechanical complexity were just trying to keep women out of the game and, "You're fired from D&D. Find a new hobby."




DC 1 reading comprehension check failed. Wasn’t sure that was possible.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 23, 2018)

KenNYC said:


> What is the assassin now?  If you hit via attack X do Y dice of damage.  The End.   Basically, the entire class has been thrown out replaced by "how can I roll more dice?  I know, I will choose assassin"





jamesstreissand said:


> It's pretty clear that people who like the mechanical aspect are not the people WOTC is interested in marketing to



I don't think both these claims can be true.

To me, 5e does seem rather mechanically focused - especially on combat mechanics. This is manifested in a whole lot of ways, including the many departures from traditional spell dice expressions to ensure mechanical balance in damage inflicted across classes.

It's "narrativeness" seems to consist in the relative lack of non-combat mechanics.



Kobold Boots said:


> regardless of whether or not the rules support a narrative, (as 3e or 4e would) it's still up to the DM to allow the rules to exist as written or be interpreted the way the player intends.
> 
> The only difference in the game system is options.  If that's what you want, that's great but I'd not hide behind the "DM has too much power" argument because he or she has always had it.  If you're having fun it's because the DM and the entire group is enabling you to some extent.  You're not doing it because of the rules or on your own.



This isn't true. I won't comment on 3E, but 5e doesn't differ from 4e simply in terms of options.

5e differs in terms of action resolution mechanics, especially non-combat mechanics. And the differences in PC build are also significant to resolution - 4e PCs have powers that can be used as "descriptors" that are spent to enhance a range of actions that are thematically apt, which allows 4e to play more like a free descriptor game. (Eg in a skill challenge with the goal of entering a guarded temple, the player of a wizard spend his daily power Charm of the Dark Dream - a domination power whereby the wizard turns into a mist and enters the body of the dominated target - to enable an Arcana check to try and read the password from the mind of a guard.)

5e has a very different approach to PC build, which is focused much more on capabilities expressed in mechanical terms that are interpreted as literal ("naturalistic", "simulationist") within the gameworld. There is no uniform suite of abilities with clear keywords that provide a player resource economy adaptable to a range of contexts outside of combat as well as in it.



Jester David said:


> D&D can be descriptor based on the roleplaying side. The champion fighter can describe themselves as a knight, archer, swashbuckler, and the like. All with largely the same mechanics. And the bold, arrogant Robin Hood archer is a very different charcater from the cautious, sniper archer.
> The mechanics of D&D don’t remove the descriptive choice based aspects of characters. They don’t remove that. It adds overtop.



The heart of the resolution rule in a descriptor-based game is: if your desctiptor bears on your declared action, that factors into the mechanical resolution. For instance, in the game I referenced - Cthulhu Dark - if the declared action falls within the scope of expertise of the PC's occupation (in my example, being a reporter, a secretary in a law firm, or a longshoreman) then a die is added to the pool.

In 5e, a player might describe his/her character as a knight but, as you say, that won't change the mechanics (unless it is done via background choice - but background in 5e seems to be rather light touch in comparison to the overall play of the game).



lowkey13 said:


> And yet, without getting to various normative views about editions*, 4e was (from a sales perspective) a disappointment



My own view is that there are two reasons for this.

(1) "The market" - however exactly we want to think of that - is not super-keen on a game that is mechanically very intensive on the PC build side, and in combat resolution.

(2) "The market" prefers GM-driven story - where the main contribution to story and narrative is description that is largely indepedent of and floats above the details of mechanical resolution, and is provided mostly by the GM but is supplemented by players' characterisation of their PCs  - to more "indie"-style story which is determined by the outcomes of tight conflict-resolution mechanics.

2nd ed AD&D (pre-Players' Options) satisfied (1) and (2). So does 5e, and it really is like a super-tightened-up version of 2nd ed AD&D: the bulk of the mechanics deal with combat, but with attention to balance between PC builds that draws on all that was learned in 3E and especially 4e design; the out-of-combat resolution is a form of ability checks whose concrete signficance to the unfolding of the shared fiction is filtered almost entirely through GM decision-making.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 23, 2018)

D1Tremere said:


> If there are not a million different mechanics for Barbarian builds then perhaps the difference becomes who the this particular Barbarian is instead of what it can do differently.



In the mid-90s Chris Kubasik wrote this in his Interactive Toolkit:

Characters drive the narrative of all stories. However, many people mistake _character _for _characterization_.

Characterization is the look of a character, the description of his voice, the quirks of habit. Characterization creates the concrete detail of a character through the use of sensory detail and exposition. By “seeing” how a character looks, how he picks up his wine glass, by knowing he has a love of fine tobacco, the character becomes concrete to our imagination, even while remaining nothing more than black ink upon a white page.

But a person thus described is not a character. A character must do.

Character is action.​
I'm with Kubasik. I don't see the contrast between _who_ and _what_. You know who a barbarian is because you know what s/he does.



D1Tremere said:


> since this shift I have noticed my play experience being more about interactions between players and game world and less about tactical combat.



This seems a different complaint, though. If the sort of interaction between players and gameworld you want is not talking about combat, then it makes sense to play a game which focuses elsewhere. For example, one barbarian might have mechanics that support his/her leadership, another that support his/her wilderness survival.

Many RPGs have mechanics that focus mostly on combat, but that's an oddity of their descent from wargames, not a general feature of RPGs or of mechanics.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 23, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Check out the new Ferrari Monza.  40's/50's, not 30's, but damn is it gorgeous.
> 
> Back on topic, I'll admit I'm perplexed by all this talk about "replayability".  I still haven't played all the classes, and honestly I could happily re-play some of my favorite classes over and over again, with each one having a new personality.  I can play two fighters in a row and have them feel like totally different characters.  What I really care about, though, is the adventures.  As long as the adventures are new and interesting I don't really care much what class I'm playing.  In fact, sometimes I like a character so much that I think about starting the exact same character over at level 1, so that I can have more adventures with him/her.
> 
> ...




I get the impression that for some people if anyone plays a type of character in a group, playing the same type of character would be "replaying".  But other than that, I agree.  There are so many options to what even a basic fighter could be given different backgrounds and builds.

Or even if it's the same build, it could be a completely different character.  Maybe there's another explanation for people that have an issue with replayability someone could explain?


----------



## VengerSatanis (Sep 23, 2018)

"Adding more mechanical complexity wouldn't actually make a better game; it would just allow you to distract yourself for a bit longer before realizing you're just playing the same character, over and over, in a glorified board game."

Oh snap!


----------



## pemerton (Sep 23, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> GM decision-making can be a perfectly fine method of resolution.  All it needs to work well is a good GM...which, it seems, not everyone has access to.



No edition of D&D ever - includinge 5e - has used the following method for resolving combat:

The player says how their PC is going to defeat their opponent in combat. The GM then tells them whether they win, whether they lose, or if a an ability check is required. If the lattermost, the GM specifies which ability is required, and what proficiencie(s), if any, might apply. The GM also sets a DC. If the check equals or exceeds the DC, the PC wins the fight. Otherwise s/he loses, with consequences determined by the GM.​
And I think an attempt to publish a version of D&D that had such a rule would not be regarded as "perfectly fine" by most D&D players.

The fact that non-combat resolution _is_ handled more-or-less like that in both 2nd ed AD&D and 5e tells us something about how the game is expected to work: players can use the combat rules to impose changes on the gameworld that don't need to be mediate through GM decision-making (unless the GM outright fudges); but the same is not true for non-combat action declarations.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 23, 2018)

Paul3 said:


> The reality that there are players who consider this a bad thing is baffling to me.



Some people like sudokus; others don't. Some people prefer to play bridge rather than five hundred; other the opposite. I suspect that most people posting in this thread would not enjoy Cthulhu Dark, although it has much quicker PC building than 5e - all you have to do is decide your PC's name and job.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 23, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> since the Battlemaster can spend Superiority Dice to disarm and shove, does this mean the Champion is prohibited? I'd hope not, but it can be tough to make it work for both players.



To my mind, this is a sign of poor design, or perhaps - in a mass-market RPG - compromise design.

4e suffered from it a bit, but p 42 and related ideas and methods provided a framework to try and handle it.

But the basic issue is: if player A spends PC build resources to open up a particular option, and player B has access to the same option without having spent the resources, then why did A bother? The 4e solution is that player A's access to the options is (at least in principle; p 42 isn't comprehensive) more robust and more effective. HeroQuest revised (which is a free descriptor game) takes a different approach: if one player has choen a more precise and colourful descriptor than the other, then when that second player brings his/her more generic descriptor to bear in that more precise context s/he takes a penalty to the check.

I don't know how 5e is meant to handle this in any systematic fashion.


----------



## Reynard (Sep 23, 2018)

This is a little tangential but still related, I think:

Today I ran a Starfinder one shot at a small local convention. I love that game, it is a full of fun science fantasy tomfoolery. (I even have a couple monsters coming out in Starfinder AP #9.) But, it was a stark reminder for me on the differences in design philosophy between the 3.x games and 5e. Starfinder is very much of the latter ilk, and it shows in a lot of ways. the pregens for the players were full packets in order to provide players with the information the needed to run their characters. In addition, the sheer numbers involved were weird after playing and running 5E a lot over the past year (7th level characters with +18 skill modifiers, etc...)

The two schools of game design are very different. i won't say one is better than the other, but they certainly appeal to different sets of preferences. And while there are a few elements of the 3.x school I still prefer, generally speaking the 5e school works better for me and my GMing style. I will be interested to see how high level 5E goes for me when I run my first 17th level playtest next Friday.

Anyway, my point is mostly that there is a real difference and I can understand the design team making a choice and sticking to it. I don't think you can offer the kinds of player facing choices 3.x games offer while still embracing the loosey-goosey GM centric mechanics of 5E.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 23, 2018)

Psikerlord# said:


> I think most of Mearl's tweet is garbage, especially the purported intentions of 3e and 4e, but if their 5e intent was to make a cakewalk game that ensures the party gets from plot point A to plot point Z, via a long winded adventure path, with a "strong narrative" to "enjoy", they succeeded.



That's probably stronger than I would put it!

But clearly if your basic model for play is the adventure path - or any other module/story which works by starting at event/encounter 1 and then working through to event/encounter N - then either the players need to succeed at each of 1, 2, 3,  . . . N-1, or else the GM needs to adjust the consequences to compensate for failure (eg if the players miss the clue at 1, the GM feeds it to them at 2 instead). If and of 1 through N-1 is a fight, in a system which sets the stakes for losing a fight at death, then victory by the PCs better be pretty close to certain.

I'm not sure if that's what you've got in mind by "cakewalk".


----------



## Reynard (Sep 23, 2018)

5E could certainly use some self contained adventures. I know they are not terribly profitable, but they do serve to create shared experiences for the community as well as support the majority of GMs that run primarily homebrew campaigns. Really, 5E needs Dungeon and Dragon back. At the very least, WotC should curate the DMsGuild in a way that emulates those magazines for the modern era.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 23, 2018)

pemerton said:


> To my mind, this is a sign of poor design, or perhaps - in a mass-market RPG - compromise design.
> 
> 4e suffered from it a bit, but p 42 and related ideas and methods provided a framework to try and handle it.
> 
> ...




If you look at it, it's actually great design.

The Battlemaster doesn't get extra options there, they just get to do that stuff AND do damage. That's the difference.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 23, 2018)

Mercurius said:


> it is far easier to "dial up" complexity than "dial down." In other words, it is easier to add in bits and bobs to complexify your own game than to take an already complex game and simplify.



I don't think that this is true in general. Like most things about mechanical design, it depends on the details.

Moldvay Basic is a reasonably simple game. It can be made more complex by eg bringing in bits and pieces of AD&D, like the separation of race and class, or differential weapon damage for size S-M and size L, or more and more complicated spells, etc.

Prince Valiant is a reasonably simple game. I have no idea how you woud go about making it more complex. The advice in the rulebook (at least my version, which is from the recent Kickstarter; I don't know if this was in the original book) is "If you want a more complex Arthurian game, try Pendragon". Which seems the right suggestion to me.

Burning Wheel in its full glory is a complex game, but it can be pretty easily simplified (by dropping the detailed combat and magic systems) to be a game of simply "GM sets the DC, player makes a check on the appropriate attribute on his/her sheet" - which is fairly simple in mechanical terms at least (not necessarily in its demands on the GM's ability to adjudicate).

Classic Traveller is a moderately complex game (though simpler, I think, than any post-Moldvay edition of D&D) and I can't see how any of that complexity could be stripped out without narrowing the range of play the game allows for (ie unlike Burning Wheel, dropping subsystems equates to dropping that aspect of play, be it starship travel or planetary exploration or whatever).

5e could fairly easily be made more complex by eg introducing more intricate rules for setting DCs out of combat, by lengthening the spell lists, by introducing more feats that are more mechanically intricate, etc. But it couldn't be made more complex by eg introducing 4e-style PC gen (ie power-based) - you might write up new classes based on the warlock, but if you look at eg the Champion fighter there's simply not the design space to reconstruct that as a power-based fighter. (Which contrasts, say, with Moldvay Basic which makes it pretty easy to separate race and class and thus take the game closer to its more complex cousins.)


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 23, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> It is extremely relevant, as a major part of the Next playtest was going back to basics and seeing what worked in earlier editions. Mearls has been clear elsewhere that bringing the game closer to what worked for people in AD&D and BECMI was a design goal...that has worked very well. They spent a lot of time in Next tuning the complexity to work for the audience needs.



That is a very different conversation than the one at hand here. There is nothing in Mearl’s tweet or my response to it about pre-3e Editions, and bringing up the similarity between 5e and previous editions does not address my point in any way.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 23, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> If you look at it, it's actually great design.
> 
> The Battlemaster doesn't get extra options there, they just get to do that stuff AND do damage. That's the difference.



OK, but that just pushes the issue back one step. Why can't my Champion fighter push someone to the ground and do damage in the process?

I can't see an in-fiction reason for that. It's pure metagame that runs directly counter to the idea that in a RPG "I can try and do anything".


----------



## Reynard (Sep 23, 2018)

pemerton said:


> OK, but that just pushes the issue back one step. Why can't my Champion fighter push someone to the ground and do damage in the process?
> 
> I can't see an in-fiction reason for that. It's pure metagame that runs directly counter to the idea that in a RPG "I can try and do anything".



That's not really true though, nor has it ever been. The fighter can't try and cost fireball or turn undead. Why? Because those are class abilities.  So is being able to take a complex action (knocking an opponent prone) AND being able to try and hurt them in the process. Once you accept the limitations inherent in the character class system, complaining that you don't automatically have access to the abilities of another class, even if it seems thematically similar to the one you chose, is kind of weaksauce. 

Of course, what things are "reasonably" partitioned mechanically is a matter of preference. Some people likely think a fighter character should be able to steal the wizard's spellbook and follow the instructions and pull off the magic because to them the fiction says magic is a function of precise technical performance. Similarly,  other folks will be on the side of the fiction saying Battlemasters are highly trained specialists and only they can pull off certain complex feats in the stress of combat.

Neither is right or wrong, but the table needs to come to a consensus about what the truth is before arguments erupt.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 23, 2018)

pemerton said:


> OK, but that just pushes the issue back one step. Why can't my Champion fighter push someone to the ground and do damage in the process?
> 
> I can't see an in-fiction reason for that. It's pure metagame that runs directly counter to the idea that in a RPG "I can try and do anything".




Same as anything else - because *you chose* to learn other techniques when that choice was presented to you. That’s not simply metagame disconnected from in-character decisions. That’s the opportunity cost of the choices you made.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 23, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> That is a very different conversation than the one at hand here. There is nothing in Mearl’s tweet or my response to it about pre-3e Editions, and bringing up the similarity between 5e and previous editions does not address my point in any way.




The topic of conversation is Mearls discussing the aspects of 3E and 4E design that led, ultimately, to their failure and how 5E learned and progressed on from the lessons learned. And the design team did so, largely, by stepping back and looking at what worked better (for the intended function of the game) in earlier editions and finding a balanced approach through very thorough testing.

So, yes, it is relevant to discuss how earlier editions worked, when 5E moved forwards by learning from that design. 5E is, really, a quite complex game, compared to most of D&D history.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 23, 2018)

Fergurg said:


> Here's a screenshot of the tweet: View attachment 101691
> 
> So am I missing?



Yeah, you’re missing the words “gatekeeping via.” As in, the people who want to use rules complexity and lore density as a gate with which to keep people out of the hobby. So, unless the reason you like rules complexity and lore density is that it keeps undesirable people out of the hobby, then you’re not who he’s talking about.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 23, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> The topic of conversation is Mearls discussing the aspects of 3E and 4E design that led, ultimately, to their failure and how 5E learned and progressed on from the lessons learned.



That is the general topic of discussion in this thread, yes, but the conversation I was having with Lanefan was about the specific part of the tweets where he said that the interaction between rules trying to be as consistent as possible and mechanical options that break the power curve was resolved by focusing instead on flexibility and story.



Parmandur said:


> And the design team did so, largely, by stepping back and looking at what worked better (for the intended function of the game) in earlier editions and finding a balanced approach through very thorough testing.



 My argument is that the reduction of options wasn’t a necessary part of fixing the problem Mearls identified. The fact that earlier editions had fewer options does not counter my argument, or for that matter, have any relevance to it.



Parmandur said:


> So, yes, it is relevant to discuss how earlier editions worked, when 5E moved forwards by learning from that design. 5E is, really, a quite complex game, compared to most of D&D history.



Maybe in a general sense, but not in the discussion Lanefan and I were having that you just butted into.


----------



## seebs (Sep 23, 2018)

Reduction of options may not have been strictly logically necessary, but I think it was essential to actually getting the thing done, in practice. And they could have added more options since, but I also suspect that doing that would endanger things that are more important to them; either they'd put a ton of effort into balancing the options, meaning not putting that effort into other things, or they'd end up with a lot of people feeling that the options were Incorrectly Balanced.

With many more people and playtesters, or a much longer development cycle, sure, they could probably have produced significantly more options without breaking things too much. On the other hand, I am not totally sure that they could have made a thing which would have succeeded as well in their primary goals.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Sep 23, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> I think much the same "cakewalk" claim has been made after the release of each edition starting with 2e.  Nothing new there; and while it's harder to kill off PCs in some editions than others they can all be made about equally deadly (or not) depending on the DM.
> 
> The "'strong narrative' to 'enjoy'" claim came even sooner, right around the time the Dragonlance modules came out in the 1e era.




Cakewalk has become more and more overt however from 2e onwards. -10 before dead, then I forget 3e, but 4e had death saves making it hard to die and finally 5e it's almost impossible to die, short of a full TPK. And even if you do die, no worries, 3rd level revivify and done. Death is a speedbump on the plot train, because the show must go on. 

Dont get me wrong. I actually dont want my dnd to be too deadly - I dont like auto dead at zero. PCs dying every session just gets you Bob the Fighter, Rob the Fighter, Nob the Fighter, etc - it's as bad as not dying at all. 

And I agree about the Dragonlance modules. They were god awful too.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Sep 23, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> There are some games that I hate as much as @_*Psikerlord#*_ apparently hates 5e.
> 
> Strangely enough, I don't bother following any forums where those games are discussed.



I dont hate 5e. The basic system is fine, apart from death and a number of the spells need to be removed. And reset everyone onto the same long rest refresh mechanic. And a few other tweaks. What I do dislike though, are Adventure Paths, which are partly responsible for the rise in importance of "plot", instead of RPGs focusing on open world choices - which after all is what they are better at than any other medium. 

Want a cool branching RPG story? Play the Dragon Age Origins computer game; terrific story, cool characters, play anytime you want and more choices than an adventure path. Course you cant play with your friends. 4 out of 5 aint bad.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Sep 23, 2018)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Someone needs to start writing their own material and stop using adventure paths, methinks.



I most certainly try to


----------



## D1Tremere (Sep 23, 2018)

I would argue that 5e hasn't reduced options, it has reduced over reliance on mechanics rules.
If I envision my character as doing something cool like making a disguise and perform check to pass myself off as a gnome grandma I don't want myself as a player or the DM to feel constrained because another player believes this infringes on the usefulness of his gnome grandma feet/prestige class.
A swashbuckler or ninja, for example, need not be a class or specific rule package. One fighter may play it loud and tough while another swings from chandeliers, or wears all black and throws stars. Maybe its a rogue instead. No need to constrain player or DM flow with rigid or overly specific mechanics like a ninja class or swashbuckler feet in my opinion.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 23, 2018)

pemerton said:


> OK, but that just pushes the issue back one step. Why can't my Champion fighter push someone to the ground and do damage in the process?
> 
> I can't see an in-fiction reason for that. It's pure metagame that runs directly counter to the idea that in a RPG "I can try and do anything".




That is the same thing as asking why your Champion can't make 10 attacks in 1 round.

They can shove to the ground and do damage by level 2. By 5th level they don't even need their Action Surge for it.

Battlemasters just get some damage when they do it because it is their thing.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 23, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> That is the general topic of discussion in this thread, yes, but the conversation I was having with Lanefan was about the specific part of the tweets where he said that the interaction between rules trying to be as consistent as possible and mechanical options that break the power curve was resolved by focusing instead on flexibility and story.
> 
> 
> My argument is that the reduction of options wasn’t a necessary part of fixing the problem Mearls identified. The fact that earlier editions had fewer options does not counter my argument, or for that matter, have any relevance to it.
> ...




Lanefan thought it was a relevant part of the discussion, and I would agree. Just saying it is irrelevant doesn't make it so.

The balance they struck certainly isn't logically necessary, that's why they did extensive playtesting to see what worked in reality.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 23, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Sure, but I don’t see how 0e-2e are relevant.
> 
> Mearls’ Claim (paraphrased): 3e and 4e were built around trying to make the gameplay experience as consistent s possible from one table to another. This, combined with an emphasis on providing players lots of mechanical options, lead to a negative play experience, so for 5e we focused on giving the DM the freedom to make their game their own, and focused player options on story.
> 
> ...



The game's history and lineage go back farther than 3e; and because it's a history that 5e was in part intentionally trying to revive and-or return to it can't be ignored in discussions like this.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 23, 2018)

robus said:


> And, of course, there's Paizo's Bagel Emporium that's opened right next door!
> 
> Edit: Speak of the devil: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?5626-Pathfinder-s-Runelords-Are-Returning!




IMO, honestly, PF isn’t a particularly good game. If you’re going to make an option heavy, mechanically complex and clearly defined, game, it needs to also be fairly well balanced. PF is only balanced in comparison to late 3.5 with all the official supplements available. 



TwoSix said:


> As a total aside, I never understood power gamers who exhibited this behavior.  I love players who build their characters around their concept with no concern for mechanical effectiveness. (This isn't passive aggressive condescension, they're really my favorite type of fellow players.)  I can do the heavy lifting during combat, and they can be the focus of the attention during the exploration/puzzle solving/planning stages of the game, when I usually prefer to take a back seat.  It's a synergy that we appreciate.




indeed. Heck, I use CharOp mastery to make interesting rileplaying characters that don’t suck in any given pillar, while satisfyingly representing a specific concept in a way where my mechanical options show, so I don’t have to tell. 



happyhermit said:


> 4e got flack for every class feeling similar, it sounds like what you are talking about is every member of a class being the similar. Unless you are arguing that the 5e Wizard class is more similar to the 5e Fighter class than the 4e Wizard class is to the 4e fighter class, in that case you would be wrong by a whole host of metrics.




Honestly, for most classes, different builds/power sets within a class play more differently than is he case for most 5e classes (or any other edition). 



Flexor the Mighty! said:


> I'm just glad I'm not the only person in D&D fandom who thinks Firefly was crap.  But at least it wasn't as bad as Buffy I guess.



Its ok, having bad opinions doesn’t make you a bad person. 



Jester David said:


> The problem with that logic is twofold.
> First, option creep = power creep. The more options are in the game, the more broken the game becomes. More options are inherently more unbalanced.
> 
> Second, replayability is fine, but in 3e and 4e more options were being released than could ever be played. In this analogy, this would be restaurants adding new entrees every few months, making the menu larger and larger....



This is a weird argument, IMO. I won’t ever play every option, sure. But my group will eventually play most of them, and all the groups I know will probably play all of them. 

More importantly, there is nothing in 4e that is like the Assassin, or the Gloom Pact Hexblade, or a Cunning Bard who incongruously focused on fighting in melee, or a multi-target focused mixed range rogue (dagger thrower or hand crossbow build), or a Beast Master Ranger, or I could go on and on. 

PHB only 5e is fun, but very limited, and most players I have ever known just aren’t going to make certain types of characters if there isn’t a relatively clear option for it. There isn’t a combination of options in the PHB that makes a “Spirit Talker”/Shaman type character that mechanically plays like the concept, so the player just opts to play a different concept. Then Xanathar’s comes out, and that player is thrilled that she can play that earlier concept now. It doesn’t matter that she won’t ever even read through the Sorcerer options in the book, she doesn’t care about sorcerer stuff. Yep book has increased her ability to play her “1st choice” character concept when a campaign is starting, instead of settling for something else. 



Umbran said:


> Dude, how many different D&D characters do you play in a year?  Don't include one-shots at cons, because those don't really give you a full experience of playing a character.  How many campaign characters do you play in a year?
> 
> The 5e PHB has a full dozen character classes.  Even if we leave out the various choices within each class, you get a dozen distinct campaign characters out of that.  If a campaign runs something around a year... we have a decade of play there?  But 5e is said to not have enough options?
> 
> ...




I mostly agree with this, but I’d like to point out that replayability isn’t determined by total options, but by total options within the scope of what broad types of characters a given player likes to play. A dozen classes doesn’t mean much if your group are all players that each have maybe 3 classes they’re likely to ever play.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 23, 2018)

pemerton said:


> No edition of D&D ever - includinge 5e - has used the following method for resolving combat:
> 
> The player says how their PC is going to defeat their opponent in combat. The GM then tells them whether they win, whether they lose, or if a an ability check is required. If the lattermost, the GM specifies which ability is required, and what proficiencie(s), if any, might apply. The GM also sets a DC. If the check equals or exceeds the DC, the PC wins the fight. Otherwise s/he loses, with consequences determined by the GM.​
> And I think an attempt to publish a version of D&D that had such a rule would not be regarded as "perfectly fine" by most D&D players.
> ...



I, like the post I quoted, was referring to non-combat resolutions.

Combat in D&D (all editions), as in most RPG systems, has reasonably solid combat resolution mechanics.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 23, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> That is the general topic of discussion in this thread, yes, but the conversation I was having with Lanefan was about the specific part of the tweets where he said that the interaction between rules trying to be as consistent as possible and mechanical options that break the power curve was resolved by focusing instead on flexibility and story.
> 
> My argument is that the reduction of options wasn’t a necessary part of fixing the problem Mearls identified. The fact that earlier editions had fewer options does not counter my argument, or for that matter, have any relevance to it.



Where I think the reduction of options was an essential part of fixing the problems, and that (t)he looked back to pre-3e D&D for inspiration makes looking at those earlier editions very relevant indeed.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 23, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Lanefan thought it was a relevant part of the discussion, and I would agree. Just saying it is irrelevant doesn't make it so.
> 
> The balance they struck certainly isn't logically necessary, that's why they did extensive playtesting to see what worked in reality.






Lanefan said:


> The game's history and lineage go back farther than 3e; and because it's a history that 5e was in part intentionally trying to revive and-or return to it can't be ignored in discussions like this.



What difference does whether or not 0e-2e had lots of mechanics make to the question of whether or not lots of mechanics would preclude 5e from meeting the design goal of fixing the 3e/4e problem that was caused by a combination of heavy mechanics and a focus on consistency between groups? Would your stance on the matter be _any_ different if 0e-2e had all been chock full of mechanical options? Cause if not, it isn’t a relevant detail.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 23, 2018)

Psikerlord# said:


> Cakewalk has become more and more overt however from 2e onwards. -10 before dead, then I forget 3e, but 4e had death saves making it hard to die and finally 5e it's almost impossible to die, short of a full TPK. And even if you do die, no worries, 3rd level revivify and done. Death is a speedbump on the plot train, because the show must go on.



At the theory level I agree with you.

At the practice level -10 before dead was a very widely used option in 1e; though it wasn't in the original 3 books and I forget when it came out, it did appear as an option quite early; and 1e-2e were still deadly if a DM didn't pull her punches.  3e was bloody deadly largely because they scaled up the monsters so much (and because the CR/EL system needed a bit of work, but that's on the DM to sort out).  4e's a different breed of animal - from what I've seen here it seems they'd either all die or all not die, they'd sink or swim as a unit - but it could still be rather deadly in the hands of a DM who let it be so.



> Dont get me wrong. I actually dont want my dnd to be too deadly - I dont like auto dead at zero. PCs dying every session just gets you Bob the Fighter, Rob the Fighter, Nob the Fighter, etc - it's as bad as not dying at all.



I expect it to be deadly, and play accordingly*.  I too don't like auto-dead at 0 h.p.; having the range between 0 and -10 to work with allows for an unconsciousness mechanic and a dying mechanic that death-at-zero just can't give.

* - until I get bored and go gonzo, at which point I haul out the dice to roll up the next one...

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 23, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Would your stance on the matter be _any_ different if 0e-2e had all been chock full of mechanical options? Cause if not, it isn’t a relevant detail.



Yes it would, in my case, because if such were true then 5e would represent a very significant departure from the game's entire history and people would be quite justified in noting this.

The thing is, however, 5e isn't a departure from the game's entire history.  Think of it more as a valid attempt to swing the pendulum back to the mid-point.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 23, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Where I think the reduction of options was an essential part of fixing the problems, and that (t)he looked back to pre-3e D&D for inspiration makes looking at those earlier editions very relevant indeed.



Let’s assume you are objectively correct that the reduction of options was an essential part of fixing the problems. In that case, it would still have been an essential part if 0e-2e had been even more options heavy than 3e and they had pulled the idea of reducing the options out of thin air. Likewise, if the reduction of options was not essential and the problems could have been fixed without removing them, that would still be the case despite the fact that 0e-2e didn’t have as many mechanical options. Ergo, the options-density of those editions is a nonsequitur to the question of whether or not the option reduction was necessary.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 23, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Yes it would, in my case, because if such were true then 5e would represent a very significant departure from the game's entire history and people would be quite justified in noting this.
> 
> The thing is, however, 5e isn't a departure from the game's entire history.  Think of it more as a valid attempt to swing the pendulum back to the mid-point.



But the question is not whether or not 5e is consistent with the game’s history. The question is if the goals of 5e could have been achieved without the significant reduction of player-facing mechanical options. The answer to that question remains the same regardless of what that history is.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 23, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> But the question is not whether or not 5e is consistent with the game’s history. The question is if the goals of 5e could have been achieved without the significant reduction of player-facing mechanical options. The answer to that question remains the same regardless of what that history is.




Nothing about the game is "necessary."


But the history, along with the playtest, show what works.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 23, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Nothing about the game is "necessary."
> 
> 
> But the history, along with the playtest, show what works.



The history shows what _has_ worked, and what has not. It does not tell us whether or not a new approach _will_ work. And I participated in every last bit of the D&D Next Playtest, at no point was heavy use of player-facing options tested.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 23, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> They promised up, down, and sideways that 5e would be modular, with the ability to be customized to emulate the style of whatever edition you preferred. But then when the playtest was coming to a close, and we asked, “hey, what about those modular options? Still waiting for something that can let us emulate the style of our preferred edition...” they said, “What’s the matter, the Battlemaster Fighter not enough for you?”




TBF, BM is pretty good. I just wish there were a rogue with similar options, and a variant ranger with manuevers instead of spells. I wouldn’t use said ranger, but other folks would love it. 

Also, a Captain class that uses manuevers at a level that assumes the BM is a half or third “caster” of that system would be rad. 



Elfcrusher said:


> That is kind of an astonishing reason for switching editions....



seems reasonable to me



Satyrn said:


> The big trick is giving you those options while letting me express my character without needing those options.
> 
> Like, since the Battlemaster can spend Superiority Dice to disarm and shove, does this mean the Champion is prohibited? I'd hope not, but it can be tough to make it work for both players.



champion can do them, they just aren’t as good at it, which is represented by having to concentrate more fully on pushing, disarming, or tripping, someone, while the BM has practiced those things more extensively, and can get more out of them. 



Lanefan said:


> At the theory level I agree with you.
> 4e's a different breed of animal - from what I've seen here it seems they'd either all die or all not die, they'd sink or swim as a unit - but it could still be rather deadly in the hands of a DM who let it be so.




A thing folks forget about 4e, that is one of the raddest things about 4e, is that the extremely coherent monster/encounter building rules made it easier than any other edition for th he DM to *decide* how deadly an encounter  would be. Accurately, and reliably. Without he players being able to know because “goblins are low level, no big threat”. 

I killed a character for the first time, leading to the first ritual of resurrection in my 4e DM time, with goblins, and a level 12 party. Because the goblins were somewhere around level 17, as an encounter. Had the characters noticed some key factors, and used better strategy/prep, it would have been around a level 14 fight, instead, but at least they didn’t let themselves get flanked...


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 23, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> The history shows what _has_ worked, and what has not. It does not tell us whether or not a new approach _will_ work. And I participated in every last bit of the D&D Next Playtest, at no point was heavy use of player-facing options tested.




Heavier than what was in the final game: it didn't work for the design intentions (which Mearls was discussing) and the needs of the market. Even since the playtest is over, UA testing has killed some possibilities for heavier use of player crunch, such as Prestige Classes.

What worked historically, along with gathering data on what works in practice, is a decent methodology for rational decision making. Not logically necessary decisions, but reasonable ones.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 23, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Heavier than what was in the final game:



Which packet did you think had more player-facing options than 5e?



Parmandur said:


> it didn't work for the design intentions (which Mearls was discussing) and the needs of the market. Even since the playtest is over, UA testing has killed some possibilities for heavier use of player crunch, such as Prestige Classes.



5e is an established game at this point with a fan base that mostly isn’t interested in a ton of options, having driven most of us who are away already, so that’s not surprising. Also, that Prestige Class UA had a lot more problems than just being more mechanical options. Of course more options won’t be popular if the options offered suck.



Parmandur said:


> What worked historically, along with gathering data on what works in practice, is a decent methodology for rational decision making. Not logically necessary decisions, but reasonable ones.



To an extent, but that will only get you so far. Between “thing you already know you like” and “thing you might like more, but also might like less,” most people will take the former most of the time.

And still, none of this has any bearing on whether or not getting rid of options was necessary to achieve their goals. You may think it was a good move, and that’s fine, but whether or not it was necessary is not impacted by whether or not it worked before.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 23, 2018)

Mearls' words suit my feelings on D&D perfectly.

I do not think that 5e doesn't support the "system mastery" playstyle. It does! System mastery does not depend on the amount of options available. "System mastery with tons of options" is a substyle. 5e doesn't offer a ton of options officially, but 3rd party publishers do, so even this substyle is possible.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Sep 23, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> To add to that theme gets lost or watered down as well.
> 
> What is the identity of a Warlock, or a Rogue, or a Fighter? With enough options they become more and more interchangeable.
> 
> ...




One of the reasons why I like Mage Hand Press' 5e work is they have created very different classes and class options that really add new mechanics to 5e. 

Its because of this I feel they get 5e where many others, including the designers at WotC, do not get it.

Their Alchemist, Craftsman, Witch, Warden and Gunslinger Classes are pure genius in filling a gap in 5e while adding new rules to the game.

They have created a rock solid crafting and alchemy system, various rules for including guns of different tech eras, and their variant spell casting classes all do something different than the 5e core. 

And then there is their Dark Matter sci-fi 5e setting. Its pretty amazing. Its more sci-fi than Esper Genesis while still being 5e. 

I'd love to see a second Players Handbook done by these guys.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Sep 23, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Kinda...
> Here's the thing. It's very much an apples to oranges situation.
> 
> There was a _tonne_ of 3PP in the 3e glut, which ran from 2001 to 2003 for the d20 bust. It was a huge surge of material, but it only lasted for 2 to 2 1/2 years. And a lot of that was likely in the initial year or so while there wasn't a lot of official stuff and people didn't realise they should be checking quality. Meanwhile, the economy was high and Magic was doing *very* well, so game stores were flush with cashing and buying whatever d20 products they could. But, very quickly, people realised there was a lot of terrible books out there and stopped buying.
> ...




And don't forget Patreon. Patreon has been another route for people to produce stuff month to month. 

EN Publishing has made great use of it, coming up with a lot of good stuff for 5e and WOIN.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Sep 23, 2018)

Tallifer said:


> I actually found 4E to be the clearest and most comfortable Edition for me, and I always run my game on the fly. However, 4E had the Character Builder, so I could always assume that my players's characters were 1) legal and 2) fully functioning. Since WotC axed the Character Builder, I switched to 5E, because its comparative simplicity means I can quickly check up on any weirdness. That, and because I can get far more players willing to play 5E.




4e is my favorite edition in part because its mechanisms are so transparent, even if the designers didn't quite understand their own creation. 

As a Player I knew what I could do, I could visually See all the action as if it was a movie playing in my minds eye, the rules were fair, which made 4e an honest game. 

As a DM I had codified rules on how to manage enemy groups and NPCs, how to try managing Skill Challenges, and a system for using traps and diseases that worked very well. It was easy for me. 

The one design of 5e that is very amazing to me is how character level proficiency scales. Shrinking it to just a +2 to a +6 spread has allowed for many creative classes that couldn't be designed in the 4e system. A lot of good 3pp designers have done a lot of cool stuff. 

And the simplicity of Advantage/Disadvantage is genius.

So I am not against how 5e was designed. The core game is solid. 

I just dislike the foundation of the "Rulings not Rules" approach, which leads to a very non-transparent game. Its lazy design.


----------



## Zilong (Sep 23, 2018)

Psikerlord# said:


> I dont hate 5e. The basic system is fine, apart from death and a number of the spells need to be removed. And reset everyone onto the same long rest refresh mechanic. And a few other tweaks. What I do dislike though, are Adventure Paths, which are partly responsible for the rise in importance of "plot", instead of RPGs focusing on open world choices - which after all is what they are better at than any other medium.




Open world games are often overrated. I say this as both player and GM. I'm well aware that this runs counter to the prevailing opinion on many rpg forums. In the groups with which I've GM'd or played the unfocused nature of the "open world" style just gets bogged down with long stretches of nothing.

True, a good GM can mitigate that, but the same can be said about problems with games built around a central plot. In either case, it is usually an issue of GM experience and skill. I just get annoyed when "open world" gets some kind of free pass as the promised land of gaming.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 23, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Which packet did you think had more player-facing options than 5e?
> 
> 
> 5e is an established game at this point with a fan base that mostly isn’t interested in a ton of options, having driven most of us who are away already, so that’s not surprising. Also, that Prestige Class UA had a lot more problems than just being more mechanical options. Of course more options won’t be popular if the options offered suck.
> ...




In some packets, every character had a theme in addition to class and race which was essentially a feat chain. Later it was just feat chains iirc. I really liked those themes. You could be a skulker which got darkvision from level 1 even as a human. It was really cool and quite complex. I liked that iteration.
Also there wer more expanded exploration rules and depending on your pace and formation you had to make a readiness saving throw.
In one packet the rogue also resembled the battlemaster with different powers.


----------



## clearstream (Sep 23, 2018)

Morrus said:


> 3.5 and 4 were very much driven by an anxiety about controlling the experience of the game, leaving as little as possible to chance. They aimed for consistency of play from campaign to campaign, and table to table. The fear was that an obnoxious player or DM would ruin the game, and that would drive people away from it. The thinking was that if we made things as procedural as possible, people would just follow the rules and have fun regardless of who they played with.
> 
> The downside to this approach is that the rules became comprehensive to a fault. The game’s rules bloated, as they sought to resolve many if not all questions that arise in play with the game text.
> 
> ...



For Mearls, this seems to be lacking insight. The central mechanical fault with 3rd was the way it scaled. They (partially) fixed that. It had nothing to do with an attempt to cover everything. The reason extra content broke the game is that there was too much of it, and you could combine it in so many different ways. Again, nothing to do with an attempt to cover everything. Honestly, this feels like willful amnesia.



Morrus said:


> With 5th, we assumed that the DM was there to have a good time, put on an engaging performance, and keep the group interested, excited, and happy. It’s a huge change, because we no longer expect you to turn to the book for an answer. We expect the DM to do that.



Is one really expected to believe Mearls is not aware of Gygax's caveats in even the earliest editions of D&D?!



Morrus said:


> In terms of players, we focus much more on narrative and identity, rather than specific, mechanical advantages.



This is a plain falsehood. You can count the abilities that characters have in 5e and contrast those with 3e. Factually, 5e gives characters more, and more specific, mechanical advantages.

I have to say these quotes for me really raised an eyebrow. They seem to represent the work of an historian, rewriting history to ennoble the current regime. 5e is one of the most mechanically sophisticated versions of D&D to have ever existed. It is a large step more sophisticated than 3e. The mechanics are woven amazingly tightly across the system, in a fashion that feels almost always natural and expected. It's a tremendous piece of work. But to call its hundreds of pages of rules less mechanically focused than previous editions is myopic at best, deceitful at worst.

If Mearls had said something like - with 5e we're trying to write more natural rules with more flexibility in expected interpretation - I would find that believable. To go out dissing history to make now look fab, is frankly disappointing.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 23, 2018)

clearstream said:


> This is a plain falsehood. You can count the abilities that characters have in 5e and contrast those with 3e. Factually, 5e gives characters more, and more specific, mechanical advantages.




I think you're misunderstanding the thrust of it.

For example - When asked about a regret Mearls has pointed to the design of the fighter, specifically the subclasses. The Champion and Battlemaster have no identity, they're just bundles of mechanics.

Most of the classes and subclasses in the game are designed narrative first rather than mechanics first. It's a design philosophy.


----------



## Derren (Sep 23, 2018)

clearstream said:


> They seem to represent the work of an historian, rewriting history to ennoble the current regime.



Thats pretty much how Enworld operated since 4E was announced. You cant believe how fast 3E was denounced as complete garbage as soon as the announcment was made and how hostile the moderation became when someone didnt like 4E.
And then the same thing happened once 5E was announced.


----------



## clearstream (Sep 23, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> I think you're misunderstanding the thrust of it.
> 
> For example - When asked about a regret Mearls has pointed to the design of the fighter, specifically the subclasses. The Champion and Battlemaster have no identity, they're just bundles of mechanics.
> 
> Most of the classes and subclasses in the game are designed narrative first rather than mechanics first. It's a design philosophy.



Wouldn't this require that Mearls has helped himself to characterising Cook, Tweet and Williams' motives? When I look at Numenera I see the work of a designer who is profoundly interested in narrative.

The Battlemaster is very popular in our group, one of our most distinctive characters is the Dwarf Battlemaster. I think the Champion has some identity issues due to insufficiently good mechanical design: it's the weakest of the core fighter archetypes. Greater mechanical payoff for its athletic focus would bring it more to life narratively, at the table.

In an RPG, rules formalise a player's leverage on the narrative. This can go from very simple, powerful rules, which you see in storytelling games where players can rewrite the high-level plot, to the complex of levers in D&D that let players nudge the plot in different directions. Most of D&D remains focused on fighting: if Mearls wanted to address a failing in D&D mechanics, he should address that! If he really feels that previous versions of D&D failed to prioritise narrative sufficiently, where then are the 5th edition rules that are as detailed and sophisticated as fighting rules, that address exploration and social pillars? FCS the non-combat skills dimension of D&D was only salvaged because the D&D Next beta testing community rallied around them!

Golly, I'm ranting. However, my take on it is this. If you look at Mearls work he has been as heavily invested in combat as the rest of us. His Iron Heroes system seems to me to build on the Book of Nine Swords (which I don't think he was involved in, so perhaps some parallel innovation was happening there). What he is describing is possibly his own growth as a designer. I am critical of revisionism, and I am critical of a claim to be focused more on social etc while still selling books almost wholly devoted to fighting. That said, I would argue that "imagined fighting" is not fighting. It's something else, and it is important to understand the symbolism involved and realise that killing a guard, and persuading one to step aside, are much closer than they superficially appear. Save that the killing is better supported by the mechanics of <insert edition of D&D>.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 23, 2018)

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> I just dislike the foundation of the "Rulings not Rules" approach, which leads to a very non-transparent game. Its lazy design.




Or conversely... the other way to look at it is that the design isn't lazy, but rather _you_ are.  You want everything codified so you don't have to think or do any work.

Now, is that statement of mine unfair and unnecessarily hurtful?  Most likely, yes.  And I apologize for that.  But at least you can see why you calling their work lazy is unfair and unnecessary too.

You want to say you prefer 4E's design to 5E's, that's great.  You'll have a bunch of people who will agree with you.  But denigrating 5E's design just because you don't prefer it serves no point and the mirror can be turned and reflected back on you just as easily.


----------



## clearstream (Sep 23, 2018)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Or conversely... the other way to look at it is that the design isn't lazy, but rather _you_ are.  You want everything codified so you don't have to think or do any work.



I haven't found either mode of DMing less effortful, with rules is about as effortful as without. For me that's not the point here: 5e has hundreds of pages of rules. It's as much constituted by rules as any other edition of D&D.



DEFCON 1 said:


> denigrating 5E's design just because you don't prefer it serves no point and the mirror can be turned and reflected back on you just as easily.



I think one can be critical of a design, that one nevertheless values highly. I like 5e more than previous editions, and I can speak critically about it or its designers even so.

Rules and rulings, captures D&D far better than prioritising either.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 23, 2018)

billd91 said:


> Same as anything else - because *you chose* to learn other techniques when that choice was presented to you. That’s not simply metagame disconnected from in-character decisions. That’s the opportunity cost of the choices you made.



What techniques has a champion fighter mastered? Where does the narrative of the class tell me that? I think you're just reading it straight of the class-build rules.



Reynard said:


> That's not really true though, nor has it ever been. The fighter can't try and cost fireball or turn undead. Why? Because those are class abilities.



I'm not sure how that contradicts what I'm saying (or either of the things I said).

For a class system to work, the archetypes really need to be pretty strongly drawn. AD&D mostly does this, though thief and assassin and MU and illusionist are counterexamples. But the former are differentiated mostly by their numbers; and the latter mostly by their spell lists, which are somewhat arbitrary in any event. But mechanical variations that fill the same archetypal space (like champion and battlemaster) prompt the question, why can one do it but the other not?

As to "doing anything you want to", I think that's one of the least helpful things that people can say in trying to explain what RPGs are - apart from anything else, as you point out, it's obviously not true of the best-known and most widely played RPG. Yet it's a frequently-repeated mantra.



Reynard said:


> So is being able to take a complex action (knocking an opponent prone) AND being able to try and hurt them in the process.



The only way we know that that is a "complex action" is because of the mechanics. Strictly from a fiction point of view, there's nothing especially complex about knocking someone prone and hurting them in the process. It seems like something that eg a mace might be pretty handy for, or maybe - with a different fighting style - a quarterstaff. The "complexity" comes from the fact that D&D treats status infliction and hit point attrition as distinct mechanical processes.



Reynard said:


> Once you accept the limitations inherent in the character class system, complaining that you don't automatically have access to the abilities of another class, even if it seems thematically similar to the one you chose, is kind of weaksauce.



I'm not complaining. I'm observing. This feature of a system pretty strongly contradicts the idea that it is "naturalistic" or "free flowing" or not mechanically complex. You can't really know what your PC can or can't do until you know the full spectrum of class features.

Which in D&D includes spells: for instance, we can't know how to adjudicate an attempt by a tough fighter to scare an opponent witless without thinking about how it balances with the limited-resource Cause Fear spell.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Sep 23, 2018)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Or conversely... the other way to look at it is that the design isn't lazy, but rather _you_ are.  You want everything codified so you don't have to think or do any work.
> 
> Now, is that statement of mine unfair and unnecessarily hurtful?  Most likely, yes.  And I apologize for that.  But at least you can see why you calling their work lazy is unfair and unnecessary too.
> 
> You want to say you prefer 4E's design to 5E's, that's great.  You'll have a bunch of people who will agree with you.  But denigrating 5E's design just because you don't prefer it serves no point and the mirror can be turned and reflected back on you just as easily.




You can't apologize for intentionally being as disrespectful and insulting as you just were. You don't know me and you calling Me 'lazy' because I voiced my perspective... Yeah you don't know me or how I see things. 

Was it necessary for you to be so insulting to me? I find it amazing that while I did give credit towards 5e on a couple of really cool things you decide to insult me anyway. 

And while I was talking about a game from the perspective of game design, you decided to attack me directly. I don't know you, but there is a difference in talking about a game compared to directing an attack on a person for them just voicing their perspective. You don't know me so don't presume to think you know anything about me from a couple of internet comments on a couple of opinions. 

I can give credit to 5e on some of the great things that they did do with it that has made it a great game, or did you miss that in my comments when you singled me out? 

I respect what 5e has done for the hobby and industry. Its been a boom. I think its great so many like it. 

Popularity has nothing to do with actual design, or how game mechanisms function, or that there is a lot of stuff presented in the game that has no mechanical foundation. 

Is 5e good? Yes.
Does it have a lot of meat ideas? Yes.
Is it fun? As a DM yes. 
Does it try to introduce ideas and options? Yes.
Is it presented in an easy to read presentation? Yes.


None of that detracts away from the fact that while it does have a lot of cool stuff in it, it doesn't provide players the tools to have any real agency. Because of how much focused is put on allowing the DM to make rulings about so many things, just about every action a player does is a process of asking the DM if its okay, leading to a game of DM-May-I. 

A good, fair DM will make it fun and fair... But a bad DM can suck the fun out of it and use this authority to strip any kind of agency from the players because the entire game is designed on this premise of allowing SMs to make up so much as they want it to be. 

There is no narrative identity in the game as per the rules as written. There are no encoded rules on how to manage non-combat XP. There are no rules on how to give out Inspiration. There are so many things left open to interpretation because they didn't want to design it. 

So, yes, in a way it is lazy design.

4e takes a lot more work to DM. WOIN takes a lot more work to GM. Apocalypse World takes a lot more work to MC. 13th Age takes more work to GM. Dresden Files takes a lot more work to GM. Torg takes a lot more work to GM. Hero System takes a lot to GM.

You don't know me. Please don't presume to assume I am lazy.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 23, 2018)

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> You can't apologize for intentionally being as disrespectful and insulting as you just were. You don't know me and you calling Me 'lazy' because I voiced my perspective... Yeah you don't know me or how I see things.
> 
> Was it necessary for you to be so insulting to me? I find it amazing that while I did give credit towards 5e on a couple of really cool things you decide to insult me anyway.
> 
> You don't know me. Please don't presume to assume I am lazy.




You are absolutely correct, I don't know you, so I have no idea.

But at the same time you don't know Mike, Jeremy, or the others who designed 5E.  So you have no idea the choices or decisions that were made to go into how they chose to create the game, or the work they put in to do so.  So to call _their_ work lazy is just as disrespectful.  Now you may think "Well, they were never going to see my comments about them anyway, so I can just say they deliberately chose to ignore whole parts of them game that I think they should have put more work into and thus call their design lazy..." but I'm sorry... there's a whole bunch of people here on the boards very willing to defend their work as anything BUT "lazy".  They did not slack off in the slightest, and to insinuate they did is just as insulting.

As I said, I was just turning the mirror around and showing how your comments about their work could be reflected in another way.  If you don't appreciate it, perhaps you'll understand why your original comment might've been out of place as well.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 23, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I don't think both these claims can be true.
> 
> This isn't true. I won't comment on 3E, but 5e doesn't differ from 4e simply in terms of options.




It is true, because every version of D&D, (as I've documented with appropriate references in other posts) has made it very clear that the DM is the designer of last resort for his or her table.  

I can and have for example.

1. Hand waved an entire combat (from personal one on one to entire armies) as a plot device meant to further the story or at the least to simulate a true butt kicking when it's obvious rather than spend hours simulating it.

2. Rewritten entire classes to balance them against each other or flavor them for the area the character is growing up in.

3. Added magical spells, and rewritten monsters from the canon to keep players guessing and restore some wonder to the game when everyone owns the books.

So in a game where I can do all of that as a DM and have it be legal, I really don't see the counter argument standing.

Note: I'm all for system mastery and options, but if I have a player at my table who wants to be a DM I'll just invite them to do so on occasion.  (Note: Players who must be in control, and must have tight rules that aren't changed have either had really bad experiences socially or want to be a DM - IMHO)

Additionally, I think every person who is either big on options or big on following RAW has done every one of these as a DM at some point in time.  The absolutist stance on forums works great, but it never works in practice.

Peace
KB


----------



## clearstream (Sep 23, 2018)

pemerton said:


> This feature of a system pretty strongly contradicts the idea that it is "naturalistic" or "free flowing" or not mechanically complex. You can't really know what your PC can or can't do until you know the full spectrum of class features.
> 
> Which in D&D includes spells: for instance, we can't know how to adjudicate an attempt by a tough fighter to scare an opponent witless without thinking about how it balances with the limited-resource Cause Fear spell.



I could be taking this out of context, but I agree with your observations here. It's part of what I mean about the 5e system being sophisticated and woven across all the rules. I do a lot of tinkering and one of the things that makes mechanics for 5e tough to get right is the way they relate to one another. As you say, you might think - this frighten effect I'm homebrewing seems fine - and then you realise what it interacts with and balances against... and not just spells, but creature saves etc, etc, etc...


----------



## pemerton (Sep 23, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> That is the same thing as asking why your Champion can't make 10 attacks in 1 round.
> 
> They can shove to the ground and do damage by level 2. By 5th level they don't even need their Action Surge for it.
> 
> Battlemasters just get some damage when they do it because it is their thing.



But this seems to go directly to [MENTION=6801204]Satyrn[/MENTION]'s point. As soon as the scope of action declaration is rationed by reference to other mechanical elements of the game, rather than just the fiction, then designing options can become pretty hard.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 23, 2018)

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> There is no narrative identity in the game as per the rules as written.  There are no encoded rules on how to manage non-combat XP. There are no  rules on how to give out Inspiration. There are so many things left open  to interpretation because they didn't want to design it.




I think that one of the tests of whether or not a rule is written in the books is:

1. Is this rule in its application, highly contextual and likely to be DM fiat?

If answer equals yes - Leave it to the DM
If answer equals maybe - playtest it to see if we should write one.
If answer equals no - write a rule.

I don't know if I'd use the term lazy for anyone if I didn't know them and I don't presume to know the day to day stressors inside WoTC.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 23, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> I, like the post I quoted, was referring to non-combat resolutions.
> 
> Combat in D&D (all editions), as in most RPG systems, has reasonably solid combat resolution mechanics.



When you say "most RPG systems", what ones do you have in mind?

But anyway, my point was that no one would accept "GM decides" as a satisfactory resolution system for anything they regarded as high stakes. The fact that a system is mostly GM decides for non-combat just shows that non-combat is not treated as high stakes in that system.



Lanefan said:


> At the practice level -10 before dead was a very widely used option in 1e; though it wasn't in the original 3 books



It's in Gygax's DMG (p 82):

When any creature is brought to 0 hit poinis (optionally as low as -3 hit points if from the same blow which brought the total to 0), it is unconscious. In each of the next succeeding rounds 1 additional (negative) point will be lost until -10 is reached and the creature dies. Such loss and death are caused from bleeding, shock, convulsions, non-respiration, and similar causes. It ceases immediately on any round a friendly creature administers aid to the unconscious one. Aid consists of binding wounds, starting respiration, administering a draught (spirits, _healing _potion, etc.), or otherwise doing whatever is necessary to restore life.

Any character brought to 0 (or fewer) hit points and then revived will remain in a corna far 1-6 turns. Thereafter, he or she must rest for a full week, minimum. He or she will be incapable of any activity other than that necessary to move slowly to a place of rest and eat and sleep when there. The character cannot attack, defend, cast spells, use magic devices, carry burdens, run, study, research, or do anything else. This is true even if _cure _spells and/or healing potions are given to him or her, although if a _heal _spell is bestowed the prohibition no longer applies.​


----------



## Derren (Sep 23, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> I think that one of the tests of whether or not a rule is written in the books is:
> 
> 1. Is this rule in its application, highly contextual and likely to be DM fiat?
> 
> ...




A DM can overule everything if he doesn't like it. But not providing a rule in the first place forces him to come up with his own ruling every time.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 23, 2018)

Derren said:


> A DM can overule everything if he doesn't like it. But not providing a rule in the first place forces him to come up with his own ruling every time.




True.

In reply: If the rule doesn't exist, many wouldn't know it needed to.  There's something to be said for applying the logic you quoted and keeping the game lighter.  (obviously lighter is relative)

KB


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 23, 2018)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Now you may think "Well, they were never going to see my comments about  them anyway, so I can just say they deliberately chose to ignore whole  parts of them game that I think they should have put more work into and  thus call their design lazy...".




Considering we've had game luminaries on this forum up to and including Gary himself (RIP) I wouldn't make that assumption.  

FWIW - This isn't the site to be "Internet Stupid" on if you want to make anything approaching a side hustle, let alone a career out of RPG work.

That said, I don't think either of you intend to directly insult the other person.  I do think that some liberties in language were taken to make a point; and folks need to show more empathy towards each other.  Self included.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 23, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> I think you're misunderstanding the thrust of it.
> 
> For example - When asked about a regret Mearls has pointed to the design of the fighter, specifically the subclasses. The Champion and Battlemaster have no identity, they're just bundles of mechanics.
> 
> Most of the classes and subclasses in the game are designed narrative first rather than mechanics first. It's a design philosophy.



As were most of the 4e classes, at least it seemed to me!

But frankly I don't accept that the 5e wizard subclasses were designed "narrative first" - they are designed to accord with schools of magic that Gygax made up in his PHB and that got some mechanics tacked onto them in 2nd ed AD&D. The Channel Divinity/Turn Undead clerical ability is another obvious bit of tradition that has no particular narrative grounding. Rogue sneak attack is another.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 23, 2018)

DEFCON 1 said:


> You are absolutely correct, I don't know you, so I have no idea.
> 
> But at the same time you don't know Mike, Jeremy, or the others who designed 5E.  So you have no idea the choices or decisions that were made to go into how they chose to create the game, or the work they put in to do so.  So to call _their_ work lazy is just as disrespectful.



I can't believe you're doubling down on your attack on @ Stacie GmrGrl. The WotC team are professional publishers working for a commercial publishing house. Part of their job is to have their work subjected to analysis and criticism, and describing writing or design as "lazy" is one mode of criticism (broadly, it means repeating tropes or following an established path rather than trying to come up with a novel solution to the particular challenge being tackled). It's not an attack upon their personal character.

If you think their work is, in fact, not lazy in conception or execution, argue that point.



Stacie GmrGrl said:


> YBecause of how much focused is put on allowing the DM to make rulings about so many things, just about every action a player does is a process of asking the DM if its okay, leading to a game of DM-May-I.
> 
> A good, fair DM will make it fun and fair



I XPed your post, but wanted to comment on this bit of it.

I think I am a good and fair referee. But I still don't like systems that require everything to be filtered through GM decision-making - I don't _want_ to be the one telling a story at the table. I want the story to be the result of resolving declared actions.

The most recent experience I had of this was GMing some onw-world exploration in Classic Traveller. Whereas that system is full of tight resolution sub-systems - for social interaction, especially with officials; for interstellar travel; for combat (though it can be a bit boring!); even for extra-vehicular manoeuvres in vacc suits - when it comes to onworld exploration there are rules for determining if a vehicle suffers mechanical trouble, but otherwise it all depends on the GM deciding how long it takes to get from A to B, what might happen on the way there, etc.

It wasn't terrible, but it was not that fun either. There was a huge contrast a session or two later, when the PCs were attacked by a starship in orbit, with a small craft having flown down to provide spotting and direct the orbital fire - the game includes a system for resolving an attempt to escape from an attack whicht is written for small craft coming unde starship fire, but which I was easily able to extrapolate it to the case of escaping fire in an all-terrain vehicle. This allowed us to play out an exciting escape in ATVs across a desert planet with a toxic atmosphere, hoping to find shelter in a rock formation before being blown up by an orbiting starship's laser. It was much better than the (lack of) exploration resolution mechanics.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 23, 2018)

jamesstreissand said:


> I'm sorry to burst your bubble dude,  but at no point did I complain about 5e. I haven't mentioned the system,  it's mechanics,  etc so much as once.
> 
> What I responded to (and had you taken time away from grandstanding, you'd have noticed) was Mike's proclamation on the WHY  of 5e.
> 
> Mike's pretty clearly characterizing people who like the mechanical side of things as not worth marketing to,  designing for,  etc.  I think its a shame, is all I'm saying.




I'm a pragmatic person.  I don't think WOTC is lazy.  I don't think they "owe" me anything, that it's shameful that they don't come to my house and ask me personally what I want in a game.  They don't hate people that have a different play style, it's not that certain people aren't "worth marketing to", or that you're not welcome. [NOTE: I'm not saying you personally have said all of these things, it's a general impression I've gotten over multiple threads.] 

They're a business.  They have to make design compromises, like all businesses.  They looked at the previous editions and made a decision on how to build the game.  With 4E they listened to a vocal minority and practically killed the game from a sales perspective.

At the same time, there are plenty of alternatives.  There are 3rd parties that provide options or other games.  You could always go back to a different edition or house rule in different aspects.  So just to be clear, my issue is not that you have a problem with 5E.  It's that you're ascerting a motivation or lack therein to the designers that simply doesn't exist.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 23, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> It is true, because every version of D&D, (as I've documented with appropriate references in other posts) has made it very clear that the DM is the designer of last resort for his or her table.



Are you saying that the presence or absence of action resolution mechanics doesn't establish any difference between systems?


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 23, 2018)

seebs said:


> Reduction of options may not have been strictly logically necessary, but I think it was essential to actually getting the thing done, in practice.




In addition, too many options was one of the reasons 4E got really slow. I recall playing mid to high level characters and the sheer number of options meant that searching through character sheets on my turn could be daunting. Cumulated over, say, five players, and the slowdown was 

4E ran pretty well in lower levels. 5E has some slowdown issues, but in general it's lighter and faster due to the relative absence of off-turn actions and builds that focused on that. I think there are things they could have done differently and in general 5E could use a bit more smoothing out but it's generally pretty good. 




> With many more people and playtesters, or a much longer development cycle, sure, they could probably have produced significantly more options without breaking things too much. On the other hand, I am not totally sure that they could have made a thing which would have succeeded as well in their primary goals.




Probably not. 

While there are things I feel 5E could use some work on (most notably the math of saves and skills and the clunky rest mechanics; how generally weak and undeveloped inspiration is) and a few things I wish they'd better integrated from 4E (hit dice being something activated in combat) in general it "feels" more like older versions of D&D than 4E did, having moved out of the game design "uncanny valley" that I think 4E slipped into. 5E needs some polishing, not massive changes. 

The fact that Mearls said fairly definitively that one of the design goals of 3.X and 4E was "DM proofing" confirms what a lot of folks thought at the time.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 23, 2018)

I also think calling wotc lazy seems disrespectful after a 2 year playtest inventing rules and theowing things overboatd they were personally very fond of.
That in my opinion is the opposite of lazy.
What they achieved was making a dnd game that is doing really well and brings a lot of people to the rpg game.
They made a decision to not listen to the 5% of people who are proclamating the doom of dnd if they don't do X.
Then I do think mearls is right. If you design for rules lawyers you only attract them. 4e was the epitome of rules lawyering when you bothered to read forums. Speaking of lazy I think about the lauy warlord who uses a weapon he is not proficient deopping to the ground to miss with a power. Which is comic style and maybe fun for a session or two but gets old fast.
There were so many updates to get holes in the rules fixed... only to rip more holes into the rules because they missed a ridiculous interaction no sane player would use or sane DM would allow somewhere in the x thousand feats or powers ending in an endless circle of updates.
And what for? A fraction of the fanbase that rathe theorizes about the game instead of playing it.
As much as I loved creating 4e characters, they did well listening to people who actually play the game. And I must say, that nearly every theoretically overpowered ability did not appear that way at the table. The game just works. And my players habe fun. And we habe 4 players who take turns DMing. That is a big achievment.
So calling wotc lazy is shamedully not true. Especially when you know how small their initial team was.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 23, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> So, one thing that many people don't understand unless they are designing things is that there is no such thing as a "free lunch." And this applies to, well, pretty much all design choices.
> 
> Or, if design is too abstract, think about going out to eat. There may be 500 wonderful entrees and appetizers on the menu, but you can't order them all. You have to pick and choose what you want to eat, instead of devouring all of them, unless you end up like Mr. Creosote (wafer thin!).
> 
> ...




Sure, we have a clear design intent given to us, but it is given to us with a nice little False Equivalence and a Red Herring when it comes to more character options.  

The False Equivalence comes with the statement that their design intent is to make the game more free and loose for the DM to run a narrative game, and connecting that with the rules being comprehensive to a fault in an attempt to control everything.  Player options like classes, paths, and feats are not at all the same as a rules system that attempts to control everything.  There's a little bit of overlap, but not a lot.  Things like pages of rules on grappling, bull rushing and over running are examples of the rules trying to cover everything.

The Red Herring is with his attempt to say that players having lots of options and the resulting imbalance of power is at odds with the loose and narrative DM style they are going for and that they play horribly together.  It isn't at odds with character options and they play very well together.  You can easily play a loose rules narrative style of game with whatever level of imbalance the DM/players wish, including any options the designers could include for the players to design PCs with.


----------



## Eric V (Sep 23, 2018)

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> You can't apologize for intentionally being as disrespectful and insulting as you just were. You don't know me and you calling Me 'lazy' because I voiced my perspective... Yeah you don't know me or how I see things.
> 
> Was it necessary for you to be so insulting to me?




Yeah, he's like that.  It's like he's BFFs with the designers or something, and so he can't differentiate between criticism of a public work vs. attacking someone on a message board.

To your post, it's true that a lot of things players could just do in 4e now requires a version of "Mother, May I?"  For instance, I'd wager you'll never find a 5e DM who lets a Champion attempt something exactly like 'Crack the Shell.'  Even spells have that built into them as well (I'd _never _play an illusionist in 5e, for instance).

As for lazy design, while I agree in broad strokes, there are some differences I would note.  For Inspiration, they provide examples for it, but no hard-and-fast rules, that's true.  For that particular mechanic, though, I feel it's actually the right move.  Maximum flexibility for a 'floating bonus' derived by whatever means is kind of a neat cookie the DM can hand out.  In our own games, people have earned it by playing up their flaws, telling a great in-game joke, and being clever and figuring out a clue to a mystery...after which they immediately spent it on a roll to get another clue, solving the puzzle, which was awesome.  If the rules were 'tight' on that, it might hinder the awesomeness of the mechanic.

Stealth rules are lazy, I agree.  Same with some of the other stuff you mentioned.  It's not a perfect game, no matter _what _some people on here act like.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 23, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> While I am certainly in agreement with you that I enjoy more mechanical options, it would be remiss not to point out that a surfeit of mechanical options exist outside the boundary of WotC published material.  I have more classes, subclasses, and feats in my personally vetted collection of homebrew material than exist within the combination of all of the published WotC books.




It's always much more difficult to get the DM to accept third party options than ones by the game producer(TSR or WotC).  Also, third while I mentioned that power difference is okay, at least I know that WotC tries to mitigate that to some extent.  The sheer number of broken things third party people put out is incredible.  In the past as DM, I spent entirely too much time trying to figure out whether third party products were too broken to use.  I had that issue far, FAR less often with WotC products.


----------



## Eric V (Sep 23, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I also think calling wotc lazy seems disrespectful after a 2 year playtest inventing rules and theowing things overboatd they were personally very fond of.
> That in my opinion is the opposite of lazy.




She's not saying the whole process was lazy; obviously, gathering all that data required a lot of work.

If I gather a lot of data and publish a work based on the options that were most popular, the design might be lazy indeed: Just use what was popular (and the options weren't extremely original to 5e).

And hey, 5e is very popular indeed; as you rightfully point out, it "is doing really well and brings a lot of people to the rpg game."  Which is great for RPGs as a whole!

5e is not a particularly innovative game, though.  It's basically a 'greatest hits' D&D that feels like D&D 2.5.  In that _particular _sense, I could see the design being characterized as lazy.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 23, 2018)

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> One of the reasons why I like Mage Hand Press' 5e work is they have created very different classes and class options that really add new mechanics to 5e.
> 
> Its because of this I feel they get 5e where many others, including the designers at WotC, do not get it.
> 
> ...



Love Mage Hand Press!  Best 3rd party providers out there!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 23, 2018)

Eric V said:


> She's not saying the whole process was lazy; obviously, gathering all that data required a lot of work.
> 
> If I gather a lot of data and publish a work based on the options that were most popular, the design might be lazy indeed: Just use what was popular (and the options weren't extremely original to 5e).
> 
> ...




I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. It is not a greatest hits. It is a new game that takes elements of all esitions and merges them to the great game we have now. Having followed the whole playtest process I think I can say it did in no way seem lazy. But yes, a lot od innovations I really loved were thrown out again and if some of them would male it into an advanced dungeons and dragons book I would be happy. Lets see what the future brings.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 23, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Are you saying that the presence or absence of action resolution mechanics doesn't establish any difference between systems?




I think that you and I have conversations where we spend a lot of time drilling into minutiae that neither one of us intends to elaborate on based on the context of the posts that are quoted.  

My overarching point right now (this post) is that with the intention of the DM as designer of last resort in every version of the rules that any table's actual experience is different from any other table's.  It makes conversations about rules and validity nearly impossible when talking about practical application and only useful in the theoretical realm of a table where only "rules as written" are used.

The rules don't exist in a vacuum.  No one really plays only rules as written, so whether or not action resolution mechanics establish a difference between systems, doesn't really matter.


-- personal opinion alert --
However, I do think that players who are inclined to some degree of anti-social behavior are going to look for reasons to not listen to their DM, and similarly those inclined DMs won't listen to their players.  In those cases there's a high degree of passive aggressive behavior that puts the rules in the middle -- because god forbid anyone takes fault on themselves.

If I were to have a horse in the race, I'd be betting this phenomena is what Mearls is talking about and what they're not designing for anymore.  Let the DM deal with that sort of thing was smart in the beginning and it's smart now.

KB


----------



## pemerton (Sep 23, 2018)

clearstream said:


> I could be taking this out of context, but I agree with your observations here. It's part of what I mean about the 5e system being sophisticated and woven across all the rules. I do a lot of tinkering and one of the things that makes mechanics for 5e tough to get right is the way they relate to one another. As you say, you might think - this frighten effect I'm homebrewing seems fine - and then you realise what it interacts with and balances against... and not just spells, but creature saves etc, etc, etc...



I don't think you've taken me out of context.

Earlier today I GMed a session of Prince Valiant. Each PC has two ability scores - Brawn and Presence - rated from 1 to 6; and a rating from 0 to 6 across a series of 20-30 skills. Action resolution is tossing a pool of coins equal to the sum of the skill rating (if there is an applicable one) and abiity rating (some skills, like healing, don't take an ability score) - we use dice rather than coins, couting evens as successes - either as an opposed check or against a difficulty number (1 is easy, 4 is hard). Some resolution - combat the obvious example - is extended, with the margin of success applied as a reduction on the other person's pool, generating a "death spiral" effect. There is no resource management, except for keeping track of how many lances your knight might have splintered in jousts!

With those rules, plus the skill lists, you could practically run a session of Prince Valiant. You'd need the rules for equipment and other dice pool modifiers - they take a couple of pages.

That's what I think a "light" system, based on "naturalistic" extrapolation from infiction situation to resolution, looks like. Not a system with a 400 page SRD!

5e has intricate mechanics - spells most obviously, but other class features and feats also - and they correlate to the fiction in various complex and frequently overlapping ways (the Battlemaster/Champion discussion upthread is just one exmple), and also interact with complex resource expenditure and recovery rules, action economy, and other purely mechanical phenomena.

(The lightest system I've GMed is Cthulhu Dark - each PC is just a name and a job, with a very simple dice pool resolution system built up out of an occupation die (if applicable), a humanity die (if you're trying something within human capabilities) and a sanity die (if you choose to risk your sanity to succeed). The rules for the game are fewer than 1000 words.)


----------



## Eric V (Sep 23, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. It is not a greatest hits. It is a new game that takes elements of all esitions and merges them to the great game we have now. *Having followed the whole playtest process I think I can say it did in no way seem lazy.* But yes, a lot od innovations I really loved were thrown out again and if some of them would male it into an advanced dungeons and dragons book I would be happy. Lets see what the future brings.




I sincerely appreciate the respect.  In that same respect, I would ask...are you sure we disagree? If I replace "game" with "album" and "elements" with "songs" I get "It is a new album that takes songs of all esitions and merges them to the great album we have now."

I mean, that sounds like the definition of 'greatest hits.'  Especially since, as you rightfully pointed out, a lot of innovations were thrown out again.  Put another way, every edition of D&D brought something new, something innovative to my RPG experience...I can't think of how 5e has done that, I honestly can't.  And I play the game!

For the bolded part, I'd like to reiterate that I am sure the _process_, as you pointed out, was hard-worked and not lazy; I am referring to elements of the subsequent design, only.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 23, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> I think that you and I have conversations where we spend a lot of time drilling into minutiae that neither one of us intends to elaborate on based on the context of the posts that are quoted.



I honestly don't understand your post or what you're talking about or alluding to here. I'm making what I think is a fairly straightforward claim - that 4e and 5e differ in respect of more than just options; in particular, that 4e has a non-combat conflict resolution mechanic and 5e doesn't.



Kobold Boots said:


> with the intention of the DM as designer of last resort in every version of the rules that any table's actual experience is different from any other table's.  It makes conversations about rules and validity nearly impossible when talking about practical application and only useful in the theoretical realm of a table where only "rules as written" are used.
> 
> The rules don't exist in a vacuum.  No one really plays only rules as written, so whether or not action resolution mechanics establish a difference between systems, doesn't really matter.



What RPGs do you play?

Today I GMed a session of Prince Valiant. Three weeks ago I GMed a session of Cthulhu Dark. My group also has currently active campaigns using Classic Traveller, Burning Wheel and Cortext+ Heroic Fantasy, and we have a couple of 4e campaigns on hold until one of us finishes building his house and can get back to RPGing. One of our group members is in an active 5e game with a different group.

The inference from "the rules don't exist in a vacuum" to "differences in system don't matter" is so far from my experience I find it very hard to credit.



Kobold Boots said:


> I do think that players who are inclined to some degree of anti-social behavior are going to look for reasons to not listen to their DM, and similarly those inclined DMs won't listen to their players.  In those cases there's a high degree of passive aggressive behavior that puts the rules in the middle -- because god forbid anyone takes fault on themselves.
> 
> If I were to have a horse in the race, I'd be betting this phenomena is what Mearls is talking about and what they're not designing for anymore.  Let the DM deal with that sort of thing was smart in the beginning and it's smart now.



This might be an issue for some club or pick-up games. It's irrelevant to me and doesn't factor into any of my thinkg about RPGs.

From time-to-time I read posters who say that if the GM and players aren't anti-social then we don't need mechanics. I'm not sure if you're saying that, but (i) if it was true then it would apply to PC build as much as action resolution, in which case we could have as many options as we want and it wouldn't matter; and (ii) it's not true, assuming that I want to play a game rather than just sit around with my friends and tell a story, which I don't need dice or rules to do.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 23, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## pemerton (Sep 23, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> 4e was the epitome of rules lawyering when you bothered to read forums.



I can go to the 5e forum on this message board and almost be guaranteed to find a thread about perception or hiding. Look at the 4e threads that are or have recently been active on the old editions forum. They're not debating rules minutiae.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 23, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Or, let me try this out- instead of retreating to trying to use logical fallacies in a normal discussion,* how about maybe you just have different preferences?




I would have appreciated what Mearls said much better if he had just said it was about different preferences, rather than giving me two fallacies that show that either he was lying to me(no need for fallacies when you tell the truth) or that he didn't understand what he was doing when designing(designing a game based on a False Equivalence and Red Herring). 



> I'm just going to point out that if someone says, "I'm doing X because of Y," and you happen to not like X, and wish they weren't doing X, you might wish to consider your own point of view before formulating your argument. Otherwise, it might appear that you were ignoring what was being said and simply attacking people and citing logical fallacies regarding a twitter thread (?!?) as opposed to trying to constructively engage with the ideas.




He was the one who said that the game design he chose was because of two things that didn't equate(player options and rules reliance), and two things unrelated to one another(power imbalance and a loose narrative playstyle).  If true, it's scary that he's a designer, and if false he lied to me.  I don't really appreciate either one of those.  

At least if he had just said, "Hey, we're doing it this way because we want to do it this way." and left it at that, it would have been a more respectable answer.  Instead, he's trying to pull the wool over the eyes of people by putting forth reasons that don't make sense, cloaked as why he's not doing things that many people want..


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 23, 2018)

Hi Pem - 

Answer to what games I play actively: Rolemaster, 4e, 5e.

In my experience all play differently than the others but the outcomes are the same.  None of my players question house rules and in all cases, house rules materially effect how they play.  Therefore if I were to have a conversation about any of these systems with folks that aren't in my group, (like on this forum) I'd have to default to RAW to expect a degree of understanding.  However, any discussion had here based on RAW would not in any way reflect gameplay at my table.

Which is what I'm getting at when we start hashing out discussions here.  Things we say here aren't very reflective of what's actually going on.

Mechanics and rules are two entirely different things.  Rules enforce how mechanics are implemented.  So when we're talking about anti-social behavior, I find that folks often argue a rule, but won't argue +2 on flanking or +2 for advantage.

Thanks,
KB


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 23, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 23, 2018)

Eric V said:


> She's not saying the whole process was lazy; obviously, gathering all that data required a lot of work.
> 
> If I gather a lot of data and publish a work based on the options that were most popular, the design might be lazy indeed: Just use what was popular (and the options weren't extremely original to 5e).
> 
> ...




Hmmm... we may be working off different definitions of lazy. i do not tend to put "lazy" and "innovative" as antonyms of each other. One refers to effort, the other refers to imagination or making more radical changes - neither of which necessitates effort - just different goals.

I never expect a 5th edition or even really a 3rd or 4th to be particularly "innovative". If you are going to be "innovative" it either hits at 2nd edition or as a new game. By 5th edition i expect them to be targetting portions of their fanbase and so - yeah a "dnd greatest hits album" with a bit of polish and so is pretty much dead on.

Pathfinder is it seems going the same route - in the opposite direction. Their playtest material and design goals seem to be the same as before:
1 - try to hook those who glammed onto DND but want more crunch and tight rules
2 - design mostly tho for hard crunch of the already existing PF audience (rules like computer code)

I like a lot of what they are doing and it appelas greatly to the game system fu part of me (which is a big part of me), but... I cannot think of any game i am playing in or running right now where it would be *better* if we moved to anything like PF2. i think each would be worse and we would lose more players than we gain. 

In a way, at the table, in the game, its like I/we make the same trade-offs - how much time do we want to spend on the crunch vs the play vs the story vs the drama?

So it is *not* to me a choice i would embrace.

But neither of those is one i would call lazy or even really innovative.


----------



## Jester David (Sep 23, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> This is a weird argument, IMO. I won’t ever play every option, sure. But my group will eventually play most of them, and all the groups I know will probably play all of them.



7
Given enough time, yes. But most groups don't play a single game for *that *many campaigns before switching to a different game, or changing editions.



doctorbadwolf said:


> More importantly, there is nothing in 4e that is like the Assassin, or the Gloom Pact Hexblade, or a Cunning Bard who incongruously focused on fighting in melee, or a multi-target focused mixed range rogue (dagger thrower or hand crossbow build), or a Beast Master Ranger, or I could go on and on.
> 
> PHB only 5e is fun, but very limited, and most players I have ever known just aren’t going to make certain types of characters if there isn’t a relatively clear option for it. There isn’t a combination of options in the PHB that makes a “Spirit Talker”/Shaman type character that mechanically plays like the concept, so the player just opts to play a different concept. Then Xanathar’s comes out, and that player is thrilled that she can play that earlier concept now. It doesn’t matter that she won’t ever even read through the Sorcerer options in the book, she doesn’t care about sorcerer stuff. Yep book has increased her ability to play her “1st choice” character concept when a campaign is starting, instead of settling for something else.



The catch is human imagination is infinite. There's an infinite number of character concepts that could require options. 
But the game DOES NOT need an infinite amount of content. 

5e's options are generally pretty limited, as you say. But how many combinations could be played? 
There's 40 in the PHB (without getting into races or feats), 7 non-reprinted in SCAG, and 31 in XGtE. For 78 different options. And that's not considering variable sub-options like champion fighter being a swashbuckler or archer or great-weapon fighter or tank. In the content we have now, there is enough for 19 completely different adventuring parties of four. That's 19 different campaigns where no subclass is repeated. 
Even if you play weekly, it would take you close to a year to play a level 1 to 20 campaign. But if you played really long sessions and maybe finished a little earlier, you might knock out a campaign in, oh, 9 months. Those 19 different campaigns would still cover _fourteen years_. We have over a DECADE of content on our shelves right now. But... somehow we need _more_? 

We don't need annual class content, let alone the bi-monthly class supplements of 3e and 4e. No one goes through content that fast.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 23, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Hmmm... we may be working off different definitions of lazy. i do not tend to put "lazy" and "innovative" as antonyms of each other. One refers to effort, the other refers to imagination or making more radical changes - neither of which necessitates effort - just different goals.




Maybe they are, but they shouldn’t be. Lazy is loaded with negative connotations and everybody here should know that and realize that. If you want an antonym for innovative, use conventional.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 23, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I would have appreciated what Mearls said much better if he had just said it was about different preferences, rather than giving me two fallacies that show that either he was lying to me(no need for fallacies when you tell the truth) or that he didn't understand what he was doing when designing(designing a game based on a False Equivalence and Red Herring).
> 
> 
> 
> ...





To me... i have the opposite take...

given the choice between someone saying "i did x because of a, b and c" and someone saying "i did x just because i wanted to"... then even if i think his "logic" of a b and c is flawed or his conclusions are bad or i just plain disagree with him on a b and c... i am happier that they gave me that info. its better IMO to have more info about how they arrived at their conclusion than to just have it represented as "and a choice was made here" magic step - remembering that old cartoon of the long equation with the step in the middle of " a miracle occurs".

 he basically admits or shows his "biases" if you will and that is refreshing.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 23, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I can go to the 5e forum on this message board and almost be guaranteed to find a thread about perception or hiding. Look at the 4e threads that are or have recently been active on the old editions forum. They're not debating rules minutiae.




When many people played, 4e boards were full of that. And the rules were revised more than a few times between 3e and 3.5 and 4e and still left much to be desired.
Are 5e stealth rules perfect? No. Some things could be a bit more explicit. Especially the distinction between move silently and and hide. (One has advantage in bad light conditions the other of course not... although in a typical noisy surrounding it should. So yes 5e stealth rules need a few moee lines explaining those things and when the DM should apply advantage or disadvantage. But then those should be no hard rules but only guidelines a la "in following situations the DM might apply a/d if..."


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 23, 2018)

billd91 said:


> Maybe they are, but they shouldn’t be. Lazy is loaded with negative connotations and everybody here should know that and realize that. If you want an antonym for innovative, use conventional.




tomato tomahto.. i tend to use derivative for opp innovative - esp in designs of new editions - because thats almost literally what it is referring to... deriving much of your "context and stuff" from a previous work."

However, some might view derivative as a negatively loaded word too. I tend to not get overly worried about that as much as accuracy.

My general problem with the word "lazy" when applied to design is that lazy carries a context of "not willing to do the work that was needed" as opposed to "chose to go with more efficient". 

Way back in my youth... working at a store warehouse... it was spring and so the 50lb bags of feed came in.

There were two spots for them - one with a sign taped on it saying "use this one first." 

One spot was empty (the use first tag there) the other had about 3 dozen 50lb sacks of feed.

boss said "ok we need to move these to this spot and then put the new ones off the conveyor onto that spot."

i asked "why not just put the new ones in that empty spot and move the taped on sign?" 

boss got quite angry and called me "lazy" but had no excuse for why to do it his way beyond him being the boss.

lazy in my experience is used often in game design discussions when it boils down to "the did not want to do the work to implement it this way" when it more is seeming to me to be a case of "they did not want to go that way and if anything the extra workload only solidified that choices more."


----------



## Umbran (Sep 23, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> lazy in my experience is used often in game design discussions when it boils down to "the did not want to do the work to implement it this way"




Which, well... how many of us really know about what work they did or didn't do?  We see results, not the work.

And, "It didn't end up the way I like it, so I will ascribe negative traits to them," is a common thing, but a pretty lousy thing to do.  The Golden Rule should apply.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 23, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Interesting. I do like most of what he’s saying, but I also wish they would embrace the fact that a lot of players still have a strong desire for mechanical options. Focusing on narrative identity is great, and the goal of those specific mechanical advantages should be to express a character’s narrative identity rather than to break the game’s progression curve. But 5e still offers so little in terms of ways to mechanically differentiate a character. He paints mechanical options as if they’re at odds with the design philosophy he describes here, but I don’t think they are at all.




The issue with mechanical options being used to differentiate characters is that not all mechanical options are created equal with regard to power level. If they were then the complaint would be be that the options "don't really mean anything" because the the options are desired to produce power, not difference. If anything we can look to past editions and the popularity of cookie cutter builds that provide "optimal" outcomes for whatever niche of expertise the player desires. These optimal builds become standardized and soon the entire proposed reason for so many options is rendered null and void because choosing a set of options that is not optimized for performance is a losing proposition. 

Character differentiation is something that needs to come from the player, not the mechanics.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 23, 2018)

Jester David said:


> 7
> Given enough time, yes. But most groups don't play a single game for *that *many campaigns before switching to a different game, or changing editions.
> 
> 
> ...




First of all, I didn’t say we need more. Please stick to what I’ve said when replying to me. I’m not particularly interested in answering for other people. I personally see the phb as too limited to really satisfy the needs of my group, but the only thing missing right now is stuff that is favorite material for my group, like playable gnolls, and worthwhile orcs and kobolds. We’re fairly resigned to homebrew on those specific examples, unfortunately. 

Again, how many campaigns a single group can get through in a span of time doesn’t matter nearly as much as you want it to, because the preference for more options isn’t about that. What you’re missing, again, is that a given player isn’t generally interested in all of the classes, or all types of concepts, and as [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] pointed out, more choices is about crafting a character, not so just about replayability. 

But even in the realm of replayability, a dozen classes isn’t really a dozen choices per player, because most players aren’t interested in concepts found within all dozen classes. And there are broad concepts that 5e is light on still, so while I’m cool with what is out, and new stuff is mostly gravy (other than very specific stuff from previous editions, like Eberron races, artificers, etc) it’s entirely understandable why some folks aren’t satisfied with the current options. 

But, moving back to the actual issue at hand, it’s not that there aren’t enough options, as such, for many players. For many players, it is that a given character only has so many decision points, and choosing “assassin” or “Beast Master” locks you into a progression all the way to level 20, with very little choice other than feats, of which there aren’t that many. 

What the game needs, is for every class to have an alternate progression that accesses more decision points, and/or subclasses that increase decision points per level tier.


----------



## happyhermit (Sep 23, 2018)

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> ...
> I just dislike the foundation of the "Rulings not Rules" approach, which leads to a very non-transparent game. Its lazy design.




You dislike it, that doesn't make it lazy. It's one of the reasons I and many others started playing current D&D (again for many of us) so I really don't appreciate you saying to me; "Well then, you like lazy design." because I don't. 

Talk to any writer, board game designer, ttrpg designer, etc. and ask them if it's harder to create more material or take things out and you will find most agree that cutting things is hard. In the context of ttrpgs, it's actually really, really, easy to make rules for things, many of us have been doing it since we were kids. It's much harder to condense those rules down to a coherent system that meets specific design goals. During the design process they cut tons of rules ie; the entire set of "exploration" rules not because they were lazy but because they wanted to make a system that would work as well as possible for most people. It happened to be massively successful, and not because most people like "lazy" design work.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 23, 2018)

ExploderWizard said:


> The issue with mechanical options being used to differentiate characters is that not all mechanical options are created equal with regard to power level. If they were then the complaint would be be that the options "don't really mean anything" because the the options are desired to produce power, not difference. If anything we can look to past editions and the popularity of cookie cutter builds that provide "optimal" outcomes for whatever niche of expertise the player desires. These optimal builds become standardized and soon the entire proposed reason for so many options is rendered null and void because choosing a set of options that is not optimized for performance is a losing proposition.
> 
> Character differentiation is something that needs to come from the player, not the mechanics.




Maybe you played with very different people than I did, but I almost never saw any of the CharOp builds in actual games. Once or twice, in 20 years of gaming, and even then it wasn’t really the internet crafted build, but just some element of it on a well rounded build. 

Most folks want mechanical distinction, not just power.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 23, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> First of all, I didn’t say we need more. Please stick to what I’ve said when replying to me. I’m not particularly interested in answering for other people. I personally see the phb as too limited to really satisfy the needs of my group, but the only thing missing right now is stuff that is favorite material for my group, like playable gnolls, and worthwhile orcs and kobolds. We’re fairly resigned to homebrew on those specific examples, unfortunately.
> 
> Again, how many campaigns a single group can get through in a span of time doesn’t matter nearly as much as you want it to, because the preference for more options isn’t about that. What you’re missing, again, is that a given player isn’t generally interested in all of the classes, or all types of concepts, and as [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] pointed out, more choices is about crafting a character, not so just about replayability.
> 
> ...




"The game" needs nothing: gamers may.or may not want certain features. Where there is sufficient demand that doesn't alienate others, we may see it. Alternative Class features are something they are floating to test interest right now, so we'll see.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Sep 23, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Most folks want mechanical distinction, not just power.




What does mechanical distinction WITHOUT power look like to you? How many choices to make at each level that are all lateral moves would be enough to satisfy the craving for difference?


----------



## Oofta (Sep 23, 2018)

Eric V said:


> Stealth rules are lazy, I agree.  Same with some of the other stuff you mentioned.  It's not a perfect game, no matter _what _some people on here act like.




This is an example of what I was talking about earlier.  There's a podcast on this from the early days of 5E.  Crawford had detailed rules for stealth.  They decided to not use them for the very same reasons alluded to in the tweets.  It just wasn't the direction they wanted for the game.

Y'all seem to be calling the designers lazy because they didn't want a game that was as rules heavy as the previous two editions.  That's not lazy, it's a design decision.  One I'm quite happy with.


----------



## Jester David (Sep 23, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> First of all, I didn’t say we need more. Please stick to what I’ve said when replying to me. I’m not particularly interested in answering for other people. I personally see the phb as too limited to really satisfy the needs of my group, but the only thing missing right now is stuff that is favorite material for my group, like playable gnolls, and worthwhile orcs and kobolds. We’re fairly resigned to homebrew on those specific examples, unfortunately.
> 
> Again, how many campaigns a single group can get through in a span of time doesn’t matter nearly as much as you want it to, because the preference for more options isn’t about that. What you’re missing, again, is that a given player isn’t generally interested in all of the classes, or all types of concepts, and as @_*Umbran*_ pointed out, more choices is about crafting a character, not so just about replayability.
> 
> ...



First , this assumes the best/only way to differentiate a character is mechanical. There was no mechanical distinction between most classses in 1e/2e and people managed to create vastly different characters just fine...
Reflavouring or working with a DM to make an additive and unique “ribbon” power is often the best way to define a character.

Second, there already IS an alternate progression with more decision points in the game. They’re called “feats”.
And the reason there shouldn't be a second should be blindingly obvious. You just need to compare featless games versus ones where feats are permitted. 

Again, option creep = power creep. If you have a couple optional class features at each level, one will be the ‘best’. Just by picking that one, the character will be more powerful. And you repeat that three or five or seven times and the new character is significantly better than a base character. 
Creating a wave of alternate options is the best way to just shatter the game’s balance....


Again, we don’t need any of that codified. That doesn’t _need_ to be done by WotC and handled by splatbooks. That can be handled through cooperation with the DM and the player or liberal use of, y’know, imagination. 
The spirit talker can be done via the Magic Initiate feat and flavored as taking to spirits to “cast” some divination spells. Maybe a bonus power, or boon.
At worst, if the concept is that much larger, it’s easiest to just make subclass. Those are easy. 3-5 powers. 
RPGs thrive on homebrewing. That’s how new game designers are made. Heck, the reason we have D&D is Aneson homebrewing and hacking Chainmail.


----------



## Eric V (Sep 23, 2018)

Oofta said:


> This is an example of what I was talking about earlier.  There's a podcast on this from the early days of 5E.  Crawford had detailed rules for stealth.  They decided to not use them for the very same reasons alluded to in the tweets.  It just wasn't the direction they wanted for the game.
> 
> Y'all seem to be calling the designers lazy because they didn't want a game that was as rules heavy as the previous two editions.  That's not lazy, it's a design decision.  One I'm quite happy with.




Yeah...I made sure not to call the designers _themselves _lazy (don't see how anyone can know that, just like I can't know if they're extremely hard-working), but since this seems to be where the 5e megafans want to take the narrative, I'll just bid y'all adieu.  5e is as perfect as D&D can get!


----------



## Derren (Sep 23, 2018)

Eric V said:


> Yeah...I made sure not to call the designers _themselves _lazy (don't see how anyone can know that, just like I can't know if they're extremely hard-working), but since this seems to be where the 5e megafans want to take the narrative, I'll just bid y'all adieu.  5e is as perfect as D&D can get!



Until 6e is announced, then it was a horrible system no one in his right mind would use and anyone not ditching it for the glorious new edition deserves to get banned.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 23, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> In some packets . . . there wer more expanded exploration rules and depending on your pace and formation you had to make a readiness saving throw.



Intriguing!

I am gonna have to search for that.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 23, 2018)

Derren said:


> Until 6e is announced, then it was a horrible system no one in his right mind would use and anyone not ditching it for the glorious new edition deserves to get banned.




If there ever is 6E: there probably will be, in a backwards compatible form, as they have attled on an evergreen approach.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 23, 2018)

ExploderWizard said:


> What does mechanical distinction WITHOUT power look like to you? How many choices to make at each level that are all lateral moves would be enough to satisfy the craving for difference?



I don’t understand what’s confusing or unclear? There are many games where you can choose between options at most or all levels. 



Parmandur said:


> "The game" needs nothing: gamers may.or may not want certain features. Where there is sufficient demand that doesn't alienate others, we may see it. Alternative Class features are something they are floating to test interest right now, so we'll see.



Okay? I’m not interested in nit picking back and forth about what “need” means. 



Jester David said:


> First , this assumes the best/only way to differentiate a character is mechanical. There was no mechanical distinction between most classses in 1e/2e and people managed to create vastly different characters just fine...
> Reflavouring or working with a DM to make an additive and unique “ribbon” power is often the best way to define a character.




No, it doesn’t assume that at all. It assumes that most players want mechanical distinction. Are you going to next argue that most players would be perfectly happy only having 3 options with no mechanical distinction after choosing between those 3 options, and little distinction between the 3?

also, the fact that people enjoyed 1e doesn’t mean that 5e isn’t better. That should be blindingly obvious. 



> Second, there already IS an alternate progression with more decision points in the game. They’re called “feats”.
> And the reason there shouldn't be a second should be blindingly obvious. You just need to compare featless games versus ones where feats are permitted.




its not blindingly obvious, because it isn’t even true. In fact, it isn’t even true to say that there isn’t any such thing in 5e, outside of feats. 

Warlocks, Battle Masters, Hunter Rangers, 4 Elements Monks, Sorcerers, are all examples. The last two aren’t as popular, but that is quite clearly because their resources are too limited and they feel frustrating to play as a result, even for new players that know jack about power levels.



> Again, option creep = power creep. If you have a couple optional class features at each level, one will be the ‘best’. Just by picking that one, the character will be more powerful. And you repeat that three or five or seven times and the new character is significantly better than a base character.
> Creating a wave of alternate options is the best way to just shatter the game’s balance....



Cool, good thing that isn’t the only option I proposed. 



> Again, we don’t need any of that codified. That doesn’t _need_ to be done by WotC and handled by splatbooks. That can be handled through cooperation with the DM and the player or liberal use of, y’know, imagination.
> The spirit talker can be done via the Magic Initiate feat and flavored as taking to spirits to “cast” some divination spells. Maybe a bonus power, or boon.



It can be done that way, but it’s better for the player that wants to summon and consort with spirits to have an option that _actually does that. _As for need, again, we don’t “need” a game to exist. Need isn’t relevant except as a shorthand for a strong desire amongst the player base to have it.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 23, 2018)

Elegant design is difficult and takes a lot of work.

Anyone can write pages upon pages of rules. Creating an RPG like D&D so that play is fast and rulebooks don't need to be pulled out (or memorized) during play takes a lot of work.

Take Boardgames - Much of the innovation over the last 20 years has been creating elegant design. Settlers of Catan is a light game that takes an average of 90 minutes to play. There is a lot of time spent not engaging in the game. New games with the same amount of depth take 30 minutes to play. Fiddly bits, board clutter, chit management, downtime, and more have all been refined and further refined to create more elegant games. There are fewer rules and cleaner boards, but that doesn't mean that designers are lazy. 

On a different note people like to talk about the power of options a lot. The thing is, most people don't know how to accurately evaluate different options. And those who have the skills to do so don't have the opportunity to adequately test their ideas. D&D is not a competitive game. In a competitive game which people take seriously claims don't matter. What matters is who wins. That proves which strategies are better. I have followed 3 games competitively in my life and in every game I've seen the general population who play those games swear that certain strategies are terrible only to see those strategies rise to the top. 

I recommend to anyone who is looking to D&D to stretch their strategy and tactic muscles to get really deep into a competitive game. One where money is on the line if you can. The nuances of strategy and the amount of time it takes to master those games will surprise you.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 23, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> What the game needs, is for every class to have an alternate progression that accesses more decision points, and/or subclasses that increase decision points per level tier.




More accurately - "What the game would have to have to scratch the itch of some of these players".  Or "What the game would have to have to satisfy me..." or the like.

The game is apparently doing very well, so saying it "needs" these things in the overall objective sense is a bit of a stretch.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 23, 2018)

Umbran said:


> More accurately - "What the game would have to have to scratch the itch of some of these players".  Or "What the game would have to have to satisfy me..." or the like.
> 
> The game is apparently doing very well, so saying it "needs" these things in the overall objective sense is a bit of a stretch.




Umbran, I respect your opinions, and I’m trying not to get too annoyed here, but I’ve said this already in this thread. 

I do not now, and I probably will never, give a single half a damn about nit picking over what “need” means. 

Please, respectfully and with all sincerity, don’t bother me with replies that are literally not anything more than completely non-additive nit picks. Please.

it is very easy to see the context of a post, and what the point being made is, and just respond to that.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 23, 2018)

pemerton said:


> But this seems to go directly to @_*Satyrn*_'s point. As soon as the scope of action declaration is rationed by reference to other mechanical elements of the game, rather than just the fiction, then designing options can become pretty hard.



Unless someone quoted my original comment on this topic, ad_hoc couldn't have seen it (well, he could if he unblocked me). But yeah, you got my point perfectly.

The battlemaster and champion do work beside each other, and I brought them up as an example of getting the design right. But I think that if significantly more mechanical complexity was added to the battlemaster, the champion would become . . . I'm gonna say "untenable," but the right word's not coming to mind.

What counts as "significantly more" depends on just how carefully the added mechanical complexity is implemented, that that's what I originally referred to as the tricky bit (because it's not just about fighter subclasses, but every piece of the whole game)


----------



## clearstream (Sep 23, 2018)

Oofta said:


> ...they didn't want a game that was as rules heavy as the previous two editions.



The 3rd edition Players Handbook was 304 pages of mostly rules.
The 4th edition Players Handbook was 320 pages of mostly rules.
The 5th edition Players Handbook is 320 pages of mostly rules.

For me, a reasonable definition of "not as rules heavy" would involve having _noticeably_ fewer rules.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 23, 2018)

ExploderWizard said:


> The issue with mechanical options being used to differentiate characters is that not all mechanical options are created equal with regard to power level. If they were then the complaint would be be that the options "don't really mean anything" because the the options are desired to produce power, not difference.



Please don’t tell me what I desire and why. I would love it if there could be tons of options that were all perfectly mechanically balanced, because I do want those options for the purpose of differentiation, not power. There certainly are players who feel the way you describe (“the options don’t mean anything” was a common complaint directed at 4e), but not everyone who wants more options feel that way. I’m a special snowflake, not a power gamer. I want a character who can do different things than everyone else’s character for the sake of being different, not for the sake of being stronger. I’ll take options I know are mechanically worse if I think they’ll be more interesting, even in 5e with the small pool of options it does offer.







ExploderWizard said:


> If anything we can look to past editions and the popularity of cookie cutter builds that provide "optimal" outcomes for whatever niche of expertise the player desires. These optimal builds become standardized and soon the entire proposed reason for so many options is rendered null and void because choosing a set of options that is not optimized for performance is a losing proposition.



Yes, that is a negative behavior that some players display. Notably, it is displayed regardless of the number of options (see Coffeelock, Sorcadin, and other 5e builds.) And I thought the whole premise of Mearls’ comment was that they wanted to move away from designing the game to curtail bad behavior from problem players/DMs. I’m pretty sure keeping options low for the explicit purpose of giving power gamers less ammo is the opposite of what Mearls claimed their philosophy for 5e was.







ExploderWizard said:


> Character differentiation is something that needs to come from the player, not the mechanics.



View attachment 101722


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 23, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Which, well... how many of us really know about what work they did or didn't do?  We see results, not the work.
> 
> And, "It didn't end up the way I like it, so I will ascribe negative traits to them," is a common thing, but a pretty lousy thing to do.  The Golden Rule should apply.



Well, again with a partially open and 2 year process with changes along the way, we do see some work being done. Its not like 5e books just appeared on the shelves one chrismas morning with dad and mum keeping quiet.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 23, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> When many people played, 4e boards were full of that. And the rules were revised more than a few times between 3e and 3.5 and 4e and still left much to be desired.
> Are 5e stealth rules perfect? No. Some things could be a bit more explicit. Especially the distinction between move silently and and hide. (One has advantage in bad light conditions the other of course not... although in a typical noisy surrounding it should. So yes 5e stealth rules need a few moee lines explaining those things and when the DM should apply advantage or disadvantage. But then those should be no hard rules but only guidelines a la "in following situations the DM might apply a/d if..."



Yes, as i commented to someone the other day over dinner...

If they added two pages of stealth, hiding and perception rules we would still have threads on the topic just with different edge cases that require gm ruling being the focus.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 23, 2018)

clearstream said:


> The 3rd edition Players Handbook was 304 pages of mostly rules.
> The 4th edition Players Handbook was 320 pages of mostly rules.
> The 5th edition Players Handbook is 320 pages of mostly rules.
> 
> For me, a reasonable definition of "not as rules heavy" would involve having _noticeably_ fewer rules.



For page count to equate to number of rules, the rules per page has to equate and while i have to confess to not having bothered to attempt this, my off hand knee jerk impression was 5e had more formatting and style fluff space than wither 3e or 4e - significantly so. 

So to me the instant impressiin i got was more page space spent on style.

Your conflating pages counting with number of rules is not a concept i would ever have assumed given the many many different approaches to style vs substance and presentation in rpgs over the years.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 23, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> *Seriously, the bane of the internet is people trotting out logical fallacies. 95% of the time, they don't know what they're talking about, and 5% of the time, it's from a vaguely-remembered Philosophy 101 course they took 20 years ago. It is nothing more than, well, I'll put it in internet terms. It is nothing more than argumentum ad verdcundium with an unsourced authority, similar to someone attempting to say "hearsay" outside of a courtroom.




The internet is also for ensuring dead horses are thoroughly beaten into submission. Plus cat videos and porn.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 23, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Yes, as i commented to someone the other day over dinner...
> 
> If they added two pages of stealth, hiding and perception rules we would still have threads on the topic just with different edge cases that require gm ruling being the focus.




Well people on the internet would but I think if they'd added say 12-15 pages helping provide solid guidance (not requirements) on how to use skills and setting DCs, it would help quite a bit.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 23, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 23, 2018)

clearstream said:


> The 3rd edition Players Handbook was 304 pages of mostly rules.
> The 4th edition Players Handbook was 320 pages of mostly rules.
> The 5th edition Players Handbook is 320 pages of mostly rules.
> 
> For me, a reasonable definition of "not as rules heavy" would involve having _noticeably_ fewer rules.





I agree, but a page count of a book is not directly correlated to the number of rules in it.  If you'd like to do the lift and actually count all of the source books for the editions and figure out how many rules there are for your comparison, power to you.  But I think the level of abstraction necessary to make a point is simply the number of books in the edition. 

3 and 3.5 had 12 core rulebooks and about 60 WoTC published supplemental works.
4 had 8 core rulebooks and about 26 WoTC published supplemental works.
5 has three official core rulebooks and 8 supplemental rulebooks.

"Noticeably fewer rules"

Thanks,
KB


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 23, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Some horses do not stay dead no matter how much you beat then. And by "horse," I mean gnome.




.. and with strange eons even gnomes may die?


----------



## Oofta (Sep 23, 2018)

Eric V said:


> Yeah...I made sure not to call the designers _themselves _lazy (don't see how anyone can know that, just like I can't know if they're extremely hard-working), but since this seems to be where the 5e megafans want to take the narrative, I'll just bid y'all adieu.  5e is as perfect as D&D can get!




Nobody has ever said 5E is perfect on this thread that I am aware of.  It can't be, or at least not for everyone.

But saying you never called the designers lazy may make you eligible for the "splitting hairs in a forum post" award.  

Have a good one.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 23, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Well people on the internet would but I think if they'd added say 12-15 pages helping provide solid guidance (not requirements) on how to use skills and setting DCs, it would help quite a bit.



Maybe, but the DMG provided some IMO very solid basis for setting DCs that i use as a consistent core to difficulty  in my games (it just happens to sync with decision tree i used in other campaigns systems for years). Whether its the same as another gm at another table is irrelevant. They can have another assignment scheme in mind for their setting - hopefully as consistent.

Now, that said, for AL where play across games is supposed to be more identical, they I think (??) Make much more use of canned asventures with more DCs defined pre-set DCs.

But to your point of 12 to 15 more pages... Which 12 to 15 pages should be cut for the added skills section? 

Should feats and multi-classing be cut by those pages? How many spells gone is that if we cut there?


----------



## Bawylie (Sep 23, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Maybe, but the DMG provided some IMO very solid basis for setting DCs that i use as a consistent core to difficulty  in my games (it just happens to sync with decision tree i used in other campaigns systems for years). Whether its the same as another gm at another table is irrelevant. They can have another assignment scheme in mind for their setting - hopefully as consistent.
> 
> Now, that said, for AL where play across games is supposed to be more identical, they I think (??) Make much more use of canned asventures with more DCs defined pre-set DCs.
> 
> ...




You could definitely cut about half the spells, easily. 

But you don’t need 12 pages to explain how to set DCs. 

Should probably cut half the spells anyway though.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 23, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Nobody has ever said 5E is perfect on this thread that I am aware of.



I'm pretty sure I did. 

I mean, WotC paid me to, so if, like, I forgot to, you'd really be helping me out if you said I said it.


----------



## Eric V (Sep 23, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Nobody has ever said 5E is perfect on this thread that I am aware of.  It can't be, or at least not for everyone.
> 
> But saying you never called the designers lazy may make you eligible for the "splitting hairs in a forum post" award.
> 
> Have a good one.




Shove your award, Oofta.

I _never _said the designers were lazy people, no matter what you and your ilk try to frame it as.  They might work very hard in a great many areas (not that you or I would know), but some of the design in the game is lazy, in that it either defaults to a much older edition's framework, or remains ambiguous with few good examples of how to run it for the DM.  That's lazy design.

As for 5e being perfect...it's true that no one has said it is, to the best of my knowledge.

It's also true that virtually every single time people try to point out a criticism of it, the criticism goes mostly unacknowledged and the critic gets personally attacked, like what happened with the poster above who had the misfortune of being insulted by Defcon.

So...maybe it's not perfect, but the defenders here sure act like it.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 23, 2018)

clearstream said:


> The 3rd edition Players Handbook was 304 pages of mostly rules.
> The 4th edition Players Handbook was 320 pages of mostly rules.
> The 5th edition Players Handbook is 320 pages of mostly rules.
> 
> For me, a reasonable definition of "not as rules heavy" would involve having _noticeably_ fewer rules.




Page count is not always an accurate comparison: 5E has larger font than 3E, so fewer words per page, and much, much more is spent on flavor and fluff.

(Which, to be clear, is a good thing in my book: flavor and fluff are very important, and pages of pure rules are boooooooooring)


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 23, 2018)

Bawylie said:


> You could definitely cut about half the spells, easily.
> 
> But you don’t need 12 pages to explain how to set DCs.
> 
> Should probably cut half the spells anyway though.




Um...no? 

No. 

Youd have ave to give me warlord and artificer as fully playtested phb classes to get me on board with that.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 23, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Page count is not always an accurate comparison: 5E has larger font than 3E, so fewdr words per page, and much, much more is spent on flavor and fluff.



It's a good thing WotC's paying me to call 5e perfect, else I'd be feeling mightily ripped off.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 23, 2018)

Eric V said:


> Shove your award, Oofta.
> 
> I _never _said the designers were lazy people, no matter what you and your ilk try to frame it as.  They might work very hard in a great many areas (not that you or I would know), but some of the design in the game is lazy, in that it either defaults to a much older edition's framework, or remains ambiguous with few good examples of how to run it for the DM.  That's lazy design.
> 
> ...




"Lazy design" means that it wasn't worked for: if careful research and testing shows that an earlier edition did something in a way that worked better, it is not lazy to go with the superior rule. If it turns out in play that ambiguity works better, it is not lazy to decide to err on the side of open interpretation.

Lazy is not doing the work to find out what works, or deciding to go with what feels right rather than following the data.


----------



## Eric V (Sep 23, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> "Lazy design" means that it wasn't worked for: if careful research and testing shows that an earlier edition did something in a way that worked better, it is not lazy to go with the superior rule. If it turns out in play that ambiguity works better, it is not lazy to decide to err on the side of open interpretation.
> 
> Lazy is not doing the work to find out what works, or deciding to go with what feels right rather than following the data.




I know how I used the term; I don't think I will let someone else, (especially you, of all people) to redefine my statement for me.


----------



## clearstream (Sep 23, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> I agree, but a page count of a book is not directly correlated to the number of rules in it.  If you'd like to do the lift and actually count all of the source books for the editions and figure out how many rules there are for your comparison, power to you.  But I think the level of abstraction necessary to make a point is simply the number of books in the edition.
> 
> 3 and 3.5 had 12 core rulebooks and about 60 WoTC published supplemental works.
> 4 had 8 core rulebooks and about 26 WoTC published supplemental works.
> 5 has three official core rulebooks and 8 supplemental rulebooks.



It is not justified to count supplements for several reasons. The obvious reason is that we cannot say today how many 5th edition will go on to have, whereas there likely will not be any further WotC 3rd edition supplements. Then of course, supplements are not essential to play: they're optional. For a group that doesn't include them they add zero rules weight. Less obvious perhaps is the simple implausibility of the position. Hundreds of pages of _core rules_ seems heavy weight to me. A lighter weight system might be something like Savage Worlds... which, of course, has a great many supplements.

That as may be, there are two kinds of argument being made here. The first is that both 3rd and 5th edition are heavy weight rule systems. The second is that they are of roughly even weight as such. Page count and rules density on a page is an indicator, but cannot be conclusive about weightiness in this sense. For instance, one could envision light weight rules, expressed verbosely. The two arguments can be sustained separately or together. In making this judgement, one has to think about where 5th edition D&D sits among contemporary RPGs. Then there is the question of, who for? RPGs that posters here might agree are light weight, could seem heavy weight to someone unfamiliar with the kind of manuals these boards address. 

I think the question of weightiness is rightly a relative one - is 5th edition D&D relatively heavier than Savage Worlds? - and is rightly measured from the perspective of the community of hobbyists who are familiar with them. Having DM'd 3rd edition and 5th edition, running weekly sessions for years, I find that the systems of equal weight. That's the bottom line, for me. I've played both for hundreds of hours, and in play, 5th edition is as heavy as 3rd edition. I've played Savage Worlds, and it seems lighter than both to me.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 23, 2018)

Eric V said:


> I know how I used the term; I don't think I will let someone else, (especially you, of all people) to redefine my statement for me.




Not really sure what that crack about me "of all people" is supposed to mean, but... people are going to understand words based on common understanding. Go figure.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 23, 2018)

clearstream said:


> I'm comparing core book to core book. I don't think it is justified to count supplements for several reasons. The obvious reason is that we cannot say today how many 5th edition will go on to have, whereas there likely will not be any further WotC 3rd edition supplements. Then of course, supplements are not essential to play: they're optional. For a group that doesn't include them they add zero rules weight. Less obvious perhaps is the simple implausibility of the position. Hundreds of pages of _core rules_ seems heavy weight to me. A lighter weight system might be something like Savage Worlds... which, of course, has a great many supplements.
> 
> That as may be, there are two kinds of argument being made here. The first is that both 3rd and 5th edition are heavy weight rule systems. The second is that they are of roughly even weight as such. Page count and rules density on a page is an indicator, but cannot be conclusive about weightiness in this sense. For instance, one could envision light weight rules, expressed verbosely. The two arguments can be sustained separately or together: if either is sustained, then 5th edition is a heavy weight rules system.
> 
> ...




I would say 5E is a heavy weight system, true. Option heavy, for most people, even.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 23, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> I would say 5E is a heavy weight system, true. Option heavy, for most people, even.




What do we mean by heavy though?

D&D 5e is a gateway game. There are millions of new players, who aren't hobby gamers, who are playing it.

I am familiar with the scale of light-heavy from boardgames. Perhaps it is used differently with RPGs.

Not all light games are gateway games, but all gateway games are light.

Obviously RPGs are different than boardgames and need to be categorized by different metrics. I just wonder if we all mean the same thing with light-heavy. I don't know what people mean by it when applying it to RPGs.

The way 5e plays is certainly much lighter than 3e. It is designed so that players don't need to look up any rules during play. Just go with what the table deems reasonable and move on - that is probably the rule anyway. The adventures are super easy to pick up and play. When I DM I don't even read very much, I just go along with it as we play.


----------



## Ristamar (Sep 23, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> What do we mean by heavy though?




Three core books, each with hundreds of pages.

5e is far less complex than 3e, but it's still a rules heavy system.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 23, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> I would say 5E is a heavy weight system, true. Option heavy, for most people, even.




5E is a light-mid system. Indeed, Mearls describes it above as a storytelling system (which I think in general terminology implies it’s a bit lighter than it is). 3.x/Pathfinder is a mid-heavy system, Hero is a heavy system. Of all the things 5E is, it’s not a heavy system. 

That’s why it’s so popular with streamers. I’ve spoken to loads of streamers who switched from Pathfinder to 5E because it’s a light system, which is much easier to run for a show.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 23, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> What do we mean by heavy though?
> 
> D&D 5e is a gateway game. There are millions of new players, who aren't hobby gamers, who are playing it.
> 
> ...




It is more elegant, certainly, but...it has a significant number of rules, and most people are going to see it as complex and even a little bit intimidating. I've had to help new people make characters a few times, and they think 5E is pretty heavy and complex. In D&D terms it is light, but for the average person it is very involved.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 23, 2018)

clearstream said:


> The 3rd edition Players Handbook was 304 pages of mostly rules.
> The 4th edition Players Handbook was 320 pages of mostly rules.
> The 5th edition Players Handbook is 320 pages of mostly rules.
> 
> For me, a reasonable definition of "not as rules heavy" would involve having _noticeably_ fewer rules.




There are not as many rules in 5e as 3e.  Even with the same number of pages, there are fewer different categories of rules.  Heck, just compare the combat sections if you want to see what I mean.  With 5e, the fewer rules in general have a lot more descriptiveness attached to them, which gives that much greater chance that there will be different interpretations of what they mean.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 23, 2018)

Morrus said:


> 5E is a light-mid system. Indeed, Mearls describes it above as a storytelling system (which I think in general terminology implies it’s a bit lighter than it is). 3.x/Pathfinder is a mid-heavy system, Hero is a heavy system. Of all the things 5E is, it’s not a heavy system.
> 
> That’s why it’s so popular with streamers. I’ve spoken to loads of streamers who switched from Pathfinder to 5E because it’s a light system, which is much easier to run for a show.




On the relative scale to other editions of D&D, it is pretty middling in complexity. To the average personon the street, even a board game literate one, it is going to seem rather heavy in my experience.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 23, 2018)

*Mearls On D&amp;D's Design Premises/Goals*



Parmandur said:


> On the relative scale to other editions of D&D, it is pretty middling in complexity. To the average personon the street, even a board game literate one, it is going to seem rather heavy in my experience.




The ‘average person on the street’ would find all RPGs heavy. Compared to other RPGs, 5E is mid-light. And it’s waaaaay lighter than a lot of boardgames.

Not sure what “in my experience” means. Are you saying you’ve surveyed average people in the street and asked them to rate the heaviness of 5E compared to other tabletop RPGs? That’s awfully industrious of you!


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 23, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> 3 and 3.5 had 12 core rulebooks and about 60 WoTC published supplemental works.
> 4 had 8 core rulebooks and about 26 WoTC published supplemental works.
> 5 has three official core rulebooks and 8 supplemental rulebooks.
> 
> ...




The core books are what you need to run the game.  In all three of those editions(along with 1e and 2e), only the PHB, DMG and MM were core.  Even with books like PHBII, MMII-VII(I think), Essentials, etc., those are not core books.  They existed as supplements to the game if you bought them.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 23, 2018)

Eric V said:


> I _never _said the designers were lazy people, no matter what you and your ilk try to frame it as.  They might work very hard in a great many areas (not that you or I would know), but some of the design in the game is lazy, in that it either defaults to a much older edition's framework, or remains ambiguous with few good examples of how to run it for the DM.  That's lazy design.




I very much agree. There are several places, especially in the PHB, where the designers just punt on things. For instance, buying and selling magic items or making items. Heck, much of anything with the game economy. I mean, what do PCs do with the treasure they collect, anyway? WotC just skipped it and offered excuses about why they were skipping it. They didn't provide all that much guidance in the PHB about setting DCs or how skills work. While there are things like that in the DMG even those are kind of sketchy and, of course, many players are likely to only have the PHB. Regardless, one would presume that the natural place to put examples of how skills work would be where the skills are described. 

So... lazy here really refers to the fact that the designers decided to blow off parts of the game that nearly any reasonable person would expect to be addressed to some degree. They've filled some of this a bit later on, but even so it's sketchy and highly focused on fluff. I totally get why they don't want to make hard-and-fast rules that RAW lawyers interpret as a property right and I also would understand if they decided to mark certain systems as "not for AL" but doing nothing just leaves a lot of things unanswered. 

Now I get that 5E was supposed to be less rules-heavy than 3.X and 4E, but I find it a bit... too convenient that the parts of the system the designers didn't want to deal with, strategically, got left up to the DM. So my guess was that there was some strategic laziness there. Still, why do I pay a game designer? Oh? To spend time on Twitch. (Actually I don't spend time on Twitch but they sure seem to.)


----------



## Oofta (Sep 23, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> I'm pretty sure I did.
> 
> I mean, WotC paid me to, so if, like, I forgot to, you'd really be helping me out if you said I said it.




Well, that does explain it.  My eyes glaze over whenever I see one of your posts so I must have missed it.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 23, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I very much agree. There are several places, especially in the PHB, where the designers just punt on things. For instance, buying and selling magic items or making items. Heck, much of anything with the game economy. I mean, what do PCs do with the treasure they collect, anyway? They just skipped it and offered excuses about why they were skipping it. They didn't provide all that much guidance in the PHB about setting DCs or how skills work. While there are things like that in the DMG even those are kind of sketchy and, of course, many players are likely to only have the PHB. Regardless, one would presume that the natural place to put examples of how skills work would be where the skills are described.
> 
> So... lazy here really refers to the fact that the designers decided to blow off parts of the game that nearly any reasonable person would expect to be addressed to some degree. They've filled some of this a bit later on, but even so it's sketchy and highly focused on fluff. I totally get why they don't want to make hard-and-fast rules that RAW lawyers interpret as a property right and I also would understand if they decided to mark certain systems as "not for AL" but doing nothing just leaves a lot of things unanswered.
> 
> Now I get that 5E was supposed to be less rules-heavy than 3.X and 4E, but I find it a bit... convenient that the parts of the system the designers didn't want to deal with at all, strategically, got left up to the DM. So my guess was that there was some strategic laziness there. Still, why do I pay a game designer? Oh? To spend time on Twitch.




Again, I don't agree that it's lazy design to leave it open.  It's just a different design philosophy.  Let's take the magic items example you list above.  It took me all of 30 seconds to throw out the price list for magic items in 3e.  It was too cheap most of the time, and too expensive some of the time.  I found that I have to come up with my own prices that varied depending on circumstances.  As for item creation, 3e took a process that was imaginative and fun and made it a pedestrian experience.  To me, magic, including creation of items, should be a fantastic process.  The idea of 3e that you can just plunk down X gold pieces, spend some experience, and cobble together a holy avenger in the back of the wagon while you traveled to the next city(assuming you'd never been there before) is just....::  I had to change the creation process as well.  

My personal preference is for somewhat more in the way of rules, feats, classes, paths, etc. than we've seen so far, but not nearly as much as what we saw in 3e(my favorite edition so far) and 4e(my least favorite edition so far).


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 23, 2018)

Morrus said:


> The ‘average person on the street’ would find all RPGs heavy. Compared to other RPGs, 5E is mid-light. And it’s waaaaay lighter than a lot of boardgames.
> 
> Not sure what “in my experience” means. Are you saying you’ve surveyed average people in the street and asked them to rate the heaviness of 5E compared to other tabletop RPGs? That’s awfully industrious of you!




Most of the people I know who play started with 5E: they tend to see it as complex and involved (though rewarding).


----------



## Morrus (Sep 23, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Most of the people I know who play started with 5E: they tend to see it as complex and involved (though rewarding).




As I said, anybody new to RPGs will find any RPG to be complex. People without a point of comparison aren't useful for measuring for how complex a specific RPG is in the continuum of RPGs. 

Sure, it's complex compared to the card game SNAP or hide-and-seek. It's simple compared to the HERO system or EVE Online. We're talking about RPGs, though, where it's light-to-middling.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 23, 2018)

Eric V said:


> Shove your award, Oofta.
> 
> I _never _said the designers were lazy people, no matter what you and your ilk try to frame it as.  They might work very hard in a great many areas (not that you or I would know), but some of the design in the game is lazy, in that it either defaults to a much older edition's framework, or remains ambiguous with few good examples of how to run it for the DM.  That's lazy design.
> 
> ...




"Me and my ilk?"  Good grief.  Get over yourself.  If I say that everything Bob says is a lie, I'm calling Bob a liar.

But seriously.  I don't think 5E is perfect.  But saying design decisions are lazy because you disagree with them is just ... well ... lazy.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 23, 2018)

Eric V said:


> Shove your award, Oofta.






Oofta said:


> "Me and my ilk?"  Good grief.  Get over yourself.




I think it's best that you two don't respond to each other any further, please.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 24, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> It is more elegant, certainly, but...it has a significant number of rules, and most people are going to see it as complex and even a little bit intimidating. I've had to help new people make characters a few times, and they think 5E is pretty heavy and complex. In D&D terms it is light, but for the average person it is very involved.




We have different experiences then.

I'm the only hobby gamer at my table. One person I introduced it to started up their own table after playing a few times.

People I don't know through gaming have either played or have other friends who play.

The millions of new players is substantial evidence for it being a gateway game that new people find easy to pick up.

And by non-hobby gamer, they still play boardgames at boardgame cafes. But they don't attend boardgame meet up groups where people play heavier strategy games. I have seen people go from Settlers of Catan, Ticket to Ride, etc. easily enough to D&D. So not your average person, they do still need to enjoy games and fantasy.


----------



## Eric V (Sep 24, 2018)

Oofta said:


> "Me and my ilk?"  Good grief.  Get over yourself.  If I say that everything Bob says is a lie, I'm calling Bob a liar.
> 
> But seriously.  I don't think 5E is perfect.  But saying design decisions are lazy because you disagree with them is just ... well ... lazy.




1) "Ilk" is a perfectly good term to use in this case.

2) "If I say that everything Bob says is a lie, I'm calling Bob a liar." WTF does this have to do with anything?  Who said anything remotely like it?

3) I am not saying design decisions are lazy because I disagree with them.  No idea how you got that, but then, when 5e gets criticized, that's how the narrative seems to go...hence, the term "ilk."  If you're just going to put words in my mouth, maybe don't respond instead?

I also play 13th Age, and that game has things left to the GM as well, but in that case, it's _not _lazy design, because they outline the reasons, give tons of examples of how it might work, and it stays consistent within the game they've made.  Worth noting, the creators weren't afraid to innovate, either.

EDIT: Sorry Morrus, this was being written as you added your response to us.


----------



## oreofox (Sep 24, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> The core books are what you need to run the game.  In all three of those editions(along with 1e and 2e), only the PHB, DMG and MM were core.  Even with books like PHBII, MMII-VII(I think), Essentials, etc., those are not core books.  They existed as supplements to the game if you bought them.




Technically, according the WotC, ALL 4th edition books are core. I believe that was one of the things they went for when it came to that edition. I could be wrong, as I was not a fan of that edition in the slightest.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 24, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> We have different experiences then.
> 
> I'm the only hobby gamer at my table. One person I introduced it to started up their own table after playing a few times.
> 
> ...




No, that also natches my experience. It is very easy for people to get into...but they don't ever tend to think of it as a "light" game.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 24, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> No, that also natches my experience. It is very easy for people to get into...but they don't ever tend to think of it as a "light" game.




To me, "very easy to get into" is basically the definition of a light game.

I think this goes back to needing to define exactly what we mean.

We can point to many things and say it is heavy...but how easy is it to pick up and play? And how light is it in actual play? 

The atmosphere at the table is much more like a social game like Codenames than it is a strategy game in my experience. When I play hobby boardgames we spend a good deal of the time concentrating on the game and don't talk to each other much about non-game things during play. In D&D we get off on all sorts of tangents and people come up with all sorts of ways to be creative. Even speaking in the game is light. Compare the social interaction in D&D to discussing a trade of resources in a board game.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 24, 2018)

oreofox said:


> Technically, according the WotC, ALL 4th edition books are core. I believe that was one of the things they went for when it came to that edition. I could be wrong, as I was not a fan of that edition in the slightest.




Pick better, apolitical metaphors, please.  Core means center.  If everything is core, nothing is core since you can't have everything be at the center.  It's quite literally impossible for everything to be core.  What they seem to have meant was that all of their books were official, which is only a slightly less ludicrous statement since that applies to every official book from 1e to 5e, with the exception of the Unearthed Arcana books.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 24, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Again, I don't agree that it's lazy design to leave it open.  It's just a different design philosophy. <snip>
> 
> My personal preference is for somewhat more in the way of rules, feats, classes, paths, etc. than we've seen so far, but not nearly as much as what we saw in 3e(my favorite edition so far) and 4e(my least favorite edition so far).




We are not in substantial disagreement. I don't want an obsessive level of detail either. I like that things were left more open too. The issue is that there are numerous areas where "left open" seemed to mean "essentially nothing." The economy is an example. I 100% agree I wouldn't want a return of either the 3E or original 4E item creation systems, which were problematic for a number of reasons in different ways. However, the alternative was... first nothing and then a few pages here and there. They didn't provide information on things like spell research. _XtGE_ addressed some of this but in many cases the way they went about it was to put an amount of time that would be relatively unrealistic in most campaigns.


----------



## Bawylie (Sep 24, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Um...no?
> 
> No.
> 
> Youd have ave to give me warlord and artificer as fully playtested phb classes to get me on board with that.




I would be happy to give you both of those things.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 24, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> The core books are what you need to run the game.  In all three of those editions(along with 1e and 2e), only the PHB, DMG and MM were core.  Even with books like PHBII, MMII-VII(I think), Essentials, etc., those are not core books.  They existed as supplements to the game if you bought them.




I think if you use google to find a list of core and supplemental rulebooks and find the appropriate wiki articles supported by the text that WoTC used to sell them, you'll see where I got my numbers.

The point to be made is there are significantly fewer rules in 5e than there were in other editions.  The logic of the person I replied to was significantly flawed.  You at least, make sense.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 24, 2018)

clearstream said:


> It is not justified to count supplements for several reasons. The obvious reason is that we cannot say today how many 5th edition will go on to have, whereas there likely will not be any further WotC 3rd edition supplements. Then of course, supplements are not essential to play: they're optional. For a group that doesn't include them they add zero rules weight. Less obvious perhaps is the simple implausibility of the position. Hundreds of pages of _core rules_ seems heavy weight to me. A lighter weight system might be something like Savage Worlds... which, of course, has a great many supplements.
> 
> That as may be, there are two kinds of argument being made here. The first is that both 3rd and 5th edition are heavy weight rule systems. The second is that they are of roughly even weight as such. Page count and rules density on a page is an indicator, but cannot be conclusive about weightiness in this sense. For instance, one could envision light weight rules, expressed verbosely. The two arguments can be sustained separately or together. In making this judgement, one has to think about where 5th edition D&D sits among contemporary RPGs. Then there is the question of, who for? RPGs that posters here might agree are light weight, could seem heavy weight to someone unfamiliar with the kind of manuals these boards address.
> 
> I think the question of weightiness is rightly a relative one - is 5th edition D&D relatively heavier than Savage Worlds? - and is rightly measured from the perspective of the community of hobbyists who are familiar with them. Having DM'd 3rd edition and 5th edition, running weekly sessions for years, I find that the systems of equal weight. That's the bottom line, for me. I've played both for hundreds of hours, and in play, 5th edition is as heavy as 3rd edition. I've played Savage Worlds, and it seems lighter than both to me.





There aren't as many rules in a game with one book as there are in a game with 20.   That's pretty much irrefutable.

The argument about core v. supplements is a herring.  There are rules in the supplements and they are part of the game.  Especially true when everything published in 4ed was defined as core by the publisher.

If you don't like the answer, perhaps think about forming your arguments properly?  I'm not big on goal post moving or conversational deflection.

Be well
KB


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 24, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Which was as absurdly wrong as Bush declaring victory in Iraq.  Core means center.  If everything is core, nothing is core since you can't have everything be at the center.  It's quite literally impossible for everything to be core.  What they seem to have meant was that all of their books were official, which is only a slightly less ludicrous statement since that applies to every official book from 1e to 5e, with the exception of the Unearthed Arcana books.




Come on, ‘person. You know what core means, don’t be obtuse. 

In 5e, only the “core 3” are core. Everything else is *offcially optional*. 

In 4e, everything, including DDI exclusives, is just as “core” as the PHB, and things are only optional by Rule 0 houseruling.

its used to indicate what is an assumed part of the game, and what is “extra”. 

Pretending not to know how a word is being used in a discussion isn’t helpful.  



Bawylie said:


> I would be happy to give you both of those things.




I mean, great, but wotc isn’t.


----------



## Jester David (Sep 24, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> No, it doesn’t assume that at all. It assumes that most players want mechanical distinction. Are you going to next argue that most players would be perfectly happy only having 3 options with no mechanical distinction after choosing between those 3 options, and little distinction between the 3?



A ribbon ability is very much still a mechanical ability. It's just not one that has an impact on combat, and thus can be added without "breaking" the game. 

Choosing between ribbon abilities may not be popular, because that's a lot of work for nothing. But gaining a free non-combat power that lets you play the character you envision would suit most players just fine. The player says what they want their character to do and what they envision the character doing, and the DM proposes a small flavourful bonus. That should satisfy the majority of players/ 

After all, a large percentage of players don't give a flying eff about their "build" or choosing from a long list of options. Not every player is a power gamer, and not every player is character builder who spends their time between games picking between powers and choosing from a long list of options. 
That kind of playing very much _is_ a minority. Most players do just want to show up and play and not have to do "homework" between sessions where they level up.



doctorbadwolf said:


> also, the fact that people enjoyed 1e doesn’t mean that 5e isn’t better. That should be blindingly obvious.



No, but at the risk of_ argumentum ad populum_, the fact that 5e is ridiculously more popular than the customisation heavy 3e and 4e is a pretty good sign that player base does not care about that stuff. 



doctorbadwolf said:


> its not blindingly obvious, because it isn’t even true.



Are you *seriously *saying characters with feats are exactly the same power level as characters with feats?! That being able to choose feats doesn't make characters better?



doctorbadwolf said:


> In fact, it isn’t even true to say that there isn’t any such thing in 5e, outside of feats.



But there ARE feats. Feats ARE the decision point that allow customisation. That there's not a customisation point beyond feats is irrelevant. 
Yeah, there aren't as many feats as in 3e/4e. We could use a few more: they haven't really expanded into non-racial feats in any expansions. But feats are very much are designed to serve as _the _customisation point of characters and the place to insert new unique mechanics beyond subclasses.  



doctorbadwolf said:


> Warlocks, Battle Masters, Hunter Rangers, 4 Elements Monks, Sorcerers, are all examples. The last two aren’t as popular, but that is quite clearly because their resources are too limited and they feel frustrating to play as a result, even for new players that know jack about power levels.



And the fact they haven't added more subclasses with additional decision points, like different Battle Master or Way of Four Elements tells you what?



doctorbadwolf said:


> It can be done that way, but it’s better for the player that wants to summon and consort with spirits to have an option that _actually does that. _



There very much IS a feature that allows players to "consort with spirits". It's the totem barbarian's 3rd level feature Spirit Seeker. That lets them cast _beast sense _and _speak with animals_ as rituals. Because they're communing with nature. So, if that option counts as "speaking with spirits" why not just reflavour the Ritual Caster feat and say that's how the mechanic is working? 
Why do we need and a new option that does the exact same thing but with a slightly different name and description? 

Just take Ritual Caster and/or Magic Initiate and reflavour. Gain the _mage hand _cantrip and _unseen servant_ ritual and reflavour them as spirits.
Or just make a new feat that replicates those mechanical effects but is called Spirits Talker. Because it's effectively replicating an existing feat it's automatically balanced. 
This isn't rocket surgery. 



doctorbadwolf said:


> As for need, again, we don’t “need” a game to exist. Need isn’t relevant except as a shorthand for a strong desire amongst the player base to have it.



Nothing is gained by having dozens or hundreds of subclasses. But that adds confusion and bloat to the game. Bloat and the related power creep have very much killed 3e and 4e. We really don't need that again. 
If a player really wants something niche or specific, they can make it themselves or turn to the DMsGuild. That's what they're for. The onus isn't on WotC to support every single conceivable option or character concept. Because that's impossible.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 24, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> In 4e, everything, including DDI exclusives, is just as “core” as the PHB, and things are only optional by Rule 0 houseruling.
> 
> its used to indicate what is an assumed part of the game, and what is “extra”.




Maybe I am behind the times, but I don't think *everything* can be assumed part of a 4e game at any particular person's house.  That may hold in some form of organized play, but I think that's rather too expansive an expectation for home games.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 24, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Come on, ‘person. You know what core means, don’t be obtuse.
> 
> In 5e, only the “core 3” are core. Everything else is *offcially optional*.
> 
> ...




There was no extra obligation for the DM to use anything beyond the core 3 in 4e.  He had the exact same obligation to use additional material, and the exact same authority to refuse it as he had in every other edition.  Calling everything "core" in 4e was ridiculous and they realized that before 5e came out.  Heck, even 4e didn't believe what the designers said.  It has several books listed as supplements and not core like it did with the various PHBs.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 24, 2018)

Bawylie said:


> You could definitely cut about half the spells, easily.
> 
> But you don’t need 12 pages to explain how to set DCs.
> 
> Should probably cut half the spells anyway though.



I am pretty sure cutting half rhe spells would tick off quite a few spell caster players, since its rather nonsensical to assume they would only cut the ones nobody uses.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Y'all seem to be calling the designers lazy



Describing writing or design as lazy isn't a description of the writer or designer.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 24, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I very much agree. There are several places, especially in the PHB, where the designers just punt on things. For instance, buying and selling magic items or making items. Heck, much of anything with the game economy. I mean, what do PCs do with the treasure they collect, anyway? WotC just skipped it and offered excuses about why they were skipping it. They didn't provide all that much guidance in the PHB about setting DCs or how skills work. While there are things like that in the DMG even those are kind of sketchy and, of course, many players are likely to only have the PHB. Regardless, one would presume that the natural place to put examples of how skills work would be where the skills are described.
> 
> So... lazy here really refers to the fact that the designers decided to blow off parts of the game that nearly any reasonable person would expect to be addressed to some degree. They've filled some of this a bit later on, but even so it's sketchy and highly focused on fluff. I totally get why they don't want to make hard-and-fast rules that RAW lawyers interpret as a property right and I also would understand if they decided to mark certain systems as "not for AL" but doing nothing just leaves a lot of things unanswered.
> 
> Now I get that 5E was supposed to be less rules-heavy than 3.X and 4E, but I find it a bit... too convenient that the parts of the system the designers didn't want to deal with, strategically, got left up to the DM. So my guess was that there was some strategic laziness there. Still, why do I pay a game designer? Oh? To spend time on Twitch. (Actually I don't spend time on Twitch but they sure seem to.)



How skills work is in the PHB. Among those bits of info is the GM sets DC and iirc baseline DC easy medium hard etc.

The DMG covered more for GMs about assigning dc.

That seems focused and deliberate to me, not what i would call lazy.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Describing writing or design as lazy isn't a description of the writer or designer.




Saying someone is lying is the same as calling them a liar as far as I'm concerned.

What you call lazy (a loaded, insulting term) is a design decision.  You can disagree with the decision without insulting the devs.

I for one prefer the style, stealth rules and all.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 24, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I very much agree. There are several places, especially in the PHB, where the designers just punt on things. For instance, buying and selling magic items or making items. Heck, much of anything with the game economy. I mean, what do PCs do with the treasure they collect, anyway? WotC just skipped it and offered excuses about why they were skipping it. They didn't provide all that much guidance in the PHB about setting DCs or how skills work. While there are things like that in the DMG even those are kind of sketchy and, of course, many players are likely to only have the PHB. Regardless, one would presume that the natural place to put examples of how skills work would be where the skills are described.
> 
> So... lazy here really refers to the fact that the designers decided to blow off parts of the game that nearly any reasonable person would expect to be addressed to some degree. They've filled some of this a bit later on, but even so it's sketchy and highly focused on fluff. I totally get why they don't want to make hard-and-fast rules that RAW lawyers interpret as a property right and I also would understand if they decided to mark certain systems as "not for AL" but doing nothing just leaves a lot of things unanswered.
> 
> Now I get that 5E was supposed to be less rules-heavy than 3.X and 4E, but I find it a bit... too convenient that the parts of the system the designers didn't want to deal with, strategically, got left up to the DM. So my guess was that there was some strategic laziness there. Still, why do I pay a game designer? Oh? To spend time on Twitch. (Actually I don't spend time on Twitch but they sure seem to.)



On the other point... Why do there need to be rules on what you spend treasure on in the PHB? Isnt that a choice very much specific to settings? To character desires? 

Havent had any problems with players characters spending treasure in my games so far.


----------



## cbwjm (Sep 24, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Which was as absurdly wrong as Bush declaring victory in Iraq.  Core means center.  If everything is core, nothing is core since you can't have everything be at the center.  It's quite literally impossible for everything to be core.  What they seem to have meant was that all of their books were official, which is only a slightly less ludicrous statement since that applies to every official book from 1e to 5e, with the exception of the Unearthed Arcana books.




The additional player's handbooks, dungeon masters guides, and monster manuals were all part of the core rules of 4e, it says so right on the cover. 

Supplements were things like the books focusing on arcane or martial power.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 24, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> The additional player's handbooks, dungeon masters guides, and monster manuals were all part of the core rules of 4e, it says so right on the cover.
> 
> Supplements were things like the books focusing on arcane or martial power.



Which just proves that their claim that *everything* is core wasn't true.  In any case, there was no extra obligation for the DM to include material from any of the additional "core" books than he had for one of the supplements. He had the right to refuse the use of both equally.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Saying someone is lying is the same as calling them a liar as far as I'm concerned.



But saying that someone's words are false is not calling them a liar.

No one in this thread has said that the designers are lazy. Some have said that their design is lazy. I don't have a strong view on that, except when it comes to the role of money in the game: the game maintains the conceit of earlier versions of D&D that a significant goal of play is for the PCs to collect money, but unlike those earlier versions the rules don't provide anything much for that money to be spent on.

I think much D&D writing is lazy - Moldvay Basic is a noticable exception. Original 4e made it fairly easy to avoid the bad writing because I could generally work out how the game plays by reading the mechanical elements, which were often helpfully boxed. Essentials has the same overblown writing problem as I see in 5e material.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 24, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> But to your point of 12 to 15 more pages... Which 12 to 15 pages should be cut for the added skills section?
> 
> Should feats and multi-classing be cut by those pages? How many spells gone is that if we cut there?




That's rhetorical hostage taking. 

Just looking in the the PHB, there are several things that could easily have been "for the web":

-The character sheet in the book (3 pages)
-The final page that says "what's next?"
-Appendix C: The planes. (4 pages)
-Appendix E: The list of novels and such (1 page)

Right there without any rewriting or adding to the total length of the book I got 9 pages! I guarantee I could find another 11 to free up 20 pages. 

To put the editing in perspective, a manuscript I wrote for a book (technical, not game) in press came in at 1000 words over the 10000 word limit. That's 10% of the content. I thought I was fine as I had 10000 words of actual content but the editor told me that even their meta-data counted, among other things, so I had to cut! Weird... OK. I cut 1000 words from my allotment, though. In the PHB, this would be something like 30 pages. 

I also looked at what they have in the PHB and it's quite thin. They have verbal descriptors attached to DCs but very few concrete examples of what different tasks are mapped to these and relatively few suggested modifiers or situations that would make them harder or easier, or suggestions about skills that might synergize or substitute. Again, I wouldn't want them to mandate these down to a 3.X level of detail, but a few pages with some tables of suggested tasks with DCs attached would be pretty useful to have in the book. I'm sure it'd be very helpful to noobs to have some "worked examples." Heck, put _that_ on the web if you must save Appendix C.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 24, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> In 5e, only the “core 3” are core. Everything else is *offcially optional*.
> 
> In 4e, everything, including DDI exclusives, is just as “core” as the PHB, and things are only optional by Rule 0 houseruling.
> 
> its used to indicate what is an assumed part of the game, and what is “extra”.



What does this mean? I can see that it has some relevance in organised play, but otherwise it seems meaningless to me.

In the absence of an organised leagure of some sort, no one can force me to use an option or not use an option.

Here's a concrete example: in my 4e games we have used material from PHB3, namely some psionic classes, some hybrids, and feat powers. Does that mean that shardminds are acceptd in my game? Who knows - no one has ever wanted to play one, and so it has never come up. Likewise for seekers. That said, if someone wanted to play one, unless there was good reason to think it was broken (certainly not the case for seekers, as I understand it!) would there be any reason to say no?


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 24, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> On the other point... Why do there need to be rules on what you spend treasure on in the PHB? Isnt that a choice very much specific to settings? To character desires?
> 
> Havent had any problems with players characters spending treasure in my games so far.




The issue is that there's very little for them to spend it on. They can't buy magic items (as per the rulebook, anyway) and once they have whatever mundane items they need, there's little or nothing _to_ buy.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> LYING is to LIAR as LAZY DESIGN is to LAZY DESIGNER.



No, unless by "lazy designer" you mean "someone who produces lazy design". But not if "lazy designer" means _slothful designer_. Which is what others, and perhaps you, seem to be implying.

If I describe someone's musical composition as boring, that doesn't mean I'm saying that the composer is a boring person. If I describe an author's writing as lazy (eg because it relies on cliches), I'm not making any judgement on the character of the author - for all I know they worked day and night to produce those cliches! Enid Blyton produced 1000s of words per day, but that doesn't exempt her writing from being vulnerable to description as lazy.

The general point is that "lazy" is a term of criticism, and that criticising a work isn't normally expressing a judgement about the character, morals etc of the person who produced the work.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 24, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> That's rhetorical hostage taking.
> 
> Just looking in the the PHB, there are several things that could easily have been "for the web":
> 
> ...



Sorry but this is exactly the point i was making... Everytime somebody thinks judt add more pages if cuts come up they asdume what will be cut is stuff **they** thinks are not needed.

If you look at industry standard - including character sheet, source material suggestion (books, movies tv) and a bit about upcoming products in the line are all ubiquitous. Thats not by accident. 

As for the planes stuff... Simce rhe beginning book is meant to cover a lot of different levels, campaigns etc that seems maybe something some folks might not see as expendable.

And as for how you woulda shoulda coulda done dcs differently, again their specific design goal was for gms to set dcs and gave them basic guidelines in the phb and more in the dmg.

In my ecperience trying that "assign it" guidelines tends to get hurt by trying to provide a lot of examples - as the examples get treated as "the rule" not "examples of some cases the rules can produce."

My bet is, they had seen that too.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 24, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 24, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 24, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> But again, this is a debate about the various pejorative phrases people are coming up with for design choice they disagree with. It's unfortunate that you are expending so much mental energy, to so little effort, defending those pejorative phrases.




In many ways a game rulebook is very much analogous to a technical textbook. I have reviewed many in my professional life and read through hundreds more, mostly in mathematics and statistics. (I was the book review editor of a statistics journal for several years.) There are two things that are rather challenging for writers to provide: Thoroughly worked examples and good problems. These are difficult and thus authors frequently skip them and provide either superficial examples or skip writing problems.
These are the things that make a book valuable to a reader. A math book writer who doesn't provide those has been lazy in their writing, for whatever reason---they may have had too many obligations, for instance. If it was editors putting space limitations, then they chose to include too much theory and not enough illustration and application. I don't think I used the term "lazy" in my reviews, but everyone who read one where it said "Unfortunately the author did not provide exercises" knew exactly what I meant.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 24, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> That's rhetorical hostage taking.
> 
> Just looking in the the PHB, there are several things that could easily have been "for the web":
> 
> ...




Much of that can't be cut.  The character sheet has to stay, because many new players aren't going to know to go to the web and get it from the website.  A character sheet is a necessary inclusion for the new players.  The planes are there to teach the players a bit about them.  They shouldn't have to go to the DM's book to learn a bit about the planes that exist for their PCs.  The list of authors has been included in prior PHBs and is a nod back to that.  The final page?  Okay.  I can see that one being cut.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 24, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> What does this mean? I can see that it has some relevance in organised play, but otherwise it seems meaningless to me.
> 
> In the absence of an organised leagure of some sort, no one can force me to use an option or not use an option.
> 
> Here's a concrete example: in my 4e games we have used material from PHB3, namely some psionic classes, some hybrids, and feat powers. Does that mean that shardminds are acceptd in my game? Who knows - no one has ever wanted to play one, and so it has never come up. Likewise for seekers. That said, if someone wanted to play one, unless there was good reason to think it was broken (certainly not the case for seekers, as I understand it!) would there be any reason to say no?



I’m really not interested in rehashing this topic that was bashed out extensively when 4e was still the current edition, but I’ll to try to explain the significance as best I can in brief. 

In 4e, a player is assumed to have access to the full scope of options published for 4e, excepting stuff like dragonmarks and options that don’t exist in a given world.
 The devs worked hard to keep the game balanced so that this expectation could remain reasonable, and they succeeded. Even the “lemons” were only bad in optimized games, next to the best builds, and the “best” builds still weren’t broken. 
The DM or group can opt out, but the different baseline assumption changes player perception of their own agency during character creation, and is something that was very important to many 4e groups. 

In every other edition, only the core options in the PHB are assumed to be available unless specified otherwise. In 5e, even some PHB options are more “opt-in”. 

In the end, it’s a matter of what players can generally assume is part of the game unless the DM tells them otherwise. 




Umbran said:


> Maybe I am behind the times, but I don't think *everything* can be assumed part of a 4e game at any particular person's house.  That may hold in some form of organized play, but I think that's rather too expansive an expectation for home games.




Why? I’ve never seen a group IRL go by the Core+1 guideline, and every group I saw in 4e had all or nearly all options “on” in most games. (Again, excepting things that are very setting specific, or that contradict house rules, like feat taxes in games that homebrew the bonuses into the assumed math, etc)


----------



## Bawylie (Sep 24, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> I am pretty sure cutting half rhe spells would tick off quite a few spell caster players, since its rather nonsensical to assume they would only cut the ones nobody uses.




We used to play this game with way way fewer spells.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 24, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> And in many ways, it is very much not.




I'd say it's very strongly like a technical textbook. The purpose of a rulebook is to lay out what things are, how to run the game, and how things are connected to each other. It's certainly not like, say, narrative fiction or even an adventure module. 




> How is a raven like a writing desk?




No clue.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 24, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I'd say it's very strongly like a technical textbook. The purpose of a rulebook is to lay out what things are, how to run the game, and how things are connected to each other. It's certainly not like, say, narrative fiction or even an adventure module.




D&D is closer to a book on art, than it is a technical textbook.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 24, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Much of that can't be cut.  The character sheet has to stay, because many new players aren't going to know to go to the web and get it from the website. A character sheet is a necessary inclusion for the new players.




It was 2014... See our website for more information, including our convenient fill-in PDF character sheet at <link given>.




> The planes are there to teach the players a bit about them.  They shouldn't have to go to the DM's book to learn a bit about the planes that exist for their PCs.  The list of authors has been included in prior PHBs and is a nod back to that.  The final page?  Okay.  I can see that one being cut.




They put the better formatted spell tables on the web, but the book would be a heck of a lot better if the spells had little key letters next to them (R for ritual, C for concentration, etc.). They could easily put "Inspiring reading" on the web too. Lots of things that are actually useful in play and would make the PHB much more useful as a reference tool are simply not in the book. 

Like I said, this book came out in 2014, not 1994.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 24, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> D&D is closer to a book on art, than it is a technical textbook.




Agreed that it's not a technical subject like math, but it's not a coffee table book on art appreciation but instead a book on doing things. I've got books on music composition. Usually they have worked examples, study pieces, etc. And indeed many other parts of the PHB do indeed have worked out examples.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 24, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Not to rehash a debate that we've had in countless threads, but strictly speaking, you can't say "there's little or nothing to buy."
> 
> Because that's balderdash. There is, quite literally, an entire WORLD of stuff to buy.




Not really, if you look at what's on offer. 



> If your point is cabined more carefully to say, "There is almost no support for players purchasing things that directly allow them to go kill more stuff and accumulate more stuff to kill more stuff, as existed in previous editions, or, in the alternative, allowed for a 'win condition' of a stronghold as existed in early D&D" then yes, I would agree with you.
> 
> But .... I don't find that to be a lack. YMMV, and, of course, this is an evergreen debate.




It is an evergreen debate, but I think you're going to a bit of a reductio ad absurdum there. Yes, there is a world of stuff to buy but it's a game about people going out and doing stuff so the things they'd want to buy would, likely, help them do the things they're out to do or otherwise further their goals as opposed to, say, an ox to plow a field. The "win condition" of establishing a stronghold was actually a pretty good non-murder hobo type thing to save your pennies for.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 24, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> In many ways a game rulebook is very much analogous to a technical textbook. I have reviewed many in my professional life and read through hundreds more, mostly in mathematics and statistics. (I was the book review editor of a statistics journal for several years.) There are two things that are rather challenging for writers to provide: Thoroughly worked examples and good problems. These are difficult and thus authors frequently skip them and provide either superficial examples or skip writing problems.
> These are the things that make a book valuable to a reader. A math book writer who doesn't provide those has been lazy in their writing, for whatever reason---they may have had too many obligations, for instance. If it was editors putting space limitations, then they chose to include too much theory and not enough illustration and application. I don't think I used the term "lazy" in my reviews, but everyone who read one where it said "Unfortunately the author did not provide exercises" knew exactly what I meant.



Some people like their rulebooks being like textbooks, some like rules like computer code but clearly WOTC in 5e went specifically for a non-textbook, non-computer code style. They are far from alone in this choice.

I expect PF2 to be more in line with the style you seem to think rulebooks for games should be.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

clearstream said:


> there are two kinds of argument being made here. The first is that both 3rd and 5th edition are heavy weight rule systems. The second is that they are of roughly even weight as such. Page count and rules density on a page is an indicator, but cannot be conclusive about weightiness in this sense. For instance, one could envision light weight rules, expressed verbosely. The two arguments can be sustained separately or together. In making this judgement, one has to think about where 5th edition D&D sits among contemporary RPGs. Then there is the question of, who for? RPGs that posters here might agree are light weight, could seem heavy weight to someone unfamiliar with the kind of manuals these boards address.
> 
> I think the question of weightiness is rightly a relative one - is 5th edition D&D relatively heavier than Savage Worlds? - and is rightly measured from the perspective of the community of hobbyists who are familiar with them. Having DM'd 3rd edition and 5th edition, running weekly sessions for years, I find that the systems of equal weight. That's the bottom line, for me. I've played both for hundreds of hours, and in play, 5th edition is as heavy as 3rd edition. I've played Savage Worlds, and it seems lighter than both to me.



5e doesn't seem remotely rules-light to me. It has intricate PC-building rules; and on the action resolution side it has extremely prescriptive rules for resolving two fields of endeavour (fighting, and using magic) while virtualluy no rules for resolving most other fields of endeavour. This feature of action resolution generates two sorts of rules-heaviness: (i) the combat and magic rules themselves, including the lists of equipment and (much longer) of spells; (ii) managing the difference between fields of endeavour - for instance, is an archery competition resolved by using the combat rules or the rules for ability checks? Or some interaction of them as is found in the rules for grabbing people in a fight?



ad_hoc said:


> What do we mean by heavy though?
> 
> D&D 5e is a gateway game. There are millions of new players, who aren't hobby gamers, who are playing it.
> 
> ...



I don't think this is an especially useful metric, personally. At least in Australia, chess is a "gateway game" - schools have chess clubs but not checkers clubs or backgammon clubs or ludo clubs or Chinese checkers clubs - but I don't think that chess could be called "light" compared to any of those other games.



Morrus said:


> The ‘average person on the street’ would find all RPGs heavy. Compared to other RPGs, 5E is mid-light.





Morrus said:


> 5E is a light-mid system. Indeed, Mearls describes it above as a storytelling system (which I think in general terminology implies it’s a bit lighter than it is).



What other RPGs are you comparing it to?

Here are some games that seem clearly "lighter" than 5e, in that it is easier to build a PC (fewer choices required, less understanding of mechanical minutiae needed to make those choices) and easier to resolve action declarations (less search-and-handling required, fewer special cases, and the like):

* Dungeon World;

* Basic Roleplaying;

* Classic Traveller (in principle; the actual editing of the books makes some of the rules hard to recover, but that can be remedied by a referee who is familiar with the system);

* Prince Valiant;

* Cthulhu Dark;

* HeroQuest revised​
Cortex+ Heroic is perhaps more borderline, but that I think also is lighter than 5e.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 24, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Some people like their rulebooks being like textbooks, some like rules like computer code but clearly WOTC in 5e went specifically for a non-textbook, non-computer code style. They are far from alone in this choice.
> 
> I expect PF2 to be more in line with the style you seem to think rulebooks for games should be.




Not at all. I have no desire to play PF. I want it turned 1-2 notches towards that style to improve the value of the book at the table, not 10 and turn it into a legal code.

A good technical textbook is actually very readable. It often has lots of text and explanation about what the concepts mean and how to apply them. Sadly, many textbooks are pretty bad and look like a giant list of meaningless equations.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> 5e doesn't seem remotely rules-light to me. It has intricate PC-building rules; and on the action resolution side it has extremely prescriptive rules for resolving two fields of endeavour (fighting, and using magic) while virtualluy no rules for resolving most other fields of endeavour. This feature of action resolution generates two sorts of rules-heaviness: (i) the combat and magic rules themselves, including the lists of equipment and (much longer) of spells; (ii) managing the difference between fields of endeavour - for instance, is an archery competition resolved by using the combat rules or the rules for ability checks? Or some interaction of them as is found in the rules for grabbing people in a fight?




VERY good expression of why I feel the skill system is under-developed.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 24, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> It was 2014... See our website for more information, including our convenient fill-in PDF character sheet at <link given>.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, if you believe that all those RPGs out there who put character sheets, inspiration sources etc all have it wrong about how useful those are as far as providing what will be seen as a worthwhile product to their audience, you may be in the minority of highly successful game publishers who left those out and were happy about it.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 24, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> It was 2014... See our website for more information, including our convenient fill-in PDF character sheet at <link given>.




And for people too poor to have a computer?


----------



## SkidAce (Sep 24, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> The issue is that there's very little for them to spend it on. They can't buy magic items (as per the rulebook, anyway) and once they have whatever mundane items they need, there's little or nothing _to_ buy.




If this was true, then why does the the DMG have this....



			
				DMG said:
			
		

> Buying and Selling
> Unless you decide your campaign works otherwise, most magic items are so rare that they aren’t available for purchase. Common items, such as a potion of healing, can be procured from an alchemist, herbalist, or spellcaster. Doing so is rarely as simple as walking into a shop and selecting an item from a shelf. The seller might ask for a service, rather than coin.
> 
> In a large city with an academy of magic or a major temple, buying and selling magic items might be possible, at your discretion. If your world includes a large number of adventurers engaged in retrieving ancient magic items, trade in these items might be more common. Even so, it’s likely to remain similar to the market for fine art in the real world, with invitation-only auctions and a tendency to attract thieves.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Well, that's an exceptionally lazy argument, because employing "lazy" to describe something you either don't like, or don't understand, is itself the height of laziness; its a synecdoche for bad criticism, employed only by the most slothful and dim-witted, who lack the capacity to fully engage with the work they are critiquing.
> 
> Not that I would make a moral judgment, of course. That would be ... lazy.



If you don't like "lazy" as a term of criticism, fine. That doesn't mean that using it, or even that calling my use of it lazy (in some sort of pragmatic contradiction), is making a moral judgement.

Googling "New Yorker lazy writing" gave me this. The New Yorker is happy to entertain "lazy witing" as a term of criticism, so I feel I'm in reasonable company.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 24, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> And for people too poor to have a computer?




Staples charges exactly the same to print from a PDF as it does to make photocopies. So does the public library.


----------



## SkidAce (Sep 24, 2018)

From Xanathar's....rules for buying magic items (i left out the tables)



> Buying a Magic Item
> Purchasing a magic item requires time and money to seek out and contact people willing to sell items. Even then, there is no guarantee a seller will have the items a character desires.
> 
> Resources. Finding magic items to purchase requires at least one workweek of effort and 100 gp in expenses. Spending more time and money increases your chance of finding a high-quality item.
> ...


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Describing writing or design as lazy isn't a description of the writer or designer.




Since writing has to be done by writers and design by designers, it is disingenuous to argue that your intention was to not cast aspersions on the creators in question. 

But I don't understand why everyone is so quick to pick up the gauntlet over this as if their wives have been insulted. 

If an editor calls out a writer over a section of writing and states that it is "bad writing" they are certainly saying that the writer did a bad job in this instance, but that does not mean they are saying the writer is a bad writer who always or even usually produces bad writing.

I love 5e. It brought me back into TTRPG. But there are areas I think could be improved. I disagree with many of the calls for changes or additions that I've read in this and other threads, but I'm not personally offended, much less offended on behalf of a designer, when other posters express criticisms. 

I find the discussion here about what constitutes lazy design to be very interesting, but the arguments over whether it is a polite term detract from this otherwise interesting discussion.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 24, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Not at all. I have no desire to play PF. I want it turned 1-2 notches towards that style to improve the value of the book at the table, not 10 and turn it into a legal code.
> 
> A good technical textbook is actually very readable. It often has lots of text and explanation about what the concepts mean and how to apply them. Sadly, many textbooks are pretty bad and look like a giant list of meaningless equations.



Well, what I can say from my experience only is that for easily the last 28 years the bigger more successful RPGs have been far more style towards coffee table than text books. Not saying there are not places for success with more text book style presentations but the top end takeovers have seemed to be more styled than that.

But hey, yeah, if what you say is true and that's the better mousetrap sweet spot, you might be making a million any day now. Just fill that niche.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> What other RPGs are you comparing it to?




He lists some in the sentence immediately after the quote.  Here's the next sentence which you cut out for some reason, before asking that question.




> 3.x/Pathfinder is a mid-heavy system, Hero is a heavy system. Of all the things 5E is, it’s not a heavy system


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 24, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Staples charges exactly the same to print from a PDF as it does to make photocopies. So does the public library.




What PDF?  They have the hardcover book only.  No computer.  No PDF.  And if you really expect people to travel to Staples or the library to see what a character sheet looks like, you don't know people.  The sheet needs to be in the PHB, which is why it is there.


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 24, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Just looking in the the PHB, there are several things that could easily have been "for the web":
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> ...




DON'T YOU DARE TOUCH Appendix E. Well, you can move it to another section (preferably "Appendix N"), but the suggested-reading list is a cherished tradition. It's not D&D without a reading list.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 24, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Well, what I can say from my experience only is that for easily the last 28 years the bigger more successful RPGs have been far more style towards coffee table than text books. Not saying there are not places for success with more text book style presentations but the top end takeovers have seemed to be more styled than that.




Um, wow. 

I mean, the chapter on combat is pretty nittanoid and detailed, and in general is pretty thorough. There are numerous other examples in the DMG of chapters that are thoroughly written. The chapter on skills is, by contrast, under-written. All I'm saying is moving the chapter on skills a bit in the direction of the chapter on combat. Not a lot, just a bit. 




> But hey, yeah, if what you say is true and that's the better mousetrap sweet spot, you might be making a million any day now. Just fill that niche.




Huh? I have a perfectly well established career with 0 desire to switch into the low pay and massive uncertainty of RPG design. That doesn't mean I can't make suggestions about how to make the game books better/clearer and more useful in play. I am 100% sure WotC doesn't much care what I think, though... but who knows.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> VERY good expression of why I feel the skill system is under-developed.



Thanks!

A follow-up comment: a _developed_ skill systems _doesn't have to be complex_. Here's an example (adapted from Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant, Cthulhu Dark and HeroWars/Quest):

The player states what his/her PC is doing and what s/he hopes to achieve thereby. The GM indicates what ability or skill is to be tested, and sets a DC. The player makes the check (d20 + appropriate modifiers) and if it equals or exceeds the DC the PC succeeds at what s/he is doig and thereby achieves what s/he hoped to. Otherwise the GM explains what went wrong in conception, execution, or intervening factors.​
That sort of approach can be adapted to RPGs that don't expressly include it. I use a version of it when GMing Classic Traveller. But it's harder to adapt to 5e because 5e has non-uniform PC build elements (attack bonus and attack rolls are a discrete system from saving throws are a distinct system from ability/skill checks; and then there are all the overrides, adjustments, etc that come from class abilities, feats, spells, etc). (Contrast, say, Classic Traveller where a PC is just a list of ability scores, skill ranks and equipment.)

The fact that such a simple yet complete resolution system _can't_ be straightforwardly ported into 5e counts as more evidence of its non-lightness, in my view.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 24, 2018)

MNblockhead said:


> DON'T YOU DARE TOUCH Appendix E. Well, you can move it to another section (preferably "Appendix N"), but the suggested-reading list is a cherished tradition. It's not D&D without a reading list.



Except those were usually in the DMG, at least in 1E and 2E. 

To be clear, I didn't say cut it entirely, just noted that it's an example of something you could move to the web without a lot of loss. Moving it to the web would also mean it could be updated as new and interesting stories get published.


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 24, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> And in many ways, it is very much not.
> 
> How is a raven like a writing desk?




Uh, for good luck with one you knock on wood and with the other you knock on a pecker?


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 24, 2018)

SkidAce said:


> If this was true, then why does the the DMG have this....




Yeah, that's pretty much the DMG saying "don't bother." 

And as per treasure acquisition, the DMG assumes gold drops and treasure acquisition as a fairly core part of the game and indeed provides extensive tables on it. 

I am totally utterly not arguing for a return to Ye Olde Magic Shoppe a la 3.X, but some kind of exchange rules/guidance (as loose as it may be and caveated with "this isn't official in AL") would have been really useful. Yes, it's possible to devise this, but getting something reasonably worked out and thought through would be really useful, as opposed to having to wing it all the time.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

MNblockhead said:


> Since writing has to be done by writers and design by designers, it is disingenuous to argue that your intention to not cast aspersions on the creators in question.



I don't agree. I'm an academic: part of my job is refereeing submissions to journals, advise publishers on book manuscripts, etc. And others have the job of doing that for my work.

If an argument in a piece I'm sent to referee is bad, or doesn't cite existing literature that it should, or is unclear, or has some other flaw, I will say so. I have a variety of critical vocabulary for doing so ("lazy" isn't normally part of it because I'm generally being asked to referee based on technical qualities, not literary merit). I'm not casting aspersions on someone by (eg, as I have done) saying that their submission about a criminal law matter is confused about some fundamental aspects of Australian criminal law. And when I submitted something and was told by a negative referee that my theory of the adjudication of the constitutionality of statutes added nothing to the existing understanding I didn't agree, but I didn't think the referee was calling me a silly, bad, lazy, or otherwise flawed, inadequate or less-than-worthy person.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Sep 24, 2018)

Does anyone care if Mearls mows his lawn regularly? Or that he takes out the trash every day? 

Of course not. Mearls is the topic of discussion because if his position on the D&D design team. So, any and all criticism is in that regard. None of this is about whether Mearls is a “lazy person”.

So, a criticism that 5E has lazy design is in fact a criticism of Mearls’s work. That it is lazy. That he is a lazy designer. I don’t know why the critics are balking about this. Commit to it, people. You’re saying something about the man’s work, and it’s not something positive. 

I for one don’t think most of 5E’s design is lazy. I do think there are areas where it is far less specific, far less codified, than prior editions. But I believe that is intentional, and I think most of these areas were given much consideration, and these choices were made deliberately. 

Take the “magic item economy” for example. People have very strong opinions about it, based on comments in this thread and many others. It seems to be a big deal to many people. Some prefer a low magic setting, where magic items are rare and only discovered in ancient ruins or mystic locations. Others prefer magic items to be treated like the latest technological commodity, bought and sold everywhere. 

So what were they supposed to do? Devote time and space to rules for magical economy that would be ignored by half the audience, unsatisfactory for another quarter of the audience, and of passing use for the remainder? Why do that when it’s clearly better for each type of group to decide how they want to handle this aspect of the game? 

Is that laziness or pragmatism? I think it’s the latter.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> He lists some in the sentence immediately after the quote.  Here's the next sentence which you cut out for some reason, before asking that question.



3E/PF and Hero are not terribly representative of "other RPGs", so I assumed that some others were also in mind.

I mean, Rolemaster II (without supplements) is lighter than PF or Hero, but that doesn't make it a light system, or even a "mid" system. (I think Classic Traveller is a candidate for a "mid" system - PC build is simple, and PC descriptions are very easy to read even for a beginner, but there are multiple subsystems, none too hard in itself, used for resolving action declarations.)


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> So, a criticism that 5E has lazy design is in fact a criticism of Mearls’s work. That it is lazy. That he is a lazy designer. I don’t know why the critics are balking about this. Commit to it, people. You’re saying something about the man’s work, and it’s not something positive.



I'm saying something about his work. I'm not saying something about him. I don't know him nor much about him.

Likewise the referee who told me that my work added no new ideas wasn't saying anything about me - the refreeing being double blind, s/he didn't know who had written what s/he was reading.

I mean, this is getting ridiculous! Does anyone think that the Beast Quest books aren't lazy writing? Does anyone think that the people who churn them out aren't working bloody hard? Maybe some of them are even great writers, but that doesn't come out in books written to a tight formula under a ridiculous deadline.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> Take the “magic item economy” for example. People have very strong opinions about it, based on comments in this thread and many others. It seems to be a big deal to many people. Some prefer a low magic setting, where magic items are rare and only discovered in ancient ruins or mystic locations. Others prefer magic items to be treated like the latest technological commodity, bought and sold everywhere.
> 
> So what were they supposed to do? Devote time and space to rules for magical economy that would be ignored by half the audience, unsatisfactory for another quarter of the audience, and of passing use for the remainder? Why do that when it’s clearly better for each type of group to decide how they want to handle this aspect of the game?
> 
> Is that laziness or pragmatism? I think it’s the latter.



Here's another way of thinking about this: what is the point of setting up a game where a significant premise is _collecting treasure_, and then not addressing _what that treasure is for_ - either from the game point of view, or (given that the game involves establishing a shared fiction) from an in-fiction point of view?

An alternative would be to address ways of approaching the game which don't centre treasure acquisition in the same way, but obviously that would generate its own howls of anguish from some legacy players.

I'm not saying their situation was an easy one: imperatives of aesthetics, of coherence, of legacy/backwards compatibility, of commerciality, are all important but don't all push the same way.

In those circumstances a pragmatic choice isn't per se at odds with a lazy one (some pragmatic policy is also lazy policy). One might describe the wisdom of Solomon as pragmatic but not lazy, but it's not clear to me that (to mix my metaphors and my allusions) Mearls et al achieved quite the same squaring of the circle.

And even if one takes the notion of pragmatism (= expedience?) at face value, is that good design? The answer isn't obvious, at least to me.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I'm saying something about his work. I'm not saying something about him. I don't know him nor much about him.
> 
> Likewise the referee who told me that my work added no new ideas wasn't saying anything about me - the refreeing being double blind, s/he didn't know who had written what s/he was reading.
> 
> I mean, this is getting ridiculous! Does anyone think that the Beast Quest books aren't lazy writing? Does anyone think that the people who churn them out aren't working bloody hard? Maybe some of them are even great writers, but that doesn't come out in books written to a tight formula under a ridiculous deadline.




Yes, that’s what I said....people are speaking of his work. 

So, is calling his work lazy design complimentary? 

Along a similar vein....is calling someone’s GMing technique lazy insulting?


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 24, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Except those were usually in the DMG, at least in 1E and 2E.




Yeah, the increased expectation of literate players has been deleterious. In 1e we knew how to keep the players illiterate and in their place.~ Now everyone is all uppity and throwing around phrases like "player agency".~



> To be clear, I didn't say cut it entirely, just noted that it's an example of something you could move to the web without a lot of loss. Moving it to the web would also mean it could be updated as new and interesting stories get published.




That argument is stronger when discussing the rules. I buy the books and D&D Beyond. I love the books, not just the content but the production values. The Inspirational Reading list works best as something to discovery while browsing and flipping pages.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> In 4e, a player is assumed to have access to the full scope of options published for 4e, excepting stuff like dragonmarks and options that don’t exist in a given world.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



To me, this still seems to be relevant only to pick-up/club/organised play games.

What the norms are at a table of people who aren't otherwise strangers to one aonther seem to me to be influenced by their past dealings and mutual undertandings, not a label used at the bottom of a published book.



doctorbadwolf said:


> The devs worked hard to keep the game balanced so that this expectation could remain reasonable



But in 5e they don't?


----------



## hawkeyefan (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Here's another way of thinking about this: what is the point of setting up a game where a significant premise is _collecting treasure_, and then not addressing _what that treasure is for_ - either from the game point of view, or (given that the game involves establishing a shared fiction) from an in-fiction point of view?
> 
> An alternative would be to address ways of approaching the game which don't centre treasure acquisition in the same way, but obviously that would generate its own howls of anguish from some legacy players.
> 
> ...




I suppose that they felt that spending pages telling people what money is for might be a but unnecessary. A bit naive on their part perhaps...but I for one am glad they made the decision they did.

And I don’t think lazy and pragmatic mean the same thing. Pragmatism, to me, seems to include consideration. “What’s the best use of our efforts?” 

Laziness does not. “What’s the easiest way to get this done?”


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> Yes, that’s what I said....people are speaking of his work.
> 
> So, is calling his work lazy design complimentary?
> 
> Along a similar vein....is calling someone’s GMing technique lazy insulting?



If I call your GMing technique lazy, yes that would be insulting. You're not a professional, you don't hold yourself out as one, and we are communicating in the context of a friendly message board discussion.

The same would be true if I said that your golfing is lazy.

But a commentator who criticises a professional sportsperson as having lazy technique isn't being insulting. The context is very different, and professionals who aspire to perform well are expected to suck it up. The same is true for musicisans (performers and campaigners). I've read reviews of concerts, or of albums, that criticise the performers for being lazy or phoning it in or resting on past laurels or simply reworking their old material rather than trying something new or different or exciting. Those reviews may be fair or unfair, sound or unsound; but they're not insults.

When I get criticisms of my pubished work, or rejections of work I would like to publish, that's not insulting (though of course sometimes it stings). That's part and parcel of putting my work out there as an instance (or a would-be instance) of scholarship.

And Mearls as a professional RPG designer is in the same boat. Criticism of his work isn't insulting him. (Of course it's not complimenting him either. But not every remark about someone's work has to be either compliment or insult.)


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> I suppose that they felt that spending pages telling people what money is for might be a but unnecessary. A bit naive on their part perhaps...but I for one am glad they made the decision they did.



I think you've missed the point.

What is the purpose of money _from the point of view of gameplay_? Eg given that gameplay doesn't generally produce the result that armour or weapons ever get damaged; and given that the amounts of money that the game tends to be asume will be recovered make other cost of living expenses trivial; what is the money _for_, in the game, other than writing bigger and bigger numbers in a box on the PC sheet?

Classic D&D implicitly answers this question by (i) giving me rules about how my 9th-or-thereabout level PC can build a castle or tower or hideout or whatever, and (ii) giving me costs for doing so which are at least within a ballpark order of magnitude of the amonts of money the game will result in my PC collecting.

3E and 4e answer the question, in a different way, with their rules for the cost of magic items combined with their expectations (implict in 3E, express in 4e) about what sorts of items what levels of PC should have.

It's not like collecting money for no gameplay purpose is _just what you do_ when you play a FRPG. I mean, maybe that was how it looked c 1977, but the 40 intervening years make a bit of a difference.



hawkeyefan said:


> And I don’t think lazy and pragmatic mean the same thing. Pragmatism, to me, seems to include consideration. “What’s the best use of our efforts?”
> 
> Laziness does not. “What’s the easiest way to get this done?”



There seems to be some fundamental confusion here. _Lazy_, used of writing or composition or design, isn't a speculation about the motives of the creator. It's a description of what they  have created - about the way the work innovates within its field, or is pastiche, or relies on cliches or tired tropes, or - in the case of RPG design - rests upon assumptions or undertanding of how the game will be played that aren't spelled out, or fails to address what might be anticipated as forseeable challenges or conflicts likely to arise in using the rules in play.

There can be reasons to use lazy writing - in cinema, for example, pastiche often seems to be more commercially popular than genuniely new work - and one can easily see the same being true in relation to RPG design. But that is a separate matter.

I guess I'll finish by saying I don't even have well-formed views about whether 5e evinces lazy design, except for the aforementioned bit about money. My horse in this particular race is the idea that there is such a thing as criticism of a work which is separate from either (i) speculating about the motives and merits of its creators, or (ii) collecting data about its commercial success. I'm pretty strogly committed to criciticsm in that sense being a thing.


----------



## happyhermit (Sep 24, 2018)

Customer A to themselves: "Wow! Whether through accident or design so many of my issues with previous editions have been resolved, not by things that were added, but by things that were left up to the GM/Table/3pp and not spelled out in the core system. Having specific core rules for certain things really got in the way of my fun. It isn't perfectly matched to my preferences of course, but overall it defines the areas where I want it most while getting out of the way in others."

Designers: "We actually worked really hard to figure out what would work best for our goals and the audience we were shooting for. We experimented with some more detailed rules, even worked on entire rulesets that we ultimately decided to cut to meet out objectives."

Customer A: "Cool! It really worked out well for me!"

Customer B: "Oh, that's just lazy design, you just like lazy design then."


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 24, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> I suppose that they felt that spending pages telling people what money is for might be a but unnecessary. A bit naive on their part perhaps...but I for one am glad they made the decision they did.
> 
> And I don’t think lazy and pragmatic mean the same thing. Pragmatism, to me, seems to include consideration. “What’s the best use of our efforts?”
> 
> Laziness does not. “What’s the easiest way to get this done?”



It's almost like some folks have to speak in code.

I mean, I dont really believe they mean "write rules telling us what gold and jewels and art are for and what to do with them."

But that's practically what is being said.

If the actual thing bring asked for/about is "ways to spend gold to buy (magic or superior) items to help in combat" (I have a suspicion that's the secret code) then fest up, right? Is that the gripe hiding behind "what treasure is for?"?


----------



## hawkeyefan (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> If I call your GMing technique lazy, yes that would be insulting. You're not a professional, you don't hold yourself out as one, and we are communicating in the context of a friendly message board discussion.
> 
> The same would be true if I said that your golfing is lazy.
> 
> ...





Again, I’m not talking about the man. I’m talking about his work. 

I am fine with people criticizing his work. That criticism can be negative without crossing some kind of line to be considered insulting. In my estimation, describing someone’s work as lazy is negative. Pretty strongly so, in my opinion, but hey, that’s subjective. 

I wouldn’t really hold posters here to a significantly different standard, though. We choose to put our comments out there, so we should be ready for criticism ourselves. Again, within reason.


----------



## bedir than (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Thanks!
> 
> A follow-up comment: a _developed_ skill systems _doesn't have to be complex_. Here's an example (adapted from Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant, Cthulhu Dark and HeroWars/Quest):
> The player states what his/her PC is doing and what s/he hopes to achieve thereby. The GM indicates what ability or skill is to be tested, and sets a DC. The player makes the check (d20 + appropriate modifiers) and if it equals or exceeds the DC the PC succeeds at what s/he is doig and thereby achieves what s/he hoped to. Otherwise the GM explains what went wrong in conception, execution, or intervening factors.​
> ...




What you describe is literally the 5e skill resolution system.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> I mean, I dont really believe they mean "write rules telling us what gold and jewels and art are for and what to do with them."
> 
> But that's practically what is being said.



Put it this way: Prince Valiant has a simple rule for fine clothes - they add a bonus to the Presence pool in circumstances in which status or appearance matter. This is in a context in which the rules for social influence are quite simple (because not different from the combat rules: make a sucessful check, either opposed or against a set difficulty as the context adjudicated by the GM suggets).

What is the bonus for wearing fine clothes in 5e? How many gp worth of jewellery correlates to advantage on CHA checks - or would that be "mundane mind control" stepping on the toes of casters of charm spells?

It's not like no other RPG ever actually reconciled _collecting wealth as a goal of play_ with _having a use for that wealth within the context of the game_. Classic D&D has strongholds; Classic Traveller has powered armour and starships; 3E and 4e have magic items.

If the idea, of 5e, is that it's meant to be fun _in and of itself_ to sit around with my friends discussing the imaginary artworks my imaginary character has bought with the imaginary money I took from imaginary dungeons, then (i) the books could come out and tell me that, and (ii) I find that the game promotes odd aesthetics - if I was ever in the mood to do that, I'm not sure it would the same mood that would want to make me play out a wargame-style combat.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> I wouldn’t really hold posters here to a significantly different standard, though. We choose to put our comments out there, so we should be ready for criticism ourselves. Again, within reason.



My own view is that the standards are _radically_ different, for the reasons I gave plus others that I'm happy to offer if you're curious but otherwise won't bore you with!

EDIT: I thought I'd test my intutioins about sports commentary, which I'm less across than other domains of criticism. I Googled "hawthorn hawkd lazy play" and the top hit was from foxsports.com.au, which included ""This is the lazy midfield play that Billy's talking about and would frustrate the Cats," Brown said." I won't bore you with the further elaboration, that pertains to teams and a football code that you probably don't know or care about, but the judgement is about the technical discipline and adequacy of the team's performance, not their individual degrees of personal effort.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I think you've missed the point.
> 
> What is the purpose of money _from the point of view of gameplay_? Eg given that gameplay doesn't generally produce the result that armour or weapons ever get damaged; and given that the amounts of money that the game tends to be asume will be recovered make other cost of living expenses trivial; what is the money _for_, in the game, other than writing bigger and bigger numbers in a box on the PC sheet?
> 
> ...




No, I didn’t miss the point. I understood exactly what you meant. I’m saying that they chose to go the route they did because they decided that their efforts were better spent elsewhere rather than on some kind of medieval price guide. 





pemerton said:


> There seems to be some fundamental confusion here. _Lazy_, used of writing or composition or design, isn't a speculation about the motives of the creator. It's a description of what they  have created - about the way the work innovates within its field, or is pastiche, or relies on cliches or tired tropes, or - in the case of RPG design - rests upon assumptions or undertanding of how the game will be played that aren't spelled out, or fails to address what might be anticipated as forseeable challenges or conflicts likely to arise in using the rules in play.
> 
> There can be reasons to use lazy writing - in cinema, for example, pastiche often seems to be more commercially popular than genuniely new work - and one can easily see the same being true in relation to RPG design. But that is a separate matter.
> 
> I guess I'll finish by saying I don't even have well-formed views about whether 5e evinces lazy design, except for the aforementioned bit about money. My horse in this particular race is the idea that there is such a thing as criticism of a work which is separate from either (i) speculating about the motives and merits of its creators, or (ii) collecting data about its commercial success. I'm pretty strogly committed to criciticsm in that sense being a thing.




No confusion on my end. I know what lazy writing means. Your elaboration here doesn’t seem to meaningfully contradict my point, does it?


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> I know what lazy writing means. Your elaboration here doesn’t seem to meaningfully contradict my point, does it?



It contradicts your claim that it is insulting, and that it's about "what's the easiest way to get this done". Eg if a band is trying to compose a pastiche of their top 10 hit to try and get another hit, that may not be easy. Some popular song writers are good at this; others struggle at it.

_Lazy_ in this context is about the content of what has been produced (within some salient context for the making of critical judgement), not about the process of its production.



hawkeyefan said:


> No, I didn’t miss the point. I understood exactly what you meant. I’m saying that they chose to go the route they did because they decided that their efforts were better spent elsewhere rather than on some kind of medieval price guide.



This makes me think you did miss the point. You don't answer the question - _what is money for in the context of gameplay_ - by producing a mediaeval price guide (which in any event the game includes).


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 24, 2018)

Ok. So it seems as if "lazy" is a common vocabulary to critizise a piece of work that is not as innovative as it could be falling back to traditional design which has proven ro work.
In that regard the end result of 5e resembles lazy design. But not due to designers preference but because the playtesters demanded it after the creative experiment 4e.
In the same sense I can call my own DM style lazy DMing, because I make traditional campaigns out of a book. Which seems fair enough.
I still don't like that word being used in that way. It apparently accuses the creators of not wanting to do a lot of work when in reality they went out of their way to please the audience who is longing for a piece traditional work.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

bedir than said:


> What you describe is literally the 5e skill resolution system.



No it's not, for two reasons. 

First, what I decribed is a system that can be used to resolve beating someone in a sword fight, jumping out of the way of a scything blade, or persuading someone to sell you a used chariot at a good price. The 5e skill system does not do the first of these things (that would be an attack roll instead), probably does not do the second of these things (that looks like a saving throw to me), and is ambivalent at best in relation to the third of those things (which falls within the domain of social conflict).

Second, succeeding at a skill check in 5e does not guarantee that the PC achieves what s/he hoped to. As per p 58 of the Basic PDF, "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results." Action declaration in 5e is in terms of task attempted, not conflict to be resolved. As the game is written and presented, whether succeeding at the task results in success at the conflict, or failing at the task results in losing the conflict, is a further matter that depends entirely on GM adjudication.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> My own view is that the standards are _radically_ different, for the reasons I gave plus others that I'm happy to offer if you're curious but otherwise won't bore you with!
> 
> EDIT: I thought I'd test my intutioins about sports commentary, which I'm less across than other domains of criticism. I Googled "hawthorn hawkd lazy play" and the top hit was from foxsports.com.au, which included ""This is the lazy midfield play that Billy's talking about and would frustrate the Cats," Brown said." I won't bore you with the further elaboration, that pertains to teams and a football code that you probably don't know or care about, but the judgement is about the technical discipline and adequacy of the team's performance, not their individual degrees of personal effort.




No I can understand your view of holding professionals to different standards. I even agree, in general...they’re professionals and will be subject to criticism of their work. 

I just don’t significantly differ with relation to posters here. I can disagree with them or agree with them, criticize their opinions and they mine. Again, within the normal bounds of courtesy and general etiquette. Nothing wrong with disagreement and debate. 

As for the football bit...sounds like a pretty strong critique of their performance, no? And if you’re criticizing an entire team’s performance (or that if all their midfielders), then I don’t see how that doesn’t reflect upon each of them. Or else their comments may have been followed up with something like “Except for Dangerfield, I’ll give him that.”


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 24, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I mean, the chapter on combat is pretty nittanoid and detailed, and in general is pretty thorough. There are numerous other examples in the DMG of chapters that are thoroughly written. The chapter on skills is, by contrast, under-written. All I'm saying is moving the chapter on skills a bit in the direction of the chapter on combat. Not a lot, just a bit.




The combat chapter is full of holes and needs a lot of DM intervention.

Let's start with surprise.

"Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter."

What does that even mean?  In a game where shapechangers abound and illusion magic is common, and where everyone can be an evil villain in disguise, literally everyone and everything a PC sees is a noticed threat.  That would mean that it's impossible to sucker punch someone as the threat is noticed so no surprise can happen.  However, if you ask people you'd probably get a nearly universal consensus that sucker punches are possible?  Does that mean that you have to notice an active threat?  It doesn't say active threat.  What if the sucker punch happens after the start of the encounter?  Is it impossible then?  The DM has to decide these things.

On to initiative.

"If a tie occurs, the DM decides the order among tied DM-controlled creatures, and the players decide the order among their tied characters. The DM can decide the order if the tie is between a monster and a player character."

The rule for ties between the player and DM is that the DM gets to arbitrarily decide which goes first with no consistency required.  DM Fiat in a box!!  That's hardly a detailed rule.  They might as well have said there isn't a rule for it.  They do give an optional rule that can give consistency, but the default is basically no rule at all.

Now for your turn.

The most common actions you can take are described in the “Actions in Combat” section later in this chapter."

The most common actions are described for combat.  What about the myriad of less common actions?  What are they?  What are the rules for them?  The combat section doesn't tell you.  It's entirely up to the DM whether to allow an action, deny it, decide what the rules will be for them, etc.

Hell, that's just the first page of the combat section.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Put it this way: Prince Valiant has a simple rule for fine clothes - they add a bonus to the Presence pool in circumstances in which status or appearance matter. This is in a context in which the rules for social influence are quite simple (because not different from the combat rules: make a sucessful check, either opposed or against a set difficulty as the context adjudicated by the GM suggets).
> 
> What is the bonus for wearing fine clothes in 5e? How many gp worth of jewellery correlates to advantage on CHA checks - or would that be "mundane mind control" stepping on the toes of casters of charm spells?
> 
> ...



See here is the rub, in 5e or any game system, the impact of "fine clothes" should be very situational and setting dependent. So, how many tables of rules chart of clothes vs situation vs gp cost do you want.

As gm, off the cuff, I can think of quite a few ways fine clothes could be useful - and since my character recently had hers stolen by rampaging gruesome, more clothes will be bought soon.

Yes an advantage for certain social checks in the right setting.
Simply being able to blend in at certain circumstances. 
Helping with disguises.
Helping with cons.

That's just off the top of my head. I guarantee my players will find more. 

But in my experience, once you take something as mundane as clothing choices and distill them down to "other ways to get a plus" you typically wind up heading towards the Christmas tree of pluses. 

What's next? GP rates for food for +1 plus to hp rolls? GP rates for better shoes for +1 to stealth or 5' dash? 

As I suspected the code is "let me convert gold yo plusses" not "gimme rules for what treasure is for"?

My character plans to spend gold helping children in towns we pass thru, setting up allies and contacts in places we leave, staking businesses and using glyphs and sending to help establish a network. Silly me for forgetting that "what treasure is for" is really "another +1 somewhere." The rules for this... in the book. 

Now, I have to go find a tailor.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 24, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Yeah, that's pretty much the DMG saying "don't bother."




Other than directly saying go ahead and bother if that's what you like to do.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> It contradicts your claim that it is insulting, and that it's about "what's the easiest way to get this done". Eg if a band is trying to compose a pastiche of their top 10 hit to try and get another hit, that may not be easy. Some popular song writers are good at this; others struggle at it.




You’ll have to quote me where I said it was insulting. I specifically said it was negative but that it could be so without crossing the line to be insulting.



pemerton said:


> _Lazy_ in this context is about the content of what has been produced (within some salient context for the making of critical judgement), not about the process of its production.
> 
> This makes me think you did miss the point. You don't answer the question - _what is money for in the context of gameplay_ - by producing a mediaeval price guide (which in any event the game includes).





I didn’t answer because you already gave plenty of examples of what it can be used for. You don’t need me to answer...you already know.

There are no charts or guides for many of the things that wealth can be used for in the context of the game, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be used. I can give you plenty of clntext from my own game....but would that mean anything to you? 

I think we’re bumping headling into what Mearls was saying in his tweets, no?


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Here's another way of thinking about this: what is the point of setting up a game where a significant premise is _collecting treasure_, and then not addressing _what that treasure is for_ - either from the game point of view, or (given that the game involves establishing a shared fiction) from an in-fiction point of view?




Why do I need the game to tell me what treasure is for?  I can decide or myself whether I want to give it away, hoard it, use it to build a castle and land, purchase a title of nobility, use it to influence the world in some manner, collect it in order to try and persuade someone with a magic item I want to sell it to me, buy jewelry for a significant other, and on and on and on.  I tell the DM what I am doing, and the DM sets the price and difficulty numbers if necessary.

Clearly treasure is for spending!!


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I think you've missed the point.
> 
> What is the purpose of money _from the point of view of gameplay_? Eg given that gameplay doesn't generally produce the result that armour or weapons ever get damaged; and given that the amounts of money that the game tends to be asume will be recovered make other cost of living expenses trivial; what is the money _for_, in the game, other than writing bigger and bigger numbers in a box on the PC sheet?
> 
> Classic D&D implicitly answers this question by (i) giving me rules about how my 9th-or-thereabout level PC can build a castle or tower or hideout or whatever, and (ii) giving me costs for doing so which are at least within a ballpark order of magnitude of the amonts of money the game will result in my PC collecting.




D&D 5e also answers it by giving you the price to upkeep a keep or castle.  Clearly you have to spend money to buy or build one before you will be upkeeping it, or maybe you inherited or married into it.  However you get there, it's an answer that 5e gives to you.  It just doesn't give you the build prices.  The DM can hand those out, though.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> As for the football bit...sounds like a pretty strong critique of their performance, no? And if you’re criticizing an entire team’s performance (or that if all their midfielders), then I don’t see how that doesn’t reflect upon each of them. Or else their comments may have been followed up with something like “Except for Dangerfield, I’ll give him that.”



Likewise in a commentary on a concert, one performer might stand out as having delivered something better, more interesting, etc than the rest.

I'm not sure where you're trying to push with the "reflect on them" - it's generally a goal of commentary and criticism to avoid personalising it, and to focus on the work rather than the character of the creator/performer. If Dangerfield was performing better, he can take some pride the others can't - but that doesn't mean the rest of them should feel ashamed. Judgement, and response to judgement, aren't dichotomous in that sense.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Let's start with surprise.
> 
> "Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter."
> 
> What does that even mean?  In a game where shapechangers abound and illusion magic is common, and where everyone can be an evil villain in disguise, literally everyone and everything a PC sees is a noticed threat.  That would mean that it's impossible to sucker punch someone as the threat is noticed so no surprise can happen.  However, if you ask people you'd probably get a nearly universal consensus that sucker punches are possible?  Does that mean that you have to notice an active threat?  It doesn't say active threat.  What if the sucker punch happens after the start of the encounter?  Is it impossible then?  The DM has to decide these things.



Actually, I think [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s take on this - reading it in the context of the "adventuring" section of the Basic rules and the rules for hiding/reamining unnoticed - is pretty sound. I'm not sure if [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] agrees fully with iserith, but I'd be surprised if Hrison doesn't also have a pretty solid reading of it.

(Multiple readings isn't per se a sign of poor rules. Any complex rules system is likely to admit of multiple readings at certai points.)


----------



## hawkeyefan (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Likewise in a commentary on a concert, one performer might stand out as having delivered something better, more interesting, etc than the rest.
> 
> I'm not sure where you're trying to push with the "reflect on them" - it's generally a goal of commentary and criticism to avoid personalising it, and to focus on the work rather than the character of the creator/performer. If Dangerfield was performing better, he can take some pride the others can't - but that doesn't mean the rest of them should feel ashamed. Judgement, and response to judgement, aren't dichotomous in that sense.




Because you said it was an “evaluation of a team’s performance rather than their individual degrees of personal effort”. But by pointing out that Dangerfield was not being lazy, it specifically points out the others were. Now, I’m not saying that’s insulting, but it’s certainly a negative criticism of their work. 

But hey....we’re far afield of the discussion on this little tangent.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 24, 2018)

I think at this point, I'm going to define criticism that uses the term "lazy design" or "lazy writing" as  hole criticism. And if anyone feels insulted by it, gosh, I don't know why.


----------



## Madhey (Sep 24, 2018)

D&D 5e has a focus on "player narrative and identity"? How exactly? Everything unique about your character you'll have to make up yourself, outside the rulebooks. Then Chess also has a focus on narrative and identity. 
D&D 5e is okay for dungeon crawling type games, but not great for anything else, IMO.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 24, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> And for people too poor to have a computer?



this is a good reason that essential stuff like a copy of the character sheet should be in the book, I guess, but stuff that isn’t necessary at the table can safely be online. 

The vast manority of folks folks who don’t have access to a computer due to being too poor, also can’t afford to buy game books. 



pemerton said:


> To me, this still seems to be relevant only to pick-up/club/organised play games.
> 
> What the norms are at a table of people who aren't otherwise strangers to one aonther seem to me to be influenced by their past dealings and mutual undertandings, not a label used at the bottom of a published book.




I don’t know what to tell you, man. Were you not around during 4e? If you were, do you not remember the discussions about this very topic? 

Its also certianly relevant to new groups of players, and to many groups I know who’ve played for years, bc none of us ban options “because we don’t like Dragonborn” or whatever, so we come to session zero assuming that anything from the core books that we aren’t told is banned, is allowed, and that we have to ask about non-core options. 

In 4e, that meant we discussed concepts, and then just built characters, because the entire game was open. The only restriction in most campaigns was “don’t cheese, and ask about feat taxes before taking them, bc there might be a houserule that obviates them”. 

Either way, we just play what we enjoy playing as a group, but it changes the unspoken assumptions of, IME, most groups. 



> But in 5e they don't?




what? You readin what you’re responding to? Where did I claim or imply any such thing?



pemerton said:


> No it's not, for two reasons.
> 
> First, what I decribed is a system that can be used to resolve beating someone in a sword fight, jumping out of the way of a scything blade, or persuading someone to sell you a used chariot at a good price. The 5e skill system does not do the first of these things (that would be an attack roll instead), probably does not do the second of these things (that looks like a saving throw to me), and is ambivalent at best in relation to the third of those things (which falls within the domain of social conflict).
> 
> Second, succeeding at a skill check in 5e does not guarantee that the PC achieves what s/he hoped to. As per p 58 of the Basic PDF, "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results." Action declaration in 5e is in terms of task attempted, not conflict to be resolved. As the game is written and presented, whether succeeding at the task results in success at the conflict, or failing at the task results in losing the conflict, is a further matter that depends entirely on GM adjudication.




All checks in 5e use the same resolution system, and it’s exactly hat you described. The only difference is what “relevant modifiers” specifically refers to. For attacks, it is attack stat mod, for “ability checks” it is the appropriate ability mod for that activity, to saves it is the mod of the stat being targeted. In all cases, you add proficiency mod if you are proficient. 

That is the resolution system. Attacks and skills aren’t two different systems.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 24, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> See here is the rub, in 5e or any game system, the impact of "fine clothes" should be very situational and setting dependent. So, how many tables of rules chart of clothes vs situation vs gp cost do you want.
> 
> As gm, off the cuff, I can think of quite a few ways fine clothes could be useful - and since my character recently had hers stolen by rampaging gruesome, more clothes will be bought soon.
> 
> ...




Right. Fine clothes are a factor just like what your background is, what your reputation is, whether you are part of the same social group as someone in a social encounter, whether you’ve seen this sort of puzzle before, etc. 

Delending on circumstance, it may get you further into an encounter before a roll is required, where a person in traveling gear would need to Persuade or Decieve just to get in the door, or it may give advantage (or disadvantage) on checks to interact with someone with strong biases regarding how a person is dressed. 

It might even allow an attempt at something that otherwise would have simply been impossible, like gaining legal (ie, not requiring sneaking in) access to be aristocratic part of town, or into an establishment, etc.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> I didn’t answer because you already gave plenty of examples of what it can be used for. You don’t need me to answer...you already know.



The "you" in my post was being used in the impersonal sense (ie _one_ doesn't answer the question of what money is for in the context of gameplay by producing a mediaeval price guide, which in any event the game includes.) A price list isn't advice on gameplay.

You are correct that I can import advice on gameplay from other games into 5e - but that's not a super-strong defence of 5e's design, I don't think, especially as some advice will probably contradict how 5e is meant to play.



hawkeyefan said:


> There are no charts or guides for many of the things that wealth can be used for in the context of the game, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be used. I can give you plenty of clntext from my own game....but would that mean anything to you?



This doesn't speak to my point, which is _what is the gameplay purpose of imagining my PC spending money on those things?_

If the answer is _just because it's fun to imagine it_ - ie the expenditure is colour and nothing more - then maybe the book could come out and say so: _the goal of playing a game in which you must succeed at wargame-like challenges to have your PC collect gold from a dungeon is to then imagine your PC spending that gold on whatever you want to_.



Maxperson said:


> D&D 5e also answers it by giving you the price to upkeep a keep or castle.  Clearly you have to spend money to buy or build one before you will be upkeeping it, or maybe you inherited or married into it.  However you get there, it's an answer that 5e gives to you.  It just doesn't give you the build prices.  The DM can hand those out, though.



As I've already said, in this post and an earlier one, a price list is not advice on gameplay.



Maxperson said:


> Why do I need the game to tell me what treasure is for?  I can decide or myself whether I want to give it away, hoard it, use it to build a castle and land, purchase a title of nobility, use it to influence the world in some manner, collect it in order to try and persuade someone with a magic item I want to sell it to me, buy jewelry for a significant other, and on and on and on.  I tell the DM what I am doing, and the DM sets the price and difficulty numbers if necessary.
> 
> Clearly treasure is for spending!!



But what is the gameplay purpose of that expenditure? It's not unclear in classic D&D (building a stronghold attracts followers and allows an army for engaging in military campaigning, which was an assumed part of the game back in the 70s). It's not unclear in Classic Traveller (buying a starship let's you engage the intersteller travel system, which is a core part of Traveller gameplay). It's not unclear in 3E or 4e (buying magic items expands the list of character attributes and capabilities).

My own view is that if a game is going to make an in-fiction goal, like acquiring treasure, an assumed focus of play, and is going to treat that in somewhat tedious detail (keeping track of all those gold pieces, having all those detailed price lists, etc), then it might address the question of _why_?



5ekyu said:


> See here is the rub, in 5e or any game system, the impact of "fine clothes" should be very situational and setting dependent. So, how many tables of rules chart of clothes vs situation vs gp cost do you want.



Well so should the effects of praying to a god, or the costs of buying a sword or a suit of mail, but 5e is happy to get pretty precise about those things.

I'm not sure why it's OK to tell me that a + such-and-such-amount to my damage pool, or my defence number, costs this much gp; why being able to repel a vampire with a prayer requires such-and-such details of PC building; but doing something of this sort for social skills is out of bounds.



5ekyu said:


> in my experience, once you take something as mundane as clothing choices and distill them down to "other ways to get a plus" you typically wind up heading towards the Christmas tree of pluses.



In my experience, if making a move in the game ("I spend 100 gp buying a nice shirt") doesn't generate consequences for action resolution mechanics, then players can't make that sort of move as part of engaging the game and its fiction so as to change it.

D&D has never taken the view that "I carry a longsword rather than a dagger" is mere colour (at least since OD&D, and even back then I think that daggers might have been an exception to the d6-for-damage rule, although maybe I'm getting confused with EPT). It's never taken that view about "I wear plate and mail rather than just a loincloth". But presumably you don't think it's tumbled down the slippery slope you're worried about as a result.

I'm not sure why rules that relate finery to certain social interactions would cause the problem when the combat gear rules don't. I can't say I've noticed it, or any hint of it, in my Prince Valiant game. (And more complex games can use other devices also to manage this - eg Burning Wheel has an advancement system which means that a player has a reason not to always want to use as big a dice pool as s/he might want to.)



5ekyu said:


> My character plans to spend gold helping children in towns we pass thru, setting up allies and contacts in places we leave, staking businesses and using glyphs and sending to help establish a network. Silly me for forgetting that "what treasure is for" is really "another +1 somewhere." The rules for this... in the book.



So it's powergaming to improve social skills, but it's not to just ask the GM for favours? Or arw those allies and glyphs and whatnot just for colour?

But putting that to one side, you can write what you're describing into a rulebook as well: eg "You can spend the money your PC has taken out of the dungeon on various social projects, which your GM might then have regard to in setting the DC for interactions with the NPCs who benefit from those projects, or perhaps in deciding that no check is required to have them help you."


----------



## billd91 (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I think you've missed the point.
> 
> What is the purpose of money _from the point of view of gameplay_? Eg given that gameplay doesn't generally produce the result that armour or weapons ever get damaged; and given that the amounts of money that the game tends to be asume will be recovered make other cost of living expenses trivial; what is the money _for_, in the game, other than writing bigger and bigger numbers in a box on the PC sheet?
> 
> Classic D&D implicitly answers this question by (i) giving me rules about how my 9th-or-thereabout level PC can build a castle or tower or hideout or whatever, and (ii) giving me costs for doing so which are at least within a ballpark order of magnitude of the amonts of money the game will result in my PC collecting.




I think more relevant is that Classic D&D explicitly answers the question by requiring PCs to pay through the nose to train for leveling up. That affects more PCs that the option of building and running a stronghold.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 24, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> The combat chapter is full of holes and needs a lot of DM intervention.
> 
> Let's start with surprise.
> 
> ...



 that’s a wild premise. Why would people constantly notice threats? People aren’t going around assuming the baker is a vampire, dude. It’s plain, colloquial, language. If you try to find confusion, you’ll always succeed, but I’d wager that 90% or more of players and DMs aren’t. 



> On to initiative.
> 
> "If a tie occurs, the DM decides the order among tied DM-controlled creatures, and the players decide the order among their tied characters. The DM can decide the order if the tie is between a monster and a player character."
> 
> The rule for ties between the player and DM is that the DM gets to arbitrarily decide which goes first with no consistency required.  DM Fiat in a box!!  That's hardly a detailed rule.  They might as well have said there isn't a rule for it.  They do give an optional rule that can give consistency, but the default is basically no rule at all.



 you just described a set of rules options and then claims there (effectively) isn’t a rule. The rule is that ties on a team are decided by the team, and ties between teams are decided by the referee. That is a rule. 



> Now for your turn.
> 
> The most common actions you can take are described in the “Actions in Combat” section later in this chapter."
> 
> ...



Can you explain what the actual complaint is, here? I don’t see what’s wrong with not having every possible action detailed. You’ve got normal actions, “Interact With An Object” covers a lot of ground, and the examples given provides guidance for improvisation. The game has to have room for improvisation. Period. 4e was so details that they had to include a page of guidelines for improv, while 5e doesn’t need that and relies instead on examples and broad skill resolution mechanics. 

None of that makes 5e combat lacking in detail, it just isn’t *as* detailed as 4e.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I don’t know what to tell you, man. Were you not around during 4e? If you were, do you not remember the discussions about this very topic?



I remember a bizarre moral panic, mostly among people who weren't playing 4e, that "everything is core". I remember discussion about what was or wasn't balanced. And I remember discussion about who did or didn't toggle various options on or off in the Character Builder.

I don't rembember discussions about how "everything is core" changed the way anyone played the game.



doctorbadwolf said:


> All checks in 5e use the same resolution system, and it’s exactly hat you described.



So I declare "I draw my sword and cut off the orc's head!" What's the DC? What ability is checked?

In fact in 5e that's not a legal action declaration - or, at best, it will get retrofitted into a declaration of an attack roll that is resolved no differently from a declaration that "I draw my sword and try to hamstring the orc!"



doctorbadwolf said:


> Attacks and skills aren’t two different systems.



A successful attack roll generates a further mechanical process - applying damage, perhaps applying a status effect, etc. A successful ability/skill check generally doesn't generate any further mechanical process - it just generates a change in the fiction (generally as ascertained by the GM). There are exceptions (eg making an ability check to throw off a condition like grappled) but they are (ipso facto) not the norm.

5e may or may not be a good system - I'm not debating that - but saying that it has a uniform resolution system simply isn't true, unless you just ignore all the accreted aspects of D&D (damage dice; hit point attrition; special abilities, especially spells, that inflict conditions; etc). These mechanical intricacies are part of what make it not light, compared to systems that have genuinely uniform and rather simple resolution systems.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

billd91 said:


> I think more relevant is that Classic D&D explicitly answers the question by requiring PCs to pay through the nose to train for leveling up. That affects more PCs that the option of building and running a stronghold.



That's only in AD&D. It's not there in OD&D, nor in B/X. But the strongholds and armies are.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Actually, I think @_*iserith*_'s take on this - reading it in the context of the "adventuring" section of the Basic rules and the rules for hiding/reamining unnoticed - is pretty sound. I'm not sure if @_*Hriston*_ agrees fully with iserith, but I'd be surprised if Hrison doesn't also have a pretty solid reading of it.
> 
> (Multiple readings isn't per se a sign of poor rules. Any complex rules system is likely to admit of multiple readings at certai points.)




Except none of my examples involved multiple readings.  An example of multiple readings for a rule would be the gargoyle power animate stone.  It reads "...and can hold themselves so still that they appear inanimate."  That can be read as, "It's a possibility than they remain so still that they appear inanimate.", which would require a roll, or it can be read as "They automatically hold themselves so still that they appear inanimate."  The word "can" is usable both ways.

In my first example which you quote, there is only one way to read "_Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter."   _It's very clear.  If you don't notice a threat, you are surprised.  What is not clear is what constitutes a threat, and the rule sheds no light on that whatsoever.  That's the issue, not multiple ways to read it.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 24, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> this is a good reason that essential stuff like a copy of the character sheet should be in the book, I guess, but stuff that isn’t necessary at the table can safely be online.
> 
> The vast manority of folks folks who don’t have access to a computer due to being too poor, also can’t afford to buy game books.




Really?  Being unable to afford multiple hundreds of dollars is the same as being unable to afford $50?  I don't think so.  A poor group could also pool money together and buy a copy of a book, where they wouldn't or couldn't do that for a computer.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> But what is the gameplay purpose of that expenditure? It's not unclear in classic D&D (building a stronghold attracts followers and allows an army for engaging in military campaigning, which was an assumed part of the game back in the 70s). It's not unclear in Classic Traveller (buying a starship let's you engage the intersteller travel system, which is a core part of Traveller gameplay). It's not unclear in 3E or 4e (buying magic items expands the list of character attributes and capabilities).




It's up to the player primarily, and to a much lesser extent, the DM to decide that.  Presumably, there are roleplaying reasons for whatever expenditure the PC decides to engage in, and the DM will react to that.  There are multiple reasons why my PC might decide to build a castle, and it's up to me to state that reason to the DM.  It's not the responsibility of the book or DM to let me know.



> My own view is that if a game is going to make an in-fiction goal, like acquiring treasure, an assumed focus of play, and is going to treat that in somewhat tedious detail (keeping track of all those gold pieces, having all those detailed price lists, etc), then it might address the question of _why_?




I find this to be odd in a person who runs a game for very proactive players who decide and set the goals for their PCs.  Why expect them to be proactive in one aspect of the game, but fail to be proactive about spending the treasure they find?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I remember a bizarre moral panic, mostly among people who weren't playing 4e, that "everything is core". I remember discussion about what was or wasn't balanced. And I remember discussion about who did or didn't toggle various options on or off in the Character Builder.
> 
> I don't rembember discussions about how "everything is core" changed the way anyone played the game.



Ok, well, they happened. Feel free to engage with the rest of my points, though, since he one you’re quoting here is literally the least important point of the entire post you’ve quoted. 



> So I declare "I draw my sword and cut off the orc's head!" What's the DC? What ability is checked?



Its a check with your Attack stat, usually strength or dex for a weapon attack, against a DC set by a calculation. You add proficiency if you are proficient in the weapon being used. 

Seriously, it’s the same mechanic as determining the outcome of declaring “I run up the wall halfway, jump off the window ledge opposite, and then hike up to get my feet on the ledge and jump across again to the edge of the roof, parkour style”. 



> In fact in 5e that's not a legal action declaration - or, at best, it will get retrofitted into a declaration of an attack roll that is resolved no differently from a declaration that "I draw my sword and try to hamstring the orc!"



 unless you kill the orc outright, in which case you may get to cut its head off. But that is also how skills work. Depending on the result of the check, the DM tells you what you actually manage to a compish based on the declaration of hat you are trying to do.



> A successful attack roll generates a further mechanical process - applying damage, perhaps applying a status effect, etc. A successful ability/skill check generally doesn't generate any further mechanical process - it just generates a change in the fiction (generally as ascertained by the GM). There are exceptions (eg making an ability check to throw off a condition like grappled) but they are (ipso facto) not the norm.




A successful Stealth check generates a further mechanical process. Many successful and failed acrobatics and athletics checks do, as well. Some resolution checks lead to further mechanical resolution, while others are resolved with a single check. That doesn’t make those a separate system. It just means that sometimes the result of a check is that you have to figure something else out. 



> 5e may or may not be a good system - I'm not debating that - but saying that it has a uniform resolution system simply isn't true, unless you just ignore all the accreted aspects of D&D (damage dice; hit point attrition; special abilities, especially spells, that inflict conditions; etc). These mechanical intricacies are part of what make it not light, compared to systems that have genuinely uniform and rather simple resolution systems.




Im not particularly bothered about whether 5e is a good system. My group and I enjoy it. I like it about as much as 4e or Star Wars Saga, slightly less than The One Ring, and vastly more than any edition of dnd before 4e, or say, any Fantasy Flight game, or Savage Worlds, or Fate. Probably a bit more than AGE games, but I’ve less experience with them. Whether I like it more than GURPS depends on what I’m in the mood for. 

How “good” it is isn’t even a legitimate concern to worry about, from my perspective, except when i am considering it’s lessons in the context of designing my own game. 

What I am interested in, is taking systems apart and accurately understanding them. 

5e has quite varied *secondary mechanics*, tied together by a single resolution system. 

Whether that makes it light, heavy, or medium rare is for other people to worry about.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Sep 24, 2018)

So poeple are talking bad bout 3.5 but honestly I never had any problem with it. I miss alot of the mechanica options. like [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] said, I don't consider powergaming or min/maxing a bad thing and perhaps more importantly I don't consider them in conflict against good role playing and story telling. It seems like their is a lot of effort to steer away from mechanical flexibility to prevent power gaming but highly limit building characters to fit story narrative. If you doubt this … look at the latest number of players choosing to play warlocks versus previous editions. Warlocks, are a prime choice for players how seek mechanic diversity because the get a class, sub-class, pact, invocations, and spell selections. That's the most mechanical diversity of any class in the game.... and so it popularity is only climbing. Its way easier to build the character to fit your narrative as a warlock so it has appeal to min/maxers, power gamers, and story players that don't want to be forced to take extra features that done fit the image of the character concept the want to play. Its not because they are building the most "optimal" character every time but because is mechanically a better fit to specific goals.

I am currently playing a Warlock, who is the scout for our party. No, its not an "optimal" build, but its an mechanically interesting build and while "interior" as a scout to the Rogue scout sub-class... My Human variant Pact of the Tome, The old one Patrons, warlock street urchin who was "infected" after being kidnapped of a road while trying to get work and experimented on by a cult of vecna, with alert feat, prodigy feat (survival and expertise perception), devil's sight, guidance / shocking grasp / mending from Pact of the tome. Its fun. I could have been a pact of the chain and sent my invisible familiar but I wanted to place myself in danger being involved physically in the search, so I use the of the old one telepathy pass information to my party 30ft behind me.. Far enough to give them some protection but close enough that they "need" to follow me in as I scout. I could have taken Message with pact of the tome but I wanted them 30ft because I wanted the buffer but I didn't want to play scouting by myself.  I am not great at my party job but I am better than my other party members so they are happy with it and since I risk myself so even with failure they don't complain. I am not a perfect min/maxer taking less optimal choices because of how I want to interact with my group, I am not a power gamer as I am the "night watch" I help in battles but really our tanky Paladin leader really holds the group together in combat while I typically try and support from a corner when the fight starts, we have a daytime scout monk who can hold his own if we get ambushed. *We are primarily a story group* but I really enjoy having supporting mechanical structure.

Mechanical complexity and versatile options is not bad for supporting min/maxers or power gamers. Those things are only an issue *when groups promote conflicting goals*. For example, A controlling story GM gets angry when a power gamer kills a NPC the GM wants to survive because he has a story narrative he wants regardless player actions.   ...Or... two power gamers fighting because they are in a unfriendly highest DPR battle,  ...Or...​ when a story player wants to hold the game up playing out every stop at store or enemy conflict with 4 hours of role play exhibition where the rest of the party was done talking long ago and want to move along.Conflict can come from story players or GMs disregarding the party and performing story exhibition negating or ignoring the rest of the parties contributions and choices, powergamers or GMs can cause issues by trivializing combat with autokills by making making other player choices irrelevant (note that I listed GMs here, because unbeatable enemies for the "sake of story" are the exact same thing as players who one shot bosses intended for the whole group...looking at you paladins), or from min/maxers with quadruple expertise in every thing or GMs that use autofail tasks based on player statements instead of characters stats (Player: "Can my character search the room?" GM: "Sure, I am going to need you to describe in perfect detail how you as a person would search the room that only exists in my head, if you "look" where I imagine the item is you will auto succeed, if not you will auto fail. Player: "But I don't know where to look can I just roll my characters stats... I mean that's what they are for right?" GM: "No, your stats are too high. If I do that you never fail at anything because min/maxed to a point that none of your rolls can possibly reasonably fail")​
*3 simple rules for happy play*.
- Role Play: GMs ensure players have free agency to actually try things you didn't plan and succeed and Player ensure your not running the group without consent or holding them back when the want to move along or blocking the GM from moving along (GMs are players too in this case).
- Mechanically: GMs ensure that encounters are beatable without min/maxing or players will have too, and players leave room for failure or the GM is going to force higher difficulties and auto fail events so that the story doesn't become the boring "tell of how your great at everything" story with no challenge that is actually a challenge and your GM is board as hell.
- Story: GMs make sure your players are part of the story your are making, so your not just dictating a story to them where you mention their characters by name once in a while because rolls don't matter when you have "decided" its not just about characters roleplaying the scene their character backgrounds and other player additions you approve should be part of the story so their characters are part of the world not just witnesses to events and players don't try and rebel against your GM by deliberately trying to derail many hours of hard GM work because your annoyed at how something went or because this part of the story is not about your character. It your going to change directions next session try and give the GM a heads up so they prepare or even let them "guide you" through some prepared material some times because ...seriously spending 2 weeks making a dungeon to have players show up an decide to turn around and walk out ...SUCKS...

But rule number one... If you have a problem, try talking about it outside the game instead of blaming the GM, player, style, or design. Almost, all of the real issues I have seen resolved were fixed way from the table because in the moment everyone wants to just keep going and even if it wipes the group you can usually come up with a new understanding and time jump back or start a new campaign having solved the issue or mitigated it somehow.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 24, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> that’s a wild premise. Why would people constantly notice threats? People aren’t going around assuming the baker is a vampire, dude. It’s plain, colloquial, language. If you try to find confusion, you’ll always succeed, but I’d wager that 90% or more of players and DMs aren’t.




I disagree.  Why would a PC who has encountered monsters posing as citizens before(or at least heard of it happening) not be on guard?



> you just described a set of rules options and then claims there (effectively) isn’t a rule. The rule is that ties on a team are decided by the team, and ties between teams are decided by the referee. That is a rule.




It's a non-rule rule.  The exact same thing would have result had the PHB been completely silent on what happens in the case of ties between teams.  The lack of anything at all would make it the DM's decision.



> Can you explain what the actual complaint is, here? I don’t see what’s wrong with not having every possible action detailed. You’ve got normal actions, “Interact With An Object” covers a lot of ground, and the examples given provides guidance for improvisation. The game has to have room for improvisation. Period. 4e was so details that they had to include a page of guidelines for improv, while 5e doesn’t need that and relies instead on examples and broad skill resolution mechanics.




There is nothing wrong with it.  I was responding to someone who claimed that the 5e rules are spelled out to an incredible degree, and they really aren't.  They provide basic attack mechanics and some of the more common actions.  What it does "spell out" is full of ambiguity and/or holes



> None of that makes 5e combat lacking in detail, it just isn’t *as* detailed as 4e.




Or 3e, both of which are true examples of combat systems spelled out to an incredible degree.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 24, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Really?  Being unable to afford multiple hundreds of dollars is the same as being unable to afford $50?  I don't think so.  A poor group could also pool money together and buy a copy of a book, where they wouldn't or couldn't do that for a computer.



 I literally didn’t say, or imply, that. 

Also, you can get a computer for 100$, and a phone that is literally a pocket computer for less.. 

You can open and store PDFs on an “Obama Phone”, or a chap smart phone from Walmart, or MetroPCS, or any other budget carrier that finances phones and carries really cheap smart phones. I worked at dollar general market, and literal homeless people purchased phones that could download apps and open and store PDFs for 30$. 

So, yes, if they literally can’t access a computer bc they’re too poor, they can’t afford to waste 50$ on a game book. I’ve been that poor. I’ve been homeless. I’ve eaten one full meal worth of food a day, and only that bc a guy at the 7-11 would give me some of the food that he was supposed to throw out. Being poor as dirt isn’t a mystery to me.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> So I declare "I draw my sword and cut off the orc's head!" What's the DC? What ability is checked?




DC = AC of the orc.  The ability checked is strength, dex, int, wis, etc., depending on the class and attack type.  Heck, adding strength or dex to your to hit and damage rolls is even listed under ability checks for those abilities.  That one was easy.



> In fact in 5e that's not a legal action declaration - or, at best, it will get retrofitted into a declaration of an attack roll that is resolved no differently from a declaration that "I draw my sword and try to hamstring the orc!"
> 
> A successful attack roll generates a further mechanical process - applying damage, perhaps applying a status effect, etc. A successful ability/skill check generally doesn't generate any further mechanical process - it just generates a change in the fiction (generally as ascertained by the GM). There are exceptions (eg making an ability check to throw off a condition like grappled) but they are (ipso facto) not the norm.




The mechanical process is identical, though.  Roll d20, add modifiers, beat the DC to succeed at the check, have success or failure narrated by the DM afterwards.  That an attack ability check often leads to another mechanical roll doesn't make the resolution system for the attack roll any different than a skill check of another sort.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 24, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I disagree.  Why would a PC who has encountered monsters posing as citizens before(or at least heard of it happening) not be on guard?



That isn’t how people work. The rare folks who can sustainably be on guard at all times are represented by the alert feat and/or very high perception. 

But also because it’s incredibly rare, and because knowing things are out there doesn’t stop things taking you by surprise. Since I’ve mentioned it already ITT, I’ve been homeless. I’ve shared space with homeless vets and homeless ex-cons. Very alert people. People, in many cases, who see literally everyone as a threat. 

Literally anyone can be taken by surprised, and sucker punched. That’s reality. 



> It's a non-rule rule.  The exact same thing would have result had the PHB been completely silent on what happens in the case of ties between teams.  The lack of anything at all would make it the DM's decision.



no, it’s a rule. It is patently, obviously, factually, a rule. It is exactly as much a rule as “When there’s is a tie, higher mod wins, players win ties against NPCs.” It’s just a different rule from that. 




> There is nothing wrong with it.  I was responding to someone who claimed that the 5e rules are spelled out to an incredible degree, and they really aren't.  They provide basic attack mechanics and some of the more common actions.  What it does "spell out" is full of ambiguity and/or holes
> Or 3e, both of which are true examples of combat systems spelled out to an incredible degree.



But it is very spelled out. Just not as much as some other very spelled out systems. 

4e is obviously very detailed. GURPS is more detailed. Does that mean that 4e isn’t actually detailed?


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 24, 2018)

ClaytonCross said:


> So poeple are talking bad bout 3.5 but honestly I never had any problem with it. I miss alot of the mechanica options. like @_*Charlaquin*_ said, I don't consider powergaming or min/maxing a bad thing and perhaps more importantly I don't consider them in conflict against good role playing and story telling.




The designers asked themselves 'are we designing narrative/story first, or strategy game first?' One must drive the design goals.

Then there is limiting design because of powergamers, which is a fool's errand. Some people enjoy finding ways to exploit or abuse rules, and that's fine, they can have their fun...but the game shouldn't be limited because of them. And they don't. This statement of design philosophy spells out why. 



> It seems like their is a lot of effort to steer away from mechanical flexibility to prevent power gaming but highly limit building characters to fit story narrative. If you doubt this … look at the latest number of players choosing to play warlocks versus previous editions. Warlocks, are a prime choice for players how seek mechanic diversity because the get a class, sub-class, pact, invocations, and spell selections. That's the most mechanical diversity of any class in the game.... and so it popularity is only climbing. Its way easier to build the character to fit your narrative as a warlock so it has appeal to min/maxers, power gamers, and story players that don't want to be forced to take extra features that done fit the image of the character concept the want to play. Its not because they are building the most "optimal" character every time but because is mechanically a better fit to specific goals.




Is the Warlock popular?

While the following is not the most reliable sample, and is a little dated, it is one we have.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/

Warlock comes in at 8th of 12 classes for popularity. 4th-8th are all very close so it essentially ties in the middle.

There are 12-15 million players in NA alone. Unless you have a source that I'm not familiar with your experience is far too small to make declarations of character popularity.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I find this to be odd in a person who runs a game for very proactive players who decide and set the goals for their PCs.  Why expect them to be proactive in one aspect of the game, but fail to be proactive about spending the treasure they find?



Most of the games I play evince a fairly clear connection between the _what_ and the _why_ of play. Two of those games - 4e and Classic Traveller - place emphasis on gear and treausre, and it's clear in both games what that stuff is for.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 24, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Its a check with your Attack stat, usually strength or dex for a weapon attack, against a DC set by a calculation. You add proficiency if you are proficient in the weapon being used.
> 
> Seriously, it’s the same mechanic as determining the outcome of declaring “I run up the wall halfway, jump off the window ledge opposite, and then hike up to get my feet on the ledge and jump across again to the edge of the roof, parkour style”.





Maxperson said:


> DC = AC of the orc.  The ability checked is strength, dex, int, wis, etc., depending on the class and attack type.  Heck, adding strength or dex to your to hit and damage rolls is even listed under ability checks for those abilities.  That one was easy.
> 
> The mechanical process is identical, though.  Roll d20, add modifiers, beat the DC to succeed at the check, have success or failure narrated by the DM afterwards.  That an attack ability check often leads to another mechanical roll doesn't make the resolution system for the attack roll any different than a skill check of another sort.



So what is the analogue of rolling damage and tracking a hit point total in the case of the parkour jump?

I don't think there is one. Which is my point. The core 5e combat rules are not "Roll a d20 and add STR to see if you kill the orc". They're "Roll a d20 and add STR to see if you get to engage in this other mechanical process about ablating hit points."

I mean, by the same logic I could assert that combat and non-combat are resolved the same way in 4e. But it's obvious that they're not, because in 4e combat successful checks trigger hit point attrition and status effects - which is one sort of mechanical subsystem - and in 4e non-combat successful checks either trigger an immediate change in the fiction (if the situation is resolved by a simple check) or trigger a move in the tallying of successes and failures (if it's a skill challenge).

This can be contrasted with systems that actually do have uniform resolution systems - HeroQuest revised is one example.



doctorbadwolf said:


> unless you kill the orc outright, in which case you may get to cut its head off.



And this on its own is enough to show that 5e does not have a resolution system like the one I described upthread.

A system in which, if you succeed at a check, your stated goal _may_ come true if some other downstream mechanical process yields a certain resolut is obviously _not_ the same as this:

The player states what his/her PC is doing and what s/he hopes to achieve thereby. The GM indicates what ability or skill is to be tested, and sets a DC. The player makes the check (d20 + appropriate modifiers) and if it equals or exceeds the DC the PC succeeds at what s/he is doing and thereby achieves what s/he hoped to. Otherwise the GM explains what went wrong in conception, execution, or intervening factors.​


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 24, 2018)

TL;DR;: Mearls says "current edition good, older editions bad".


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 24, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> TL;DR;: Mearls says "current edition good, older editions bad".




Exactly like that, but completely different. 
 [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I think you’re nitpicking wording to force a conclusion at this point. DnD doesn’t allow “killing the orc” to be an action, but als doesn’t let “gain an army” be an action. DnD breaks things into single actions, or close enough to best abstracted like it’s a single action. Each action is resolved using the same system. 

“Win the fight” is an action in some games, in other games it isn’t. Some fights will be won with one action, most won’t. That doesn’t change that actions are resolved in the same way either way. Some puzzles will be resolved in one action, others won’t. 

Its the same shstem of resolution regardless.


----------



## clearstream (Sep 24, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> The additional player's handbooks, dungeon masters guides, and monster manuals were all part of the core rules of 4e, it says so right on the cover.
> 
> Supplements were things like the books focusing on arcane or martial power.



Reflecting on the question of which books to count in determining the relative weight of the editions. I think even in 4th edition, three books formed the baseline assumption of what a group would use. There was a boxed set of them at launch, and it reflected a norm for D&D that was, and is ongoing. Players Handbook, Dungeon Masters Guide, and Monster Manual are the essentials of play. It seems misleading to argue otherwise. I doubt WotC would have said of 4th edition that a group _can't play_ D&D successfully with just those three. In any case, that debate doesn't need settling: I am going with an assumption that the core constitutive rules of D&D 3rd edition and 5th edition are found in three books.

Looking at those books, I think it is true that 5th edition has a lighter or more streamlined approach than 3rd edition, and yet this doesn't really come through in play for me. I think part of it is that my groups seldom made use of Prestige classes, which in 3rd edition were optional (in the core books, the only prestige classes appeared in the DMG I believe). We did not use much from supplements. In play, each of the 5th edition classes feels to me significantly more laden with options in core than the 3rd edition classes. Fighters are the obvious case, but I don't think any class in 3rd edition core has more rules than its equivalent in 5th edition! 3rd edition may tackle some things that 5th is silent on, but in play I don't notice that, because the biggest burden on me as DM is what my players' characters are capable of.

If all rules in every supplement is counted, then 3rd edition has more, but that's not what this discussion is about. It's rules at the table - in play for the group - that impact on weight. And it is the mechanical detail of those rules. I am positing that there is more detail in what characters can do, in core, in 5th edition. That produces burden that didn't exist in 3rd core. This putative lightness of running 5th seems like a figment as I don't find either version easier or harder to DM. That makes me look for a more compelling account of exactly how 5th edition is "lighter" than 3rd?


----------



## clearstream (Sep 24, 2018)

@*ad_hoc*

Regards the point you mooted about gateway games. I think the thing in RPG, and especially D&D, is that the DM masters the rules so that new players don't need to. All the player is exposed to is the complexity of generating a level 1 character. I think 5th edition is better organised for that than 3rd edition, but I wouldn't say the one is more taxing than the other.

Anyway, the DM is crucial to why a complicated game like D&D can be easy to get into.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 24, 2018)

Boy did this ever blow up over the last 24-36 hours.

A few quick hits on some random things read over the last 15-ish pages...

*Initiative ties*: why break 'em at all?  Let things happen simultaneously - way more realistic, and doesn't break the game in any way.

*What to spend accumulated treasure on*: someone already mentioned training, which I highly recommend adding in if you're not already using it.  There's also tithes (for Clerics, Paladins and maybe Druids) and guild fees (for Wizards, Rogues, and various others), which never seem to get enough attention.  The realm might levy special taxes on rich adventuring types.  There's strongholds, castles and fortresses; though why parties don't more often pool their resources and build just one castle as a home base for everyone baffles me.  And all this doesn't even get to buying magic items.

*Character sheet in the PHB*: why?  Hasn't anyone ever heard of a blank sheet of paper?  Have some printable character sheet examples online, sure, but don't waste PHB space with one.

*Adding pages to the PHB*: adding means adding, not replacing.  Adding 16 pages to a 320-page book thus gives a 336-page book, and as the original suggestion/request was to ADD pages with info relating to <I forget what, now> there's no reason to worry about what the new info would be bumping.

*Lazy writing and-or design*: for my own part, if someone were to call my writing 'lazy' I would take it as explicitly saying - not just implying, but outright saying - that I hadn't put enough effort into it. Fair enough if true, but valid cause to be offended if untrue.  Far better to call it 'derivative' or 'unoriginal' if the intent is to mean that there's not enough new content and-or the content comes across as a rehash of something done before.

Lanefan


----------



## ClaytonCross (Sep 24, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> The designers asked themselves 'are we designing narrative/story first, or strategy game first?' One must drive the design goals.
> 
> Then there is limiting design because of powergamers, *which is a fool's errand*. Some people enjoy finding ways to exploit or abuse rules, and that's fine, they can have their fun...but the game shouldn't be limited because of them. And they don't. This statement of design philosophy spells out why.




I think your mistaken your saying designing good narrative and strategy are in ANY WAY mutually exclusive. They can ignore each other or support each other. Their is Zero reason why even choosing to make narrative your starting point or priority would damage your strategic your design. In fact the only real rule here is that both need to be functional and they are only strengthened when they support each other. In other words if I want the story of an epic Fire based sorcerer known for burning his enemies to ache having the ability to build that sorcerer brass dragon an ancestor giving him firebolt and burning hands means at level one I can be a fire based sorcerer, the dragon ancestry origin then informs that story some more allowing placing you on a path for background improvement... for example... I could have also have red dragon ancestry how does that inform my design? Do I have evil tendencies an have to restrain my self or strong desire to burn out corruption from brass dragon ancestry? Also, "Additionally, parts of your skin are covered by a thin sheen of dragon-like scales. When you aren’t wearing armor, your AC equals 13 + your Dexterity modifier." I have scales!! Mechanically the AC bonus is nice... story how visible are they if they are red do the look like a rash? Do people who notice think I am sick and avoid me? If they are noticed to they fear my red dragon origins thinking I might call forth a red dragon ancestor to destroy them or perhaps revere me as if royal blood because they serve Bahamut and feel I am some how closer than they are too this great power? I mean look at the entry itself... its not just some bland strategic statement and its not just fluff ether... *its both*. D&D is at its best when they grow on each other not when people impose personal conflicting beliefs on "how it should be" on each other.

Sure some people only like the fluff... and others only like the strategy.... *I have never found anything in the fluff you couldn't fixed by adding the right other fluff... and good strategy has only ever served make the fluff stronger while good story gives strategy purpose!* Want to be a Nature cleric with a few levels of Arch Demon Warlock.... sure ...IF ... you can tell me why in a great story. Perhaps you lost your way in search of power and now your fighting to suppress the taint of your demonic warlock powers and gain redemption in your order through penance and that is why your questing... you have to perform 10 selfless deeds that protect the creatures of the forest that no one else could do or remain banished forever!!! To that end you have joined a party to actively drive you into harms way, into places of evil where the meek an innocent are tormented because their is no hope for salvation that does not have you coming face to face with evils as dark as the taint you invited into your soul.



ad_hoc said:


> Is the Warlock popular?
> 
> While the following is not the most reliable sample, and is a little dated, it is one we have.
> 
> ...




Actually it is....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cak3ojSuJaM at the 13:21 mark they talk about how it shocked everyone because its now the 3rd most played class in D&D Beyond beating all predictions and and the wizard class in third, the cleric in 4th.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> The "you" in my post was being used in the impersonal sense (ie _one_ doesn't answer the question of what money is for in the context of gameplay by producing a mediaeval price guide, which in any event the game includes.) A price list isn't advice on gameplay.
> 
> You are correct that I can import advice on gameplay from other games into 5e - but that's not a super-strong defence of 5e's design, I don't think, especially as some advice will probably contradict how 5e is meant to play.
> 
> ...



A couple quick notes...

The mechanical benefits of praying to a God ordonating to z temple are not defined. What does my sorcerer gain from those. Obviously you were conflating class abilities of clerics with more broadly accessible aspects like gold.

Secondly, oddly enough these guys did a video today on what yo spend gold on. Not pushing them, I often disagree, but they did address some good points.

One of their points expressed was that this is a role playing game and so it's ok to have non-mechsnical boosting elements you do for impact in the game that are fun - in a role playing game. 

https://youtu.be/PYOypkdvyg8


----------



## Oofta (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> But saying that someone's words are false is not calling them a liar.
> 
> No one in this thread has said that the designers are lazy. Some have said that their design is lazy. I don't have a strong view on that, except when it comes to the role of money in the game: the game maintains the conceit of earlier versions of D&D that a significant goal of play is for the PCs to collect money, but unlike those earlier versions the rules don't provide anything much for that money to be spent on.
> 
> I think much D&D writing is lazy - Moldvay Basic is a noticable exception. Original 4e made it fairly easy to avoid the bad writing because I could generally work out how the game plays by reading the mechanical elements, which were often helpfully boxed. Essentials has the same overblown writing problem as I see in 5e material.




It is calling someone a liar if the implication is that they know they are telling falsehoods.

The implication with calling the rules lazy is that the devs just threw up their hands and said "meh, we haven't really tried that hard or put the effort into thinking of many options so **** it.  We'll publish **** and hope people are gullible enough to buy it."

We see this attitude in one response after another.  Anyone who likes the current set of rules is implicated as a gullible fool who believes that 5E is perfect.  I can't count the number of times people have told me that simply because I think the design decision taken was the correct one.  I see the term as a dog whistle, short-hand for "these rules are crap and anyone who believes differently is an idiot for not knowing better."

I'm sure some people don't mean it that way, but after being accused of believing that the rules are perfect for the umpteenth time (with the implied "you're a fool for believing that") I've started to see the pattern.


----------



## reelo (Sep 24, 2018)

Could we, maybe, get back on, you know.... TOPIC?
Please?


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 24, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Boy did this ever blow up over the last 24-36 hours.
> 
> A few quick hits on some random things read over the last 15-ish pages...
> 
> ...



"Adding pages to the PHB: adding means adding, not replacing. Adding 16 pages to a 320-page book thus gives a 336-page book, and as the original suggestion/request was to ADD pages with info relating to <I forget what, now> there's no reason to worry about what the new info would be bumping."

I was surprised it took so long for this to come up.

This idea ignores several realities.

Publishing pages counts matter for quite a few reasons. So, just add 16 pages is often more than the % of math. Page counts are chosen and/or strongly influenced by many pragmatic business reasons beyond the "inside the game side" when one looks at large scale productions.

Aldo, the the more pages on x added, the more you increase the "stuff to work thru factor" which directly hits accessibility to newer players. 

Finally, and imo burying the lead, the 16 more pages gets to 336 is arrived at with a false premise unstated - that these 16 pages on this topic are the only pages where some players or gms might want more info. In reality, there's more like dozens or hundreds of pages "needed" to address the various questions that go beyond where the 5e guys chose to draw their line. 

Just look at the last few days on this thread alone - a dozen pages on skill dcs, pages on surprise and threat, pages on how many gp it takes to buy +1 social-fu shoes, etc etc etc. 

The fallacy embedded in "add is just add" is that if that was the case all that would be added is that which scratches your itch and ignores everyone else's itch.

For these reasons that's why "add is really replace" is more useful as a premise for rpg choices like "what do we put in the phb vs the dmg vs the setting sourcebook and other later products?"


----------



## Oofta (Sep 24, 2018)

reelo said:


> Could we, maybe, get back on, you know.... TOPIC?
> Please?





A forum thread needs a topic?  

The original tweets could be boiled down to:  "We looked at what worked and didn't with the previous editions and made a design decision that it's not practical to try to give people rules for everything."

So when people complain about the stealth rules (or the lack therein), they're really just disagreeing with the design intent.

But that would end up with a really short forum thread where people wouldn't have a chance to get their grundies in a bundle and bicker endlessly about minutiae.  It would be basically "Yep, they were right for the most part" versus "I wish the rules would be more comprehensive and detailed".  We could have stated our opinions and gone off to do something productive in about 2-3 pages.

But this is the internet, so that's never going to happen.

P.S. for what it's worth, I agree.  But meanwhile I need to counter someone else's post, so I'll get back to you.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 24, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> That isn’t how people work. The rare folks who can sustainably be on guard at all times are represented by the alert feat and/or very high perception.
> 
> But also because it’s incredibly rare, and because knowing things are out there doesn’t stop things taking you by surprise. Since I’ve mentioned it already ITT, I’ve been homeless. I’ve shared space with homeless vets and homeless ex-cons. Very alert people. People, in many cases, who see literally everyone as a threat.
> 
> Literally anyone can be taken by surprised, and sucker punched. That’s reality.




I get how a reality works.  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that in D&D, the rule is as long as you have noticed a threat, you cannot be surprised.  Everything alive or undead is a threat, even plants.  As it is written, you could not be sucker punched in 5e, which due to the afore mentioned reality, seems hokey.  Except that a lot of D&D goes against reality, so you telling me that "It's plain, colloquial, language." doesn't change anything in how it is written, or what it might really mean. 



> no, it’s a rule. It is patently, obviously, factually, a rule. It is exactly as much a rule as “When there’s is a tie, higher mod wins, players win ties against NPCs.” It’s just a different rule from that.




I called it a non-rule *rule*, so clearly I said it was a rule.  I said it was a non-rule rule,  because it quite literally could have been not written without change to how things are done.  They really should have just taken that out and saved the page space for something useful. 



> But it is very spelled out. Just not as much as some other very spelled out systems.
> 
> 4e is obviously very detailed. GURPS is more detailed. Does that mean that 4e isn’t actually detailed?




A system that is very spelled out doesn't have all the holes and ambiguity that 5e has.  You can't escape a few, but 5e has tons.

Let's take a bit of the second page of the combat section. 

Other activities on your turn.

"You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn."

This one contradicts itself within the same sentence.  You can communicate however you are able, except only with brief utterances and gestures, not however you are able.  What is a brief utterance, anyway?  One word?  Two words?  Five words?  A sentence?  The whole 6 seconds?  Clearly not the entire 6 seconds, because you can say a whole lot in 6 seconds, which wouldn't be a "brief utterance."  Except why not the entire 6 seconds?  That's the length of you turn and unless you are casting a spell, it seems like you should be able to talk that long.

Reactions.  Entire threads have been devoted to trying to pin that one down.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Most of the games I play evince a fairly clear connection between the _what_ and the _why_ of play. Two of those games - 4e and Classic Traveller - place emphasis on gear and treausre, and it's clear in both games what that stuff is for.




That doesn't really answer my question.  Especially since you also play games, such as D&D, that are built around the traditional style of game play, yet you have no issue tossing that aside to run your style of game.  Why expect players to be proactive with goals and desires with things other than treasure, but not treasure?


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> So what is the analogue of rolling damage and tracking a hit point total in the case of the parkour jump?




Rolling damage is not a part of the attack role and resolution.   Neither is hit point tracking.  Damage and hit points is a different part of the combat process.  There doesn't need to be an analogue for it in the skill process/



> I don't think there is one. Which is my point. The core 5e combat rules are not "Roll a d20 and add STR to see if you kill the orc". They're "Roll a d20 and add STR to see if you get to engage in this other mechanical process about ablating hit points."




If this makes combat different from skills, then skills are also different from skills.  Jump results in moving through the air X feet.  Knowledge checks result in something completely different.  That combat has a different result either doesn't make it different from the skill process, or there isn't even any uniformity in skills, since like combat, the results are different.

You even acknowledged that there were a few skills that were "exceptions" to the rule.  Well, combat is also a single skill that is an exception to the rule if you want to think of it that way.  It's just a skill check that has a lot of time and space devoted to it, because you use this skill a lot more than the others.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 24, 2018)

ClaytonCross said:


> I think your mistaken your saying designing good narrative and strategy are in ANY WAY mutually exclusive. They can ignore each other or support each other. Their is Zero reason why even choosing to make narrative your starting point or priority would damage your strategic your design. In fact the only real rule here is that both need to be functional and they are only strengthened when they support each other. In other words if I want the story of an epic Fire based sorcerer known for burning his enemies to ache having the ability to build that sorcerer brass dragon an ancestor giving him firebolt and burning hands means at level one I can be a fire based sorcerer, the dragon ancestry origin then informs that story some more allowing placing you on a path for background improvement... for example... I could have also have red dragon ancestry how does that inform my design? Do I have evil tendencies an have to restrain my self or strong desire to burn out corruption from brass dragon ancestry? Also, "Additionally, parts of your skin are covered by a thin sheen of dragon-like scales. When you aren’t wearing armor, your AC equals 13 + your Dexterity modifier." I have scales!! Mechanically the AC bonus is nice... story how visible are they if they are red do the look like a rash? Do people who notice think I am sick and avoid me? If they are noticed to they fear my red dragon origins thinking I might call forth a red dragon ancestor to destroy them or perhaps revere me as if royal blood because they serve Bahamut and feel I am some how closer than they are too this great power? I mean look at the entry itself... its not just some bland strategic statement and its not just fluff ether... *its both*. D&D is at its best when they grow on each other not when people impose personal conflicting beliefs on "how it should be" on each other.
> 
> Sure some people only like the fluff... and others only like the strategy.... *I have never found anything in the fluff you couldn't fixed by adding the right other fluff... and good strategy has only ever served make the fluff stronger while good story gives strategy purpose!* Want to be a Nature cleric with a few levels of Arch Demon Warlock.... sure ...IF ... you can tell me why in a great story. Perhaps you lost your way in search of power and now your fighting to suppress the taint of your demonic warlock powers and gain redemption in your order through penance and that is why your questing... you have to perform 10 selfless deeds that protect the creatures of the forest that no one else could do or remain banished forever!!! To that end you have joined a party to actively drive you into harms way, into places of evil where the meek an innocent are tormented because their is no hope for salvation that does not have you coming face to face with evils as dark as the taint you invited into your soul.
> 
> ...



If they ACTUALLY said "3rd most played" I would laugh so hard it likely hurt before asking how they got that from their data.

On dnd beyond I have easily 2 dozen characters generated I have never played once for every character I have there that I have played. It's an easy generated tested for chargen. You gotta know tons of the characters there are just "what ifs".

How could they tell sort the difference between "played" and "not played but looked at"? 

Do they judge plead by how many times I experimented with adjusting up on the fly - thinking each of those uses of the "in game tools" was an actual session.

One of the worst data fallacies is the idea that making assumptions "based on the data you have" (without understanding the data you have and its limitations) is "better than nothing" or "better than smaller pools of actual play experiences".

In my experience, one of the restraints on warlock play seems to be the baggage that comes from the patron/pact relationship. It seems like a lot of the more option/more complexity types also share the "less gm in my character" and so once a gm says "ok let's do the talk about your pact and obligations" they start looking for other classes or redefinitions of player agency.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 24, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I get how a reality works.  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that in D&D, the rule is as long as you have noticed a threat, you cannot be surprised.  Everything alive or undead is a threat, even plants.  As it is written, you could not be sucker punched in 5e, which due to the afore mentioned reality, seems hokey.  Except that a lot of D&D goes against reality, so you telling me that "It's plain, colloquial, language." doesn't change anything in how it is written, or what it might really mean.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"I called it a non-rule rule, so clearly I said it was a rule. I said it was a non-rule rule, because it quite literally could have been not written without change to how things are done. They really should have just taken that out and saved the page space for something useful. "

This was referencing initiative ties and is wrong, just wrong.

Initiative checks are ability checks. 
Ability checks where two or more characters trying to all accomplish the same thing (in this case go first) are contests.

Ties in contests are ***not*** defaulted to "gm picks winner" but to situation remains jnchanged.

The initiative tie rule provides a clear tie-breaker that other contests do not have.  It defines that to the GM and that is an exception to the rules for ability checks.


----------



## clearstream (Sep 24, 2018)

Oofta said:


> The original tweets could be boiled down to:  "We looked at what worked and didn't with the previous editions and made a design decision that it's not practical to try to give people rules for everything."



Didn't he also stress that they don't want to make a game that encourages toxic behaviour? By implication he sees that to some extent as a design choice, which is interesting.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 24, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "I called it a non-rule rule, so clearly I said it was a rule. I said it was a non-rule rule, because it quite literally could have been not written without change to how things are done. They really should have just taken that out and saved the page space for something useful. "
> 
> This was referencing initiative ties and is wrong, just wrong.
> 
> ...




Um, no.  This is the rule.

"The DM can decide the order if the tie is between a monster and a player character."  This rule clearly states the DM picks the winner, so you are wrong about that.

If there were no rule for that, the DM would still decide how to resolve that tie, going with the monster or the character.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 24, 2018)

clearstream said:


> Didn't he also stress that they don't want to make a game that encourages toxic behaviour? By implication he sees that to some extent as a design choice, which is interesting.




True.  I think it may be more to the point is that they realize they can't possibly fix toxic behavior.

Just like they can never please everyone, as this thread shows.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 24, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 24, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 24, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 24, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Um, no.  This is the rule.
> 
> "The DM can decide the order if the tie is between a monster and a player character."  This rule clearly states the DM picks the winner, so you are wrong about that.
> 
> If there were no rule for that, the DM would still decide how to resolve that tie, going with the monster or the character.



No. Without the explicit exception in initiative the normal rules for ability checks would apply because initiative is an ability check. 

The rule they added to initiative solves ties for initiative and means you dont use the ability check tie rule.

As the designers say specific trumps general. 

I can use Guidance on my dex check for initiative for instance because its an ability check.


----------



## SkidAce (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> If the answer is _just because it's fun to imagine it_ - ie the expenditure is colour and nothing more - then maybe the book could come out and say so: _the goal of playing a game in which you must succeed at wargame-like challenges to have your PC collect gold from a dungeon is to then imagine your PC spending that gold on whatever you want to_.




Why in the world would I want the game book to tell me the "goals" of my game? 

Besides, it changes from campaign to campaign, sometimes session to session.


----------



## SkidAce (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> But putting that to one side, you can write what you're describing into a rulebook as well: eg "You can spend the money your PC has taken out of the dungeon on various social projects, which your GM might then have regard to in setting the DC for interactions with the NPCs who benefit from those projects, or perhaps in deciding that no check is required to have them help you."




This line is advice...and would be okay.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> The "you" in my post was being used in the impersonal sense (ie _one_ doesn't answer the question of what money is for in the context of gameplay by producing a mediaeval price guide, which in any event the game includes.) A price list isn't advice on gameplay.




It's not? If the question is how can characters use their gold, a list of items with prices certainly seems to be advice on exactly that. It's limited advice, and depending on the list, may not be as broad as many would like, but it does address the concern to some extent. 

But I think that this is one of the areas that touches upon what Mearls said. Here are the relevant bits below:


Mike Mearls said:


> 3.5 and 4 were very much driven by an anxiety about controlling the  experience of the game, leaving as little as possible to chance. They  aimed for consistency of play from campaign to campaign, and table to  table. The fear was that an obnoxious player or DM would ruin the game,  and that would drive people away from it. The thinking was that if we  made things as procedural as possible, people would just follow the  rules and have fun regardless of who they played with.
> 
> The downside to this approach is that the rules became comprehensive to a  fault. The game’s rules bloated, as they sought to resolve many if not  all questions that arise in play with the game text.




The intended design goal of 5E goes against the above. They don't want rules for everything. They don't want every group to play the game the same way. I think this is a conscious decision on their part. 



Mike Mearls said:


> With 5th, we assumed that the DM was there to have a good time, put on  an engaging performance, and keep the group interested, excited, and  happy. It’s a huge change, because we no longer expect you to turn to  the book for an answer. We expect the DM to do that.




They expect the DM to have input on the game and how it works. And I think this also applies to the players, by implication. Come up with an idea...."Hey I bought some fancy clothes...can I gain advantage when I try to persuade the duke to help us?" and bring it to your DM rather then to the rule book.

This is the design choice they made. And this is what I like. 

Could they have come up with rules for wardrobe and the impact it has on Persuasion or other social checks? Sure. Could they have come up with rules for how to build strongholds? Sure. 

But they realize the importance of these things will vary from table to table. So they've left such things up to a specific group to decide. 




pemerton said:


> You are correct that I can import advice on gameplay from other games into 5e - but that's not a super-strong defence of 5e's design, I don't think, especially as some advice will probably contradict how 5e is meant to play.




This is why I don't think there will be any convincing you. I think it's a key aspect to the design. Not feeling the need to spend time and space around a bunch of areas of the game whose importance will vary drastically from game to game and committing a bunch of mechanics to those areas ahead of time. Especially not when rather than spend that time and effort ahead of time, the player and DM can spend two minutes at the table and come up with something just as useful. 

It seems to me based on your comments here, and in other conversations, that you want all mechanics to be determined ahead of time so that the players and DM have this established understanding of exactly what's possible and what works and how ahead of time. There's no judgment needed on the DM's part. 

I actually like there to be such judgment. I don't see relying on the judgment of participants in the game to help make decisions about how to play to be lazy design. In fact, I consider it one of 5E's strongest elements.  



pemerton said:


> This doesn't speak to my point, which is _what is the gameplay purpose of imagining my PC spending money on those things?_
> 
> If the answer is _just because it's fun to imagine it_ - ie the expenditure is colour and nothing more - then maybe the book could come out and say so: _the goal of playing a game in which you must succeed at wargame-like challenges to have your PC collect gold from a dungeon is to then imagine your PC spending that gold on whatever you want to_.




It doesn't speak to your point because the answer will likely be different for everyone. 

My game is not exactly the style you assume above, but my players' characters have indeed accumulated some money through play. They've used that money for a variety of things....most of which are more narrative than mechanical. They've established a trading company and they've needed funds for political purposes. There is upkeep involved in that, and a whole bevy of NPCs to pay for, and further investments related to the busines. One PC used the funds to establish a temple. Another used money to help in his search for his family. There has been a bit of magic item purchasing, as well, but not on a large scale. 

For others, a lot of this would be boring and unnecessary. I don't think that the designers needed to provide all this to me ahead of time. My players and I can do that. 

The same can be said of a Diablo-esque dungeoncrawl where the accumulation of wealth serves only to get better items, so that you can penetrate further into the dungeon, so that you can get more money, so you can get better items....and so on. For players of a game where this is the desired approach, how difficult is it to come up with a price guide for magic items? 


So I don't think the fact that the designers know that different people will play differently, and consider some areas of the game more important than others, is a blindspot on their part. I think they're very aware of this, and considered it strongly in their approach. I think they came to the specific design decisions they came to with this in mind, in service of this design approach.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 24, 2018)

ClaytonCross said:


> I think your mistaken your saying designing good narrative and strategy are in ANY WAY mutually exclusive. They can ignore each other or support each other.




That just isn't true. There needs to be a goal that takes priority. Go back to what Mearls said that started this thread. 

"In terms of players, we focus much more on  narrative and identity, rather than specific, mechanical advantages. Who  you are is more important than what you do, to the point that your who  determines your what. In broad terms - and based on what we can observe  of the community from a variety of measures - we went from a community  that focused on mechanics and expertise, to one focused on socializing  and story telling. Mechanical expertise is an element of the game, but  no longer the sole focus. Ideally, it’s a balanced part of all the other  motivators. If balanaced correctly, every has their fun. Enjoyment  isn’t zero sum."

Who determines what, not what determines who.

Some people pick out mechanics and then create identity and narrative to support those mechanics. 

The designers decided to support those and focus on a community who wants to pick out identity and narrative and then have mechanics that support that. It is an important distinction.

Mearls then goes on to say that it is nice if the people who prioritize mechanics can get to play too of course. The thrust though is that the player base has shifted, which makes sense as there are millions of new players. We're at peak D&D. The 3e and 4e players are a very small minority now.

Do you see the distinction? One must come first in design. A common attitude I see among "optimizers" is the idea that identity and narrative are easily mutable. Create your "build" and then find a way to justify it with theme after. The game is no longer designed with that approach in mind. 

Like it or not, that is the reality.



> Actually it is....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cak3ojSuJaM at the 13:21 mark they talk about how it shocked everyone because its now the 3rd most played class in D&D Beyond beating all predictions and and the wizard class in third, the cleric in 4th.




Right, and the middle ones are all very close so it makes sense for them to go back and forth. Warlock is not the most popular. The most popular by a wide margin are Fighter and Rogue. Warlock is still in the middle, a little higher than I would have thought at 3rd but still not close to Fighter and Rogue.

Your argument was that complicated classes with a lot of options are the most popular. I don't think that applies to Fighter and Rogue.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Sep 24, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> They expect the DM to have input on the game and how it works. And I think this also applies to the players, by implication. Come up with an idea...."Hey I bought some fancy clothes...can I gain advantage when I try to persuade the duke to help us?" and bring it to your DM rather then to the rule book.




Agreed

Mike Mornard, one of the early players, talked about that kind of play. That they just tried what they thought up, and the GM would adjudicate how well it worked. The classic "cover in mud, get bees angry, lead other monsters to the bees, and get the stuff while they fight" was an example of not using combat to achieve goals.  When there are rules for everything (3rd and 4th) then you get constrained on what you can do by looking at character sheet. In a more freewheeling game, you just think up stuff your character would do, and the GM tells you what roll to attempt to do it. 

I think that "look up from your character sheet" is an intent of the game. 

I am one of those that played 3.x/PF for years, and moved to 5E.  And I do want some extra mechanical stuff - so I have books by 3rd parties (Midgard, Scarred Lands and In5der, stuff from Dungeon Masters Guild, and other sources). But those are optional - I love the way the core game is build and plays. I wouldn't want WotC to change how it is doing things - just like during the d20 boom WotC expected a LOT of adventures from 3rd party - we can use that resource for extra mechanical trinkets.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 24, 2018)

Fergurg said:


> So am I missing?




Sadras: _Yes. A what._

Fergurg: _What?_

Sadras: _What.
_
Fergurg: _What am I missing?!!_

Sadras: _Exactly._


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 24, 2018)

billd91 said:


> I think more relevant is that Classic D&D explicitly answers the question by requiring PCs to pay through the nose to train for leveling up. That affects more PCs that the option of building and running a stronghold.




This is something I've thought of putting into my campaign. In my current campaign (Curse of Strahd), I handwave downtime.  In my previous campaign, once they had a ship an crew, they would have to have enough gold to keep the ship in, uh, ship shape and keep the crew morale high. But eventually, I hand-waved that. Most players are not interested in Dungeons & Dragons & Accounting.  But the rules do provide some clear lifestyle costs and it should be too hard to come up with training costs.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 24, 2018)

Sadras said:
			
		

> Sadras:






			
				Sadras said:
			
		

> _Yes. A what._





			
				Sadras said:
			
		

> Fergurg: _What?_
> 
> Sadras: _What.
> _
> ...



What's on second!


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 24, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I get how a reality works.  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that in D&D, the rule is as long as you have noticed a threat, you cannot be surprised.  Everything alive or undead is a threat, even plants.  As it is written, you could not be sucker punched in 5e, which due to the afore mentioned reality, seems hokey.  Except that a lot of D&D goes against reality, so you telling me that "It's plain, colloquial, language." doesn't change anything in how it is written, or what it might really mean.



It's very clear, Max. It just isn't written in technical language. That's a good thing. 

Firstly, it does match reality, because people just aren't walking around afraid of plants, and even if they were, that doesn't mean that they're aware that a specific plant is a threat, any more than I'd be aware that a guy walking past me is a threat, just because I've been attacked completely at random by a guy walking past me on the street before. He can still sucker punch me, because knowing that people are potentially _dangerous_ doesn't mean I'm away that a specific _person_ is about to attack me. 

It doesn't say that you have to be unaware that a potential threat might exist, it says you have to be unaware of the threat. A person isn't a threat just because they have the potential to attack you. You have to be aware that they're about to do so. There is no reason to make that any more clear than it is, wasting page space that is put to good use in the book as is. 




> I called it a non-rule *rule*, so clearly I said it was a rule.  I said it was a non-rule rule,  because it quite literally could have been not written without change to how things are done.  They really should have just taken that out and saved the page space for something useful.



Meaningless quibbling about wording aside, 
Someone else already explained that you're wrong about what the rules actually do without the clause in question. 
It's a rule. Not a "non-rule rule", but simply a rule. 




> A system that is very spelled out doesn't have all the holes and ambiguity that 5e has.  You can't escape a few, but 5e has tons.



 Arbitrary to the point of the nonsensical. I could say that about any system that has more an alternative available with more spelled out rules. I could just as easily, using precisely the same reasoning, say that no game but GURPS has very spelled out rules. 



> Let's take a bit of the second page of the combat section.
> 
> Other activities on your turn.
> 
> ...



 There isn't a contradiction there, you're just questing after confusion. 




> Reactions.  Entire threads have been devoted to trying to pin that one down.



 Most of which have resulted from people refusing to read the rules, or trying to twist wording to mean something obviously not intended. A thing that is well known a cost of very spelled out rules systems.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 24, 2018)

Well, this thread blew up in the last few days, and sadly I'm disappointed some of the same nasty comments are being made.  So a couple things:

If you think 5e is lazy design, then I'm certain you've never actually designed an RPG before.  I've seen comments how 5e was just 2.5 with a few things changed.  That shows a gross ignorance on the actual difference between 2e and 5e, as well as what is included in a design process

Calling a game lazy based not on a technical aspect (bad grammar, formatting, etc), but based on your personal preferences very much _*IS *_a personal attack on the people who made it.  Lazy has a very specific definition, and it's targeting the behavior of a person rather than the actual work on any objective measure. 

Criticism from an official source (review, critic, etc) and criticism from some random person on the internet is not the same, and shouldn't be treated as the same.  So no, random person doesn't have the right for the design team to listen to them when they complain about the game.  That's a huge sense of entitlement from said person complaining.  None of us are that special. Want to have game companies listen to you?  Become an official reviewer.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 24, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> Criticism from an official source (review, critic, etc) and criticism from some random person on the internet is not the same, and shouldn't be treated as the same.  So no, random person doesn't have the right for the design team to listen to them when they complain about the game.  That's a huge sense of entitlement from said person complaining.  None of us are that special. Want to have game companies listen to you?  Become an official reviewer.



This implies that creators pay attention to reviewers.

I have no idea how sincere he actually was, but Harlan Ellison reportedly told Isaac Asimov that, when reading a review of his own work, he'd set it aside the instant he detected any negativity. It sounds like the smart thing to me.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 24, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> This implies that creators pay attention to reviewers.
> 
> I have no idea how sincere he actually was, but Harlan Ellison reportedly told Isaac Asimov that, when reading a review of his own work, he'd set it aside the instant he detected any negativity. It sounds like the smart thing to me.




As a creator myself, I can tell you that most creators do pay attention to official reviews almost all of the time.  A lot more than a random person on the internet.  Coincidence you would bring up Asimov, because one of my favorite quotes of his is also relevant to this discussion: 

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that '_*my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge*_.'”


----------



## Eric V (Sep 24, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Um, wow.
> 
> I mean, the chapter on combat is pretty nittanoid and detailed, and in general is pretty thorough.




That's not even considering the chapter on spells, which is really not "coffee-table book" in nature.



Jay Verkuilen said:


> Huh? I have a perfectly well established career with 0 desire to switch into the low pay and massive uncertainty of RPG design. That doesn't mean I can't make suggestions about how to make the game books better/clearer and more useful in play.




It's weird to believe that one has to actually take up game design in order to be able to critique it.


----------



## Eric V (Sep 24, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I don't agree. I'm an academic: part of my job is refereeing submissions to journals, advise publishers on book manuscripts, etc. And others have the job of doing that for my work.
> 
> If an argument in a piece I'm sent to referee is bad, or doesn't cite existing literature that it should, or is unclear, or has some other flaw, I will say so. I have a variety of critical vocabulary for doing so ("lazy" isn't normally part of it because I'm generally being asked to referee based on technical qualities, not literary merit). I'm not casting aspersions on someone by (eg, as I have done) saying that their submission about a criminal law matter is confused about some fundamental aspects of Australian criminal law. And when I submitted something and was told by a negative referee that my theory of the adjudication of the constitutionality of statutes added nothing to the existing understanding I didn't agree, but I didn't think the referee was calling me a silly, bad, lazy, or otherwise flawed, inadequate or less-than-worthy person.




Of course not.  Apparently, the rules are different when talking about game design though...


----------



## Eric V (Sep 24, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I still don't like that word being used in that way. It apparently accuses the creators of not wanting to do a lot of work when in reality they went out of their way to please the audience who is longing for a piece traditional work.




Again, without _saying _anything about the designers as people (because we simply don't have access to that), let me ask this: In your own life, in an effort to please people, has that always entailed a lot of work?  Or have people's wishes sometimes been so easy to fulfill that it wasn't a lot of effort at all, even if you had originally braced yourself to work a lot.

IOW, does pleasing the greatest number of people _necessarily _mean more work than not?  Or is it possible that accomplishing the former may not require as much work as coming up with something improved?

2e, 3e, and 4e didn't just give me what I wanted...*their innovations gave me something I never knew I wanted*.  And so, despite their flaws, I really appreciate them as systems, even if I don't play them anymore.  The game was evolving...but 5e really does feel like a step back (to be popular, and it worked!), hence the "greatest hits" feel.  

Not saying Mearls and all are not motivated or innovative (Iron Heroes seems to show signs of both), but it wasn't brought to the 5e table as much as I would have expected.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 24, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> As a creator myself, I can tell you that most creators do pay attention to official reviews almost all of the time. A lot more than a random person on the internet. Coincidence you would bring up Asimov, because one of my favorite quotes of his is also relevant to this discussion: “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”



 Having heard from Ellison and now Asimov, I got curious about what Stephen King thinks. (Buried in this interview )

"I’m always interested in what my readers think, and I’m aware that many of them want to participate in the story. I don’t have a problem with that, just so long as they understand that what they think isn’t necessarily going to change what I do."

So like, just writing an email to WotC might be enough if they're less like Ellison and more like King.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Sep 24, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> If they ACTUALLY said "3rd most played" I would laugh so hard it likely hurt before asking how they got that from their data.
> 
> On dnd beyond I have easily 2 dozen characters generated I have never played once for every character I have there that I have played. It's an easy generated tested for chargen. You gotta know tons of the characters there are just "what ifs".
> 
> ...





So your saying the human fighter is not the most played class because the same logic still applies... The did call out that one metric for tracking that is that they check if HP is manipulated not a max but in terms of damage and healing back to full. That said while I have made many characters but I have never sat around for hours damaging and undamaging my unused characters for no reason. Are you going to tell me you damage, heal, and level your unused characters? … That would seem a bit odd to me. So while I will agree the metrics are not 100% I think they are way more accurate than your giving them credit for unless their is large group of people who are GMing games where they are their only player... which I have never heard of.
​


5ekyu said:


> In my experience, one of the restraints on warlock play seems to be the baggage that comes from the patron/pact relationship. It seems like a lot of the more option/more complexity types also share the "less gm in my character" and so once a gm says "ok let's do the talk about your pact and obligations" they start looking for other classes or redefinitions of player agency.




That's not necessarily a conflict first of all as The Old One patron does not require that your patron recognize your existence, you could be a pact breaker in the case that you made a deal with the devil but then decided to betray them when you came to your right mind (which is where death locks come from if they kill you for it), and the assumption here is that no other character including Clerics who are REQUIRED to obey their deity or paladins who have to play with their oaths or become and oath breaker would be less popular for the same reason. I am playing a warlock, have a cleric, and a paladin in my group. We have "baggage" with all three but we don't mind it... we call it back story and it hooks each character into the world...In fact the classes without hooks... generally have hooks added to them one way or another. This has never been a problem in any game we have ever played. That in mind, your placing a personal play style choice that conflicts with your GM as if all players and GMs are the same and creates this intrinsic problem.... when that is not the case. From the same type of argument I could say "All fighter characters are abandoned because players realize the just wanted to play a strategic fighting game but then GMs made them roll play any way instead of being the stoic warrior, so they all quite and decide to play something else." … but that would be silly since I has no basis in a metric or reality its just a personal view.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Sep 25, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> That just isn't true. There needs to be a goal that takes priority. Go back to what Mearls said that started this thread.
> 
> "In terms of players, we focus much more on  narrative and identity, rather than specific, mechanical advantages. Who  you are is more important than what you do, to the point that your who  determines your what. In broad terms - and based on what we can observe  of the community from a variety of measures - we went from a community  that focused on mechanics and expertise, to one focused on socializing  and story telling. Mechanical expertise is an element of the game, but  no longer the sole focus. Ideally, it’s a balanced part of all the other  motivators. If balanaced correctly, every has their fun. Enjoyment  isn’t zero sum."
> 
> ...





They may want to start with story but the PHB and DMG are what you need to play they are 90% mechanical rules and 10% story fluff​
So your arguing that the "first one" is the priority and the only thing that really matters but if that is the case then you don't need rules for how the game is played you just need the fluff... then no one will play and arguing over "you can't do that!!! YES I CAN !!" would cause the game to implode for MOST users. It takes a specific type of person to play text base honor system games with no actual game play rules. However, 100% strategy games are video games. Video games are very popular. People power game in video games. D&D is an RPG and to function and function well it MUST have both Fluff and Strategy to function...If not it becomes a forum conversation or video game. Story fluff gives mechanical rules and strategic combat purpose, Mechanical rules with strategic combat give story fluff weight because failed negotiations and threats have character death and depleting resource management like HP. Your welcome to go read a book or join in a community story forum (which often degrade and fall apart) or a strategic board game. I have even had sessions of entirely strategic combat or entirely story fluff. However, what brings me back to D&D is the combination of both feeding from each other. If all you want is a 100% narrative story their are outlets for that... they are not D&D. They could be based on Forgotten realms but they become a D&D story forum or book... but if you invited me to play D&D and showed up to you reading a book or posting story on forums I would wonder why your not ready to play an annoyed that you lied . *Both are required*.

It doesn't matter which one you decide to start with … its just approach.* In the end an RPG must have story and mechanical rules* or it becomes something else. If they don't inform each other in a partnership they just will not work well. Which is why Mearls runs everything from story and Crawford everything from mechanical meting together to make one awesome product.

If you doubt that D&D is a rule based game look at the amount of time the spend answering Sage Advice and test Unearthed Arcana... mechanical rules are a key part of D&D but... so is story. Discounting ether for the other is a mistake.



ad_hoc said:


> Right, and the middle ones are all very close so it makes sense for them to go back and forth. Warlock is not the most popular. The most popular by a wide margin are Fighter and Rogue. Warlock is still in the middle, a little higher than I would have thought at 3rd but still not close to Fighter and Rogue.
> 
> Your argument was that complicated classes with a lot of options are the most popular. I don't think that applies to Fighter and Rogue.




Err... you didn't watch the video did you? The D&D beyond staff said that the highest class of fighter has 4% and warlocks have demanding lead over warlocks and clerics that despite what appear as small numbers is NOT even close.....They are not "going back and forth"  warlock has left them in the dust. Fighter is the "beginner's class" as stated by the D&D staff and has always been so. Good players still use it but it holds number one because you don't need to learn as much to play it as it generally has no spells and attacking multiple times with weapon is not a hard concept. Rogues, represent the stealth melee arch type (which they are not limited too) but again for beginning players is simple to understand and not a caster but with a different perspective than fighters in heavy armor for those who want to be sneaky. What warlock DID do is become the #1 caster in the game and a caster commonly taken has a hexblade for the gish option, and with the celestial patron warlock it can basically do any job but tank... which fighter does well .. and perhaps arguably be supper stealthy since casting verbal spells makes fighting unnoticed from shadow difficult. ...So your saying only two class are ranked higher for perhaps the only to functions it can't do and that some how diminishes the flexibility of the warlock class!???!? lmao... no … no it doesn't.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 25, 2018)

ClaytonCross;7499577[COLOR=#222222 said:
			
		

> ][/COLOR]
> So your arguing that the "first one" is the priority and the only thing that really matters but if that is the case then you don't need rules for how the game is played you just need the fluff...




Mearls said this is how the game is designed.

Like it or not, it is good to understand that.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 25, 2018)

Here is Jeremy Crawford on how they develop and design subclasses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5SeqUY8Pjc

1. Start with the story
2. Describe the story
3. Brainstorm mechanics to express the story
4. Compare mechanics to other subclasses within the same class for balance
5. Ensure subclass mechanics match the infrastructure of other subclasses. Eg. new Cunning Action for Rogues
6. Check for duplication with other subclasses
7. Check back to ensure it is representing the story
etc.

They start with story then get to mechanics. Rather than start with mechanics then fit in the story.

The distinction is important, and important to understand in order to understand the game and the rules.

Some people don't like it, but it's good to know it. This is 5e.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 25, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> No. Without the explicit exception in initiative the normal rules for ability checks would apply because initiative is an ability check.
> 
> The rule they added to initiative solves ties for initiative and means you dont use the ability check tie rule.
> 
> ...




You are misapplying the ability check rule for ties.  The rule for ties is for contests ONLY and initiative is not a ability contest.  There is no winner and loser like with opposed checks, so that rule does not apply.  The general rule for tied initiative between DM and players is that the DM decides.............just like if there was no rule.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 25, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Firstly, it does match reality, because people just aren't walking around afraid of plants, and even if they were, that doesn't mean that they're aware that a specific plant is a threat, any more than I'd be aware that a guy walking past me is a threat, just because I've been attacked completely at random by a guy walking past me on the street before. He can still sucker punch me, because knowing that people are potentially _dangerous_ doesn't mean I'm away that a specific _person_ is about to attack me.




No man.  It doesn't match reality, because in reality there aren't plants that move and eat you, disguised as normal plants.  I don't have to worry in a forest that a treant might want to kill me.  



> It doesn't say that you have to be unaware that a potential threat might exist, it says you have to be unaware of the threat. A person isn't a threat just because they have the potential to attack you. You have to be aware that they're about to do so. There is no reason to make that any more clear than it is, wasting page space that is put to good use in the book as is.




It doesn't say that you have to wait until you see a weapon coming for your face, either.  A potential threat is still a threat to you.  A dragon sitting on a hill is only a potential threat.  Are you telling me that it can get surprise on a group of wary adventurers?  That's absurd.  The rule is not clearly explained, which is fine.  Vague rules are in line with 5e stated design goal.



> Someone else already explained that you're wrong about what the rules actually do without the clause in question.
> It's a rule. Not a "non-rule rule", but simply a rule.




And as I show in the post above, that person is flat out wrong.  Initiative is not an opposed check, so the rules for contests don't apply to it.  Initiative is simply a way to see who goes first.



> There isn't a contradiction there, you're just questing after confusion.




First half of the sentence, "You can communicate however you are able," which means that there are no limits to the ways you can communicate, so long as you are able.  The second half of the sentence, "through brief utterances and gestures," limiting you to exactly two ways to communicate.  If you have telepathy, you can't use it as it's not one of the two ways set forth, except that you can because you can communicate however you are able!!  It contradicts itself very clearly.


----------



## Greg Benage (Sep 25, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> First half of the sentence, "You can communicate however you are able," which means that there are no limits to the ways you can communicate, so long as you are able.  The second half of the sentence, "through brief utterances and gestures," limiting you to exactly two ways to communicate.  If you have telepathy, you can't use it as it's not one of the two ways set forth, except that you can because you can communicate however you are able!!  It contradicts itself very clearly.




You can use telepathy as long as your telepathic utterances are brief.

(I'm assuming you're in earnest, but I'm really not sure.)


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 25, 2018)

Greg Benage said:


> You can use telepathy as long as your telepathic utterances are brief.
> 
> (I'm assuming you're in earnest, but I'm really not sure.)




An utterance is verbal.  A thought is telepathic.  You cannot make a telepathic utterance.

ut·ter·ance
ˈədərəns/
_noun_


*a spoken word, statement, or vocal sound.*
the action of saying or expressing something* aloud.*
an uninterrupted chain of *spoken or written* language.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Sep 25, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> Here is Jeremy Crawford on how they develop and design subclasses.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5SeqUY8Pjc
> 
> ...





You do realize steps 3-4 are mechanics. That's 3.5 of 7 or 50% of the process. Not only that but I have been saying one informs the other... so you start with story 1&2, the you enforce mechanics 3-4, then you pulling back to story because your mechanics have informed your story just as your story has informed your mechanics. That the PHB and DMG are more than 90% mechanics.  I have never said that you can't start with story. In fact, my only point is 5e is not JUST story or JUST mechanics, they are two parts of a whole and act to support each other. Your saying you can't start with mechanics and get to the same place but you actually can I have personal made characters and campaigns setting as a GM both ways. I just need a starting point and to make sure I full fill BOTH in the end. Your arguments are that that D&D is a story game and mechanics are not all that important but we have PHB and DMG that were made first and the basics of every other book for a good reason. Its a story world based on rules.... that means both. You assertion that story is king and every thing else is crap is proven wrong by the existence of suck extensive rules. 

Don't believe me still? 

Let's actually Quote Jeremy Crawford
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/philosophy-behind-rules-and-rulings

"Rules are a big part of what makes D&D a game, rather than simply improvised storytelling. The game’s rules are meant to help organize, and even inspire, the action of a D&D campaign. The rules are a tool, and we want our tools to be as effective as possible. No matter how good those tools might be, they need a group of players to bring them to life and a DM to guide their use."
Your link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5SeqUY8Pjc is specific to building classes and subclasses but ok, lets look at it.

What is the story 
0:44 - "Every design... at least the best designs. They start with a story" --So he caught himself mid sentence to correct that not all designs start with a story and "best" is subjective. He goes on about this being a mission statement starting point. I have played characters based on a mechanical role in a party and so have many other players... for example... when asked to join a Champaign I said sure, the party then said, "Hay we need a scout, do you mind playing a scout of some type?" This was also a mission statement but not based on a character story but mechanical desire so I used that to inform my story playing a warlock scout who came from the village of the party leader then tied him to the role of scout by giving him devils sight and I made him a surviving street urchin (for scout skills) who's family was killed by the same band of cultist that killed the party leader's family. This created a story bond to a party member and a story reason for me to have evolved as a scout as having a mechanically superior "darkvision" which leads to my character applying himself as scout to be useful in a group by making use of a mechanical advantage... so he is not just saying he is a better scout than the human paladin … he is actually better at scouting and so naturally fills the role due to having this above average ability and a desire to find some way to help. That is not me disagreeing with his approach. I am just saying their are 2 and he has a favorite.

2:46 - "Sometimes we will end up making changes to the mechanics that push the story in a new direction. And then we go back ...and sort of talking on the practical side. We go back and actually change that story text so that it now reflects the new story that the subclass is telling" ...So Jeremy Crawford in the link your using to discredit my statements said that … sometimes the mechanic changes the story.... Story informing mechanics...Mechanics informing story... just like a said the whole time.

3:15 (Talking about Mike Mearl's process, don't want to have to word for word the video your welcome double check me) "where you get to see some of that early concepting phase of lets spit ball something, lets come up with a story, and then lets brain storm some of the little class features and other *mechanical *nuggets that could express that story. And it really is a way you just let your imagination run wild. ...With some limits. One of the big limits even in that initial phase is that your playing in kind of playground that already exists"

...that is him saying you can't make the story without considering the rules as a container "playground" he goes on to talk about the "mechanical heft" of subclasses and keeping the mechanical weight of a subclass in comparison to its primary class in mind not to balance classes but to keep a mechanical standard of priority and power of subclass features vs class features... meaning that story being a starting point does not mean your not constantly looking at mechanical design building story in a mechanical vacuum. 

You need both. This idea that D&D is a story game only or a Mechanical Game only is frankly against reality. It must have both to function. They are both equally important no matter which one you start with.


----------



## Greg Benage (Sep 25, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> An utterance is verbal.  A thought is telepathic.  You cannot make a telepathic utterance.
> 
> ut·ter·ance
> ˈədərəns/
> ...




Okay, man.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 25, 2018)

Greg Benage said:


> Okay, man.




It's not my fault the meanings of words doesn't back you up.  The statement in the rule book is contradictory.  Part of it says you can communicate however you can, the other limits you and prevents some forms of communication.

Personally, I'd go with the first part, but that wasn't the point.  The point is that the combat rules are full of holes, contradictions and vague statements.  They are not spelled out as well as some people here think.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 25, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Exactly like that, but completely different.
> [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I think you’re nitpicking wording to force a conclusion at this point. DnD doesn’t allow “killing the orc” to be an action, but als doesn’t let “gain an army” be an action. DnD breaks things into single actions, or close enough to best abstracted like it’s a single action. Each action is resolved using the same system.
> 
> “Win the fight” is an action in some games, in other games it isn’t. Some fights will be won with one action, most won’t. That doesn’t change that actions are resolved in the same way either way. Some puzzles will be resolved in one action, others won’t.
> ...



I'm not nitpicking. I am trying to engage in serious analysis about how 5e's resolution works. I believe you are also, which means I'm a bit puzzled by your disagreement with me but am going to plough on!

Some context: when it comes to analysing the play of a RPG I'm basically a loyal pupil of Vincent Baker (I've read many but not all of his lumplely/anyway posts) and Ron Edwards (I've read many of his essays and posts but not the whole corpus which is vast!). The games I'm drawing on in making the analysis include a range of "trad" games (Classic Traveller, Runequest and its offshoots, classic D&D), mid-80s through 90s games (AD&D 2nd ed in a Vampire-heavy culture), 4e, and a variety of "indie" games (Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant which is from the late 80s but plays like it was written yesterday, Cortex+ Heroic, HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, Dungeon World, various Vincent Baker games like In a Wicked Age and DitV).

If we think about the relationship between action declaration (a move made by the player at the table) and the fiction, there is no reason why "I kill the orc" can't be a legitimate action decelaration. (It is in Burning Wheel, for instance.) The fact that D&D treats it as a move in a wargame-like resolution framework - ie a possible trigger for hit point attrition - is not driven by the fiction.

But nor is it simply a case of breaking down the action into smaller steps. Doing 4 hp of damage to an orc isn't a step in the fiction; it's purely a mechanical change of state (although it is possible to narrate some colour around it, but that colour could be whatever the player or GM wants which is consistent with the orce being worn down). This contrasts with, say, Runequest where the granular resolution of combat actually does produce ascertainable changes in the fiction.

A GM who says "To enter the castle you first have to succeed at a STR/Athletics check to swim the moat, then a STR/Athletics check to scale the wall" is setting out some granular resolution stages, but this is different from D&D combat as (i) there is no mechanical subystem here, and (ii) each success correlates to something in the fiction.

A 4 skill challenge is another case intermediate between the previous two: each step correlates to something concrete in the fiction that actually changes the fictional positioning (unlike the mere colour of whatever narration accompanies hit point loss), but it also generates a mechanical change in a subsystem. Cortex+ Heroic is similar to this in its resolution; but unlike 4e it uses the same system for everything (from fighting to talking to gaining an advantage by taking the higher ground).

When people complain about skill challenges being "dice rolling exercises" they're disregarding the step where the fictional positioning changes and treating it all just as colour (or even completely ignoring the colour). When people complain about 4e combat being nothing but a tactical skirmish game, I think they are mostly ignoring that - while hp loss doesn't generate any changes in the fiction other than colour (with "bloodied" and "you're at zero" as exceptions), positioning, terrain and status effects do generate ficitonal positioning, and keywords provide the anchors for exploiting fictional positioning via subsequent power use. 5e seems to use fewer status effects in combat than 4e, and so for fictional positioning in combat seems to rely more heaviy on positioning.

But anyway, it is not the same system of resolution as the check-result-correlates-to-fictional-outcome of an ability/skill check.

(EDIT: Vincent Baker's "clouds-and-boxes" represents the contrast in visual terms.)


----------



## Greg Benage (Sep 25, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> It's not my fault the meanings of words doesn't back you up.




You're going to be baffled by the Great Old One warlock's Awakened Mind ability. Hope you can eventually work through it. 

Awakened Mind
Starting at 1st level, you can communicate telepathically with any creature you can see within 30 feet of you. You don't need to share a language with the creature for it to understand your telepathic utterances, but the creature must be able to understand at least one language. Additionally, the creature does not gain the ability to telepathically reply, despite you being able to speak to it.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 25, 2018)

Greg Benage said:


> You're going to be baffled by the Great Old One warlock's Awakened Mind ability. Hope you can eventually work through it.
> 
> Awakened Mind
> Starting at 1st level, you can communicate telepathically with any creature you can see within 30 feet of you. You don't need to share a language with the creature for it to understand your telepathic utterances, but the creature must be able to understand at least one language. Additionally, the creature does not gain the ability to telepathically reply, despite you being able to speak to it.




Won't be the first time the staff hasn't used a word correctly, and it won't be the last. That's what keeps threads going!


----------



## pemerton (Sep 25, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> One of their points expressed was that this is a role playing game and so it's ok to have non-mechsnical boosting elements you do for impact in the game that are fun - in a role playing game.



But why, then, do we bother counting all the coins? Why can't the GM just describe the PCs coming upon a "great treasure" or a "small cache" or whatever (as fiction writers do) and then the players describe what their PCs spend the money on?

In classic D&D the detail mattered - counting GP was tracking win conditions (ie XP earned). In 3E and 4e it matters, because the gold gets spent on treasure. (Probably all the numbers could be divided through by 5 or 10 or even 100, but that's a secondary point I think.)

But if collecting and spending treasure is just fun colour, why the accountancy? I personally think the answer is that it's a legacy feature and nothing more. Legacy features might be popular, but I don't think they make the case for strong or tight design.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 25, 2018)

Oofta said:


> It is calling someone a liar if the implication is that they know they are telling falsehoods.
> 
> The implication with calling the rules lazy is that the devs just threw up their hands and said "meh, we haven't really tried that hard or put the effort into thinking of many options so **** it.  We'll publish **** and hope people are gullible enough to buy it."
> 
> ...



You seem to have mistaken me for some other poster. I haven't said anything about you, let alone suggested that you're gullible or a fool.

If you think someone engaging in criticism of the writing or design of a book or game you enjoy is an attack on you, I think that's on you. On this thread I've read more than one poster attacking 4e as poorly conceived, poorly designed, unplayable, etc. I don't take those as personal attacks. And just because I think those people are wrong, that doesn't mean I think they're fools.

This thread is discussing the design of a game, not the morals or character of those who designed it or those who play it.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 25, 2018)

Greg Benage said:


> Okay, man.




It is a gross omission of that dictionary to neglect the use of telepathy.


----------



## OB1 (Sep 25, 2018)

Finally caught up on this thread and figure this is as good a point as any to dip in..



pemerton said:


> But why, then, do we bother counting all the coins? Why can't the GM just describe the PCs coming upon a "great treasure" or a "small cache" or whatever (as fiction writers do) and then the players describe what their PCs spend the money on?
> 
> In classic D&D the detail mattered - counting GP was tracking win conditions (ie XP earned). In 3E and 4e it matters, because the gold gets spent on treasure. (Probably all the numbers could be divided through by 5 or 10 or even 100, but that's a secondary point I think.)
> 
> But if collecting and spending treasure is just fun colour, why the accountancy? I personally think the answer is that it's a legacy feature and nothing more. Legacy features might be popular, but I don't think they make the case for strong or tight design.




Maintaining a wealthy lifestyle requires around 1,500 gp a year, an Aristocratic one 3,600.  Assume you want to retire from adventuring at some point means a human would need 45,000+ gold minimum.  Want to build your own castle?  You'll need 500,000gp just to build and another 140,000 per year to maintain.  That's a CR17+ treasure hoard every year.

Of course, all of those things come with their own complications, as does spending money trying to buy magic items, as doing so could draw the attention of other powerful beings.

Spending money is all grounded in the particular story you are involved in.  

And to the point of this thread and Mearl's statement, not being as granular about the rules allows DMs to better tell the story that their individual table is interested in.  Could this mean that there is a disagreement at the table over how much 100,000 gp should be able to purchase?  Yes, it might, but that disagreement carries a much lower consequence to it than one over whether or not the evil Orc hit you with it's sword and killed you. 

Combat in D&D takes up so much design space because it is both the primary player agency mechanism and has the highest stakes.  As long as the rules of life and death are seen as fair, the players can use that to impact the world with an expectation that the results will not be at DM whim. 

For example, if the DM decides that no amount of money can buy a castle because the King must grant the land, the players can use the rules of combat to kill the King and build the castle anyhow.  This in turn, leads back to the central conceit of the game as it was designed, for the DM and players to create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils.

And that to me is the whole point of the 5E design philosophy.  What are the minimum amount of rules necessary to inspire and tell that exciting story?  I'd argue that the extensive combat rules both inspire the imagination in exciting action packed scenes and give players a sense of agency without perfect certainty leading to careful weighing of options on how to engage the world.  Extensive travel rules or shopping rules just don't, IMO, have the same rewards for added complexity.  There are also diminishing returns on increasing the complexity of combat to these goals as well.


----------



## guachi (Sep 25, 2018)

I feel that too tightly focusing on the "story" of a subclass makes a subclass too narrow to be appealing. It's why, for example, I find the Battle Master such a fantastic subclass despite Mearls thinking it's one of the weakest. 

The Battle Master can be anything. It can be an Arcane Archer (not literally but you can fluff stuff if you want), a Samurai, a Cavalier. It can basically be any subclass you want except the Eldritch Knight. Its "story" isn't the story the designers give you; its story is the one the player gives it. You can "Battle Master" almost any fighter concept you can come up with.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 25, 2018)

guachi said:


> I feel that too tightly focusing on the "story" of a subclass makes a subclass too narrow to be appealing. It's why, for example, I find the Battle Master such a fantastic subclass despite Mearls thinking it's one of the weakest.
> 
> The Battle Master can be anything. It can be an Arcane Archer (not literally but you can fluff stuff if you want), a Samurai, a Cavalier. It can basically be any subclass you want except the Eldritch Knight. Its "story" isn't the story the designers give you; its story is the one the player gives it. You can "Battle Master" almost any fighter concept you can come up with.




Alternatively though, because Battle Master's come with virtually no story, it can be difficult to distinguish the character in a group.  After all, sure, you decide to model your BM as a Samurai, but, then you look at other classes where the story behind the class is much stronger, and it's a lot easier to make your character stand out.  Paladins, for example, drip with story.  As do warlocks, druids and clerics.  It's easy to make one of those characters and make them really stand out at the table.  Even within the class.  A bladelock and a Pact of the Book warlock is very different and will look and play very different.

Your BM, OTOH, whether he's a samurai, a cavalier or a whatever, still plays very much like a BM and there isn't a whole lot to hang story off of for those characters.  Never minding the Champion fighter which is about as vanilla as you can possibly get.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 25, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> An utterance is verbal.  A thought is telepathic.  You cannot make a telepathic utterance.
> 
> ut·ter·ance
> ˈədərəns/
> ...



This is a case where being pedantic literally makes you wrong. The natural language understanding of the sentence is quite clear.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 25, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> This is a case where being pedantic literally makes you wrong. The natural language understanding of the sentence is quite clear.




The intent is clear.  The sentence is wrong.  It's like RAI vs. RAW.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 25, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> No man.  It doesn't match reality, because in reality there aren't plants that move and eat you, disguised as normal plants.  I don't have to worry in a forest that a treant might want to kill me.



People are dangerous. You’re using nit picking as a rhetorical device, rather than trying to engage seriously with other people in a discussion. 




> It doesn't say that you have to wait until you see a weapon coming for your face, either.  A potential threat is still a threat to you.  A dragon sitting on a hill is only a potential threat.  Are you telling me that it can get surprise on a group of wary adventurers?  That's absurd.  The rule is not clearly explained, which is fine.  Vague rules are in line with 5e stated design goal.




of course you can. 100%. It requires stealth, but unless they are just more Alert than is normally possible, they can be ambushed and taken by surprise. 

The dragon con can get surprise on the party just like assassins posing as merchants could, though I’d put the dragon at Disadvantage to ease the worry of the adventurers, where the assassins would roll their deception straight. I’m not sure what is confusing there. 



> First half of the sentence, "You can communicate however you are able," which means that there are no limits to the ways you can communicate, so long as you are able.  The second half of the sentence, "through brief utterances and gestures," limiting you to exactly two ways to communicate.  If you have telepathy, you can't use it as it's not one of the two ways set forth, except that you can because you can communicate however you are able!!  It contradicts itself very clearly.




Those aren’t contradictions. You can communicate however you’re able. Ie by any means you’re capable of. Sign language, speech, telepathy, whatever. The game doesn’t care. You can’t soak at length. You have to keep it short. 

There literally isnt a contradiction there. 

Oh, and BTW, it’s completely normal and broadly accepted to use terms for spoken communication when discussing telepathy.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 25, 2018)

guachi said:


> I feel that too tightly focusing on the "story" of a subclass makes a subclass too narrow to be appealing. It's why, for example, I find the Battle Master such a fantastic subclass despite Mearls thinking it's one of the weakest.
> 
> The Battle Master can be anything. It can be an Arcane Archer (not literally but you can fluff stuff if you want), a Samurai, a Cavalier. It can basically be any subclass you want except the Eldritch Knight. Its "story" isn't the story the designers give you; its story is the one the player gives it. You can "Battle Master" almost any fighter concept you can come up with.




I think it is well understood that there are players who care about the mechanics first and then fit the story in after.

Much of the 'flaws' that I have seen people gripe about come down to this. 

It's just different preferences. We know you like cherries more than apples. You're probably not going to find much success if you try to convince people that they should like cherries more than apples.

The designers of 5e have goals which are contrary to what you like.  And that's okay. A statement like this from Mearls clarifies his design goals which helps to set expectations.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 25, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> The intent is clear.  The sentence is wrong.  It's like RAI vs. RAW.



It’s not wrong, though. Common usage is literally always correct, by definition. Using terminology originally intended for verbal speech to talk about telepathy is the common usage for speaking about telepathy. 

Further, in agame written in natural language, obviously clear RAI *is* RAW, in any case where the writing itself makes RAI obviously clear.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 25, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> You are misapplying the ability check rule for ties.  The rule for ties is for contests ONLY and initiative is not a ability contest.  There is no winner and loser like with opposed checks, so that rule does not apply.  The general rule for tied initiative between DM and players is that the DM decides.............just like if there was no rule.




It is a contest. It is a direct context between every combatant, just like deception vs insight, or two character using insight to see who is going to flinch/move/lose their nerve first in a game of chicken.

but because it is resolved somewhat differently, it has specific rules. 
 [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] Great post, and I’ll get into more tomorrow when I can dig into something that long, but for right now I just want to say that attacking an enemy is exactly the same as making one of several checks to get through a series of locks/parts of a complex lock to get into a vault. The only narrative change is that you’ve worn down the enemy more, or gotten closer to busting the vault.


----------



## KenNYC (Sep 25, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> Become an official reviewer.




I don't know about that.  Game reviewers are not quite the New York Times.   Often times they are someone like Tom Vassel or Rahdo, who review games on youtube or run game cons.  They almost never give a bad review to games.   If they frequently did, a la a scathing Broadway critic circa 1950, how long do you think they would continue to get free games from publishers?

Official reviews are to be taken with a grain of salt.   As an employee of the NY Post (owned by Rupert Murdoch) told me once, they had instructions to be nice to 20th Century Fox films whenever possible.   A fraternity brother of mine got a job reviewing video games for an online site.  What qualified him to be a game reviewer?   You got me, but he knew someone and got the job.   More power to him I say.

Go look at the comic book website newsarama.   They have been reviewing comics something like 20 years using a 1-10 rating system.   To my knowledge they have never encountered a comic book that deserved a rating lower than 5 in all these years.   How is that possible?

Some nameless person on the internet may indeed have something valid to say.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 25, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> People are dangerous. You’re using nit picking as a rhetorical device, rather than trying to engage seriously with other people in a discussion.




Then they are a threat and PCs who notice people can't be surprised, by RAW.  



> of course you can. 100%. It requires stealth, but unless they are just more Alert than is normally possible, they can be ambushed and taken by surprise.
> 
> The dragon con can get surprise on the party just like assassins posing as merchants could, though I’d put the dragon at Disadvantage to ease the worry of the adventurers, where the assassins would roll their deception straight. I’m not sure what is confusing there.




No offense, but I wouldn't want to play in a game where I'm forced to be clueless next to a dragon just so that it can surprise me.  Not even Forest Gump would be caught off guard by a dragon.



> Those aren’t contradictions. You can communicate however you’re able. Ie by any means you’re capable of. Sign language, speech, telepathy, whatever. The game doesn’t care. You can’t soak at length. You have to keep it short.




The game does care.  It limits you to exactly two forms of communication.  Verbal(utterances) and gestures.



> Oh, and BTW, it’s completely normal and broadly accepted to use terms for spoken communication when discussing telepathy.




Happens all the time in the real world does it?  I can't think of being in or hearing about enough conversations regarding telepathy that I would describe it as "normal" and "broadly accepted" to use terms for spoken communication to describe it.  I really doubt enough people have had that conversation to qualify as either normal or broadly accepted. 

Books that I've read sometimes make it images, or they just understand each other without words, or they hear, but not really hear, words in their head.




> It’s not wrong, though. Common usage is literally always correct, by definition. Using terminology originally intended for verbal speech to talk about telepathy is the common usage for speaking about telepathy.




The common usage for utterance is verbal only.  That's the common usage, which you say is literally always correct.  It's not just uncommon, it's bloody rare for people to even be discussing telepathy at all, let alone using the word utterance when doing it.




> Further, in agame written in natural language, obviously clear RAI *is* RAW, in any case where the writing itself makes RAI obviously clear.




Not according to Jeremy Crawford who puts in the RAW interpretation of rules into the Sage Advice, and then includes the RAI interpretation as something separate.  




> It is a contest. It is a direct context between every combatant, just like deception vs insight, or two character using insight to see who is going to flinch/move/lose their nerve first in a game of chicken




This is flat out wrong.  A contest is when you have two ability checks in direct opposition to one another, such as when one person is trying open a door, and the other trying to close it.  

A "contest" like a javelin toss might use ability checks to see how far you throw the javelin, but that does not qualify as a contest as written in the PHB.  Per RAW there are only two times you have a contest.  

"Sometimes one character’s or monster’s efforts are directly opposed to another’s. *This can occur when both of them are trying to do the same thing and only one can succeed,* such as attempting to snatch up a magic ring that has fallen on the floor. This situation also applies *when one of them is trying to prevent the other one from accomplishing a goal*—for example, when a monster tries to force open a door that an adventurer is holding closed. In situations like these, the outcome is determined by a special form of ability check, called a contest."

When you roll initiative, you are not engaging in an act in which only one can succeed, nor are you trying to prevent anyone else from accomplishing initiative.  There is no contest as defined by RAW.


----------



## clearstream (Sep 25, 2018)

OB1 said:


> And to the point of this thread and Mearl's statement, not being as granular about the rules allows DMs to better tell the story that their individual table is interested in.  Could this mean that there is a disagreement at the table over how much 100,000 gp should be able to purchase?  Yes, it might, but that disagreement carries a much lower consequence to it than one over whether or not the evil Orc hit you with it's sword and killed you.
> 
> Combat in D&D takes up so much design space because it is both the primary player agency mechanism and has the highest stakes.  As long as the rules of life and death are seen as fair, the players can use that to impact the world with an expectation that the results will not be at DM whim.
> 
> ...



To kill a King typically requires an army. Armies are expensive... war is a continuation of economics by other means.


----------



## Fallstorm (Sep 25, 2018)

I started D&D in 2E and played every edition since.  4 is my favorite but I like 5E two and I currently am playing in my second 5E campaign.  I have DMed but mostly I have been a player.   While I like 5E I (along with most of my group) are rather disappointed at the pace of rules production released in 5E.  Mike Mearls mentioned that thereis a ton of new players and someone in this over twenty page thread made a statement saying that since 5E is doing so well it must mean that players in general don’t favor heavy rules customization. I take issue with that belief.

I take issue with it because we really don’t fully know what Hasbro is counting as sales of D&D.  Mike Mearls has said before that they don’t have to put out as many splat books because they can release games like Lords of Waterdeep, etcetera as income generators since the Hasbro merger.  I am wondering if things like the numerous board games and additional niche products (Dice sets), etcetera are what is making a more significant portion D&D 5E sales now, whereas the RPG books like splat books were the main revenue generator in previous editions? I don’t know if there are any hard numbers on this (perhaps [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] has some insight) but I would feel secure betting that besides the three core books (DMG, PHB, and MM) the biggest book sales of D&D 5E are probably the books that offer actual rules and option expansions like Xanathar’s Guide to Everything and Mordenkainen’s Guide, and also the SCAG (as the first book to really offer PC expansions despite how skimpy).     

I do know that there are a number of third party options but many people don’t use those because they like to use official products for a variety of reasons:  1) It creates consistency from campaign to campaign and between games 2) people may feel that official splat material has been better play tested, etc.    What I think is that is that Mike Mearl’s statement is coming from two places.  1) His own personal philosophy and not that of ALL the designers because I know Jeremy Crawford had written much more crunch to the game that was not included and 2) it was pragmatic political statement.  What I mean in regards to the latter is that WOTC only has a handful of game designers compared to the 3E and even early 4E days.    It takes a lot to write a book especially a rulebook and with such a small team the pace of production is inevitably going to be impacted. Now, granted I think they can go a little faster  (no psionic expansion yet, slow updates on pre-existing game worlds and so forth) but the fact is unless they work around the clock 24/7 they can only do so much—designers have to eat and sleep too.

All that being said again I don’t HATE 5E.   Also, I think people being somewhat hyperbolic when they talk about the game being "DM Facing".  In 90% of my games I am a player.  In 5E my character feels very heroic andempowered.  In fact, if the game is played correctly where people the DM is doing level appropriate encounters, PCs are working together, I feel like more of an action hero than I did in 3E (although not as much as in 4E) but still I don’t feel cheated in any way.  Likewise while I absolutely crave more rules I do think that there is a sufficient level of crunch in the game between (PHB,Xanathar’s, SCAG, and Mordenkainen’s) there are number of classes, subclasses,races, backgrounds, feats, and even optional rules like downtime activity to play with an interesting number of combinations.  

Where I think WOTC (Hasbro) maybe harming themselves is that they are losing money on not producing splat material.  I am by no means a rich person and what money I have I work hard for. That being said even when D&D is producing volumes of splat materialparticularly in the 2E and 3E days it is a fact that D&D is a VERY economical hobby compared to most other hobbies.  Even if 5E came out with a $50 dollar rulebook every month that is PEANUTS compared to golf, poker, attending a sporting event even nosebleed seats, or simply going to a night club and having a few drinks.  D&D is still cheaper.  I don’t’ play video games but from what I have seen D&D would still not equal the money most avid video gamers spend on their hobby.   None of these things I do so I am okay spending my recreation money that I work hard for on a fairly cheap hobby that I enjoy.  

The problem is with 5E they give very little to spend money on.    With 4E and 3.5 even the DM geared material had stuff in it like a bunch of feats,prestige classes/paragon paths/epic destinies geared towards players so I (and my friends) would purchase those books every month. Assuming they came out with just one $40 dollar book a month that is $480 off one person (and I know I spent more than that because 3.5 was sometimes producing more than one splat amonth).  On 5E I have spent probablyabout $400 (the total of all my books combined including core) since 2014 when it was released.   I don't buy the adventure books and nor does my group.  I don't buy them because I don't DM that often and my current DM write most of their own adventures.   So despite what Mearls said I think they are losing opportunities by ignoring CharOps people.

The one area where I do think 5E should improve and that they can control but evidently is against design philosophy is in rules clarity.  Again, I think 5E is okay from a tactical and combat perspective (I would like to see more tactical options added but I digress) and my character feels powerful enough. It is outside of combat with using abilities and rules that is the issue.  I don’t feel that things like stealth and perception should be a DM-May-I at every step procedure.  I think DMs should have power. I have DMed.  

That being said for everyone that talks about players that can abuse the system (note: I don’t consider powergaming abuse) there are equally as bad DMs that without constraints make the game not fun for their players and campaigns fall apart because of it.  Power playing is not an issue; people being disruptive and taking away the enjoyment of others is the issue.  When a group has a disruptive player (and by the way I have encountered "deep" role-players whose brand of amateur thespianism disrupted more meet-ups and games than power players I have encountered) be it a powergamer, deep role-player, or whatever the group can just expel that person and move on.  When the group has a problematic or overbearing GM that particularly game/campaign is done.  So having clarity of procedures in rules does not take away a DM's authority.  What it does is clarify  applications so everyone knows where they stand and what the baseline says you can or can't do.   The GM is still free to change it as she or he sees fit but at least a precedent will have been established.


----------



## Al'Kelhar (Sep 25, 2018)

Look, if there's one thing I know for sure, it's that back in the day, if your elf didn't have a bagel to feed the carrion crawler under the drawbridge of the ruined castle, it was back to rolling 3d6 six times in order.  Which is why 5E is the best system.  Yet.  QED.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar


----------



## Ristamar (Sep 25, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Not according to Jeremy Crawford who puts in the RAW interpretation of rules into the Sage Advice, and then includes the RAI interpretation as something separate.




A link to the relevant Sage Advice (since I didn't see it posted):

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/06/is-initiative-a-contested-ability-check-vs-everyone-in-combat/


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 25, 2018)

ClaytonCross said:


> So your saying the human fighter is not the most played class because the same logic still applies... The did call out that one metric for tracking that is that they check if HP is manipulated not a max but in terms of damage and healing back to full. That said while I have made many characters but I have never sat around for hours damaging and undamaging my unused characters for no reason. Are you going to tell me you damage, heal, and level your unused characters? … That would seem a bit odd to me. So while I will agree the metrics are not 100% I think they are way more accurate than your giving them credit for unless their is large group of people who are GMing games where they are their only player... which I have never heard of.[/FONT][/COLOR]
> 
> 
> 
> That's not necessarily a conflict first of all as The Old One patron does not require that your patron recognize your existence, you could be a pact breaker in the case that you made a deal with the devil but then decided to betray them when you came to your right mind (which is where death locks come from if they kill you for it), and the assumption here is that no other character including Clerics who are REQUIRED to obey their deity or paladins who have to play with their oaths or become and oath breaker would be less popular for the same reason. I am playing a warlock, have a cleric, and a paladin in my group. We have "baggage" with all three but we don't mind it... we call it back story and it hooks each character into the world...In fact the classes without hooks... generally have hooks added to them one way or another. This has never been a problem in any game we have ever played. That in mind, your placing a personal play style choice that conflicts with your GM as if all players and GMs are the same and creates this intrinsic problem.... when that is not the case. From the same type of argument I could say "All fighter characters are abandoned because players realize the just wanted to play a strategic fighting game but then GMs made them roll play any way instead of being the stoic warrior, so they all quite and decide to play something else." … but that would be silly since I has no basis in a metric or reality its just a personal view.



I am not saying anything about fighter use... I am saying i do not see how dnd beyond data can tell them "played" vs "created as practice" based on how i have seen most every chargen tool used ever and how i have seen beyond used as well. 

There is no switch or flag there for playing vs fooling around.

As for old ones patron not knoeing you ecist that does not preclude pact bargain and such, nor does any gm have to allow that patron in their games.

One suggestion for such a pact was it might be allowed but when the old one got hungry, angry, horny, sad - those emotions carried over to the warlock as "how our communication works". Warlock could act or not on it, with similar consequence to other patron requests.

As noted in Warlock, player and gm need to work these things out.

As noted, some players mind baggage, others like it. I love it myself. Bot have seen plenty of thr other too.

But when making conclusions on data, if one doesnt tske into acvount thre nature of the data, you may be worse off than using no dats or no conclusions and i do not see tools in dnd beyond to diffetentiate playing vs practicing.

I have quite a few warlock multiclass "try this" on my account. Every player using my csmpsign account has as many or more practice chars as played ones.

Edit 
On the health manip, i have manipulate the heslth online, for practice cases, even the THP, even spell slots etc as part of various practices. Even the rests stuff practiced.

It has iirc not been used by,me in game or by any player using,my gm/campaign account. We use pen and paper in play. 

So actually, if that was the metric they used, they **only** got info on practice chars from our group. 

That adds confidence in their conclusion, let me tell you.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 25, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> You are misapplying the ability check rule for ties.  The rule for ties is for contests ONLY and initiative is not a ability contest.  There is no winner and loser like with opposed checks, so that rule does not apply.  The general rule for tied initiative between DM and players is that the DM decides.............just like if there was no rule.



What is the difference between "who goes first me or you" as a dex contest between multiple people and an initiative check? 

The higher goes first, the other after, just rolled all at once. 

You are splitying haors to construe an absence.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 25, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Then they are a threat and PCs who notice people can't be surprised, by RAW.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 "i try to act first, before the others"

But really, all of this is a nonsensical effort to argue one side or the other over what something would be if the rule we all agree exists did not exist.

It exists, so its not, just like the whole " it's a rule that is a non-rule" bugaboo. 

You want to see it as a non-rule rule - fantastic - and I will call it a rule that is a flagazxi with whipped cream and a cherry and we will both see that rule as printed and exists in the book/online/pdf.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 25, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> For example - When asked about a regret Mearls has pointed to the design of the fighter, specifically the subclasses. The Champion and Battlemaster have no identity, they're just bundles of mechanics.




I don't think it's WotC's fault. I think this is what the gamers base wanted during the playtest, because for a while the battlemaster's mechanics were common to all fighters.


----------



## Eric V (Sep 25, 2018)

Li Shenron said:


> I don't think it's WotC's fault. I think this is what the gamers base wanted during the playtest, because for a while the battlemaster's mechanics were common to all fighters.




Well...it's still their decision, right?  If they make the decision to publish what was most popular and not what they, as designers, would have thought was the best game design, they still own that decision, I would think.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 25, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> That doesn't really answer my question.  Especially since you also play games, such as D&D, that are built around the traditional style of game play, yet you have no issue tossing that aside to run your style of game.  Why expect players to be proactive with goals and desires with things other than treasure, but not treasure?



I don't think I fully get your question.

If a player has a PC goal like _I'll free my loved one from the evil duke's dungeons_, then I'd expect that to drive play to some reasonable extent. And likewise if a player has a PC goal like _I will become the richest baron in all the land_. But I would expect that character to drive a quite different game from typical D&D, in which the gathering of the treasure is largely an afterthought to the action, yet is treated as a major win condition. (By "the traditional style of game play" I take it that you mean looting dungeons for treasure. My sense of how treasure plays in 5e as it is presented, seems to be pretty much like Keep on the Borderlands but without the XP awards.)

I understand the "treasure as afterthought to action" approach in the context of those editions that make having treasure to spend an important element of character development, or that make it a literal win condition (in classic D&D you need to find it to earn XP, and then spend it to join the endgame;  in 4e it is part of the doling out of PC abilities,  either literally in the form of magic items, or in the form of the medium used to acquire magic items). I don't really get it for 5e, though. As a win condition it seems to have become detached from the actual play of the game and the develpoment of the characters. So why does it loom so large?



OB1 said:


> Maintaining a wealthy lifestyle requires around 1,500 gp a year, an Aristocratic one 3,600.  Assume you want to retire from adventuring at some point means a human would need 45,000+ gold minimum.  Want to build your own castle?  You'll need 500,000gp just to build and another 140,000 per year to maintain.  That's a CR17+ treasure hoard every year.
> 
> Of course, all of those things come with their own complications, as does spending money trying to buy magic items, as doing so could draw the attention of other powerful beings.
> 
> Spending money is all grounded in the particular story you are involved in.



I don't feel that this answers my question; it really just underpins it and sparks new, related questions.

Presumably in the imaginary world of D&D (or at least many, I'd even conjecture most, D&D campaigns) there are aristocrats who live at the "aristocratic" standard of upkeep and live in castles, but don't loot a dragon hoard every year. If a player wants his/her PC to become an aristocrat and live in a castle, why does the game suggest that killing dragons is the answer?

To be clear: I know what the reason is in classic D&D - it's a game of dungeon exploration and looting in which gp are the win condition, both in terms of achievement at looting and PC progression. But I'm wondering what's the deal with 5e - is it still a dungeon crawling game that's dropped the second (PC progression) part of the classic D&D win condition? If so, how is this tight design? If not, then why does it still connect adventuring to loot-collection in the way that classic D&D did?



OB1 said:


> And to the point of this thread and Mearl's statement, not being as granular about the rules allows DMs to better tell the story that their individual table is interested in.  Could this mean that there is a disagreement at the table over how much 100,000 gp should be able to purchase?  Yes, it might, but that disagreement carries a much lower consequence to it than one over whether or not the evil Orc hit you with it's sword and killed you.



That seems a pretty contentious claim, unless we accept as a premise that the stakes of play are ultimately about the PC living or dying in one-on-one combat.



OB1 said:


> *Combat in D&D takes up so much design space because it is both the primary player agency mechanism* and has the highest stakes.  As long as the rules of life and death are seen as fair, the players can use that to impact the world with an expectation that the results will not be at DM whim.
> 
> For example, if the DM decides that no amount of money can buy a castle because the King must grant the land, the players can use the rules of combat to kill the King and build the castle anyhow.  This in turn, leads back to the central conceit of the game as it was designed, for the DM and players to create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils.
> 
> And that to me is the whole point of the 5E design philosophy.  What are the minimum amount of rules necessary to inspire and tell that exciting story?  I'd argue that the extensive combat rules both inspire the imagination in exciting action packed scenes and give players a sense of agency without perfect certainty leading to careful weighing of options on how to engage the world.  Extensive travel rules or shopping rules just don't, IMO, have the same rewards for added complexity.



OK, so you're prepared to embrace the contentious premise! 

The bit I've bolded seems to run togehter some potentially separate things - it's the primary player agency mechanism, but that's in part because there are no other robust mechanics that generate finality of resolution without being mediated through largely open-ended GM decision-making; and even allowing that it is the primary player agency mechanism, that needn't require it to be as complex as it is.

As to the idea that travel rules or shopping rules add complexity, I don't agree with that. 4e has travel rules (skill challenge), shopping rules (skill challenge), persuading-the-king rules (skill challenge), and they're not very complex, can be used in other fictional contexts besides the ones I've mentioned, and work reasonably well. And there are plenty of other RPGs that have genuinely uniform resolution mechanics that can be used for everything from fighting to persuading to trekking to shopping. (And Classic Traveller got fairly close to this 40 years ago; closer, at least, than 5e.)

That's not to say that 5e is poorly-designed - there might be good reason to break out combat rules from a generic resolution system, give it a rather high search-and-handling time, while subordinating other possible domains of action and resoltution. But I don't think it's light, and I think to a significant extent it trades on legacy expectations and understandings.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 25, 2018)

pemerton said:


> You seem to have mistaken me for some other poster. I haven't said anything about you, let alone suggested that you're gullible or a fool.
> 
> If you think someone engaging in criticism of the writing or design of a book or game you enjoy is an attack on you, I think that's on you. On this thread I've read more than one poster attacking 4e as poorly conceived, poorly designed, unplayable, etc. I don't take those as personal attacks. And just because I think those people are wrong, that doesn't mean I think they're fools.
> 
> This thread is discussing the design of a game, not the morals or character of those who designed it or those who play it.




I never meant to imply you meant it as a dog-whistle, just pointing out common usage.  I get that you are using it differently than the vast majority of posters, so if that wasn't clear I apologize.  But the vast majority of people who do use it seem to use it in pejorative manner.

Being called a 5E apologist is not new to this thread, it's kind of this forum's equivalent of being called Hitler.  So what I'm trying to say is that you're defending a phrase because of the way you would use the term while the generally accepted usage of that term appears to mean something else on these forums.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 25, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Being called a 5E apologist is not new to this thread, it's kind of this forum's equivalent of being called Hitler.  So what I'm trying to say is that you're defending a phrase because of the way you would use the term while the generally accepted usage of that term appears to mean something else on these forums.



That seems a bit of a stretch, considering this forum is easily 90+% in favor of 5e.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 25, 2018)

Ristamar said:


> A link to the relevant Sage Advice (since I didn't see it posted):
> 
> https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/06/is-initiative-a-contested-ability-check-vs-everyone-in-combat/




Thanks!  I didn't realize he had answered this and was just making a general statement about how he does the Sage Advice.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 25, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> What is the difference between "who goes first me or you" as a dex contest between multiple people and an initiative check?




In a contest the high roller would go, and nobody else would get a turn.  Initiative doesn't work that way.  Everyone gets to go, because it's not an opposed check.



> You are splitying haors to construe an absence.




I wasn't splitting hairs at all.  There is a very big difference between only one person getting to act and nobody else getting a turn(contest), and everyone getting to go and simply using a dex check to establish order(initiative).  See the link provided by @_*Ristamar*_.  Jeremy Crawford established that I am correct here, though I really didn't think he would have to rule on something so clear.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 25, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I don't think I fully get your question.
> 
> If a player has a PC goal like _I'll free my loved one from the evil duke's dungeons_, then I'd expect that to drive play to some reasonable extent. And likewise if a player has a PC goal like _I will become the richest baron in all the land_. But I would expect that character to drive a quite different game from typical D&D, in which the gathering of the treasure is largely an afterthought to the action, yet is treated as a major win condition. (By "the traditional style of game play" I take it that you mean looting dungeons for treasure. My sense of how treasure plays in 5e as it is presented, seems to be pretty much like Keep on the Borderlands but without the XP awards.)
> 
> I understand the "treasure as afterthought to action" approach in the context of those editions that make having treasure to spend an important element of character development, or that make it a literal win condition (in classic D&D you need to find it to earn XP, and then spend it to join the endgame;  in 4e it is part of the doling out of PC abilities,  either literally in the form of magic items, or in the form of the medium used to acquire magic items). I don't really get it for 5e, though. As a win condition it seems to have become detached from the actual play of the game and the develpoment of the characters. So why does it loom so large?




My point is that the player also drives the spending of the treasure.  If my goal was to free my loved one from the evil duke's dungeons, my money would go to bribing the right people, purchasing information, perhaps raising and provisioning an army, maybe hiring assassins, and more.  As a proactive player, I don't need the game to tell me that I can spend money on those things.  As a DM, I don't need rules to tell me how much to charge for those things.  In fact, the more rules are put in place for something, the tighter the box that is around the people playing the game, and a lot of people find it difficult to step outside of the box.  I'd rather the box be almost non-existent or at worst made out of cardboard for a topic this easy.

Treasure in 5e doesn't seem like an afterthought to me.  It seems like something that just requires some player thought.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 25, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> That seems a bit of a stretch, considering this forum is easily 90+% in favor of 5e.




Let me paraphrase the same basic discussion I've had multiple times over the last few years:
*Anonymous Internet Person:* "The stealth rules [or other aspect they don't like] are total donkey-poo.  5E is lazy design."
*Oofta:* "It was a design decision to keep the rules flexible, and one I personally agree with.  In fact there's a podcast where they talk about how they had detailed rules ..."
*Anonymous Internet Person:* "AAAAARRRRRGGGHHH!  Another person who thinks 5E is perfect!"
*Oofta:* "I've never said that, there are several things I'd change and do in my home campaign such as..."
*Anonymous Internet Person:* "Whatever, you moronic noob apologist.  If you love 5E so much, why don't you marry it?"​

And so on.  I may be exaggerating a tiny bit on that last statement, but it seems to be the fallback for people who don't accept that no game can be perfect or be the best game for everyone.  

I like the design style of 5E, warts and all. I don't mind having to do a small amount of effort to get it to fit my group and my style.  There is a vocal minority who complain incessently about one aspect or another that seem to always end up telling me I think 5E is "perfect".

I'm perfectly happy to discuss aspects of the game that I tweak or to share ideas on [spin the wheel of random topics] how to create a challenging game for higher level characters.  What I have a problem with is people that incessantly whine that certain aspects of the game are broken or that the rules (and by inference) the developers are lazy while ignoring design intent and advice on how others have addressed the issue successfully.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 25, 2018)

KenNYC said:


> I don't know about that.  Game reviewers are not quite the New York Times.   Often times they are someone like Tom Vassel or Rahdo, who review games on youtube or run game cons.  They almost never give a bad review to games.   If they frequently did, a la a scathing Broadway critic circa 1950, how long do you think they would continue to get free games from publishers?
> .




I think you're mixing up video game review system with RPG reviews.  There is very much a problem with video game reviewers giving better reviews than you'd expect for those reasons you mention, but I don't see that in the TTRPG industry.  People like Merric, Tenker, KotDT, etc don't hold back or feel like they are pressured to give positive reviews.  And many don't get free products. They buy it like everyone else and then give reviews on it.  Years ago, when I won Best New Game of the Year from DieHard Gamefan, I had no idea until it happened.  They bought the game themselves and did their process without any communication with me at all until it as announced.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 25, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Let me paraphrase the same basic discussion I've had multiple times over the last few years:
> *Anonymous Internet Person:* "The stealth rules [or other aspect they don't like] are total donkey-poo.  5E is lazy design."
> *Oofta:* "It was a design decision to keep the rules flexible, and one I personally agree with.  In fact there's a podcast where they talk about how they had detailed rules ..."
> *Anonymous Internet Person:* "AAAAARRRRRGGGHHH!  Another person who thinks 5E is perfect!"
> ...




Oh, they aren't anonymous.  We know who those half dozen or so posters are who keep saying those things 

And in TwoSix's defense, those half dozen, while being prolific posters so they make up a good slice of the posts, are a pretty small % of the people who are actually members here.  I would like to think that 90% of people on a 5e forum are supportive of 5e.  Ambivalent people tend not to post.  Like how I never posted during the 4e era.  It's mostly fans, and then a smaller % who hate the game and MUST BE HEARD how much they hate things about it


----------



## Hriston (Sep 25, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Actually, I think @_*iserith*_'s take on this - reading it in the context of the "adventuring" section of the Basic rules and the rules for hiding/reamining unnoticed - is pretty sound. I'm not sure if @_*Hriston*_ agrees fully with iserith, but I'd be surprised if Hrison doesn't also have a pretty solid reading of it.
> 
> (Multiple readings isn't per se a sign of poor rules. Any complex rules system is likely to admit of multiple readings at certai points.)




I haven't been following this thread too closely, so forgive me if my response is off-topic. I'm not really sure what [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s reading of the surprise rules is, although I tend to agree with his readings in general. Where I fall on the "sucker punch" issue, however, is that it's a matter of winning initiative, rather than anything having to do with surprise. Of course you can sucker punch someone. Simply declare an action to punch them. If you win initiative, then that can be described as a sucker punch.


----------



## cmad1977 (Sep 25, 2018)

*Mearls On D&amp;D's Design Premises/Goals*



Al'Kelhar said:


> Look, if there's one thing I know for sure, it's that back in the day, if your elf didn't have a bagel to feed the carrion crawler under the drawbridge of the ruined castle, it was back to rolling 3d6 six times in order.  Which is why 5E is the best system.  Yet.  QED.
> 
> Cheers, Al'Kelhar




There are a number of reasons.  That is one of them.


----------



## iserith (Sep 25, 2018)

Hriston said:


> I haven't been following this thread too closely, so forgive me if my response is off-topic. I'm not really sure what @_*iserith*_'s reading of the surprise rules is, although I tend to agree with his readings in general. Where I fall on the "sucker punch" issue, however, is that it's a matter of winning initiative, rather than anything having to do with surprise. Of course you can sucker punch someone. Simply declare an action to punch them. If you win initiative, then that can be described as a sucker punch.




Sorry, I haven't been reading this thread either past the first page, but figured since I was mentioned twice I should at least say I haven't been following the conversation.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 25, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Try this: we both have characters in an established adventuring party.  Within the party there's a long history of your character and mine being close friends (we're both front-line warriors), meanwhile neither of us have any time for wizard character C and would prefer he not be in the group.  So, now the party's in a rolling open-field battle with a bunch of tougher-than-expected foes and aren't doing very well.  Character C in particular is overwhelmed, while you look to be holding your own and I've just freed myself up to join another fight.
> 
> Tactically-best choice: I go and bail out character C whose spells, if free to cast them, could quickly turn the tide.
> In-character choice: I come and help free you up, confident that between us we can mop this up, and let character C sink or swim on his own.  We can always find another wizard.
> ...




Great scenario. Useful enough I wish it had a shorthand to refer back to for other discussions.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 25, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> Oh, they aren't anonymous.  We know who those half dozen or so posters are who keep saying those things
> 
> And in TwoSix's defense, those half dozen, while being prolific posters so they make up a good slice of the posts, are a pretty small % of the people who are actually members here.  I would like to think that 90% of people on a 5e forum are supportive of 5e.  Ambivalent people tend not to post.  Like how I never posted during the 4e era.  It's mostly fans, and then a smaller % who hate the game and MUST BE HEARD how much they hate things about it




True enough.  I could call out [redacted] or [redacted] who raise the same complaint across multiple threads even if it's off topic.  At a certain point it makes you wonder if they're just trolling.

But I'm trying to avoid another bicker-fest, and at a certain point I've just learned to ignore them.  Well, I try to ignore them even if sometimes I fail my wisdom check.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 25, 2018)

Oofta said:


> True enough.  I could call out [redacted] or [redacted] who raise the same complaint across multiple threads even if it's off topic.  At a certain point it makes you wonder if they're just trolling.
> 
> But I'm trying to avoid another bicker-fest, and at a certain point I've just learned to ignore them.  Well, I try to ignore them even if sometimes I fail my wisdom check.



You fail that Wisdom check a lot. I'm just saying.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 25, 2018)

Hriston said:


> I haven't been following this thread too closely, so forgive me if my response is off-topic. I'm not really sure what [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s reading of the surprise rules is, although I tend to agree with his readings in general. Where I fall on the "sucker punch" issue, however, is that it's a matter of winning initiative, rather than anything having to do with surprise. Of course you can sucker punch someone. Simply declare an action to punch them. If you win initiative, then that can be described as a sucker punch.




Not sure I’d call that a sucker punch. The issue of relying on a lucky initiative roll indicates that the target of your punch isn’t really a sucker. Actually catch him by surprise and he *can’t help* but give you the first shot at him. That’s a real sucker punch.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 25, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> And in TwoSix's defense, those half dozen, while being prolific posters so they make up a good slice of the posts, are a pretty small % of the people who are actually members here.  I would like to think that 90% of people on a 5e forum are supportive of 5e.  Ambivalent people tend not to post.  Like how I never posted during the 4e era.  It's mostly fans, and then a smaller % who hate the game and MUST BE HEARD how much they hate things about it



Yea, I just don't feel like being a strongly positive fan of 5e on this forum is going to get you a lot of abuse.  There's just not enough actual acrimony.  

Even 5 Int geniuses like 5e.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 25, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> You fail that Wisdom check a lot. I'm just saying.




The first step to dealing with an problem is to acknowledge that you have one.  The second might be to take the Resilient feat.  Or maybe I just need new dice.


----------



## Hriston (Sep 25, 2018)

billd91 said:


> Not sure I’d call that a sucker punch. The issue of relying on a lucky initiative roll indicates that the target of your punch isn’t really a sucker. Actually catch him by surprise and he *can’t help* but give you the first shot at him. That’s a real sucker punch.




If you win initiative, that can mean that you *did* catch him by surprise (not mechanical surprise, mind you). If you fail to win initiative, then he's quick enough to avoid being suckered because he caught you out of the corner of his eye or something.

This is a matter of "pre-narration", a.k.a. fortune-at-the-end. I suggest using fortune-in-the-middle.


----------



## Jester David (Sep 25, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Try this: we both have characters in an established adventuring party.  Within the party there's a long history of your character and mine being close friends (we're both front-line warriors), meanwhile neither of us have any time for wizard character C and would prefer he not be in the group.  So, now the party's in a rolling open-field battle with a bunch of tougher-than-expected foes and aren't doing very well.  Character C in particular is overwhelmed, while you look to be holding your own and I've just freed myself up to join another fight.
> 
> Tactically-best choice: I go and bail out character C whose spells, if free to cast them, could quickly turn the tide.
> In-character choice: I come and help free you up, confident that between us we can mop this up, and let character C sink or swim on his own.  We can always find another wizard.
> ...



Great example.

You can get deeper still. 
How do the players of C and D feel about character death? Have they had a bad week and need a win? Are they new or experienced?


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 25, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 25, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> My point is that the player also drives the spending of the treasure.  If my goal was to free my loved one from the evil duke's dungeons, my money would go to bribing the right people, purchasing information, perhaps raising and provisioning an army, maybe hiring assassins, and more.  As a proactive player, I don't need the game to tell me that I can spend money on those things.  As a DM, I don't need rules to tell me how much to charge for those things.



Hmmm - there's many, many times I've found the price lists for hirelings, servants, etc. in the 1e DMG to be extremely useful as otherwise I-as-DM wouldn't have much of a clue what would be reasonable to charge for such.  Guidelines not rules, to be sure, but very useful nonetheless.


----------



## Shardstone (Sep 25, 2018)

This thread is an incestuous war between people insulting others for liking 5E and the otherside focusing _mainly_ on the fact that they are being insulted for liking 5E. How this has gone on for 56 pages astounds me, and soon it will have gone on for 57. Absolutely amazing.

I like 5E's design goals. I think they could have been achieved better. I think the rhetoric about mechanically-oriented players being jettisoned is unneeded and does nothing to improve 5E's design goals. I don't think we need a 1/5th the splat that older editions did, and I think the pace set this year (Mordekainens, Ravinica, Eberron, +2 Adventures) is enough to keep the game fresh. I don't think keeping so many rules vagued helped WotC achieve 5E's design goals and I'm confident in stating that you can have clear rules and still have interpretation-based culture amongst gamers playing the game.

These are things I think worth discussing. But you people seem to be getting high off of attacking each other, like a bunch of tribal apes warring just to war. Truly a failure on many people's ends that so many people use this thread as a way to attack others instead of discussing ideas.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 25, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Great example.
> 
> You can get deeper still.
> How do the players of C and D feel about character death? Have they had a bad week and need a win? Are they new or experienced?



All of these are metagame questions and thus, if I'm playing completely true to my character and thus taking the character-driven option, irrelevant.  But if I'm looking at either the tactically-driven or metagame-driven options then these sort of considerations could come into it; though going the tactically-driven route would mean I-as-player am looking more toward what's best for the in-game party, going the metagame-driven route might indicate I'm thinking of what's best for the at-the-table players.

Lan-"typo-ing 'metagame' to 'meatgame' in some of these posts gives everything a whole new perspective"-efan


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 25, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Hmmm - there's many, many times I've found the price lists for hirelings, servants, etc. in the 1e DMG to be extremely useful as otherwise I-as-DM wouldn't have much of a clue what would be reasonable to charge for such.  Guidelines not rules, to be sure, but very useful nonetheless.



5e's PH has a very simple suggestion for these: a skilled hireling costs 2 gold/day, and an unskilled hireling gets 2 silver.

For the real special hirelings, I use a little trick: I determine what the hireling's lifestyle expenses are (using the table in the PH) and multiple that by 5 if the person does steady work, or by 10 if the hireling is that sort tbat only works when he pleases.

So like, say the players hire a private eye.

1) Dixon Hill (as portrayed by Picard on Star Trek) is a working stiff type of private dick scraping by day to day. I'd call that a modest lifestyle (1 gold/day) and multiply by 5, so he charges 5 gold per day.

2) Hercules Poirot, the greatest detective of his time, tends to only take cases that interest him, but sometimes will take a case for pay. He lives a wealthy life (4 gold/day), and I multiply that by 10. The players will be burning through 40 gold every day they employ him.


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 25, 2018)

PointOfIsnpiration said:


> This thread is an incestuous war between people insulting others for liking 5E and the otherside focusing _mainly_ on the fact that they are being insulted for liking 5E. How this has gone on for 56 pages astounds me, and soon it will have gone on for 57. Absolutely amazing.
> 
> I like 5E's design goals. I think they could have been achieved better. I think the rhetoric about mechanically-oriented players being jettisoned is unneeded and does nothing to improve 5E's design goals. I don't think we need a 1/5th the splat that older editions did, and I think the pace set this year (Mordekainens, Ravinica, Eberron, +2 Adventures) is enough to keep the game fresh. I don't think keeping so many rules vagued helped WotC achieve 5E's design goals and I'm confident in stating that you can have clear rules and still have interpretation-based culture amongst gamers playing the game.
> 
> These are things I think worth discussing. But you people seem to be getting high off of attacking each other, like a bunch of tribal apes warring just to war. Truly a failure on many people's ends that so many people use this thread as a way to attack others instead of discussing ideas.




Hey now! Don't you go putting your sense-of-perspective chocolate in our internet-zealotry peanut butter!  Personally, I love scrolling through this train-wreck. Like a train wreck, I don't want to join in, but I can't seem to take my eyes off it.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Sep 25, 2018)

PointOfIsnpiration said:


> But you people seem to be getting high off of attacking each other, like a bunch of tribal apes warring just to war.




Cue the monolith!


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 25, 2018)

DM Dave1 said:


> Cue the monolith!



I'll go you one better!
View attachment 101778


----------



## Jester David (Sep 25, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> All of these are metagame questions and thus, if I'm playing completely true to my character and thus taking the character-driven option, irrelevant.  But if I'm looking at either the tactically-driven or metagame-driven options then these sort of considerations could come into it; though going the tactically-driven route would mean I-as-player am looking more toward what's best for the in-game party, going the metagame-driven route might indicate I'm thinking of what's best for the at-the-table players.
> 
> Lan-"typo-ing 'metagame' to 'meatgame' in some of these posts gives everything a whole new perspective"-efan



The example above is a different side to metagaming. 

There’s the metagame of making gamist decisions based on game information the character doesn’t know. 
And there’s the ever so slightly different metagaming that occurs due to social contracts at the table. The thief not stealing from other players, the character not hogging the spotlight, setting up an ally for the win rather than “kill stealing”, helping someone kick some ass because they’ve had a bad day and need the stress relief, etc.

Because, while one is (generally) discouraged, the other always has to be considered and is important. The people/player based metagame. Which, I think you just accidentally christened “the meatgame”.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Sep 25, 2018)

Madhey said:


> D&D 5e has a focus on "player narrative and identity"? How exactly? Everything unique about your character you'll have to make up yourself, outside the rulebooks. Then Chess also has a focus on narrative and identity.
> D&D 5e is okay for dungeon crawling type games, but not great for anything else, IMO.




I'm going to state it has more focus than any prior iteration of D&D, perhaps moreso even than 2nd edition. And definitely way more than 4th or 3rd. This is the first edition since the 90's where character narrative and identity is baked in to the core book, and is rife with content. 3rd and 4th don't even hold candles to the level of depth 5E achieves, particularly since 5E goes for actual depth and not just "I gotz the bigger number in rope use," depth of 3E.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 26, 2018)

Meh, I've never understood the angst about meta-gaming.  It's impossible to play an RPG without meta gaming.  You can try to reduce it, sure, but, even that decision is still meta-gaming.  The simple question of, "Given what I know about this character, what do I think this character would do in this situation?" is a meta-gaming question.  It's completely unavoidable.

And, frankly, almost impossible to know from the outside.  Did the player choose A or B because of meta-gaming reasons?  Well, maybe, but, otoh, you can justify almost any action in character, so, does that mean that I'm still meta-gaming?  

Me, I figured that I'd just stop trying to police other people's play, play what I want, and be a whole lot happier at the table.


----------



## PMárk (Sep 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Interesting. I do like most of what he’s saying, but I also wish they would embrace the fact that a lot of players still have a strong desire for mechanical options. Focusing on narrative identity is great, and the goal of those specific mechanical advantages should be to express a character’s narrative identity rather than to break the game’s progression curve. But 5e still offers so little in terms of ways to mechanically differentiate a character. He paints mechanical options as if they’re at odds with the design philosophy he describes here, but I don’t think they are at all.





Yup. Honestly, I feel it's a bit of a cop-out. Leaving the bulk of the work to the GMs, ignoring players (and GMs) who do want mechanical differentiation and options, for whatever reason. 

There are many merits of the 5e design, but it's not the be-all-end all, since there is no such game that fulfills every expectations of every group and player. I'd be more happy if he's said that simplicity makes the game more approachable and easier to GM. I feel those are much more concrete and straightforward assertions.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 26, 2018)

I know this has been asked many times but, I never get an answer I understand.

There are literally thousands of rule expansions available for 5e on the DM's Guild.  There are rule expansions for pretty much everything you could possibly think of for 5e.  The only thing is, they aren't "official".  But, since the issue is that people want mechanical differentiation and options, and those options are easily available, what's the problem?  

I know that I'd love to run a Binder in 5e using the binder rules - a massive book on binders on the DM's guild all free.  Our next campaign will feature a skeleton PC from DM's Guild.  I've run modules, heck, my Thule campaign is hardly "official" D&D.  

Why are people so hung up on "official" for home games?


----------



## Eric V (Sep 26, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Why are people so hung up on "official" for home games?




For some, it's the DM of their group that won't allow non-WotC material.

As for why that might be the case, I think it has to do with using material created by someone who does this for a living as opposed to just on the side.  Presumably, the former brings a level of expertise and playtesting that the latter simply can not.  As a result, the product is more "trustworthy."


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 26, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I know this has been asked many times but, I never get an answer I understand.
> 
> There are literally thousands of rule expansions available for 5e on the DM's Guild.  There are rule expansions for pretty much everything you could possibly think of for 5e.  The only thing is, they aren't "official".  But, since the issue is that people want mechanical differentiation and options, and those options are easily available, what's the problem?
> 
> ...



<shrug>  Got me.  I use a ton of homebrew material.  (Granted, relatively little is from DMs Guild, I sponsor several Patreons to get my material.)  

The good thing about "official" material is that it drives discussion and opens up new approaches to be commonly accepted within the wider community.  You rarely saw concepts like "Using Cha to attack" in homebrew, just as an example, until Hexblade came out in Xanathar's Guide.  Now it's pretty widely accepted.


----------



## Fallstorm (Sep 26, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I know this has been asked many times but, I never get an answer I understand.
> 
> There are literally thousands of rule expansions available for 5e on the DM's Guild.  There are rule expansions for pretty much everything you could possibly think of for 5e.  The only thing is, they aren't "official".  But, since the issue is that people want mechanical differentiation and options, and those options are easily available, what's the problem?
> 
> ...




For the same reason people want WOTC to publish official campaign worlds instead of one of the numerous third party worlds out there.  People enjoy official products.

I am partly joking and partly serious.  Official products in theory have had better playtesting.  Official products are often (though not always) of a higher quality than unofficial products.  Also, with numerous material out there it is hard to know what product will be allowed from home game to home game yet if the product is official and applicable (an official product of a WOTC campaign world) or a generic rules expansion you can feel with more certainty the DM will allow it in the game, and everyone in the group will at least be familiar with the product rather than some obscure option book that one person has heard of.   Also keep in mind D&D 5E was initially built on the premise of being modular in design.  This was openly touted as a selling point that the core rules while simple would 1) have aspects of every edition of D&D.  I think they have fulfilled this promise well as I see aspects of 1-4th edition the core rules and 2) that while simple the game would be modular so that at the basis the theater of the mind folks could play the game with no problems but that via modular expansions the tactical player and power gamer would be able to tweak the dials of the game to fit their tastes.   The latter part WOTC as a company has not fulfilled.

TSR did this back in 2E.  The rules of the core 2E game were fairly simple (although not always logical) and they kept the core game but but later came out with the Player's Option series (Combat & Tactics, Skills & Powers, etc.) to appeal to people wanting more technical elements to the game which many other RPG at that time had incorporated into their systems.   I fail to see why WOTC would not do the same thing now and I don't think that tactical power gaming and narrative gaming are mutually exclusive traits.  My group is composed of power gamers who love tactical combat.  These same gamers also sit down and write very detailed backstories, etc for their PCs.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 26, 2018)

PMárk said:


> Yup. Honestly, I feel it's a bit of a cop-out. Leaving the bulk of the work to the GMs, ignoring players (and GMs) who do want mechanical differentiation and options, for whatever reason.
> 
> There are many merits of the 5e design, but it's not the be-all-end all, since there is no such game that fulfills every expectations of every group and player. I'd be more happy if he's said that simplicity makes the game more approachable and easier to GM. I feel those are much more concrete and straightforward assertions.




Some people want D&D to be all things to all people.

There are games out there which provide the thing. 5e not being quite to taste is not a fault with 5e.

The designers have an artistic vision which they adhere to. This is much better than just letting it be a jumbled mess without direction.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 26, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I know this has been asked many times but, I never get an answer I understand.
> 
> There are literally thousands of rule expansions available for 5e on the DM's Guild.  There are rule expansions for pretty much everything you could possibly think of for 5e.  The only thing is, they aren't "official".  But, since the issue is that people want mechanical differentiation and options, and those options are easily available, what's the problem?
> 
> ...



For me, it's not about 5e not having enough classes, subclasses, feats, etc. It's about 5e not having enough ways to customize a character. Subclass is only one choice. Feats and ASIs are only 4 choices (a few more for Fighters and Rogues). When I say "options," I don't mean of things to spend my character building resources on, I mean more character building resources to spend.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Sep 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> For me, it's not about 5e not having enough classes, subclasses, feats, etc. It's about 5e not having enough ways to customize a character. Subclass is only one choice. Feats and ASIs are only 4 choices (a few more for Fighters and Rogues). When I say "options," I don't mean of things to spend my character building resources on, I mean more character building resources to spend.




Backgrounds?  Races?  Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, Flaws?  Physical characteristics at the top of page 2 of the character sheet?

I'm actually not following what you are looking for.  Seems like there are endless combinations to customize and create a unique, flavorful character.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 26, 2018)

DM Dave1 said:


> Backgrounds?



One choice, made at character creation, that boils down to two skills and two tools/languages.



DM Dave1 said:


> Races?



One choice, made at character creation. Has a decent mechanical impact, but does little to differentiate the way a character plays.



DM Dave1 said:


> Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, Flaws?



Great for fleshing out a character's personality, but has next to no mechanical impact. Also made at character creation.



DM Dave1 said:


> Physical characteristics at the top of page 2 of the character sheet?



Again, character creation only choices that are good for roleplaying but have absolutely no mechanical impact.



DM Dave1 said:


> I'm actually not following what you are looking for.  Seems like there are endless combinations to customize and create a unique, flavorful character.



What I'm looking for is more ways to build characters to make them mechanically different from one another. In particular, more character building choices to make beyond 1st level. Currently, you make all character building decisions at character creation, with the exception of a Subclass at 2nd or 3rd level (if you didn't decide that ahead of time), and a Feat or ASI once every four levels (a few extra for Fighters and Rogues). That is very, very little to make one character actually behave differently than another.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Rolling damage is not a part of the attack role and resolution.   Neither is hit point tracking.  Damage and hit points is a different part of the combat process.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Jump results in moving through the air X feet. Knowledge checks result in something completely different. That combat has a different result either doesn't make it different from the skill process



The basic structure of RPG action resolution is fiction >> mechanics >> fiction.

(By way of contrast: fiction >> fiction is free narration/storytelling; mechanics >> mechanics is boardgaming or wargaming.)

Here is the structure of a knowledge check:

_Fiction_: "I think I remember learning something about this land - the name of the king will come to me in a moment!"

_Mechanics_: <establish DC, roll a 20 check, apply applicable modifiers, compare to DC to determine success or failure>

_Fiction_: Either "Of course, it's King so-and-so the Nth" or "Dash it, I can't remember!"​
Here is the structure of a jump check:

_Fiction_: "I run to the edge of the chasm and leap!"

_Mechanics_: <establish DC, roll a 20 check, apply applicable modifiers, compare to DC to determine success or failure>

_Fiction_: Either "You clear the distance land on the other side" or "Uh oh, . . . ."​
An attack roll doesn't get back to fiction until all the hit points are ablated:

_Fiction_: "I draw my sword - 'Have at you, foul orc!'"

_Mechanics_: <a sequence of initiative checks, attack rolls, damage rolls, hit point tracking, etc>

_Fiction_: Either "You run the orc through - it's dead!" or "You fall to the orc's mighty blow - do you want to roll up a new character?"​
The referee can narrate stuff in the middle stage of the combat if s/he wants, but it would all be just colour. Compared to the ability/skill checks, you don't get back to fiction until a whole series of mechanical processes which have no analogue in the context of an ability/skill check.

If there is movement during the course of the fight, or if either the PC or the orc inflicts a condition somehow, it's more complex - in Vincent Baker's terms there are some box-to-box arrows and some box-to-cloud and cloud-to-box arrows - but the basic point still stands.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> What I'm looking for is more ways to build characters to make them mechanically different from one another. In particular, more character building choices to make beyond 1st level. Currently, you make all character building decisions at character creation, with the exception of a Subclass at 2nd or 3rd level (if you didn't decide that ahead of time), and a Feat or ASI once every four levels (a few extra for Fighters and Rogues). That is very, very little to make one character actually behave differently than another.



"What do you mean, all the Monopoly tokens are the same?  The car is an aggressive risktaker, and the hat is an antisocial orphan!"


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> there is, contra your original statement, an entire world of stuff to buy. From political positions, to henchmen, to bribes, to commissioning art (patronage systems?), to raising armies, to charitable contributions, to luxury goods, to setting up a banking and mercantile system ....
> 
> But there is little rules support for spending your money to make your character better at the game of killing more stuff to become more powerful.



Is 5e really that narrow in focus, so that there is no contrast between _mechanical resolution_ and _fighting_?

D&D 4e had rules for correlating money spent to mechanical effect: 10% of the value of a magic item of your level grants +2 to a check in a skill challenge.

Prince Valiant has a rule for correlating finery to mechanical effect: when you wear your fine clothes, or your fine armour, or ride your fine steed, you get a bonus die in your pool if your action involves impressing others, or otherwise is one where status and prestige matter.

Classic Traveller has a whole subsystem for adjudicating interstellar commerce: economic classifications for planets read off their basic statistica profiles; trade goods charts; broking; etc.

The idea that you _reduce_ your focus on fighting as an aspect of play by having mechanics _only_ for fighting isn't one that seems coherent to me. At least in my experience, no other game generates complaints about "hack-and-slash" or "murder hobos" that D&D does.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

SkidAce said:


> Why in the world would I want the game book to tell me the "goals" of my game?
> 
> Besides, it changes from campaign to campaign, sometimes session to session.



Most games establish a goal of play, win conditions, or the like.

This is true of many RPGs -Gygax's PHB, for instance, does this (both in the early pages, where it talks about the goal being to use your class abilities to overcome the challenges posed by the game; and towards the end, under the heading "Successful Adventuring", where it gives advice on the best methods for successfully exploring and looting a dungeon).

Burning Wheel gives goals of play (which are different fromm classic D&D): _fight for what you believe_, where "fight" is being used to mean "struggle", not necessarily "try and physically defeat opponents".

Prince Valiant has a goal of play - wander through an imagined "Arhturian Britain" and become a famous knight or companion.

I guess someone could use AD&D to run a game of courtly intrigue, but the game will give almost no support for it and will exhibit many break points (eg Charm Person, Suggestion and the like will turn out to be broken in such a game). I guess someone could use Burning Wheel to play a dungeon-crawling game, but it won't work super-well: if you like some aspects of the resolution system but want to play a dungeon-crawl, try Torchbearer instead. If you want to play a game of Arthruian-era viking traders, Prince Valiant won't offer anything very helpful.

I know some people think that a RPG is just a system for finding out what happens in the world, but that's an idea I don't take that very seriously even for Runequest or Traveller, let alone any version of D&D.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

SkidAce said:


> This line is advice...and would be okay.



A rulebook that _doesn't_ say stuff like this is (in my view) incomplete. It assumes that the players will bring knowledge of how to play the game from somewhere else.

A game doesn't qualify as "light" because it has incomplete rules!


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I know some people think that a RPG is just a system for finding out what happens in the world, but that's an idea I don't take that very seriously even for Runequest or Traveller, let alone any version of D&D.



That's probably a point of contention on this thread; I think for quite a few posters that "D&D as unfocused world-sim" or "wander around and see what the DM throws at us" is the dominant modality of play.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 26, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> In a contest the high roller would go, and nobody else would get a turn.  Initiative doesn't work that way.  Everyone gets to go, because it's not an opposed check.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't splitting hairs at all.  There is a very big difference between only one person getting to act and nobody else getting a turn(contest), and everyone getting to go and simply using a dex check to establish order(initiative).  See the link provided by @_*Ristamar*_.  Jeremy Crawford established that I am correct here, though I really didn't think he would have to rule on something so clear.




A context doesn’t require that the other guy doesn’t go. That’s simply false. 

The other guy just doesnt get  to get to go first, because they lost the “go first” contest.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 26, 2018)

billd91 said:


> Not sure I’d call that a sucker punch. The issue of relying on a lucky initiative roll indicates that the target of your punch isn’t really a sucker. Actually catch him by surprise and he *can’t help* but give you the first shot at him. That’s a real sucker punch.




Yep, and no amount of knowing that the person you’re talking to is potentially lethally dangerous, in a general sense, prevent you from being sucker punched. In 5e, you have to know that they are a threat to you, right now, in this situation. Becauese in DnD, “threat” means something trying to harm you, not just something that could, theoretically, try to harm you.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 26, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Hmmm - there's many, many times I've found the price lists for hirelings, servants, etc. in the 1e DMG to be extremely useful as otherwise I-as-DM wouldn't have much of a clue what would be reasonable to charge for such.  Guidelines not rules, to be sure, but very useful nonetheless.




They can be helpful for sure.  I don't think they are needed, though.  I also found that too many rules alter the way people think about the game.  In 1e and 2e where there were fewer rules and the DMs had to create/change more, the thought was that they could make the game their own and pretty much everyone tinkered with the game.  In 3e where rules were everywhere trying to cover as much as possible, the DMs I played with that weren't old school, looked a lot more to the books and tinkered much less with the game.  5e is a move back to making the game your own more than blindly following the rules.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> The basic structure of RPG action resolution is fiction >> mechanics >> fiction.
> 
> (By way of contrast: fiction >> fiction is free narration/storytelling; mechanics >> mechanics is boardgaming or wargaming.)
> 
> ...




You got the mechanics for an attack wrong.  Initiative is a separate mechanic that doesn't have to result in a single attack, so it's not a part of the attack mechanics.  Damage happens AFTER the attack mechanic if successful, and also is not a part of it.  The attack mechanic is...

<establish DC, roll a 20 check, apply applicable modifiers, compare to DC to determine success or failure> Just like skills.  Where DC = AC.  That's the entirety of the attack mechanic.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 26, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> A context doesn’t require that the other guy doesn’t go. That’s simply false.
> 
> The other guy just doesnt get  to get to go first, because they lost the “go first” contest.




You want to just re-write the Sage Advice and send it to him so we can all know how to really play the game?  Crawford would probably appreciate it.

It's not going to be a contest no matter how badly you want it to be.  The rules don't support you, and the creator via his Sage Advice doesn't support you(he supports the rule book).


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 26, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> You want to just re-write the Sage Advice and send it to him so we can all know how to really play the game?  Crawford would probably appreciate it.
> 
> It's not going to be a contest no matter how badly you want it to be.  The rules don't support you, and the creator via his Sage Advice doesn't support you(he supports the rule book).




Which answer are you referring to, because this one literally does not contradict anything I’ve said, but simply clarified that init is an ability check, not a skill. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/08/29/is-initiative-a-skill/


----------



## Ristamar (Sep 26, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Which answer are you referring to, because this one literally does not contradict anything I’ve said, but simply clarified that init is an ability check, not a skill. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/08/29/is-initiative-a-skill/




https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/06/is-initiative-a-contested-ability-check-vs-everyone-in-combat/


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> If the question is how can characters use their gold, a list of items with prices certainly seems to be advice on exactly that
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



A couple of initial things:

(1) They don't approach combat this way: "Hey, GM, I've got a claymore rather than a dagger - does that give me advantage on killing orcs?"

(2) They don't approach prayer and sorcery this way: "Hey, GM, I've got a holy symbol blessed by St Sigobert - will that give me an advantage to repel the vampire?"​
That tells me something about their expectations - they expect everyone's games to have rather circumscribed fighting, prayer and sorcery (unsurprisingly, much like most editions of D&D since forever!).

Those discrete, different, detailed and tigjhly circumscribed systems also are the reason I can't take the idea of 5e as "rules light" seriously. I mean, yes if the comparison class is Hero and Magic Realm - but otherwise not remotely.

And this goes back to the issue of equipment lists: the game _doesn't_ just have an equipment list for swords and shields, for wands and bat guano. It has ultra-detailed rules for how these things factor into key activities of gameplay: a sword boosts your damage roll - a mechanical thing - in this precise way; a shield boosts your AC - a mechanical thing - in a precise way; a wand boosts your spell DC - a mechanical thing - in a precise way; having a pouch of bat guano and other knick-knacks opens up mechanical possibities that otherwise aren't there.

The fact that the game takes one design approach to fighting and casting spells (which themselves tend to have a strong focus on their use in fighting) and a different approach to dressing up in fine clothes to impress people tells me something about the game.



hawkeyefan said:


> Could they have come up with rules for wardrobe and the impact it has on Persuasion or other social checks? Sure. Could they have come up with rules for how to build strongholds? Sure.
> 
> But they realize the importance of these things will vary from table to table. So they've left such things up to a specific group to decide.



But grappling, or conjuring prismatic spheres, or repelling vampires through prayer, is of equal importance at all tables?



hawkeyefan said:


> This is why I don't think there will be any convincing you. I think it's a key aspect to the design. Not feeling the need to spend time and space around a bunch of areas of the game whose importance will vary drastically from game to game and committing a bunch of mechanics to those areas ahead of time.



In this discussion there's also a recurrent tndency to think that uniform resolution = 3E-style "rule for everything". But Cthulhu Dark has uniform resolution rules that fit on less than an A4 page. Prince Valiant has uniform resolution rules that fit on a couple of pages. HeroWars/Quest has uniform resolution rules that fit on about half-a-dozen pages.

Part of what makes 5e a rather complex system is its wide vareity of resolution subsystems that aren't straightforwardly integrated (eg deft finger moves to pull of stage magic may well invoke the skill/ability resolution system; deft finger moves to cast spells rarely do - they are a player-side fiat mechanic) but generally can't just be ignored (eg in Burning Wheel the sorcery subsystem can be ignored, and magic use resolved by a skill check - on the Sorcery skill - like anything else; in 5e there's no default generic mechanic that can be used in lieu of the magic subsystem).

I think that Moldvay Basic is basically a complete game - it puts itself forward as a dungeoncrawl game, and it has the mechanics to deal with that. I think that 5e is an incomplete game, in that it puts itself forward as covering a range of stuff for which its rules and mechanics are incomplete. Not because they need to be if it's to be kept "light", but because there are other design sensibilities at work - in particular, a preference for GM decision-making as to what happens in most cases that don't involve fighting or casting spells.

It's like a feature of classic D&D, which results from the extension of gameplay beyond the dungeoncrawling it was designed for, has been erected into a principle.



hawkeyefan said:


> My game is not exactly the style you assume above, but my players' characters have indeed accumulated some money through play. They've used that money for a variety of things....most of which are more narrative than mechanical. They've established a trading company and they've needed funds for political purposes. There is upkeep involved in that, and a whole bevy of NPCs to pay for, and further investments related to the busines. One PC used the funds to establish a temple. Another used money to help in his search for his family.



What I find most striking about this is that you classify all this action as "not mechanical".



hawkeyefan said:


> It seems to me based on your comments here, and in other conversations, that you want all mechanics to be determined ahead of time so that the players and DM have this established understanding of exactly what's possible and what works and how ahead of time. There's no judgment needed on the DM's part.



The last sentence seems pretty absurd in the context of a RPG: I don't think you can have a game in which fiction >> mechanics >> fiction without some sort of judgement being made, and in anything like a traditional RPG allocation of participant roles that will be the GM.

I just don't think that "the GM decides what happens" is a very interesting example of "light" design, especially when it's not implemented consistently (which it isn't in 5e - that's not the rule for resolving fighting in 5e).

I also think that "the GM decides what happens" isn't the best recipe for satisfactory play, but in the context of this discussion that's a secondary thing.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

Lord Mhoram said:


> When there are rules for everything (3rd and 4th) then you get constrained on what you can do by looking at character sheet. In a more freewheeling game, you just think up stuff your character would do, and the GM tells you what roll to attempt to do it.



You present this as if it is a dichotomy that covers the field.

Given that in my 4e game the PCs have set back ghouls with their prayers (other than by way of the Channel Divinity mechanics), used jellies at a banquet to illustrate the vulnerabilities of gelatinous cubes, opposed city officials in court cases, used their chaos sorcrery to seal the Abyss, tamed bears that were attacking them, stolen a triceratops from its hobgoblin handler and ridden it across the battlefield, and countless other stuff I can't recall - _none of which is an action declaration mentioned in the rulebooks or on a character sheet_ - I don't recognise your characterisation.

Like many other posters in this thread, you seem to equate _uniform resolution system_ with _a series of discrete quasi-simulationist subsystems for each field of possible endeavour_. That's not how 4e (and the games that inspired its mechanics, whether directly or indirectly - Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars/Quest, Prince Valiant and others) works.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Given that in my 4e game the PCs have set back ghouls with their prayers (other than by way of the Channel Divinity mechanics), used jellies at a banquet to illustrate the vulnerabilities of gelatinous cubes, opposed city officials in court cases, used their chaos sorcrery to seal the Abyss, tamed bears that were attacking them, stolen a triceratops from its hobgoblin handler and ridden it across the battlefield, and countless other stuff I can't recall - _none of which is an action declaration mentioned in the rulebooks or on a character sheet_ - I don't recognise your characterisation.
> 
> Like many other posters in this thread, you seem to equate _uniform resolution system_ with _a series of discrete quasi-simulationist subsystems for each field of possible endeavour_. That's not how 4e (and the games that inspired its mechanics, whether directly or indirectly - Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars/Quest, Prince Valiant and others) works.




In the 3.x and 4E games what I described is what I saw being played - (knowing that the plural of anecdote is not data) - just speaking of personal experience. 

Overall I've found 5E to much much easier to teach to people who have never roleplayed than 3.x/PF or 4E; and the minimal mechanics outside combat has led to much more creative choices of character actions by players than I ever saw in 3/PF or 4E. 

The whole point, as I see it, of ruling vs rules, is that you rely on the GM to tell you how the interaction with his world works, and the rules are a support for the GM to do this... as opposed to the rules defining how you interact with the world.  To me that is a welcome change of pace, and a nice return to the "old days".  It also really helps push the concept of table variation - something I see as a very very good thing. Every game should be that particular group's game, with whatever rules modifications, structure or odd habits that they play.  In my opinion moving to a new table should almost be like changing companies but doing the same job - a lot of it is the same, but there are individual changes. The old classic concept "The GM is GOD - game organizer and director" is something I support - the printed rules are for the GM to modify to fit his world; and players talk to GM when making characters for his world.

I've never accepted a character at my table in any game I run  that was built without a conversation about tone of my game, what rules I allow, what rules I don't allow, and such.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> That's probably a point of contention on this thread; I think for quite a few posters that "D&D as unfocused world-sim" or "wander around and see what the DM throws at us" is the dominant modality of play.



Which means that judgements about "rules light" vs "rules heavy" are being made in comparison to 3E played the same way?

(Did anyone play 4e that way? Talk about maximum suckitude!)


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 26, 2018)

Ristamar said:


> https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/06/is-initiative-a-contested-ability-check-vs-everyone-in-combat/




Thanks! If it was already posted ITT I missed it. 

Interestingly, I think the person that started the “it would just be am opposed ability check” line of discussion is still right. It only isn’t, because the specific rule tells you how to adjudicate who goes first. Without it, there wouldn’t be “initiative”, there would just be, at best, the assumption that groups will fall back on ability checks to determine combat order. Which would be a context, because you’re trying to see who goes first. <shrug>


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I know some people think that a RPG is just a system for finding out what happens in the world, but that's an idea I don't take that very seriously even for Runequest or Traveller, let alone any version of D&D.




DnD isn’t a narrow game. It isn’t quite generic in the sense that GURPS is, but it is generic in the sense that it deals in goals on a campaign basis, rather than on a total system basis. 

DnD is meant to be played by groups that was dungeon crawling and groups that want courtly intrigue, and groups that want both, in one game, from session to session. This is part of why DnD is so popular. It is very well constructed to be a game that can have multiple goals, and let the group simply choose the win conditions.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 26, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Thanks! If it was already posted ITT I missed it.
> 
> Interestingly, I think the person that started the “it would just be am opposed ability check” line of discussion is still right. It only isn’t, because the specific rule tells you how to adjudicate who goes first. Without it, there wouldn’t be “initiative”, there would just be, at best, the assumption that groups will fall back on ability checks to determine combat order. Which would be a context, because you’re trying to see who goes first. <shrug>




That isn't what Crawford said.  He simply said it was an ability check and not a contest.  He didn't say it was an ability check and not a contest only because of the tie rule.  

Look again at the contest section.  This quote makes it impossible for initiative to be a contest by RAW.  "Sometimes one character’s or monster’s efforts are *directly opposed *to another’s. This can occur when both of them are trying to do the same thing and *only one can succeed*."  There is no other way given for a contest to occur, and initiative isn't an ability check where only one can succeed, nor is it one where the efforts are directly opposed to another's.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 26, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> That isn't what Crawford said.  He simply said it was an ability check and not a contest.  He didn't say it was an ability check and not a contest only because of the tie rule.
> 
> Look again at the contest section.  This quote makes it impossible for initiative to be a contest by RAW.  "Sometimes one character’s or monster’s efforts are *directly opposed *to another’s. This can occur when both of them are trying to do the same thing and *only one can succeed*."  There is no other way given for a contest to occur, and initiative isn't an ability check where only one can succeed, nor is it one where the efforts are directly opposed to another's.



Lol ok, max. Once again you “win” by being pedantic and persistent on a tangential point for so long enough that someone else just walks away.

edit: oh, btw, even if we just accept what you’re saying (I don’t), it reinforces my point that the initiative rule is much clearer than what it would be without it, because rather than an ability context that isn’t quite normal, it literally wouldn’t have any RAW viable way to run it other than just literally making something up from whole cloth. There’s be no init score, no way to know what to roll, no reason to assume it should be decided by rolling. Just, <shrug, they’ll figure something out>. 

Good thing the very very clear rule on initiative is there, huh?


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 26, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> oh, btw, even if we just accept what you’re saying (I don’t), it reinforces my point that the initiative rule is much clearer than what it would be without it, because rather than an ability context that isn’t quite normal, it literally wouldn’t have any RAW viable way to run it other than just literally making something up from whole cloth. There’s be no init score, no way to know what to roll, no reason to assume it should be decided by rolling. Just, <shrug, they’ll figure something out>.
> 
> Good thing the very very clear rule on initiative is there, huh?




I don't even know what you are talking about here.  All I've been talking about is the very specific, and very narrow non-rule rule about ties between the DM and a player.  I've never said anything about the entire initiative rule as a whole.  With that very narrow non-rule rule, quite literally nothing would change if it didn't exist(hence non-rule rule).  The DM would still make the decision on how it goes.


----------



## cbwjm (Sep 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> One choice, made at character creation, that boils down to two skills and two tools/languages.
> 
> 
> One choice, made at character creation. Has a decent mechanical impact, but does little to differentiate the way a character plays.
> ...



So what other options would you like? I can think of some things you might like such as:

Smaller feats received more often.
Skill points.
Prestige classes/paragon classes/epic classes.

A lot of people say they want more mechanical choice but never really go on to expand on it to state what they would like to see. Mind you, some of the posts in this thread are really, really long or written multiple pages, so I may have very well missed them or simply don't recall them anymore.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 26, 2018)

Jester David said:


> The example above is a different side to metagaming.
> 
> There’s the metagame of making gamist decisions based on game information the character doesn’t know.
> And there’s the ever so slightly different metagaming that occurs due to social contracts at the table. The thief not stealing from other players, the character not hogging the spotlight, setting up an ally for the win rather than “kill stealing”, helping someone kick some ass because they’ve had a bad day and need the stress relief, etc.



A thief stealing from other players is a problem.  A thief stealing from other players' characters, however, is fair play; as is what happens to said thief if and when s/he gets caught.



> Because, while one is (generally) discouraged, the other always has to be considered and is important. The people/player based metagame. Which, I think you just accidentally christened “the meatgame”.



Different strokes, I guess.  I prefer when both the players and DM leave their real lives at the door, to whatever extent they can, and take the game session as a few hours without worrying about the 'meatgame' and just enjoy what's happening in the game itself.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 26, 2018)

Fallstorm said:


> TSR did this back in 2E.  The rules of the core 2E game were fairly simple (although not always logical) and they kept the core game but but later came out with the Player's Option series (Combat & Tactics, Skills & Powers, etc.) to appeal to people wanting more technical elements to the game which many other RPG at that time had incorporated into their systems.



And in so doing they a) overlaid those things on to a system that really wasn't set up to handle them and b) opened up a Pandora's Box of broken combinations and-or spell interactions through lack of foresight and-or full-stress playtesting. 

In short, they broke their own system.



> I fail to see why WOTC would not do the same thing now



Maybe they realize they've got something right now that's more or less working pretty well and don't want to risk breaking it?



> and I don't think that tactical power gaming and narrative gaming are mutually exclusive traits.  My group is composed of power gamers who love tactical combat.  These same gamers also sit down and write very detailed backstories, etc for their PCs.



Cool - you're one of the lucky ones who has players that can and will do both.

Which leads to a question: would those players be able to bring the same characterization and character personality to the table if using a system that doesn't have fine-tuned mechanical representation for differences between characters of the same class e.g. 1e D&D?


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 26, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> They can be helpful for sure.  I don't think they are needed, though.  I also found that too many rules alter the way people think about the game.  In 1e and 2e where there were fewer rules and the DMs had to create/change more, the thought was that they could make the game their own and pretty much everyone tinkered with the game.  In 3e where rules were everywhere trying to cover as much as possible, the DMs I played with that weren't old school, looked a lot more to the books and tinkered much less with the game.



I largely agree with you, though I'll stand by saying that guidelines for hireling rates are handy enough to be worth including in the PH. 

In fairness to 3e DMs, however, it must be noted that because it was more tightly designed than any of 0-1-2e it was also correspondingly harder to successfully kitbash; it wasn't as modular, thus a change here would be far more likely to have unexpected (and often undesired) knock-on effects there, there and there - some of which might not become apparent for ages.

I know this not just from what I've read in here but from having played in a long 3e campaign where the DM had done some significant kitbashing before it began.  The knock-on effects eventually became overwhelming, and he switched to near-RAW 3.5 about 5 years in.



> 5e is a move back to making the game your own more than blindly following the rules.



Well, that's was promised in the playtest period anyway; and the small-scale rulings-not-rules seems to be working out.  But inquiring minds want to know: how well does 5e handle a major kitbash?  We've seen Mearls' reworked initiative system in writing but how well does it play, for example?  Or, what would happen if one threw out 5e's cleric-turning-undead rules and replaced them with the 1e turn-undead table?

Lan-"so how many g.p. would it cost my character to hire someone to kitbash 5e"-efan


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 26, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> So what other options would you like? I can think of some things you might like such as:
> 
> Smaller feats received more often.
> Skill points.
> ...



Smaller Feats received more often would be a good option. Skill points... I wouldn’t mind them, but they’re not the kind of thing I’m looking for. They only give a small numerical bonus, which is the least interesting kind of mechanical differentiation. Prestige classes or 4e style paragon/epic classes would be fine, but such things tend, like 5e subclasses, to be a single choice made only once. Not exactly the expansion of character variety I’m looking for, though neither would it be an unwelcome bit of player choice.

Ideally, I’d like something along the lines of 4e’s Powers, or Pathdinder’s variant Class Features (or Class Feats in PF2). What I want is for not every Fighter (or every Champion) to get the exact same abilities at the exact same levels as every other Fighter (or every other Champion.) I want a choice of what new ability I gain when I level up, not just one choice of what set of abilities I will get over the course of my character’s career, or a handful of choices of what numbers I want to be higher. I want different options for what I can use my action to do than every other character of the same class and subclass has. I want *customization* in a mechanical sense, not only in a roleplaying sense.

It’s all well and good to describe my attacks differently than Tommy describes his, but if we’re ultimately still rolling the same d20 to see if we can roll the same d8, with maybe slightly different modifiers, then I’m not really doing anything different. I’ve been accused in this thread of playing the same characters over and over with different mechanics, but to me if I don’t have different mechanics, I’m playing the same characters over and over with different descriptions. You need both. D&D is *both* roleplaying *and* game, and the false dichotomy that seems to exist between them in public perception only serves to harm a hobby that by definition is supposed to be both. Let me come up with fun and interesting characters to imagine myself as, and then give me the tools I need to express those characters through the game’s rules! Having either without the other just feels hollow to me.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

Eric V said:


> Of course not.  Apparently, the rules are different when talking about game design though...



Unless its 4e, I think.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

ClaytonCross said:


> This idea that D&D is a story game only or a Mechanical Game only is frankly against reality. It must have both to function. They are both equally important no matter which one you start with.



The idea that D&D is a "story game" or a "narrative first" game is one I find hard to credit. I mean, I'm sure there're are groups out there doing that, because the world is a diverse and varied place, but it's not how the rules present the game and it's not the sort of thing the game supports. (Pure sim games like RQ and RM are better for "story" or "narrative" gaming than D&D, because they tend not to have all the fiddly minutiae of PC building that get in the way with D&D. 4e is something of an exception because most of the PC build elements - powers - can also be used, via p 42 and related improv guidelines, to play the sort of role that descriptors play in more standard narratively-oriented games.)


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> An utterance is verbal.  A thought is telepathic.  You cannot make a telepathic utterance.
> 
> ut·ter·ance
> ˈədərəns/
> ...



And yet leading philosophers of the interpretation of written language (I'm thinking especially of written law) use the notion of _utterance meaning_ to explain the meaning of a statutory or constitutional provision.

It's almost as if language, especially in technical or semi-technical contexts where audiences are already aleter for nuance, is flexible and capable of being adapted and repurposed without engendering more than (at worst) minor confusion until the usage is made clear!


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] Great post



Thanks!



doctorbadwolf said:


> I’ll get into more tomorrow when I can dig into something that long



I'm gradually working through the thread, 70-odd posts from the end with a good number of those replies to me. So if you've already posted more I'll get to it in due course.



doctorbadwolf said:


> attacking an enemy is exactly the same as making one of several checks to get through a series of locks/parts of a complex lock to get into a vault. The only narrative change is that you’ve worn down the enemy more, or gotten closer to busting the vault.



If the lock has hit points (or something similar), so that each success has no particular narrative meaning, I agree. But I don't think that's a standard resolution method in 5e. (And it's not how 4e skill challenges work, either - it's clear in the 4e DMG and made clearer in the DMG2 that each check in the skill challenge produces a change in the fictional which affects the fictional positioning of subsequent checks - which in combat is like movement, and some condition imposition, but not like hp loss.)


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

clearstream said:


> To kill a King typically requires an army. Armies are expensive... war is a continuation of economics by other means.



To an extent. But in a mediaeval-type economy it's a continuation of the household economy of the warleader but not really of rhe economy in total, because there is not the administrative capacity to mobilise the whole economy. The US Civl War and then most strikingly WWI mark turning points in this respect.

But anyway, that's a bit of a tangent to the main direction of the thrust.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 26, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Well, that's was promised in the playtest period anyway;




In my opinion it delivered.



> But inquiring minds want to know: how well does 5e handle a major kitbash?  We've seen Mearls' reworked initiative system in writing but how well does it play, for example?




I cannot say, but I imagine it would not be worse than how that system worked for 1e/2e.



> Or, what would happen if one threw out 5e's cleric-turning-undead rules and replaced them with the 1e turn-undead table?




Sadly cannot remember it.

I have though done my own tinkering on the Abilities - ensuring odd numbers count for something, introducing ability requirements for casting, and just in general improving on them. The domino effect of tinkering is harmless in 5e - it is not like in 3.x where the multitude of splat books messed you around later or 4e where the system was so tightly crafted that it felt discouraged.  

I've also changed the rest mechanic and introduced the 3.x touch attack which bypasses armour. I've even experimented with capping hp and it works.

Strangely enough, the only mechanical thing I miss to some degree from earlier editions is the quadratic wizard.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

Fallstorm said:


> we really don’t fully know what Hasbro is counting as sales of D&D.  Mike Mearls has said before that they don’t have to put out as many splat books because they can release games like Lords of Waterdeep, etcetera as income generators since the Hasbro merger.  I am wondering if things like the numerous board games and additional niche products (Dice sets), etcetera are what is making a more significant portion D&D 5E sales now
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Where I think WOTC (Hasbro) maybe harming themselves is that they are losing money on not producing splat material.



The general view seems to be that a low barrier to entry, which is achieved in part by a low supply of books, and a very low supply of rulebooks, increases uptake which generates sales (whether or books or other paraphernalia or both) which outstrip the potential sales of more splat. Plus you save on the costs of producing said splat.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> My point is that the player also drives the spending of the treasure.  If my goal was to free my loved one from the evil duke's dungeons, my money would go to bribing the right people, purchasing information, perhaps raising and provisioning an army, maybe hiring assassins, and more.  As a proactive player, I don't need the game to tell me that I can spend money on those things.  As a DM, I don't need rules to tell me how much to charge for those things.



A question: so why does a GM need rules to tell him/her how much to charge for swords and shields?

Another question: why does a GM need rules to tell him/her what affect on combat resolution results from using a sword and/or a shield? (5e has many, many such rules.)

And a comment: rules for the use of money don't need to involve price lists, and those aren't at their core. Burning Wheel has very rich rules for spending money, but no price lists. Classic Traveller has short but rather effective bribery rules, without price lists. The key to the endgame rules in classic D&D isn't "Here's the cost of a castle". It's "Now build a castle and have at it!" You could have a game with a similar endgame, that also makes collecting treasure important, but that doesn't use price lists.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 26, 2018)

Eric V said:


> Again, without _saying _anything about the designers as people (because we simply don't have access to that), let me ask this: In your own life, in an effort to please people, has that always entailed a lot of work?  Or have people's wishes sometimes been so easy to fulfill that it wasn't a lot of effort at all, even if you had originally braced yourself to work a lot.
> 
> IOW, does pleasing the greatest number of people _necessarily _mean more work than not?  Or is it possible that accomplishing the former may not require as much work as coming up with something improved?
> 
> ...




might be, but I really doubt that it was not a lot of work. Witnessing the playtest process, the really did a lot of work. And then tossed 90% of that into the trash bin. As a matematician, I know that things that might seem trivial often require a lot more work than seemingly difficult things.

Going back to the game: They had to be creative in very tight constraints, the legacy of DnD and the assumed parts. Actually just finding out what is essential for DnD was a lot of work. I really don´t want to guess how many hours they spent just going through the surveys and drawing conclusions...

So no, I don´t like that word, especially when I still have the feeling you might think that what they gave us was actually not a lot of work.
If it was, I can´t imagine it took 2 years of paytest to get it done. I don´t think wotc or hasbro said: guys, just lay back and just throw out random stuff for the playtest and for the final version of 5e just pull something out of your hat.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 26, 2018)

Sadras said:


> In my opinion it delivered.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Adding more to the 5e resiliency options.

Esper Genesis takes most of 5e adds some new subsystems and gets a pretty solid scifi game out of it. 

I replaced init whole hog (choice driven no dice) - works fine in our experience.

I significantly changed the way healing HD worked and gear based healing - worked fine in our play.

I implemented a death save like race to 3 for extended skill checks that plays major in our games.

5e is incredibly simple to alter in both minor and major ways without too many hidden linkages to trip you up.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> A question: so why does a GM need rules to tell him/her how much to charge for swords and shields?
> 
> Another question: why does a GM need rules to tell him/her what affect on combat resolution results from using a sword and/or a shield? (5e has many, many such rules.)
> 
> And a comment: rules for the use of money don't need to involve price lists, and those aren't at their core. Burning Wheel has very rich rules for spending money, but no price lists. Classic Traveller has short but rather effective bribery rules, without price lists. The key to the endgame rules in classic D&D isn't "Here's the cost of a castle". It's "Now build a castle and have at it!" You could have a game with a similar endgame, that also makes collecting treasure important, but that doesn't use price lists.



A game or setting that is different from the real world and uses a currency that is different from the real world needs to provide some form of commerce benchmark for the GM and players to use **if** spending currenct to acquire stuff is something that is within the scope of the game. 

Sometimes this can be an abstract - wealth ratings and DC checks or rank and quartermaster checks - but if this is something the game wishes to have in play it helps to provide benchmarks. 

If you look at 5e they provide in the PHB a fairly noticeable cross-section of basic costs they see as ones common enough. 

I would expect other settings and other expansions to add more details.

As for why have rules for how swords and shields affect combat - they are combat implements and are covered as such. Their basic functions are integrated into the combat system. Could 5e have gone more abstract - sure - but it was a design choice they made to include that level of granularity - to tie specific results to specific weapons and it seems to have done well by their audience.

I won't try to divine what you call classic traveller but I seem to recall plenty of price lists in classic traveller and I started with the little black books and have played most of the systems since then too.


----------



## Eric V (Sep 26, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> might be, but I really doubt that it was not a lot of work. Witnessing the playtest process, the really did a lot of work. And then tossed 90% of that into the trash bin. As a matematician, I know that things that might seem trivial often require a lot more work than seemingly difficult things.
> 
> Going back to the game: They had to be creative in very tight constraints, the legacy of DnD and the assumed parts. Actually just finding out what is essential for DnD was a lot of work. I really don´t want to guess how many hours they spent just going through the surveys and drawing conclusions...
> 
> ...




So, I am referring to the 3rd sentence of your first paragraph when I say 'lazy design,' with 'design' being the end product.  The possible motives for such?  You might have it right when you type: "They had to be creative in very tight constraints, *the legacy of DnD* and the assumed parts."  I am not sure about the use of the word "had," though; did they _have _to work in such tight restraints?  Or is that a choice?  If they choose to never examine changing/eliminating x,y, and z, then that's design work that never needs get done, yes?

I am certain that going through the surveys and such, collating data, etc. was a lot of work.  I've said before that I am sure the process involved a lot of work.  In coming up with test packets?  Design work, for sure.  Going through data and noting what people liked and didn't like isn't design work though; there are companies who do data analysis. How they deal with that data in putting it into the final game is design work, and some of that seems lazy to many of us...even if the process was a long one.


----------



## clearstream (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> To an extent. But in a mediaeval-type economy it's a continuation of the household economy of the warleader but not really of rhe economy in total, because there is not the administrative capacity to mobilise the whole economy. The US Civl War and then most strikingly WWI mark turning points in this respect.
> 
> But anyway, that's a bit of a tangent to the main direction of the thrust.



I meant that the supposition that players can depose a King without expending a lot of coin to do so, while common in murder-hobo fantasy, doesn't chime with my game world. I've no idea whether I'm alone in that conception!


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> You rarely saw concepts like "Using Cha to attack" in homebrew, just as an example, until Hexblade came out in Xanathar's Guide.  Now it's pretty widely accepted.



Sounds a bit suspect to me. How does having a vibrant personality help me hit things? Why can't a charming fighter do it?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 26, 2018)

Eric V said:


> So, I am referring to the 3rd sentence of your first paragraph when I say 'lazy design,' with 'design' being the end product.  The possible motives for such?  You might have it right when you type: "They had to be creative in very tight constraints, *the legacy of DnD* and the assumed parts."  I am not sure about the use of the word "had," though; did they _have _to work in such tight restraints?  Or is that a choice?  If they choose to never examine changing/eliminating x,y, and z, then that's design work that never needs get done, yes?
> 
> I am certain that going through the surveys and such, collating data, etc. was a lot of work.  I've said before that I am sure the process involved a lot of work.  In coming up with test packets?  Design work, for sure.  Going through data and noting what people liked and didn't like isn't design work though; there are companies who do data analysis. How they deal with that data in putting it into the final game is design work, and some of that seems lazy to many of us...even if the process was a long one.




I assume survey data showed them how their restraints were.
I think arguing any further is futile. I with 100 percebt certainty know that condenskng something to its essentials and making the underlying math as sound as 5e is in most parts is a lot of work. I am also 100 percent sure that deciding which innovative parts to throw out is a lot of work. I also know for certainity that puttingnin innovations that are subtle enough not to offend 95% of the audience is not easy. And then it is a a lot of work to make the game accessible and not overloading beginning players and dms which even might include again throwing out stuff that is nice to have but not worth the extra bulk.

So. And last but not least: if that would be easy, why wasn't it done before?

Innovative design is not always bulky and unwieldy. Sometimes it is the reduction to essentials that makes a work innovative, especially when the trend before was making things bigger and more unwieldy.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> You got the mechanics for an attack wrong.  Initiative is a separate mechanic that doesn't have to result in a single attack, so it's not a part of the attack mechanics.  Damage happens AFTER the attack mechanic if successful, and also is not a part of it.  The attack mechanic is...
> 
> <establish DC, roll a 20 check, apply applicable modifiers, compare to DC to determine success or failure> Just like skills.  Where DC = AC.  That's the entirety of the attack mechanic.



If I get the argument that you and [MENTION=6704184]doctorbadwolf[/MENTION] are running correct, it's that attack checks are the same as ability/skeill checks except that instead of generating consequences for the shared fiction they trigger further mechanical processes.

Everything there seems to be located in the exception rather than the sameness. Obviously, rolling a d20 and adding some numbers is the same process whatever the context, but _rolling a d20 and adding some numbers_ isn't how you resolve a fight in any version of D&D (contrast, say, HeroWars/Quest where it _is_; or BW, where it can be (if the extended resolution option is not being used) subject to the caveat that rather than a d20 it is a pool of d6s).


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

Lord Mhoram said:


> The whole point, as I see it, of ruling vs rules, is that you rely on the GM to tell you how the interaction with his world works, and the rules are a support for the GM to do this... as opposed to the rules defining how you interact with the world.  To me that is a welcome change of pace, and a nice return to the "old days".



How would you characterise the following rule:

When you consult your accumulated knowledge about something, roll 2d6+Int bonus:

✴On a 10+, the GM will tell you something interesting and useful about the subject relevant to your situation;

✴On a 7–9, the GM will only tell you something interesting—it’s on you to make it useful;

The GM might ask you "How do you know this?" Tell them the truth, now.​
I don't see how it fits into a dichotomy between "the rules supporting the GM telling you how your interaction with his/her world works" and "the rules defining how your interact with the world".

My reason for asking is that because I don't think your suggested dichotomy covers the field, I don't know what you're trying to tell me about adjudication in 5e.



doctorbadwolf said:


> DnD isn’t a narrow game. It isn’t quite generic in the sense that GURPS is, but it is generic in the sense that it deals in goals on a campaign basis, rather than on a total system basis.
> 
> DnD is meant to be played by groups that was dungeon crawling and groups that want courtly intrigue, and groups that want both, in one game, from session to session. This is part of why DnD is so popular. It is very well constructed to be a game that can have multiple goals, and let the group simply choose the win conditions.



I think a courtly intrigue game of D&D is almost certain to involve issues around Charm Person and Suggestion spells - particulary if it's a game using the AD&D versions which (by contemporary standards) are super-high powered. At mid-level there will be ESP and other divination-related issues too (which 2nd ed-era stuff solved (for some value of "solved") by giving all diplomats a Ring of Mind Shielding or similar).

(The above is not theorycraft. It's extrapolation from experience.)

Character builds that support dungeon crawling (high capacity to absorb ablative damage; magic oriented towards fighting and exploration challenges; etc) tend to leave other aspects of character underdeveloped. The contrast even between D&D and Classic Traveller (1977) in this respect is fairly striking.

Another difference between D&D and other games that I personally would see as more versatile within their genres is that _so much real estate_ in D&D is taken up with spells and, in later versions, similar discrete list-selected class features (feats, powers, the range of class abilities in 5e). The difference between a paladin and a ranger _could_ be the difference between _gain advantage when your honour would help_ and _gain advantage when your knowledge of the wilds would help_, but it's not.

(Also, and despite the name, GURPS is not especiallly generic. I think it offers a pretty consistent and fairly tightly focused gaming experience, of slightly low-powered Hero.)


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> It’s all well and good to describe my attacks differently than Tommy describes his, but if we’re ultimately still rolling the same d20 to see if we can roll the same d8, with maybe slightly different modifiers, then I’m not really doing anything different.



I think a lot of people think of _roleplaying_ in terms of _the overlaying of colour that doesn't actually change the core of the shared fiction_.

I think that's essential if eg an AP is also going to be a roleplaying-intensive experience.

I'm going to call on [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] to see if he will share more thoughts on this, as I'm pretty sure he has some!


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

clearstream said:


> I meant that the supposition that players can depose a King without expending a lot of coin to do so, while common in murder-hobo fantasy, doesn't chime with my game world. I've no idea whether I'm alone in that conception!



Well, Conan did it, and so did Flash Gordon, so I think that makes it fair game in D&D, at least in principle!


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> A game or setting that is different from the real world and uses a currency that is different from the real world needs to provide some form of commerce benchmark for the GM and players to use **if** spending currenct to acquire stuff is something that is within the scope of the game.



And D&D just _happens_ to use arms and armour - things that are not consumer goods in the world most of its players are familiar with, and that most of those players wouldn't know how to extrapolate from for other stuff that is more familiar - as its benchmark?

Sometimes this can be an abstract - wealth ratings and DC checks or rank and quartermaster checks - but if this is something the game wishes to have in play it helps to provide benchmarks. 



5ekyu said:


> If you look at 5e they provide in the PHB a fairly noticeable cross-section of basic costs they see as ones common enough.
> 
> I would expect other settings and other expansions to add more details.



None of this addresses my point: if the argument against including the mechanical significance of fancy clothing is that each GM should individualise it for his/her table, _why is combat gear different_?



5ekyu said:


> As for why have rules for how swords and shields affect combat - they are combat implements and are covered as such. Their basic functions are integrated into the combat system. Could 5e have gone more abstract - sure - but it was a design choice they made to include that level of granularity - to tie specific results to specific weapons and it seems to have done well by their audience.



Which is exactly what I've been saying - there is no uniform resolution system, as combat has a fixity and a mechanical granularity that non-combat does not.

And in that way is also supported as a focus of play that contrast quite markedly with other fields of endeavour.



5ekyu said:


> I won't try to divine what you call classic traveller but I seem to recall plenty of price lists in classic traveller and I started with the little black books and have played most of the systems since then too.



I mean pre-MegaTraveller. (I use the 1977 edition with a few mods drawn from the 1981 (?) updates, the Special Duty line on the MegaTraveller lifepath tables, and Andy Slack's Backdrop of Stars articles in White Dwarf.)

Classic Traveller has price lists, but those aren't what tell you what the gameplay purpose of money is. That is ascertained from the rules for combat, for bribery, for interstellar travel, and for world exploration.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> 4e is something of an exception because most of the PC build elements - powers - can also be used, via p 42 and related improv guidelines, to play the sort of role that descriptors play in more standard narratively-oriented games.)




Can you provide an example of this? As I'm not following your train of thought here.


----------



## clearstream (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Well, Conan did it, and so did Flash Gordon, so I think that makes it fair game in D&D, at least in principle!



Definitely fair game!

I just prefer a game world that presents solid resistance to players 

Thus I prefer to envision that a King is generally protected by enough power that a single PC party is insufficient to dislodge them, barring less usual (but relevant) cases where said King is already on shaky ground!


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I think a lot of people think of _roleplaying_ in terms of _the overlaying of colour that doesn't actually change the core of the shared fiction_.
> 
> I think that's essential if eg an AP is also going to be a roleplaying-intensive experience.
> 
> I'm going to call on [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] to see if he will share more thoughts on this, as I'm pretty sure he has some!



I think if you accept the premise that roleplaying is primarily about _inhabitation of a character_ and an invocation of the character's sensory environment, than it follows that the generation of a narrative is a secondary concern.  I can play to experience my character's viewpoint whether I'm pursuing an adventure goal or wandering around a town talking to NPCs.

I tend to look to video games for examples since I have more experience in that realm, but look at shared environment games like Second Life where the ultimate "goal" of gameplay is to customize and display your character.  And for APs, look at open world games like Grand Theft Auto V.  There's a storyline built into the game that the character can experience, but at any point you can ignore the plotline and decide to do some car racing, or get into fights, or try to steal helicopters.  

I think the biggest problem for protagonist driven play is that there's no existing analogue in other media; playing an open world RPG like Skyrim or Witcher 3 is pretty similar to playing an adventure path TTRPG (the TTRPG has much less visual immersion, but more freedom of character customization and more room for plot customization).


----------



## Oofta (Sep 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> One choice, made at character creation, that boils down to two skills and two tools/languages.
> 
> 
> One choice, made at character creation. Has a decent mechanical impact, but does little to differentiate the way a character plays.
> ...




I did some quick counts over at DnDBeyond because I was curious.  There are
37 races
12 classes
80 sub-classes
34 backgrounds
60 feats

So mathematically, there are thousands of options depending on how you calculate it.  I know ... you'll tell me that 99.9% of those are not "valid" options because it wouldn't make sense to run a <insert race> <insert class> and that <insert feat, background, whatever> wouldn't make sense.  It's not that there aren't more options than you could play, it seems that most options are eliminated out of the gate or that playing a combination that isn't "optimal" isn't valid.

Even if there were more options, a lot of people would still gravitate to a handful of optimal options.  It would be the same complaint or the complaint would be that there are so many options that build X is broken.  Personally I'd be happy running my dwarven rogue or gnome barbarian because I don't care all that much about eaking out numerical supremacy, it's just not that important.

If they had more options, it would just lead to a game of grognard character building that they were trying to avoid.  I also think it wouldn't really solve anything because there will always be a handful of builds that on a spreadsheet look best.

As far as decisions being front-loaded, that is a good point.  Not sure that it's really all that different though from previous editions.  I always had a general idea of where my PC was going to go, and you had to have certain prerequisites to qualify for prestige classes so it was more of an illusion of choice than anything.  In 5E you have the option of multi-classing which you can do at any time, much more flexible than early editions.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> And yet leading philosophers of the interpretation of written language (I'm thinking especially of written law) use the notion of _utterance meaning_ to explain the meaning of a statutory or constitutional provision.
> 
> It's almost as if language, especially in technical or semi-technical contexts where audiences are already aleter for nuance, is flexible and capable of being adapted and *repurposed* without engendering more than (at worst) minor confusion until the usage is made clear!




Well, then.  I'm going to take a page out of WotC's book and declare that the bolded word is now Reporpoised.

Por.poise

noun
1. a small toothed whale with a low triangular dorsal fin and a blunt rounded snout.
2. the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. (adapted by Maxperson, because language is flexible)


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> A question: so why does a GM need rules to tell him/her how much to charge for swords and shields?




He doesn't.  The inclusion of those charts, though, does not in any way invalidate or counter what I am saying.  You can decide in a rule set that you are making lighter, to include some things and not others, even if they are similar.



> Another question: why does a GM need rules to tell him/her what affect on combat resolution results from using a sword and/or a shield? (5e has many, many such rules.)




You seem to be assuming that the damage rules are of the same weight and ease for the DM to come up with as prices.  That's a False Equivalence.  Damage from weapons affects game balance and game play to a much greater degree, making it very complex.  Pricing on the other hand is incredibly simple and doesn't affect balance nearly as much.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 26, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Even if there were more options, a lot of people would still gravitate to a handful of optimal options.  It would be the same complaint or the complaint would be that there are so many options that build X is broken.  Personally I'd be happy running my dwarven rogue or gnome barbarian because I don't care all that much about eaking out numerical supremacy, it's just not that important.
> 
> If they had more options, it would just lead to a game of grognard character building that they were trying to avoid.  I also think it wouldn't really solve anything because there will always be a handful of builds that on a spreadsheet look best.



I think this shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what motivates mechanical players.  We're not looking for options to make good builds better, we're looking for options to make bad builds good, and thus increase the number of playable options.

Simple proof.  There isn't a much more mechanically complex system than Pathfinder.  In PF, it's almost universally recognized that full casters like Wizard, Cleric, and Druid are a cut above every other class.  (They're the "Tier 1" classes).  And yet, if you go to a site like Zenith Games, which indexes almost every Char Op guide that exists in Pathfinder, you'll see just as much attention, if not more, spent on weaker classes like Fighter or Monk or Kineticist as you do on Clerics and Wizards.

Why?  Because optimizing powerful classes like Wizards is _boring_.  Coming up with an off-the-wall concept like "grappler that sets people on fire" and figuring out how to make it work is like 90% of the fun of character building.  

I know we're supposed to play at the table, not away from the table, narrative first as a design goal, etc, but I still regret that marrying 5e's simple chassis with PF's flexibility wasn't a design goal, market forces be damned.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> If I get the argument that you and @_*doctorbadwolf*_ are running correct, it's that attack checks are the same as ability/skeill checks except that instead of generating consequences for the shared fiction they trigger further mechanical processes.




Typically generate further mechanical consequences.  Sometimes they don't, but those are usually exceptions created by other more specific rules.  Sometimes, however, you are just making an attack roll and dealing no damage at all.  I can't tell you how many time I've had PCs in archery/spear throwing/etc. contests where you make an attack and the AC(DC) just determines how well you did and you never roll damage against the object being attacked.  



> Everything there seems to be located in the exception rather than the sameness. Obviously, rolling a d20 and adding some numbers is the same process whatever the context, but _rolling a d20 and adding some numbers_ isn't how you resolve a fight in any version of D&D (contrast, say, HeroWars/Quest where it _is_; or BW, where it can be (if the extended resolution option is not being used) subject to the caveat that rather than a d20 it is a pool of d6s).




We aren't talking about fight resolution, though.  We are talking about the mechanics of an attack check vs. the mechanics of a skill check.  Making a skill check often doesn't resolve the situation the PCs are in, either.


----------



## Fallstorm (Sep 26, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> And in so doing they a) overlaid those things on to a system that really wasn't set up to handle them and b) opened up a Pandora's Box of broken combinations and-or spell interactions through lack of foresight and-or full-stress playtesting.
> 
> In short, they broke their own system.




Well, in 2E due to the various conditions at TSR when the person who did not really like D&D took over there was actually very little playtesting in general.  You also correct that the Players Option series was not play-tested in fact the Combat & Tactics and Skills & Powers books were evidently worked in by two different teams with not much cross collaboration.  All that being said because their was a mistake in implementation on a past product does not mean a future direction should not be taken but the mistakes of the past learned from.  D&D 5E seems to be well playtested internally with external playtesting involved as well.  Also, while I don't work at WOTC and while I may not like all their decisions it seems from the D&D Brand standpoint the designers/writers are in fact very collaborative and keeping each other in the loop on directions of various projects, which makes sense given the small number of actual designers and writers left at WOTC.  Additionally D&D 5E is much more streamlined than 2E was so laying additional layers on top of the system should not be that hard.    As it stands now I see why a modular expansion adding more tactical options for those who want such things is not feasible and able to be implemented without breaking the system.



Lanefan said:


> Maybe they realize they've got something right now that's more or less working pretty well and don't want to risk breaking it?.




See my above point. Furthermore the system was built on the premise of modular expansions that would allow the group to "dial the game" to their taste from more theater of the mind to tactical/power gaming options.   From a power-gaming perspective I feel I need to add I don't feel gimped in this department.  Between the PHB, the SCAG, Xanathar's, Mordenkainen's guide, Volo's guide to Everything (to a much lesser extent) there are a number of class, subclass, and race combinations to choose from.    I would say that in a modular expansion feat selection should be revised.  As it stands right now there are a ton of good feats that will never get selected due to having to make the choice of a stat bump or a feat choice and in every group  I have been in the Stat bump is almost always a better choice MOST of the time.  Yet people want feats which is why humans are on of the most played races right now, something that was unheard of in other editions of D&D.  We definitely don't need feat glut like in 3E and 4E and I can understand feats being optional to appease the OSR crowd (1E and 2E fans) but I feel like this could have been done better.  It could have been as simple as noting 1) feats are optional (as they are) and 2) stating at every level you get a stat bump you can also get a feat.  This way more feats would see play but as it is a lot of feats will just languish.  Having said all that overall I feel characters are thankfully stronger in 5E than in every other edition except 4E and honestly they are not THAT for behind they just don't have the choices and customization 3E and 4E PCs had.

Where I think D&D could expand is by adding in more tactical options in combat and ways to tweak the game more to prior editions, also adding a little more charop choices would be a nicety.  People are not being ridiculous in expecting this as this was the premise this edition was soled on.  I don't see that many people on here saying they hate 5E (some are but not many).  While 5E is not my favorite I like it well enough and I play it regularly and enjoy myself. I like some other people are just waiting on the dials and modular expansions they said WOTC would do pre-release.  Well, its four years now and I am still waiting.  We have gotten modules but not the modular expansions promoted. 




Lanefan said:


> Cool - you're one of the lucky ones who has players that can and will do both.
> 
> Which leads to a question: would those players be able to bring the same characterization and character personality to the table if using a system that doesn't have fine-tuned mechanical representation for differences between characters of the same class e.g. 1e D&D?t




The anti-power gamer attitude that some segments of the community hold I fail to understand.   Many of these players dislike power-gaming or have a favorability of story telling etc. creating a dichotomy that should not exist.   Yet, I have found that story tellers and "deep" role-players can be just as disruptive as a power gamer.  In fact, in most of the groups I have been in especially random meetup or FLGS event groups it has never been a powergamer that was the most disruptive player it was usually a "deep" role-player that was more weird or outright disruptive.  Straight up.  Furthermore, if D&D 5E is all about history and drawing the history and what makes the game iconic (which again is something THEY i.e. the designers have talked about and promoted about 5E) then D&D has always been about mechanics and combat.  D&D was grew out of tabletop WARGAMING which has about ZERO role-playing.  In fact, I recall an article in Dragon  magazine under 3e (I want to say Dragon 238 or 239) where they interviewed Gary Gygax and he went on the whole "ROLE-play not ROLL play crowd" and stated that D&D is open to everyone and every type of gamer but that D&D was founded as an sword and sorcery adventure wargame not "an exercise in amateur thespianism". I remember the last part stood out to me.  Now, the market can grow and like I said my group of powergamers loves a good narrative and well built world.  We develop and write background stories for our characters BUT none of that is any more important for some reason than how well we mechanically build our characters.  Hack-and-slash, powergaming, whatever you want to call it is just as valid a playstyle as any other (it is in fact more rooted in the history and precedent of D&D) and I don't think D&Ders are wrong for expecting that as part of the game.....especially again since a variety of rules that would allow you to dial the game to your taste was a part D&D 5E's brand advertisement and promotion.

Now, I do kind of understand that if you have people who are great at CharOp and someone who is not good at Charop joins a group that the less skilled Charop person can feel overwhelmed.  I have seen this happen.  Likewise if a strong Charop person joins a group where everyone is not good at CharOp that character can overwhelming shine (in combat) and make other PCS feel useless. I have seen this happen although in all honesty not as often.  The way to correct this is 1) people who are stronger at CharOp will hopefully help and teach someone not as skilled.  In my 20+ years of D&D I have mostly played with very tactically minded and CharOp minded players.  When I first started I was not as experienced as my peers at this but being around them made me want to be better. It made me strive to show what I can do and I like that.   2) It could be that the non-CharOp person is okay with suboptimal choices that could drain the party combat wise and if that is the case the group can a) except that pc and everyone have fun. I as a powergamer don't mind building a class that shines in combat and letting the deep role-player get his/her kicks from non-combat stuff.  If he accepts me I can accept him and it is a great symbiosis.  I would think people would be mature enough to play this way.  b) the other option is for people to know what kind of group they are getting into and join a group that fits their playstyle.  No harm, no foul.   

What should not happen however is people who are good at CharOp and tactics combat being told they CAN'T do it(not even via an official OPTIONAL expansion) because a specific group will not do CharOp for whatever reason (inability or dislike of the style).  This mindset seems very draconian to me (and not in a D&D way).  It is like somebody being a vegetarian and saying "Hey! I don't eat meat because I don' t like it. Therefore we can only go to restaurants that serve zero meat so you can't eat meat either."   The D&D table is big enough for various  playstyles.  I truly believe that.   What D&D can't tolerate is toxic players and even more impactful toxic GMs (because yes GMS can be problematic too and in fact have more an impact on the game).  The DM-May-I-ism of 5E btw makes "Power GMs" or toxic GMS more feasible.

To answer your question.  1E D&D was the granddaddy of all RPGS. I would have played that system because there was nothing else around for me to compare it too at the time and no one knew any better until later on.  So, in 1E there would be no way for my Thief X to be different from Thief Y other than background and story but again that is because D&D was the first and RPGs were limited and not with the nuanced and varied taste in playstyle gamers have now (see P.S./Addendum).  I started in 2E (though I have some 1E books) and in that system people wanted official ways to differentiate themselves which is why we had "The Complete" series where characters could take a kit and in a crude manner try to gain a difference mechanically in class features.   Then Players Option came out in 2E where you could distinguish yourself.  Then 3E and 4E came out which was all about customization.  Now we are in 5E and supposedly some people are claiming people don't want customization yet anytime WOTC releases a book with actual rules expansions it flies off the shelf at every game store I have seen.  Xanathar's was gone within a day at my FLGS.  None of the fluffy adventures WOTC has released has ever sold out that fast.  So somebody's wanting options.


Addendum:  Due to a discourse I had with 2 individuals on here I feel I am forced via irksome arguments to clarify a statement that should be readily apparent.  Of course at the time of AD&D 1E there were other RPGs around but if you have one product occupying the vast amount of shares in a niche market then for all intents and purposes that is not a market at all.  For example, if only 4 % of the populace drank soda and Coca-Cola was the soft drink 98% of soda imbibers drank most marketers would be loathe to really say there is a soft drinks "market" despite the fact there were other soda makers fighting over 2% of the market share.   This is why if you recall there was an article not too long ago about how the end of 3.5 kind of saved RPGS being in local bookstores and not only gaming stores.   This was because prior to Pathfinder D&D was really the only RPG (again in a NICHE/specialty market) that was selling enough copies to warrant chain store occupancy. Thus bookstores chains were starting to question having a totally separate shelving space for RPGs when the only RPG that warranted enough sales to be in chain stores was D&D.  Evidently when PF started becoming popular it sold enough and gained enough attention that book chains like B&N and Borders were able to say look we have 2 products that produce X amount of supplements therefore we can justify having a separate section for RPGs.  My point is during the early phase of the 1E era D&D  while other games were around D&D really had no real market challengers from TTRPG perspective therefore the mechanical options or lack thereof was not as big an issue.  Please accept my apologies if this sounds condescending (it is NOT my intent) and probably already know this and what I meant but again I felt the need to justify given certain interactions of recent.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 26, 2018)

Oofta said:


> I did some quick counts over at DnDBeyond because I was curious.  There are
> 37 races
> 12 classes
> 80 sub-classes
> ...




A few things.  

First, those of us who want more options aren't necessarily asking for the number of options provided by 3e or 4e, which were excessive to say the least.  There's a lot of reasonable middle ground.  3e put out a book of PC options every month or two.  I'd like to see 1-2 a year in 5e.  5e has put out 1 book of PC options, and has included a small amount in with a few monster books.  So about a book and a third or half in 4 years.

Second, not all options are discounted because of not being optimal.  Many combinations just don't make sense.  A rogue with great weapon master, heavily armored, or heavy armor master for instance.  Some just don't work at all, like a rogue with elemental adept.  I don't care if a combination I take isn't optimal, but I do care if it doesn't make sense.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I think if you accept the premise that roleplaying is primarily about _inhabitation of a character_ and an invocation of the character's sensory environment, than it follows that the generation of a narrative is a secondary concern.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I think the biggest problem for protagonist driven play is that there's no existing analogue in other media



This is interesting, so I'm glad I invoked your name to get it!

How do you think I should fit what you say here with the description of 5e as "narrative first"? By "narrative" should I be thinking "flavour text"?


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Sep 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> One choice, made at character creation, that boils down to two skills and two tools/languages.
> 
> 
> One choice, made at character creation. Has a decent mechanical impact, but does little to differentiate the way a character plays.
> ...






I guess I disagree about every character behaving the same mechanically - even those of the same subclass to some degree - but I now understand your desire for more crunch.  I mean, how does a Divination wizard behave the same as a Champion Fighter?  Roll dice for attack and damage at the most base level, I suppose - but that's a lack of imagination, not the fault of existing mechanics.  I suppose that leads to the conclusion that mechanics are integrally tied to the roleplay - otherwise, yes, samey.

Post level one mechanical choices:

Many spells for spellcasters to choose from to add/swap/prepare each level
Barbarian totem spirits or storm soul aspects 
Fighting Styles for Rangers, Paladins, and Sword Bards
Maneuvers for Battlemaster Fighters
Druid Wild Shapes (newly discovered shapes through exploration)
The Elemental Disciplines for the Way of the Four Elements Monk 
The Attack and Defense options for Hunter Rangers
Metamagic for Sorcerers
Eldritch Invocations and Pact Boons for Warlocks

Purchasing/Finding new weapons
Magic Items (including: you may need decide which to attune AND/OR if playing in a world with Ye Olde Magic Shoppes, which to buy)
Renown with Factions
Downtime activities to focus on learning new languages, tools, and skills
Dragonmarks in Eberron

I get that you want more and that's certainly ok but what you see as _scarcity _I see as _plenty_.  Clearly YMMV.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> This is interesting, so I'm glad I invoked your name to get it!
> 
> How do you think I should fit what you say here with the description of 5e as "narrative first"? By "narrative" should I be thinking "flavour text"?



I think it's probably more around "concept" than it is about "narrative".  Not to trivialize other people's play agendas, but I think their focus is on demonstration of backstory, concept, and capabilities, not generation of plot.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Can you provide an example of this? As I'm not following your train of thought here.



The 4e PHB comments (p 259) that in a skill challenge "You can use a wide variety of skills, from Acrobatics and Athletics to
Nature and Stealth. You might also use combat powers . . ." The DMG says (p 72) "The difference between a combat challenge and a skill challenge isn’t the presence or absence of physical risk, nor the presence or absence of attack rolls and damage rolls and power use", and goes on to say (p 74) that "[c]haracters might have access to utility powers or rituals that can help them. These might allow special uses of skills, perhaps with a bonus. Rituals in particular might grant an automatic success or remove failures from the running total." The DMG2 is the most elaborate on this (p 86), suggesting that "[c]haracter can use powers and sometimes rituals in the midst of skill challenge . . . a good rule of thumb is to treat those . . . as if they were secondary skills in the challenge [ie that cancel a failure, grant a bonus to a different check, allow a reroll, or open up the use of a new skill, as per p 85] . . . A character who performs a relevant rituak or uses a daily power deserves to notch at lesat 1 success toward the party's goal."

At least as I read this, there are two things going on (and from here I'm focused only on powers, though I'm happy to talk about rituals too if you're interested). One is that 4e capabilities have a clear "cost structure" as resources - encounter powers are low-cost resources, and expending them generally generates a modest return (the seondary skill check outcomes mentioned); daily powers are higher-cost resources, and expending them therefore generally generates a higher return (the auto-success outcome mentioned).

The other thing turns on the facts that (a) a skill challenge is all about _making a check that is grounded in the existing ficitonal positioning, and changes that whether it succeeds or fails_ (DMG p 74; DMG 2 p 83); and (b) the main connection between a power and the fiction is the power's keywords and effects.

So to use a power to generate an effect appropriate to its "cost" as a player resource, the player has to actually declare a move in the fiction that expresses the (keyword and effect) mediated fiction of the power. Two examples of what I have in mind: a sorcerer uses Spark Form to generate an arc of lightning between his staff and his dagger to help intimidate a bear - keyword *lightning*; and a wizard uses Charm of the Dark Dream - a possession daily - to try and read the mind of a guard and learn a password - keyword *charm* and effects *dominate, attacking character is removed from play* (ie in the fiction, the mage disappears and possesses the target).

The first RPG I know to use a system a bit like this is Maelstrom Storytelling (1997), which uses a uniform scene-resolution mechanic based on dice pools (either opposed or vs a difficulty), and allows players to "burn" descriptors (ie use them up for the session) to add bonus dice to the pool, or to generate "sub-scenes" that they can try and win even if the group loses the overall scene. Because 4e has a robust and uniform-across-players resource economy, it is easy to adapt the same sort of thing into skill challenges, which is - as I read it - what the DMG2 has in mind.

In a system in which players don't have these uniform suites of resources, and don't use keywords to provide clear but also flexible anchors to the fiction, this sort of thing (in my view) becomes much harder to adjudicate.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice (Sep 26, 2018)

The more of Mearl's postings I read, the more I'm convinced that the success of 5E as a system is a happy accident rather than deliberate. Either that or it's really Jeremy Crawford who's sitting at the steering wheel.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Sounds a bit suspect to me. How does having a vibrant personality help me hit things? Why can't a charming fighter do it?



Cha to attack or Cha to help attack could be magical boosts from a Cha caster *or* a deceptive sttiker maneuver like feinting or even a Intimidation style "startle". 

I seem to recall "startle" feats/advantages allowing use of "intimidate" for in combat benefits in other d20 based products from the 3.x era... If not exactly "to hit" then helping. 

But regardless, certainly the publishing of a mechanical element in official product tends to seed/encourage homebrew utilization.

But some folks seem to have real "issues" with hexblade dip and Cha to hit that i dont recall seeing with say shillelegh and its Wis to hit from a simple druid dip.

Remember in 5e Cha is not just "charming".


----------



## Oofta (Sep 26, 2018)

[MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION], [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION],
Two observations.  First, I agree that not all build combinations would make sense.  But just taking sub classes times races, we get 2,960 (assuming I counted right) alternatives.  Even if 90% of those don't make sense for some reason, that leaves close to 300 options.  Heck, make it 99% and throw in a smidgeon of feat/build/multi-class choices (i.e. champion fighter with dex vs strength, sword and board vs great weapon) and I think there are more builds than I could ever personally play.

Second is just a general observation that may or may not apply to any specific individual that posts here.  I played/judged a lot of living campaigns in 3.x and 4E.  In my experience with those campaigns and editions, most people that cared about optimization gravitated to a handful of builds.  

In other words, to many people the multitude of options in previous editions was an illusion.  

I get the desire for more options and especially more significant choices at higher levels. I guess the difference may be that I have fun coming up with a character concept and then seeing if I can approximate that concept given the (somewhat limited) options I have.

Ultimately you're going to have a few builds that do approximately the same thing.  Blaster caster, control, hit things with melee, or hit things with ranged (I may be missing an option or two and there are combos).  That's just the nature of the genre and foundation of the game.  Are different ways of achieving that goal really going to feel all that different?

Or ... what from a mechanical perspective what would you want to see?  Not talking "I'd like to do a <insert class or prestige class I may or may not have heard of>", but mechanically.  What gaps are missing?  If you want to run a shaman for example, how does that differ from a druid (perhaps with multi-class) other than flavor that could be added with a background?


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I think it's probably more around "concept" than it is about "narrative".  Not to trivialize other people's play agendas, but I think their focus is on demonstration of backstory, concept, and capabilities, not generation of plot.



Where capabilities are in the non-combat but also non-spellcasting sphere, I'm reminded a bit of [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s "DCs > 30" thread (which I think was lost in a crash a year or three back). They seem to be heavily gated behind GM decision-making. Do you have thoughts on how this works out in practice?


----------



## Fallstorm (Sep 26, 2018)

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> The more of Mearl's postings I read, the more I'm convinced that the success of 5E as a system is a happy accident rather than deliberate. Either that or it's really Jeremy Crawford who's sitting at the steering wheel.





A lot of playtesting went into 5E that being said I do think maybe Jeremy Crawford does not get as much credit as he deserves.  From Sage Advice and everything else I wonder he is more of the tactical mind behind 5E whereas Mike is the overall big picture guy/narrative guy...


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> what would happen if one threw out 5e's cleric-turning-undead rules and replaced them with the 1e turn-undead table?



Can't that question be answered just by comparing the two rules?

In 5e, there is no limit on how many undead can be turned; in AD&D it is 1d12 (except at high levels vs comparatively weak undead).

In 5e, the duration is much shorter in absolute terms (1 minute rather than 3d4 minutes) but a bit better in combat effectiveness (10 rounds rather than 3d4 rounds).

In 5e, the undead get a saving throw (vs a DC of 13-ish at 1st level up to 19-ish at 20th level), with a bonus of -2 for zombies, -1 for skeletons, +0 for shadows, +1 for wights, and +2 for wraiths and vampires (vampires also have legendary resistance). That makes 1st level clerics better at turning than their AD&D equivalents; but the AD&D progression is far more generous, especially vs weaker undead and once the cleric reaches mid-to-upper levels. Eg a 7th level AD&D cleric turns a wraith on a 7, an 8th level on a 4; whereas the saving throw number in 5e will be around 13 for the wraith facing a 7th cleric, around 14 vs an 8th level cleric - ie much less of a generous progression. A 14th level AD&D cleric has a 17 in 20 chance to turn a vampire, which is better than a 20th level 5e cleric.

So the AD&D rules will tend to weaken lower-level 5e clerics and tend to power-up the mid-to-upper level ones. Whether that's desirable or not would seem to be table-relative. (And whether the additional costs of bringing in an ad hoc table rather than just sticking to the spell DC save rules are worthwhile also seems table-relative.)

Is there a reason you think that this would be worth doing?


----------



## hawkeyefan (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> A couple of initial things:
> (1) They don't approach combat this way: "Hey, GM, I've got a claymore rather than a dagger - does that give me advantage on killing orcs?"
> 
> (2) They don't approach prayer and sorcery this way: "Hey, GM, I've got a holy symbol blessed by St Sigobert - will that give me an advantage to repel the vampire?"​
> ...




Sure. It's D&D. There's going to be fighting in nearly all games. The importance of the fighting or the frequency of it may change, but I think in most cases, combat is an expectation. 

There's also going to be exploration and interaction with NPCs. There are rules for these things, but they're less codified than the combat rules, generally speaking.






pemerton said:


> But grappling, or conjuring prismatic spheres, or repelling vampires through prayer, is of equal importance at all tables?




Individually, who can say? A group of PCs may not contain any casters, or may never run into a vampire. But under the larger umbrella of combat actions, yes, very likely. 



pemerton said:


> In this discussion there's also a recurrent tndency to think that uniform resolution = 3E-style "rule for everything". But Cthulhu Dark has uniform resolution rules that fit on less than an A4 page. Prince Valiant has uniform resolution rules that fit on a couple of pages. HeroWars/Quest has uniform resolution rules that fit on about half-a-dozen pages.
> 
> Part of what makes 5e a rather complex system is its wide vareity of resolution subsystems that aren't straightforwardly integrated (eg deft finger moves to pull of stage magic may well invoke the skill/ability resolution system; deft finger moves to cast spells rarely do - they are a player-side fiat mechanic) but generally can't just be ignored (eg in Burning Wheel the sorcery subsystem can be ignored, and magic use resolved by a skill check - on the Sorcery skill - like anything else; in 5e there's no default generic mechanic that can be used in lieu of the magic subsystem).
> 
> ...




I think this is pretty accurate, overall. There's no doubt that past editions and the play experiences they created were a consideration. There are certain elements that have become fundamental to D&D, and I wouldn't expect them to go anywhere. Most of these....HP, AC, Saving Throws....are related to combat. The game has its roots in war gaming, and that sensibility has informed every edition. Combat is expected to be a fundamental part of the game. 

I don't think that the "preference for GM decision-making" makes the game incomplete, though. Perhaps this is semantics, but again I see that as a feature, not a bug. I prefer the flexibility that design choice allows. I prefer the creative approach it fosters in my players. They're less likely to resort to what the rules allow and instead attempt ideas that they come up with at the table. This is the piece of the puzzle that I think perhaps you are overlooking. My players are coming up with all manner of ideas that aren't covered by the rules, and we adjudicate pretty quickly and smoothly, and we find out play (both in combat and outside of combat) to be more varied than we did in recent previous editions. 

Could things have been done differently? Sure. Are there games with specific systems for other areas of the game that could have been mimicked here? Sure. But I don't think that means they are better. 

I can understand people who feel that is the case. Many folks want as much structure as possible. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. This is purely a matter of preference. 



pemerton said:


> What I find most striking about this is that you classify all this action as "not mechanical".




What mechanics did I use? 



pemerton said:


> The last sentence seems pretty absurd in the context of a RPG: I don't think you can have a game in which fiction >> mechanics >> fiction without some sort of judgement being made, and in anything like a traditional RPG allocation of participant roles that will be the GM.
> 
> I just don't think that "the GM decides what happens" is a very interesting example of "light" design, especially when it's not implemented consistently (which it isn't in 5e - that's not the rule for resolving fighting in 5e).
> 
> I also think that "the GM decides what happens" isn't the best recipe for satisfactory play, but in the context of this discussion that's a secondary thing.




How is it absurd? The PC needs to influence a noble, the PC has X amount of gold, the PC buys the fine attire, the PC receives a bonus on his attempt to influence the noble. The GM has little input on this. Sure, the narration of this sequence may vary from GM to GM, and some may elaborate to create a whole scene around it. But the results of what happen don't require the GM's judgment, unless the rules indicate that the advantage gained by the fine attire is up to the GM or something like that.  

And again, as far as who decides what happens, I think you're leaving out the role of the player here. It's not just the DM deciding. The player has an idea. Instead of consulting the rulebook, or instead of the DM saying "per the Persuasion rules on page 210..." the DM is able to take the player's idea, the other prevailing factors of the current fiction, and then determine how things proceed from there.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 26, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Remember in 5e Cha is not just "charming".



From the Basic PDF (pp 8, 61):

*Charisma*
_Measures:_ Confidence, eloquence, leadership
_Important for:_ Leaders and diplomatic characters

Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality.

A Charisma check might arise when you try to influence or entertain others, when you try to make an impression or tell a convincing lie, or when you are navigating a tricky social situation.​
Under what circumstances can (say) a Champion fighter use CHA to attack (and to forestall the question as to "why", maybe this PC is built with CHA higher than STR and DEX; or has had STR drained by a shadow)? Is it enough that s/he feels confident that s/he can best the opponent?


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> The PC needs to influence a noble, the PC has X amount of gold, the PC buys the fine attire, the PC receives a bonus on his attempt to influence the noble. The GM has little input on this. Sure, the narration of this sequence may vary from GM to GM, and some may elaborate to create a whole scene around it. But the results of what happen don't require the GM's judgment, unless the rules indicate that the advantage gained by the fine attire is up to the GM or something like that.



Wouldn't the GM be framing the scene in which the PC attempts to influence the noble? Which normally would include setting the DC? And working with the player to establish what follows from success and what follows from failure?


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> And D&D just _happens_ to use arms and armour - things that are not consumer goods in the world most of its players are familiar with, and that most of those players wouldn't know how to extrapolate from for other stuff that is more familiar - as its benchmark?
> 
> Sometimes this can be an abstract - wealth ratings and DC checks or rank and quartermaster checks - but if this is something the game wishes to have in play it helps to provide benchmarks.
> 
> ...



DnD designers *chooses* to provide arms, armor, mounts, day-to-day services and expenses, vehicles, carts, food, booze, parchment, inks, perfumes, fine clothes etc etc etc to give a fairly broad comparision of things as benchmarks - some of which are realtable to the IRL of its players and others which are not relatable IRL and that allows the players a form of cross-tab basis.


As for the need or desirability of a fancy clothes mechanical system to be added or included...

The fact that different weapons and different armor provides distinct drfined mechanical differences is typically  a desired granularity level for a game with a fairly technical combat system is not surprising or unexpected. Its fairly status quo. It would be jarring or a disconnect to have one without the other.

But this will vary from the game type. A game with much less expectstion of combat scenes or seeing less tactical resolution might have very little - even turning weapon type into just a cinematic flourish. Chargen would also tend to focus less on combat type stuff.

For many swords and sorcery type games/settings in TTRPGs the idea of applying that same level of gear related  granularity to every facet of play doesnt usually ring "true" to the genre.

How many fantasy movies or novels do you recall where the choice of non-magical clothing played as much to the plot or advancement or resolution as the hero arms and armor did? LotR many of their weapons had names - some fans can tell you them, the mithril shirt gets its moment of spotlight... But what was the name of gandalf's sandals? Should we represent that source material with rules for how much gandalf needs to spend on those sandals to help with his intimidate check?

Most of the players i have encountered would not be as expecting, accepting or even immersively inclined to see tables of "blue silk shirt +1 intimidate" type gear expansive detail as they see in arms and armor because it is a departure from,the focus and direction the spurce material takes the game is trying to represent.

They would be sooner willing to accept or expect better deep dive gear details of say foods (impact on healing or resistance or carry), alchemy and medicinal herbs as various media and source tend to spotlight those.

If one was playing a setting for a culture where high end social ettiquette is key (thinking japanese old samurai stereotypes) then one would expect to see more details for "type of garments gsins you this" and "tea set made by so-n-so gains you that".

To me, just as an observation, the idea that a game system needs or benefits from a universal resolution mechanic is a trope trotted out now and again that is mostly not true in,my experience.

Games are not served by having the same redolution in the same detail for cooking the evening meals, performing an artistic dance, trick riding on a combat field, winning a poker game, fighting a duel, etc etc because i just have not seen a setting or game where for the typical play each of those served equal import to the play and story.

When its tried, its more of a non-resolution indie thing where its more authorship than resolution and its more about screen time than "how to use..." be it gold, weapon, blue silk shirts etc.

Ymmv.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 26, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Fallstorm (Sep 26, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> /facepalm
> 
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯





Yeah dude I don't know what the face palm is but D&D was the original RPG.  It did not have a lot of mechanical differences so you had to make stuff up to differentiate your character class from another player playing the exact same class.  The differences were minimal buit you didn't know any better and that is all you had. People were happy about that back then because the market was more limited so in terms of RPG the market was not as expansive offering as many options of games as available now.  Now that RPGs are well established and it is you know some DECADES removed form 1E's inception taste of grown and varied to specified taste.  This not phenomenal this is normal in a new product/genre is released it is called the EPS Cycle (Elite-Popular-Specialized). Meaning when something comes out it is generally like and/or available to very few select individuals.  Then over time that product becomes popular and like by a mass of individuals.  When a product becomes liked by a mass of individuals the product will fragment because people have varied tastes so the product will be manufactured more to suit individual preferences. 

So asking me how in the early days of a genre I would be satisfied with less is not a fair or honestly logical question.  I would have been satisfied with it because I really had no other choice of options at the time.   It is like asking someone who likes craft beer and does not want to drink just Budweiser "Well what did you do before craft beer really got big and came on the scene?"  I mean, at that time I guess if I wanted a beer I would have to drink Bud or its equivalent because I would have no choice.  People have choices now in both beer and RPGs.  So with beer I can have a good stout as one of my choices.  For RPGs D&D one those choices should be CharOp and tactical gaming.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> The 4e PHB comments (p 259) that in a skill challenge "You can use a wide variety of skills, from Acrobatics and Athletics to
> Nature and Stealth. You might also use combat powers . . ." The DMG says (p 72) "The difference between a combat challenge and a skill challenge isn’t the presence or absence of physical risk, nor the presence or absence of attack rolls and damage rolls and power use", and goes on to say (p 74) that "[c]haracters might have access to utility powers or rituals that can help them. These might allow special uses of skills, perhaps with a bonus. Rituals in particular might grant an automatic success or remove failures from the running total." The DMG2 is the most elaborate on this (p 86), suggesting that "[c]haracter can use powers and sometimes rituals in the midst of skill challenge . . . a good rule of thumb is to treat those . . . as if they were secondary skills in the challenge [ie that cancel a failure, grant a bonus to a different check, allow a reroll, or open up the use of a new skill, as per p 85] . . . A character who performs a relevant rituak or uses a daily power deserves to notch at lesat 1 success toward the party's goal."
> 
> At least as I read this, there are two things going on (and from here I'm focused only on powers, though I'm happy to talk about rituals too if you're interested). One is that 4e capabilities have a clear "cost structure" as resources - encounter powers are low-cost resources, and expending them generally generates a modest return (the seondary skill check outcomes mentioned); daily powers are higher-cost resources, and expending them therefore generally generates a higher return (the auto-success outcome mentioned).
> ...




Despite the fact that I have not read the 4e DMG2, I was already thinking along these lines in my 5e game where the party will soon be travelling large distances (Chapter 3 in Storm King's Thunder) and I wanted to include a skill type challenge to represent the dangers and resource-tax effect of exploration as opposed to rolling for random encounters.

Where success in the skill challenge could be earned or advantage gained in the checks via the expenditure of short or long rest class features, Hit Dice and even Inspiration Points that can via the narrative match up to the challenge. This is further helped (in my game) only because I have hitched the recharging of resources to the exhaustion mechanic, so expending short or long rest class features is risky/costly.
So I'm very much utilising this 4e idea in our 5e game.

I think in 5e it is particularly important for the DM/table to decide on the workings of the rest mechanic as that more than any of the other factors (MCing, Feats, Magical Items, high ability scores) impacts the encounter building (combat or otherwise) as well as difficulty.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 26, 2018)

Fallstorm said:


> Yeah dude I don't know what the face palm is but D&D was the original RPG.  It did not have a lot of mechanical differences so you had to make stuff up to differentiate your character class from another player playing the exact same class. People were happy about that back then because the market was more limited so in terms of RPG the market was not as expansive offering as many options of games as available now.  Now that RPGs are well established and it is you know some DECADES removed form 1E's inception taste of grown and varied to specified taste.  This not phenomenal this is normal in a new product/genre is released it is called the EPS Cycle (Elite-Popular-Specialized). Meaning when something comes out it is generally like and/or available to very few select individuals.  Then over time that product becomes popular and like by a mass of individuals.  When a product becomes liked by a mass of individuals the product will fragment because people have varied tastes so the product will be manufactured more to suit individual preferences.
> 
> So asking me how in the early days of a genre I would be satisfied with less is not a fair or honestly logical question.  I would have been satisfied with it because I really had no other choice of options at the time.   It is like asking someone who likes craft beer and does not want to drink just Budweiser "Well what did you do before craft beer really got big and came on the scene?"  I mean, at that time I guess if I wanted a beer I would have to drink Bud or its equivalent because I would have no choice.  People have choices now in both beer and RPGs.  So with beer I can have a good stout as one of my choices.  For RPGs D&D one those choices should be CharOp and tactical gaming.




Not to speak for lowkey13, but I'm guessing the facepalm is because you're grossly mistaken.  I'm guessing you didn't play RPGs in the late 70s/early 80s?  Not only are you mistaken about how you think classes all played the same, but you are also mistaken about what RPGs were out there at the time.  Just off the top of my head, there were also RPGs like Traveller, Top Secret, Marvel SuperHeroes, Boot Hill, Tunnels&Trolls, Gama World, Runequest, Palladium, Villains&Vigilantes, etc.  Most of those were as early as the late 70s.  And they aren't obscure either, they all were pretty popular.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 26, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Comparing levels between 1e and 5e, especially once you get close to name level and beyond, is foolish and obscures far more than it illuminates.



What do you think [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] had in mind, then, when he asked about dropping the AD&D turn undead system into 5e. Do you think he was envisaging changing the level numbers at the top of the AD&D chart?


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 26, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Please, feel free to lecture me about the early days of RPGs.
> 
> But, fwiw, you didn't say D&D. You started by saying 1e. 1e is not D&D (OD&D, supplements). While it is arguable as to whether or not D&D was the first TTRPG, assuming it was, by the time 1e was being fully played and had a complete ruleset (MM, PHB, DMG) in 1979, RPGs were already everywhere.
> 
> ...




Ironically enough, in the past decade or so, almost all of my TTRPG time with D&D (or my own systems).  In the early 80s, I think I played D&D equally along with Palladium, Boot Hill, and Twilight 2000.  Many of my friends were also playing Traveller, Top Secret, CoC, and Rolemaster just as much as D&D.  So anecdotally at least, our RPG exposure was more diverse in the early 80s than it is now.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Wouldn't the GM be framing the scene in which the PC attempts to influence the noble? Which normally would include setting the DC? And working with the player to establish what follows from success and what follows from failure?




Possibly, yes, I mention that at the end of the bit you quote, and also in other parts of my post you chose not to quote. It would also depend on the system in question, and so on. 

However, you brought up the example of the fine attire as something beneficial on which a PC can spend gold. My point is about how having a concrete benefit ahead of time that says "+2 on influence rolls" or "this roll is made with Advantage" or "the NPC's starting attitude will shift to Favorable" or something similar can actually serve as a limitation on play. When there are existing mechanics of this kind, players tend to say "Okay, we need to influence the noble...what can we do?" and they consult a list of actions the rules already addresses, and they limit their decision to those options.  

Those mechanics codify what happens when the PC wears the attire. The GM does not need to determine what happens. Would you agree? 

If not, and you feel the GM does have a strong role in the outcome, then I'm not sure if we're disagreeing. Perhaps it's just where the GM judgment comes into play? For you, it's okay for him to determine the DC and the results of a success or failure....but if I understand correctly, not in what's possible? 

For me, I prefer if my players come up with what their characters do, and not decide what's available to them from a predetermined list, and then as DM, I can decide if a check is needed, and if so what kind and at what DC, and then the results the check.


----------



## SkidAce (Sep 26, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I assume survey data showed them how their restraints were.
> I think arguing any further is futile. I with 100 percebt certainty know that condenskng something to its essentials and making the underlying math as sound as 5e is in most parts is a lot of work. I am also 100 percent sure that deciding which innovative parts to throw out is a lot of work. I also know for certainity that puttingnin innovations that are subtle enough not to offend 95% of the audience is not easy. And then it is a a lot of work to make the game accessible and not overloading beginning players and dms which even might include again throwing out stuff that is nice to have but not worth the extra bulk.
> 
> So. And last but not least: if that would be easy, why wasn't it done before?
> ...




I tell people 5e is elegant.



> el·e·gant
> 
> adjective
> pleasingly graceful and stylish in appearance or manner.
> ...


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], thanks for the reply about equipment etc. Most of what you say seems plausible enough. It doesn't change my mind about what seems to me a disconnect between the emphasis 5e gameplay appears to place on accumulating money, and the absence of a gameplay rationale for doing so. (You have given a good account of why a significant number of in-principle expenditure possibilities don't loom that large in standard FRPG or S&S-type play.) It also doesn't change my mind about the absence of a uniform resolution system in 5e. (You cogently address the fact that there is not one.) Nor does it make me feel that the "narrative" dimension to 5e non-combat is closer to "The rules run out in relation to stuff that is more peripheral, and at that point the GM's decision is more important than any mechanical element."

I'm not sure if you were trying to change my mind on any of those things - maybe not? probably not? to be honest it's a bit hard to keep track of all the sub-discussions, so I apologise if I've slightly mislocated your contribution - but they were some of the ideas I thought were in play for the last dozen or so pages of this thread.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 26, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## SkidAce (Sep 26, 2018)

To wit, elegant or "simple", "effective", much like the grand unified theory, could take a LOT of work.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> @_*5ekyu*_, thanks for the reply about equipment etc. Most of what you say seems plausible enough. It doesn't change my mind about what seems to me a disconnect between the emphasis 5e gameplay appears to place on accumulating money, and the absence of a gameplay rationale for doing so. (You have given a good account of why a significant number of in-principle expenditure possibilities don't loom that large in standard FRPG or S&S-type play.) It also doesn't change my mind about the absence of a uniform resolution system in 5e. (You cogently address the fact that there is not one.) Nor does it make me feel that the "narrative" dimension to 5e non-combat is closer to "The rules run out in relation to stuff that is more peripheral, and at that point the GM's decision is more important than any mechanical element."
> 
> I'm not sure if you were trying to change my mind on any of those things - maybe not? probably not? to be honest it's a bit hard to keep track of all the sub-discussions, so I apologise if I've slightly mislocated your contribution - but they were some of the ideas I thought were in play for the last dozen or so pages of this thread.




i rarely try and change the minds of the posters i am directly responding to - only if they seem to be coming from an open minded or wanting to be informed PoV as opposed to a place of "my mind is made up."

I often challenge or offer counter-arguments for those others reading the sometimes overly strongly worded position statements to provide a clear example of a differing position with its own details and (hopefully) logical basis. 

guess not unlike folks who might call-in to a radio show to debate the host - not trying to change the host's mind but to put the other side out there in the media forum.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 26, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Second is just a general observation that may or may not apply to any specific individual that posts here.  I played/judged a lot of living campaigns in 3.x and 4E.  In my experience with those campaigns and editions, most people that cared about optimization gravitated to a handful of builds.
> 
> In other words, to many people the multitude of options in previous editions was an illusion.



Sure, there are always going to be people that choose the best option, whether there are 5 options or 5000 options.  I don't think that proves or disproves that 5 options is better than 5,000.  (Numbers obviously made up here.)



Oofta said:


> I get the desire for more options and especially more significant choices at higher levels. I guess the difference may be that I have fun coming up with a character concept and then seeing if I can approximate that concept given the (somewhat limited) options I have.



I guess the fundamental difference is that my concepts revolve around what the character can DO, not what the character IS.  I'll flesh out personality, backstory, and aesthetics after the mechanical concept is finished.



Oofta said:


> Ultimately you're going to have a few builds that do approximately the same thing.  Blaster caster, control, hit things with melee, or hit things with ranged (I may be missing an option or two and there are combos).  That's just the nature of the genre and foundation of the game.  Are different ways of achieving that goal really going to feel all that different?



YES!  A champion fighter, a hunter ranger, and a paladin/warlock may all focus on hitting things, but their experience in play is entirely different.  Different resource suites, different stat dependencies, different skills.  



Oofta said:


> Or ... what from a mechanical perspective what would you want to see?  Not talking "I'd like to do a <insert class or prestige class I may or may not have heard of>", but mechanically.  What gaps are missing?  If you want to run a shaman for example, how does that differ from a druid (perhaps with multi-class) other than flavor that could be added with a background?



No idea.  The best part of new mechanics is that they suggest new ideas that you haven't had before.  Like, right now one of my characters is a homebrew class focused on using cantrips.  It doesn't gain any spells other than cantrips, it just gets new abilities that make their cantrips stronger and more versatile.  That's a concept I wouldn't have ever thought of until 5e introduced cantrips that were at-will and scaled, and thus suggested the possibility of concepts focused on using them.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 26, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> Possibly, yes, I mention that at the end of the bit you quote, and also in other parts of my post you chose not to quote. It would also depend on the system in question, and so on.
> 
> However, you brought up the example of the fine attire as something beneficial on which a PC can spend gold. My point is about how having a concrete benefit ahead of time that says "+2 on influence rolls" or "this roll is made with Advantage" or "the NPC's starting attitude will shift to Favorable" or something similar can actually serve as a limitation on play. When there are existing mechanics of this kind, players tend to say "Okay, we need to influence the noble...what can we do?" and they consult a list of actions the rules already addresses, and they limit their decision to those options.
> 
> ...



You can list attire, or not, just as you can list weapons and armour, or not.

D&D lists weapons and armour. I don't believe it even mentions attire in this context.

Prince Valiant doen't list weapons at all (or rather, it indicates that a decent weapon grants a 1-die bonus to the pool) and it lists armour only as light, medium and heavy. It also mentions that attire and other signs of status or prestige can give a bonus when trying to influence others based on that status or prestige.

Burning Wheel has very detailed rules for weapons and armour (comparable to RuneQuest or Rolemaster in compelxity). It has sparser rules for attire, having "costs" (which in BW take the form of "points" in PC creation and difficulties for Resource checks in play) for normal gear and (what it calls) "finery", plus general rules for advantages and disadvantages on checks, and mentions that what one is wearing might confer an advantage or disadvantage on a check.

Marvel Heroic RP doesn't (as best I recall) mention attire, but it has a generic rule for creating resources. I once had a PC use this rule to equip Nightcrawler with an image inducer to get a bonus die when meeting people at a nightclub. Attire might be established via the same mechanic.

I'm increasingly unfond of static bonuses on roll-to-beat-difficulty checks, because they muck up the maths. So of your possibilities I would favour advantage over a +2. This is closer to introducing another die into the pool in the  other systems I've mentioned.

I don't think that suggestions (for either players or GMs) about ways in which advantage might be gained, and suggestions about how this might correlate to money spent, are limiting. That's certainly not been my experience in systems that have them. I especially think that guidelines that help GMs manage the maths of what are rather intricate systems are helpful. To pick just two examples: Rolemaster is pretty hopeless at this; 4e is pretty strong at this. And when the GM is supported by robust guidelines over the top of robust maths, I think it's easier to run with player ideas without worrying about them breaking the system.

(Which presumably is one worry, maybe a major worry, for those in this thread who have expressed concerns about powergaming.)


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> You would have to ask him, right? Normally, when someone proposes something, you ask them for more details, instead of assuming what they want and then arguing against it.



The only person who seems to have argued against it is you, by telling me that my analysis of the suggestion was foolish.



lowkey13 said:


> I think that a proposal like that means to use a similar system (as in, a table with values) that would be calibrated to 5e. That would make sense to me, in the same way that if I were to propose adopting a saving throws from 1e, I wouldn't mean, "Hey guys, let's just use the exact same tables without any changes!"



I don't think that's what  [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] meant at all.

I mean, 5e already uses a table with values, in the sense that you can write them in from the presumed progression of WIS from 16 at 1st to 20 at 8th, and based on the WIS save bonus of the various undead who might be on the table. What distinguishes the AD&D table from the 5e table is the steepness of the progression, plus the T and D results, plus the limit on the number affected. Which are the things I addressed. (Well, not the T and D results, but they are further examples of the idea making mid-to-upper level clerics more effective when it comes to turning undead.)


----------



## Fallstorm (Sep 26, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> Not to speak for lowkey13, but I'm guessing the facepalm is because you're grossly mistaken.  I'm guessing you didn't play RPGs in the late 70s/early 80s?  Not only are you mistaken about how you think classes all played the same, but you are also mistaken about what RPGs were out there at the time.  Just off the top of my head, there were also RPGs like Traveller, Top Secret, Marvel SuperHeroes, Boot Hill, Tunnels&Trolls, Gama World, Runequest, Palladium, Villains&Vigilantes, etc.  Most of those were as early as the late 70s.  And they aren't obscure either, they all were pretty popular.







lowkey13 said:


> Please, feel free to lecture me about the early days of RPGs.
> 
> But, fwiw, you didn't say D&D. You started by saying 1e. 1e is not D&D (OD&D, supplements). While it is arguable as to whether or not D&D was the first TTRPG, assuming it was, by the time 1e was being fully played and had a complete ruleset (MM, PHB, DMG) in 1979, RPGs were already everywhere.
> 
> ...




Actually I started playing 1989 which was 2E.  That being said.  I am aware other RPGs were out BUT they were not "popular" some people knew about them but when The AD&D PHB was released in 1978 there was not an RPG "market".  IN FACT, for a long time even into the 90's to say RPGs were a market was a misnomer.  D&D for all intents and purposes WAS the market.  To be super technical as a viable market RPGs didn't become that until the D20 boom.

Yes. I had Marvel Superheroes (Blue box), Top Secret/S.I., and CoC and a host of others but to say these were popular and well played is not true.  They were not available and most Walden and other bookstores beside D&D and other brands they way you can go into B&N today and see D&D, PF, etc.   This is what prompted Ryan D during the D20 slow down to write an article (I believe on this very website) about how goes D&D so goes the market and to call RPGs a market is being very generous because even into the D20 boom from a marketing standpoint D&D was the market due to the small percentage of overall games TTRPGS occupies and the rpg games besides D&D even less.  Even if D&D as a brand were to fall today which is something I hope never happens RPGs as a market would be hurt but survive.  There have been numerous articles written on both these things but please feel free to tell me basic knowledge about dates of release which everyone knows or can get easily from Wikipedia.  When I made the statement about D&D 1E being the standard at the time and not comparable I assumed I was dealing with people that could reasonably see that RPGs have advanced in complexity since that time and people's taste in terms of options have advanced as well, and that you knew that basically until the last few years TTRPGS in general were a "niche" market even for D&D (which is moving into the mainstream) so by default everything besides (D&D which as the biggest seller in a* niche *market) makes everything else obscure even if people know about it. 

Also, for the record in the small town I lived in as a kid a lot of places had RPG shops that were a decent drive away.  So my RPG library (some of which I have well kept from childhood) I had to either wait to drive into the larger metro area to get them OR special order them from a standard bookstore which was always a hassle because of how RPGS were listed.  D&D never had that problem with.  Bookstores even the local indy/used bookstore owned by ex-hippies in the town had SOME D&D titles.

All that being said I bet the next title that WOTC releases like Xanathar's etcetera that has some actual crunch to it well sell like hot cakes compared to their fluffy adventures.  Heck, I bet psionics which is a very divisive subject in terms of inclusion into D&D (fantasy games in general really as opposed to sci-fi) well sell very well.   Why? Options.

P.S. Just to put some things into perspective as of 2016-17 according to an article:  http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?4258-How-big-s-the-RPG-market

Rpgs make up 2.9 percent of the hobby market. I am willing to bet the VAST majority of that is D&D with Pathfinder coming in a strong second.  Pathfinder is a relatively recent game.  So all these other games you mentioned which yes I and every other RPGer of a certain era knows about were obscure by definition and not as easily accessible as you may think.  Comparing anything besides an intentional OSR game to 1E I in terms of options offered is nonsensical.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 26, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 26, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Fallstorm (Sep 26, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> /facepalm
> 
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> 
> ...




1E and 2E both are considered OSR.  I did not start in 1E never said that. I do have 1e books though and have been retro games of 1E. So I have familiarity (and respect) for 1E.  I also did have other RPGs at the time but feel free to address made up conclusions.  I mean, you like narrative play so that makes sense (narrative being the keyword).  Since, you know about this thriving market which is so popular a full 2.9% of people are playing.   D&D Beyond has probably increased this and more celebs are talking D&D.  I hope we hit 5%.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 26, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 26, 2018)

Fallstorm said:


> 1E and 2E both are considered OSR.  I did not start in 1E never said that. I do have 1e books though and have been retro games of 1E. So I have familiarity (and respect) for 1E.  I also did have other RPGs at the time but feel free to address made up conclusions.  I mean, you like narrative play so that makes sense (narrative being the keyword).  Since, you know about this thriving market which is so popular a full 2.9% of people are playing.   D&D Beyond has probably increased this and more celebs are talking D&D.  I hope we hit 5%.




OK, you are continuing to say things that aren't true.  We were there.  By your own admission, you weren't.  Also, I suspect that also by your own admission from living in a small town, your experiences are quite skewed.  With those two things, I'd highly suggest you stop presenting your argument as fact when it's nothing of the sort.  You don't even have to take our words for it, go look up the history and timeline of RPGs.  Heck, if you've never played 1e, in what sense of authority do you have to tell people who did play it that classes played the same?  It would be like me telling 4e players how 4e played because I have some of the books and just made assumptions. Like saying "4e is just a tactical rpg with no roleplaying."

I wouldn't expect them to take me seriously.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 26, 2018)

Fallstorm said:


> 1E and 2E both are considered OSR.  I did not start in 1E never said that. I do have 1e books though and have been retro games of 1E. So I have familiarity (and respect) for 1E.  I also did have other RPGs at the time but feel free to address made up conclusions.  I mean, you like narrative play so that makes sense (narrative being the keyword).  Since, you know about this thriving market which is so popular a full 2.9% of people are playing.   D&D Beyond has probably increased this and more celebs are talking D&D.  I hope we hit 5%.




@_*Fallstorm*_ I wasn't playing in the 70's and much of the 80's but even I know the RPG market had exploded well before the d20 boom and there were plenty, plenty of RPG games out there and I'm not living in the States, Canada or Europe. For one, during my time VtM arrived on the scene and it was YUGE within the Cape Town roleplaying community, nevermind all the other classic TTRPGs (from Amber, to Shadow Run to RM...etc)


----------



## Fallstorm (Sep 26, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Seriously, if you don't want to learn a little history, at least try your best not to lecture others, okay?
> 
> There was a thriving TTRPG market in the 70s and 80s, with quite a few publishers. There are a number of people on this forum that played in the 70s and the 80s, so I would really recommend not GAMESPLAINING to us what we lived through, not to mention many of us enjoy talking and discussing TTRPG history as a hobby.




First of all, I didn't lecture of gamesplain to anyone.  I was asked a question. I responded to the question.  Then you jumped in. If you did not like the answer then why don't you do as your moniker says and stay low-key.  Secondly, I was around in the 80's.  3. D&D went through a brief boom with the cartoon from the 80's but D&D was a niche market.  If D&D is the leader in a niche market then by default everything else is going to be obscure despite having other publishers.  Right now if TTRPGS make up 2.9% of games (by last reckoning) and the bulk of that is D&D with PF gobbling up most of the rest then market shares for anything else is going to be pretty dismal i.e. obscure by definition.  Learn what niche means.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 26, 2018)

Fallstorm said:


> First of all, I didn't lecture of gamesplain to anyone.  I was asked a question. I responded to the question.  Then you jumped in. If you did not like the answer then why don't you do as your moniker says and stay low-key.  Secondly, I was around in the 80's.  3. *D&D went through a brief boom with the cartoon from the 80's* but D&D was a niche market.  If D&D is the leader in a niche market then by default everything else is going to be obscure despite having other publishers.  Right now if TTRPGS make up 2.9% of games (by last reckoning) and the bulk of that is D&D with PF gobbling up most of the rest then market shares for anything else is going to be pretty dismal i.e. obscure by definition.  Learn what niche means.





Dude!  Stop!  LOL.  D&D didn't go through a boom with the cartoon.  The D&D boom started in 79 and peaked in about 82-83--the cartoon came out at the end of the peak, it did NOT create the boom. You seriously need to stop digging your hole man.


----------



## Fallstorm (Sep 26, 2018)

Sadras said:


> @_*Fallstorm*_ I wasn't playing in the 70's and much of the 80's but even I know the RPG market had exploded well before the d20 boom and there were plenty, plenty of RPG games out there and I'm not living in the States, Canada or Europe. For one, during my time VtM had arrived on the scene and it was YUGE within the Cape Town roleplaying community, nevermind all the other classic TTRPGs.




What people are calling an "explosion" is still on obscure niche.  D&D and RPGs have never been a popular hobby for the masses.  That may change but anyone who says it is now or has been is living in a false reality.  Options in a niche in which one main provider occupies most of the niche is not an explosion.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 26, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> How would you characterise the following rule:
> 
> When you consult your accumulated knowledge about something, roll 2d6+Int bonus:
> 
> ...




First agreed that I am not covering the field, I was using the examples on the extremes at both ends, seen in the history of D&D.

As for the above, that would work in some games, and not work in others; if there are modifiers to that roll, then that helps, because some situations are harder than others - without modifiers then I would feel it is a bad rule. My primary game is Hero/Champions which is a 3d6 roll under system, so the skill rolls work very similarly to your example. 
I would dislike that language in rules personally - the "It's up to you to make it useful" and "Tell them the truth, now" feels off to me in tone. But that is just me.


----------



## Fallstorm (Sep 26, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> Dude!  Stop!  LOL.  D&D didn't go through a boom with the cartoon.  The D&D boom started in 79 and peaked in about 82-83--the cartoon came out at the end of the peak, it did NOT create the boom. You seriously need to stop digging your hole man.




Never said the D&D cartoon created the boom but believe what you will.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 26, 2018)

Fallstorm said:


> What people are calling an "explosion" is still on obscure niche.  D&D and RPGs have never been a popular hobby for the masses.  That may change but anyone who says it is now or has been is living in a false reality.  Options in a niche in which one main provider occupies most of the niche is not an explosion.




Any product that goes from 1000 sales to a hundreds of thousands of sales in a 3 year period would be classified as an explosion.  Mentzer basic itself sold over a million copies.  There certainly was an explosion between the late 70s to the early 80s.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 26, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 26, 2018)

Fallstorm said:


> Never said the D&D cartoon created the boom but believe what you will.




You certainly implied it:



> D&D went through a brief boom with the cartoon from the 80's




Why else mention the cartoon in that context.  And you're wrong.  The boom was before the cartoon.  Not during.  Is a 5 year period brief?  I suppose that's a matter of opinion.  But either way, I don't think anything you've argued so far has been true.  That takes determination to keep going and doubling down like you are.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 26, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Yeah, man, D&D totally was hot because of the cartoon! Don't you know- he was around during the 80s!
> 
> 
> ...at a certain point, it's just cruelty, right? We should stop.




Indeed.  Funny, especially since the only reason there was a cartoon in the first place was because of the huge boom in the years proceeding it.  The network certainly wouldn't have spent the money on a cartoon that didn't already have a popular IP.  That comment shows a level of ignorance both of D&D history, and of business practices lol.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> I specifically noted only one thing- that your attempting to use comparable levels between 1e and 5e in order to make whatever your point was ... was foolish.
> 
> And I stand by that.



And I stand by the fact that the easiest way to ask "What will happen if I use the AD&D turn undead chart in a 5e game?" is to compare the maths of the two tables, which provide the answer I gave: you will weaken low level clerics and strengthen mid-to-high level ones. I also stand by my claim that whether that is good or bad will be table-relative. (I don't know why you think I'm arguing against Lanefan.)

I believe that the reason [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] asked about this particular mechanic is because another poster, on a currently active theread that Lanefan started, said that s/he had used the AD&D turn undead chart in a 5e game that was being played using old Judge's Guild (I think) material. That same poster said that in the same game s/he used the AD&D saving throw charts for a particualr purpose (save vs death from yellow mould, I think).


----------



## Fallstorm (Sep 26, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> 
> And there you have it. I'm so sorry- you were around in the 1980s. Clearly, you know what you are talking about. All the rest of us should just know our place, and bow before our better.
> 
> I'm so sorry, and I will endeavor to learn words better so that I can fully comprehend how well you understand all those things I clearly do not.




Okay. Let's put this in perspective:

1. Someone ask me a question about 1E
2. I respond to that person
3. You jump in doing personal attacks claiming I was not around in the 80's, do not know OSR and bunch of other nonsense
4.  I state (factually) I was around in the 80's and did play OSR games.
5. You again attack and claim I am lecturing whatever when I just responded to you

You make up statements or at the very least intentionally misinterpret and misrepresent statements and attack items never said. You sir are a troll.  I don't feed trolls.  I am done arguing with you. I will respond to Lanfan if he responds.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 26, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Fallstorm (Sep 26, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> You certainly implied it:
> 
> 
> 
> Why else mention the cartoon in that context.  And you're wrong.  The boom was before the cartoon.  Not during.  Is a 5 year period brief?  I suppose that's a matter of opinion.  But either way, I don't think anything you've argued so far has been true.  That takes determination to keep going and doubling down like you are.




I did not imply anything.  I was just giving an example of part of a boom—not that it created the boom.  I didn't imply it at all you took it that way because you are looking for something to attack.   It is like someone saying rap really became popular and becoming more mainstream in the early 80's with people wearing Adidas tennis shoes that Run-DMC promoted" and you jumping in saying, "See don't know what you mean Adidas didn't make rap popular. Run DMC didn't create rap."  Which would of course all be true. It would also be something the original speaker never said. It is the prime example of a straw man fallacy. 

I have explained myself.  I am done with this turn of the conversation i.e arguing with you..


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 26, 2018)

Fallstorm said:


> Okay. Let's put this in perspective:
> 
> 1. Someone ask me a question about 1E
> 2. I respond to that person
> ...




Saying you must not have played any games in the early 80s isn't a personal attack.  Especially since it was true.  Holy moly...  No one has misinterpreted anything.  We're only going by the words you actually used.  You made several claims. None of which are factually true.  Just own up to it man, and move on.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 26, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

Lord Mhoram said:


> if there are modifiers to that roll, then that helps, because some situations are harder than others - without modifiers then I would feel it is a bad rule.



In the game that that rule comes from - Dungeon World - the way we find out whether or not one situation was harder than another is by seeing how the dice come out. (A bit like how, in Moldvay Basic, we learn if _these goblins_ are friendlier than _those goblins_ by finding out how the reaction roll pans out - it's "fortune in the middle" with the fiction being read, in part, off the result of the roll. Gygax uses the same approach for hit points and saving throws in his DMG - we learn if the poison got into the wound or not by seeing how the save comes out; we don't first decide how badly poisoned the PC was and use that to affect the saving throw.)

There is one modifier, though: INT. So choosing to play a high-INT PC is choosing to play a PC who is more likely, more of the time, to be able to oblige the GM to tell one interesting and perhaps useful stuff. That's a _who_ decision - _I'm playing the person who knows stuff_ - that manifests itself as a _what/how_ - _I do well when I engage the game by trying to learn stuff about the situation and put it to use_.

I think that 5e could be drifted in that direction, at least in respect of its ability/skill check mechanics (combat not so much); but that is not how it is presented in the published rules, at least as I understand them and as I see them talked about on these forums.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> You can list attire, or not, just as you can list weapons and armour, or not.
> 
> D&D lists weapons and armour. I don't believe it even mentions attire in this context.




It does, although any impact on play is left up to the players and DM. 

Seems to me to be a case of placing focus on what's important to the game. In D&D, weapons and armor are more central than the finery of one's clothes. It's more important that the fighter is wearing plate armor than that the wizard is wearing a robe, or a scholar's outfit. 



pemerton said:


> Prince Valiant doen't list weapons at all (or rather, it indicates that a decent weapon grants a 1-die bonus to the pool) and it lists armour only as light, medium and heavy. It also mentions that attire and other signs of status or prestige can give a bonus when trying to influence others based on that status or prestige.




Groovy.

Would you say that the Prince Valiant game is striving for the same thing that D&D is? I'm not familiar with the game beyond seeing it mentioned from time to time. 



pemerton said:


> Burning Wheel has very detailed rules for weapons and armour (comparable to RuneQuest or Rolemaster in compelxity). It has sparser rules for attire, having "costs" (which in BW take the form of "points" in PC creation and difficulties for Resource checks in play) for normal gear and (what it calls) "finery", plus general rules for advantages and disadvantages on checks, and mentions that what one is wearing might confer an advantage or disadvantage on a check.




That's cool. For me, the sparser rules for clothing don't seem important enough to be set in stone ahead of play rather than deciding during play the impact if it ever came up. I'm also not against a simpler weapon system if D&D had adopted such. Something like what Dungeon World does would have been fine with me. But I don't mind that they instead went with a list of weapons that each has their own properties and advantages or drawbacks. 



pemerton said:


> Marvel Heroic RP doesn't (as best I recall) mention attire, but it has a generic rule for creating resources. I once had a PC use this rule to equip Nightcrawler with an image inducer to get a bonus die when meeting people at a nightclub. Attire might be established via the same mechanic.




Sounds like lazy design to me. 



pemerton said:


> I'm increasingly unfond of static bonuses on roll-to-beat-difficulty checks, because they muck up the maths. So of your possibilities I would favour advantage over a +2. This is closer to introducing another die into the pool in the  other systems I've mentioned.




Sure, I was just giving examples. An additional dice to a pool would be another example. And I agree about static bonuses versus a simpler mechanic. 

But, my point was that the mechanics are determined ahead of time, so is the issue you have with my comment about the GM not having much influence here more about where the influence is applied? Do you not like the idea that the GM may have to decide a mechanic to apply when a player comes up with an idea? 

Do you prefer the mechanics always exist prior, so the the GM's job is more clearly defined in that he sets the DC (or at the very least consults the book to determine the DC)? 

If it's not GM input that you do not like, then what's the issue with the GM deciding what mechanic to apply based on the situation? 



pemerton said:


> I don't think that suggestions (for either players or GMs) about ways in which advantage might be gained, and suggestions about how this might correlate to money spent, are limiting. That's certainly not been my experience in systems that have them. I especially think that guidelines that help GMs manage the maths of what are rather intricate systems are helpful. To pick just two examples: Rolemaster is pretty hopeless at this; 4e is pretty strong at this. And when the GM is supported by robust guidelines over the top of robust maths, I think it's easier to run with player ideas without worrying about them breaking the system.
> 
> (Which presumably is one worry, maybe a major worry, for those in this thread who have expressed concerns about powergaming.)




I don't know if I agree. I mean, I like the idea of a GM being supported by guidelines...I think that's largely what 5E does. Large portions of the DMG are about exactly that. I think that works well, and it's pretty much exactly why I like 5E. So it seems odd to me that we each view this as desirable, but seem to have opposing views? 

However, when rules are heavily codified, I think it does limit the players. There are plenty of anecdotes where a new player wows everyone at the table by coming up with some totally unexpected idea. This happens because they don't know the rules. They don't know what they are allowed and not allowed to do. Creating a list of actions to add to an attempt at Influence/Diplomacy/Persuasion is limiting by its nature. It says "here's what you can do to improve your ability to influence". Which implies that things not on that list cannot affect influence. 

For me, I prefer that such things be left up to me. Since they often rely on the GM using judgment anyway, I don't see the harm in allowing the GM to decide the effect of an action on the check, or on the outcome of the check. 

As for powergaming and narrative approach, I think that Mearls meant that they focused more on narrative differences from character to character within the same class, rather than an overwhelming number of options in that class in order to differentiate. So instead of worrying about having a fighter subclass for each possible weapon type and so on, they said here are a few mechanical options, and here are others such as background, and bonds and flaws where you can make your fighter different from the other guys. 

I don't think he's saying the sole way to differentiate is through these narrative means, nor is he describing D&D as a narrative game in the sense commonly used on these boards, but he's saying that the "options" that exist to create a unique character are more narrative based than they've been for D&D.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> If you have nothing to say regarding doing a comparison of levels between 1e and 5e, please stop. If you do, then address that. Thanks!



I didn't make any such comparison. You're the one who brought it into the conversation.

I compared levels in 5e to levels in 5e, based on a change in the turning mechanic of the sort that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] speculated about.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 26, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> In the game that that rule comes from - Dungeon World - the way we find out whether or not one situation was harder than another is by seeing how the dice come out. (A bit like how, in Moldvay Basic, we learn if _these goblins_ are friendlier than _those goblins_ by finding out how the reaction roll pans out - it's "fortune in the middle" with the fiction being read, in part, off the result of the roll. Gygax uses the same approach for hit points and saving throws in his DMG - we learn if the poison got into the wound or not by seeing how the save comes out; we don't first decide how badly poisoned the PC was and use that to affect the saving throw.)




Genesys works not unlike that - it uses FFG's Star Wars narrative dice system, which really loosens up play.

The reason I thought "Bad rule" - I don't know about Dungeon World (haven't played it), but D&D seems to be intended for a wide range of styles, and without specific X difficulty description = specific die rolls, you can have both of these at different tables both using the same system:

DM one wants a really freewheeling feel to combat and the game, swashbuckle and all. So a Player wants to swing from a chandelier to jump down to make an entrance, the DM might set the DC for the Chandelier at 5, because he wants to encourage that kind of behavior.
DM two wants a low fantasy thieves council full of sneak and intriuge and wants things down to earth - the same situation this GM might set the DC at 15 or 18, as it isn't something that works in his world. 

Which is why I said it works for some games and not for others - if the game has a tight focus on the tone it is creating hardcoding the DCs works.  If the game is intended to cover multiple styles and approaches on different tables (or is a universal game) then it would be less useful. Even Hero (a game  I mentioned before) while roll under has very different approaches in different genres for adjusting modifiers depending on tone.  But I tend towards system that are very broad in application or Universal games (two of the three games I play now - Genesys and HERO - are both universal).


----------



## Gradine (Sep 26, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> to the trolls*
> 
> 
> *Not the kind that you kill with fire.




The kind you kill with acid?


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 26, 2018)

Oofta said:


> I did some quick counts over at DnDBeyond because I was curious.  There are
> 37 races
> 12 classes
> 80 sub-classes
> ...



So when I say I don’t care how many options I can spend my character building resources on, I care how many character building resources I have to spend, you go find out how many options I can spend each of the character building resources on? There could be 5000 each of races, classes, subclassss, backgrounds, and Feats, that wouldn’t change the number of decision points in character building, it would only change the number of permutations possible with the same set of decision points. I don’t care how many permutations there are, I care how many decision points there are. Making decisions is the most important part of the game to me.



Oofta said:


> I know ... you'll tell me that 99.9% of those are not "valid" options because it wouldn't make sense to run a <insert race> <insert class> and that <insert feat, background, whatever> wouldn't make sense.  It's not that there aren't more options than you could play, it seems that most options are eliminated out of the gate or that playing a combination that isn't "optimal" isn't valid.



Really? You know that? Because I don’t give a hot turd about which options are optimal. Kindly do not assume my motivations.

I care about being able to make a champion fighter that plays mechanically differently than Tommy’s champion fighter. It’s fine if she’s worse, as long as she’s different. Character building for me is about self-expression, not power, and currently 5e does not give me the tools to express a character differently than other characters of the same class and subclass. At best, I’ll have slightly different modifiers to the same exact actions if I choose different Feats and ASIs, but those differences are minor and come several levels apart.



Oofta said:


> Even if there were more options, a lot of people would still gravitate to a handful of optimal options.  It would be the same complaint or the complaint would be that there are so many options that build X is broken.  Personally I'd be happy running my dwarven rogue or gnome barbarian because I don't care all that much about eaking out numerical supremacy, it's just not that important.
> 
> If they had more options, it would just lead to a game of grognard character building that they were trying to avoid.  I also think it wouldn't really solve anything because there will always be a handful of builds that on a spreadsheet look best.



I thought the 5e philosophy was supposed to be about _not_ designing around negative player behavior. Power gamers gonna powergame, just like bad DMs gonna DM badly. No sense hamstringing the game just to proved them less ammo.



Oofta said:


> As far as decisions being front-loaded, that is a good point.  Not sure that it's really all that different though from previous editions.  I always had a general idea of where my PC was going to go, and you had to have certain prerequisites to qualify for prestige classes so it was more of an illusion of choice than anything.



Yes, and this is one of the many reasons I hate 3.X. Because despite drowning players in mechanical options, the over-specific prerequisites make it impossible to build a character as you go. If you want to play a particular prestige class, you have to plan all your skill ranks ahead of time so you can meet the prerequisites, which means that in effect, all of the decisions there are front loaded too. All it achieves is making character creation a painfully long and fiddly process. Conversely, 4e figures out how to give players choices to make at every level, and didnt punish players who made those decisions as they went. Sure, there were some optimized builds, but you weren’t made to feel useless for choosing the cool, interesting options as you went, rather than building the perfect optimized machine before play even starts. 



Oofta said:


> In 5E you have the option of multi-classing which you can do at any time, much more flexible than early editions.



Yeah, multiclassing is... an option, I guess. I’ve never really liked it. I want to make a rogue, who is a rogue, but plays a little differently than Shannon’s rogue, not a rogue who’s also a warlock and a sorcerer.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 26, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 26, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Lan-"so how many g.p. would it cost my character to hire someone to kitbash 5e"-efan



I've already told you the 5e Players Handbook lists unskilled labor at 2 silver/day.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 26, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> The kind that give me acid!




That's not really my speed, but to each their own. I _would_ highly recommend to always have a trip buddy, though. It's important to know when the dragon is a hallucination, and when the dragon is _real, man_.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Sep 26, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> 
> And there you have it. I'm so sorry- you were around in the 1980s. Clearly, you know what you are talking about. All the rest of us should just know our place, and bow before our better.
> 
> I'm so sorry, and I will endeavor to learn words better so that I can fully comprehend how well you understand all those things I clearly do not.





Fallstorm said:


> Okay. Let's put this in perspective:
> 
> 1. Someone ask me a question about 1E
> 2. I respond to that person
> ...




Nevermind him, man.  @_*lowkey13*_ just thinks he's better than everyone on this forum what with all his fancy words and logical arguments and grasp of facts.  

EDIT:  dang, checking out the XP and Laugh Statistics makes me realize @_*lowkey13*_ _is _better than everyone.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 26, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> Do you not like the idea that the GM may have to decide a mechanic to apply when a player comes up with an idea?
> 
> Do you prefer the mechanics always exist prior, so the the GM's job is more clearly defined in that he sets the DC (or at the very least consults the book to determine the DC)?



With reference to the first question, it depends what you mean by "deciding a mechanic to apply".

Here's an example that I don't mind at all (it's an actual play example from a game I GMed earlier this year): the PCs are driving across the surface of a desert planet in their ATVs, trying to avoid bombardment from a starship in orbit, with the fire being directed by a spotter flying above the surface in a small craft. The game (Classic Traveller) has rules for evasion of fire in a small craft, but no rules for evasion of fire in a ATV. I used the same rules, but substituted driving skill for piloting skill.

Here's an example that I'm not the biggest fan of, but it's the sort of thing I have to do quite a bit of in GMing the same system (Classic Traveller): when the players are attacking an enemy vessel, the players want their NPC ally with excellent computer skills to write some code that will jam the other ship's computer's targetting software, and transmit that via their communicators to that other ship. In a system like 4e or MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic this would be trivial to resolve, because they use "subjective" DCs in closed-scene resolution systems. But in Traveller this requires setting an "objective" DC, which helps establish the feel of the setting. Set it to low, and - even before one gets to issues of breaking the game - one can break the setting. Set it too high and one can break the players' engagement (and it's not like transmitting jamming signals seems out of place in a slightly pulpy sci-fi game). Burning Wheel also calls for a fair bit of this, but (a) has more examples of DCs in its skill descriptions, (b) is a fantasy game and so has less stuff that is anchored in the real world but draws on expertise I don't have, and (c) has many player-side metagame features that allow players to do stuff to maintain their engagement even when DCs are high or impossible (whereas Traveller has exactly zero of this sort of thing).

Here's an example I don't really like at all (it's from Moldvay Basic): the player, whose PC is losing a sword fight while standing on the edge of a cliff, and knowing that there is water somewhere in the dungeon below, declares "I jump over the edge hoping to land in a stream and survive!" Moldvay suggests that "there should always be a chance" and says the GM should work this out by thinking through the in-fiction logic of the situation: from memory, in this case he suggests a % roll with survival on 99 or 100.

I don't like that example because it requires me to, essentially, fiat the players chance of success (a) with no real mechanical guidelines or support as to what the chance should be, (b) not factoring in player-side resources or capabilities (such as PC DEX, in Moldvay's example; or WIS/Perception to perhaps hear the sound of running water from below), and (c) seemingly overriding both the extant falling damage system and the extant saving throw system.

The boundary between the second Traveller case and the Moldvay case is spectral, not sharp, but it's one that I feel nevertheless.

Here's quite a different example - this is another actual play one - and you may not regard it as falling under your question at all, but for me it does and I didn't really like it: in the Traveller game, before the PCs found themselves under bombardment, they were looking for a base out on the planet's surface (all the people on the planet live in a domed city - except for the sneaky ones who hang out in secret bases -  and the PCs were trying to follow a vehicle that had left the city for the base). The game has encounter mechanics (which can also include results like getting lost), and rules for checking for vehicle failure; but it has no rules for working out when you get where you're going. (This is different from its interstellar jump rules, which are very solid in that respsect.) It assumes that the travel will be plotted on a map, but (at least in my view) that's not practical in a game where the PCs jump from planet to planet pretty often, and we're talking about on-world distances of hundreds or thousands of miles, and mapping correspondingly large areas; and also it gets very close to GM fiat, as my choice about where the base is, in a context where it only becomes salient because the PCs want to follow someone to it, becomes the overwhelming determinant of how the situation unfolds. I can't remember now exactly how I handled it, but think perhaps I rolled some dice to work out a distance (in days), and then used some Navigation-type checks on top of encounter results to determine how many extra days were taken. But the whole thing was unsatisfactory and fiat-laden. The contrast with a (somewhat) similar journey across a desert in a Burning Wheel game, which was easily resolved just by setting an Orienteering DC and then narrating an appropriate unhappy consequence when the check failed, was pretty marked.

Ultimately I want player choices to matter, and I want PC build to matter (eg having vehicle skill should make a difference when your PC is trying to achieve something using a vehicle) and - if the system uses dice - I want the dice rolls to matter. I don't like the GM's decision-making to be determinative, or even the predominant influence.

It's also not coincidence that all my examples are from Traveller, as it is the only system I've GMed in the past 10 or so years that doesn't have some sort of universal resolution system, and so it generates these issues in a way that those other systems (4e, BW, Prince Valiant, MHRP/Cortex+ are the main ones) don't. What I find amazing about Classic Traveller is how powerful it is as a system, despite some of the issues I've noted, given that it was designed in 1977 and it's rules are really pretty thin and it covers a pretty good spectrum of sci-fi action. I used to have more respect for Runequest than Traveller but I think that was a misjudgement.



hawkeyefan said:


> If it's not GM input that you do not like, then what's the issue with the GM deciding what mechanic to apply based on the situation?



Hopefully I've answered this. I'm happy to say more if you're interested.



hawkeyefan said:


> when rules are heavily codified, I think it does limit the players. There are plenty of anecdotes where a new player wows everyone at the table by coming up with some totally unexpected idea.



I can only speak about this from experience.

The first thing to say about that experience is that it includes very little 3E D&D - I mention that because for many posters on these boards that is an important comparison case - and that for the past 20 years it hasn't involved much open/club play. (That largely stopped when I finished my undergrad studies.)

But over the past 30 years, I've found that if a player's sheet tells them something encouraging about their PC's social capabilities, then they are more likely to declare interesting social actions than otherwise. I've also found that uncertainties across differing subsystems can make fair adjudicaiton hard. (An example that I can probably link to if you're interested: Luke Crane, in running Moldvay Basic, let someone move silently based on a DEX check - and only later on worke out that was proably hosing thieves who had a much lower % chance to move silently.) And I've found the best way to encourage players to declare interesting and unexpected actions is to adjudicate them fairly by reference to the mechanics so that the players know they can succeed (but perhaps also fail) and so they keep doing them (because they know they can succeed, although there is no guarantee).

No doubt others have had different experiences!



hawkeyefan said:


> This happens because they don't know the rules. They don't know what they are allowed and not allowed to do. Creating a list of actions to add to an attempt at Influence/Diplomacy/Persuasion is limiting by its nature.



I think this may be how 3E handled it (I'm not sure - as I've said, it's not really a game where I'm across all the detail)?

I'm not a big fan of "allowed/not allowed". To me it's a product of class-based games with tightly circumscribed abilities (spell lists are a classic example but not the only one - thief abilities are another example, as Luke Crane belatedly realised!).

I prefer a system that allocates capabilities in ways that are mechanically fairly transparent, so that if you try strategy X rather than strategy Y you roughly know what you will be bringing to bear. In AD&D the way I got into this style of GMing was by refereeing an all-thief game - so (outside of magic, which is more easily quarantined within the context of the fiction) the issue of "that's not allowed" didn't really come up. (Maybe we had no tracking in that game - it was mostly city-based -  or maybe someone had the Wilderness Survival Guide Tracking proficiency; I don't remember any more.) But for nearly 20 years (1990-2008) I overwhelmingly GMed Rolemaster, and it has an express "no limits, just costs" approach to PC building and making checks. Players naturally enough will try to steer the action into spheres of activity to which they're suited, but you will see them trying stuff that they need to try even if they're not too good at it.

And then 4e encouraged this sort of play even more because the "subjective" DCs within a skill challenge framework make success possible even for the poorly skilled, while allowing the specialists to be able to get the multiple successes within their field of specialisation that are needed to bring the situation to a successful conclusion. (Mathematically: a 50-50 chance of success is something that a player will attempt as a one-off to get something s/he wants; but that player can't win a skill challenge on 50-50 odds, so the "subjective" DCs don't lead to the unskilled "outshinging" the skilled in their field of expertise.)



hawkeyefan said:


> In D&D, weapons and armor are more central than the finery of one's clothes. It's more important that the fighter is wearing plate armor than that the wizard is wearing a robe, or a scholar's outfit.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



If the comparison class is D&D, as you suggest, then some of those remarks make more sense then they otherwise seemed to. Thanks for suggesting that reading.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 26, 2018)

@_*Charlaquin*_ you're essentially asking for an Advanced Player's Handbook where one could swap out racial traits, class and subclass features, and/or background features and characteristics and thereby have additional decision points during class creation/progression hopefully making each _Champion_ mechanically different.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 26, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> I had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, and a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers... and also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of Budweiser, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls just for the weekend of D&D gaming.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I needed all that to play Lost Mines of Phandelver, but once you get locked into a serious D&D game, the tendency is to push it as far as you can.




Don't ever stop in Ravenloft. I hear that it's bat country.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Here's the original!



Sure - I'm talking about AD&D levels to refer to the AD&D charts - but on the assumption that they are being used in 5e. I don't know whether a 7th level AD&D cleric is stronger or weaker than a 7th level 5e cleric, and I'm not even sure that's a meaningful question.

But I'm confident that a 7th level 5e cleric who gets to turn undead using the Level 7 column of the AD&D chart will do better against wraiths, and undead weaker than wraiths, than if that same cleric is being played according to the 5e turning rules. (I didn't check the numbers for more powerful undead, but having just had a look I think the 5e rules make it easier to turn a vampire at 7th level then using the AD&D chart, which requires a 16 at 7th level which is equivalent to allowing the vampire to save on a 6, which won't happen in 5e - if we bracket legendary resistance, which is a complicating factor).



lowkey13 said:


> I simply was pointing out that, as someone who regularly converts from 1e to 5e, straight conversions of levels is foolish, especially close to the name level and beyond.



OK, this isn't what I thought you were saying. If you think it's just a mistake to drop the AD&D chart into 5e, that's fine. I think that's your anwer to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s question!


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 26, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## pemerton (Sep 26, 2018)

Sadras said:


> I wanted to include a skill type challenge to represent the dangers and resource-tax effect of exploration as opposed to rolling for random encounters.
> 
> Where success in the skill challenge could be earned or advantage gained in the checks via the expenditure of short or long rest class features, Hit Dice and even Inspiration Points that can via the narrative match up to the challenge. This is further helped (in my game) only because I have hitched the recharging of resources to the exhaustion mechanic, so expending short or long rest class features is risky/costly.



If you get this to work, and you want to post a thread about it, I'd be happy to be mentioned into it - I look at 5e and try to think about how I would make this work and my head explodes a little bit, so it's interesting to see someone is going to pull it off! (The endeavour, not my head.)

Does your use of exhaustion put them all onto a uniform scale (with different costs based on rest standardly required)?


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 26, 2018)

Sadras said:


> @_*Charlaquin*_ you're essentially asking for an Advanced Player's Handbook where one could swap out racial traits, class and subclass features, and/or background features and characteristics and thereby have additional decision points during class creation/progression hopefully making each _Champion_ mechanically different.



Yes, something like that would be super rad.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> So when I say I don’t care how many options I can spend my character building resources on, I care how many character building resources I have to spend, you go find out how many options I can spend each of the character building resources on? There could be 5000 each of races, classes, subclassss, backgrounds, and Feats, that wouldn’t change the number of decision points in character building, it would only change the number of permutations possible with the same set of decision points. I don’t care how many permutations there are, I care how many decision points there are. Making decisions is the most important part of the game to me.
> 
> 
> Really? You know that? Because I don’t give a hot turd about which options are optimal. Kindly do not assume my motivations.
> ...




"Mechanical" distinctions aren't that meaningful to me in defiining a character: two PCs with identical combat mechanics but different Traits, Ideal and Bonds are going to be far more important in my experience: or different voices. Mechanics, eh, Class/Subclass and Race/Subrace provide plenty of that. I'd wager the WotC team has found pretty close to the ideal balance there. I'd like to see something like the PF2 Archetypes to replace Feats/ASIs, but that is not necessary.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 26, 2018)

Sadras said:


> @_*Charlaquin*_ you're essentially asking for an Advanced Player's Handbook where one could swap out racial traits, class and subclass features, and/or background features and characteristics and thereby have additional decision points during class creation/progression hopefully making each _Champion_ mechanically different.



Do not want!

I really do think that's what Pathfinder 2 should have shot for, though.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 26, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> Do not want!
> 
> I really do think that's what Pathfinder 2 should have shot for, though.




But they already have that in Pathfinder 1.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> So when I say I don’t care how many options I can spend my character building resources on, I care how many character building resources I have to spend, you go find out how many options I can spend each of the character building resources on? There could be 5000 each of races, classes, subclassss, backgrounds, and Feats, that wouldn’t change the number of decision points in character building, it would only change the number of permutations possible with the same set of decision points. I don’t care how many permutations there are, I care how many decision points there are. Making decisions is the most important part of the game to me.
> 
> 
> Really? You know that? Because I don’t give a hot turd about which options are optimal. Kindly do not assume my motivations.
> ...





Dude you really need to take a chill pill.  You can explain without getting insulting.  I'm just acknowledging that not all combinations make sense.

There are multiple ways of building in different flavors of characters.  With 5E they chose to go with sub-classes so if you're playing a rogue you have 7 sub-classes to choose from.  An assassin is going play different from a swashbuckler is different from an arcane trickster.  Throw in feats, ranged vs melee and so on and there are a lot of choices.  Add multi-classing and there are even more.

As far as the champion fighter example, how many do you want?  You can go sword-and-board, great weapon, archer.  Strength based, dex based.  Different backgrounds could give you a hint of rogue, feats and multi-classing can give you options.  If that's not enough do a cavalier instead of a champion.  

Are a lot of choices made by level 3? Yep. Could they have gone a different direction? Sure.  I'm simply stating that they achieve the same broad goal using a different approach gives you significant variety. 

I've played most editions of D&D and to me they're all fairly front-end loaded.  My vision may have changed a bit, but from the moment I sat down with a blank character sheet I had the broad outlines figured out, I don't see 5E being that much different philosophically.  Yes, 4E had different powers, but my experience wasn't really all that different.  If I was a tank fighter, tempest/fighting cleric or a control wizard that choice was built in pretty early on.  The powers that made sense were pretty obvious and made minimal thematic difference. Your experience may have been different of course and I've done my best to forget 4E.

 If D&D's approach doesn't work for you maybe you should learn to accept it or move on to a different game. No game can cater to every preference. If I understand correctly, what you describe sounds more like GURPs than D&D.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 26, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> "Mechanical" distinctions aren't that meaningful to me in defiining a character: two PCs with identical combat mechanics but different Traits, Ideal and Bonds are going to be far more important in my experience: or different voices.



Good for you. I feel differently.



Parmandur said:


> Mechanics, eh, Class/Subclass and Rave/Subrace provide plenty of that. I'd wager the WotC team has found pretty close to the ideal balance there. I'd like to see something like the PF2 Archetypes to replace Feats/ASIs, but that is not necessary.



See, I’d say the “balance” where the people who don’t care about a thing are the only ones satisfied is far from ideal. If mechanical distinction isn’t important to you, then why is it important to you that there not be ways for people who do like to distinguish their characters mechanically to do so?


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Good for you. I feel differently.
> 
> 
> See, I’d say the “balance” where the people who don’t care about a thing are the only ones satisfied is far from ideal. If mechanical distinction isn’t important to you, then why is it important to you that there not be ways for people who do like to distinguish their characters mechanically to do so?




Well, we know that WotC achieved a minimum of90% satisfaction for all of the options presented in the core rules during the playtest. So, if the "only ones" satisfied are the overwhelming majority of the audience... can't win them all.

What you want sounds like a huge turn off to me: there isn't really a way to provide what you want and what I want simultaneously. So, I'll just agree to disagree: but don't look for much change from Dungeons & Dragons in the future.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 26, 2018)

Sadras said:


> But they already have that in Pathfinder 1.



True. 

But I also wanted PF2 to complexify 5e so that, even though I'd hate the character building stuff, I could drop in the adventure stuff with less effort than it currently takes to use Paizo material in my 5e game.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I care about being able to make a champion fighter that plays mechanically differently than Tommy’s champion fighter. It’s fine if she’s worse, as long as she’s different. Character building for me is about self-expression, not power, and currently 5e does not give me the tools to express a character differently than other characters of the same class and subclass. At best, I’ll have slightly different modifiers to the same exact actions if I choose different Feats and ASIs, but those differences are minor and come several levels apart.




I'm sorry, this really stood out to me because I can't make any sense of it.  I've played 2 champion fighters.  One was a halfling fighter with the criminal background.  It was when I converted by 1e fighter/thief PC into 5e.  Even at level 1, he played exactly like my old fighter thief, with a pretty strong emphasis on the sneaky part.  As soon as I got access to feats, things like skulker and dungeon delver really fleshed out that concept.  The other champion fighter I had was a human who had heavy armor mastery at 1st level, and I played him like defender knight.

If you think that feats and backgrounds are minor, then we are miles apart on what minor means.  Those are actually critically impactful aspects that make the PCs feel very different from each other, even with the same class and subclass.  And if you think the only difference between subclasses with different feats is slightly different modifiers, then I don't think you're using the same feats or backgrounds in the book at all, because they make a huge difference.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 26, 2018)

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> The more of Mearl's postings I read, the more I'm convinced that the success of 5E as a system is a happy accident rather than deliberate. Either that or it's really Jeremy Crawford who's sitting at the steering wheel.



Ridiculous. The design goals and concepts that Mearls is talking about are a big part of why 5e is successful. 



Oofta said:


> @_*TwoSix*_, @_*Maxperson*_,
> Two observations.  First, I agree that not all build combinations would make sense.  But just taking sub classes times races, we get 2,960 (assuming I counted right) alternatives.  Even if 90% of those don't make sense for some reason, that leaves close to 300 options.  Heck, make it 99% and throw in a smidgeon of feat/build/multi-class choices (i.e. champion fighter with dex vs strength, sword and board vs great weapon) and I think there are more builds than I could ever personally play.
> 
> Ultimately you're going to have a few builds that do approximately the same thing.  Blaster caster, control, hit things with melee, or hit things with ranged (I may be missing an option or two and there are combos).  That's just the nature of the genre and foundation of the game.  Are different ways of achieving that goal really going to feel all that different?
> ...



I know you weren't talking to me, here, but I had to respond anyway. 

First, yes, they feel different. Fighters and Paladins are very different, and a Fighter/Cleric would also be very different from a Paladin. There are at least three ways to make some kind of assassin (not hit man. "Guy hired to kill people" isnt what assassin means, archetypally). You've got Shadow Monk, any Rogue (most are just better than assassin, TBH, but if you want to infiltrate socially Assassin rogue is good), Gloom Stalker Ranger, and you can build a Warlock or Bard pretty easily to be an assassin. Even if we break that down to "stealth focused, quick, agile, assassin, that is specialized in coming from nowhere to gank fools and then disappear", we've got rogue, shadow monk, and gloom stalker. The three play completely differently. 

I still don't understand why "no one person could personally play all the options" is relevant. No one person is going to want to play all the options, even if there are only 100 combinations. (I mean, some people are into literally everything in dnd, but most aren't) I'm not going to play a pure wizard, I'll probably never even multiclass cleric, Fighter may as well just have 3 levels, because I'd only ever even consider fighter for a 1-4 level dip, and level 4 would just be to not lose out on a feat, I have maybe two concepts for a druid, maybe 3 for barbarians...my point is I'm just not going to play everything in the PHB, not because there are too many options, but _because I'm not even vaguely interested in half of them_. It has nothing to do with wanting to play a thousand combinations, never repeating a single option even if I play the same edition for 30 years. That just isn't even on the same map as why I want more options, rather than fewer. 

DnD has been a detailed game since partway through 2e. 5e didn't change that. In a mechancially detailed game, I want to craft a character that is mechanically representative of the character concept. Others want mechanically distinct characters taht they can then build a concept out of. Others love the challenge of taking a build that is at cross purposes, like a Kobold Monk/Paladin, and making it stand usefully next to the "normal" builds at the table. 
Others tend to have weird character concepts, and without a lot of options that are "smaller" than class and race, they can't play those concepts without having a significantly weak character, mechanically. (I know, some folks like playing weak characters. Others don't. Having options helps one group without hurting the other)

I do think that the last part is interesting, and there have been whole threads on it. Unfortunately, when folks list things they still want in the game, they are met with seemingly intentionally unhelpful (and often disrespectful) "advice" on using existing options to cobble together a Frankensteinian approximation. [sblock=For me], I still want a character that fills the niche of the Star Wars Noble, or as I've been calling it, the Captain. A broad set of characters that are united under the umbrella of being mostly non-magical, surviving on wits, charm, and knowledge. It would be a third "skill monkey" class, with a lot of it's combat determined by subclass, and would include ideas like the tactician, the vanguard, the scholar, and the partisan/idealist/inspiring passionate guy. 
I'd also like a character that is based on at-will teleportation, and abilities that extrapolate out logically from being able to blink around constantly as their primary ability. The Shadow Monk is almost there, but level 6 is halfway through most character's careers, and I'd rather get it sooner, and not have the incredible distance and extra benefits tacked on. HOnestly, if I had a DM that was more open to homebrew, I'd just take a spell or two away at level 3, and give an at-will teleport speed (ie use your movement), with a speed boost in dim light or darkness, and keep the level 6 ability as an upgrade. Now, you can teleport with your speed, and use a bonus action to teleport 60 feet, and gain advantage on your next attack. [/sblock]



Fallstorm said:


> A lot of playtesting went into 5E that being said I do think maybe Jeremy Crawford does not get as much credit as he deserves.  From Sage Advice and everything else I wonder he is more of the tactical mind behind 5E whereas Mike is the overall big picture guy/narrative guy...



That seems to be exactly what they've described as the way things are. Mike does concepts and basic mechanics, and Jeremy is the editor. The editor is always one of the most important jobs in any creative endeavor. 



pemerton said:


> If I get the argument that you and @_*doctorbadwolf*_ are running correct, it's that attack checks are the same as ability/skeill checks except that instead of generating consequences for the shared fiction they trigger further mechanical processes.



Well, not exactly. An attack is an action. Narratively, you affect the enemy in a negative manner using your weapons. Then there is a separate, secondary, mechanic, that helps determine how wore down they are. What exactly that looks like in fiction is up to the DM and player. Just like failing to disarm a trap can trigger a separate, secondary mechanic of you getting rekt by the trap. 



pemerton said:


> I think a courtly intrigue game of D&D is almost certain to involve issues around Charm Person and Suggestion spells - particulary if it's a game using the AD&D versions which (by contemporary standards) are super-high powered. At mid-level there will be ESP and other divination-related issues too (which 2nd ed-era stuff solved (for some value of "solved") by giving all diplomats a Ring of Mind Shielding or similar).
> 
> (The above is not theorycraft. It's extrapolation from experience.)



Respectfully, so what? That's the world. Diplomacy in a world of high magic is different from diplomacy in a world without magic, or a world with only LOTR magic, and will be different with different systems of magic, as well. 

And I do mean "respectfully" with absolute sincerity. I respect your opinion, I just don't think that what you're talking about is something that makes DnD bad at courtly intrigue. It's a game wherein that intrigue will be different from in a game that is made to simulate what we expect from Game of Thrones and the Tudors. If you want "realistic, medieval, very grounded, courtly intrigue"...well, it's not the courtly intrigue part that makes DnD the wrong game for it! 

Now, unpopular opinion warning; I really don't care, even a tiny little bit, about how adnd did pretty much anything. Every edition of DND before 4e, I played because it was the only TTRPG that anyone I knew had any interest in playing, and because I liked the story concepts, not because I thought they were mechanically well made, at all. PF is the best edition of DnD before 4e, IMO, but even it has too much mechanically nonsensical elements whose only purpose is to keep nostalgia intact. 

In 4e or 5e, courtly intrigue works quite well. 

But there are also some things that I disagree with you on, in terms of those spells and magic items. Casting Charm Person isn't invisible. You can get caught. There is incredible risk involved in using magic to force your will on someone, and its pretty damn easy to imagine such magic being a hanging offense, especially when used on a member of court. It's hard to imagine not being immediately attacked by the king's guard if you were to try to Charm the king, and got caught by the court mage, or just a keen eyed noble or guard. 

That dynamic adds to the intrigue, and creates tempting tools that are very high risk/high reward, even if for some reason, the king doesn't have a court wizard and nobles don't have magic items. 

[sblock=aside]I know some folks think that in a world with Fireball, no one is going to blink at Dominate Mind, but that is completely insane, IMO. The real world has machine guns, but that doesn't stop people from being filled with anger and disgust at the thought of being brainwashed, much less mind controlled. [/sblock]



> The difference between a paladin and a ranger _could_ be the difference between _gain advantage when your honour would help_ and _gain advantage when your knowledge of the wilds would help_, but it's not.



 It is, though, it just isn't the whole difference, luckily. In 5e, you can gain advantage, or inspiration, whenever your various traits and flaws and such, whether from your background, class, race, backstory, or experiences during play, come strongly into play. It's left vague, because leaving it vague doesn't create a less balanced game, and because enough of the player base doesn't want rules for it that they had to use rules that can be ignored. 



> (Also, and despite the name, GURPS is not especiallly generic. I think it offers a pretty consistent and fairly tightly focused gaming experience, of slightly low-powered Hero.)



 It's incredibly generic. The focus isn't tightly focused at all. You can play low, mid, or high powered characters/campaigns, in any setting or genre, even mixing power levels in a single campaign if you want. You can play with all the dials turned on, or play the light version with all non essentials turned off. 



Oofta said:


> I did some quick counts over at DnDBeyond because I was curious.  There are
> 37 races
> 12 classes
> 80 sub-classes
> ...



 that stuff is only a prominent thing on the internet, man. 

The actual thing is what I talk about higher up in this post. There aren't 1000 options for any given player, because most players don't want to play half the classes, but do want to be able to represent their character concept with mechanical specifcity, showing rather than telling what they can do, what they're good at, how they were trained, etc. 



> Even if there were more options, a lot of people would still gravitate to a handful of optimal options.  It would be the same complaint or the complaint would be that there are so many options that build X is broken.  Personally I'd be happy running my dwarven rogue or gnome barbarian because I don't care all that much about eaking out numerical supremacy, it's just not that important.



 It's not important for most people that want a wide selection of options, either. The existence of CharOp discussion on forums doesn't really mean anything at all for the actual game. Most CharOp posters don't play CharOp builds in games, but even if the they did, they're a minority of players who enjoy having a lot of options. Conflating the two is inaccurate to the point of being counter productive. 



Maxperson said:


> Well, then.  I'm going to take a page out of WotC's book and declare that the bolded word is now Reporpoised.
> 
> Por.poise
> 
> ...




Ok, I lol'd. 

But, just to make sure, you know that you've "missed" (intentionally, to make a joke?) the point, right? If you write an RPG and use the word that way in the book, yep, it's what that word means in that game. 

Utterance, for example, and it's derivatives, are used to refer to any communication that isn't written. That's because our language only really satisfyingly covers spoken and written communication in anything resembling a concise manner. Even sign language, most people use words for spoken communication to refer to it. I have several friends who either are deaf, or have deaf famiy members, and "He/she/they said" is absolutely normal usage when referring to signing a statement. It's not the only usage, but it's perfectly normal, and only ever raises eyebrows where a pedant is in the room, and the pedant gets told to shut up, generally, because who likes a pedant? 

This ties back to that post I didn't reply to (I really don't want to go back and find it to go into it in detail, sorry) about utterance and telepathy. Common usage is a term that exist in context. It doesn't matter that talking about telepathy isn't common, it matters what language is commonly used in those conversations that do happen. 

Also, part of how language works, is that if the contextual meaning of a statement is clear, then the statement means that contextually clear thing, not whatever pedantic thing we can try to twist it into saying by picking apart the dictionary definition of every word. 



TwoSix said:


> I think this shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what motivates mechanical players.  We're not looking for options to make good builds better, we're looking for options to make bad builds good, and thus increase the number of playable options.



 That's one reason, yes. Like I said above, there's also representing a concept with mechanical specificity, and having a wide range of options within a "silo" of archetypal types of characters, ie "lots of kinds of rogue, or swashbuckler, or sneak, or acrobat, or brute, or knight", etc. It's really nice to have several ways to play a knight, and have them _play differently mechanically_. 



pemerton said:


> Thanks!
> 
> I'm gradually working through the thread, 70-odd posts from the end with a good number of those replies to me. So if you've already posted more I'll get to it in due course.



 no hurry! I honestly probably won't go back and find that post now, the thread is moving too fast and there is so much to touch on. I hope I haven't left anything important unaddressed. If I have, feel free to remind me and I'll reply to it. 



> If the lock has hit points (or something similar), so that each success has no particular narrative meaning, I agree. But I don't think that's a standard resolution method in 5e. (And it's not how 4e skill challenges work, either - it's clear in the 4e DMG and made clearer in the DMG2 that each check in the skill challenge produces a change in the fictional which affects the fictional positioning of subsequent checks - which in combat is like movement, and some condition imposition, but not like hp loss.)



The proposed lock (not sure if this is in the actual 5e rules, because we just run locks and traps in ways that make sense to us, for the most part) doesn't have hit points, but does have something very similar, and just like hitting in combat, does have narrative impact. 

You succeed on a check, and you're one step closer to the lock being open. if you fail, you're one step closer to being unable to pick the lock without spending a good deal more time, and you risk trigger any relevant secondary mechanism, if the lock is trapped or has an alarm, etc. You also take an amount of time, determined contextually, and that amount of time is greater or lesser depending on how well you succeed or how badly you fail. There are win and fail conditions, and consequences for getting the lock open, failing to do so, and for taking too long or getting it done especially quickly. 

Which is a lot like combat, it just has different _secondary conditions and mechanics for resolving those secondary conditions_. But the resolution of the actual action is the same. 

As I alluded to, there are narrative consequences for hitting and missing in a fight. The most important is, ya know, the actual hit or miss. If that doesn't show up in the narrative, something is going wrong at the table, not with the rules. 

Secondarily, the other person being more wore down, injured, bruised, discouraged, whatever, is a narrative element. It can then be used to try to gain Advantage on a call for surrender, for instance, or to convince an observer that you are very dangerous and not to be messed with, or simply to try and make someone afraid of you. 

Where combat differs in DnD from exploration and interaction is not in the resolution mechanic (every single d20 check is the same mechanic, and I don't just mean that you're always rolling a d20), but in how hard-coded vs negotiated secondary conditions are. 

I, for one, am glad of that, but right now I can't even remember _why_ we're talking about this? Something to do with determining where DnD 5e sits in terms of how rules heavy it is? 

Obviosly, 5e is rules heavy compared to most PBTA games, or a lot of other indie games, and I'd say it's just as obvious that it's much lighter than most editions of DND.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 26, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Dude you really need to take a chill pill.  You can explain without getting insulting.  I'm just acknowledging that not all combinations make sense.



I never attacked you. Unless you’re insulted by the word turd, I don’t see where my comment was insulting. If something I said was insulting though, I apologize. It’s getting pretty frustrating having my motivations repeatedly misidentified as power gaming. Don’t make assumptions about my play preferences and there won’t be a problem.



Oofta said:


> There are multiple ways of building in different flavors of characters.  With 5E they chose to go with sub-classes so if you're playing a rogue you have 7 sub-classes to choose from.  An assassin is going play different from a swashbuckler is different from an arcane trickster.



But each of those subclasses is expressed through only 4 features, that come several levels apart from each other, and are all locked in by the single choice of subclass. If our campaign goes to maybe 10th level, that’s only two features that distinguish an Assassin from a Swashbuckler, both of which are tied to the same decision point, and one of which takes over half the campaign to come online.



Oofta said:


> Throw in feats, ranged vs melee and so on and there are a lot of choices.  Add multi-classing and there are even more.



Feats are a start, but they are few and far between. Ranged vs melee isn’t a character building choice, my swashbuckler and your assassin can both use a rapier or a bow at any time. Multiclassing doesn’t fix the problem of my rogue being the same as your rogue, it just lets me play a character who isn’t a rogue.



Oofta said:


> As far as the champion fighter example, how many do you want?  You can go sword-and-board, great weapon, archer.  Strength based, dex based.  Different backgrounds could give you a hint of rogue, feats and multi-classing can give you options.  If that's not enough do a cavalier instead of a champion.



Most of the options you list here aren’t real distinctions. +2 ro this skill instead of that one. +1 average damage with this weapon instead of that one. It doesn’t change the fundamental gameplay. We’re still both spending our turns doing fundamentally the same thing.

This is less of an issue with spellcasters because they actually get a choice every level or two of what mechanical options they want to add to their repertoire, in the form of learning spells.



Oofta said:


> Are a lot of choices made by level 3? Yep. Could they have gone a different direction? Sure.



And I would have preferred that they did so.



Oofta said:


> I'm simply stating that they achieve the same broad goal using a different approach gives you significant variety.



I disagree that the variety is significant.



Oofta said:


> I've played most editions of D&D and to me they're all fairly front-end loaded.



That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be done differently in the future.



Oofta said:


> If D&D's approach doesn't work for you maybe you should learn to accept it or move on to a different game. No game can cater to every preference. If I understand correctly, what you describe sounds more like GURPs than D&D.



As I’ve said repeatedly, I like 5e. I like it better overall than my next favorite edition, 4e, despite feeling that 4e handled many aspects better. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to point out places where I see room for improvement. This “If you don’t like everything about the game, get used to it or get out” attitude is absurd, and harmful to the growth of the game. One can, and should, both enjoy something and be critical if its flaws. 5e is a great game, that’s why I play it. But it is lacking in mechanical customizability, which is in my opinion one of its flaws.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 26, 2018)

Despite the discussion/debate regarding differing mechanics, I feel many of us do not place enough importance on backgrounds and personality characteristics which loses a major roleplaying aspect of the game and leaves us all to easily concentrating on mechanics. 

Perhaps we need to enforce that the only way to gain inspiration is to utilise your personality characteristics not through long rests or each gaming session.

Drawing on one's background during a roleplaying scene may also provide mechanical or narrative advantages.

The Wizard acolyte calls on his religious expertise, distracting the temple guard by drawing him into a fervorous prayer, long enough for the rest of the wizard's party to sneak into the temple unnoticed. No roll required.
Possible setback: The temple guard insists the wizard join the temple's choir during this week's holy mass.

The Champion entertainer offers up a soft spoken poem to the princess's handmaiden, gaining her admiration. Two hours later, the location of the hidden princess, was no longer a secret. No roll required.
Possible setback: A promise is made to visit the handmaiden the following night.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 26, 2018)

Sadras said:


> The Champion entertainer offers up a soft spoken poem to the princess's handmaiden, gaining her admiration. Two hours later, the location of the hidden princess, was no longer a secret. No roll required.
> Possible setback: A promise made to visit the handmaiden the following night.



Two Hours later? Dude is indeed a champion.


----------



## Eric V (Sep 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> As I’ve said repeatedly, I like 5e. I like it better overall than my next favorite edition, 4e, despite feeling that 4e handled many aspects better. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to point out places where I see room for improvement. This “If you don’t like everything about the game, get used to it or get out” attitude is absurd, and harmful to the growth of the game. One can, and should, both enjoy something and be critical if its flaws. 5e is a great game, that’s why I play it. But it is lacking in mechanical customizability, which is in my opinion one of its flaws.




I'm in the same boat (DMing a weekly 5e game, hoping to do an AiME game soon), yet feel previous editions did some things better...but none of that matters.  5e is a game designed to be popular, and since it is more popular now than any previous edition (is that largely because of the actual game mechanics though?  Not so sure...there are a lot of factors, methinks), we're just going to have people saying "too bad, so sad, it's well-loved and so will not change."  And yeah, if there's no financial motivation to do so...a Hasbro-owned company won't do it.  I get it.

It's too bad; I think the game is _certainly _sturdy enough to have an _Advanced Player's Handbook_ without falling apart (in that sense, I seem to hold 5e in higher esteem than a lot of people here), or losing income.  I'm in a minority on that viewpoint, it seems.

All in all, it's forced me to look at other systems, and some are pretty exciting though.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 26, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> Two Hours later? Dude is indeed a champion.




The module described her as _a bit of clam._


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 26, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> I'm sorry, this really stood out to me because I can't make any sense of it.  I've played 2 champion fighters.  One was a halfling fighter with the criminal background.  It was when I converted by 1e fighter/thief PC into 5e.  Even at level 1, he played exactly like my old fighter thief, with a pretty strong emphasis on the sneaky part.  As soon as I got access to feats, things like skulker and dungeon delver really fleshed out that concept.  The other champion fighter I had was a human who had heavy armor mastery at 1st level, and I played him like defender knight.



But what you’re describing here is in how you chose to play the characters, not in what avenues of play were available to them. Your Halfling fighter had, what, +3 Dex, Proficiency in Stealth, compared to the human fighter’s... I’ guessing +0 Dex, untrained in Stealth, and disadvantage from his armor? All of that is just numbers. The least interesting form of mechanical distinction. The only difference in these characters’ stealth capabilities that I would consider significant would be that the Halfling can move through spaces of medium or larger creatures and hide when obscured by them, while the human can’t, and at level 4 the Halfling can hide when lightly obscured by darkness and has low-light vision and the fighter can’t and doesn’t. That’s for differences, that come from two decision points, which occur four levels apart (a good 2/3 of an average campaign!) So for what, like 2 months of game time it’s only two differences that come from one decision point.



Sacrosanct said:


> If you think that feats and backgrounds are minor, then we are miles apart on what minor means.



We probably are, yes.



Sacrosanct said:


> Those are actually critically impactful aspects that make the PCs feel very different from each other, even with the same class and subclass.  And if you think the only difference between subclasses with different feats is slightly different modifiers, then I don't think you're using the same feats or backgrounds in the book at all, because they make a huge difference.



Feats do provide some meaningful distinction between characters, the problem is that they come so few and far between. Backgrounds, in my opinion, do not provide significant distinction, only ammounting to a handful of slight differences in numbers and a roleplaying ribbon.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 26, 2018)

Eric V said:


> I'm in the same boat (DMing a weekly 5e game, hoping to do an AiME game soon), yet feel previous editions did some things better...but none of that matters.  5e is a game designed to be popular, and since it is more popular now than any previous edition (is that largely because of the actual game mechanics though?  Not so sure...there are a lot of factors, methinks), we're just going to have people saying "too bad, so sad, it's well-loved and so will not change."  And yeah, if there's no financial motivation to do so...a Hasbro-owned company won't do it.  I get it.
> 
> It's too bad; I think the game is _certainly _sturdy enough to have an _Advanced Player's Handbook_ without falling apart (in that sense, I seem to hold 5e in higher esteem than a lot of people here), or losing income.  I'm in a minority on that viewpoint, it seems.



All of this is very true. However, anyone who thinks there will never be a 6e is fooling themselves, and as someone who has an interest in seeing D&D continue to improve with each new edition, I am going to continue providing feedback, positive and negative, throughout 5e’s lifespan.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 26, 2018)

[MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6779717]Eric V[/MENTION] I think another factor in this discussion and why there might be a divide is, frequency of play. The more frequently one plays, getting through the material and roleplaying various class, then the greater the likelihood one will be asking for something like an Advanced Player's Guide for more variation.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Sep 26, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> Two Hours later? Dude is indeed a champion.




That gives me a T-Shirt idea.

Champions do it with no rests.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 26, 2018)

Eric V said:


> It's too bad; I think the game is _certainly _sturdy enough to have an _Advanced Player's Handbook_ without falling apart (in that sense, I seem to hold 5e in higher esteem than a lot of people here), or losing income.  I'm in a minority on that viewpoint, it seems.



Maybe we should join forces and petition WotC for *two* Advanced Player's Handbooks: 1) An AD&D for players who want lots more mechanical choices than we have right now, and 2) an AD&D for those who want lots less.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> All of this is very true. However, anyone who thinks there will never be a 6e is fooling themselves, and as someone who has an interest in seeing D&D continue to improve with each new edition, I am going to continue providing feedback, positive and negative, throughout 5e’s lifespan.




Certainly there will be a 6E... eventually. That will not only be a long time coming, however, it is also certain to be backwards compatible with 5E. On top of that, I'll predict that if it does change on this front, it will be further away from what your preference seems to be: not closer.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Sep 26, 2018)

Eric V said:


> I'm in the same boat (DMing a weekly 5e game, hoping to do an AiME game soon), yet feel previous editions did some things better...but none of that matters.  5e is a game designed to be popular, and since it is more popular now than any previous edition (is that largely because of the actual game mechanics though?  Not so sure...there are a lot of factors, methinks), we're just going to have people saying "too bad, so sad, it's well-loved and so will not change."  And yeah, if there's no financial motivation to do so...a Hasbro-owned company won't do it.  I get it.
> 
> It's too bad; I think the game is _certainly _sturdy enough to have an _Advanced Player's Handbook_ without falling apart (in that sense, I seem to hold 5e in higher esteem than a lot of people here), or losing income.  I'm in a minority on that viewpoint, it seems.
> 
> All in all, it's forced me to look at other systems, and some are pretty exciting though.




This is a reasoned statement about 5E. However, I have a question about the need for something like an Advanced Player's Handbook; is such a product really needed? I'd be fine with them coming out with it, ultimately, but I also think that there was a lot of flexibility baked into the game precisely so such a book wouldn't be necessary because players and DMs would design their own advanced rules or options. 

And then with the advent of the DMs Guild, such user created content becomes available for sharing. 

Do you not want to spend time creating options that would suit your players/game? Do you lack the time? Do you feel that only a WotC produced book of options is acceptable?


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> But what you’re describing here is in how you chose to play the characters, not in what avenues of play were available to them. Your Halfling fighter had, what, +3 Dex, Proficiency in Stealth, compared to the human fighter’s... I’ guessing +0 Dex, untrained in Stealth, and disadvantage from his armor? All of that is just numbers. The least interesting form of mechanical distinction. The only difference in these characters’ stealth capabilities that I would consider significant would be that the Halfling can move through spaces of medium or larger creatures and hide when obscured by them, while the human can’t, and at level 4 the Halfling can hide when lightly obscured by darkness and has low-light vision and the fighter can’t and doesn’t. That’s for differences, that come from two decision points, which occur four levels apart (a good 2/3 of an average campaign!) So for what, like 2 months of game time it’s only two differences that come from one decision point.
> 
> 
> We probably are, yes.
> ...




What you said was this:



> ...currently 5e does not give me the tools to express a character differently than other characters of the same class and subclass. At best, I’ll have slightly different modifiers to the same exact actions if I choose different Feats and ASIs, but those differences are minor and come several levels apart.




Expression _IS _roleplaying.  So I'm confused why you say you want to express them differently, but disregard the role playing aspects. 

I also disagree because 5e absolutely gives you to the tools to express characters differently of the same subclass.  I just gave you an example of 5e mechanics that allowed me to play the same subclasses completely different.  And in a game with bounded accuracy, being able to use your proficiency bonus when attempting a skills check is not a minor thing.  That's with backgrounds, given at level 1.  With feats (which fighters get more often than anyone else), that makes even a bigger difference.  There are feats that allow you to cast spells if you want--that is no small difference either.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> With reference to the first question, it depends what you mean by "deciding a mechanic to apply".
> 
> _Examples of play._
> 
> Hopefully I've answered this. I'm happy to say more if you're interested.




I get what you're saying. I think when I said deciding what mechanic to apply, I meant more in cases where there is no specific rule, or if there are factors that mean the standard rule doesn't quite apply. 

I think your examples give a variety of how this can be handled. 

For me, in the context of 5E, I think the rules as they are are pretty applicable in most cases. I do think there are some gray areas in the application of some skills and what they can be used to accomplish, but I'm comfortable mitigating those. Plus, with 5E, everyone can attempt skill checks even if untrained, they just receive no proficiency bonus to such rolls. So that makes it easier. 

Some of the other commonly discussed problem areas....I tend to not find them to be problematic. 



pemerton said:


> I can only speak about this from experience.
> 
> The first thing to say about that experience is that it includes very little 3E D&D - I mention that because for many posters on these boards that is an important comparison case - and that for the past 20 years it hasn't involved much open/club play. (That largely stopped when I finished my undergrad studies.)
> 
> ...




I think that players will tend to lean into their characters' strengths, sure. So a socially savvy character will be played as strong in social situations, and a strong character will be played as focused on combat, and so on. I don't know if this means they will do so in a creative way, or if they will just lean on the options that are allowed to them. For combat, I think it makes sense in D&D. For social based encounters and actions, I prefer to not rely on set actions so much. I think it's better for the DM to review the situation and establish a ruling. I think there is enough structure in the game with opposed checks, Difficulty Classes, and so on that allows the DM to make reasonable rulings.

And so in that sense, I agree with you that the best way to encourage players to come up with interesting actions is to adjudicate fairly. I feel that adjudicating fairly is more on the DM when there are less specific mechanics involved, no? 




pemerton said:


> I think this may be how 3E handled it (I'm not sure - as I've said, it's not really a game where I'm across all the detail)?
> 
> I'm not a big fan of "allowed/not allowed". To me it's a product of class-based games with tightly circumscribed abilities (spell lists are a classic example but not the only one - thief abilities are another example, as Luke Crane belatedly realised!).
> 
> ...




3E and it's versions were a double edged sword for me. I liked a lot of the streamlining and the correction of things that had never really made sense (descending ACs, a poorly defined skill system, wonky saving throws, etc.) but it went too far in codifying things to the point where there were rules for everything to the point where the DM wasn't really needed to interpret the rules and make rulings. I think it fostered a very antagonistic, rules-lawyerly game. 

So for me, because I primarily DM in 5e, I've found the environment to be less antagonistic, and that my players are trying more varied actions than before. They may not have as many "class powers" or whatever, but they tend to take more actions that are unique and suited to the actual moment. 



pemerton said:


> If the comparison class is D&D, as you suggest, then some of those remarks make more sense then they otherwise seemed to. Thanks for suggesting that reading.




Yeah, I think that's what was meant if you go back and look at the comments, and what's implied by some of them. And I think it's pretty apparent when you look at the results, especially compared to previous editions.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 26, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Certainly there will be a 6E... eventually. That will not only be a long time coming, however, it is also certain to be backwards compatible with 5E. On top of that, I'll predict that if it does change on this front, it will be further away from what your preference seems to be: not closer.



If that seems to be where the momentum is going, all the more reason to advocate more strongly for a course correction!


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 26, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> What you said was this:
> 
> Expression _IS _roleplaying. So I'm confused why you say you want to express them differently, but disregard the role playing aspects.




I also said this:


Charlaquin said:


> It’s all well and good to describe my attacks differently than Tommy describes his, but if we’re ultimately still rolling the same d20 to see if we can roll the same d8, with maybe slightly different modifiers, then I’m not really doing anything different. I’ve been accused in this thread of playing the same characters over and over with different mechanics, but to me if I don’t have different mechanics, I’m playing the same characters over and over with different descriptions. You need both. D&D is *both* roleplaying *and* game, and the false dichotomy that seems to exist between them in public perception only serves to harm a hobby that by definition is supposed to be both.



To reiterate, as a *roleplaying game*, D&D should provide the opportunity for expression *both* through *roleplaying* and through *game* mechanics 



Sacrosanct said:


> I also disagree because 5e absolutely gives you to the tools to express characters differently of the same subclass. I just gave you an example of 5e mechanics that allowed me to play the same subclasses completely different. And in a game with bounded accuracy, being able to use your proficiency bonus when attempting a skills check is not a minor thing. That's with backgrounds, given at level 1. With feats (which fighters get more often than anyone else), that makes even a bigger difference. There are feats that allow you to cast spells if you want--that is no small difference either.



I just flat-out do not agree that which skills you have Proficiency in is a meaningful difference in the way a character plays. Ultimately it’s still just roll a d20, add some numbers, compare to a target result. Changing what numbers I add does not change the fundamental game mechanic. Some feats do indeed provide meaningful difference, but for the hundredth time, they come too few and far between. Four levels is a fifth of a character’s lifespan, *if* the character is played all the way to level 20. For most campaigns, it’s closer to a third, or maybe even a half. One to three opportunities to make a character meaningfully mechanically distinct through the entire course of play, each choice separated by months of real life time, is just not enough for my taste.


----------



## Eric V (Sep 26, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> Maybe we should join forces and petition WotC for two Advanced Player's Handbooks: 1) An AD&D for players who want lots more mechanical choices than we have right now, and 2) *an AD&D for those who want lots less*.




But...I mean,...isn't that what the free, basic rules really amounts to?


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 26, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Certainly there will be a 6E... eventually. That will not only be a long time coming, however,



I’m aware. I’ll have plenty of time to provide feedback about what O think 5e is doing well and how I think it could be improved.



Parmandur said:


> it is also certain to be backwards compatible with 5E.



Yeah, we’ll see about that. A lot can change in the time it’ll likely take before they’re ready to release a new edition.



Parmandur said:


> On top of that, I'll predict that if it does change on this front, it will be further away from what your preference seems to be: not closer.



Again, we’ll see. Meanwhile, I’m going to keep giving the best feedback I can.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I never attacked you. Unless you’re insulted by the word turd, I don’t see where my comment was insulting. If something I said was insulting though, I apologize. It’s getting pretty frustrating having my motivations repeatedly misidentified as power gaming. Don’t make assumptions about my play preferences and there won’t be a problem.
> 
> 
> But each of those subclasses is expressed through only 4 features, that come several levels apart from each other, and are all locked in by the single choice of subclass. If our campaign goes to maybe 10th level, that’s only two features that distinguish an Assassin from a Swashbuckler, both of which are tied to the same decision point, and one of which takes over half the campaign to come online.
> ...




I guess I'm just not sure how much more variety you want.

For example with just the champion fighter: 

Sir Hits-hard wields a maul.  He takes a few more hits because he doesn't use a shield, but wades into combat and swings hard.  He may miss a bit more often than his allies, but when he does it's going to hurt.   Heaven help a wizard that tries to cast a spell while he's next to them.
Sir Turtle uses his shield to bash enemies to knock them down or away from his allies.  He's tough to hit, so he's trained to stop people in their tracks if they try to run away.
Sir Stabemlots uses dual swords, and is able to move around the battlefield without provoking opp attacks.
Sir Shootemup doesn't bother wearing heavy armor and likes to hide in the back and uses his enemies as pincushions.  Thanks to growing up on the streets he's also pretty good with lockpicks and hiding in the shadows.

To me, these 4 PCs are significantly different mechanically.  I'm sure I could add a few more.  If you do a human variant you can get the feats from 1st level.

I agree they're pretty front loaded.  I just think D&D has always been that way.  For better or worse it's fundamental to the core concepts of the game.  Then again I'm a pretty lenient DM and allow a decent amount of refactoring of a PC's mechanics as long as the character stays the same.  The game is about having fun and if a build isn't working my players are allowed changes or can always bring in a new character.

If it's a question of not getting cool options until higher later, maybe you could start at a higher level.  I've done it with experienced players for short-term campaigns.

As far as other games, let me rephrase.  What concepts could be pulled in from other games that wouldn't upset the more-or-less balance of 5E?  What kind of variety are you looking for?  Because it seems to me my fighters above would feel very different from level 1 and my descriptions would apply from level 4 on.

I hear calls for an Advanced 5E (which I don't think will ever happen because there's not enough of a market) but what would it look like?


----------



## Eric V (Sep 26, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> This is a reasoned statement about 5E. However, I have a question about the need for something like an Advanced Player's Handbook; is such a product really needed? I'd be fine with them coming out with it, ultimately, but I also think that there was a lot of flexibility baked into the game precisely so such a book wouldn't be necessary because players and DMs would design their own advanced rules or options.
> 
> And then with the advent of the DMs Guild, such user created content becomes available for sharing.
> 
> Do you not want to spend time creating options that would suit your players/game? Do you lack the time? Do you feel that only a WotC produced book of options is acceptable?




As for need, well, nothing is really "needed," right?  Sales are still brisk, so it's not needed that way.  It IS needed to keep my own particular group interested; they are finding the mechanics of the game (which is what we buy, right?  That's what's exclusive to D&D, the particular mechanics of that edition; the rest is common to RPGs in general) to be uninteresting.  It's not a unique phenomenon to my group either, if I'm reading various other posters correctly, but with sales being what they are, WotC certainly doesn't care about losing those groups.  So, I'd say it's "needed" if WotC wants my group and I-don't-know-how-many-others to continue to spend money on their products.  Does that answer your question?

To the rest of your post...partly it's a lack of time.  I'm a dad, a prof who brings a lot of work home, a DM who spends what free RPG time prepping sessions instead of coming up with rules, I play board games with people not in my gaming group...sigh.  

For example, my absolute fav toon to play from an earlier edition was an Avenger, a class that sadly didn't make the cut for 5e (I know about the Vengeance Paladin, but despite the one mechanic staying the same, the play at the table is very different for a stealthy Assassin's Creed based Assassin to a zealous, heavily armoured spellcasting warrior).  I have a file on my computer that is almost 2 years old about how to properly bring the Avenger into 5e...and even though I would love it, it's still not done.

Part of the reason it's not done is the reason I mentioned upthread about how people want "official" products only:  I'm not a professional game designer.  I actually believe that someone who gets paid to do this for a living will bring to bear certain expertise that I simply don't have.  I mean, doesn't that make sense?  All these people who do this in their spare time (unless they have a TON of that...) who think they can produce better work...man, I don't know.  Sounds like hubris to me, especially since WotC can bring more resources to bear on the idea than I can (playtesting, for example).

So yeah, I'd like to pay experts to do what they are best at...and maybe that's as good a way as any to express my disappointment with some of these aspects of 5e.  Good companies give people what they want; great companies give people what they didn't realize they wanted.  Here's an article expressing better than me the ideas behind that statement: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davids...ng-them-what-they-didnt-ask-for/#79fd54b83ad5

From the early playtest packets, it _seemed _that was where 5e was headed.  Then the people spoke, and we ended up with a popular greatest hits edition.  That's _not _a pejorative; greatest hits albums sell really well!  Selling well has been good for the game!  

I _do _wish I could have seen what could have been though...like I mentioned way upthread, every edition of D&D from 2e on gave me something I didn't even know I wanted from the RPG experience.  5e hasn't done that...but I suspect a "Game's really well-established, so go wild, you creative types" _Advanced Player's Handbook_ (still with playtesting, and still done by people with decades of game design under their belt) would do the trick.

That was overlong, but hopefully expresses the perspective well.  At the least, it's not about powergaming.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 26, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I, for one, am glad of that, but right now I can't even remember why we're talking about this? Something to do with determining where DnD 5e sits in terms of how rules heavy it is?



Because Mike Mearls said,



> 3.5 and 4 were very much driven by an anxiety about controlling the experience of the game, leaving as little as possible to chance. They aimed for consistency of play from campaign to campaign, and table to table. The fear was that an obnoxious player or DM would ruin the game, and that would drive people away from it. The thinking was that if we made things as procedural as possible, people would just follow the rules and have fun regardless of who they played with.
> 
> At the same time, 3.5 and 4 were driven by the idea that D&D players wanted as many character options as possible, presented in a modular framework meant to encourage the search for combinations that yielded characters who broke the power curve.
> 
> These two aims play together in an extremely terrible way, at least from a design perspective.




To which, a few of us said, “Yeah, that makes sense. But a lot of players really like having a lot of mechanical options in a modular framework, and it seems like this:



> With 5th, we assumed that the DM was there to have a good time, put on an engaging performance, and keep the group interested, excited, and happy. It’s a huge change, because we no longer expect you to turn to the book for an answer. We expect the DM to do that.



Could have solved the problem on its own, without the need to gut those mechanical options and modular famework.”

And so now we’re having a 100+ page argument about it, because god forbid anyone want more mechanical customizability than 5e already offers. Those dirty powergamers are out to ruin our game with all their badwrong “roll-playing”!


----------



## BookBarbarian (Sep 26, 2018)

Eric V said:


> But...I mean,...isn't that what the free, basic rules really amounts to?




I love the basic rules. I really would like to run or play in a game with just those options. Just to see what concepts I can explore with so few choices.

Can I express an enjoyable Barbarian or Ranger as a Fighter? Probably not, but I bet I could learn a thing or two by how close I can get.


----------



## Eric V (Sep 26, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Innovative design is not always bulky and unwieldy. Sometimes it is the reduction to essentials that makes a work innovative, especially when the trend before was making things bigger and more unwieldy.




Yeah, I'm sure sometimes that's true.  I agree.

Not when I look at the Sorcerer, though (just as an example).  That _really _seems mailed-in to me.  I respect that you might see that differently, even if I'm not sure how.  I don't remember it from the playtest packets, to be honest.


----------



## Eric V (Sep 26, 2018)

BookBarbarian said:


> I love the basic rules. I really would like to run or play in a game with just those options. Just to see what concepts I can explore with so few choices.
> 
> Can I express an enjoyable Barbarian or Ranger as a Fighter? Probably not, but I bet I could learn a thing or two by how close I can get.




And I am genuinely glad they exist.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I think a courtly intrigue game of D&D is almost certain to involve issues around Charm Person and Suggestion spells - particulary if it's a game using the AD&D versions which (by contemporary standards) are super-high powered. At mid-level there will be ESP and other divination-related issues too



If those spells are going to be a problem in such a game - and I agree they most likely would be - it's trivially little work for a DM to strip them out of the game for that campaign during her design phase.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> And so now we’re having a 100+ page argument about it, because god forbid anyone want more mechanical customizability than 5e already offers. Those dirty powergamers are out to ruin our game with all their badwrong “roll-playing”



Somewhat related question; would the release of an official book of new mechanical subsystems make those who prefer a simpler version of 5e like the edition less?  Or is it easy enough to ignore?


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 26, 2018)

Fallstorm said:


> Well, in 2E due to the various conditions at TSR when the person who did not really like D&D took over there was actually very little playtesting in general.  You also correct that the Players Option series was not play-tested in fact the Combat & Tactics and Skills & Powers books were evidently worked in by two different teams with not much cross collaboration.  All that being said because their was a mistake in implementation on a past product does not mean a future direction should not be taken but the mistakes of the past learned from.  D&D 5E seems to be well playtested internally with external playtesting involved as well.  Also, while I don't work at WOTC and while I may not like all their decisions it seems from the D&D Brand standpoint the designers/writers are in fact very collaborative and keeping each other in the loop on directions of various projects, which makes sense given the small number of actual designers and writers left at WOTC.  Additionally D&D 5E is much more streamlined than 2E was so laying additional layers on top of the system should not be that hard.    As it stands now I see why a modular expansion adding more tactical options for those who want such things is not feasible and able to be implemented without breaking the system.



Conversely, as I agree we aren't privy to the internal workings at WotC, could it be possible they've in fact tried such an overlay internally and found that it does break the system?  If yes, that'd sure explain why it hasn't been released. 



> Now, I do kind of understand that if you have people who are great at CharOp and someone who is not good at Charop joins a group that the less skilled Charop person can feel overwhelmed.  I have seen this happen.  Likewise if a strong Charop person joins a group where everyone is not good at CharOp that character can overwhelming shine (in combat) and make other PCS feel useless. I have seen this happen although in all honesty not as often.  The way to correct this is 1) people who are stronger at CharOp will hopefully help and teach someone not as skilled.  In my 20+ years of D&D I have mostly played with very tactically minded and CharOp minded players.



I mostly haven't, and am glad of it.

Reason being is that the few CharOppers I've played with are the same people who get their knickers in knots when I or another player does something suboptimal or gonzo or silly just for fun; leading me to generalize that they tend to simply take the game far too seriously.



> To answer your question.  1E D&D was the granddaddy of all RPGS. I would have played that system because there was nothing else around for me to compare it too at the time and no one knew any better until later on.  So, in 1E there would be no way for my Thief X to be different from Thief Y other than background and story but again that is because D&D was the first and RPGs were limited and not with the nuanced and varied taste in playstyle gamers have now (see P.S./Addendum).  I started in 2E (though I have some 1E books) and in that system people wanted official ways to differentiate themselves which is why we had "The Complete" series where characters could take a kit and in a crude manner try to gain a difference mechanically in class features.   Then Players Option came out in 2E where you could distinguish yourself.  Then 3E and 4E came out which was all about customization.  Now we are in 5E and supposedly some people are claiming people don't want customization yet anytime WOTC releases a book with actual rules expansions it flies off the shelf at every game store I have seen.  Xanathar's was gone within a day at my FLGS.  None of the fluffy adventures WOTC has released has ever sold out that fast.  So somebody's wanting options.
> 
> Addendum:  Due to a discourse I had with 2 individuals on here I feel I am forced via irksome arguments to clarify a statement that should be readily apparent.  Of course at the time of AD&D 1E there were other RPGs around but if you have one product occupying the vast amount of shares in a niche market then for all intents and purposes that is not a market at all.  For example, if only 4 % of the populace drank soda and Coca-Cola was the soft drink 98% of soda imbibers drank most marketers would be loathe to really say there is a soft drinks "market" despite the fact there were other soda makers fighting over 2% of the market share.   This is why if you recall there was an article not too long ago about how the end of 3.5 kind of saved RPGS being in local bookstores and not only gaming stores.   This was because prior to Pathfinder D&D was really the only RPG (again in a NICHE/specialty market) that was selling enough copies to warrant chain store occupancy. Thus bookstores chains were starting to question having a totally separate shelving space for RPGs when the only RPG that warranted enough sales to be in chain stores was D&D.  Evidently when PF started becoming popular it sold enough and gained enough attention that book chains like B&N and Borders were able to say look we have 2 products that produce X amount of supplements therefore we can justify having a separate section for RPGs.  My point is during the early phase of the 1E era D&D  while other games were around D&D really had no real market challengers from TTRPG perspective therefore the mechanical options or lack thereof was not as big an issue.  Please accept my apologies if this sounds condescending (it is NOT my intent) and probably already know this and what I meant but again I felt the need to justify given certain interactions of recent.



To clarify: when I asked how those players would do in a 1e game I didn't mean 1e back in 1983 when there wasn't much else, I meant if you were to switch to 1e today and dive right in.

How would they do in a system where character differences aren't relfected in the mechanics beyond the most coarse-grained of ways (e.g. differences in classes and races)?

Lan-"and now to find out why I've been mentioned so many times in here..."-efan


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 26, 2018)

Oofta said:


> I guess I'm just not sure how much more variety you want.



I’m not sure how much clearer I can be. I want characters who can do different things, not just do the same thing with slightly different numbers and a different description.



Oofta said:


> For example with just the champion fighter:
> 
> Sir Hits-hard wields a maul. He takes a few more hits because he doesn't use a shield, but wades into combat and swings hard. He may miss a bit more often than his allies, but when he does it's going to hurt. Heaven help a wizard that tries to cast a spell while he's next to them.
> Sir Turtle uses his shield to bash enemies to knock them down or away from his allies. He's tough to hit, so he's trained to stop people in their tracks if they try to run away.
> ...





Sir Hits-Hard and Sir Turtle are doing the same thing as each other with different numbers and different descriptions. You may say Sir Hits-Hard uses a maul while Sir Turtle uses a longsword, but both are just using the Attack Action to see if they hit, and then rolling damage. It’s jusr that one might have slightly higher bonuses on his s Attack and damage rolls and the other might have a slightly higher AC. Not an interesting distinction. Sir Stabemlots at least gets to use a bonus action to make another attack, but he’s still just doing the same thing, with slightly lower numbers and slightly more often. Sir Shootemup is choosing to fight at a range instead of up close, but that’s nothing the other three couldn’t do if they wanted to. If he has Skulker, he can at least do something the others can’t, which is to attempt to hide when only lightly obscured by dim light, but unless he’s a variant human, it takes a fifth of his adventuring career to get it, and either way that’s the only meaningful difference he gets from the others for the next four levels.



Oofta said:


> To me, these 4 PCs are significantly different mechanically. I'm sure I could add a few more. If you do a human variant you can get the feats from 1st level.



Those 4 PCs are described differently and have slightly different numbers, but the mechanics they use are about the same.



Oofta said:


> I agree they're pretty front loaded. I just think D&D has always been that way. For better or worse it's fundamental to the core concepts of the game. Then again I'm a pretty lenient DM and allow a decent amount of refactoring of a PC's mechanics as long as the character stays the same. The game is about having fun and if a build isn't working my players are allowed changes or can always bring in a new character.
> 
> If it's a question of not getting cool options until higher later, maybe you could start at a higher level. I've done it with experienced players for short-term campaigns.



Starting at a higher level only further frontloads the decisions one gets to make in creating the character. The problem with Feats being only every four levels is not that you don’t get them until higher levels, it’s that you don’t get to make very many build choices, and you have to wait a long time between making them. I want more decision points more frequently.



Oofta said:


> As far as other games, let me rephrase. What concepts could be pulled in from other games that wouldn't upset the more-or-less balance of 5E? What kind of variety are you looking for? Because it seems to me my fighters above would feel very different from level 1 and my descriptions would apply from level 4 on.
> 
> I hear calls for an Advanced 5E (which I don't think will ever happen because there's not enough of a market) but what would it look like?



I’ve said a few times, I would like something like Powers from 4e or Archetypes from Pathfinder. I want, when I level up, to be making choices about what my character gets this level, instead of just following a predetermined advancement path and filling in the numbers.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 26, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Somewhat related question; would the release of an official book of new mechanical subsystems make those who prefer a simpler version of 5e like the edition less?  Or is it easy enough to ignore?



I can’t imagine why it would make them like 5e less, but yet, their reactions seem to suggest that it would.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 26, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Can't that question be answered just by comparing the two rules?
> 
> In 5e, there is no limit on how many undead can be turned; in AD&D it is 1d12 (except at high levels vs comparatively weak undead).
> 
> ...



I was simply throwing it out there as an off-the-top-of-my-head example, along with a few others, of a possible kitbash one could do to 5e.

I've no idea whether it'd be worth doing or not and, at the moment, no reason to try.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I’m not sure how much clearer I can be. I want characters who can do different things, not just do the same thing with slightly different numbers and a different description.
> [/LIST]
> Sir Hits-Hard and Sir Turtle are doing the same thing as each other with different numbers and different descriptions. You may say Sir Hits-Hard uses a maul while Sir Turtle uses a longsword, but both are just using the Attack Action to see if they hit, and then rolling damage. It’s jusr that one might have slightly higher bonuses on his s Attack and damage rolls and the other might have a slightly higher AC. Not an interesting distinction. Sir Stabemlots at least gets to use a bonus action to make another attack, but he’s still just doing the same thing, with slightly lower numbers and slightly more often. Sir Shootemup is choosing to fight at a range instead of up close, but that’s nothing the other three couldn’t do if they wanted to. If he has Skulker, he can at least do something the others can’t, which is to attempt to hide when only lightly obscured by dim light, but unless he’s a variant human, it takes a fifth of his adventuring career to get it, and either way that’s the only meaningful difference he gets from the others for the next four levels.
> 
> ...




If you want a PC that does something other than hit people with a weapon they shouldn't both be champion fighters.  Fortunately there are plenty of options for that.  Why would we need 1 sub-class to carry that much weight and complexity?  Play a different sub-class or class.  Or multi-class.

As far as wanting 5E to be more like 4E, let me just say NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!  If you're entitled to your opinion, then so am I.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 26, 2018)

Oofta said:


> If you want a PC that does something other than hit people with a weapon they shouldn't both be champion fighters.  Fortunately there are plenty of options for that.  Why would we need 1 sub-class to carry that much weight and complexity?  Play a different sub-class or class.  Or multi-class.



There are very few options for fighters of any kind that do anything but hit people with a weapon. The Battlemaster is basically the only option, and he does one thing, which is roll an extra die and add the number rolled to something.



Oofta said:


> As far as wanting 5E to be more like 4E, let me just say NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!  If you're entitled to your opinion, then so am I.



You absolutely are, although I would say that “wanting 5e to be more like 4e” is a gross oversimplification of my perspective. 4e had serious issues, but in my opinion, giving every character a choice of cool new feature to get every level was absolutely not one of them.


----------



## Greg Benage (Sep 26, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Somewhat related question; would the release of an official book of new mechanical subsystems make those who prefer a simpler version of 5e like the edition less?  Or is it easy enough to ignore?




I'd like it less, but it's really not a big deal. I've left the game before and I'll do it again if it moves in a direction that doesn't match my preferences.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 27, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> There are very few options for fighters of any kind that do anything but hit people with a weapon. The Battlemaster is basically the only option, and he does one thing, which is roll an extra die and add the number rolled to something.




This seems like a gross oversimplification of the Battlemaster. To say nothing of selling the Eldritch Knight and most other Fighter archetypes short.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 27, 2018)

[MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] - to clarify: the idea of porting 1e clerical undead turning into 5e isn't something I was actually thinking of doing (nor the reverse, for that matter), it was just an example of a possible hypothetical kitbash one could try with 5e when asking how well it could withstand such major changes in general.

That said, from your assorted replies it in fact sounds doable - just need to stretch the table out to cover a greater level range such that the target numbers for something like a 12th-level cleric in 1e become the numbers for a 20th-level in 5e.  (for my own game I've already stretched it the other way, to cover more possible gradations of undead to account for there being so many more options than when the table was first designed)


----------



## Hussar (Sep 27, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Somewhat related question; would the release of an official book of new mechanical subsystems make those who prefer a simpler version of 5e like the edition less?  Or is it easy enough to ignore?




Obviously not.

After all, there are already HUNDREDS of publications with new mechanical subsystems available right now.  

Oh, right, you said "official".  Sigh.  I still am absolutely baffled that anyone who wants mechanical options claiming that they aren't being catered to.  Why do those rules absolutely must come from WotC and no other source?  What is it about WotC that makes them the magic rules monkeys?  

If you want greater complexity in your game, there are dozens, if not hundreds of products specifically designed to tickle your fancy.  YOU ALREADY HAVE WHAT YOU WANT.  

The reason you will never get an official WotC one is because there's no way to produce a book like this, which will increase options and increase character power, and still have them play well with other products like the AP's.  It cannot be done.  So, an "Advanced PHB" is a non-starter for WotC.  If they produce it, then they have to use it going forward when designing AP's, or, at the very least, take them into account.  

WotC does not do one and done products anymore.  They just don't.  Every product builds on and is referenced by other products.  If you want something like an Advanced Player's Guide for 5e, you will only find it at the DM's Guild.  It's just not happening otherwise.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 27, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> There are very few options for fighters of any kind that do anything but hit people with a weapon. The Battlemaster is basically the only option, and he does one thing, which is roll an extra die and add the number rolled to something.
> 
> 
> You absolutely are, although I would say that “wanting 5e to be more like 4e” is a gross oversimplification of my perspective. 4e had serious issues, but in my opinion, giving every character a choice of cool new feature to get every level was absolutely not one of them.




From a mechanical standpoint, it's hard to see how you could make 5e any more like 4e without it actually BEING 4e.  5e, mechanically, is very, very close to 4e.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 27, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> If that seems to be where the momentum is going, all the more reason to advocate more strongly for a course correction!




Equally so, very important to advocate against any unnecessary "course corrections" from those of us happy with the current direction.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 27, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I’m not sure how much clearer I can be. I want characters who can do different things, not just do the same thing with slightly different numbers and a different description.



Yet these are perhaps the most important distinctions available - one mechanical, one narrative.

Changing the numbers - particularly in bounded-accuracy 5e - is a big deal mechanically; though at the table it still just involves rolling a die.

Changing the description - well that's what it's all about.  Ideally someone sitting in watching a game where those four characters are together in a party shouldn't be able to tell that they're all built on the same mechanical chassis - Sir Hits-hard is played as a quiet gentle giant until provoked at which point he goes into Hulk-Smash mode; Sir Turtle is played as cautious to a fault (or a bit cowardly even?) and always wants to plan things to a T; Sir Stabemlots is a swashbuckling rake with an eye for the opposite sex and who flirts while ignoring all of Turtle's planning; and Sir Shootemup is a shifty sort who never can quite explain just how he got the title 'Sir' and immediately changes the subject if asked.....

There's already more than enough mechanical distinctions in [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] 's list to reflect these personalities - what more do you need?



> Sir Hits-Hard and Sir Turtle are doing the same thing as each other with different numbers and different descriptions. You may say Sir Hits-Hard uses a maul while Sir Turtle uses a longsword, but both are just using the Attack Action to see if they hit, and then rolling damage.



Yeah, that's what Fighters do; usually better than any other class.  What of it?



> It’s jusr that one might have slightly higher bonuses on his s Attack and damage rolls and the other might have a slightly higher AC. Not an interesting distinction. Sir Stabemlots at least gets to use a bonus action to make another attack, but he’s still just doing the same thing, with slightly lower numbers and slightly more often. Sir Shootemup is choosing to fight at a range instead of up close, but that’s nothing the other three couldn’t do if they wanted to. If he has Skulker, he can at least do something the others can’t, which is to attempt to hide when only lightly obscured by dim light, but unless he’s a variant human, it takes a fifth of his adventuring career to get it, and either way that’s the only meaningful difference he gets from the others for the next four levels.



Maybe...and maybe not.  There's other ways to work toward the same ends.

Sir Hits-hard is logically going to concentrate his training and magic item choices* into things that'll make him hit harder and-or more often.
Sir Turtle is logically going to concentrate his training and magic item choices into defense, leaving the damage-dealing to others.
Sir Stabemlots is logically going to concentrate his training and magic item choices into either hit and damage improvement (thus competing with Hits-hard for the same resources) or into things that can help his movement speed and agility; and if anything happens by that'll enhance his dashing good looks he'll be all over it.
Sir Shootemup is logically going to concentrate his training and magic item choices into things that'll help him hide, and into ranged items and ammo that the others will likely ignore.

End result: some mechanical differentiation will eventually arise out of their choices of items and possessions.

* - usually when dividing party treasury; and note this is all even more relevant if the DM allows purchase of magic items.

Lan-"and if you don't want those magic items I'll take them off your hands - no charge, today only!"-efan


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 27, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I’m aware. I’ll have plenty of time to provide feedback about what O think 5e is doing well and how I think it could be improved.
> 
> 
> Yeah, we’ll see about that. A lot can change in the time it’ll likely take before they’re ready to release a new edition.
> ...




Which is fair: but in a similar being, you will continue to experimence pushback. In recent talks, Mearls and Crawford have emphasized how many players don't think about mechanics at all if they can help it, and how Classes such as the Ranger are hampered by too many choices. A lot can change, but not necessarily.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 27, 2018)

Hussar said:


> If you want greater complexity in your game, there are dozens, if not hundreds of products specifically designed to tickle your fancy.  YOU ALREADY HAVE WHAT YOU WANT.



Don't look at me, there aren't many posters on here who advocate for third party material more than I do.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 27, 2018)

Oofta said:


> If D&D's approach doesn't work for you maybe you should learn to accept it or move on to a different game. No game can cater to every preference. If I understand correctly, what you describe sounds more like GURPs than D&D.



This is a BS statement to make, and a toxic attitude. You need to stop telling people to "love it or leave it", especially people who like the game and are criticizing an aspect of it. Their place here isn't any less than yours. 



Charlaquin said:


> Because Mike Mearls said,
> 
> 
> To which, a few of us said, “Yeah, that makes sense. But a lot of players really like having a lot of mechanical options in a modular framework, and it seems like this:
> ...



I was more referring to the specific subset of the topic I was responding to in that section of text, but yeah, that too. Although, I think most folks just aren't willing to directly engage, for whatever reason, with the fact that you are just saying that it would be great to have the option to play a version of a class that makes some kind of choice at most or all levels. 
If we break every class into a Warlock style structure, with a combination of features to be chosen from that include passive features, feature upgrades, and new distinct abilities (spells, manuevers, etc), and a new choice made every few levels, on levels where you don't gain a feat, or a new subclass ability, or spell, so that most levels have a choice to be made, I imagine you'd be happy? 



Charlaquin said:


> There are very few options for fighters of any kind that do anything but hit people with a weapon. The Battlemaster is basically the only option, and he does one thing, which is roll an extra die and add the number rolled to something.
> 
> You absolutely are, although I would say that “wanting 5e to be more like 4e” is a gross oversimplification of my perspective. 4e had serious issues, but in my opinion, giving every character a choice of cool new feature to get every level was absolutely not one of them.




The Battlemaster has a suite of distinct powers. What are you talking about? Those powers are expressed in a way that fits the system, but they're not actually different from 4e powers, or spells. 



Hussar said:


> From a mechanical standpoint, it's hard to see how you could make 5e any more like 4e without it actually BEING 4e.  5e, mechanically, is very, very close to 4e.




The biggest feature of 4e, for a lot of us, is having a choice of a new ability or feature at most levels, and the meaningful difference in playstyle that came with different powers and feats. 

The level of customization, and the degree to which the customization changed gameplay without creature massive power creep, and with only a few examples of "broken" options, most of which were somewhat weak options that were still usable in a normal game, but unplayable in a heavily optimized game, was awesome. 

Seriously, I played a Cavalier next to a phb ranger with twin strike. We were about even, because it wasn't a CharOp cheese game. Even if the ranger had been heavily optimized, I would still be viable next to him, as long as I didn't ignore optimization, which is also true of options in 5e. Now, I wasn't playing a vampire or binder, to be fair, but the vast majority of options were somewhere between the Cav and the Ranger, and in normal games, the differences weren't really noticeable, even at the very end of the game's publication. 

It was an incredible wealth of distinct options, that meaningfully changed how a character played, such that  two dagger master rogues could be mechanically distinct in the way they play at the table, but the entire game didn't contain any power gap near as great as those found in previous editions of DnD.


----------



## cbwjm (Sep 27, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Smaller Feats received more often would be a good option. Skill points... I wouldn’t mind them, but they’re not the kind of thing I’m looking for. They only give a small numerical bonus, which is the least interesting kind of mechanical differentiation. Prestige classes or 4e style paragon/epic classes would be fine, but such things tend, like 5e subclasses, to be a single choice made only once. Not exactly the expansion of character variety I’m looking for, though neither would it be an unwelcome bit of player choice.
> 
> Ideally, I’d like something along the lines of 4e’s Powers, or Pathdinder’s variant Class Features (or Class Feats in PF2). What I want is for not every Fighter (or every Champion) to get the exact same abilities at the exact same levels as every other Fighter (or every other Champion.) I want a choice of what new ability I gain when I level up, not just one choice of what set of abilities I will get over the course of my character’s career, or a handful of choices of what numbers I want to be higher. I want different options for what I can use my action to do than every other character of the same class and subclass has. I want *customization* in a mechanical sense, not only in a roleplaying sense.
> 
> It’s all well and good to describe my attacks differently than Tommy describes his, but if we’re ultimately still rolling the same d20 to see if we can roll the same d8, with maybe slightly different modifiers, then I’m not really doing anything different. I’ve been accused in this thread of playing the same characters over and over with different mechanics, but to me if I don’t have different mechanics, I’m playing the same characters over and over with different descriptions. You need both. D&D is *both* roleplaying *and* game, and the false dichotomy that seems to exist between them in public perception only serves to harm a hobby that by definition is supposed to be both. Let me come up with fun and interesting characters to imagine myself as, and then give me the tools I need to express those characters through the game’s rules! Having either without the other just feels hollow to me.




I would quite like to see variant class features. Like something that could be taken in place of Second Wind for the fighter or Arcane Recovery for the wizard providing just that much more customisation. I'm all for homebrew and can create this stuff myself, but it would be nice to see what the D&D team would come up with for this.

Something I would have liked from the very start was for classes to all gain their subclass abilities at the same levels allowing for some subclasses to overlap or for a substitution subclass ability to be slotted in no matter which class wanted to take it (for instance, an ability that grants an animal companion that replaces a 3rd level subclass ability could be chosen by any class).


----------



## Eric V (Sep 27, 2018)

Sadras said:


> @_*Charlaquin*_ and @_*Eric V*_ I think another factor in this discussion and why there might be a divide is, frequency of play. The more frequently one plays, getting through the material and roleplaying various class, then the greater the likelihood one will be asking for something like an Advanced Player's Guide for more variation.




Yeah, that makes sense to me.


----------



## Fallstorm (Sep 27, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Conversely, as I agree we aren't privy to the internal workings at WotC, could it be possible they've in fact tried such an overlay internally and found that it does break the system?  If yes, that'd sure explain why it hasn't been released.




Well, you are correct we are not privy to what WOTC is doing behind the scenes .  So, it is possible that they have tried this but until they say so I am going to hold them to the idea that they promoted 5E and that was game that would have a core chassis as appealing to as many people as possible that captured the basic elements of D&D throughout the editions, but also a game that though modular expansions to the game would allow various groups to dial the game to their taste.  While the game like most editions of D&D has optional rule sidebars I really have not seen the modular expansion promised. At least not yet.



Lanefan said:


> I mostly haven't, and am glad of it.
> 
> Reason being is that the few CharOppers I've played with are the same people who get their knickers in knots when I or another player does something suboptimal or gonzo or silly just for fun; leading me to generalize that they tend to simply take the game far too seriously.




I can't say you are wrong as that is your experience.  My experience has been different.  In my experience bad players have 1) thankfully been few and far between and 2) when they have shown up have not been represented by any one playstyle.




Lanefan said:


> To clarify: when I asked how those players would do in a 1e game I didn't mean 1e back in 1983 when there wasn't much else, I meant if you were to switch to 1e today and dive right in.
> 
> How would they do in a system where character differences aren't relfected in the mechanics beyond the most coarse-grained of ways (e.g. differences in classes and races)?
> 
> Lan-"and now to find out why I've been mentioned so many times in here..."-efan




Good question.  Well, when we have done a throwback game a few years ago of 1E.  It was very short.  Each person played a far different class and it was done as a novelty so we didn't really worry about differentiating ourselves too much as the game was more or less a one-shot.   Also everyone was playing a different class in that one so the fact that it was not a long running campaign and we used different classes meant we weren't focused so much on mechanical differentiation.  We had an okay time playing this game but we all agreed that 3E (as that was the D&D system out at the time we tried  this) while we respected what 1E offered the game had advanced for a reason.  In fact, as much as I have fond memories of 2E and still own the books. I loved it for the time and reading the rules now I have no desire to play it.  The only retro D&D I play is PF/3.5 and 4E.  Without features like feats, trained skills, and so forth the game was just not as enjoyable for us.  

I would state again though that while we are all tactically minded CharOppers story and world development are equally valued by us. 3E a rules heavy system also gave us very memorable (in my opinion) campaigns we played through like Shackled City and my favorite The Age of Wyrms.  Those were crunch heavy campaigns that were well developed and rich in story and setting enough to satisfy both the CharOps people and the "Deep Role-play" people.  Would you not agree?  So again I don't think this should be a this OR that scenario but rather a this AND that scenario is all I am saying.


----------



## Manbearcat (Sep 27, 2018)

pemerton said:


> > Originally Posted by *TwoSix*
> >
> >
> > _I think it's probably more around "concept" than it is about "narrative". Not to trivialize other people's play agendas, but I think their focus is on demonstration of backstory, concept, and capabilities, not generation of plot.
> ...




Ah the last thread on these boards that I really invested any headspace and vigor too.  It was a good one as well, with a lot of diverse and interesting angles in conversation about game design generally and 5e resolution specifically.  Unfortunately, the crash killed it (and a long DW PBP thread I had) and sucked the last vestiges of interest I had in this forum.

However, I would be interested in your thoughts on this subject  [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] .  I think you participated in that old thread a fair bit.  How do you think your thoughts above interface with various GM approaches (earth-centric causal logic vs various types of genre emulation) to task resolution at the epic tier of play, particularly where martial characters are vying for relevance of (or at least the realization through play of their archetype) with spellcasters in non-combat conflict resolution.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 27, 2018)

Oofta said:


> @_*TwoSix*_, @_*Maxperson*_,
> Two observations.  First, I agree that not all build combinations would make sense.  But just taking sub classes times races, we get 2,960 (assuming I counted right) alternatives.  Even if 90% of those don't make sense for some reason, that leaves close to 300 options.  Heck, make it 99% and throw in a smidgeon of feat/build/multi-class choices (i.e. champion fighter with dex vs strength, sword and board vs great weapon) and I think there are more builds than I could ever personally play.




I found that having many feats made my ideas easier to carry out.  Could I make a bounty hunter with a ranger or fighter?  Sure.  It was a heck of a lot more fulfilling to have the bounty hunter prestige class, though.  Same with feats.  I could cludge feats that were kinda sorta what I was looking for into an idea, or with the extra feats put out I could grab one that matched exactly or nearly so.  

It has never been about playing every possible combination.  I'm never going to be able to play more than a small handful of my ideas in any edition of D&D, because I DM most of the time.  Even as a full time player it would only be a moderate handful.  However, the more options I have available, the more like I am to be able to create the concept I envision without having to force things or pick up things I really don't want for the character.



> Second is just a general observation that may or may not apply to any specific individual that posts here.  I played/judged a lot of living campaigns in 3.x and 4E.  In my experience with those campaigns and editions, most people that cared about optimization gravitated to a handful of builds.
> 
> In other words, to many people the multitude of options in previous editions was an illusion.
> 
> ...




I agree with this.  Many people like to optimize and you see the same spells, feats, classes, etc. over and over, and that's true with every edition so far.  People are people and you have a lot that like to optimize, and a lot that just don't care.  Where I don't agree with you, is in the options being an illusion.  A lot of us don't care about optimizing  Not that we don't do it if it fits the concept, but we will toss out optimal choices for sub-optimal(not bad) choices that fit the character concept we envision.  There was no illusion regarding the number of choices I had in 3e.  It was too many in my opinion, but 5e has too few in my opinion.


----------



## Hriston (Sep 27, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Look again at the contest section.  This quote makes it impossible for initiative to be a contest by RAW.  "Sometimes one character’s or monster’s efforts are *directly opposed *to another’s. This can occur when both of them are trying to do the same thing and *only one can succeed*."  There is no other way given for a contest to occur, and initiative isn't an ability check where only one can succeed, nor is it one where the efforts are directly opposed to another's.




That's funny because that's exactly what it seems like to me. All the participants in combat roll initiative because they're all trying to go before everyone else. The thing is it isn’t just one contest. Each participant in combat has a separate contest with each and every other participant in which each is trying to go before the other. The outcome of all of those contests is what establishes initiative order. The participant who wins all his/her contests goes first. The one who lost all his/her contests goes last.


----------



## robus (Sep 27, 2018)

Hriston said:


> That's funny because that's exactly what it seems like to me. All the participants in combat roll initiative because they're all trying to go before everyone else. The thing is it isn’t just one contest. Each participant in combat has a separate contest with each and every other participant in which each is trying to go before the other. The outcome of all of those contests is what establishes initiative order. The participant who wins all his/her contests goes first. The one who lost all his/her contests goes last.




But where is the opposition?


----------



## Hriston (Sep 27, 2018)

robus said:


> But where is the opposition?




If I’m trying to go before you, and you’re trying to go before me, then by trying to move more quickly than you I’m opposing your effort to go before me, and by trying to move more quickly than me you’re opposing my effort to go before you.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 27, 2018)

Hriston said:


> If I’m trying to go before you, and you’re trying to go before me, then by trying to move more quickly than you I’m opposing your effort to go before me, and by trying to move more quickly than me you’re opposing my effort to go before you.



Right, they both/all cannot go first. 

Tho more direct opposition, one trying to prevent the other is covered as another contest in the following sentdnces.

They pretty much set up two contests types - the sort of race where only one gets first and the trying to stop someone else.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 27, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Despite the discussion/debate regarding differing mechanics, I feel many of us do not place enough importance on backgrounds and personality characteristics which loses a major roleplaying aspect of the game and leaves us all to easily concentrating on mechanics.



I've noticed this about the mythological figures posts. I think I'm the only poster on those threads who suggests Bonds/Flaws/Ideals for those characters, which in my view are often more important to those mythological figures than their stats (eg whether Lancelot is a 10th or 18th or 20th level paladin seems like a matter of taste, depending on what sort of campaign one is trying to integrate him into; but that he has a massive flaw of Love for Guinevere seems undeniable, and depending whether you set his Loyalty to Arthur as an Ideal or a Bond you might get an interestingly different flavour).

I think there's a lack of symmetry here that can be interesting to think about: a NPC is, as a character, more likely to be defined by key personality traits or loyalties/goals/obligations - because the GM may shape action declarations and descriptions for that PC; whereas with a PC I think these are more apt to be emergent - even when using personality traits or relationships as part of the system, what these mean in any detail tends to emerge in play - and the _way_ they emerge in play is shaped by the action declarations of the player, which reflect their desires for how they want their PC's "story" to unfold.

Your ideas about using background descriptors as a form of resolution mechanic are interesting.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 27, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I was more referring to the specific subset of the topic I was responding to in that section of text, but yeah, that too. Although, I think most folks just aren't willing to directly engage, for whatever reason, with the fact that you are just saying that it would be great to have the option to play a version of a class that makes some kind of choice at most or all levels.
> If we break every class into a Warlock style structure, with a combination of features to be chosen from that include passive features, feature upgrades, and new distinct abilities (spells, manuevers, etc), and a new choice made every few levels, on levels where you don't gain a feat, or a new subclass ability, or spell, so that most levels have a choice to be made, I imagine you'd be happy?



Yes, absolutely! That is, in fact, the exact reason the Warlock is my favorite class this edition.



doctorbadwolf said:


> The Battlemaster has a suite of distinct powers. What are you talking about? Those powers are expressed in a way that fits the system, but they're not actually different from 4e powers, or spells.



You’re right, I undersold the Battlemaster there. What I was trying to get at was that all of the Battlemaster’s maneuvers hang on the same core mechanic of “spend a superiority die, roll the die, add the result to something, usually damage.” So they get a little one-note. But in general, it is the kind of thing I would like to see more of.


----------



## robus (Sep 27, 2018)

Hriston said:


> If I’m trying to go before you, and you’re trying to go before me, then by trying to move more quickly than you I’m opposing your effort to go before me, and by trying to move more quickly than me you’re opposing my effort to go before you.




I dunno, do we think of races as having opponents? Tennis? Sure. But the 100m? They’re competitors, but not opponents?


----------



## pemerton (Sep 27, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> as a *roleplaying game*, D&D should provide the opportunity for expression *both* through *roleplaying* and through *game* mechanics



I would go one step further, at least as far as personal preference is concerned: in a RPG these should be the same thing.



Charlaquin said:


> I just flat-out do not agree that which skills you have Proficiency in is a meaningful difference in the way a character plays. Ultimately it’s still just roll a d20, add some numbers, compare to a target result. Changing what numbers I add does not change the fundamental game mechanic.



We disagree a bit on this point, I think, at least in principle. I tend to prefer a game in which mechanical differences are expressed as modifications to the base action resolution system (eg bonuses to checks, perhaps allowing a check to do something it normally wouldn't permit eg affect supernatural as well as mortal beings). Complex rules changes located in individual packets (some 4e feats would fit this description; BW has a similar element in PC build, though often less dramatic in its scope) can more easily lead to breakage.

But bonuses can certainly distinguish between PCs, at least in my experience: a character becomes known for being the one who can do XYZ when others struggle with it. (I can see that d20 and bounded accuracy might blunt the force of this: I'm becoming an increasing fan of non-linear resolution systems, like Classic Traveller's 2d6 or dice pool systems; 4e approximates towards a non-linear system because of the multiple rolls required for both combat and sklll challenges, and because it has quite a bit of re-roll and similar player-side options.)

EDIT: I saw this, which is relevant to the previous couple of paragraphs of my post:



Charlaquin said:


> Sir Hits-Hard and Sir Turtle are doing the same thing as each other with different numbers and different descriptions. You may say Sir Hits-Hard uses a maul while Sir Turtle uses a longsword, but both are just using the Attack Action to see if they hit, and then rolling damage. It’s jusr that one might have slightly higher bonuses on his s Attack and damage rolls and the other might have a slightly higher AC. Not an interesting distinction. Sir Stabemlots at least gets to use a bonus action to make another attack, but he’s still just doing the same thing, with slightly lower numbers and slightly more often. Sir Shootemup is choosing to fight at a range instead of up close, but that’s nothing the other three couldn’t do if they wanted to.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Those 4 PCs are described differently and have slightly different numbers, but the mechanics they use are about the same.



When it comes to differences within combat, I agree that changing a bit of defence for a bit of offence, with little else different, isn't very interesting difference.

Whereas a high bonus in Intimidate compared to a high bonus in Diplomacy/Persuasion will (in my experience) produce differences in the play of the fiction, the different fight builds less so.

I'm not sure I agree that the ranged character doesn't mark a difference, as fighting with different positioning is a difference in the fiction and not just a difference in mechanical process used to generate the fiction. (From my 4e game, some interesting differences in weapony-fighting - in the sense of generating different fiction and not just different dice rolls to get to the same fiction - include close burst-er vs solo target lockdown specialist; archer vs melee; skirmisher vs stand-and-fighter).


----------



## pemerton (Sep 27, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Somewhat related question; would the release of an official book of new mechanical subsystems make those who prefer a simpler version of 5e like the edition less?



I think the answer to that question is "yes", at least for some players. 5e's design profile is part of its branding (at least to a modest but disproportinately signficant portion of the market).


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Sep 27, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I would go one step further, at least as far as personal preference is concerned: in a RPG these should be the same thing.




I can understand where you are coming from, but I don't agree.

There are plenty of places where roleplaying happens with no mechanical impact; interactions between characters as they get to know someone, dialog for a romantic scene with an npc that is done without dice rolls (just as a way to enjoy experiencing the conversation) as a couple of example. There are lots of situations where you just interact by roleplaying that have no stakes, and have no need for a mechanic widget tied to it.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 27, 2018)

Hussar said:


> there's no way to produce a book like this, which will increase options and increase character power, and still have them play well with other products like the AP's.  It cannot be done.



To be honest I think this is implausible.

Let's just take a simple example: splitting feats into two, and allowing a choice every 2nd level for a +1 ASI or "small" feat.

That will make some "advanced" PCs stronger than their non-advanced equivalents, partly because they have a two level head start for some power up, partially because they can synergise and optimise a bit better. But this is meant to be a system that can handle significant differences in degree of +1 weapons handed out, so how is what I've just described going to break it?

I'm sure if someone actually tackled this sort of project in a serious way, they could find more ways to ensure that complexification didn't produce an excess of breakification.

That said, I do agree they won't produce the book, but for branding/marketing reasons, not the design ones that you suggest.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 27, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I would go one step further, at least as far as personal preference is concerned: in a RPG these should be the same thing.



Sure, let’s go there. I would define roleplaying as imagining yourself as someone else and/or in a different situation, and making decisions as you think you or the imagined person would in the imagined situation. If you are saying that, in an RPG, the game mechanics and the roleplaying should be the same thing, then you are saying the game mechanics should be an expression of that decision making process. And I agree with that. That’s why I want mechanics that facilitate decision making, and to do that, they need to provide options.



pemerton said:


> We disagree a bit on this point, I think, at least in principle. I tend to prefer a game in which mechanical differences are expressed as modifications to the base action resolution system (eg bonuses to checks, perhaps allowing a check to do something it normally wouldn't permit eg affect supernatural as well as mortal beings).



Allowung you to do something you normally couldn’t with a check is what I would call a meaningful distinction. If gives you an option you would not otherwise have, rather than simply altering your chances of success at options you would still otherwise have. It changes _what_ you can do, and in that way it creates more opportunity for making decisions.



pemerton said:


> Complex rules changes located in individual packets (some 4e feats would fit this description; BW has a similar element in PC build, though often less dramatic in its scope) can more easily lead to breakage.



Ok.



pemerton said:


> But bonuses can certainly distinguish between PCs, at least in my experience: a character becomes known for being the one who can do XYZ when others struggle with it. (I can see that d20 and bounded accuracy might blunt the force of this: I'm becoming an increasing fan of non-linear resolution systems, like Classic Traveller's 2d6 or dice pool systems; 4e approximates towards a non-linear system because of the multiple rolls required for both combat and sklll challenges, and because it has quite a bit of re-roll and similar player-side options.)



They are not what I consider meaningful distinctions between characters. This is not something you are going to be able to change my mind about. If it doesn’t change what my character can do, then it’s not a meaningful distinction.



pemerton said:


> EDIT: I saw this, which is relevant to the previous couple of paragraphs of my post:
> 
> When it comes to differences within combat, I agree that changing a bit of defence for a bit of offence, with little else different, isn't very interesting difference.
> 
> Whereas a high bonus in Intimidate compared to a high bonus in Diplomacy/Persuasion will (in my experience) produce differences in the play of the fiction, the different fight builds less so.



I disagree that it is any different. The only difference that makes in likelihood of success at actions available to both characters. It does not change what options are available to either character, and therefore is not the sort of distinction that I find interesting.



pemerton said:


> I'm not sure I agree that the ranged character doesn't mark a difference, as fighting with different positioning is a difference in the fiction and not just a difference in mechanical process used to generate the fiction. (From my 4e game, some interesting differences in weapony-fighting - in the sense of generating different fiction and not just different dice rolls to get to the same fiction - include close burst-er vs solo target lockdown specialist; archer vs melee; skirmisher vs stand-and-fighter).



Ranged combat is meaningfully different than melee combat. A Fighter who puts their ability points into Dexterity and uses a bow is not meaningfully different than a fighter who puts their ability points into Strength and mostly uses a sword. Because those characters have the same options available to them. Either can use a sword or a bow, and the only difference will be their likelihood of hitting and expected damage. I don’t consider different numbers an interesting difference. Now, if the ranged fighter had a special technique they could use with the bow that the melee fighter could not, that would be a meaningful difference to me. Different available options means a different decision making process, i.e. different roleplaying considerations.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 27, 2018)

Lord Mhoram said:


> I can understand where you are coming from, but I don't agree.
> 
> There are plenty of places where roleplaying happens with no mechanical impact; interactions between characters as they get to know someone, dialog for a romantic scene with an npc that is done without dice rolls (just as a way to enjoy experiencing the conversation) as a couple of example. There are lots of situations where you just interact by roleplaying that have no stakes, and have no need for a mechanic widget tied to it.



I think I might already have quoted Chrisotpher Kubasik's Interactive Toolkit in this thread, but I'll do so again, because it expresses where I'm coming from fairly well:

The tales of a story entertainment [his term for a RPG] are based not on the success of actions, but on the choice of actions; not the manipulation of rules, but the manipulation of narrative tools.

The primary tool is Character. Characters drive the narrative of all stories. However, many people mistake _character _for _characterization_.

Characterization is the look of a character, the description of his voice, the quirks of habit. Characterization creates the concrete detail of a character through the use of sensory detail and exposition. By "seeing" how a character looks, how he picks up his wine glass, by knowing he has a love of fine tobacco, the character becomes concrete to our imagination, even while remaining nothing more than black ink upon a white page.

But a person thus described is not a character. A character must do.

Character is action.​
I would depart from his contrast between "rules" and "narrative tools" - "narrative tools" are a form of RPG mechanic, though they may not always take the more-or-less-sim form that Kubasik has in mind in dismissing "rules". But the idea that the character reveals him-/herself through action - which in a RPG means action declaration - is something I agree with.

I would generally not expect to spend time at the RPG table listening to conversation for the sake of it. Even experienced fiction authors and film makers don't always pull this off, and no one at my table fits those descriptions! If a PC was getting to know someone by way of romantic dialogue, I would expect a reasonably brief description of what the conversation or flirting or whatever consists in, and would then resolve the situation (perhaps "say 'yes'", or alternatively calling for a check to see how the NPC responds).

Two concrete examples that illustrate how I would normally expect this to be handled: in one of my RM campaigns, the PCs rescued a NPC sorcerer from captivity by a demon. One of the PCs wanted to woo this rescued person. He already had Amiability developed to a reasonable degree, but was worried about them becoming "just friends", and so developed Seduction skill - the nearest skill on the skill list we were using to a wooing skill. The actual resolution I think mostly took the form of "saying 'yes"' - it's 10+ years ago now and so details are hazy in my memory - given that it made sense for what the character was attempting and how things were unfolding. The wooing was not played out in much detail, but what was important was that they were able to found a dynasty that was to be responsible for guarding a gate against otherworldly intrusion - this was narrated as part of the endgame, but consolidated a campaign-long established contrast between this PC and his cousin, who was more valiant and capable in immediate action, but had less of a long term stalwart character to him.

A recent example is in my Prince Valiant game, where two PCs are competing for the attention and affection of Violette, the daughter of a noblewoman whom they helped avoid (what would have been) an unhappy forced marriage following the death of her husband (Violette's father). In this context, I've taken it for granted that Violette might be attracted to either, and have been framing mostly as competitions between the two PCs (which so far have all been tied, indicating that Violette has declined to make a choice, and that neither PC has agreed to yield to the other). But one PC (played by the same player as in the previous anecdote) just developed Courtesie skill to give him a better chance at wooing Violette - it hasn't yet come into play, though, as they are out on deeds of errantry.

Those are examples within the context of PC/NPC romance where I see mechanics and RP as the same thing.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 27, 2018)

Lord Mhoram said:


> I can understand where you are coming from, but I don't agree.
> 
> There are plenty of places where roleplaying happens with no mechanical impact; interactions between characters as they get to know someone, dialog for a romantic scene with an npc that is done without dice rolls (just as a way to enjoy experiencing the conversation) as a couple of example. There are lots of situations where you just interact by roleplaying that have no stakes, and have no need for a mechanic widget tied to it.



In D&D 5th Edition, however, that is still interacting with the game’s mechanics. The core mechanic of 5e is that the player describes what their character does, the DM determines the results of the described action, possibly calling for dice to be rolled to resolve any uncertainty in the outcome, and then describes the results. Even if the DM determines that a dice roll is not necessary to determine the results, describing what you do and having the DM describe the results is still interacting with D&D 5e’s core mechanic.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 27, 2018)

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] fascinating stuff, for sure. 

I dont enjoy skipping past the “playing out” of scenes, so much, for anything that’s going to have any narrative weight. 

A lot of the best moments I’ve had in TTRPGS was roleplaying those scenes out, inhabiting the character. 

By those scenes, I mean ones that can b resolved in character, without dice rolling. Seduction gets a fade to black resolution.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 27, 2018)

[MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION], I think differences can be meaningful but still expressed in the numerical terms you are less happy with.

For instance, in my 4e game some PCs have +15 or so in their knowledge skills while the invoker/wizard/divine philosopher/sage of ages has around +40 or so. These characters play differently, even though they can both attempt the same stuff. Likewise the invoker sometimes finds himself making melee attacks (once every few levels) and has even hit once or twice, but plays quite differently from the melee specialists.

In Classic Traveller it's a bit different, because some skills are (to use D&D terminology) "trained only" - a person with no Engineering or Pilot expertise can't fill those roles on a starship, for instance. But even where skills aren't trained only, the difference between the ex-marine withe Cutlass-4 (+4 on a 2d6 check) and the playboy with Gambling-2 but no fighting skills comes through fairly clearly.

In our Prince Valiant game the knights with Brawn 4 and Arms 3 or 4 play differently from the squire with Brawn 3 and Arms 1 (recently upgraded to 2). The squire has better Presence and social skills which also reveal themselves in play.

I could also give examples from Burning Wheel.

Is your opinion and experience influenced by 5e's "bounded accuracy" making the impact of different bonuses less significant to the outcomes in play?


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Sep 27, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Characterization is the look of a character, the description of his voice, the quirks of habit. Characterization creates the concrete detail of a character through the use of sensory detail and exposition. By "seeing" how a character looks, how he picks up his wine glass, by knowing he has a love of fine tobacco, the character becomes concrete to our imagination, even while remaining nothing more than black ink upon a white page.
> 
> But a person thus described is not a character. A character must do.




Again, I see where you are coming from, and I disagree. 

One of my main reasons for playing RPGs, is the roleplaying itself. Deep immersion, in becoming the character, feeling what the character would feel, being what the character is. That can be achieved with nothing but dialog and emotion, and that is the single thing that differentiates Roleplaying games from any other game, to me. I'll admit that happens much more often in solo games than group games, but it comes up in group games too.

But that is straying, almost in the opposite direction of a discussion of mechanics, which is the opposite of what the thread is about.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Sep 27, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> In D&D 5th Edition, however, that is still interacting with the game’s mechanics. The core mechanic of 5e is that the player describes what their character does, the DM determines the results of the described action, possibly calling for dice to be rolled to resolve any uncertainty in the outcome, and then describes the results. Even if the DM determines that a dice roll is not necessary to determine the results, describing what you do and having the DM describe the results is still interacting with D&D 5e’s core mechanic.




Well stated. I stand corrected.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 27, 2018)

Eric V said:


> Yeah, I'm sure sometimes that's true.  I agree.
> 
> Not when I look at the Sorcerer, though (just as an example).  That _really _seems mailed-in to me.  I respect that you might see that differently, even if I'm not sure how.  I don't remember it from the playtest packets, to be honest.




I think the sorcerer could need a little overhaul. As do most classes. But that is not the point. We had a very successful sorcerer in the group and the design has valies in a game without feats especially that are easy to overlook.
That said, inspired by a different thread I just want to ask you a question.
Do you have board games? Do you have kids or a job?
When I was studiying I really loved complex games and those were in at the time of the early 2000s. Game of thrones board game comes to my mind, arkham horror.
Problem today: it takes hours to even explain the game to bew players. I and players I met even after playing the game several times we noticed that we interpreted the rules wrong... after years...
Now that I have even less time to play a game that takes hours repeatedly and have no time to explain a game for hours when we only have 3 hours to play at most, I really appreciate games with less rules but still great design. That is as much value as it can be for me. 
One example of a game which you could call lazy design might be chess. It is very rules light and still a game that is really hard to master and has nearly unlimited replay value and even tournaments. Not my game for a game day but a good example. Rules light is a feature that in no way reduces value at the table. Your options are unlimited. As long as the game is quite balanced and well designed you can have fun with rules light. Maybe more because you don't have to look up rules mid game (I look at you arkham horror).
What you lose compared to 3.5 or 4e is the character building minigame. That is a loss but a price I am more than willing to pay. But actually I still do play it with 5e... so no loss at all for me.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 27, 2018)

pemerton said:


> @_*Charlaquin*_, I think differences can be meaningful but still expressed in the numerical terms you are less happy with.
> 
> For instance, in my 4e game some PCs have +15 or so in their knowledge skills while the invoker/wizard/divine philosopher/sage of ages has around +40 or so. These characters play differently, even though they can both attempt the same stuff. Likewise the invoker sometimes finds himself making melee attacks (once every few levels) and has even hit once or twice, but plays quite differently from the melee specialists.
> 
> ...



I see what you’re saying. It’s not that I don’t think having different bonuses can lead to those characters being played differently. It’s more that I don’t find such differences to be as interesting as characters who have different options available to them. Sure, if your character routinely succeeds at a task my character has little to no hope of succeeding at, we’re going to play differently. But that’s not the sort of difference I want out of character building. I want my character to be able to do things other characters just can’t. I want other characters to be able to do things my character can’t. And I want to make lots of decisions about what I want my character to be able to do that others can’t.



pemerton said:


> Is your opinion and experience influenced by 5e's "bounded accuracy" making the impact of different bonuses less significant to the outcomes in play?



I don’t know, maybe? Hard to say for sure. I do know that I like that Bounded Accuracy takes the onus off of statistical modifiers to differentiate characters from another. I just wish that 5e would embrace that and provide more mechanical distinction beyond +1 to this and +2 to that and advantage on these kinds of rolls. Give me more special options for what I can do with my character, not more numbers to make my character better at some of the things she can do.


----------



## Shasarak (Sep 27, 2018)

Ah, that Mike Mearls is a cheeky little monkey.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 27, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Give me more special options for what I can do with my character, not more numbers to make my character better at some of the things she can do.



At the risk of using inciting language, would generalising capabilities that are (in the 5e context) primary located in the spell/magic systems be something like what you've got in mind?


----------



## pemerton (Sep 27, 2018)

Lord Mhoram said:


> But that is straying, almost in the opposite direction of a discussion of mechanics, which is the opposite of what the thread is about.



Not at all! Isn't this thread about play experience?



Lord Mhoram said:


> One of my main reasons for playing RPGs, is the roleplaying itself. Deep immersion, in becoming the character, feeling what the character would feel, being what the character is. That can be achieved with nothing but dialog and emotion



I prefer to get that experience by engaging the situation, and having feelings about the outcome that mirror those being felt by the character. So if my PC would be anxious or uncertain, I want to have that same experience; if my PC would feel the pull of loyalty, then I want the mechanics to make me feel the same thing.

Some games are more light-hearted than others in these respects: of systems I play/GM, I would say Prince Valiant and Marvel Heroic/Cortex+ Heroic are at the lighthearted end; 4e and Classic Traveller are intermediate; and Burning Wheel is intense sometimes to the point of being hard to take.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 27, 2018)

pemerton said:


> At the risk of using inciting language, would generalising capabilities that are (in the 5e context) primary located in the spell/magic systems be something like what you've got in mind?




I'm not @_*Charlaquin*_, but in a manner yes.
 Judging on what he/she had said, I think it is about additional meaningful choice points which have the ability to differentiate characters of the same class and subclass even more than what you can already do with backgrounds, feats, personality characteristics and skills.

Example:

1. As a human variant allowing him to swap out the feat & skill combo for an additional background instead.

_The additional background might reflect on the character's age or that the character moves around a lot and has obtained experience in various lines of work.
_
2. As a fighter he could select Battle Awareness as opposed to Second Wind.

_*Battle Awareness:* As long as the character is not surprised, the character may move up or down the initiative order by 5 after initiative is rolled. Character is still limited to acting once per turn. Rechargeable after a long or short rest.
_
3. As a Champion, he might drop Improved Critical for Flare of the Champion 

_*Flare of the Champion:* Provides the character with an additional interaction with objects around him/her per each of his/her attacks. 
_


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 27, 2018)

Hriston said:


> That's funny because that's exactly what it seems like to me. All the participants in combat roll initiative because they're all trying to go before everyone else.



Are they?

Sometimes not acting first can be advantageous - you can see what the foes are doing and react with intention, rather than having to guess.

The initiative rolls are simply to sort out what happens when, and to ensure that each participant (including the foes) gets a chance to do something each round should they so desire.



			
				Charlaquin said:
			
		

> Sure, let’s go there. I would define roleplaying as imagining yourself as someone else and/or in a different situation, and making decisions as you think you or the imagined person would in the imagined situation. [***] If you are saying that, in an RPG, the game mechanics and the roleplaying should be the same thing, then you are saying the game mechanics should be an expression of that decision making process. And I agree with that. That’s why I want mechanics that facilitate decision making, and to do that, they need to provide options.



I agree with you up to where I inserted the '***'.  But after that I'd say that the game mechanics should as far as possible stay out of the way of making those decisions, inserting themselves only when needed to resolve a doubtful outcome or to enforce a game rule.  Why?  Because if-when the mechanics insert themselves into the decision-making process any more than that they cannot help but move that process away from simply deciding based on what the character would naturally do and toward deciding based on what the mechanics expect it or want it to do.

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Sep 27, 2018)

Ok, I've been dancing around this, but, here's my reason why you folks that want greater mechanical complexity in 5e will not see it from WotC:

Time.

That's it in a nutshell.  Xanathar's took what, about a year of playtest material?  More?  I think there were UA articles being chucked out, and on a weekly basis for a while there, for more than a year to make Xanathars.  And Xanathars isn't really adding any complexity to the game.  Sure, a bunch of sub-classes and a handful of spells, but, really, that's about it.  Some expansion on downtime activities.  No new subsystems, no psionics or artificers or any new mechanics at all, AFAIK.  

Over a year for WotC to produce that.

Now, you folks want an "Advanced PHB".  How much lead in time do you think they'd have to spend to make a book, say a couple of hundred pages long, with the changes that you folks claim to want?  We're talking major rewrites to fundamental systems - new feat systems, new class systems, new resolution systems.  If something as pretty minor as far as rules changes go like Xanathar's takes the better part of two years to get out the door, something like what you want is probably going to take double that.  

And that's IF you can actually work the kinks out of it.

Do you honestly think that WotC is going to spend 3-4 years developing a book for D&D that only a minority of gamers actually claim to want?  Seriously?

Look, I get wanting new options.  But, given how WotC approaches books now, it's just not going to happen.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 27, 2018)

Besides the obvious mechanics, Xanathars introduced additional character moulding points for roleplaying which can be stitched into ways to earn inspiration or incur disadvantage on checks similar to personality characteristics. These additional roleplaying aspects may further define and differentiate characters of the same class and/or subclass.
It really is good stuff.

i.e. the Barbarian for instance has tattoos, superstitions and personal totems; 
the Bard has embarrassments, defining work, instrument, and their muse...etc


----------



## pemerton (Sep 27, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> when the mechanics insert themselves into the decision-making process any more than that they cannot help but move that process away from simply deciding based on what the character would naturally do and toward deciding based on what the mechanics expect it or want it to do.



Why would those two things - what the PC would naturally do, and what the mechanics expect it or want it to do, be different? In my view the better designed the game, the closer these will align.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 27, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Why would those two things - what the PC would naturally do, and what the mechanics expect it or want it to do, be different? In my view the better designed the game, the closer these will align.




Well, in grid-combat flanking provides bonuses or advantage depending on the system, enough so to make characters take non-realistic routes to enter combat and assist their allies who have already engaged in the combat. It becomes very gamist (i.e. not necessarily natural) because of mechanics.

And that is just one example, there are so many more where _natural_ character tendencies are stamped out by mechanics. And this is understandable given that it is a game, where natural choices have a tendency to become increasingly less the more game-y the rpg becomes.

EDIT: I first notice this strong gamist tendency with 4e, it certainly existed in the previous editions, but the grid combat was forced during 4e play and that is where it became all too obvious for me how the roleplaying (at least in combat) had taken on a much more gamist avenue.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 27, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> First, yes, they feel different. Fighters and Paladins are very different, and a Fighter/Cleric would also be very different from a Paladin. There are at least three ways to make some kind of assassin (not hit man. "Guy hired to kill people" isnt what assassin means, archetypally). You've got Shadow Monk, any Rogue (most are just better than assassin, TBH, but if you want to infiltrate socially Assassin rogue is good), Gloom Stalker Ranger, and you can build a Warlock or Bard pretty easily to be an assassin. Even if we break that down to "stealth focused, quick, agile, assassin, that is specialized in coming from nowhere to gank fools and then disappear", we've got rogue, shadow monk, and gloom stalker. The three play completely differently.




Just as an addition to this.  I often went with a class/wizard or sorcerer when making an assassin.  A sprinkling of spells like invisibility, knock and a few other spells to aid an assassin made for a fine assassin.  I haven't tried it yet in 5e, but I don't see where it wouldn't work well in this edition.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 27, 2018)

Hriston said:


> That's funny because that's exactly what it seems like to me. All the participants in combat roll initiative because they're all trying to go before everyone else. The thing is it isn’t just one contest. Each participant in combat has a separate contest with each and every other participant in which each is trying to go before the other. The outcome of all of those contests is what establishes initiative order. The participant who wins all his/her contests goes first. The one who lost all his/her contests goes last.




Again.  It's a "contest", but not a CONTEST.  The rules spell out what a contest is with regard to ability checks, and it isn't a situation where people are jockying for a place in order.  It's a directly opposed check where you have one winner and one or more losers that fail completely at the attempt.  For initiative to go from "contest" to CONTEST, it would have to allow only the highest person to act, and everyone else doesn't get to go.  You may not agree with that, but that is what RAW says and gives for examples.  When you have 10 people all vying to act in a round and all 10 get to go, they all SUCCEEDED, which contradicts the CONTEST rule that only one can succeed.  It doesn't matter if that success came after another person's success, it's still a success.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 27, 2018)

pemerton said:


> At the risk of using inciting language, would generalising capabilities that are (in the 5e context) primary located in the spell/magic systems be something like what you've got in mind?



Sure, if I’m understanding the question correctly, that would be one way to accomplish what I’m talking about.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 27, 2018)

Manbearcat said:


> Ah the last thread on these boards that I really invested any headspace and vigor too.  It was a good one as well, with a lot of diverse and interesting angles in conversation about game design generally and 5e resolution specifically.  Unfortunately, the crash killed it (and a long DW PBP thread I had) and sucked the last vestiges of interest I had in this forum.
> 
> However, I would be interested in your thoughts on this subject  [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] .  I think you participated in that old thread a fair bit.  How do you think your thoughts above interface with various GM approaches (earth-centric causal logic vs various types of genre emulation) to task resolution at the epic tier of play, particularly where martial characters are vying for relevance of (or at least the realization through play of their archetype) with spellcasters in non-combat conflict resolution.



I'd observe that the dictates of traditional "immersive" storyline play (self-imposed by practice and tradition, usually, but dictates nonetheless) push strongly against any narrative use of capabilities outside those granted specifically by the game's mechanics.  

In the immersive game, the spellcaster is already granted, within the fiction, the knowledge that with the expenditure of some time and resources that she can reliably generate a supernatural effect.  Indeed, to not use a relatively trivial resource that the character has spent in-character years learning to harness would be a violation of that immersion!  

The non-spellcaster is granted no such surety of supernatural capability in his immersion.  The critical aspect of a character imposing a non-resource gated narrative onto the fiction is the imposition of risk, such that the non-gated narrative cannot be attempted over and over again.  (This is the "why can't I just trip someone over and over again" problem, slightly restated).  Additionally, to the immersionist, the nonspellcaster may have no rationale to assume that any awe-inspiring feat is actually within his grasp, until (DM driven) events conspire to allow the demonstration.  Maybe the nonspellcaster can lift up a castle gate with a DC 30 Athletics check, but until he needs to escape an onrushing army, there's no particular need to try.

I'd also argue that even the tropes presented in the original games push towards a "spellcaster is active, nonspellcaster is passive" paradigm.  I'll reference 2e here, since I know it better than 1e or OD&D.  At high levels, spellcasters gain abilities that require active events in the narrative to occur.  A wizard CAN attempt spell research to broaden their capabilities.  A wizard CAN attempt to enchant a new magic item.  Heck, the 2e DMG rules on how a spellcaster can make a magic item are almost strikingly modern.  The wizard sets a goal of "making magic item X", and the DM and player have a negotiation on what narrative steps must occur in order for that item to be made.  (Granted, there's still a lot of random rolls and DM has overall final say, but hey, 1989!)  

Contrast that with the fighter, for whom an army just kind of shows up if he has a castle.  The army, at least, gives the nonspellcaster some broader control over a larger narrative, but it still functions at mostly cross purposes with a game whose fundamental drive is to challenge larger and larger supernatural threats.

CC: [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]


----------



## Hriston (Sep 27, 2018)

robus said:


> I dunno, do we think of races as having opponents? Tennis? Sure. But the 100m? They’re competitors, but not opponents?




Yes, we do. Here's an example of such usage from the Wikipedia article about the board game _Hare and __Tortoise. _Notice that it uses the word _opponent_ when speaking about characters in a German fable, not about opponents in the game itself:
In Germany, there is another fable by a similar name, Hase und Igel (Hare and hedgehog), made popular by the Brothers Grimm, in which the hedgehog wins because his wife is at the finish line, and the hare mistakes her for his race opponent.​
"Hare's race opponent" has also been seen as a crossword clue, for which the answer of course is _tortoise._

Here's a quote from an article titled "10 Racing Strategies to Run Your Best" from active.com:
If there is a specific opponent you want to beat, learn his racing strengths and weaknesses.​
Someone asked the question on quora.com, "How can I beat my opponent mentally in a running race?"

Clearly, it's common usage to identify contestants in a race as opponents.



Lanefan said:


> Are they?




Yes, all the participants are trying to perform the actions and movement of their turns as soon as possible. That's why it's a DEX check. It's about moving quickly. 



Lanefan said:


> Sometimes not acting first can be advantageous - you can see what the foes are doing and react with intention, rather than having to guess.




In D&D, 5th Ed., that's called taking the Ready action. You still want to take that action first so the opportunity you're waiting for doesn't pass you by.



Lanefan said:


> The initiative rolls are simply to sort out what happens when, and to ensure that each participant (including the foes) gets a chance to do something each round should they so desire.




I might accept this if initiative was decided by a random roll, but it isn't. It's a DEX check, so it represents an effort to move and act quickly.



Maxperson said:


> Again.  It's a "contest", but not a CONTEST.  The rules spell out what a contest is with regard to ability checks, and it isn't a situation where people are jockying for a place in order.  It's a directly opposed check where you have one winner and one or more losers that fail completely at the attempt.  For initiative to go from "contest" to CONTEST, it would have to allow only the highest person to act, and everyone else doesn't get to go.  You may not agree with that, but that is what RAW says and gives for examples.  When you have 10 people all vying to act in a round and all 10 get to go, they all SUCCEEDED, which contradicts the CONTEST rule that only one can succeed.  It doesn't matter if that success came after another person's success, it's still a success.




You're ignoring that I said an initiative roll can be many contests. If there are only two participants in combat, there's just one contest. But if there are ten participants, there are 45 separate contests all happening simultaneously. The outcome of each contest determines which of the two involved participants goes before the other. The other participant fails to go before his/her opponent. To reiterate what I'm saying here, the participants are not contesting with each other for the ability to act. They are contesting with each other for the ability to act before the other participants when considered one at a time.

I know that Jeremy Crawford answered that initiative is not a contest, but keep in mind that it's much easier for him and the rulebooks to treat it as a special case than to explain it the way I have, especially considering his answer has to fit in a tweet.


----------



## Shardstone (Sep 27, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Ok, I've been dancing around this, but, here's my reason why you folks that want greater mechanical complexity in 5e will not see it from WotC:
> 
> Time.
> 
> ...




It's telling that everyone ignores this absolutely true post to keep arguing about minutia.


----------



## mortwatcher (Sep 27, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Well, in grid-combat flanking provides bonuses or advantage depending on the system, enough so to make characters take non-realistic routes to enter combat and assist their allies who have already engaged in the combat. It becomes very gamist (i.e. not necessarily natural) because of mechanics.
> 
> And that is just one example, there are so many more where _natural_ character tendencies are stamped out by mechanics. And this is understandable given that it is a game, where natural choices have a tendency to become increasingly less the more game-y the rpg becomes.
> 
> EDIT: I first notice this strong gamist tendency with 4e, it certainly existed in the previous editions, but the grid combat was forced during 4e play and that is where it became all too obvious for me how the roleplaying (at least in combat) had taken on a much more gamist avenue.




See, for me flanking not giving a combat advantage feels unnatural, since defending against 2 opponents from opposite sides would be really hard and should be accounted for somehow.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 27, 2018)

mortwatcher said:


> See, for me flanking not giving a combat advantage feels unnatural, since defending against 2 opponents from opposite sides would be really hard and should be accounted for somehow.




I believe you're misunderstanding me. I have no issue with advantage being offered as a reward for flanking. That is natural.

My issue is instead of characters running straight to the target to help out their buddy as fast as they can - which is the natural course of action, they take the scenic route whether to avoid AoO or otherwise (depending on the system) to gain the advantage. Mechanics trump natural course of action.

And it happens all the time.


----------



## robus (Sep 27, 2018)

Hriston said:


> Yes, we do. Here's an example of such usage from the Wikipedia article about the board game _Hare and __Tortoise. _Notice that it uses the word _opponent_ when speaking about characters in a German fable, not about opponents in the game itself:
> In Germany, there is another fable by a similar name, Hase und Igel (Hare and hedgehog), made popular by the Brothers Grimm, in which the hedgehog wins because his wife is at the finish line, and the hare mistakes her for his race opponent.​
> "Hare's race opponent" has also been seen as a crossword clue, for which the answer of course is _tortoise._
> 
> ...




That seems a bit of a stretch and I can also find online sources to support my position too 

In fact I found a very useful definition of the difference between opponent and competitor: An opponent is someone you are trying to defeat, a competitor is someone you are trying to best. The latter description much better describes the initiative roll situation. You are not only rolling against enemies, but also allies.

Are you suggesting that the Rogue in the party is trying to defeat (oppose) the Ranger in the party?

This seemed particularly relevant: https://engineeredathletes.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/competitor-or-opponent/

But I'm not going to push it more than that.  I'm just not seeing the opposition inherent in the initiative roll.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 27, 2018)

mortwatcher said:


> See, for me flanking not giving a combat advantage feels unnatural, since defending against 2 opponents from opposite sides would be really hard and should be accounted for somehow.




Why limit it to being on opposite sides? Why not account for the actual sides a shield could cover like in 1e? Why not have the level advantage vary by the degrees of separation between the multiple opponents a combatant may be defending against?

And the answer is - the game's fairly abstract and there's a limited degree of simulation that can exist before the game becomes bogged down in minutiae too difficult to deal with. But every abstraction still has the potential to derange the simulation. How many characters took really weird approaches to combats in 3e/PF to avoid the Attacks of Opportunity for moving through an opponent's reach? How many made strange shifts just to avoid being in an exactly flanking position when, realistically speaking, a pretty wide separation probably should still have hampered their defense?

Part of the art of game design is choosing the balance point between the need to be abstract to promote playability and keep an eye to simulation so that the action is believable from a realism perspective, or reality filtered through a genre-appropriate lens as the situation warrants.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 27, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Do you honestly think that WotC is going to spend 3-4 years developing a book for D&D that only a minority of gamers actually claim to want?  Seriously?
> 
> Look, I get wanting new options.  But, given how WotC approaches books now, it's just not going to happen.



I know it probably isn't going to happen.  That's OK.  I don't need new official material to enjoy my games, they're all going just fine.  

But what does it benefit me to not voice my opinion on the matter?  Especially in a thread specifically about WotC's design goals?  Voicing my opinion here does absolutely nothing except give me a little feeling of solidarity with some of my fellow posters, and honestly, that's enough.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 27, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Sure, if I’m understanding the question correctly, that would be one way to accomplish what I’m talking about.




So similar to powers from 4E?  

All I can say is that I would not want that.  I like my mundane fighter being a mundane fighter.  If I want to keep track of resources (other than second wind) and what my fighter can do then they don't feel very mundane any more.  They become just one more variant of a Vancian spell caster with a different label.  We already have options for that in the battle master, eldritch knight or other classes.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Sep 27, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I prefer to get that experience by engaging the situation, and having feelings about the outcome that mirror those being felt by the character. So if my PC would be anxious or uncertain, I want to have that same experience; if my PC would feel the pull of loyalty, then I want the mechanics to make me feel the same thing.




I can see that. I've found over the decades that personality mechanics get in the way of the connection. If the mechanics are mirroring a physical action - a die roll = picking a lock - then I'm ok. But when the mechanics start influencing how the character would feel, then it isn't coming from me, but from the system, and that kills immersion for me.


----------



## Hriston (Sep 27, 2018)

robus said:


> That seems a bit of a stretch and I can also find online sources to support my position too
> 
> In fact I found a very useful definition of the difference between opponent and competitor: An opponent is someone you are trying to defeat, a competitor is someone you are trying to best. The latter description much better describes the initiative roll situation. You are not only rolling against enemies, but also allies.
> 
> ...




And I'm not seeing combat as a friendly competition. 

To jump off from your preference for the word _competitor_, however, I thought it would be instructive to look up the definition of _contestant.

_con·test·ant
/kənˈtestənt/
noun
a person who takes part in a *contest* or competition.​
And here's a standard definition of _competitor_:

com·pet·i·tor​/kəmˈpedədər/​noun​a person who takes part in an athletic *contest*.​

And here's one for _opponent_:

op·po·nent​/əˈpōnənt/​noun​noun: opponent; plural noun: opponents​someone who competes against or fights another in a *contest*, game, or argument; a rival or adversary.​
So no matter which word you use for the participants in a combat, they all seem to get involved in contests of one sort or another.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 27, 2018)

Oofta said:


> So similar to powers from 4E?
> 
> All I can say is that I would not want that.  I like my mundane fighter being a mundane fighter.  If I want to keep track of resources (other than second wind) and what my fighter can do then they don't feel very mundane any more.  They become just one more variant of a Vancian spell caster with a different label.  We already have options for that in the battle master, eldritch knight or other classes.



That’s fine. Not everyone’s tastes are the same, and I would hope there would be options for both a mundane fighter and a fighter that plays with special techniques.

To clarify though, I’m not a fan of arbitrarily limited resources. I don’t want my fighter to have a special technique that he can only use once per day simply because the rules say he can only use it once per day. I think the Berserker Barbarian’s Frenzy is a good model of how I like my martial techniques. He has a special move only he can do (spending a bonus action to enter a special mode where he gains damage resistance and an extra attack), and it’s limited not by how many times per day the rules say he can use it, but by how many levels of exhaustion he’s willing to take. Another good example is Pathfinder 2nd edition’s shield block mechanic. In PF2, any character who is proficient with a shield and uses one of their actions to raise it can use a reaction to a successful hit against them to reduce the damage, but the shield takes damage instead, potentially breaking it. Fixing the damage takes enough time that it’s not practical to do in combat, but is fast enough you can probably have it ready for the next combat. So, in effect, characters who use shields gain an encounter power, but unlike 4e encounter powers, there is an in-fiction reason for the limit on frequency, instead of an arbitrary limit.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 27, 2018)

Eric V said:


> But...I mean,...isn't that what the free, basic rules really amounts to?



No.

My idea of an advanced players handbook with a lot less mechanical bits would be a reflection of [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION]'s with lots more. It's not really about sheer number of choices of character building option, but the number of choice points.

I'm talking about a version of D&D where I choose my race and class, gain a couple features at 1st level and then never have to make another character building choice again. The Basic rules don't give me that. Even with the champion, I have ASIs to allocate, for example, and all the classes still gain too many features overall.

In a nutshell, I want more classes to choose from than the Basic Rules give, but I want each of those classes to have fewer features than the PH gives them.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 27, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> No.
> 
> My idea of an advanced players handbook with a lot less mechanical bits would be a reflection of [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION]'s with lots more. It's not really about sheer number of choices of character building option, but the number of choice points.
> 
> ...



I could get behind that.  A book of prebuilt classes, with all the subclass features and ASI slots filled in already.  Automatic spell choices filled in, as well.  (Maybe an optional rule to allow you to customize the spells if you wanted.)  

It would also be a great way to experiment with some new concepts, since you can bake them into one specific class without having to worry about how they synergize with regular PHB material.  There's no need for a requirement that these classes are created as an exact subset of possible PHB builds, after all.  You could introduce new abilities to fill in the ASI slots instead of just a +2 to a stat.  Or mix and match subclass abilities to fit into the subclass slots.

Plus, without a menu of options, you could probably fit a class onto 2 pages.  So plenty of room for lots of concepts.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 27, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I could get behind that.  A book of prebuilt classes, with all the subclass features and ASI slots filled in already.  Automatic spell choices filled in, as well.  (Maybe an optional rule to allow you to customize the spells if you wanted.)
> 
> It would also be a great way to experiment with some new concepts, since you can bake them into one specific class without having to worry about how they synergize with regular PHB material.  There's no need for a requirement that these classes are created as an exact subset of possible PHB builds, after all.  You could introduce new abilities to fill in the ASI slots instead of just a +2 to a stat.  Or mix and match subclass abilities to fit into the subclass slots.
> 
> Plus, without a menu of options, you could probably fit a class onto 2 pages.  So plenty of room for lots of concepts.



That eliminates the choice points. But I do also mean fewer mechanics overall. Like, boil a class down to its one or two essential features. The Rogue would wind up with, like, only sneak attack, the druid would have only wildshape and spellcasting, etc.

Interestingly, weirdly, 4e's classes (minus all the AEDU powers) fairly match what I'm envisioning.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 27, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> That eliminates the choice points. But I do also mean fewer mechanics overall. Like, boil a class down to its one or two essential features. The Rogue would wind up with, like, only sneak attack, the druid would have only wildshape and spellcasting, etc.
> 
> Interestingly, weirdly, 4e's classes (minus all the AEDU powers) fairly match what I'm envisioning.



Hmm.  Something like "Sneak attack 1d6 at 1st level, goes up by 1d6 every odd level.  At even levels, gain +1 to a stat. "?  Or is that too simple?


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 27, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 27, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Hmm.  Something like "Sneak attack 1d6 at 1st level, goes up by 1d6 every odd level.  At even levels, gain +1 to a stat. "?  Or is that too simple?



Yeah, that's the idea.


And as an aside, an idea that popped into my head just now: I'd want to look at only getting to activate that sneak attack (and other class features . . . and spells, too, maybe) by spending inspiration, and so there'd have to be roguish personality traits, bondsm flaws, etc. This might strengthen the "roleplaying" bit of the game, but I'd also want to see it work the way iserith handles it, with the player claiming inspiration without any need or call for DM approval.


----------



## OB1 (Sep 27, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Ok, I've been dancing around this, but, here's my reason why you folks that want greater mechanical complexity in 5e will not see it from WotC:
> 
> Time.
> 
> ...




Just to double down on this a bit, Xananthar’s, continued with the same design goals as the core books and remains the 5th best selling D&D book on Amazon a year after its release, being behind the core three and the latest AP. Volos and Mordenkanins follow right behind. 

Even the three year old SCAG at #11 is beaten only by the newer guides and APs getting ready to release, being ahead of every older AP.

The point is, Wizards non AP books are designed to sell to a wide audience for multiple years. They are not niche products, and as they have limited time and resources to spend on each book, they can’t be.  As Hussar says, they are not going to spend 2-4 years creating a book for 10% or 20% of the audience. 

Instead, they have handed that market over with open arms to 3rd parties to come in and fill those niches. They even promote it!  And those 3rd parties can experiment and take risks that WotC can’t. 

WotC is going to continue with story first, light as possible design that allows players to tell stories about brave adventurers facing deadly perils and try to continue to bring millions of new players into the hobby and allowing talented companies to make money by catering to sunsets of that community with their blessing.


----------



## OB1 (Sep 27, 2018)

*Mearls On D&amp;D's Design Premises/Goals*

Oops, double post.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 27, 2018)

Hriston said:


> Yes, all the participants are trying to perform the actions and movement of their turns as soon as possible. That's why it's a DEX check. It's about moving quickly.
> 
> I might accept this if initiative was decided by a random roll, but it isn't. It's a DEX check, so it represents an effort to move and act quickly.



Ah.  I mostly have it as a random roll, redone each round, and always will - far better reflection of the fog of war than a) locked-in initiative order and b) giving high dex types a continuing advantage all the way through the combat.

Dexterity as a stat has enough going for it already, without this.

That said, if plied with enough beer I might be talked into having dex matter for the first round only, to reflect how quickly you can react, draw your weapon, ready your spell, or whatever.



> In D&D, 5th Ed., that's called taking the Ready action. You still want to take that action first so the opportunity you're waiting for doesn't pass you by.



If I'm a heavy fighter and we're facing a bunch of opponents I want to see where they're going - are they trending to our left, to our right, focusing on a particular party member, or what - before I move to engage.  I don't want to commit myself to the wrong part of the line and get stuck there, which could easily happen if I move too soon.  A low initiative, or a held action from a higher one, is fine here.

And [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] here's an example of natural character action being in conflict with RAW game mechanics.  Because the initiative order is locked in, the game mechanics thus force me to want to have the highest init. I can so that each round I can act before as many opponents as possible.  But if I want to wait during the first round and react to how the fight develops I'm mechanically hosing myself for the whole combat by moving myself down the locked-in initiative order.  Direct conflict: for the first round the mechanics want fast while the character wants slow, while in subsequent rounds both the character and mechanics want fast and I'm stuck with slow.

Re-rolling each round, or using something like Mearls' variant, solves this to a large extent and is also far more realistic - but it's not RAW.

Lanefan


----------



## Sadras (Sep 27, 2018)

OB1 said:


> Just to double down on this a bit...(snip)




You weren't kidding, you literally doubled down on this.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 27, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> That’s fine. Not everyone’s tastes are the same, and I would hope there would be options for both a mundane fighter and a fighter that plays with special techniques.
> 
> To clarify though, I’m not a fan of arbitrarily limited resources. I don’t want my fighter to have a special technique that he can only use once per day simply because the rules say he can only use it once per day. I think the Berserker Barbarian’s Frenzy is a good model of how I like my martial techniques. He has a special move only he can do (spending a bonus action to enter a special mode where he gains damage resistance and an extra attack), and it’s limited not by how many times per day the rules say he can use it, but by how many levels of exhaustion he’s willing to take. Another good example is Pathfinder 2nd edition’s shield block mechanic. In PF2, any character who is proficient with a shield and uses one of their actions to raise it can use a reaction to a successful hit against them to reduce the damage, but the shield takes damage instead, potentially breaking it. Fixing the damage takes enough time that it’s not practical to do in combat, but is fast enough you can probably have it ready for the next combat. So, in effect, characters who use shields gain an encounter power, but unlike 4e encounter powers, there is an in-fiction reason for the limit on frequency, instead of an arbitrary limit.




Just to be clear, there are non-arbitrary, "in-fiction" reasons for the limits to 4E's encounter and daily powers. They are described quite clearly in both "Wizards Presents: Races & Classes" and "Martial Power 2", although it could certainly be argued they didn't go far enough in communicating these ideas to their audience (I personally think 4E needed another year of development to tweak the math and polish its presentation aesthetic).


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 27, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> That eliminates the choice points. But I do also mean fewer mechanics overall. Like, boil a class down to its one or two essential features. The Rogue would wind up with, like, only sneak attack, the druid would have only wildshape and spellcasting, etc.



Personally, I'd prefer it to vary a bit, with some classes being very simple and straightforward while others have a bit more complexity to them.

The Rogue or Thief doesn't have to worry about spells but does (or should) have complexity around skills e.g. pick locks, find traps, etc. that most other classes don't have.

The Druid has wildshape, which is simple; and spellcasting, which is anything but.  Any caster class is going to be more complex to play than a non-caster class just because of the spells - what to prepare, what to cast, when to cast what, and so on - not to mention all the effects those spells are likely to produce.

Taking out or severaly curtailing chooseable feats and skills while baking a lot more things in as class features cuts the overall complexity down particularly at level-up e.g. if playing a Ranger you know going in that you're automatically going to get, say, tracking at first level, herblore at third and alertness at fifth; while a Druid might get herblore at first level and never get tracking or alertness at all (but would get other baked-in class benefits instead), and no other class can choose any of these.  Sure beats the paralysis of feat choice in something like 3e, and also does a lot for niche protection.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 27, 2018)

heretic888 said:


> Just to be clear, there are non-arbitrary, "in-fiction" reasons for the limits to 4E's encounter and daily powers. They are described quite clearly in both "Wizards Presents: Races & Classes" and "Martial Power 2", although it could certainly be argued they didn't go far enough in communicating these ideas to their audience (I personally think 4E needed another year of development to tweak the math and polish its presentation aesthetic).



I don’t recall reading this in-fiction explanation. If it’s just that they’re taxing to perform, then that explanation doesn’t work for me personally. YMMV.

Now, having arbitrary limits on power usage isn’t a deal-breaker for me. I love 4e, and I didn’t realize it even had in-fiction justification for its power frequency limits. 5e also has lots of arbitrarily limited abilities like Second Wind and Rage. But I prefer that power usage limits be backed up by something in the game world rather than an invisible resource, but it doesn’t kill my enjoyment of a game.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 27, 2018)

heretic888 said:


> Just to be clear, there are non-arbitrary, "in-fiction" reasons for the limits to 4E's encounter and daily powers. They are described quite clearly in both "Wizards Presents: Races & Classes" and "Martial Power 2", although it could certainly be argued they didn't go far enough in communicating these ideas to their audience (I personally think 4E needed another year of development to tweak the math and polish its presentation aesthetic).





One of the reasons I dislike the encounter/daily power limitation of 4E (or the battle master for that matter) is that it's very much a limit for the sake of "balance".  I understand it, but no matter what fluff you add it still just felt artificial.   IMHO the fluff reasons were flimsier than the paper they were written on.  I can't do a "come and get it" twice because they already fell for it once?  But what if we have a second wave or we didn't have time for a short rest between encounters?

I can accept it with spell casters having limits because it's magic, but if I have an awesome ability to stun someone, it shouldn't require a cool-down period.  Only available under certain circumstances? Sure.

Anyway, relating back to the OP topic, I'm glad they gave old fogies like me who just want to play a mundane fighter in a sea of supernatural PCs an option.  Even if it's only a couple of sub classes.

Anyway, I don't want to get into edition wars.  I liked 4E at first, it just never felt like D&D because of things like all classes being based around powers.  YMMV.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 28, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Well, in grid-combat flanking provides bonuses or advantage depending on the system, enough so to make characters take non-realistic routes to enter combat and assist their allies who have already engaged in the combat. It becomes very gamist (i.e. not necessarily natural) because of mechanics.
> 
> And that is just one example, there are so many more where _natural_ character tendencies are stamped out by mechanics. And this is understandable given that it is a game, where natural choices have a tendency to become increasingly less the more game-y the rpg becomes.
> 
> EDIT: I first notice this strong gamist tendency with 4e, it certainly existed in the previous editions, but the grid combat was forced during 4e play and that is where it became all too obvious for me how the roleplaying (at least in combat) had taken on a much more gamist avenue.



Well, by the criterion I suggested, that would make the mechanics poorly designed.

Conversely, if we really think that flanking an opponent is an advantageous way to fight, then there is nothing unnatural about manouevring into such a position.

EDIT: Saw this elaboration a bit further downthread:



Sadras said:


> I believe you're misunderstanding me. I have no issue with advantage being offered as a reward for flanking. That is natural.
> 
> My issue is instead of characters running straight to the target to help out their buddy as fast as they can - which is the natural course of action, they take the scenic route whether to avoid AoO or otherwise (depending on the system) to gain the advantage. Mechanics trump natural course of action.



There are two ways of thinking about this:

(1) It makes sense to manoeuvre carefully across a battlefield dotted with enemies, which is what is going on.

(2) Stop motion action resolution - which means that it doesn't hurt your friend any to maneouvre carefully rather than take the risk of running straight there - is unrealistic.

I think both (1) and (2) are true. A different system might impose some sort of cost against the friend if the ally manoeuvres more carefully to get there. Or it might make the flank more effective if the ally runs straight there (which 4e's charge rules approximate to).


----------



## pemerton (Sep 28, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> here's an example of natural character action being in conflict with RAW game mechanics.  Because the initiative order is locked in, the game mechanics thus force me to want to have the highest init. I can so that each round I can act before as many opponents as possible.  But if I want to wait during the first round and react to how the fight develops I'm mechanically hosing myself for the whole combat by moving myself down the locked-in initiative order.  Direct conflict: for the first round the mechanics want fast while the character wants slow, while in subsequent rounds both the character and mechanics want fast and I'm stuck with slow.
> 
> Re-rolling each round, or using something like Mearls' variant, solves this to a large extent and is also far more realistic - but it's not RAW.



Doesn't this just show the mechanics are poorly designed (by the metric I put forward)?


----------



## pemerton (Sep 28, 2018)

OB1 said:


> WotC is going to continue with story first, light as possible design



Well this takes us back to the heated discussion of several pages ago: 5e doesn't seem especially story-driven, nor especially light!


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 28, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Doesn't this just show the mechanics are poorly designed (by the metric I put forward)?




That might call your metrics into question, more than the mechanics.


----------



## Aaron L (Sep 28, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> But 5e still offers so little in terms of ways to mechanically differentiate a character.




Seriously?

I am all about character customization; as a player I live for the ability to play characters mechanically distinct from any other.  And to me 5th Edition represents the pinnacle of balance between a 3E level of character customizability that I desire, and a 1e/0E level of ease and fluidity of play plus DM prerogative in running the game that I also desire.  To me, 5th Edition feels like a game with the simplicity and fluidity of Basic, the mood, atmosphere, and attitude of 1st Edition, and the character distinctiveness and customizability options of 3rd Edition.   

I truly do not understand the opinion that 5E "offers [...] little in terms of ways to mechanically differentiate a character" considering the presence of Skills, Feats, Multi-Classing rules, and a full Background character creation element that grants Skill, Tool and/or Language proficiency, and even a special feature (and even stating in the rules that you can work with your DM to create your own new Background if there isn't one in the book that fits your character concept), and includes Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws as character attributes which even grant actual mechanical Advantage when roleplayed well.  And even on top of all those elements, every single Class has further built-in customization on a basic level by _requiring_ a choice from multiple Subclasses, such that any party could contain multiple characters of the same Class who are nevertheless quite distinct from each other simply by way of having different Subclass specializations.  

To me, all of these provide all the character customization options I could ever want.  What more kinds of customization options would you ask for?   

*However*, if you are referring to the actual available options to choose from that have been made available so far, the limited number of Subclasses and Feats published, I can pretty much agree with that.  To cover that problem I have found a number of excellent options from DM's Guild that add a good number of very serviceable new Feats that we use in our games, and we also use the Unearthed Arcana articles with new Feats and Subclasses.  Also, to add some additional variety and customization options for players we use a houserule (from the _Feats of Heroism_ PDF from DM's Guild, the primary 3rd Party rule supplement that we use) giving every PC a bonus Feat at 1st, 10th, and 20th level (compensating monster power by giving them all the *Tough* Feat, a simple +2 hit points per Hit Die, or sometimes a Weapon Master Feat when appropriate such as special elite Hobgoblins or Drow.)

I also hold out hope that WotC will continue to publish more rulebooks like Xanathar's Guide to Everything containing more Subclasses and Feats.


----------



## Ratskinner (Sep 28, 2018)

Umbran said:


> That is the simplest and most reliable way.  I don't think there's a blanket "best", for all games and all people.  Especially since removing *ALL* mechanical advantages means that all characters are mechanically identical in all ways, and no actions (including roleplay choices) on the part of the PCs impact resolution of events, which is probably not what we want in RPGs...
> 
> FATE-based games, for example, give you ways to force alignment between the mechanical advantages and the roleplay.  In a game a while ago, I was playing a character who used guns a great deal, but I didn't want the character to be the type to leave a bloody trail of bullet-laden corpses behind him.  So, I took an Aspect, "I set 'em up, you knock 'em down."  Any time I tried to attack someone directly with a gun, the GM could assign me a penalty (My shot wouldn't be as good, but I'd get a Fate point).  But, any time I used a trick shot or otherwise used gunplay for non-damaging effects, or to give another character a bonus, I could spend a Fate point and get a bonus myself.  The end result was a mechanical advantage that aligned with my chosen narrative-identity, and a mechanical detriment when I went against that narrative.
> 
> This is less simple and unreliable, as it needs a GM actively using the Fate-point economy well to make happen.  But, in the case where you have met the requirement, this kind kind of thing performs better than simply removing all possible mechanical advantages.



This post in particular, and this thread in general, are the strongest argument for Fate (or at least Fatelike design) that I have ever read. 

Carry on.


----------



## Al'Kelhar (Sep 28, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I’m not sure how much clearer I can be. I want characters who can do different things, not just do the same thing with slightly different numbers and a different description.
> 
> ...
> Those 4 PCs are described differently and have slightly different numbers, but the mechanics they use are about the same.
> ...






Charlaquin said:


> ... 4e had serious issues, but in my opinion, giving every character a choice of cool new feature to get every level was absolutely not one of them.




Hmm, I rarely get involved in these lovely back-and-forth discussions, but I must admit that this got me a bit stumped.

You do realise that _every feature of a character in 4E was in the nature of a power_ and _every power in 4E was in the same format and relied on exactly the same mechanics_, right?  Roll an attack roll, do damage, apply condition.  Rinse, repeat.  To suggest that there was somehow "more variety" in character options in 4E than in 5E is, to my mind, contrary to evidence.  4E was the _absolute pinnacle_ of _less_ mechanical variety in character options of any version of D&D yet.  Deliberately.  That there were ten different powers that attacked an individual creature's Reflex defence, did 3 dice damage, and pushed them 2 squares, is not the definition of "variety".  And something that was deliberately moved away from in 5E.

Like many in this overly long discussion, I emphasise I am not making any judgements about the merits or otherwise of the editions, nor of people's opinions.  I just gotta call out the "what the..." moment I had reading the above statements.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar


----------



## pemerton (Sep 28, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> That might call your metrics into question, more than the mechanics.



Maybe. But no one has put an argument that it's a good feature of a RPG that the mechanics pull you away from playing your PC in a "natural" fashion.



Ratskinner said:


> This post in particular, and this thread in general, are the strongest argument for Fate (or at least Fatelike design) that I have ever read.



Well, FATE _would _satisfy the metric I posited (that good design will align PC motivation and mechanical incentive)!


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 28, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Doesn't this just show the mechanics are poorly designed (by the metric I put forward)?



In this instance yes; but they're the mechanics the system gives us to work with until-unless we a) change them (my preferred solution) or b) find a different system.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 28, 2018)

Al'Kelhar said:


> I must admit that this got me a bit stumped.
> 
> You do realise that _every feature of a character in 4E was in the nature of a power_ and _every power in 4E was in the same format and relied on exactly the same mechanics_, right?  Roll an attack roll, do damage, apply condition.  Rinse, repeat.  To suggest that there was somehow "more variety" in character options in 4E than in 5E is, to my mind, contrary to evidence.  4E was the _absolute pinnacle_ of _less_ mechanical variety in character options of any version of D&D yet.  Deliberately.  That there were ten different powers that attacked an individual creature's Reflex defence, did 3 dice damage, and pushed them 2 squares, is not the definition of "variety".



What are the 10 powers you've got in mind?

But in any event, I think you've missed  [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION]'s point, because you've misdescribed 4e powers.

Most 4e powers are a distinctive, perhaps unique, combination of actions for the attacker (move, shift, heal, etc) and effects on the target (various conditions and forced movement effects). This satisfies Charlaauin's request for uniqueness.

And you get to make a new power choice at most levels. Which satisfies the request for frequent, beyond-starting-levels, PC build options.



Oofta said:


> One of the reasons I dislike the encounter/daily power limitation of 4E (or the battle master for that matter) is that it's very much a limit for the sake of "balance".  I understand it, but no matter what fluff you add it still just felt artificial.   IMHO the fluff reasons were flimsier than the paper they were written on.  I can't do a "come and get it" twice because they already fell for it once?  But what if we have a second wave or we didn't have time for a short rest between encounters?



It's action economy. It's no different from the fact that a 1st level Champion fighter can't kill puny kobolds at any faster rate than rugged hobgoblins (ie in both cases no more than 1 per round).

As far back as Gygax's DMG, people have been narrating the action economy in ways that make sense to them (eg you only get one good opening each round, and we just choose not to pay attention to its somewhat metronomic character). Come and Get It is nothing new in this regard.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 28, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> In this instance yes; but they're the mechanics the system gives us to work with until-unless we a) change them (my preferred solution) or b) find a different system.



(b) is certainly not a very demanding threshold. Fate has already been mentioned in this thread, and there are many other systems that achieve a similar reconciliation. And some are lighter than D&D (any version).


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 28, 2018)

Hriston said:


> You're ignoring that I said an initiative roll can be many contests.




And you are ignoring where the contest has to be a direct opposition where only one can succeed, which initiative isn't.  And you are ignoring where one is trying to prevent another from another from accomplishing a goal.  Initiative isn't a goal.  

You are also ignoring that initiative isn't even about two people against each other much of the time.  The goblin over here who is going to attack the wizard rolled lower than the fighter who wants to go after the ogre.  The goblin and the fighter aren't even in a contest of any sort, let alone a directly opposing.



> If there are only two participants in combat, there's just one contest. But if there are ten participants, there are 45 separate contests all happening simultaneously. The outcome of each contest determines which of the two involved participants goes before the other. The other participant fails to go before his/her opponent.




Except that by both RAW and Sage Advice, there isn't even a single contest, let alone 45.  



> To reiterate what I'm saying here, the participants are not contesting with each other for the ability to act. They are contesting with each other for the ability to act before the other participants when considered one at a time.




I understand what you are saying, but you are wrong by both RAW and Sage Advice.



> I know that Jeremy Crawford answered that initiative is not a contest, but keep in mind that it's much easier for him and the rulebooks to treat it as a special case than to explain it the way I have, especially considering his answer has to fit in a tweet.




Or multiple tweets.  He hasn't shown any shyness about using more than one tweet on a subject.  Regardless of the reason, though, both RAW which sets forth the two conditions for contests, which initiative fails to meet, and Sage Advice which says it's not a contest, means that unless you are going to make a house rule, it's not a contest.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 28, 2018)

Hriston said:


> And I'm not seeing combat as a friendly competition.
> 
> To jump off from your preference for the word _competitor_, however, I thought it would be instructive to look up the definition of _contestant.
> 
> ...




That's why there is "contest", which is what you are describing above, and CONTEST which is RAW for the game.  They are two different things.  The CONTEST mechanic doesn't cover a "contest" like initiative.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 28, 2018)

[MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s suggsetion that an initiative check is a multi-character contest to see who gets to go first seems right to me. I can read page 58 of the Basic Rules, which describes contests in terms of opposition between two character. But presumably those rules are intended to be extrapolated in appropriate cases - for instance, if instead of two character racing to grab a ring from the floor, we were trying to resolve a treasure hunt at a birthday party, or an orienteering competiton, the contest mechanic would presumably be the appropriate one, with the mechanical success ordering corresponding to the in-fiction success ordering. (only one can be the winner!)


----------



## Greg K (Sep 28, 2018)

Going back to a little earlier in the thread, I do want more official class options/variants. For instance,  in various episodes of Happy Fun Hour, Mearls has stated that some of the classes should have had their subclasses at 1st level, but those classes were finished before the designers had settled on their design goal. Some of the design goals include the following: First, "When you choose your subclass, ideally, you are not changing your equipment" and your class should support the character you want to play at first level; Second, a subclass at first level should say something about your identity; Third, your  base class should support "melding" into your subclass. 

1. "When you choose your subclass, ideally you are not changing your equipment." "The character you want to play should be the character you play at first level." The example that he provided was, if they had designed the Fighter class to rely on strength and heavy armor, this would have posed an issue for many fighter types.. Had they did that, the guy wanting to play an Archer has no reason to not use strength and heavy armor until getting a subclass and then switches to bow and leather armor.  

The Valor Bard breaks this design goal according to Mearls, in the Kraken episode. If I recall correctly,  the feeling was that, as a result,  the Bard should have had its subclass at first level.

2.  A subclass received at 1st level says something about your character's starting identity compared to a subclass at 3rd. 
Mearls stated that Wizard was, originally, going to receive their Tradition at first level. However, it was moved to second level to give the Wizard Arcane Recovery at first level. In a Psion or Mystic episode of Happy Hour, he stated that he now thinks that they should have given the Tradition at first level (and move recovery to 2nd (?)).  I am curious as to what moving the Tradition to first level would provide.

3. The core class abilities should support "melding" into the subclass. 
In the most recent episodes of Happy Hour, Mike was working on an Urban Ranger subclass. The problem was that the base class does not support a transition to the subclass. Thus, there is an issue of not playing the character you want at the start and changing how you play the character upon taking the subclass.
To resolve the issue, Mike made notes for an urban ranger variant for the Ranger class including a variant of Natural Explorer. Personally, I felt some skill swaps were also necessary (which is what I did for my own Urban Ranger variant).
From my point of view, the Rogue Scout introduces similar issues to the rogue. The subclass was intended to fill the role of a non spell casting ranger. However, using the rogue introduces elements not fitting for someone whose idea is being a wilderness scout or hunter and not a thief that transitioned into a wilderness rogue.  The rogue needs a class variant to aid the transition into wilderness based subclasses much like the ranger needed a base class variant to support urban based ranger subclasses  (Note: Yes, I have also created my own wilderness rogue variant as a choice at first level. However, it does change the need to officially address these classes failure to meet WOTC's  own class design goals).


Personally, I would like to some other classes receive official class variants based upon 1 and 3. I would also like to see some variants for certain class abilities (e.g. the Thief's Use Magical Device  and some Monk abilities (personally, I would love to see a complete redesign of the monk, but that is not going to happen)).

Edit: One of the variants that I want is an official no or light armored fighter variant at first level both for the unarmored swordsman and non-mystical martial artist. I may stick with Khaalis's light armored variant, but it would be nice to have an official version and may happen since Mike worked on a Brawler subclass that is intended to be an unarmed Fighter that fights without armor and gets increased unarmored damage (on the downside Mike is basing the Brawler upon WWE wrestlers).


----------



## Eric V (Sep 28, 2018)

Greg K said:


> Going back to a little earlier in the thread, I do want more official class options/variants. For instance,  in various episodes of Happy Fun Hour, Mearls has stated that some of the classes should have had their subclasses at 1st level, but those classes were finished before the designers had settled on their design goal. Some of the design goals include the following: First, "When you choose your subclass, ideally, you are not changing your equipment" and your class should support the character you want to play at first level; Second, a subclass at first level should say something about your identity; Third, your  base class should support "melding" into your subclass.
> 
> 1. "When you choose your subclass, ideally you are not changing your equipment." "The character you want to play should be the character you play at first level." The example that he provided was, if they had designed the Fighter class to rely on strength and heavy armor, this would have posed an issue for many fighter types.. Had they did that, the guy wanting to play an Archer has no reason to not use strength and heavy armor until getting a subclass and then switches to bow and leather armor.
> 
> ...




In a lot of ways, I feel too much was designed into the base class, leaving too little to differentiate in the various subclasses.  The reason the Urban Ranger is hard to design as a subclass is an example of this, and I feel paladins have too many of their abilities baked into the core class as well (e.g a Vengeance Paladin doesn't really need Lay on Hands thematically; would have been nice to see that as an option, with something more vengeful to replace it).  

Lots of classes would differentiate nicely with more options moved from base to sub-.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 28, 2018)

Eric V said:


> In a lot of ways, I feel too much was designed into the base class, leaving too little to differentiate in the various subclasses.  The reason the Urban Ranger is hard to design as a subclass is an example of this, and I feel paladins have too many of their abilities baked into the core class as well (e.g a Vengeance Paladin doesn't really need Lay on Hands thematically; would have been nice to see that as an option, with something more vengeful to replace it).
> 
> Lots of classes would differentiate nicely with more options moved from base to sub-.




What's interesting there, to me, is that the Classes in 5E that fall under that rubric, we're introduced in the 70's as Subclasses themselves...


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 28, 2018)

Al'Kelhar said:


> Hmm, I rarely get involved in these lovely back-and-forth discussions, but I must admit that this got me a bit stumped.
> 
> You do realise that _every feature of a character in 4E was in the nature of a power_ and _every power in 4E was in the same format and relied on exactly the same mechanics_, right?  Roll an attack roll, do damage, apply condition.  Rinse, repeat.  To suggest that there was somehow "more variety" in character options in 4E than in 5E is, to my mind, contrary to evidence.  4E was the _absolute pinnacle_ of _less_ mechanical variety in character options of any version of D&D yet.  Deliberately.  That there were ten different powers that attacked an individual creature's Reflex defence, did 3 dice damage, and pushed them 2 squares, is not the definition of "variety".  And something that was deliberately moved away from in 5E.
> 
> ...



Pemerton’s response captures my stance on this pretty much perfectly.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 28, 2018)

Eric V said:


> In a lot of ways, I feel too much was designed into the base class, leaving too little to differentiate in the various subclasses.  The reason the Urban Ranger is hard to design as a subclass is an example of this, and I feel paladins have too many of their abilities baked into the core class as well (e.g a Vengeance Paladin doesn't really need Lay on Hands thematically; would have been nice to see that as an option, with something more vengeful to replace it).
> 
> Lots of classes would differentiate nicely with more options moved from base to sub-.



I swear I remember some of the Next design in late 2012, maybe into 2013 experimenting in that direction.  There were only 4 classes (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard), with a very loose skeleton, and most of the differentiation was within the subclass.  Like sorcerer and warlock were wizard subclasses, and druid was a cleric subclass.

I actually like that design direction, Shadow of the Demon Lord does something very similar and that's one of my favorite systems.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 28, 2018)

pemerton said:


> What are the 10 powers you've got in mind?
> 
> But in any event, I think you've missed  [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION]'s point, because you've misdescribed 4e powers.
> 
> ...



Not to mention that powers weren't the only features that distinguished 4e characters; feats and magic items were concurrent vectors of character building that had, at most, a moderate overlap with powers.  

And that's not to mention Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies; I don't remember a class power that gave you abilities like "steal the eye color from a prince" or "wander to any point you wish in the multiverse".

But really, this is all in the past and I have no desire to relitigate the edition war.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 28, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 28, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Really? While the "monk chassis" might not be a perfect fit for everything, IME and IMO, the Open Hand and Shadow are two of the best designed and realized subclasses out there!
> 
> In fact, I often think of the Monk when I think of a well-designed class that's a little different and lives up to its design goals.



I’m not a fan of 5e’s Monk Personally, but it is absolutely well-designed and meets its design goals.


----------



## OB1 (Sep 28, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Well this takes us back to the heated discussion of several pages ago: 5e doesn't seem especially story-driven, nor especially light!




The design concept is story first. That is what Mearls was talking about. 5e doesn’t design a class to fit a role or the need for a INT based melee attack, it comes up with a story based idea first, then fits the mechanics to that. 

And I didn’t say light design. I said light as possible design. Specifically, light as possible to reach the desired goal. In this case to tell an EXCITING story about brave adventurers facing deadly perils. In other words, only be as heavy as is absolutely necessary to reach that goal. 

I’d argue that the problem with a truly rules lite system such as Fate is that it’s simplicity requires the players to bring the excitement and ideas to the table on their own while a game like PF gets so bogged down in minutia as to make combat tedious rather than exciting. 

If you look at every possible rule addition through the lens of “is this necessary to reach the goals of play” it means editing out ideas that can be fun on their own but don’t support the core experience, much like a film editor cutting a scene that is exciting or funny or thrilling because it isn’t necessary to tell the story.


----------



## qstor (Sep 28, 2018)

I think his comments go in line with a saying I've heard.  In D&D 3.5/Pathfinder there's a rule for everything. In 5th edition the DM makes a rule up for everything.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 28, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Really? While the "monk chassis" might not be a perfect fit for everything, IME and IMO, the Open Hand and Shadow are two of the best designed and realized subclasses out there!
> 
> In fact, I often think of the Monk when I think of a well-designed class that's a little different and lives up to its design goals.




It lives up to the design goals. However, I think the monk continues the tradition of sucking, because it is the only martial arts class and,therefore, ninjas. practitioners of any Asian martial art, and martial artists from other cultures (mystical and not) continue to all get lumped into the monk, due to the monk's unarmed damage and ac bonus. As a result, they pick up abilities along the way that are inappropriate.

Furthermore, the design continues to be based upon the 1e Monk which in turn was based upon a single source- Chun, from the Destroyer Series of novels (or the Remo Williams movie adaptation for those familiar with the movie). Even with subclasses, 5e monks could use more differentiation in style. 
Personally, as a DM and, even as a player, I would have liked some more choices early and later. The basics of the 1e Oriental Adventures Martial Arts system, in my opinion, would have been great- Choose your style (is it Hard, Hard/Soft, or Soft) and your style's primary method (Kicking, Locks, Movement, Push, Strike, Vitals, Weapons). These combine to form your base AC Mod, your base unarmed damage, and base number of attacks. You then get an maneuver or ability based off your primary method.  Additional combat maneuvers, Mediation abilities, Ki Abilities, Body Conditioning,   can be additional choices at certain levels and/or put into style based subclasses.

Also, nice would have been an iron /body shirt Monk variant at first level, because there are examples of monks in movies that prefer to take hits and let their iron body/shirt ability protect them. Even in the real world, iron body is associated with some styles of Shaolin kung Fu and they practice by taking full body blows, being struck full force with staves or 2 x 4 wood.

I think some my first issue above may be addressed in part by Mearls as he worked on a Brawler subclass for the fighter which is a non-mystical martial artist that receives increased unarmed damage and a monk-like AC.  If he keeps with WOTC's design goals, that should mean he creates a brawling style and, perhaps, a variant that encourages the fighter to remain unarmored at first level. However, as he is basing the subclass on WWE wrestlers, I have reservations.


----------



## Hriston (Sep 28, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Because the initiative order is locked in, the game mechanics thus force me to want to have the highest init. I can so that each round I can act before as many opponents as possible.  But if I want to wait during the first round and react to how the fight develops I'm mechanically hosing myself for the whole combat by moving myself down the locked-in initiative order.




Actually, the Ready action doesn't change your place in the initiative order. It gives you a reaction you can use when a trigger of your choice occurs before your next turn, which occurs on your initiative in the next round.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 28, 2018)

Hriston said:


> Actually, the Ready action doesn't change your place in the initiative order. It gives you a reaction you can use when a trigger of your choice occurs before your next turn, which occurs on your initiative in the next round.



I was thinking of 3e, where if you held you'd fall down the initiative ladder.

Still doesn't convince me away from re-rolling each round, however.


----------



## Hriston (Sep 28, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> And you are ignoring where the contest has to be a direct opposition where only one can succeed, which initiative isn't.




Please explain how more than one can succeed when two are trying to go first. They can't both be first.



Maxperson said:


> And you are ignoring where one is trying to prevent another from another from accomplishing a goal.




I think both trying to do the same thing (go first) but only one can succeed is closer to the type of contest I'm describing.



Maxperson said:


> Initiative isn't a goal.




The goal is to go before the others. If you fail, you go after them.



Maxperson said:


> You are also ignoring that initiative isn't even about two people against each other much of the time.  The goblin over here who is going to attack the wizard rolled lower than the fighter who wants to go after the ogre.  The goblin and the fighter aren't even in a contest of any sort, let alone a directly opposing.




You don't know what might happen during combat. Maybe in round three the fighter and the goblin end up toe to toe and their relative initiative scores will matter.



Maxperson said:


> Except that by both RAW and Sage Advice, there isn't even a single contest, let alone 45.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying, but you are wrong by both RAW and Sage Advice.




I agree that Jeremy Crawford has stated clearly that initiative is not a contest. I'm fine with him saying that, but RAW is silent on the issue. RAW (like Crawford) states that initiative is an ability check, which is a die roll called for when an action is attempted that has a chance of failure. The attempted action in the case of initiative is taking your turn in combat before your opponent. To find out if the ability check succeeds or fails, you compare it to a DC. Except in a contest, "a special form of ability check", you compare it to the result of an ability check made by your opponent. I wonder which of those two forms of ability check most closely resemble what goes on in initiative.



Maxperson said:


> Or multiple tweets.  He hasn't shown any shyness about using more than one tweet on a subject.  Regardless of the reason, though, both RAW which sets forth the two conditions for contests, which initiative fails to meet, and Sage Advice which says it's not a contest, means that unless you are going to make a house rule, it's not a contest.




If it isn't a contest, what's the DC to succeed in going before your opponent?


----------



## Hriston (Sep 28, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Still doesn't convince me away from re-rolling each round, however.




Not trying to do that. I think round-by-round initiative is the way to go too!


----------



## clearstream (Sep 28, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> That's why there is "contest", which is what you are describing above, and CONTEST which is RAW for the game.  They are two different things.  The CONTEST mechanic doesn't cover a "contest" like initiative.



For foes who are vying to go first, Initiative is similar to a contest (in the 5e mechanical sense) but its not identical. In a contest, a draw would result in the situation remaining as it was before the contest. That doesn't work as an outcome for initiative.

Similar, but not identical.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 29, 2018)

OB1 said:


> I said light as possible design. Specifically, light as possible to reach the desired goal. In this case to tell an EXCITING story about brave adventurers facing deadly perils. In other words, only be as heavy as is absolutely necessary to reach that goal.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If you look at every possible rule addition through the lens of “is this necessary to reach the goals of play” it means editing out ideas that can be fun on their own but don’t support the core experience, much like a film editor cutting a scene that is exciting or funny or thrilling because it isn’t necessary to tell the story.



I have to say, by this metric, vast swathes of the spell rules could go. There is absolutley no need for rules that specify range and AoE down to the last foot, that distinguish between a stepped-up fireball and a meteor swarm, etc if the goals is _exciting stories about brave adventurers facing deadly perils_.

I think a lot of the equipment rules might be vulnerable too. The difference between attacking with a mace and a sword doesn't seem super-important from the point of view of exciting stories about brave adventurers facing deadly peril. (In REH Conan stories the difference between weapons is pretty much colour, for instance.)



OB1 said:


> the problem with a truly rules lite system such as Fate is that it’s simplicity requires the players to bring the excitement and ideas to the table on their own



I wouldn't class Fate as light. I think it's comparable to Marvel Heroic/Cortex+ Heroic in its handling - maybe even a bit heavier, because its combat uses zones, and it combines descriptors with a slightly more rigid skill system.

By "bringing the excitiement to the table on their own" do you mean that the excitement comes from the fiction, rather than the wargame?

Personally I'm not sure that's true - when I play MHRP/Cortex players get excited finding out how their pools turn out, and similarly playing Prince Valiant (which is genuinely light, I think). But also, in a RPG _shouldn't_ the bulk of the excitiment come from the fiction?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 29, 2018)

PointOfIsnpiration said:


> It's telling that everyone ignores this absolutely true post to keep arguing about minutia.



Is it telling? What, pray tell, does it say? 



Oofta said:


> So similar to powers from 4E?
> 
> All I can say is that I would not want that. I like my mundane fighter being a mundane fighter. If I want to keep track of resources (other than second wind) and what my fighter can do then they don't feel very mundane any more. They become just one more variant of a Vancian spell caster with a different label. We already have options for that in the battle master, eldritch knight or other classes.



Yeah, while I agree with them on a lot of stuff, there definitely should be a champion and a battlemaster. There’s no reason to remove either. 
I love 4e, and did from the PHB on, but 4e was best in the era between the first essentials book and the end of publication, when my group could have a Knight Fighter, a Warlord, a Gloom Hexblade, a Seeker, and a Bard, and the game ran just fine. It was fantastic. No two characters played remotely alike, in concept or mechanics, and I could get weird with encounter and adventure design while reliably predicting the lethtality within an acceptable margin of error, and I could fiddle with rules, play fast and loose, encourage improvisised actions, etc, without straining the system. 



OB1 said:


> Just to double down on this a bit, Xananthar’s, continued with the same design goals as the core books and remains the 5th best selling D&D book on Amazon a year after its release, being behind the core three and the latest AP. Volos and Mordenkanins follow right behind.
> 
> Even the three year old SCAG at #11 is beaten only by the newer guides and APs getting ready to release, being ahead of every older AP.



I think most folks in this thread are imagining a dichotomy where none exists. 

We dont need a book full of Warlock chassis versions of rogues and bards. We need new options that allow most basic concepts to be played with most levels having a choice to be made that results in a distinct new way to interact mechanically with the game world. 

That can be done with subclasses. We aren’t to get 100% of what I or [MENTION=15729]Charlequin[/MENTION] want, but literally a book with ~3 pages of alternate features for base classes (which they’ve talked about doing already, in some capacity), and a continued flow of more “choice heavy” subclasses, and we're close enough. 



Al'Kelhar said:


> Hmm, I rarely get involved in these lovely back-and-forth discussions, but I must admit that this got me a bit stumped.
> 
> You do realise that _every feature of a character in 4E was in the nature of a power_ and _every power in 4E was in the same format and relied on exactly the same mechanics_, right? Roll an attack roll, do damage, apply condition. Rinse, repeat. To suggest that there was somehow "more variety" in character options in 4E than in 5E is, to my mind, contrary to evidence. 4E was the _absolute pinnacle_ of _less_ mechanical variety in character options of any version of D&D yet. Deliberately. That there were ten different powers that attacked an individual creature's Reflex defence, did 3 dice damage, and pushed them 2 squares, is not the definition of "variety". And something that was deliberately moved away from in 5E.
> 
> ...




Youve comoletely misharacteruaed 4e. The powers are formatted the same, they don’t do the same things. The customization of 4e is literally beyond compare in DnD’s history. The fact that most (not even all) combat powers do damage, after an attack roll, and often (again, not always) have some secondary effect, doesn’t mean they play out the same during play. They don’t. 
I don’t want an edition war argument, btw. I’m pointing this out because it’s salient to th discussion, because 4e powers are literally the model for 5e Battlemaster manuevers, and a ton of other 4e innovations help make 5e what it is. 



lowkey13 said:


> Really? While the "monk chassis" might not be a perfect fit for everything, IME and IMO, the Open Hand and Shadow are two of the best designed and realized subclasses out there!
> 
> In fact, I often think of the Monk when I think of a well-designed class that's a little different and lives up to its design goals.



The Drunken Master is also really well done, and accomplished it’s goals splendidly. It’s a hell of a fun class. Heck, even the 4 Elements Monk would be great if you got the elemental evil elemental cantrips for free, and the powers each cost 1 less ki.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 29, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I have to say, by this metric, vast swathes of the spell rules could go. There is absolutley no need for rules that specify range and AoE down to the last foot



Well, until that last foot makes the difference between your PC surviving or being fried to a cinder...



> I think a lot of the equipment rules might be vulnerable too. The difference between attacking with a mace and a sword doesn't seem super-important from the point of view of exciting stories about brave adventurers facing deadly peril.



Though D&D does make some logical distinctions between damage types and how some creatures suffer less (or more) from some types than other types.

Skeletons are the go-to example here.  Shooting one with bow and arrow isn't usually going to do much, nor is hitting one with a sword or other implement where the damage is expected to come via the cutting edge - there's not much to cut on a skeleton.  Hit one with a mace or club, however, and now you're getting it done.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice (Sep 29, 2018)

OB1 said:


> The design concept is story first. That is what Mearls was talking about. 5e doesn’t design a class to fit a role or the need for a INT based melee attack, it comes up with a story based idea first, then fits the mechanics to that.
> 
> And I didn’t say light design. I said light as possible design. Specifically, light as possible to reach the desired goal. In this case to tell an EXCITING story about brave adventurers facing deadly perils. In other words, only be as heavy as is absolutely necessary to reach that goal.
> 
> ...




"Story first" may have been the design concept, but it's not how the game actually turned out. D&D 5E may not be as heavy on mechanics as 4th or 3rd ed, but it's still very much a tactical wargame at the core, part of the tradition that goes all the way back to Chainmail and beyond. 

The vast majority of the rules in 5E relate to combat, while there's not a single rule that directly drives the story. Whether you get an exciting story or a boring one when playing 5E is entirely up to the players and DM.


----------



## CapnZapp (Sep 29, 2018)

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> "Story first" may have been the design concept, but it's not how the game actually turned out. D&D 5E may not be as heavy on mechanics as 4th or 3rd ed, but it's still very much a tactical wargame at the core, part of the tradition that goes all the way back to Chainmail and beyond.
> 
> The vast majority of the rules in 5E relate to combat, while there's not a single rule that directly drives the story. Whether you get an exciting story or a boring one when playing 5E is entirely up to the players and DM.



It's replies like this that makes me not give up on 5th edition, which MMearls actions are inclined to do.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 29, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Well, until that last foot makes the difference between your PC surviving or being fried to a cinder



That exciting outcome can come about in games that don't use measurements in the way that 5e does.

Which was my point.



Lanefan said:


> D&D does make some logical distinctions between damage types and how some creatures suffer less (or more) from some types than other types.



I'm not sure that this is always super-exciting. It seems like it might be a little pedantic.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 29, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> It's replies like this that makes me not give up on 5th edition, which MMearls actions are inclined to do.



CapnZapp, have you ever tried HARP (High Adventure RP - a type of Rolemaster-lite)? It's not D&D (obviously) but it might satisfy some of your desiderata. (Because not D&D, not so good for pick-up games - I'm not sure what your situation is in that respect.)


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 29, 2018)

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> "Story first" may have been the design concept, but it's not how the game actually turned out. D&D 5E may not be as heavy on mechanics as 4th or 3rd ed, but it's still very much a tactical wargame at the core, part of the tradition that goes all the way back to Chainmail and beyond.
> 
> The vast majority of the rules in 5E relate to combat, while there's not a single rule that directly drives the story. Whether you get an exciting story or a boring one when playing 5E is entirely up to the players and DM.




This claim is, of course, absurd and wrong.

However, lets talk about who likes 5e.

I don't personally know anyone who likes both 5e and tactical wargames.

I invited a boardgame friend to play and he wasn't into it because it was too story driven and not focused enough on strategy and tactics. And he isn't wrong. D&D makes a terrible strategy game. I think some of the people who play 5e and gripe about it would probably be much happier checking out the advances in boardgames. There are great thematic games out there which are competitive and tight. 

I don't have the data, but I think it is safe to assume that the millions of new players aren't playing it as a war game. The people I know who play don't even like boardgames.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice (Sep 29, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> This claim is, of course, absurd and wrong.



No, it is 100% true. Explain how 5E mechanically is any less of a wargame than Chainmail is. 

D&D has always been a wargame. You can of course play D&D with more focus on the story less tactical combat in your sessions, but that doesn't change what the system actually is. I expect it was the style of your game rather than the system that turned off your boardgamer friend, my wargaming friends are having loads of fun playing 5E as a tactical dungeon crawler.


----------



## Tallifer (Sep 29, 2018)

D&D can be either a roleplaying game or a tactical game or (usually) a mixture of both. I played a lot of D&D back in the day at my university's wargame's club; and I also played many wargames. 

The interesting thing about wargames is that there are also two broad approaches: players like me focused on reliving the history and enthusing over the colorful bits; other players focused much, much more on the tactics and strategy of winning.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 29, 2018)

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> D&D has always been a wargame.



I don't agree that 4e is a wargame, for two reasons.

(1) Skill challenges are not a wargame resolution mechanic.

(2) More interestingly (perhaps) a lot of its combat resolution mechanics aren't _wargame_ mechanics because their role is to drive a certain archeypte or fictional happening, rather than to emulate historical or even fantasy combat. The paladin power Valiant Strike is an example - it doesn't _model_ how a paladin fights, but rather creates incentives for a paladin to be played valiantly.

Come and Get It would be another example.


----------



## CapnZapp (Sep 29, 2018)

pemerton said:


> CapnZapp, have you ever tried HARP (High Adventure RP - a type of Rolemaster-lite)? It's not D&D (obviously) but it might satisfy some of your desiderata. (Because not D&D, not so good for pick-up games - I'm not sure what your situation is in that respect.)



I looked into it when it was new(ish), but got scared away by its apparent lack of balance.
Thanks though for the suggestion.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 29, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I looked into it when it was new(ish), but got scared away by its apparent lack of balance.



Fair enough. I can see how that would be an issue.

I know you don't like 4e (unless I'm misrembering badly). Does PF2 have anything to offer, or have you been left a bit hosed?


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 29, 2018)

pemerton said:


> That exciting outcome can come about in games that don't use measurements in the way that 5e does.
> 
> Which was my point.
> 
> I'm not sure that this is always super-exciting. It seems like it might be a little pedantic.



What? Should 5e go metric?

5e measures jumping to the half foot level. Jumping is frequently fairly important.

Movement and lots of things are measured in feet.

There is nothing required in 5e that prevents distances of 1 ft from mattering. 

Some GMs may choose otherwise.


----------



## Eric V (Sep 29, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I have to say, by this metric, vast swathes of the spell rules could go.




This seems to be true in practice; in another thread here, people are describing how they virtually never change out the spells prepared of their spellcasting PCs they play.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 29, 2018)

pemerton said:


> @_*Hriston*_'s suggsetion that an initiative check is a multi-character contest to see who gets to go first seems right to me. I can read page 58 of the Basic Rules, which describes contests in terms of opposition between two character. But presumably those rules are intended to be extrapolated in appropriate cases - for instance, if instead of two character racing to grab a ring from the floor, we were trying to resolve a treasure hunt at a birthday party, or an orienteering competiton, the contest mechanic would presumably be the appropriate one, with the mechanical success ordering corresponding to the in-fiction success ordering. (only one can be the winner!)




You have misstated the rule and thereby applied it incorrectly to initiative.  The rule is not that there can only be one winner.  The rule is that only one can succeed.  Only one person out of 20 racing for the ring can get succeed in getting it.  With initiative all 20 succeed in the goal of having the potential to act during the round.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 29, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> This claim is, of course, absurd and wrong.
> 
> However, lets talk about who likes 5e.
> 
> ...




You may not know me personally, but I’m raising my hand about liking wargames and 5e. Sure, I’m not approaching it as a wargame, but then again, I never have. The most board gamey version we ever played was 4e because it necessitated that degree of focus on the board, but we still didn’t approach it as a wargame or board game.

And the number of players who also play board games who also play 5e? Around my neck of the woods, it’s a lot.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 29, 2018)

Hriston said:


> Please explain how more than one can succeed when two are trying to go first. They can't both be first.




They are not both trying to go first.  The goal is just to have the potential to act, I say potential to act instead of act, because you can opt not to act or you can be rendered unable to act by someone else's action or the environment.  The success just determines the order of your ability to go.  I don't know if you have been in a fight, but when you are in a fight, you are just trying to hit the person, run away, or perform some other action.  You aren't thinking, "Boy.  I need to go first this swing.", but rather just swinging away and sometimes you happen to go first.  There are exceptions of course, such as when two Samurai duel and they are trying to be the fastest, but in the vast majority of instances, going first is just a matter of who happens to be fastest(dex check) and not the goal itself.



> You don't know what might happen during combat. Maybe in round three the fighter and the goblin end up toe to toe and their relative initiative scores will matter.




That's not relevant to the initiative roll.  For the initiative roll to be a contest, they have to be going up DIRECTLY against each other, per RAW, and that's not what happens with initiative.



> I agree that Jeremy Crawford has stated clearly that initiative is not a contest. I'm fine with him saying that, but RAW is silent on the issue. RAW (like Crawford) states that initiative is an ability check, which is a die roll called for when an action is attempted that has a chance of failure. The attempted action in the case of initiative is taking your turn in combat before your opponent. To find out if the ability check succeeds or fails, you compare it to a DC. Except in a contest, "a special form of ability check", you compare it to the result of an ability check made by your opponent. I wonder which of those two forms of ability check most closely resemble what goes on in initiative.




RAW is not silent on the issue.  RAW backs up Crawford and myself as it dictates that the opposition must be direct, which doesn't occur with initiative.



> If it isn't a contest, what's the DC to succeed in going before your opponent?




The goal is not to go first.  The goal is simply to have the potential to act in the round, so there is no DC.  Initiative is a special kind of ability check that is neither a contest, nor one where you are trying to beat a DC.  You will succeed on both a 25 and a 0.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 29, 2018)

clearstream said:


> For foes who are vying to go first, Initiative is similar to a contest (in the 5e mechanical sense) but its not identical. In a contest, a draw would result in the situation remaining as it was before the contest. That doesn't work as an outcome for initiative.
> 
> Similar, but not identical.




Similar to, doesn't count for RAW.  Identical to, counts for RAW.  The rules dictate when a contest happens, and in a tie during a contest, the situation remains the same(though I don't necessarily agree with that on a personal level).  For initiative to be a contest, ties would have to remain the same and they don't.  They would also have to be characters that are in direct opposition, and they aren't.  At best, the people rolling for initiative are in indirect opposition, at worst there is no opposition at all.  I can roll and lose initiative to the goblin I can't see, even though there isn't any attempt on my part to oppose that goblin either directly or indirectly.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 29, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> What? Should 5e go metric?
> 
> 5e measures jumping to the half foot level. Jumping is frequently fairly important.
> 
> ...



My point is that a system that uses measurements in the way that 5e does (which is a legacy of classic D&D combining wargaming distance measures with detailed map-based exploration) is not including only that which is _necessary_ to tell exciting stories about brave adventurers facing deadly perils.

The evidence for this is that there are many RPGs which enable the telling of exciting stories about brave adventurers facing deadly perils that don't require keeping track of details in D&D's wargaming style. Fate is one (it uses zones). Cortex+ Heroic is another (it just uses free description). Etc.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 29, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> You have misstated the rule and thereby applied it incorrectly to initiative.  The rule is not that there can only be one winner.  The rule is that only one can succeed.  Only one person out of 20 racing for the ring can get succeed in getting it.  With initiative all 20 succeed in the goal of having the potential to act during the round.



But obviously (and as  [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] has pointed out) they can't all succeed in acting before anyone else.

Presumably 5e is meant to be able to resolve foot races and similar competitions. And presumably that is meant to be done by extrapolating from the contest rules, in much the same way as initiative does.



Maxperson said:


> The goal is not to go first.  The goal is simply to have the potential to act in the round, so there is no DC.  Initiative is a special kind of ability check that is neither a contest, nor one where you are trying to beat a DC.  You will succeed on both a 25 and a 0.



Where do the rules say this?

If the goal was simply to act in the round, why would a check even be required? What is at stake?

I mean, it's not as if the term _initiative_ doesn't have a natural language meaning in this context. And it's impossible for _every_ combatant to have the initiative over the others. It's something that one gains because another has lost it.


----------



## Tallifer (Sep 29, 2018)

Yeah.. I gotta say that who wins the Initiative contest at the beginning of the fight can sometimes make a big difference. So I would definitely call it a contest, an opposed roll.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 29, 2018)

pemerton said:


> But obviously (and as  @_*Hriston*_ has pointed out) they can't all succeed in acting before anyone else.




That's not the goal.  The goal is just to act.  Not to act first.  People in a fight are not typically thinking "I need to go first!"  They are just trying to punch the other guy and who goes first is just something that happens.



> Where do the rules say this?




Are you really asking me where the rules dictate goals?  The rules model(imperfectly since reality is also not the goal) reality.  In a fight, people are not punching with the goal of going first.  They are punching with the goal of hitting the other guy.  Who goes first just happens and a dex check adequately models this.



> If the goal was simply to act in the round, why would a check even be required?




Because the alternative is a combat system that is utter chaos and virtually unplayable.  To make a combat playable, there needs to be some way to determine who goes in what order.


----------



## clearstream (Sep 29, 2018)

Tallifer said:


> Yeah.. I gotta say that who wins the Initiative contest at the beginning of the fight can sometimes make a big difference. So I would definitely call it a contest, an opposed roll.



I think [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] isn't discussing what one could call it informally, but how concretely it is defined in RAW. In RAW, Initiative is not a "Contest" because there are mechanical differences between an Initiative check, and a Contest check, in terms of outcomes. They're similar, but not identical.

For me, it's worthwhile going for formal application of keywords in RAW because it means everyone means the same thing when they use those words. For instance I could say someone was paralysed with fear, but unless they have the "Paralysed" condition, they are not paralysed... it's easy to see the ambiguities that can arise when switching between the informal and formal usages.


----------



## Jester David (Sep 29, 2018)

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> The vast majority of the rules in 5E relate to combat, while there's not a single rule that directly drives the story. Whether you get an exciting story or a boring one when playing 5E is entirely up to the players and DM.



*cough*
Inspiration
*cough*


----------



## Hriston (Sep 29, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> They are not both trying to go first.  The goal is just to have the potential to act, I say potential to act instead of act, because you can opt not to act or you can be rendered unable to act by someone else's action or the environment.  The success just determines the order of your ability to go.




So the higher degree of success the higher your placement in the order, yes? That sure sounds like you have a goal of high placement to me. If the goal, as you say, is only to have the potential to act, then a roll wouldn't be required. Everyone in the combat has the potential to act, so there is no uncertainty about the outcome of that goal and no need for an ability check to resolve it.



Maxperson said:


> I don't know if you have been in a fight, but when you are in a fight, you are just trying to hit the person, run away, or perform some other action.  You aren't thinking, "Boy.  I need to go first this swing.", but rather just swinging away and sometimes you happen to go first.  There are exceptions of course, such as when two Samurai duel and they are trying to be the fastest, but in the vast majority of instances, going first is just a matter of who happens to be fastest(dex check) and not the goal itself.




I'll have to take your word that this is your experience. As for myself, I haven't been in too many physical altercations in my life. I have heard that in a life and death fight the best way to survive is to immobilize your opponent's ability to harm you as quickly as possible before they have the opportunity to do so, and that's what makes sense to me.



Maxperson said:


> That's not relevant to the initiative roll.  For the initiative roll to be a contest, they have to be going up DIRECTLY against each other, per RAW, and that's not what happens with initiative.
> 
> RAW is not silent on the issue.  RAW backs up Crawford and myself as it dictates that the opposition must be direct, which doesn't occur with initiative.




The results of the two rolls are compared with one another to see who goes first. That sounds like direct opposition to me.



Maxperson said:


> The goal is not to go first.  The goal is simply to have the potential to act in the round, so there is no DC.  Initiative is a special kind of ability check that is neither a contest, nor one where you are trying to beat a DC.  You will succeed on both a 25 and a 0.




If there's no uncertainty as to success then there should be no ability check. I think you should ask yourself why the DM is calling for an ability check when the outcome of the attempted action you've described (i.e. having a turn) is not in doubt.


----------



## Hriston (Sep 29, 2018)

clearstream said:


> For foes who are vying to go first, Initiative is similar to a contest (in the 5e mechanical sense) but its not identical. In a contest, a draw would result in the situation remaining as it was before the contest. That doesn't work as an outcome for initiative.




Thus the need for the specific rule regarding the adjudication of a tie during initiative.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 29, 2018)

billd91 said:


> You may not know me personally, but I’m raising my hand about liking wargames and 5e. Sure, I’m not approaching it as a wargame, but then again, I never have. The most board gamey version we ever played was 4e because it necessitated that degree of focus on the board, but we still didn’t approach it as a wargame or board game.
> 
> And the number of players who also play board games who also play 5e? Around my neck of the woods, it’s a lot.




Of course I never said everybody. I am an example of a person who likes heavy strategy board games and 5e (I'm not into wargames but close enough).

I'm betting the majority of hobby gamers do. They just don't make up a majority of the 5e player base. There are reasons for that. 

The point of the anecdote is that some people do exist who like 5e and don't like strategy board games (or wargames). 

I've seen this idea stated before on message boards. In fact there was a 500 reply thread on one where everyone argued whether D&D was an RPG or just a tactical combat game. Most of those people are from the 3e/4e era.

5e makes for a lousy strategy game. There are much better alternatives out there if that is all you get from it.


(and one interesting thing I've noticed - Players new to RPGs entirely tend to have an easy time picking up and DMing/playing 5e while people from 3e/4e sometimes have a hard time understanding the rules)


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 29, 2018)

pemerton said:


> That exciting outcome can come about in games that don't use measurements in the way that 5e does.
> 
> Which was my point.



How, though?  

Saving throws or equivalent can have a say, I suppose - if you're near the edge it could be a three-outcome save where you take full damage, half damage or no damage based on how well you roll (I've done this before in some too-close-to-call situations).  

Or you could go 3e-4e style and have it go square by square but there's no miss-by-a-foot there; you're either in a square or you are not and the fire either hits a square or it does not - very cut and dried but at great expense to <realism, immersion, believability - pick as many as you like>.  

Or it could be straight-up GM fiat, but down that path lie arguments galore.



> I'm not sure that this is always super-exciting. It seems like it might be a little pedantic.



This is one where I'll willingly trade excitement for realism - trying to break bones with arrows is less effective than trying to break them with a heavy blunt instrument.


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 29, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> How, though?
> 
> Saving throws or equivalent can have a say, I suppose - if you're near the edge it could be a three-outcome save where you take full damage, half damage or no damage based on how well you roll (I've done this before in some too-close-to-call situations).
> 
> ...



I believe he's thinking about games that describe an opponent as engaged, close, far or the like without being more specific than that.

A burst effect that was described in 5e as a 15' radius around the caster would affect everyone who was engaged or close. 



That sort of thing.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 29, 2018)

pemerton said:


> If the goal was simply to act in the round, why would a check even be required? What is at stake?



At the metagame (or meatgame) level, the initiative roll informs both the DM and the players at the table which character(s) will be dealt with in which order, so as to keep things simple and not have everybody shouting at once.

AFAIC this represents about 90% of its usefulness and relevance.  In-game, other than relatively few instances where it really does make a difference what happens first (do you get paralyzed before or after you finish casting your spell?) it's all just fog of war where you're just trying to do what you have to do to survive and prevail.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 29, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> I believe he's thinking about games that describe an opponent as engaged, close, far or the like without being more specific than that.
> 
> A burst effect that was described in 5e as a 15' radius around the caster would affect everyone who was engaged or close.



OK, engaged is obvious but where does 'close' end and 'far' begin?

Put another way, if there's a crowd trying to get close to someone - say, some D&D-world rock star walking through a city square full of hysterical fans - and I drop a well-aimed fireball on him, how many of the crowd do I hit?  They're all as close to him as they can get even though some may be at the edge of the crowd 50 feet or more away, thus not passing any definition of 'close'...where does the fireball end?


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 29, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> OK, engaged is obvious but where does 'close' end and 'far' begin?
> 
> Put another way, if there's a crowd trying to get close to someone - say, some D&D-world rock star walking through a city square full of hysterical fans - and I drop a well-aimed fireball on him, how many of the crowd do I hit?  They're all as close to him as they can get even though some may be at the edge of the crowd 50 feet or more away, thus not passing any definition of 'close'...where does the fireball end?



I don't really know how it works in practice, since I've never played much beyond D&D.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 29, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> Of course I never said everybody. I am an example of a person who likes heavy strategy board games and 5e (I'm not into wargames but close enough).
> 
> I'm betting the majority of hobby gamers do. They just don't make up a majority of the 5e player base. There are reasons for that.
> 
> ...




It is worth noting that WotC has a board game version of 4E D&D rules actually meant for wargame shennanigans. They've had the same rules since 2010, published 5 games, all of which can still be found in stores, and they have indicated they have zero plans to make a 5E-ish update to them.

So, not to be edition warrior about it at all, but...4E rules have been very successful in a board game format, and I doubt 5E would be.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 29, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> It is worth noting that WotC has a board game version of 4E D&D rules actually meant for wargame shennanigans. They've had the same rules since 2010, published 5 games, all of which can still be found in stores, and they have indicated they have zero plans to make a 5E-ish update to them.
> 
> So, not to be edition warrior about it at all, but...4E rules have been very successful in a board game format, and I doubt 5E would be.




Oh sure. And 3e had a grid as default along with lots of rules that were gamey.

5e has theatre of the mind as default.

The story first vs mechanics first is what is valued in the game.

Is the game Heroquest? Or is it narrative driven?

I think people see in 5e what they are used to in other editions (or perhaps what they want out of the game). There are people who say the only rules in the game are about combat tactics. And there are people who say the 'fluff' doesn't matter and is easily mutable in order to achieve some sort of mechanical option. They dismiss the narrative elements and then say the game doesn't have any.

Then we end up with a lot of threads on confusion over skills. The skills system was designed to be narrative. They only matter if they matter cinematically. I've noticed that some people are unable to understand this because of how they have framed the game. 

5e is designed to play out like an action movie rather than a board game. 

Another example is how rests work. I've seen the same people who say D&D isn't an RPG and just a tactical combat game also take a long rest after every encounter. Then say the game is broken. An action movie would be incredibly dull if the protagonists weren't under any sort of pressure and just took challenges in their own time on their own terms.

Competitive games are all about finding whatever advantages you can, including 'rules abuse'. Some people try to parse the rules language in 5e to silly results in order to gain an advantage. Whenever that comes up I point them to the candle in the equipment section. Nowhere in the rules does it say it must be lit in order to provide light.

Then when Mearls comes out and says, no really that is what the game is about, they decry that he is a terrible designer because he doesn't know what he is talking about.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Sep 29, 2018)

pemerton said:


> CapnZapp, have you ever tried HARP (High Adventure RP - a type of Rolemaster-lite)? It's not D&D (obviously) but it might satisfy some of your desiderata. (Because not D&D, not so good for pick-up games - I'm not sure what your situation is in that respect.)




HARP is actually really good.  That said, any time someone comes to me and asks me to run 1e, I respond with Rolemaster these days.  

KB


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 30, 2018)

Hriston said:


> So the higher degree of success the higher your placement in the order, yes? That sure sounds like you have a goal of high placement to me. If the goal, as you say, is only to have the potential to act, then a roll wouldn't be required. Everyone in the combat has the potential to act, so there is no uncertainty about the outcome of that goal and no need for an ability check to resolve it.




It's a special case.  You can't just allow everyone to go whenever as that breaks combat and makes combat unplayable, so an ability check is necessary.  Specific beats general.



> I'll have to take your word that this is your experience. As for myself, I haven't been in too many physical altercations in my life. I have heard that in a life and death fight the best way to survive is to immobilize your opponent's ability to harm you as quickly as possible before they have the opportunity to do so, and that's what makes sense to me.




I have.  I was a loner in junior high and high school, but I fought back against bullies so I got into multiple fights a year.  Had I been in school in the modern era, I'd probably have been arrested and expelled due to stupid changes in how they treat kids.  I've been in enough fights to know that you are just trying to win the fight, not see if you can go first in the round.



> The results of the two rolls are compared with one another to see who goes first. That sounds like direct opposition to me.




That's wrong, though.  An arm wrestling match is direct opposition.  A Jeopardy question is direct opposition.  Only one can get it right.  Rolling initiative to see when in the round you can act isn't in direct opposition to anyone.  You are not trying to stop them acting with the initiative roll.



> If there's no uncertainty as to success then there should be no ability check. I think you should ask yourself why the DM is calling for an ability check when the outcome of the attempted action you've described (i.e. having a turn) is not in doubt.




Specific beats general.  Combat requires a mechanic to see in what order those who are automatically successful at being able to take an action can take that action.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 30, 2018)

Hriston said:


> Thus the need for the specific rule regarding the adjudication of a tie during initiative.




There isn't a specific rule, though, when it comes to DM vs. player ties.  The rule given is identical to what would happen if no rule existed.  The DM would decide.  It's a non-rule rule.


----------



## OB1 (Sep 30, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> 5e is designed to play out like an action movie rather than a board game.




That is a brilliant insight and sums it up really elegantly.  Only thing I’d add...

5e is designed to play out like an action movie rather than a board game or a novel.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 30, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> the alternative is a combat system that is utter chaos and virtually unplayable.  To make a combat playable, there needs to be some way to determine who goes in what order.



Classic Traveller uses simultaneous resolution. So does Burning Wheel.

Prince Valiant and Dungeon World treat combat the same as anything else - the sequence of resolution is established via the table's (and particularly the GM's) management of the fiction. There's no action economy. Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic uses this approach to determine who goes first, and then the action gets passed to someone else at the choice of the person who just acted.

In a Wicked Age (which has a generic resolution system, nothing combat-specific) uses the same set of rolls to establish its version of initiative, and outcomes.

None of these is unplayable, and I would say that each is lighter than 5e.



clearstream said:


> In RAW, Initiative is not a "Contest" because there are mechanical differences between an Initiative check, and a Contest check, in terms of outcomes. They're similar, but not identical.
> 
> For me, it's worthwhile going for formal application of keywords in RAW because it means everyone means the same thing when they use those words.



The implication of this is that the rules, as presented, don't allow us to resolve a foot race involving three or more contestants. Which doesn't seem right to me - the contest rules (ie mutually opposed checks used to establish a ranking) seem to be applicable here.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 30, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> How, though?



Straight adjudication of the fiction. Opposed checks. Saving throw-type mechanics as you describe. Zones like [MENTION=6801204]Satyrn[/MENTION] describes.

Classic Traveller (1977 - so not a new system) uses range bands to establish zones, and for vulnerability to automatic fire and shotgun blasts just relies upon the notion of "adjacency" and "in a group" (ie straight adjudication of the fiction).

13th Age is a contemporary system that uses zones.

DW just adjudicates the fiction.

Etc.

(Also, the idea that squares are "unrealistic" but measuring in feet is not seems implausible - how do we tell where your foot, hand, elbow, etc are in foot-by-foot based AD&D or 5e resolution? There is always going to have to be some level of granularity and stipulation, and by-the-five-foot is no more or less "realistic" than by the metre or by the foot or by the inch.)


----------



## pemerton (Sep 30, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> So, not to be edition warrior about it at all, but...4E rules have been very successful in a board game format, and I doubt 5E would be.



I think that's because 4e is a tactical skirmish game interspersed among freeform roleplaying - or so I've been told.

EDIT: Those games bear the same relationship to 4e as an arena dice-off would to AD&D. They don't involve adjudication of the fiction. They don't have a skill challenge mechanic. They don't involve any sort of PC motivation or protagonism. In other words, they're board games, not RPGs.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 30, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Classic Traveller uses simultaneous resolution. So does Burning Wheel.
> 
> Prince Valiant and Dungeon World treat combat the same as anything else - the sequence of resolution is established via the table's (and particularly the GM's) management of the fiction. There's no action economy. Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic uses this approach to determine who goes first, and then the action gets passed to someone else at the choice of the person who just acted.
> 
> ...




How many of those systems would just snap easily into the 5e rule system?


----------



## pemerton (Sep 30, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> How many of those systems would just snap easily into the 5e rule system?



MHRP/Cortex+ easily enough.

You could also play 5e with simultaneous blind declaration if you wanted to, or the classic D&D version of that which combines simultaneous declaration with side-by-side initiative. I'm pretty sure I've read posters on this board who run 5e this way.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 30, 2018)

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] - I have to admit, I'm kinda disappointed here.  You've argued, at considerable length, in other threads that dictionary definitions trump game definitions - most recently about an urchin barbarian being impossible.  Yet, here you are, ignoring the dictionary and insisting that RAW readings trump.  That's a tad convenient, no?

It boils down to this.  A contest in 5e D&D is any time 2 or more actors are trying to do something.  End of story.  Initiative is a kind of contest, because we are determining who goes first.  Note, ties are determined by the DM which can be rolled off.  All that means is specific trumps general.  In general, contests resulting in ties simply leave the status quo.  In initiative, ties are broken.  That doesn't make it "not a contest".

But, hey, feel free to continue this pedantic wank.  It's entertaining if nothing else.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 30, 2018)

Hussar said:


> @_*Maxperson*_ - I have to admit, I'm kinda disappointed here.  You've argued, at considerable length, in other threads that dictionary definitions trump game definitions - most recently about an urchin barbarian being impossible.  Yet, here you are, ignoring the dictionary and insisting that RAW readings trump.  That's a tad convenient, no?




No.  I'm not ignoring any dictionary definition. Basically, the dictionary definition encompasses all contests, but there are no mechanics for any type of contest outside of the two listed in the game under the contests section, and the special initiative rules which are separate from that.  



> It boils down to this.  A contest in 5e D&D is any time 2 or more actors are trying to do something.




Not by RAW, and not by the Sage Advice which explicitly says otherwise.



> End of story.




Yes it is.  When you directly oppose RAW and Sage Advice, you lose without a roll as the outcome is not in doubt.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 30, 2018)

Oh, good grief.



			
				5e Basic rules on Contests said:
			
		

> Contests
> Sometimes one character’s or monster’s efforts are directly opposed to another’s. This can occur when both of them are trying to do the same thing and only one can succeed, such as attempting to snatch up a magic ring that has fallen on the  floor. This situation also applies when one of them is trying to prevent the other one from accomplishing a goal—for example, when a monster tries to force open a door that an adventurer is holding closed. In situations like these, the outcome is determined by a special form of ability check, called a contest.
> 
> Both participants in a contest make ability checks appropriate to their efforts. They apply all appropriate bonuses and penalties, but instead of comparing the total to a DC, they compare the totals of their two checks. *The participant with the higher check total wins the contest. That character or monster either succeeds at the action or prevents the other one from succeeding.*
> ...




Note, there are two parts here.  The bolded part is the important part though.  You can EITHER succeed or prevent the other character from succeeding.  Just as in an initiative contest, I succeed at going faster than you.  We are both trying to go first.  Only one of us will succeed.  Thus, we roll Dexterity CHECKS, just as in any contest, to determine who goes first.  Now, initiative has the additional caveat (i.e. specific trumps general) that we cannot have a tie in this contest, but, other than that, this is definitively a rules based contest.

Now, you can play pedantic silly buggers all day long.  But, at the end of the day, you are very much in the wrong here.  

But, to be fair, I've completely lost track about why this is being argued.  What was the original point that was being made?


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 30, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I think that's because 4e is a tactical skirmish game interspersed among freeform roleplaying - or so I've been told.
> 
> EDIT: Those games bear the same relationship to 4e as an arena dice-off would to AD&D. They don't involve adjudication of the fiction. They don't have a skill challenge mechanic. They don't involve any sort of PC motivation or protagonism. In other words, they're board games, not RPGs.




*shrug*

I've played both 4E and the D&D Adventure System games, and they felt very similar to me.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 30, 2018)

OB1 said:


> That is a brilliant insight and sums it up really elegantly.  Only thing I’d add...
> 
> 5e is designed to play out like an action movie rather than a board game or a novel.




Absolutely.

The novel thing is a problem in all RPGs I think. Most commonly people think of it as the DM telling a story. There is also the problem of players creating main protagonists and hogging spotlight rather than ensemble characters.

I think I will make a thread about the action movie thing.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 30, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> *shrug*
> 
> I've played both 4E and the D&D Adventure System games, and they felt very similar to me.



I've played AD&D arena combats and Keep on the Borderlands, and likewise. I'm not sure what that shows, though. In my case, probably that I was not a very good AD&D player - as I have never really got into the exploratory/ASL aspects of that game, which are pretty significant for B2. I don't know about your case, but I'm inferring that your 4e PCs had not motivations, did not act protagonistically, didn't improvise, and never engaged in skill challenges adjudicated in the manner the DMG and DMG2 set out.


----------



## SmokeyCriminal (Sep 30, 2018)

Initiative is a curious mechanic. During a combat "round" of 6 seconds everyone is taking their turn at the exact same time. But the DM can't resolve all those actions at once. So everyone rolls Initiative to see in which order the actions get resolved, not to see who "goes first".

I don't think you can call it a contest because if you want to go last but you rolled the highest in initiative, then you what?... lost by winning?

If the mechanic was "whoever rolls the highest Initiative gets to choose when they go" then I'd call it a contest. 

But your desires don't actually play a factor in the outcome. It's more of a coincidence/Bug/Feature that having your actions resolved first/last can sometimes give you an advantage.

Maybe if they called it Combat Action Resolution Order Roll it might be clearer in what exactly the mechanic is, and does. Even if it doesn't sound as cool as Initiative.

Crap, I just realized Assassinate kinda throws a wrench in the whole thing.


----------



## ad_hoc (Sep 30, 2018)

SmokeyCriminal said:


> Initiative is a curious mechanic. During a combat "round" of 6 seconds everyone is taking their turn at the exact same time. But the DM can't resolve all those actions at once. So everyone rolls Initiative to see in which order the actions get resolved, not to see who "goes first".
> 
> I don't think you can call it a contest because if you want to go last but you rolled the highest in initiative, then you what?... lost by winning?
> 
> ...




Think of an action movie.

Everyone is doing stuff at the time but key actions that the camera focuses on happen one after the other (unless we're talking Transformers, in which case it's just a lot of CGI noise  ).


----------



## clearstream (Sep 30, 2018)

pemerton said:


> The implication of this is that the rules, as presented, don't allow us to resolve a foot race involving three or more contestants. Which doesn't seem right to me - the contest rules (ie mutually opposed checks used to establish a ranking) seem to be applicable here.



Participants in a footrace can come in first, second, third etc, and draw, so a straightforward *Strength (Athletics)* ability check is a better mechanic to apply. Contests are not for ranking, they're for cases where creatures are directly opposing each other.

Edit to give an example. Five creatures race, getting Strength (Athletics) checks of 11, 16, 2, 12, 11. They place in this order - 16 (wins), 12 (second), 11 and 11 (tied for third), 2 (last). That would be for a short sprint. To play out an endurance race, creatures are allowed a number of Dash actions equal to 3 + Constitution modifier, and must make DC 10 checks for each Dash over that - gaining Exhaustion levels on failure. It's more complicated, but working then from Speed produces a finishing order.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 30, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Note, there are two parts here.  The bolded part is the important part though.  You can EITHER succeed or prevent the other character from succeeding.  Just as in an initiative contest, I succeed at going faster than you.  We are both trying to go first.  Only one of us will succeed.  Thus, we roll Dexterity CHECKS, just as in any contest, to determine who goes first.  Now, initiative has the additional caveat (i.e. specific trumps general) that we cannot have a tie in this contest, but, other than that, this is definitively a rules based contest.




Gotta love when people take things out of context in an attempt to win the internetz.

The context for that statement is the first part that you ignored up there...

"Sometimes one character’s or monster’s efforts are directly opposed to another’s. This can occur when both of them are trying to do the same thing *and only one can succeed*, such as attempting to snatch up a magic ring that has fallen on the floor. This situation also applies when one of them is trying to prevent the other one from accomplishing a goal—for example, *when a monster tries to force open a door that an adventurer is holding closed*. In situations like these, the outcome is determined by a special form of ability check, called a contest."

Exactly two situations are given that can be called contests by RAW.  

The first one involves a contest where only one can succeed, such as snatching a ring off of the ground.  If you win the roll, you succeed.  The first portion of the part you took out of context.  They key part is bolded here, but I'll repeat it for the 20th times since you didn't see it the first 19 times I posted it, mentioned it, and you just quoted it.  

The second part comes when trying to prevent someone from doing something, like holding a door shut while the other is trying to open it.  If you win, you prevent the other one from succeeding.  They key part is bolded here, but I'll repeat it for the 20th times since you didn't see it the first 19 times I posted it, mentioned it, and you just quoted it.  

Will you stop pretending you can't understand something so simple, or that somehow your argument overcomes both RAW and Sage Advice that says you are wrong?  Or else go learn about context?


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 30, 2018)

clearstream said:


> Participants in a footrace can come in first, second, third etc, and draw, so a straightforward *Strength (Athletics)* ability check is a better mechanic to apply. Contests are not for ranking, they're for cases where creatures are directly opposing each other.
> 
> Edit to give an example. Five creatures race, getting Strength (Athletics) checks of 11, 16, 2, 12, 11. They place in this order - 16 (wins), 12 (second), 11 and 11 (tied for third), 2 (last). That would be for a short sprint. To play out an endurance race, creatures are allowed a number of Dash actions equal to 3 + Constitution modifier, and must make DC 10 checks for each Dash over that - gaining Exhaustion levels on failure. It's more complicated, but working then from Speed produces a finishing order.




It seems pretty clear at this point that multiple people in this thread can't tell the difference between indirect opposition like races, initiative,  and javalin throws, and direct opposition like arm wrestling, snatching a ring off the ground before the other guy, and preventing someone from opening a door.


----------



## Tallifer (Sep 30, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> It seems pretty clear at this point that multiple people in this thread can't tell the difference between indirect opposition like races, initiative,  and javalin throws, and direct opposition like arm wrestling, snatching a ring off the ground before the other guy, and preventing someone from opening a door.




Or multiple people think it does not make enough real difference to matter?


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 30, 2018)

Tallifer said:


> Or multiple people think it does not make enough real difference to matter?




Which is perfectly fine.  If they want to expand the contest rule to include indirect opposition, they are free to do so.  They just can't claim that RAW supports it, and we are discussing RAW here.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 30, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Which is perfectly fine.  If they want to expand the contest rule to include indirect opposition, they are free to do so.  They just can't claim that RAW supports it, and we are discussing RAW here.




Actually, if i recall correctly the initiative as contest discussion came out of a claim someone made about the initiative tie-rule and what would happen *if* that initiative tie rule were removed or did not exist. 

That pretty much starts the foundation of what we are discussing here at "not RAW" since RAW the initiative rule is there.

But hey, whatever spin one needs - all power to you.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 30, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I've played AD&D arena combats and Keep on the Borderlands, and likewise. I'm not sure what that shows, though. In my case, probably that I was not a very good AD&D player - as I have never really got into the exploratory/ASL aspects of that game, which are pretty significant for B2. I don't know about your case, but I'm inferring that your 4e PCs had not motivations, did not act protagonistically, didn't improvise, and never engaged in skill challenges adjudicated in the manner the DMG and DMG2 set out.




Actually, it's more that I got into character playing the Castle Ravenloft board game. My experience with 4E proper was pretty much Keep on the Shadowfell, and the DMs first time doing his thing. So, no, the full blown "skill challenge" didn't really happen. Honestly, I doubt skill challenges we're really tested by most groups that tried 4E for a short while, not in the way drawn out in the books.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 30, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Actually, if i recall correctly the initiative as contest discussion came out of a claim someone made about the initiative tie-rule and what would happen *if* that initiative tie rule were removed or did not exist.
> 
> That pretty much starts the foundation of what we are discussing here at "not RAW" since RAW the initiative rule is there.




That was me.  My claim, which is 100% true, is that if the initiative tie rule specifically regarding ties between players and the DM had not been written, the initiative rule would play out identically.  It says the DM decides.  I didn't attempt to change RAW into meaning something completely different, like these others are doing.  There would quite literally be no difference in how initiative plays out without that one sentence.  Saying that the rule plays the same with or without that one sentence, isn't the same as altering RAW.



> But hey, whatever spin one needs - all power to you




If you're going to make snide comments, it helps if you know what you are talking about first.


----------



## Sadras (Oct 1, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Well, by the criterion I suggested, that would make the mechanics poorly designed.
> 
> Conversely, if we really think that flanking an opponent is an advantageous way to fight, then there is nothing unnatural about manouevring into such a position.
> 
> ...




I have no issue with 1 or 2 in instances where it makes sense, but every time becomes ridiculous, and this wasn't only from a DM's perspective, this was initially highlighted verbally by a player during our 4e games. In 5e it is worse because AoO occur once a character has left an opponent's reach not a threatened area - so you could run circles around your foe. A clear mechanical advantage generally trumps anything else. To keep on denying it, is an inability to accept reality IMO.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 1, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Actually, it's more that I got into character playing the Castle Ravenloft board game. My experience with 4E proper was pretty much Keep on the Shadowfell, and the DMs first time doing his thing. So, no, the full blown "skill challenge" didn't really happen. Honestly, I doubt skill challenges we're really tested by most groups that tried 4E for a short while, not in the way drawn out in the books.




I always kinda chuckle when I see the "4e is a boardgame" thing trotted out.  Considering that we had what, six, seven years of D&D Miniatures, the game, which was the 3e combat system, virtually verbatim, played out as a tabletop wargame.  To the point where DDM material (like the Marshall) was actually compatible with the 3e ruleset.

If you want to play any version of D&D as a boardgame, you can.  It's not like it's hard.  4e is no different than any other edition in this.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 1, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I always kinda chuckle when I see the "4e is a boardgame" thing trotted out.  Considering that we had what, six, seven years of D&D Miniatures, the game, which was the 3e combat system, virtually verbatim, played out as a tabletop wargame.  To the point where DDM material (like the Marshall) was actually compatible with the 3e ruleset.
> 
> If you want to play any version of D&D as a boardgame, you can.  It's not like it's hard.  4e is no different than any other edition in this.




I played 4e quite a while and no, it was no boardgame. It however lost the possibility to play with combat as war and instead embraced combat as sport too much.
Thus at a certain point combat felt like a board game to me, both as player and DM. WHat is the best pace to stand on and what is the best power to use. And so on.
At low levels we had great theater of the mind combats, but that changed with just a few levels when you had your full repertoire of encounter and daily powers and some utility. Positioning. Many small hold effects that just last a few turns. And design of monsters and powers disallowed gaining so much advantage in the beginning of combat to make scouting etc really pay off. Add the strict rules for adjucating powers and then you know why the combat part feels boardgamey and why your roleplaying part might adjust to that playstyle. But that started with 3.5 and 4e in a certain way was the logical successor.
5e gives a lot more room for creativity which the narrow design of 4e does not. Before it is brought up by someone else, page 42 also sadly lost its value when you level up because of the way the level bonus was designed...

And the conclusion: i really wanted to like 4e forever bit thaz was as impossible as it was with 3.5. I hope my love with 5e will lassts as long as this edition lasts. And I hope the eventual 6e will embrace and build up on the 5e design.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 1, 2018)

SmokeyCriminal said:


> Initiative is a curious mechanic. During a combat "round" of 6 seconds everyone is taking their turn at the exact same time. But the DM can't resolve all those actions at once. So everyone rolls Initiative to see in which order the actions get resolved, not to see who "goes first".
> 
> I don't think you can call it a contest because if you want to go last but you rolled the highest in initiative, then you what?... lost by winning?



So why do those with higher DEX tend to go earlier? They're too twitchy to help themselves?



clearstream said:


> Participants in a footrace can come in first, second, third etc, and draw, so a straightforward *Strength (Athletics)* ability check is a better mechanic to apply. Contests are not for ranking, they're for cases where creatures are directly opposing each other.
> 
> Edit to give an example. Five creatures race, getting Strength (Athletics) checks of 11, 16, 2, 12, 11. They place in this order - 16 (wins), 12 (second), 11 and 11 (tied for third), 2 (last).



But how is that not an application of the contest mechanics (ie a comparison of opposed checks)? It is not comparing the results of a check to a GM-set DC.



Maxperson said:


> It seems pretty clear at this point that multiple people in this thread can't tell the difference between indirect opposition like races, initiative,  and javalin throws, and direct opposition like arm wrestling, snatching a ring off the ground before the other guy, and preventing someone from opening a door.



Or - to add to [MENTION=84661]Tallifer[/MENTION]'s alternative suggestion - don't think that any such difference is salient to the contest rules.

To say that two opponents in a footrace are not _directly opposed_ or that it's not the case that _only one can succeed_ (at coming first) seems strained to me. (Compare eg an exam, where each is trying to do his/her best but neither is trying to _best[/I the other in a head-to-head competition. And then compare an exam to a buzzer-based quiz show. Etc.)

The alternative logic means that a race to get to point X first is not a contest, but putting a ring there which the first competitor has to grab and stick on his/her finger makes it one. That's odd to say the least. More generally, I think that 5e has the resources to resolve simple running races as well as "king of the hill" type competitions without needing to enter the murky territory of "house rules".

(And an arm wrestle surely wouldn't be a contest. Surely the character with the higher STR just wins, absent some rather exceptional circumstances.)_


----------



## pemerton (Oct 1, 2018)

Sadras said:


> A clear mechanical advantage generally trumps anything else. To keep on denying it, is an inability to accept reality IMO.



What am I denying?

I assert that good mechanics align mechanical incentive and PC motivation. If you're pointing to mechanics that don't satisfy that test, then you're pointing to bad mechanics.

I personally don't find the 4e mechanics to be a big deal in this respect - manoeuvring to avoid OAs happens from time to time in my 4e games, but doesn't seem particularly "unnatural" on grounds that manouevring to avoid danger on a battlefield makes some sense. The stop-motion isn't always ideal, but generally we cope with that, or there are enough off-turn actions in play to reduce the sense of it.

But if I found the 4e mechanics to be a big problem in this respect then I would look for something that is better. Or adopt an ad hoc workaround - eg if you run to help a friend by the most direct route, get +2 on your roll to help them. Now there's a trade-off between careful manouevring and hurrying as quick as you can.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 1, 2018)

pemerton said:


> So why do those with higher DEX tend to go earlier? They're too twitchy to help themselves?




Because higher dex means that often you will just happen to go faster than others, but not always.



> But how is that not an application of the contest mechanics (ie a comparison of opposed checks)? It is not comparing the results of a check to a GM-set DC.




It's not an application of the contest mechanics, because like initiative, a race is an INDIRECT opposition, not a DIRECT opposition like arm wrestling would be.  The contest mechanics are only for direct opposition.



> Or - to add to @_*Tallifer*_'s alternative suggestion - don't think that any such difference is salient to the contest rules.




It's the first line, man.  It doesn't get more salient than to be the entire way a contest is determined.

"Sometimes one character’s or monster’s efforts are *directly opposed* to another’s."  that sets the contest for the entire section, everything mentioned and described also goes along with the direct opposition mentioned.  If you want to include indirect opposition like races and initiative in the contest rules, you can add it.

"To say that two opponents in a footrace are not _directly opposed_ or that it's not the case that _only one can succeed_ (at coming first) seems strained to me. (Compare eg an exam, where each is trying to do his/her best but neither is trying to _best[/I the other in a head-to-head competition. And then compare an exam to a buzzer-based quiz show. Etc.)"

I am not directly opposing anyone on the game show.  The only thing I am doing is trying solo to hit a buzzer.  There is no opposition at all in an exam, direct or indirect.





			(And an arm wrestle surely wouldn't be a contest. Surely the character with the higher STR just wins, absent some rather exceptional circumstances.)
		
Click to expand...



Not really.  Pure arm strength is often different than full body strength.  You can also be off, distracted, or what have you.  If the strength scores are significantly different, I won't have a roll.  But if they are within say 4 points of each other, that's close enough to put the outcome in doubt._


----------



## clearstream (Oct 1, 2018)

pemerton said:


> But how is that not an application of the contest mechanics (ie a comparison of opposed checks)? It is not comparing the results of a check to a GM-set DC.



I think this text helps

"_The participant with the higher check total wins the contest. That character or monster either succeeds at the action or prevents the other one from succeeding._"



pemerton said:


> To say that two opponents in a footrace are not _directly opposed_ or that it's not the case that _only one can succeed_ (at coming first) seems strained to me.



If the only options are win or lose, and placing is of no interest, then a DM could call for a Contest and that can work out fine. If placing is of interest, the actual rolls become useful. One of the key things about a Contest is a binary outcome.



pemerton said:


> (And an arm wrestle surely _wouldn't _be a contest. Surely the character with the higher STR just wins, absent some rather exceptional circumstances.)



I don't think there are many cases where the RAW suggests a straight comparison of the underlying ability score.

I mean, one can think of Jumping, but then the rules do suggest some kind of check to go further than your usual distance. Another might be Speed in Chases, but then the rules do suggest a check for number of Dashes you can make. I'm not sure there is a single case where the unadorned ability is directly compared to get an outcome. Near universally a check of some kind is called for.

An arm wrestle in particular seems quite close to one of the examples for a Contest - holding a door shut - which could with equal justice be highest STR wins, if that was intended.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 1, 2018)

clearstream said:


> An arm wrestle in particular seems quite close to one of the examples for a Contest - holding a door shut - which could with equal justice be highest STR wins, if that was intended.



Why would the result of an arm wrestle between me and a Storm Giant be in doubt?


----------



## clearstream (Oct 1, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Why would the result of an arm wrestle between me and a Storm Giant be in doubt?



This is a feature of bounded accuracy that some players have picked up on: it produces a modifier range that paints characters as capable of heroic feats - such as out arm-wrestling a Storm Giant. An egregious failing in a game mechanic can point to mistaken interpretation, as the designers might be expected to have fixed anything obvious. But this isn't an egregious failing. Think of Beowulf wrestling and ripping the arm off Grendel, a monstrous creature of giant-strength that no other man could match, directly descended from Cain. It's just the rules working as written.

Two examples -


Say we have a level 1 character, Strength 11, no Athletics. Their modifiers are +0 vs +14. The giant wins in roughly 24 out of 25 attempts. Or with Athletics, their modifiers are +2 vs +14. The giant wins roughly 23 out of 25 attempts.
Or say instead we have the sort of higher-level hero capable of arm-wrestling a Storm Giant and odds-on winning: the question for each DM is - do they want that in their campaign? Some do, some don't. It's in the scope of heroic fantasy to happen, I think.
A DM who dislikes that has a couple of good options. One is to rule that arm-wrestling is a form of Grapple. For me that kills a bit of fun, so I might instead say that a first win is needed to start a push or resist being pushed, bringing arms back to vertical, and a second win is needed from a pushed position, to press the arm to the table. A contest in multiple parts is often a good way to create tension. Especially if there are chances to raise the stakes in each position. (Giant, allows the character to push and makes a Deception check, "_I think I still have a chance - what say we double our wager?_")


----------



## Hriston (Oct 1, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> It's a special case.  You can't just allow everyone to go whenever as that breaks combat and makes combat unplayable, so an ability check is necessary.  Specific beats general.




As @_*pemerton*_ has already pointed out, initiative doesn’t have to work the way it does in 5E. You could have all the action in a round resolve simultaneously, or use side initiative. Another suggestion I’ve seen made on these boards is to forego rolling initiative at the beginning of combat, waiting until conflicts in timing arise in the course of events and resolving each of those conflicts with an opposed DEX check. Clearly, turn-based initiative is a deliberate design choice in 5E, not a necessary one. 

Also, the way the game has chosen to keep each character’s turn separate is to call into question the certainty of when each character’s turn will happen. It resolves that uncertainty with a DEX check, which measures a character’s ability to move and act quickly and is compared with the other results to establish a ranking. None of this is necessary for turn-based initiative. Each player could make an unmodified roll or draw straws if the goal is only to establish a turn order. The choice of a DEX check implies that the participants are attempting to move and act quickly and that they may fail to do so. Saying that it's a special case or that it's necessary doesn't explain that away.



Maxperson said:


> I have.  I was a loner in junior high and high school, but I fought back against bullies so I got into multiple fights a year.  Had I been in school in the modern era, I'd probably have been arrested and expelled due to stupid changes in how they treat kids.  I've been in enough fights to know that you are just trying to win the fight, not see if you can go first in the round.




I doubt you were fighting in rounds. Seriously, though, I don't see why "trying to win" doesn't entail trying to strike the first blow. Just letting your opponent hit you first seems like a good way to get knocked out.



Maxperson said:


> That's wrong, though.  An arm wrestling match is direct opposition.  A Jeopardy question is direct opposition.  Only one can get it right.  Rolling initiative to see when in the round you can act isn't in direct opposition to anyone.  You are not trying to stop them acting with the initiative roll.




You're trying to move and/or act before they do. They are trying to do the same. Those two efforts are in direct opposition to each other. Only one can succeed in being first. No one is claiming you're trying to stop them from acting at all. That would require incapacitating them in some way, which I think is beyond what initiative is meant to decide.



Maxperson said:


> Specific beats general.  Combat requires a mechanic to see in what order those who are automatically successful at being able to take an action can take that action.




I'm not sure what you mean by "Combat requires". There are any number of ways a combat system can organize the action. If the intent of the initiative phase is only to impose an order of resolution then why not flip a coin? Why use a DEX check at all?



Maxperson said:


> There isn't a specific rule, though, when it comes to DM vs. player ties.  The rule given is identical to what would happen if no rule existed.  The DM would decide.  It's a non-rule rule.




The DM could decide both turns resolve simultaneously, but the rule is clearly designed to avoid that situation.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 1, 2018)

clearstream said:


> If the only options are win or lose, and placing is of no interest, then a DM could call for a Contest and that can work out fine. If placing is of interest, the actual rolls become useful. One of the key things about a Contest is a binary outcome.




Is there a reason we can't consider a footrace between 5 people as a series of binary outcomes? There are 10 unique binary outcomes that can be put together to determine the placings of the entire race.

Honestly, the whole issue of a race between multiple people (like initiative) not being a contest is pretty alien to me.


----------



## Ristamar (Oct 1, 2018)

I'd guess the role of initiative in surprise situations is indicative of why it is not considered a traditional contest of "who acts faster." You can "win" with a higher number and still not be able to act faster than your opponent.

Also, when another group enters an existing combat and rolls initiative to slot in the turn order, it's not so much a contest as it is a matter of abstracted timing.


----------



## clearstream (Oct 1, 2018)

billd91 said:


> Is there a reason we can't consider a footrace between 5 people as a series of binary outcomes? There are 10 unique binary outcomes that can be put together to determine the placings of the entire race.



It's much more than 10 outcomes! Say there are 5 people, we need a contest between each, first, and then... the pain begins...

Say this is what happens

A beats B
A beats C
A loses to D
A loses to E

Seems like A is in the middle of the pack, but...

D loses to C
E loses to B

No idea where this is going, but now we need to resolve... everyone against everyone...

A gets 4 wins
B gets 4, different, wins...

Clearly we need another roll, A versus B, to settle that tie...

Or, and I really want to stress this point, each character can roll a single time, but not for, mechanically, a Contest.


----------



## clearstream (Oct 1, 2018)

billd91 said:


> Is there a reason we can't consider a footrace between 5 people as a series of binary outcomes? There are 10 unique binary outcomes that can be put together to determine the placings of the entire race.
> 
> Honestly, the whole issue of a race between multiple people (like initiative) not being a contest is pretty alien to me.



Drawing your attention to my post above, I'm sure you can see there are more than 25 unique outcomes, counting draws.

1. A, B, C, D, E
2. A, C, D, E, B
3. A, D, E, B, C
...
26. A=B, C, D, E

Even not counting draws, it's 25 outcomes. Counting draws I am not sure, but quite a lot more. The essence of the problem is that A might beat B, but lose to C, who B then beats... plus draws...


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 1, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I always kinda chuckle when I see the "4e is a boardgame" thing trotted out.  Considering that we had what, six, seven years of D&D Miniatures, the game, which was the 3e combat system, virtually verbatim, played out as a tabletop wargame.  To the point where DDM material (like the Marshall) was actually compatible with the 3e ruleset.
> 
> If you want to play any version of D&D as a boardgame, you can.  It's not like it's hard.  4e is no different than any other edition in this.




The thing is, six years after 4E went out of print, I can still buy the D&D Adventure games in Barnes & Noble around the corner.

4E itself had skills, and more opportunities for role-playing: but that part didn't play any different in practice than 3.x or 5E in my experience. The parts that did play differently are actively being sold in a board game.

I don't think a 5E miniatures combat board game would be as successful, qua board game in that market. That's interesting, is all.


----------



## SmokeyCriminal (Oct 2, 2018)

pemerton said:


> So why do those with higher DEX tend to go earlier? They're too twitchy to help themselves?




A persons body often react before the person does.

If you keep in mind that a whole round happens in the window of 6 seconds and everyone is acting all at once, then the difference between initiative 1 is as small as taking a breath, or blinking before you act, while initiative 20 just acts.

Why they attached DEX to Initiative is a whole other issue. Lots of people have made threads about making it INT, or Wis, and they make good, valid points for why. I've also seen people say that it shouldn't be attached to any stat or mod and just make it a straight D20 roll to better represent the random chaos of  combat, and that sounds fine with me too.

I think WotC in part did it because of the Rogue Assassin. The Rogue is DEX SAD, and the Assassins main feature is coupled to Initiative.

And I think they wanted to take advantage of the Initiative Roll as an opportunity to add the illusion of speed in combat


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 2, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Why would the result of an arm wrestle between me and a Storm Giant be in doubt?




It wouldn't be, which is why DMs are allowed to decide not to go with a roll.  Remember, ability checks are only rolled when the outcome is in doubt, and that includes contests.  You are free to declare that someone with a 15 automatically beats a person with a 14.  That doesn't alter the fact that it's a directly opposed contest whether you roll or not.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 2, 2018)

Hriston said:


> As @_*pemerton*_ has already pointed out, initiative doesn’t have to work the way it does in 5E. You could have all the action in a round resolve simultaneously, or use side initiative. Another suggestion I’ve seen made on these boards is to forego rolling initiative at the beginning of combat, waiting until conflicts in timing arise in the course of events and resolving each of those conflicts with an opposed DEX check. Clearly, turn-based initiative is a deliberate design choice in 5E, not a necessary one.
> 
> Also, the way the game has chosen to keep each character’s turn separate is to call into question the certainty of when each character’s turn will happen. It resolves that uncertainty with a DEX check, which measures a character’s ability to move and act quickly and is compared with the other results to establish a ranking. None of this is necessary for turn-based initiative. Each player could make an unmodified roll or draw straws if the goal is only to establish a turn order. The choice of a DEX check implies that the participants are attempting to move and act quickly and that they may fail to do so. Saying that it's a special case or that it's necessary doesn't explain that away.




Regardless, it's not a contest as defined by 5e and as we are informed by Sage Advice.  At best, you can argue that it's an indirectly opposed roll, though even that fails when you examine initiative further.  The PCs are not opposing each other or engaging in any sort of contest with one another, yet they also roll initiative.  The same with any neutral parties or allies who might be in the fight.  These parties are all just moving when they can, not contesting or opposing one another.



> The DM could decide both turns resolve simultaneously, but the rule is clearly designed to avoid that situation.




The DM can still decide that, both with and without the rule.  The rule doesn't state that the order has to be sequential.  He can fully, within the rule as written(or if never written) opt to choose simultaneous as the order.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 2, 2018)

SmokeyCriminal said:


> A persons body often react before the person does.
> 
> If you keep in mind that a whole round happens in the window of 6 seconds and everyone is acting all at once, then the difference between initiative 1 is as small as taking a breath, or blinking before you act, while initiative 20 just acts.
> 
> ...




I doubt that it's due to the assassin.  Dex being tied to initiative has been around since 1e, and pehaps BASIC(can't remember).  It's more of a sacred cow than an assassin thing.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 2, 2018)

clearstream said:


> Drawing your attention to my post above, I'm sure you can see there are more than 25 unique outcomes, counting draws.
> 
> 1. A, B, C, D, E
> 2. A, C, D, E, B
> ...




Yes, I should have said 10 unique binary contests.


----------



## ad_hoc (Oct 2, 2018)

SmokeyCriminal said:


> A persons body often react before the person does.
> 
> If you keep in mind that a whole round happens in the window of 6 seconds and everyone is acting all at once, then the difference between initiative 1 is as small as taking a breath, or blinking before you act, while initiative 20 just acts.
> 
> ...




The initiative system definitely came before the Assassin.

I think it was more of a legacy thing than anything else. It is the way it was done and there wasn't a big enough reason to change it.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 2, 2018)

Are you sure this contest thing belongs into this thread?


----------



## pemerton (Oct 2, 2018)

clearstream said:


> This is a feature of bounded accuracy that some players have picked up on: it produces a modifier range that paints characters as capable of heroic feats - such as out arm-wrestling a Storm Giant.



I'm pretty sure that 3E, which is pretty similar to 5e in relation both to ability/skill checks vs DCs and opposed checks, states that arm wrestling is not an opposed check but a straight comparison of STR scores.

The fact that in 5e I have to choose whether to use the same approach - which is how the game handles carrying capacity, and jumping - or use an ability check, with no real guidance on which mechanic applies when (see eg the recent thread about how to adjudicate jump attempts beyond STR in feet) is - for me - more evidence of the non-lightness of 5e.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 2, 2018)

clearstream said:


> It's much more than 10 outcomes! Say there are 5 people, we need a contest between each, first, and then... the pain begins...
> 
> Say this is what happens
> 
> ...



I think the assumption that [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] has made is probably the same as the one that  [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] has made explicit: each participant makes only one check, which is compared vs the check of all the other participants. So if A beats B but loses to E, that means that E beats B, which precludes the contradictory situation you are concerned about.

The thing I don't get in this discussion is: how do you and  [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] handle an attempt by _three_ people to be the first to grab the ring? You couldn't do it the way you've described (independent binary checks) because of the risk of contradiction. So presumably you'd do it . . . just the same as initiative is done! (Except for having some differerent approach to handlling ties.)


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 2, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I'm pretty sure that 3E, which is pretty similar to 5e in relation both to ability/skill checks vs DCs and opposed checks, states that arm wrestling is not an opposed check but a straight comparison of STR scores.
> 
> The fact that in 5e I have to choose whether to use the same approach - which is how the game handles carrying capacity, and jumping - or use an ability check, with no real guidance on which mechanic applies when (see eg the recent thread about how to adjudicate jump attempts beyond STR in feet) is - for me - more evidence of the non-lightness of 5e.




When in doubt, set a DC and roll some dice. Literally can't be wrong.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 2, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> When in doubt, set a DC and roll some dice. Literally can't be wrong.




But, in the ring case, it's not a simple DC.  After all, what happens when all three succeed?  Do you then compare the checks?  In that case, why have a DC in the first place?

In any case, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has the right of it.  There is no difference between a contest and rolling initiative, other than a specific ruling regarding ties.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 2, 2018)

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], obviously I agree with you: it makes zero sense to me that the resolution of a foot race changes in any fundamental way because in one race the aim is to _the first to cross the line_ and in the other the aim is to be _the one to pick up the widget sitting on the finish line_. (And does being _the one who breaks the ribbon_ count as "direct opposition" in [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s terms or not?)


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 2, 2018)

pemerton said:


> So why do those with higher DEX tend to go earlier? They're too twitchy to help themselves?



Good question, and that I've no good answer for it is part of why Dex has no bearing on initiative in my games regardless of what the RAW might want.



> (And an arm wrestle surely _wouldn't _be a contest. Surely the character with the higher STR just wins, absent some rather exceptional circumstances.)



Most of the time yes, particularly if the difference in strength is large; but not always.  Technique, willpower, pain tolerance, (over)confidence, and even luck (edit to add: and length of arm) can all factor in to a single match.

Now if the same two people arm-wrestle in a best-of-seven then the stronger will almost inevitably win four before the weaker does.  But the stronger will not always win 4-0, which puts any single match into 'doubtful' territory.


----------



## clearstream (Oct 2, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> It wouldn't be, which is why DMs are allowed to decide not to go with a roll.  Remember, ability checks are only rolled when the outcome is in doubt, and that includes contests.  You are free to declare that someone with a 15 automatically beats a person with a 14.  That doesn't alter the fact that it's a directly opposed contest whether you roll or not.



I agree that it's strictly up to the DM. If they think there is no chance of success, they won't give the character a roll.

In my campaign world, some characters should - as heroes - have a chance of beating a Storm Giant at arm-wrestling. Their check represents a myriad of details contributing to their performance on the day, that static linear values cannot capture. That includes motivation: desire to win.


----------



## clearstream (Oct 2, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I think the assumption that @_*billd91*_ has made is probably the same as the one that  @_*Hriston*_ has made explicit: each participant makes only one check, which is compared vs the check of all the other participants. So if A beats B but loses to E, that means that E beats B, which precludes the contradictory situation you are concerned about.



That sounds better. So is this an example of what can happen?

A gets 11 and so does B.
C gets 10.
D gets 12.

A and B must place, but under a Contest they can't tie. They roll once more, right? Say, eventually placing D, B, A, C.

I think a DM could choose to use a Contest for a foot race. I would not, because I envision that foot race participants can tie. I also don't see the value of the possible extra rolls: one Strength (Athletics) ability check per participant is what I would call for.



pemerton said:


> The thing I don't get in this discussion is: how do you and  @_*Maxperson*_ handle an attempt by _three_ people to be the first to grab the ring? You couldn't do it the way you've described (independent binary checks) because of the risk of contradiction. So presumably you'd do it . . . just the same as initiative is done! (Except for having some differerent approach to handlling ties.)



In contrast to the foot race, a Contest is ideal for a situation like this where there will be one winner and the rest lose out.

Recollecting that in the case of ties the original state is unchanged, no one gets the ring unless a character makes a check that beats both of the other two. Per Contests, they will possibly need multiple attempts before a character snatches up the ring: one check each per attempt.

The cases to hand show where a DM can get good narrative value out of using the Contest mechanic (it narrates a struggle for a ring excellently), and where they might not (for me, a straight ability check better narrates a foot race).


----------



## pemerton (Oct 2, 2018)

clearstream said:


> That sounds better. So is this an example of what can happen?
> 
> A gets 11 and so does B.
> C gets 10.
> ...



I don't see why under a contest there can't be a tie. From the Basic PDF, p 58:

If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest. Thus, one contestant might win the contest by default. If two characters tie in a contest to snatch a ring off the floor, neither character grabs it.​
I assume "remains the same" is not strictly literal - eg if the two characters are racing for the ring, and tie, presumably this doesn't _have_ to mean that they haven't moved at all. (It _could_ be that they are both just standing there, each eying the other looking for an opening, but I think that would be an atypical narration in D&D because it goes to mental rather than physical aspects of a PC's behaviour.)

If A and B tie the roll, then they tie the race. I don't see the problem.



clearstream said:


> a straight ability check better narrates a foot race).



But what's the DC? And if A, B and C all make the DC, how to we tell who wins?


----------



## clearstream (Oct 2, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I don't see why under a contest there can't be a tie. From the Basic PDF, p 58:If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest. Thus, one contestant might win the contest by default. If two characters tie in a contest to snatch a ring off the floor, neither character grabs it.​
> I assume "remains the same" is not strictly literal - eg if the two characters are racing for the ring, and tie, presumably this doesn't _have_ to mean that they haven't moved at all. (It _could_ be that they are both just standing there, each eying the other looking for an opening, but I think that would be an atypical narration in D&D because it goes to mental rather than physical aspects of a PC's behaviour.)
> 
> If A and B tie the roll, then they tie the race. I don't see the problem.



To me it seems like it is clear that I was addressing RAW, which is strictly literal. Under RAW, contests don't have tie as an outcome. I agree with you that a DM might interpret one as meaning they tie in the race: RAI.



pemerton said:


> But what's the DC? And if A, B and C all make the DC, how to we tell who wins?



As with some other ability checks, the DC is established by the results of other creatures' checks. Such as when Wisdom (Perception) is used actively against another creature's Dexterity (Stealth). I like to use a similar kind of check for locks and traps, i.e. I set the DC by making a check for a putative locksmith. The reason is that I was dissatisfied with the possible levels a Rogue with Expertise, Bardic Inspiration and Guidance could reach, relative to the DC table, in that kind of fairly static situation.

It is clear there is a lot of possible crossover between the various kinds of ability checks. Hence this discussion.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 2, 2018)

clearstream said:


> To me it seems like it is clear that I was addressing RAW, which is strictly literal. Under RAW, contests don't have tie as an outcome.



But I just quoted RAW (p 58 of the Basic PDF) which says "If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest. . . . If two characters tie in a contest to snatch a ring off the floor, neither character grabs it." That is RAW allowing for a tie in a contest.



clearstream said:


> As with some other ability checks, the DC is established by the results of other creatures' checks.



Well, p 58 of the Basic PDF tends to suggest that that is a contest ie "one character’s or monster’s efforts [eg trying to remain hidden, or trying to make an unbreakable lock] are directly opposed to another’s [eg someone trying to spot everyone nearby, or someone trying to break the lock]." Because the only other option it mentions is a check in which "the DM decides . . . the difficulty of the task".


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 2, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I'm pretty sure that 3E, which is pretty similar to 5e in relation both to ability/skill checks vs DCs and opposed checks, states that arm wrestling is not an opposed check but a straight comparison of STR scores.
> 
> The fact that in 5e I have to choose whether to use the same approach - which is how the game handles carrying capacity, and jumping - or use an ability check, with no real guidance on which mechanic applies when (see eg the recent thread about how to adjudicate jump attempts beyond STR in feet) is - for me - more evidence of the non-lightness of 5e.




Soooo, having fewer rules that allows you to just choose what to do(assuming you are ignoring the contest rules) somehow makes 5e more rules heavy, but if 5e had more rules to tell you how to run everything like arm wrestling, it would be more rules light?

I also don't think 3.5 dictated how to do an arm wrestling match, but it does get into opposed skill checks, which depend on a roll with the higher winning.  And it goes into several strength based contests like bull rush, etc., which just involved opposed strength checks.  If you were correct about arm wrestling, those opposed strength situations would also just involve the highest strength winning, rather than having the person with a 20 strength having to roll(and lose a fair amount of the time) an opposed strength check with someone with a 3 strength.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 2, 2018)

pemerton said:


> The thing I don't get in this discussion is: how do you and  @_*Maxperson*_ handle an attempt by _three_ people to be the first to grab the ring? You couldn't do it the way you've described (independent binary checks) because of the risk of contradiction. So presumably you'd do it . . . just the same as initiative is done! (Except for having some differerent approach to handlling ties.)




Since RAW doesn't cover this, I would rule that it works like a contest.  A contest requires 1) direct opposition(unlike initiative and racing), 2) that only two are competing, and 3) that only one can succeed.  With initiative, everyone succeeds in being able to take a turn, barring something overriding that later like unconsciousness or paralysis.

Here are the three requirements. "Sometimes *one character’s or monster’s efforts are directly opposed to another’s.* This can occur when* both of them* are trying to do the same thing and *only one can succeed*,"  

Going outside of that requires a ruling on the part of the DM which adds to or alters that rule(a house rule).  I would house rule that all three make opposed dex checks and that the highest wins and gets the ring.  If the highest roll is a tie, nobody has succeeded and the situation remains the same.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 2, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, in the ring case, it's not a simple DC.  After all, what happens when all three succeed?  Do you then compare the checks?  In that case, why have a DC in the first place?
> 
> In any case, @_*pemerton*_ has the right of it.  There is no difference between a contest and rolling initiative, other than a specific ruling regarding ties.




And the fact that a contest required direct opposition, and initiative is indirect.  And the fact that a contest requires there to be only two in direct opposition, while initiative has no such requirement and the vast majority of the time has more than two.  And the fact that everyone rolling initiative can succeed in taking a turn(the goal of initiative), but a contest requires that only one can succeed.  So other than those three things, which completely contradict the contest rules, yeah, sure, they're the same.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 2, 2018)

pemerton said:


> @_*Hussar*_, obviously I agree with you: it makes zero sense to me that the resolution of a foot race changes in any fundamental way because in one race the aim is to _the first to cross the line_ and in the other the aim is to be _the one to pick up the widget sitting on the finish line_. (And does being _the one who breaks the ribbon_ count as "direct opposition" in @_*Maxperson*_'s terms or not?)




No it does not count as direct opposition.  It's indirect opposition, even though only one can get to the ribbon first.  They are competing side by side, not directly against each other.


----------



## Sadras (Oct 2, 2018)

For me Fate is rules light, D&D is intermediate with various versions like 3.x leaning towards the heavy, while RoleMaster is rules heavy (but it has been a while for me re RM). 

But perhaps I'm biased as I've been playing D&D for 30+ years, so...


----------



## clearstream (Oct 2, 2018)

pemerton said:


> But I just quoted RAW (p 58 of the Basic PDF) which says "If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest. . . . If two characters tie in a contest to snatch a ring off the floor, neither character grabs it." That is RAW allowing for a tie in a contest.



You said that "_*I assume "remains the same" is not strictly literal*_" Per RAW, "_remains the same_" must be taken strictly literally, otherwise we are proposing RAI. In the case of trying to snatch up a ring, remains the same is easy to apply: no one snatches up the ring. That's true no matter how many are involved, until there is a clear winner. In the case of a foot race, remains the same is not easy to apply, because perforce the situation has changed. Worse still, where more than two creatures are involved, allowing affairs to "remain the same" for some binary compares, and "not remain the same" for others, is paradoxical.



pemerton said:


> Well, p 58 of the Basic PDF tends to suggest that that is a contest ie "one character’s or monster’s efforts [eg trying to remain hidden, or trying to make an unbreakable lock] are directly opposed to another’s [eg someone trying to spot everyone nearby, or someone trying to break the lock]." Because the only other option it mentions is a check in which "the DM decides . . . the difficulty of the task".



Yes, I think that was a poor example so will retract it. I think there is a reasonable question about whether the generality of "_the DM decides... the difficulty of the task_" includes that the difficulty of the task may be established by the rolls of other parties. There are a few basic cases -


There can only be one winner, all others lose out; and
There are shades of winning and loss, so a ranking is needed; and
Non-zero sum: creatures succeed or fail independently.

The RAW literally states that a tied Contest results in things remaining the same. That cannot be precisely true in terms of what is imagined, because even in the holding the door shut example surely the contestants might shift their feet slightly as part of their struggle! However, it can be precisely true in terms of the mechanical outcome: there either is one winner, or there is no change in progress toward an outcome. Contests are narrow. Broader, is a more usual ability check against a DC set by the DM, for example a climb, where creatures succeed of fail independently. Then there is our in-between case, which is seen most evidently in Initiative checks, which have been confirmed to be ability checks so that Jack of All Trades applies to them.

I don't see the value of conflating the different methods, and I don't believe that is what the RAW taken literally implies. I do agree that separating them out and choosing between them is not so clear as it appears at first glance.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 2, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, in the ring case, it's not a simple DC.  After all, what happens when all three succeed?  Do you then compare the checks?  In that case, why have a DC in the first place?
> 
> In any case, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has the right of it.  There is no difference between a contest and rolling initiative, other than a specific ruling regarding ties.




I was talking about arm wrestling. In the ring case, just have the tied folks grab it at the same time. Happens.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 2, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> I was talking about arm wrestling. In the ring case, just have the tied folks grab it at the same time. Happens.




It's really hard for two people lunging at a ring to grab it at the same time.  It's maybe an inch across.  They would be far more likely to knock the ring away and no one get it or just fail to have anyone grab it, than to grab it at the same time.  Now, with a length of rope or chain I could see both grabbing an end and having to roll opposed strength the next round, and in fact I would rule it that way.  That would involve a house rule, though, as the situation has changed and RAW says the situation does not change.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 2, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Regardless, it's not a contest as defined by 5e and as we are informed by Sage Advice.




I think the "it" here is problematic in terms of this conversation and the question answered by Jeremy Crawford's tweet. I actually agree with your and Jeremy's statements that initiative is not a contest when understood as a phase of combat, one of the steps given in the "Combat Step by Step" sidebar, in which the participants make DEX checks which are then compared to one another to establish an "initiative order". Now, the DEX checks themselves are referred to as "initiative rolls", and it's those rolls that I would say are contested by the other rolls made during the initiative phase. Otherwise, if they're not contested rolls, what's the DC to succeed on the DEX check?



Maxperson said:


> At best, you can argue that it's an indirectly opposed roll, though even that fails when you examine initiative further.  The PCs are not opposing each other or engaging in any sort of contest with one another, yet they also roll initiative.  The same with any neutral parties or allies who might be in the fight.  These parties are all just moving when they can, not contesting or opposing one another.




They also roll initiative because they're opposing their foes. I think up-thread I made some statements to the effect that the check of every participant is contested by the check of every other participant, but I'd like to walk that back a bit. The opposition should be understood in terms of sides in the conflict.



Maxperson said:


> The DM can still decide that, both with and without the rule.  The rule doesn't state that the order has to be sequential.  He can fully, within the rule as written(or if never written) opt to choose simultaneous as the order.




I agree that technically the DM can determine that tied opponents have their turns resolved simultaneously, but I think that can also be seen as an abdication of the power granted by this rule, and amounts to just letting the tie stand. A certain reading of the word _order,_ and the seeming intent of the initiative rules to establish such an order, implies a sequence of turns, rather than simultaneous resolution.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 3, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Soooo, having fewer rules that allows you to just choose what to do(assuming you are ignoring the contest rules) somehow makes 5e more rules heavy, but if 5e had more rules to tell you how to run everything like arm wrestling, it would be more rules light?



Having multiple overlapping but inconsistent subsystems doesn't make a system light. 5e has multiple overlapping subsystems for STR-related feat: a die roll system (ability/skill checks) and a read-result-of-number system (carrying, lifting, dragging, jumping). Which one applies to arm wrestles?



Maxperson said:


> I would house rule that all three make opposed dex checks and that the highest wins and gets the ring.  If the highest roll is a tie, nobody has succeeded and the situation remains the same.



The implication of this, to me, is that if it's a sword rather than a ring that also counts as a house rule!

My view is the converse - that extrapolation from the one-on-one example to three competitors is not house-ruling, but is applying the rules that have been provided.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 3, 2018)

Sadras said:


> For me Fate is rules light, D&D is intermediate with various versions like 3.x leaning towards the heavy, while RoleMaster is rules heavy (but it has been a while for me re RM).



I agree with your ranking (except perhaps I'm not sure that 3E is much lighter than RM). But I might move them all a bit down the scale - I think I see Fate as being a bit heavier than you see it.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 3, 2018)

clearstream said:


> You said that "_*I assume "remains the same" is not strictly literal*_" Per RAW, "_remains the same_" must be taken strictly literally, otherwise we are proposing RAI. In the case of trying to snatch up a ring, remains the same is easy to apply: no one snatches up the ring.



But do no arms move? If the ring is on the other side of a room, does no one move?

Suppose the ring is on the other side of a room, and two people are racing to get it, and there is a concealed pit in front of the ring? If the contested checks tie, so that everything "remains the same", does that mean neither character has moved and hence neither has a chance to fall in the pit?

More generally: it's not a principal of interpretation in any other domain that words can or must bear only their most literal meaning, so I'm not sure why that would apply in relation to RPG rules.



clearstream said:


> The RAW literally states that a tied Contest results in things remaining the same. That cannot be precisely true in terms of what is imagined, because even in the holding the door shut example surely the contestants might shift their feet slightly as part of their struggle!



That's exactly my point.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 3, 2018)

Amusing to note, WotC and WizKids have announced a sixth D&D Adventure board game, Dungeon of the Mad Mage, coming out in March 2019.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 3, 2018)

Hriston said:


> I think the "it" here is problematic in terms of this conversation and the question answered by Jeremy Crawford's tweet. I actually agree with your and Jeremy's statements that initiative is not a contest when understood as a phase of combat, one of the steps given in the "Combat Step by Step" sidebar, in which the participants make DEX checks which are then compared to one another to establish an "initiative order". Now, the DEX checks themselves are referred to as "initiative rolls", and it's those rolls that I would say are contested by the other rolls made during the initiative phase. Otherwise, if they're not contested rolls, what's the DC to succeed on the DEX check?




There doesn't have to be a DC.  Specific beats general and initiative is a specific kind of check that doesn't involve contesting or DCs.



> They also roll initiative because they're opposing their foes. I think up-thread I made some statements to the effect that the check of every participant is contested by the check of every other participant, but I'd like to walk that back a bit. The opposition should be understood in terms of sides in the conflict.




Are they, though?  I can roll initiative and not oppose of my foes.  I can go run over to a rock and kick it with my foot as my action.  Any opposition is indirect at best, and non-existent at worst.  That takes it out of the realm of contest all by itself.



> I agree that technically the DM can determine that tied opponents have their turns resolved simultaneously, but I think that can also be seen as an abdication of the power granted by this rule, and amounts to just letting the tie stand. A certain reading of the word _order,_ and the seeming intent of the initiative rules to establish such an order, implies a sequence of turns, rather than simultaneous resolution.



I don't see how it can be an abdication of the power.  The DM decides is the power.  Him deciding they go simultaneously is an active use of that power.  I see what you are saying about turn order, but ordering them together is still technically an order.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 3, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Having multiple overlapping but inconsistent subsystems doesn't make a system light. 5e has multiple overlapping subsystems for STR-related feat: a die roll system (ability/skill checks) and a read-result-of-number system (carrying, lifting, dragging, jumping). Which one applies to arm wrestles?




From strength checks...  "A Strength check can model any attempt to lift, push, pull, or break something, to force your body through a space, *or to otherwise apply brute force to a situation*."

It doesn't get much more brute force than arm wrestling.



> The implication of this, to me, is that if it's a sword rather than a ring that also counts as a house rule!




You're talking Greek now, because that makes no sense.  The rule is "Sometimes one character’s or monster’s efforts are directly opposed to another’s. This can occur when both of them are trying to do the same thing and only one can succeed,"

At no time is the ring part of the rule.  It's simply an example of the rule in action, so it's not possible for the ring or a sword or a rope or a <insert object here> to be a house rule.



> My view is the converse - that extrapolation from the one-on-one example to three competitors is not house-ruling, but is applying the rules that have been provided.




Two is the absolute that RAW allows, so an extension to three is a change to the rule, not an extrapolation.  Extrapolation is also conjecture and conjecture cannot be RAW, so any extrapolation would fall into the house rule category anyway.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 3, 2018)

Wow. Just wow.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 3, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Wow. Just wow.




I know.  Who could have predicted a 6th D&D Adventure board game!?


----------



## clearstream (Oct 3, 2018)

Sadras said:


> For me Fate is rules light, D&D is intermediate with various versions like 3.x leaning towards the heavy, while RoleMaster is rules heavy (but it has been a while for me re RM).
> 
> But perhaps I'm biased as I've been playing D&D for 30+ years, so...



I agree with your ranking because I have played RPGs that are rules-lighter than D&D, and I have played others that are rules-heavier. For me Paranoia is an example of the former, and Rolemaster of the latter. 

Sheer count of rules gives an initial picture of how heavy a rules system is going to be, but not the whole picture. As discussed up thread, that needs to be separated from page count. D&D, especially 5th, has extensive character development taking many pages, but then the D20 combat system is lighter than those that aim for greater realism. I think the first tiers of character development (where everyone plays) in 5th produces more complex characters than 3rd did, but when you bring in all the optional prestige classes for 3rd you can wind up with more complex later tier characters. I don't find combat in 5th any simpler than combat in 3rd, at the table.


----------



## Sadras (Oct 3, 2018)

clearstream said:


> I think the first tiers of character development (where everyone plays) in 5th produces more complex characters than 3rd did, ...(snip)...




Why do you believe this to be true? I'm guessing due to backgrounds, personality characteristics and sub-classes.



> I don't find combat in 5th any simpler than combat in 3rd, at the table.




My experience on this is completely the opposite.

EDIT: 3.x has standard actions, full round actions, swift actions, immediate actions, free actions, move actions. It has your standard AC and Touch AC. It has shift. It has confirmation of criticals. If I'm recalling correctly the firing into melee is different. Spell durations change with level.


----------



## clearstream (Oct 3, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Why do you believe this to be true? I'm guessing due to backgrounds, personality characteristics and sub-classes.



Exactly. Lower tier 5th characters have more they can do. A 3rd level Wizard in 5th for instance has twice as many casts (more if you count Arcane Recovery). A 3rd level Barbarian has twice as many rages, and a few extra abilities compared with the 3rd edition Barbarian's one rage and a couple of passives (one of which was trap sense!)



Sadras said:


> My experience on this is completely the opposite.



I definitely hear this from people. I think part of it is that 3rd edition was clunkier, without being fundamentally more complex. One example is the introduction of Dash. In 3rd you had an Action and a Move, or two Moves, or a Full-round Action, and you had these odd things like Swift and Immediate actions, and finally a Free action. 5th edition drops only one of these, but the rest are handled better. So two Moves is now a Dash and a Move. Swift is a Bonus action. Immediate is a Reaction. They gave fighters a break in 5th... not before time!

And then you have other things such as how 5th handles Surprise. For my money, 3rd handled Surprise in a cleaner way, that was much easier for players to understand. Once you throw in characters with more options in the meaningful tiers (1 and 2), you wind up with fights that are just as complicated. OTOH my group is veteran and it could just be that they make my life hard by how they use all those abilities!

You can even look at a system like Skills and see that it was much clunkier in 3rd than in 5th, but was it more complicated in play? I don't think so: in the end each character has one or two skills they excel at, and that's all they use. Getting to that is more complicated in third, but it's done off-line (or should be!) so it doesn't add to complexity in play.


----------



## Sadras (Oct 3, 2018)

@_*clearstream*_



> I think part of it is that 3rd edition was clunkier, without being fundamentally more complex.




You might be right, I don't know. 3.x certainly wasn't an edition I excelled in as a DM. 
Some would argue clunky (i.e. heavy) is complex. If something is less clunky then it is lighter or easier, and likely more user friendly.


----------



## clearstream (Oct 3, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Some would argue clunky (i.e. heavy) is complex. If something is less clunky then it is lighter or easier, and likely more user friendly.



Yes, I think that's true. I guess there are multiple ways to look at this. To me, 5th edition feels highly sophisticated: it pulls off a lot of complexity with streamlined mechanics that can be traced back to 3rd edition and 4th edition. It was really their experience with those editions, that allowed them to achieve 5th. It offers a great many of the same affordances as those earlier editions.

I think I wouldn't describe 5th as simple or light, but rather using that word "streamlined". Placing it as an intermediate system seems well justified to me.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 3, 2018)

clearstream said:


> 5th edition feels highly sophisticated: it pulls off a lot of complexity with streamlined mechanics that can be traced back to 3rd edition and 4th edition. It was really their experience with those editions, that allowed them to achieve 5th.



I think this is true.



clearstream said:


> I think I wouldn't describe 5th as simple or light, but rather using that word "streamlined". Placing it as an intermediate system seems well justified to me.



Personally I'm a bit struck by what seems to be the predominant view in this thread - that 5e can't resolve a footrace without house rules. (I'm not sure eg about a chess game.) If that's true, then the system is far more narrow than its superficial presentation would suggest. Even if its not true, the fact that its not self-evident one way or another is striking.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 3, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> From strength checks...  "A Strength check can model any attempt to lift, push, pull, or break something, to force your body through a space, *or to otherwise apply brute force to a situation*."
> 
> It doesn't get much more brute force than arm wrestling.



Nor than lifting stuff. But, per p 60 of the Basic PDF, that's a function of raw STR score.


----------



## clearstream (Oct 3, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Personally I'm a bit struck by what seems to be the predominant view in this thread - that 5e can't resolve a footrace without house rules.



I agree with you here as I think one can with approximately equal justice argue that it is a matter of interpretation.



> For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class.



That can be taken to afford the DM complete fiat over the DC, including making the DC equal the result of another creature's check, or it could be taken to mean the DC must be a static value because of those final words "_represented by a Difficulty Class_".



> If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest.



This can't be taken to fix the participants in place, in the imagined fiction. So I think it can either be taken to have a mechanically precise implication ("_remains the same as it was before_" means no progress toward the goal) or it it could be taken as you propose (they were drawn before, and remain drawn). As you know, I find this last a bit more of a reach, while conceding its pragmatic value.



> (I'm not sure eg about a chess game.)



As a minor digression, I've found contests in the sense of games or sports can be better represented by multiple checks, than a single roll. The basic structure is: 1 win gives a side a winning position, 1 win from a winning position wins, 1 win from a losing position returns to neutral. Somewhat like advantage in Tennis. This narrates well and puts more weight on ability.



> If that's true, then the system is far more narrow than its superficial presentation would suggest. Even if its not true, the fact that its not self-evident one way or another is striking.



Here I'd like to come in with an alternative view: we could say instead that the system offers flexible tools for resolving circumstances at our table. 5th pulled back a bit from offering individual mechanics for very precise circumstances, to offering flexible mechanics that can cover a wide variety of circumstances, provided a DM is there to decide how to apply them. I propose that the fact we can have this debate speaks to flexibility in the mechanics.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 3, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Nor than lifting stuff. But, per p 60 of the Basic PDF, that's a function of raw STR score.




When you have to lift the other arm during arm wrestling, get back to me on that.  What you are doing is giving me a Red Herring.  Strength having different rules for lifting and carrying in now way makes it anything other than simple to know by RAW that an arm wrestling match is a strength ability check.

Is arm wrestling Lifting and Carrying?  Nope.  Is arm wrestling adding strength bonus to attack rolls and damage?  Nope.  Is arm wresting the only thing left, an Ability Check?  Yep!  It's right there under "or to otherwise apply brute force to a situation."  Those are the three options and the first two are automatically eliminated.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 3, 2018)

clearstream said:


> I think I wouldn't describe 5th as simple or light, but rather using that word "streamlined". Placing it as an intermediate system seems well justified to me.



I always say that this depends on the sample size. 
If you're comparing 5e to all of D&D and D&D spin-offs (Pathfinder, 13th Age) it is _very_ light, but not at light as Basic or OD&D.
If you're comparing 5e to all store-bought RPGs, such as _Numenera, Fate, Star Trek Adventures, Shadowrun, GURPs, Palladium, Genysis, Vampire_, etc then D&D 5e seems fairly rules heavy and well into the crunchy end of the spectrum.
If you're comparing 5e to any RPGs including those like Tearable RPG, All Outta Bubblegum, Honey Heist, and the like then D&D buries the complexity needle.



pemerton said:


> Personally I'm a bit struck by what seems to be the predominant view in this thread - that 5e can't resolve a footrace without house rules. (I'm not sure eg about a chess game.) If that's true, then the system is far more narrow than its superficial presentation would suggest. Even if its not true, the fact that its not self-evident one way or another is striking.



Is there another version of D&D with codified rules for a footrace? Or a chase for that matter?


----------



## clearstream (Oct 3, 2018)

Jester David said:


> I always say that this depends on the sample size.
> If you're comparing 5e to all of D&D and D&D spin-offs (Pathfinder, 13th Age) it is _very_ light, but not at light as Basic or OD&D.
> If you're comparing 5e to all store-bought RPGs, such as _Numenera, Fate, Star Trek Adventures, Shadowrun, GURPs, Palladium, Genysis, Vampire_, etc then D&D 5e seems fairly rules heavy and well into the crunchy end of the spectrum.
> If you're comparing 5e to any RPGs including those like Tearable RPG, All Outta Bubblegum, Honey Heist, and the like then D&D buries the complexity needle.



Exactly. That provides good context which frames its weight well.



Jester David said:


> Is there another version of D&D with codified rules for a footrace? Or a chase for that matter?



I guess you're conscious of the Chase rules in the 5th edition DMG, and maybe the Pursuit rules in Out of the Abyss? I probably wouldn't use them for a short footrace, but maybe a marathon...


----------



## Jester David (Oct 3, 2018)

clearstream said:


> I guess you're conscious of the Chase rules in the 5th edition DMG, and maybe the Pursuit rules in Out of the Abyss? I probably wouldn't use them for a short footrace, but maybe a marathon...



(I am. Which is why I said “another”.  )


----------



## Hriston (Oct 3, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> There doesn't have to be a DC.  Specific beats general and initiative is a specific kind of check that doesn't involve contesting or DCs.




Initiative involves the DM comparing the results of the combatant's DEX checks, just as s/he does in a contest. The initiative roll itself is just a DEX check. How it's handled is what makes it special, which is just like a contest except for the specific rule on breaking ties.



Maxperson said:


> Are they, though?  I can roll initiative and not oppose of my foes.  I can go run over to a rock and kick it with my foot as my action.  Any opposition is indirect at best, and non-existent at worst.  That takes it out of the realm of contest all by itself.




You can decline to oppose the efforts of monsters to kill and eat you if you want, but according to the rules, combat is typically "a clash between two sides". If you get too far away from that description, it probably doesn't need to be resolved in combat.



Maxperson said:


> I don't see how it can be an abdication of the power.  The DM decides is the power.  Him deciding they go simultaneously is an active use of that power.  I see what you are saying about turn order, but ordering them together is still technically an order.




I think the _order_ the DM is meant to decide in the event of a tie between combatants is the sequential order normally determined by initiative. I believe that's the intent.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 4, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I don't see why under a contest there can't be a tie. From the Basic PDF, p 58:
> 
> If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest. Thus, one contestant might win the contest by default. If two characters tie in a contest to snatch a ring off the floor, neither character grabs it.​
> I assume "remains the same" is not strictly literal - eg if the two characters are racing for the ring, and tie, presumably this doesn't _have_ to mean that they haven't moved at all. (It _could_ be that they are both just standing there, each eying the other looking for an opening, but I think that would be an atypical narration in D&D because it goes to mental rather than physical aspects of a PC's behaviour.)
> ...



Agreed, and in a broader sense this constant rules-based need to break ties just doesn't make sense to me.



> But what's the DC? And if A, B and C all make the DC, how to we tell who wins?



This leads to an odd answer: the DC isn't set until after the rolls are made, at which point the DC is set as the value of the highest roll that is not the winning roll.

In other words it's a floating DC.

Lanefan


----------



## ad_hoc (Oct 4, 2018)

Jester David said:


> I always say that this depends on the sample size.
> If you're comparing 5e to all of D&D and D&D spin-offs (Pathfinder, 13th Age) it is _very_ light, but not at light as Basic or OD&D.
> If you're comparing 5e to all store-bought RPGs, such as _Numenera, Fate, Star Trek Adventures, Shadowrun, GURPs, Palladium, Genysis, Vampire_, etc then D&D 5e seems fairly rules heavy and well into the crunchy end of the spectrum.
> If you're comparing 5e to any RPGs including those like Tearable RPG, All Outta Bubblegum, Honey Heist, and the like then D&D buries the complexity needle.




What if we don't compare it to any RPG?

Just measure how easy it is to pick up and play.

5e is bringing millions of new people into RPGs. It must be light.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 4, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Is there another version of D&D with codified rules for a footrace?



Not that I can think of (classic D&D has evasion rules, but they're a bit different). But 4e does have a generic resolution system - skill challenges - that can be used to resolve a race. (It will play out more like the Ben Hur chariot race than an Olympic event - whether that's good or bad is a matter of taste, but I think 4e wears its gonzo on its sleeve.)

I would have assumed that 5e was equally clear - it's resolved by making checks and comparing them (or perhaps a sequence of checks as  [MENTION=71699]clearstream[/MENTION] suggests, though the Basic rules don't offer a system for aggregating check results into an overall outcome). But the predominant view in this thread seems to be that, in fact, you can only run a contest between two characters and they have to be fighting over something (a ring, a door, etc) and so to resolve a race you need to house rule.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 4, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> the DC isn't set until after the rolls are made, at which point the DC is set as the value of the highest roll that is not the winning roll.
> 
> In other words it's a floating DC.



Which looks curiouly like a contest!

I guess what I'm missing is _what's at stake_ in distinguishing what you describe from a contest and positing it instead as a house rule. No one has actually explained in a way that is clear to me why it matters that two (or more) characters are struggling to be the first to break the ribbon rather than the one to grab the ring.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 4, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Not that I can think of (classic D&D has evasion rules, but they're a bit different). But 4e does have a generic resolution system - skill challenges - that can be used to resolve a race. (It will play out more like the Ben Hur chariot race than an Olympic event - whether that's good or bad is a matter of taste, but I think 4e wears its gonzo on its sleeve.)
> 
> I would have assumed that 5e was equally clear - it's resolved by making checks and comparing them (or perhaps a sequence of checks as  [MENTION=71699]clearstream[/MENTION] suggests, though the Basic rules don't offer a system for aggregating check results into an overall outcome). But the predominant view in this thread seems to be that, in fact, you can only run a contest between two characters and they have to be fighting over something (a ring, a door, etc) and so to resolve a race you need to house rule.




The thing is, it's not a "house rule". You're not changing a rule or really adding a rule per se. You're making a ruling. You're deciding how the action is resolved in this instance, likely using the existing Chase rules in the DMG. Which isn't *that* different from deciding how a skill challenge is resolved in 4e, if even that. Really, a footrace is short and should probably just be opposed skill checks.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 4, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Which looks curiouly like a contest!
> 
> I guess what I'm missing is _what's at stake_ in distinguishing what you describe from a contest and positing it instead as a house rule. No one has actually explained in a way that is clear to me why it matters that two (or more) characters are struggling to be the first to break the ribbon rather than the one to grab the ring.



I don't think it matters in the least. 

I was just trying to answer your DC question.

That said, I think one of the quibbles people are having with the use of the word 'contest' here is that it seems by RAW a contest can - both by definition and provided examples - only involve two participants.  Dumb wording, but there it is, and it means a multi-person foot race or rolling for initiative cannot be called contests using the RAW definition even though common non-D&D usage of the term says they are.

And that said, there seems to be a noticeable uptick recently in the amount of quibbling over 5e rules wordings and RAW specifics, which seems to go directly against the "rulings, not rules" ethos of the system.  This ain't 3e, folks!


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 4, 2018)

Hriston said:


> Initiative involves the DM comparing the results of the combatant's DEX checks, just as s/he does in a contest. The initiative roll itself is just a DEX check. How it's handled is what makes it special, which is just like a contest except for the specific rule on breaking ties.




That doesn't matter, though.  A similar, even the same exact mechanical resolution, does not make it the same thing.  The attack mechanic and ability check mechanic are identical.  Both are d20+modifiers equal or greater than DC = success.  Less than = failure.  Jeremy Crawford confirmed them as identical mechanics for different categories of actions.  

That initiative is similar to a contest, does not make it a contest.  It's still indirect opposition at best, and a contest requires direct opposition.



> You can decline to oppose the efforts of monsters to kill and eat you if you want, but according to the rules, combat is typically "a clash between two sides". If you get too far away from that description, it probably doesn't need to be resolved in combat.




It's not a matter if you want to oppose the efforts of the monsters or not.  That opposition(or not) comes with attacks, spells, running, etc.  Initiative itself is not opposition to them, since you are free to act how you like, which includes running your behind off or trying to talk to them instead of opposing anyone.



> I think the _order_ the DM is meant to decide in the event of a tie between combatants is the sequential order normally determined by initiative. I believe that's the intent.



You might be right, or perhaps not.  I try not to assume intent on things like this that don't really matter.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 4, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Which looks curiouly like a contest!
> 
> I guess what I'm missing is _what's at stake_ in distinguishing what you describe from a contest and positing it instead as a house rule. No one has actually explained in a way that is clear to me why it matters that two (or more) characters are struggling to be the first to break the ribbon rather than the one to grab the ring.




Like with attack rolls and ability checks, that use identical mechanical resolutions, just being similar or the same mechanically does not make them the same in the game.  An attack roll is not an ability check.  Initiative is an ability check, but is not a contest.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 4, 2018)

Jester David said:


> The thing is, it's not a "house rule".



Well,  [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] and other posters in this thread seem to think it is.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 4, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> I don't think it matters in the least.
> 
> I was just trying to answer your DC question.
> 
> ...




When discussing RAW, you are discussing RAW and not things that make sense for RAW to have included, but didn't.  As I said upthread, I will not only be allowing contests to involve more than 2(so long as they are in direct opposition), but will also in certain circumstances, allow ties to involve a change.


----------



## cmad1977 (Oct 4, 2018)

*Mearls On D&amp;D's Design Premises/Goals*

A lot of people trying to be ‘right’ about what constitutes a contest. Embarrassing.

5e is light mechanically.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 4, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> That doesn't matter, though.  A similar, even the same exact mechanical resolution, does not make it the same thing.  The attack mechanic and ability check mechanic are identical.  Both are d20+modifiers equal or greater than DC = success.  Less than = failure.  Jeremy Crawford confirmed them as identical mechanics for different categories of actions.
> 
> That initiative is similar to a contest, does not make it a contest.  It's still indirect opposition at best, and a contest requires direct opposition.




I’d say opposition doesn’t get too much more direct than combat. It’s when combat happens that you roll initiative. Direct opposition is inherent in the situation. 



> It's not a matter if you want to oppose the efforts of the monsters or not.  That opposition(or not) comes with attacks, spells, running, etc.




And attacks, spells, running, etc. come with initiative. 



> Initiative itself is not opposition to them, since you are free to act how you like, which includes running your behind off or trying to talk to them instead of opposing anyone.




If all that’s happening is trying to talk, there’s no need to roll initiative. Initiative is for when combat happens. 



> You might be right, or perhaps not.  I try not to assume intent on things like this that don't really matter.




It matters in terms of whether the rule adds anything to the game compared to the rule not existing. I think it gives some definition to the DM’s role in establishing the initiative order.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 4, 2018)

Hriston said:


> I’d say opposition doesn’t get too much more direct than combat. It’s when combat happens that you roll initiative. Direct opposition is inherent in the situation.




This is a False Equivalence.  Initiative isn't combat.  Initiative is initiative.  Combat is swinging your sword at someone's AC.  That's direct opposition, but isn't an ability check, so there's no contest there, either.



> And attacks, spells, running, etc. come with initiative.




Not relevant.  Spells and attacks come with levels, too.  Are levels combat?  Are levels direct opposition?  No.  the same with initiative.  Just because it leads to direct opposition, doesn't make it direct opposition.



> If all that’s happening is trying to talk, there’s no need to roll initiative. Initiative is for when combat happens.




Sure there is, at least sometimes.  You round a corner and a group starts to attack you.  There wasn't time to talk before initiative, but someone in the party wants to give peace a chance.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 4, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I think this is true.
> 
> Personally I'm a bit struck by what seems to be the predominant view in this thread - that 5e can't resolve a footrace without house rules. (I'm not sure eg about a chess game.) If that's true, then the system is far more narrow than its superficial presentation would suggest. Even if its not true, the fact that its not self-evident one way or another is striking.




I would hardly characterize it as predominant.  You've got one or two people who are playing silly buggers semantic games and the rest of us who could resolve that using the existing rules without much worry.  The only reason that there is an argument at all is because [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] refuses to accept that just because the book says a contest uses two opposed characters it cannot then be used for more than two.

I would not say that this is a predominant view.  Loud maybe, but, not predominant.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 4, 2018)

cmad1977 said:


> A lot of people trying to be ‘right’ about what constitutes a contest. Embarrassing.
> 
> 5e is light mechanically.




Again, compared to other versions of D&D?  Sure.  Compared to RPG's in general?  Not even close.  Good grief, a 200+ page rulebook for making characters is a "light" game in your view?  Seriously?  

Heck, even the Basic Rules comes in two books and still clocks in at well over a hundred pages.  That is NOT a light game.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 4, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I would hardly characterize it as predominant.  You've got one or two people who are playing silly buggers semantic games and the rest of us who could resolve that using the existing rules without much worry.  The only reason that there is an argument at all is because [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] refuses to accept that just because the book says a contest uses two opposed characters it cannot then be used for more than two.




I didn't say you couldn't use those rules for more than two.  I said RAW limits it to two, and if you go outside of RAW, you are creating a house rule.  I myself have no problem using it for more than two, though I would limit it to directly opposed checks and not for something like a footrace.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 4, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> This is a False Equivalence.  Initiative isn't combat.  Initiative is initiative.  Combat is swinging your sword at someone's AC.  That's direct opposition, but isn't an ability check, so there's no contest there, either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Nope.  Even by RAW you are wrong here.  The ONLY time you roll initiative, by RAW is when combat starts.  You CANNOT use initiative in any other case.  Initiative is the first part of combat.  And, you cannot actually have one without the other in D&D.  Nor does initiative lead to direct opposition.  You have the opposition (combat starts) first, and then the contest among the actors to find out who acts first in combat (initiative).  

Since we're being all sticky about RAW and all that.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 4, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Nope.  Even by RAW you are wrong here.  The ONLY time you roll initiative, by RAW is when combat starts.  You CANNOT use initiative in any other case.  Initiative is the first part of combat.  And, you cannot actually have one without the other in D&D.  Nor does initiative lead to direct opposition.  You have the opposition (combat starts) first, and then the contest among the actors to find out who acts first in combat (initiative).
> 
> Since we're being all sticky about RAW and all that.




I'm not wrong.  Initiative is not itself combat.  Just like movement, which is a part of combat is not combat.  And just like jumping, which is a part of combat, is not combat.  And like hiding, which is a part of combat, is not combat.  Even though initiative is used in the combat section only, it is not itself combat.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 4, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I'm not wrong.  Initiative is not itself combat.  Just like movement, which is a part of combat is not combat.  And just like jumping, which is a part of combat, is not combat.  And like hiding, which is a part of combat, is not combat.  Even though initiative is used in the combat section only, it is not itself combat.




The difference is, all your other examples are used outside of combat (in combat as well, but, still used outside of combat).  Actually, movement is a purely combat thing as well.  Outside of combat, you don't move in 6 second chunks of movement, limited to your 30 feet (or whatever).  You just go a reasonable distance.  There are no rules for movement outside of combat, outside of overland speeds.

OTOH, initiative, and the movement rules (outside of overland movement) comprise two sections of how combat works.  You cannot run combat without these.  These are essential elements of 5e combat which is more than just the Action action.  

So, no, again, you are mistaken.  These are parts of combat.  Not the entirety of combat, true, since you still have Actions that you can take, but, basically two of of the three things that comprise combat.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 4, 2018)

Hussar said:


> The difference is, all your other examples are used outside of combat (in combat as well, but, still used outside of combat).  Actually, movement is a purely combat thing as well.  Outside of combat, you don't move in 6 second chunks of movement, limited to your 30 feet (or whatever).  You just go a reasonable distance.  There are no rules for movement outside of combat, outside of overland speeds.
> 
> OTOH, initiative, and the movement rules (outside of overland movement) comprise two sections of how combat works.  You cannot run combat without these.  These are essential elements of 5e combat which is more than just the Action action.
> 
> So, no, again, you are mistaken.  These are parts of combat.  Not the entirety of combat, true, since you still have Actions that you can take, but, basically two of of the three things that comprise combat.




It's the first line of initiative man.   "Initiative determines the order of turns during combat."  It doesn't say initiative is combat.  It says that it determines the order DURING COMBAT. The actual combat comes after initiative during the turns.  It's in the combat section, but it is not combat.  In any case, initiative is never, ever, direct opposition.  Just as a race is never direct opposition.  Direct opposition is head-to-head, not side-by-side.


----------



## cmad1977 (Oct 4, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Again, compared to other versions of D&D?  Sure.  Compared to RPG's in general?  Not even close.  Good grief, a 200+ page rulebook for making characters is a "light" game in your view?  Seriously?
> 
> Heck, even the Basic Rules comes in two books and still clocks in at well over a hundred pages.  That is NOT a light game.




Yes it is. Page count is irrelevant. The rules are simple to grasp and easy to run with. Hell, players don’t even need to know any rules beyond ‘tell the DM what you want to do and how. If he asks you to roll a die do so.’ 
5e is a light system. 
If you find it to be complex I don’t know what to tell you.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 4, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> It's the first line of initiative man.   "Initiative determines the order of turns during combat."  It doesn't say initiative is combat.  It says that it determines the order DURING COMBAT. The actual combat comes after initiative during the turns.  It's in the combat section, but it is not combat.



I don't really care about the parsing of the 5e combat rules - whereas its non-combat resolution rules are something that I find interesting to discuss, I don't think its combat rules add anything very significant to the RPG repertoire. ("Continuous movement" is an innovation relative to 3E and 4e, but I was running Rolemaster with continuous movement 20 to 30 years ago - and obviously there are any number of RPGs with less rules-bound adjudication of combat that allow continuous movement simply as part of the narration of the fiction.)

But from the point of view of metaphysics, your argument is weak.

"The speed of movement of the pistons determines the rate at which the drive shaft of the engine rotates" clearly implies that the pistons are not the entirety of the engine. But it certainly doesn't imply that the pistons are not part of the engine. And in fact they are part of the engine.

"Initative determines the order of turns during combat" does not preclude initiative being an _element_ of combat. _Combat _is a process which consists of a sequence of interrelated events. The ordering of those events is part of what constitutes them into the sequence that they are. The thing which determines that ordering is initiative. Considered in the abstract, that thing might be external to the process, or internal to it. Given that the rules for it occur in the chapter labelled "combat" and appear to have no function or utility outside of combat, I would suggest that initiative is in fact internal to, and an element of, combat.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 4, 2018)

cmad1977 said:


> Yes it is. Page count is irrelevant. The rules are simple to grasp and easy to run with. Hell, players don’t even need to know any rules beyond ‘tell the DM what you want to do and how. If he asks you to roll a die do so.’



Rolemaster can be played that way (I know - I've done it). That doesn't make RM a light system. It means that it's a system that can work if the GM carries the load of the rules.

Of course I'm exaggerating a little bit, but then so are you. A player can't build a character using the rule you've given. And they can't really run a character either - most of the stuff a player gets from character building provides ways of doing stuff _other than_ by just "telling the GM what you want to do" - they require the player declaring the use of specific abilities like rage, or casting a spell, or providing inspiration, or whatever. In combat there is also the need to understand the action economy, which isn't just "describe what you want to do". (There are RPGs that work that way, but 5e isn't one of them.)


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 4, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I don't really care about the parsing of the 5e combat rules - whereas its non-combat resolution rules are something that I find interesting to discuss, I don't think its combat rules add anything very significant to the RPG repertoire. ("Continuous movement" is an innovation relative to 3E and 4e, but I was running Rolemaster with continuous movement 20 to 30 years ago - and obviously there are any number of RPGs with less rules-bound adjudication of combat that allow continuous movement simply as part of the narration of the fiction.)
> 
> But from the point of view of metaphysics, your argument is weak.
> 
> ...




I already acknowledged that it was a part of the combat system.  It is just not combat itself.  The attempt was made to declare that initiative was combat to somehow justify saying initiative involves direct opposition.  Initiative is not itself combat, nor directly opposite to anything, even though it's a part of the combat system.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 4, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Nope.  Even by RAW you are wrong here.  The ONLY time you roll initiative, by RAW is when combat starts.  You CANNOT use initiative in any other case.  Initiative is the first part of combat.  And, you cannot actually have one without the other in D&D.  Nor does initiative lead to direct opposition.  You have the opposition (combat starts) first, and then the contest among the actors to find out who acts first in combat (initiative).
> 
> Since we're being all sticky about RAW and all that.



What's it called, then, when a random roll is required to sort out timing of multiple events in a non-combat situation, or in a situation potentially leading up to combat?

Example: a character has gone into town alone to do something and - unknown to her - is about to be assassinated.  Your party can every now and then (say, once per ten minutes for 30 seconds each time) scry this character to make sure she's OK.  Another local group have twigged that your friend is in danger and are moving to rescue her.

Multiple events whose order needs to be randomly determined - and note that ties here are perfectly acceptable, any combination of these things could in theory all happen at once:

- the assassination attempt
- the rescue attempt
- your party's scrying
- the character doing whatever it is she went into town to do

So while there's all kinds of ways a DM could sort this out on her own with a few dice rolls, how would 5e RAW do it?


----------



## pemerton (Oct 4, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I already acknowledged that it was a part of the combat system.  It is just not combat itself.



What does that mean? Choosing the target of an attack is also part of the combat system, but not combat itself. Making an attack roll is part of the combat system, but not combat itself.

_Combat itself_ is a complex structured mechanical process - which some sort of loosely correlating fiction - which all thse things are elements of. And I'm pretty sure that [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] has a firm grasp on this point. What he is saying is that combat involves direct opposition - _a clash between two sides_ - and hence that it would be wrong to argue that one of its key constituent elements, namely, determining the sequence in which that clash unfolds by way of the initiative mechanic, _cannot_ be a contest because _it does not pertain to direct opposition_.


----------



## Sadras (Oct 4, 2018)

Good grief. Footraces, initiative/combat, light/heavy systems 

You guys need to get another hobby.


----------



## Harzel (Oct 4, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> There's strongholds, castles and fortresses; though why parties don't more often pool their resources and build just one castle as a home base for everyone baffles me.




Dude! You can't be serious!  Have you ever tried to arbitrate an interior decorating argument?  I mean, you can have everyone have their own wing of the castle, but then there's still the questions about the great hall and the guest quarters, not to mention everyone wants to be near the garden and away from the middens. Now you could try separate keeps sharing some fortifications, but you'll have an endless debate about whether we _really_ need _that_ _high _a wall or _that deep_ a moat, and OMG the plantings - shrubberies vs. no shubberies - they'll just never agree.

Now, I know what you're thinking: ok, you'll go in together to get a big parcel of land at a good price and at least our castles will be close together.  Nope, not gonna work out.  First off, there's the issue of who gets the high ground.  Then it's your turret is blocking my view of the mountains.  And the damn rogue is trying to add on an octagonal tower - didn't we agree on _no weird-shaped castle additions?_  The fighter will want to clear cut the whole area for defensibility and pasture, while the druid insists we preserve the wood as a home for the timid forest creatures.  Believe me, I was president of our HOA for a few years; I know how this goes.

No, no, much better for everyone if we get as far apart as possible and build to our own desires.  Even if you end up laying siege to my castle at some point, that's still worlds better than being neighbors, much less roommates.


----------



## clearstream (Oct 4, 2018)

cmad1977 said:


> Yes it is. Page count is irrelevant. The rules are simple to grasp and easy to run with. Hell, players don’t even need to know any rules beyond ‘tell the DM what you want to do and how. If he asks you to roll a die do so.’
> 5e is a light system.



Rules count is relevant, and that is frequently somewhat associated with page count. 5e is an intermediate to heavy system. Light systems are RPGs like Paranoia.



cmad1977 said:


> If you find it to be complex I don’t know what to tell you.



It is complex, anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't thought it through 

As a digression (why not, we've digressed all over the place in this thread) rules complexity is generally judged by the size of the state space, although in cognitive terms it should also be judged by number of dimensions for change, and whether those interact. Another factor in complexity is how many decisions are being made, and cognitively the factors bearing on and the implications of those decisions.

This is why I judge 5e in the main tiers of play to be possibly more complex than 3e, because I think on a straight count of decisions 5e characters have more options. That said, I've only thought about the main actions and the character abilities (from class, archetype, background, race). I think at higher tiers the two converge and perhaps 3e is more complex (if optional elements like prestige classes or epic skill uses are factored in).

So to be more concrete about your claim that 5e isn't complex, the rebuttal is straightforward: the state space is vast, and each round of combat there are a great many decisions to be made, and those decisions interact with one another and with a large collection of parameters.


----------



## clearstream (Oct 4, 2018)

Jester David said:


> The thing is, it's not a "house rule". You're not changing a rule or really adding a rule per se. You're making a ruling.



The perpetual struggle to claim one's own version is not a house rule, and some other guy's version is. I think it comes from a fear that a house rule is a lesser creature than an interpretation. FWIW I think a ruling means judging that based on the text and situation, a rule means X. So a ruling is RAI. Whereas a house rule is in place where the text needs to be added to or outright altered to reasonably have the natural language meaning desired.

To the case at hand, the precise mechanical outcome of a tie in Contests is expressly defined. The rules literally read "_If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest._" Crossing the finish line, even tied, is not the situation remaining the same as before the contest. No one is saying a DM can't run it that way. I'm suggesting that it is a poor reading of "_remains the same_" to have things not remain the same: this is a claim about a precise mechanical outcome, not what we picture the scene to look like.



Jester David said:


> You're deciding how the action is resolved in this instance, likely using the existing Chase rules in the DMG. Which isn't *that* different from deciding how a skill challenge is resolved in 4e, if even that. Really, a footrace is short and should probably just be opposed skill checks.



I can't honestly see why it isn't easier to have everyone make one standard ability check, and have them finish the race in descending order - high to low. To the point however, I'm also suggesting that the generality of "_the DM... decides the difficulty of the task_" gives scope for ruling this way without the degree of stretch required to use Contests.


----------



## clearstream (Oct 4, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> ...the DC isn't set until after the rolls are made, at which point the DC is set as the value of the highest roll that is not the winning roll.
> 
> In other words it's a floating DC.



Agreed. Maybe part of this debate is simply that for some, a floating DC feels like it should always be a Contest, so they seek to fit those rules to it. In which case the literal text is unfortunate, but not really a barrier. For others (like me), I'm fine with a floating DC for a standard ability check.

From a design perspective the question is which is easier to manage. Revising Contests so that it covered both cases where a tie equated to no progress toward the goal, and cases where a tie equated to progress toward the goal, seems a tougher to me than putting that under standard checks, but the problem I would hit is that word Contests. I might feel that any time the DC was set by another creature's roll, it should be covered by whatever mechanics sit under that label.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 4, 2018)

Harzel said:


> Dude! You can't be serious!  Have you ever tried to arbitrate an interior decorating argument?  I mean, you can have everyone have their own wing of the castle, but then there's still the questions about the great hall and the guest quarters, not to mention everyone wants to be near the garden and away from the middens. Now you could try separate keeps sharing some fortifications, but you'll have an endless debate about whether we _really_ need _that_ _high _a wall or _that deep_ a moat, and OMG the plantings - shrubberies vs. no shubberies - they'll just never agree.
> 
> Now, I know what you're thinking: ok, you'll go in together to get a big parcel of land at a good price and at least our castles will be close together.  Nope, not gonna work out.  First off, there's the issue of who gets the high ground.  Then it's your turret is blocking my view of the mountains.  And the damn rogue is trying to add on an octagonal tower - didn't we agree on _no weird-shaped castle additions?_  The fighter will want to clear cut the whole area for defensibility and pasture, while the druid insists we preserve the wood as a home for the timid forest creatures.  Believe me, I was president of our HOA for a few years; I know how this goes.
> 
> No, no, much better for everyone if we get as far apart as possible and build to our own desires.  Even if you end up laying siege to my castle at some point, that's still worlds better than being neighbors, much less roommates.



Joking aside, an all-hands stronghold can be done.  They did it in my last campaign - fairly early on they did a huge favour for the king and were rewarded as a group with a bit of land to put a castle on and a bunch of money with which to build it.  They built it, and they and others then spent the rest of the campaign adding to it; by campaign's end they'd poured maybe 100,000 g.p. into the place (including the initial 30K reward) and it was either the full-time home or part-time home base for about 30 characters.

In the game I'm playing in we're slowly working up to a similar kind of thing - one of the characters got the Keep card from a DoMT and put the keep in a useful/central enough place that a bunch of us are now living in or near it and slowly adding to it.  Once we're done (if ever) it'll probably be similar in scale and numbers to the one noted above; except this one will have a new town beside it as well, also under our control.

And yes, there's occasional arguments.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 4, 2018)

pemerton said:


> What does that mean? Choosing the target of an attack is also part of the combat system, but not combat itself. Making an attack roll is part of the combat system, but not combat itself.




The attacks, combat spells, taking and receiving damage, etc.  You know, the combat portion of combat.  The actual fighting.  Simply picking the order people move in is not combat, even though it's in the combat portion of the game.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 4, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Good grief. Footraces, initiative/combat, light/heavy systems
> 
> You guys need to get another hobby.




I'm directly opposed to that.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 4, 2018)

clearstream said:


> This is why I judge 5e in the main tiers of play to be possibly more complex than 3e, because I think on a straight count of decisions 5e characters have more options. That said, I've only thought about the main actions and the character abilities (from class, archetype, background, race). I think at higher tiers the two converge and perhaps 3e is more complex (if optional elements like prestige classes or epic skill uses are factored in).



Even at lower levels, I suspect that 3E is more complex in relation to skills and spells, which are big chunks of (non-combat, and sometimes also combat) action declarations. Especially on the GM side.

3E also requires more frequent choices of feats for all players.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 4, 2018)

Returning to the contest/footrace discussion:



clearstream said:


> Tthe precise mechanical outcome of a tie in Contests is expressly defined. The rules literally read "_If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest._" Crossing the finish line, even tied, is not the situation remaining the same as before the contest. No one is saying a DM can't run it that way. I'm suggesting that it is a poor reading of "_remains the same_" to have things not remain the same: this is a claim about a precise mechanical outcome, not what we picture the scene to look like.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I can't honestly see why it isn't easier to have everyone make one standard ability check, and have them finish the race in descending order - high to low. To the point however, I'm also suggesting that the generality of "_the DM... decides the difficulty of the task_" gives scope for ruling this way without the degree of stretch required to use Contests.



My interpretive intuitions run strongly the other way: the idea that "the DM . . . decides the difficulty" encompasses calling for checks which result in the difficulty being decided by a player-side process seems strained to me, especially when the same page of the rules sets out an alternative framework which (i) involves exactly that, and (ii) is described as being for _contests_, which a footrace certainly counts as.

And conversely, given that we've already seen that "remains the same" can't be taken literally - even in the ring case, a tied result to reach the ring surely doesn't mean, or at least doesn't have to mean, that no one even took a step towards it - taking it to encompass the outcome of a race in which people both cross the finish line but neither has been established as a winner of a race (so what _remains the same_ is their relative status as competitors) seems fine to me.

Especially as I think the distinction between _mechanical outcome_ and _how we picture the scene_ is always potentially unstable in a RPG, and doubly so in the context of a mechanic like 5e ability/skill checks which seem intended to directly engage the fiction. (Which contrasts with the combat mechanics, as per an earlier debate upthread!)


----------



## clearstream (Oct 4, 2018)

pemerton said:


> My interpretive intuitions run strongly the other way: the idea that "the DM . . . decides the difficulty" encompasses calling for checks which result in the difficulty being decided by a player-side process seems strained to me, especially when the same page of the rules sets out an alternative framework which (i) involves exactly that, and (ii) is described as being for _contests_, which a footrace certainly counts as.



That's fair enough, and of course I would say that it doesn't set out an alternative framework. Perforce PnP RPGs are interpreted, entailing that the version we play depends on our interpretations. Seeing as those arise within a web of context we'll each see the whole as justifying our understanding of a part.



pemerton said:


> And conversely, given that we've already seen that "remains the same" can't be taken literally - even in the ring case, a tied result to reach the ring surely doesn't mean, or at least doesn't have to mean, that no one even took a step towards it - taking it to encompass the outcome of a race in which people both cross the finish line but neither has been established as a winner of a race (so what _remains the same_ is their relative status as competitors) seems fine to me.



Here I would point out that rules should always be read to have meaning, otherwise one is not interpreting but erasing. Remains the same cannot be said to describe something that does not remain the same. There is a precise mechanical sense in which remains the same can have meaning.



pemerton said:


> I think the distinction between _mechanical outcome_ and _how we picture the scene_ is always potentially unstable in a RPG, and doubly so in the context of a mechanic like 5e ability/skill checks which seem intended to directly engage the fiction. (Which contrasts with the combat mechanics, as per an earlier debate upthread!)



That's true. A good example is squeezing past a foe in combat, where it just doesn't work for players to picture the creature not somehow intruding on the foes space, even though it is literally entitled to by RAW. If I were dissatisfied with using creature's check results as a Difficulty Class, then I'd probably revert to Contests to cover it.

I think a fair question is, how would you rewrite Contests so it _literally _entailed that creatures could make progress toward a goal of crossing a finish line, and end up with a tie?


----------



## pemerton (Oct 4, 2018)

clearstream said:


> Here I would point out that rules should always be read to have meaning, otherwise one is not interpreting but erasing.



Sure. But in the tied footrace result what _remains the same_ is the status of the competitors qua competitors. Furthremore, in the context of gameplay, a conflict was framed - _who's the fastest_ - and that contest remains unresolved. So the narrative tension also remains the same. Elements of the fiction are different - the competitors are now at place B rather than place A - but I've already pointed out that that can happen with the ring example, and _you've_ already pointed out that that can happen with the "trying to force the door" example.



clearstream said:


> I think a fair question is, how would you rewrite Contests so it _literally _entailed that creatures could make progress toward a goal of crossing a finish line, and end up with a tie?



The current text is "If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest." I don't actually think that needs rewriting - _the situation_ as I understand it refers to the narrative situation, the situation of contest or opposition, not just or even primarily the details of the fiction.

The rewrites I would suggest to future editors would be to refer to "two or more contestants". While it would be _possible_ to spell out what "situation" means in more detail, I assume this is another instance of studied ambiguity in the 5e rules: the current wording allows those who eschew all metagaming, and who don't like to think about the process whereby playing a RPG generates a compelling fiction, to interpret "situation" as referring purely or at least primarily to the infiction state of affairs. (I think this is how [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] reads it, for instance.) Of course on that reading you will get puzzles or incomplete rules, like needing to "house rule" to resolve a footrace. But that again seems to be part of the deliberate ambiguity in the way the 5e rules are written.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 4, 2018)

clearstream said:


> The perpetual struggle to claim one's own version is not a house rule, and some other guy's version is. I think it comes from a fear that a house rule is a lesser creature than an interpretation. FWIW I think a ruling means judging that based on the text and situation, a rule means X. So a ruling is RAI. Whereas a house rule is in place where the text needs to be added to or outright altered to reasonably have the natural language meaning desired.



I think it's more duration. A ruling is to deal with a case that comes up once and keep the adventure going. A house rules is when you codify that for if it comes up again (or because it comes up repeatedly).



clearstream said:


> To the case at hand, the precise mechanical outcome of a tie in Contests is expressly defined. The rules literally read "_If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest._" Crossing the finish line, even tied, is not the situation remaining the same as before the contest. No one is saying a DM can't run it that way. I'm suggesting that it is a poor reading of "_remains the same_" to have things not remain the same: this is a claim about a precise mechanical outcome, not what we picture the scene to look like.



*shrug*
I think the people in this thread have spend five to ten times as much time debating that "rule" than Crawford probably spend writing it. It's an amusing quirk of the language. Every edition has them, the weird rules elements that exist when a very specific and precise situation interacts with a hard literal reading of the rules. That's literally why we have "RAW" versus "RAI".

If I were ruling that situation, I'd call one of two ways:
*RAI.* No one wins. Tie. We move on. 
*RAW. *Situation remains unchanged. Race isn't over. Reroll. We move on.

And if anyone argues the point I glare at them from behind my DM screen.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 4, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> What if we don't compare it to any RPG?
> 
> Just measure how easy it is to pick up and play.



Then we have no point of comparison at all and we can argue that it is light or heavy, crunchy rules or narrative storytelling. 
That's coming out and saying it's a "7" on the scale, but not defining what a 1 or a 10 is. If it's even out of 10 and not 15...



ad_hoc said:


> 5e is bringing millions of new people into RPGs. It must be light.



You're missing a statement there for basic logic. 
_5e is X
Therefore it is Z. 
_​
It's saying "Dogs are purchased by millions of new people into pet ownership. They must be easy to maintain."


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 4, 2018)

So if a contest is tied the condition existing before the contest remains after it.

The race is a construct not the outcome.

Two people are engaged in a foot race.  Neither has won the foot race before the contest.
The two people tie on the contest.  Neither has won the foot race after the contest.

Don't let the irrelevant details of the construct confuse the outcome based on the rules framework.

Thanks,
KB


----------



## billd91 (Oct 4, 2018)

clearstream said:


> To the case at hand, the precise mechanical outcome of a tie in Contests is expressly defined. The rules literally read "_If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest._" Crossing the finish line, even tied, is not the situation remaining the same as before the contest. No one is saying a DM can't run it that way. I'm suggesting that it is a poor reading of "_remains the same_" to have things not remain the same: this is a claim about a precise mechanical outcome, not what we picture the scene to look like.




How pedantic do we need to be here? If the contest resulted in a tie for any of the examples in the book, does that imply there was absolutely no motion? That positions haven't changed in the slightest? I don't think that's what they're trying to say - rather that the relative status of the participants with respect to the contest hasn't changed. So if they tie in a footrace, it doesn't imply they haven't moved, just that their status relative to each other hasn't changed. In other words, *they ran the race, got to the finish line, but neither could claim victory over the other*.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 4, 2018)

billd91 said:


> How pedantic do we need to be here? .




Depends on if it's Wednesday.  There's a spike in language without logic mid week most weeks.

KB


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 5, 2018)

pemerton said:


> (I think this is how [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] reads it, for instance.) Of course on that reading you will get puzzles or incomplete rules, like needing to "house rule" to resolve a footrace. But that again seems to be part of the deliberate ambiguity in the way the 5e rules are written.




You don't actually need to house rule to resolve a foot race.  A simple dex check is sufficient.  "A Dexterity check can model any attempt to move nimbly, *quickly*, or quietly, or to keep from falling on tricky footing."  Moving quickly, such as you would in a race, is modeled well enough with a dex check or multiple checks.  

It's only if you want to do a foot race as a contest that you would need to house rule.  Contests require two contestants, so if the race has more than two it moves out of RAW contests, and contests require direct opposition, which doesn't exist in a foot race.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 5, 2018)

If your interpretation of RAW is that narrow, that contests can ONLY be between 2 characters, simply because that's the examples given, that's on you.


----------



## Sadras (Oct 5, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> You don't actually need to house rule to resolve a foot race.  A simple dex check is sufficient.  "A Dexterity check can model any attempt to move nimbly, *quickly*, or quietly, or to keep from falling on tricky footing."  Moving quickly, such as you would in a race, is modeled well enough with a dex check or multiple checks.
> 
> It's only if you want to do a foot race as a contest that you would need to house rule.  Contests require two contestants, so if the race has more than two it moves out of RAW contests, and contests require direct opposition, which doesn't exist in a foot race.




One might have to consider if any of the contestants have Mobility, and if any one is a Barbarian's with the Fast Movement class feature. A DM might decide to give Advantage on the dexterity check to anyone where any of the above are applicable or they might just rule based on someone's movement, check not needed.


----------



## clearstream (Oct 5, 2018)

billd91 said:


> How pedantic do we need to be here? If the contest resulted in a tie for any of the examples in the book, does that imply there was absolutely no motion? That positions haven't changed in the slightest? I don't think that's what they're trying to say - rather that the relative status of the participants with respect to the contest hasn't changed. So if they tie in a footrace, it doesn't imply they haven't moved, just that their status relative to each other hasn't changed. In other words, *they ran the race, got to the finish line, but neither could claim victory over the other*.



For RAW, we're working literally so pedantic is called for.

Say A and B get 15, C 12, D 11. You are saying that A and B crossing the line in equal first place is remaining the same as before the contest. That's a stretch, and the approach taken requires a house rule for cross-compares.

That is why I said with "approximately equal justice" above. It's no more of a stretch - no more of a house rule - to say that the generality of the DM decides the DC includes that the DM might decide the DC based on other creatures check. Pragmatically, that works equally well.

 @_*pemerton*_ I find myself not disliking your approach, but not seeing it as less a house rule or more justified than the alternative approach. Certainly I think finishing a race in any place does a poor job of remaining the same, unless all finishers tied! That said, I agree with @_*Jester David*_ who suggests this is perhaps simply poor choice of words. When looking at RAW of course, choice of words is what we have and we can't make guesses about designer foibles. For RAI, sure. In the end, I don't think it matters who claims the high-ground because the case of multiple competitors is not clearly covered by the rules at all. Just the same as how far is further than your usual jump distance.

Instead, they've acknowledged diversity of needs and provided tools good enough for a DM to apply on the fly. I think that's what Mearls is getting at and why he is happy about their approach to 5th. I don't think he means ignore those tools (a possible implication), rather I think he means apply them as you need to, to resolve situations at your table.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 5, 2018)

Hi, folks. I have a question for you:  this need for DMs ruling out footraces, or anything else, does go along or against the premise of 5e being more narrative, fluent, at the table, in actual play?


----------



## pemerton (Oct 5, 2018)

Numidius said:


> Hi, folks. I have a question for you:  this need for DMs ruling out footraces, or anything else, does go along or against the premise of 5e being more narrative, fluent, at the table, in actual play?



I don't thikn it shows the system is more "narrative" - it does show the system has rules minutiae and complexity, which I think are at odds with being "light".


----------



## Numidius (Oct 5, 2018)

Thanks for the reply, pemerton. In your experience, are there ways to stop a combat, once it is engaged, to avoid it from ending only with the total death of the enemies?


----------



## pemerton (Oct 5, 2018)

duplicate post deleted


----------



## pemerton (Oct 5, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> You don't actually need to house rule to resolve a foot race.  A simple dex check is sufficient.  "A Dexterity check can model any attempt to move nimbly, *quickly*, or quietly, or to keep from falling on tricky footing."  Moving quickly, such as you would in a race, is modeled well enough with a dex check or multiple checks.



What would be the DC? Given that it depends on how fast the other competitors run, it's very natural to think the DC is set by a roll that is modified by their DEX and skill in the same way.



Maxperson said:


> It's only if you want to do a foot race as a contest that you would need to house rule.  Contests require two contestants, so if the race has more than two it moves out of RAW contests, and contests require direct opposition, which doesn't exist in a foot race.



I'm with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] on your insistence that the _example_ of two contestants is a _rule_, as opposed to an illustration or a core case from which further (and utterly straightforward) extrapolation might be made.

Your oddly narrow interpetation of "direct opposition" is something I've already remarked upon. In this post I'll just add: there's nothing in the _fiction_ of trying to outrun someone, compared to trying to be the first of the two of you to snatch up a ring, that suggests a different resolution mechanic should be required; and there's nothing about the _mechanic_ that is suggested for the ring example that seems at all inapplicable to the footrace; which means that your insistence that the two are different from the point of view of resolution is not grounded in any sound principle of interpreting and applying RPG rules that I'm aware of.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 5, 2018)

Numidius said:


> Thanks for the reply, pemerton. In your experience, are there ways to stop a combat, once it is engaged, to avoid it from ending only with the total death of the enemies?



If we're talking about 5e in particular, I don't have much experience - I'm in this thread because there was/is some interesting stuff about action resolution methodologies.

For D&D in general it's hard because no one goes "hors de combat" - unlike (say) systems with more granular/"realistic" combat resolution systems where people might suffer impairment or injury that takes them out without killing them. Morale is a traditional factor here, though often it produces flight rather than surrender which can just prolong the time to kill! GM decision-making - "They throw down their weapons and raise their hands!" - can be another way of handling it (but be prepared for the implications for player resources - if they get the benefits of "kills" using fewer limited-use abilities, they'll have more of those available for later).

Are you asking in the abstract, or are you actively looking for different approaches in your game?


----------



## Sadras (Oct 5, 2018)

Numidius said:


> Hi, folks. I have a question for you:  this need for DMs ruling out footraces, or anything else, does go along or against the premise of 5e being more narrative, fluent, at the table, in actual play?




I'm not sure what you mean by more narrative or fluent? Are you referring to the rolling of dice, as if the rolling of a die is in opposition to a game being narrative?

One could easily ignore the die option and look at the contestants' movement speeds to determine a winner - is that what you mean by fluent?


----------



## Numidius (Oct 5, 2018)

I'm looking for different approaches in 5e, in contrast to my experience in past editions, since I'm going to decide if to start a 5e game, or not. I'm particularly concerned about the combat phase as a whole, if it has an inevitable rigid format to be followed until its conclusion, or there are ways, perhaps in the rules themselves, to play it out more freely.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 5, 2018)

Sadras, dice rolling is fine, by me. 
What I mean is if the conversation at the table is generally going fluently, when rulings by DM occur, or if it derails the story, halting too much the game, in your opinion/experience.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 5, 2018)

Numidius said:


> Thanks for the reply, pemerton. In your experience, are there ways to stop a combat, once it is engaged, to avoid it from ending only with the total death of the enemies?




Are there RPGs that *don’t* have this? Since a fundamental aspect of the game is playing a role, the ability for a character (PC or NPC) to choose to not fight to the death has always been there.


----------



## Sadras (Oct 5, 2018)

Numidius said:


> I'm particularly concerned about the combat phase as a whole, if it has an inevitable rigid format to be followed until its conclusion, or there are ways, perhaps in the rules themselves, to play it out more freely.




The rules for combat are as they have always been, except less complex.
Conclusion of combat is usually death, flee, surrender or negotiation.
Participants within a combat are allowed to communicate with one another so it does not always need to end in the death of one side (the players play the characters and you as DM roleplay the NPCs/monsters). So in truth, you will determine how rigid combat will be.  



Numidius said:


> What I mean is if the conversation at the table is generally going fluently, when rulings by DM occur, or if it derails the story, halting too much the game, in your opinion/experience.




Ignoring any other possible factors*, in my own experience the game flows smoothly, including when one introduces a house rule in the moment due to a new circumstance/situation.

*Other factors include DMing experience, player experience, table cohesiveness...etc


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 5, 2018)

Hussar said:


> If your interpretation of RAW is that narrow, that contests can ONLY be between 2 characters, simply because that's the examples given, that's on you.




If you ignore the rule that straight out says it's between two characters, that's on you.  I'm not stating it "simply because of the examples" and you know it.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 5, 2018)

billd91 said:


> Are there RPGs that *don’t* have this? Since a fundamental aspect of the game is playing a role, the ability for a character (PC or NPC) to choose to not fight to the death has always been there.



Right...


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 5, 2018)

pemerton said:


> What would be the DC? Given that it depends on how fast the other competitors run, it's very natural to think the DC is set by a roll that is modified by their DEX and skill in the same way.




Just set one.  



> I'm with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] on your insistence that the _example_ of two contestants is a _rule_, as opposed to an illustration or a core case from which further (and utterly straightforward) extrapolation might be made.




I'm not using just the examples.  The rule says "One against another"(two), "Both"(two) and "One trying to prevent the other"(two).  The examples just back up the rule.



> Your oddly narrow interpetation of "direct opposition" is something I've already remarked upon. In this post I'll just add: there's nothing in the _fiction_ of trying to outrun someone, compared to trying to be the first of the two of you to snatch up a ring, that suggests a different resolution mechanic should be required; and there's nothing about the _mechanic_ that is suggested for the ring example that seems at all inapplicable to the footrace; which means that your insistence that the two are different from the point of view of resolution is not grounded in any sound principle of interpreting and applying RPG rules that I'm aware of.




You do know what direct means, right?  In the context of direct opposition it means "with no intervening factors in between" or "with no one or nothing in between".  In a footrace, there is space in between the runners.  When arm wrestling, there is not.  The footrace is indirect with the opposition, and the arm wrestling is direct with the opposition.

I will also agree with you that the contest mechanic works great for resolving a footrace.  It's just not covered in 5e by the contest rules, because it's indirect and sometimes also because of more than two runners.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 5, 2018)

Sadras said:


> The rules for combat are as they have always been, except less complex.
> Conclusion of combat is usually death, flee, surrender or negotiation.
> Participants within a combat are allowed to communicate with one another so it does not always need to end in the death of one side (the players play the characters and you as DM roleplay the NPCs/monsters). So in truth, you will determine how rigid combat will be.




You can also knock them out.  5e has a rule where when an attack that drops the opponent to 0 is dealt, the attacker has the option to instantly declare it a knockout blow.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 5, 2018)

Sadras, thanks for the clarifications. 

Pemerton, re-reading your reply, are you suggesting I should pay attention to the "economy" of combat encounters & short/long rests in 5e? 
Say: we don't do much dungeon crawl, nor use AdvPaths, is that going to be a problem, possibly a game breaking one?


----------



## Numidius (Oct 5, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> You can also knock them out.  5e has a rule where when an attack that drops the opponent to 0 is dealt, the attacker has the option to instantly declare it a knockout blow.



Interesting. 

IYE does such a debate on a RAW vs RAI kind of thing, like the contest you've been discussing here, happen at the table, during play, let's say, with rules lawyers players?


----------



## Sadras (Oct 5, 2018)

Numidius said:


> IYE does such a debate on a RAW vs RAI kind of thing, like the contest you've been discussing here, happen at the table, during play, let's say, with rules lawyers players?




Only if Hussar and/or Pemerton are playing at the same table as Maxperson.


----------



## ad_hoc (Oct 5, 2018)

Numidius said:


> Interesting.
> 
> IYE does such a debate on a RAW vs RAI kind of thing, like the contest you've been discussing here, happen at the table, during play, let's say, with rules lawyers players?




Kill all the lawyers.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 5, 2018)

Numidius said:


> Interesting.
> 
> IYE does such a debate on a RAW vs RAI kind of thing, like the contest you've been discussing here, happen at the table, during play, let's say, with rules lawyers players?




No, because at the table the DM just makes a ruling and the game goes on.  Sometimes, if the players feel strongly about something they we will discuss it afterwards and figure something out, with arguments made about the rule and what people want, but usually even that much doesn't happen.  Usually, because I'm trying to make the game more fun and not less fun, and I know my players, the ruling results in more fun being had. 

The RAW arguments happen here, because most of the time people are asking what the rule means, or discussing the rules.  Bringing in how you would house rule something doesn't really help a rules discussion most of the time.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 5, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Only if Hussar and/or Pemerton are playing at the same table as Maxperson.




 [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] maybe.  I'm pretty sure [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] isn't the kind of person to disrupt a game.  If he didn't enjoy it he would probably just be polite about it and let me know he wouldn't be playing again, or be one of the players to talk to me about the ruling afterwards.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 5, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> Kill all the lawyers.



Gordian knot-like solution to the problem


----------



## Sadras (Oct 5, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> @_*Hussar*_ maybe.  I'm pretty sure @_*pemerton*_ isn't the kind of person to disrupt a game.  If he didn't enjoy it he would probably just be polite about it and let me know he wouldn't be playing again, or be one of the players to talk to me about the ruling afterwards.




It was only a tongue-and-cheek comment. I think our various roleplaying differences are very much exaggerated online to the point where we participate in these endless discussions with each other.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 5, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> This is a False Equivalence.  Initiative isn't combat.




It isn't the entirety of combat, no, but initiative is one of the five steps of combat and so falls under the umbrella description of "a clash between two sides".



Maxperson said:


> Spells and attacks come with levels, too.  Are levels combat?  Are levels direct opposition?




Of course not, levels are not one of the steps of combat.



Maxperson said:


> the same with initiative.  Just because it leads to direct opposition, doesn't make it direct opposition.




You've got this backwards. Direct opposition in the form of the start of a combat encounter leads to the rolling of initiative.



Maxperson said:


> Sure there is, at least sometimes.  You round a corner and a group starts to attack you.  There wasn't time to talk before initiative, but someone in the party wants to give peace a chance.




You can talk on your turn. The key here, however, is the group started to attack you _before_ you rolled initiative, so the direct opposition is already present.


----------



## Oofta (Oct 5, 2018)

Numidius said:


> Interesting.
> 
> IYE does such a debate on a RAW vs RAI kind of thing, like the contest you've been discussing here, happen at the table, during play, let's say, with rules lawyers players?




In general, I have one rule for this kind of stuff:  the DM is right, even if they're wrong.

In other words, at the table whether I'm DMing or playing when a DM makes a ruling the player can ask for clarification but at the table the DM makes the rules for their game.  If I feel strongly I may take it up outside of the game but honestly I never see arguments like the one that has gone of for the last umpteem pages happen in real life.

Life is too short to argue minutiae at the table but arguing about it on the internet is one of the reasons web sites like this exist.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 5, 2018)

Oofta said:


> In general, I have one rule for this kind of stuff:  the DM is right, even if they're wrong.
> 
> In other words, at the table whether I'm DMing or playing when a DM makes a ruling the player can ask for clarification but at the table the DM makes the rules for their game.  If I feel strongly I may take it up outside of the game but honestly I never see arguments like the one that has gone of for the last umpteem pages happen in real life.
> 
> Life is too short to argue minutiae at the table but arguing about it on the internet is one of the reasons web sites like this exist.




Standard rule at my table is: 

The DM needs to be able to make decisions on the fly to keep the game moving.  If a player wishes to contest a ruling such that it is done correctly in the future they can, (kind of like throwing an NFL challenge flag) and the DM will look up the rule in question and advise everyone how the situation will be judged in the future such that everyone can know how the game works at the table going forward.  This is done after the game and distributed to everyone via email, added to the house rules.

If the ruling significantly affected the outcome of a combat or event then the DM reserves the right to compensate the player's character in some reasonable way, but the outcome of the combat or event will not be retconned unless all at the table agree and changing the event does not invalidate events happening after the situation occurred.

(e.g. If a player broke a sword as a result of a bad ruling or lost some equipment - then the matter can be hand waved or equipment can be given to compensate.. If the broken equipment was a rope and half the players fell to their deaths - such that five hours of gameplay thereafter was invalidated by the hand wave - no dice.)

Of course, in a situation like the last one, we might spend a bit more time looking over the rules regarding rope breaking before ruling.. but I've also been in situations where rulings needed to be handled inside the duration of a 3m egg timer because folks wanted a faster play.

2c
KB


----------



## Oofta (Oct 5, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Standard rule at my table is:
> 
> The DM needs to be able to make decisions on the fly to keep the game moving.  If a player wishes to contest a ruling such that it is done correctly in the future they can, (kind of like throwing an NFL challenge flag) and the DM will look up the rule in question and advise everyone how the situation will be judged in the future such that everyone can know how the game works at the table going forward.  This is done after the game and distributed to everyone via email, added to the house rules.
> 
> ...




Tying this back to the reason for this thread, one of the reasons I like 5E's approach in general is the emphasis of rulings over rules for the reasons you talk about.  It's more important to keep the action going than to spend time flipping through a book looking up what the DC should be for climbing an ice ledge (or whatever challenge the PCs are facing).

It still happens occasionally of course, and I understand why some people like more complete rules.  But for me?  Give me some leeway to play the game the way that works best for me and my group.


----------



## mbeacom (Oct 5, 2018)

I realize I'm late to the party and maybe this is in the very long thread somewhere. But can someone explain how designing with a greater complexity or level of mechanical options attracts s? Or am I misreading this somehow?


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 5, 2018)

mbeacom said:


> I realize I'm late to the party and maybe this is in the very long thread somewhere. But can someone explain how designing with a greater complexity or level of mechanical options attracts s? Or am I misreading this somehow?




It doesn't attract jerks.

It allows jerks to be jerks more frequently if they're inclined to be that way to begin with.  Creating more rules to offset the behavior doesn't correct it - it just makes the game less enjoyable for folks that can't stand up to the jerks and get them away from their tables.

At some point the design crew realized that they were spending more time trying to clarify things because of rules gaps only exposed by a certain type of player and they're not doing it anymore.  Whether or not that type of abrasive rules lawyer is caused by the complexity of the game is not the issue; the fact that they do exist is - and the team doesn't want to perpetuate the issue by supporting the behavior through an ever increasing level of complexity.

Better to simply say: DM rules his or her table.  Players decide whether or not they want to play there.  -- then get back to being a game publisher and not a baby sitter.

Note: D&D got plenty complicated off of a simple set of rules just by letting DMs house rule their tables.  Somewhere around late 1e and 2e it started getting bulky and went full on bloat by 3.5.  Times change and it's probably no surprise to anyone paying attention that the times D&D was most popular were the times it wasn't as heavy.  (80s and recently)


----------



## mbeacom (Oct 5, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> It doesn't attract jerks.
> 
> It allows jerks to be jerks more frequently if they're inclined to be that way to begin with.  Creating more rules to offset the behavior doesn't correct it - it just makes the game less enjoyable for folks that can't stand up to the jerks and get them away from their tables.
> 
> ...




Ahh, ok, that makes more sense. So when he says "making a game for "jerks"" He doesn't really mean making a game for them, rather he means designing a game to try to manage them. But I still wonder what games he might be talking about. I think 3.5 certainly has a lot of rules and explores a lot of mechanical corner cases. But does that mean, Mearls is saying 3.5 is "made for jerks"? Is it not possible that some perfectly good people just enjoy having more mechanical depth? I personally do not. I am not a big fan of 3.5. But I never got the feeling it was made for jerks. I always felt like it was made for people who enjoys lots of simulation.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 5, 2018)

mbeacom said:


> Ahh, ok, that makes more sense. So when he says "making a game for "jerks"" He doesn't really mean making a game for them, rather he means designing a game to try to manage them. But I still wonder what games he might be talking about. I think 3.5 certainly has a lot of rules and explores a lot of mechanical corner cases. But does that mean, Mearls is saying 3.5 is "made for jerks"? Is it not possible that some perfectly good people just enjoy having more mechanical depth? I personally do not. I am not a big fan of 3.5. But I never got the feeling it was made for jerks. I always felt like it was made for people who enjoys lots of simulation.




I think that whenever someone posts bluntly they run the risk of leaving what they're saying open to interpretation.  Mike's a human first, game designer later and I don't hold the WoTC team to any standard of communication beyond where I would be if I was annoyed by something.  At some point it's on me whether or not I want to take him in a negative light.

My opinion is that the 3.5 and Pathfinder grouping of games has a lot more area where the DM needs to interpret things, and a lot more reading to be fluent in the game system such that the DM needs to manage expectations of his or her players as to how things will be judged and how rules will interact with each other in niche cases.  Because most DMs don't have the time or the inclination to read everything, create a spreadsheet, do the math and figure out the balances ahead of time.. should they run in to or be a "difficult player" it makes the game less enjoyable and straddles the DM with a decision to not run things "by the book" with less emphasis on their right to "do it the way you want".

Now were I running a game company (FWIW I love crunchy systems) I would not write a crunchy system without a long chapter on game balance and mechanics theory aimed at the DM such that they knew one of the things they had to do was come up with their own "how my world works" document and "players agree to" document.  This is so far away from "lets just play a module on Friday night"  that I see exactly where Mike's coming from.

KB


----------



## Satyrn (Oct 5, 2018)

mbeacom said:


> Ahh, ok, that makes more sense. So when he says "making a game for "jerks"" He doesn't really mean making a game for them, rather he means designing a game to try to manage them. But I still wonder what games he might be talking about. I think 3.5 certainly has a lot of rules and explores a lot of mechanical corner cases. But does that mean, Mearls is saying 3.5 is "made for jerks"? Is it not possible that some perfectly good people just enjoy having more mechanical depth? I personally do not. I am not a big fan of 3.5. But I never got the feeling it was made for jerks. I always felt like it was made for people who enjoys lots of simulation.




I think it's not that it was designed for jerks, but was made to defend against jerks. Like, they were indeed writing it for people who enjoy mechanical depth, while also spending lots of extra effort to close off loopholes or the like so that the jerks couldn't use that mechanical depth against their fellow players.


----------



## D1Tremere (Oct 5, 2018)

mbeacom said:


> Ahh, ok, that makes more sense. So when he says "making a game for "jerks"" He doesn't really mean making a game for them, rather he means designing a game to try to manage them. But I still wonder what games he might be talking about. I think 3.5 certainly has a lot of rules and explores a lot of mechanical corner cases. But does that mean, Mearls is saying 3.5 is "made for jerks"? Is it not possible that some perfectly good people just enjoy having more mechanical depth? I personally do not. I am not a big fan of 3.5. But I never got the feeling it was made for jerks. I always felt like it was made for people who enjoys lots of simulation.




t is perfectly reasonable to like 3.5 or any other system, and people can do so without being jerks. The problem is that as the rules try to account for every possible scenario in order to make games more homogeneous from one table to another, they begin to select for players who approach the rules as immutable law. This type of selection favors min/maxing, rules lawyering, and a heavy meta game focus on right vs wrong ways to do things. Even this is not really a problem if that is how everyone in the group enjoys their experience, but it can create players who are ill prepared for games that do not function to such specifications. It encourages a competitive approach instead of a cooperative approach from some players. 
To be fair, his original definition of obnoxious players is never really given. In this case he seems to be referring to competitive or mechanically inclined players, as those are definitely the kind of players that 5e moves away from. I do not necessarily agree that these are always or often problematic players, as again it is mostly down to how you frame your ideal of a good player/group.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 5, 2018)

Hriston said:


> You can talk on your turn.



Is this to say you can't talk when it's not your turn?

That takes turn-based rigidity to a whole new level.  Yikes!


----------



## Satyrn (Oct 5, 2018)

D1Tremere said:


> To be fair, his original definition of obnoxious players is never really given. In this case he seems to be referring to competitive or mechanically inclined players.



I think he's referring to the kind of player who finds a ridiculous exploit in the rules (like the Whirlwind Attack/Great Cleave/bag-of-rats combo) and insists upon using it the game because "it's in the rules."


----------



## Hriston (Oct 5, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Is this to say you can't talk when it's not your turn?




My view is there really is no time in the fiction during the six-second round when it's not your turn, so if you want your character to say something during that round, your turn would be the appropriate time to describe that.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 5, 2018)

Hriston said:


> My view is there really is no time in the fiction during the six-second round when it's not your turn, so if you want your character to say something during that round, your turn would be the appropriate time to describe that.



That must make on-the-fly tactics co-ordination a pain for the front-liners, if nothing else; never mind the taunting and threats piece...

"Go left!"
"I got this!"
"Joa, cover the Elf, she's down!"
"They've got a caster!  Back right!"
"Andy!  Incoming behind you!" (nickname for Andiriana or some other equally-long name)
"Surrender or die!"
"You want some o' this?!"
"Medic!  I'm hurtin' here!"
"Twenty-two!"
"Twenty-three!"
"Parlay!"

Any one of these takes a second or less to say, and any one could change the upcoming action of one or more allies and-or foes. (well, except for the kill count...)

Lan-"that still only counts as one!"-efan


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 5, 2018)

Hriston said:


> It isn't the entirety of combat, no, but initiative is one of the five steps of combat and so falls under the umbrella description of "a clash between two sides".
> 
> You've got this backwards. Direct opposition in the form of the start of a combat encounter leads to the rolling of initiative.




It does not mean direct opposition at all.  It's entirely possible for two parties to encounter each other, roll initiative, and never intend to oppose each other at all.



> You can talk on your turn. The key here, however, is the group started to attack you _before_ you rolled initiative, so the direct opposition is already present.




I can prove this to be false.  Both sides can in fact be surprised and get no actions.  Two stealthy groups round a corner and everyone ends up surprised.  Roll initiative and yet nobody has started any sort of attack whatsoever.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 5, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> That must make on-the-fly tactics co-ordination a pain for the front-liners, if nothing else; never mind the taunting and threats piece...
> 
> "Go left!"
> "I got this!"
> ...






Not to be the king of picky nits, but I'm going to be.

Time how long it takes you to say one syllable.  Unless you're really rushing it's a second.  They've got a caster back right is at minimum 3 seconds.  Parlay I can see, Same with numbers.


----------



## jonesy (Oct 6, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Not to be the king of picky nits, but I'm going to be.
> 
> Time how long it takes you to say one syllable.  Unless you're really rushing it's a second.  They've got a caster back right is at minimum 3 seconds.  Parlay I can see, Same with numbers.



Let's be super-nitpicky then: the next step in this line of thinking is codeword combat where the players/characters come up with a playbook of things they can shout at each other.

"Kopi!" (Enemy caster behind us on the right side)
"Kopa!" (Enemy caster behind us on the left side)
And so on.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 6, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Not to be the king of picky nits, but I'm going to be.
> 
> Time how long it takes you to say one syllable.  Unless you're really rushing it's a second.  They've got a caster back right is at minimum 3 seconds.  Parlay I can see, Same with numbers.




I don't think it matters, though.  Let's say it takes 3 seconds.  That's 3 seconds of talking while you swing your sword and move.  A short sentence like that doesn't have to fit into the rest of what you are doing on your turn.  It's in addition to what you do on your turn.  I also don't think it's anywhere close to a second a syllable, either.  I can say the word chocolate(three syllables) at a normal pace in under a second.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 6, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> That must make on-the-fly tactics co-ordination a pain for the front-liners, if nothing else; never mind the taunting and threats piece...
> 
> "Go left!"
> "I got this!"
> ...




I look at it this way: In the fictional six seconds represented by a round of combat, every participant has the opportunity to emit about six seconds of speech. At the table, these speeches are made in initiative order, but like the movements and actions of the participants overlap in the fiction, so do their speeches all take place at roughly the same time. The quickness of those high in the initiative order explains why their friends don’t have the opportunity to shout warnings and instructions they can benefit from before springing into action.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 6, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I don't think it matters, though.  Let's say it takes 3 seconds.  That's 3 seconds of talking while you swing your sword and move.  A short sentence like that doesn't have to fit into the rest of what you are doing on your turn.  It's in addition to what you do on your turn.  I also don't think it's anywhere close to a second a syllable, either.  I can say the word chocolate(three syllables) at a normal pace in under a second.




You’re right that it doesn’t matter at all, but I’ll challenge your cognitive definition of a second of real time against what actually is a second of real time.  I find that folks have that disconnect all the time.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 6, 2018)

jonesy said:


> Let's be super-nitpicky then: the next step in this line of thinking is codeword combat where the players/characters come up with a playbook of things they can shout at each other.
> 
> "Kopi!" (Enemy caster behind us on the right side)
> "Kopa!" (Enemy caster behind us on the left side)
> And so on.




If you wanted to and play the sort of game that goes to that extreme, sure.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 6, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> You’re right that it doesn’t matter at all, but I’ll challenge your cognitive definition of a second of real time against what actually is a second of real time.  I find that folks have that disconnect all the time.




I tested it before I posted.  I also have an excellent sense of time.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 6, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I tested it before I posted.  I also have an excellent sense of time.




Not going to argue it.  Saying “one” generally takes someone a second of time.  “Chocolate” is more complicated, but folks say and do things differently and that’s the beauty of life.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 6, 2018)

Numidius said:


> Pemerton, re-reading your reply, are you suggesting I should pay attention to the "economy" of combat encounters & short/long rests in 5e?
> Say: we don't do much dungeon crawl, nor use AdvPaths, is that going to be a problem, possibly a game breaking one?



This gets into fairly contentious territory - but my answer is a firm "yes", and it's probably the main reason I'm not very enthusiastic about 5e as a system.

I'll elaborate - I've got two reasons, a primary one and a secondary one.

The primary reason: in a system (like 5e or 13th Age) with strongly asymmetric suites of player resources, the balance of intra-party mechanical effectiveness can easily be broken - normally by those players with long-rest-recovery deploying them in a nova fashion, and then taking steps to recover them - which means those players with short-rest recovery or at-will resources don't get the benefit of their more rapid recovery times.

13th Age solves this problem by sheer stipulation - after 4 combats the players get the benefit of a long rest - but that feature of mechanical pacing puts pressure on the GM to shape the fiction and the in-fiction pacing in such a way that the recovery makes sense.

The standard recommended approach in 5e is for the GM to exercise very strong control over the pacing and the availability of rests, which then generates uncertainy on the parts of the players about the prospects of resource recovery, and thus reduces the tendency of players with long-rest-recovery resources to spend them profligately.

But that leads into my secondary reason: the result of resource-conservation is that, at least some of the time and perhaps quite a bit of the time, you don't get to _play_ your PC (in the full mechanical sense of that notion). If my conception of my character is as a fireballing blaster then I want to _cast_ fireballs, not conserve them!

(I regard classic D&D as an exception to this - in classic dungeon crawling RPGing the PC isn't really a _character_ to be _played_, but a suite of resources and capabilities to be managed. Converving appropriately is part of that. But it's far from my favourite approach to RPGing - I prefer more contemporary styles where player mechanical resources are the devices whereby the _character_ is _played_ by engaging with the fiction and declaring actions.)

The last system I played/GMed in a serious way that had asymmetric resource suites was Rolemaster. In my first long RM campaign we solved the problem by having everyone play wizards (so while there was asymmetry in the rules, there was not very much at our table). In our second long campaign we tweaked some rules and also adopted some conventions which meant that, as a general proposition, a caster had to nova to be on a par with a non-caster - but had a degree of versatility and supernatural capability (eg non-casters can't fly or just turn invisible in the middle of a plain) which made up for this lack of sheer effectiveness.

But for the past 10 years I've only played/GMed games with symmetric resource suites, with the exception of a couple of sessions of AD&D (which fall into the paranthetical exception noted above).

Edit: Re APs - I would never recommend APs (!) and by all accounts the published ones for 5e don't do a particularly good job of managing these pacing issues.

I think not doing dungeon crawls makes the presupposed pacing of 6-8 encounters per adventuring day harder to pull off - a fairly standard solution (that many 4e tables also used) is to upscale short/long rests to 1x/day and 1x/week. (An alternative to 1x/week is _you must be at a haven/safe place_, but if you mostly play city or courtly adventures that mightn't help.)

The real issue is managing pacing so that nova-ing of long-rest-recovery resources doesn't become a dominant strategy.


----------



## pickin_grinnin (Oct 6, 2018)

D1Tremere said:


> t is perfectly reasonable to like 3.5 or any other system, and people can do so without being jerks. The problem is that as the rules try to account for every possible scenario in order to make games more homogeneous from one table to another, they begin to select for players who approach the rules as immutable law. This type of selection favors min/maxing, rules lawyering, and a heavy meta game focus on right vs wrong ways to do things. Even this is not really a problem if that is how everyone in the group enjoys their experience, but it can create players who are ill prepared for games that do not function to such specifications. It encourages a competitive approach instead of a cooperative approach from some players.




Yes, exactly!

I started playing and GMing D&D way back in the Holmes boxed set era.  There have been a lot of changes to D&D over time that go beyond simple differences between the rules in various editions.

Back when I started, the basic rules were very minimal (and sometimes contradictory), so pretty much everyone interpreted, altered, and/or added to them for their own group(s).  It was highly encouraged by TSR (primarily through their Dragon magazine), though not everyone read that.  It was pretty common for GMs and players to not know anything about the company, the writers, the designers, and their game philosophy. AD&D expanded the rule set quite a bit (and the number of contradictory rules and loopholes, even), but the general DIY ethic was still the predominant one. 

Once you got to 3 and 3e, though, there was a shift in tone, both from the company itself and within the player base.  The rules became more complex, and (in my experience) rules lawyering became a bigger issue in general.  "Optimized builds" became a bigger thing, mainly because more complex systems make that more of a possibility.  I can't speak for everyone, but in my experience rules lawyering became a bigger issue in most places.  I started seeing more conflict between DMs and players when it came to attitudes towards RAW and RAI, too.  I got the sense that Wizards of the Coast were starting to put a little more emphasis on the idea of D&D being played in a similar fashion from table to table, too.  It was the introduction of league play that really cemented that idea, though.

Game design theories, meta arguments, RAW vs. RAI, character optimization, and a lot of other things changed radically when the general public moved onto the Internet en masse, in the late 90s.  A lot of the rancor, heated arguments, absolutism, and other unfortunate things that are issues today were not that common in the pre-Internet era, when people had to either talk to each other or write books, columns, letters, etc.  It is far more than a doubling effect - more like a 100 times (or more) plus.

This situation makes things very difficult for Wizards of the Coast.  Since D&D is the most well-known and most played rpg, people tend to view it as a system that has something for everyone.  It isn't a generic system, though, and a lot of people who play it remember a time when fewer people thought that the rules were cast in iron.  There is often a big difference in expectations and general philosophy between people who played in the pre-3e days, those who got their start with 3e/3.5e/Pathfinder, and those who are coming into the hobby after a lifetime of playing videogames.  

The designers of D&D should probably just pick a direction and go with it, since designing the most popular rpg in the world to try to suit all of those groups is very problematic.  WotC is motivated the keep presenting the game in that way, though, to maximize their profits.  The reluctance of many players these days to learn more than one rpg ruleset probably influences that, as well.


----------



## ad_hoc (Oct 6, 2018)

pickin_grinnin said:


> This situation makes things very difficult for Wizards of the Coast.  Since D&D is the most well-known and most played rpg, people tend to view it as a system that has something for everyone.  It isn't a generic system, though, and a lot of people who play it remember a time when fewer people thought that the rules were cast in iron.  There is often a big difference in expectations and general philosophy between people who played in the pre-3e days, those who got their start with 3e/3.5e/Pathfinder, and those who are coming into the hobby after a lifetime of playing videogames.




I agree with your post, I just want to pick this bit out.

I think there are a large group of people playing 5e who are new to RPGs and haven't played many videogames.


----------



## pickin_grinnin (Oct 6, 2018)

ad_hoc said:


> I agree with your post, I just want to pick this bit out.
> 
> I think there are a large group of people playing 5e who are new to RPGs and haven't played many videogames.




You're right.  They would probably constitute a fourth general group, with different expectations, if they had any at all.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 6, 2018)

Hriston said:


> I look at it this way: In the fictional six seconds represented by a round of combat, every participant has the opportunity to emit about six seconds of speech. At the table, these speeches are made in initiative order, but like the movements and actions of the participants overlap in the fiction, so do their speeches all take place at roughly the same time. The quickness of those high in the initiative order explains why their friends don’t have the opportunity to shout warnings and instructions they can benefit from before springing into action.



I allow speech as a free at-will action for short things like my earlier examples, in order to better replicate the fog of war where everyone's shouting at once.  Poetry recitals and election speeches, however, are right out.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 6, 2018)

pickin_grinnin said:


> Once you got to 3 and 3e, though, there was a shift in tone, both from the company itself and within the player base.  The rules became more complex, and (in my experience) rules lawyering became a bigger issue in general.  "Optimized builds" became a bigger thing, mainly because more complex systems make that more of a possibility.  I can't speak for everyone, but in my experience rules lawyering became a bigger issue in most places.  I started seeing more conflict between DMs and players when it came to attitudes towards RAW and RAI, too.  I got the sense that Wizards of the Coast were starting to put a little more emphasis on the idea of D&D being played in a similar fashion from table to table, too.  It was the introduction of league play that really cemented that idea, though.



League play, in the form of the RPGA, had already been around for ages at that point...and had already been causing the same kind of unification-vs.-table by table disputes and headaches.

What made the difference with WotC however, and what many people either forget or ignore, is that WotC was coming from designing a very successful game where there really was a rule for everything: Magic the Gathering.  They then took that rule-for-everything ethos and tried to apply it to D&D, with decidedly mixed results.



> Game design theories, meta arguments, RAW vs. RAI, character optimization, and a lot of other things changed radically when the general public moved onto the Internet en masse, in the late 90s.  A lot of the rancor, heated arguments, absolutism, and other unfortunate things that are issues today were not that common in the pre-Internet era, when people had to either talk to each other or write books, columns, letters, etc.  It is far more than a doubling effect - more like a 100 times (or more) plus.



Yeah, the internet hasn't helped any either.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 6, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> League play, in the form of the RPGA, had already been around for ages at that point...and had already been causing the same kind of unification-vs.-table by table disputes and headaches.
> 
> What made the difference with WotC however, and what many people either forget or ignore, is that WotC was coming from designing a very successful game where there really was a rule for everything: Magic the Gathering.  They then took that rule-for-everything ethos and tried to apply it to D&D, with decidedly mixed results.
> 
> Yeah, the internet hasn't helped any either.




And, just to add to that, you have Monte Cook, who was pretty instrumental in the design of 3e, who came from designing Rolemaster and Champions.  I mean, you can pretty much draw a direct line from 3e to Rolemaster.  And those priorities have really influenced how we have proceeded from there.


----------



## pickin_grinnin (Oct 6, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> League play, in the form of the RPGA, had already been around for ages at that point...and had already been causing the same kind of unification-vs.-table by table disputes and headaches.




That's true.  It wasn't nearly so widespread as it is today, though.  These days a lot of new players get their start that way.



> What made the difference with WotC however, and what many people either forget or ignore, is that WotC was coming from designing a very successful game where there really was a rule for everything: Magic the Gathering.  They then took that rule-for-everything ethos and tried to apply it to D&D, with decidedly mixed results.




That's a good point.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 6, 2018)

Hussar said:


> you have Monte Cook, who was pretty instrumental in the design of 3e, who came from designing Rolemaster and Champions.  I mean, you can pretty much draw a direct line from 3e to Rolemaster.



Having played a _lot_ of Rolemaster and a bit of 3E, they're pretty different (the only real point of resemblance, I think, is the skill aspect of PC Gen; perhaps also the Fort and Will saving throw mechanics).

But anyway, RM does not have a "RAW" culture - Monte Cook came to prominence as a contributor to the RM Companions, and these are collections of optional rules that are largely unplaytested and are pretty random in their mechanical balance.

There are two main differences between 3E and RM.

(1) In PC building, 3E is list-based, with many places where choices are made from many elements, many of which provide distinct mechanical abilities, and many of which cumulate in various respects producing unanticipated and potentially broken combinations. RM doesn't have this - everything in RM is either a check or a fiat spell effect. There is very little stuff (like feats or class abilities) that just adds capabilities to a PC without mediating them through the skill or spell systems. (This makes RM closer to RQ or Classic Traveller, though not quite as austere as those systems.)

(2) RM's skill system doesn't rely as heavily as 3E's on preset DCs. It also relies _more_ than 3E's on preset circumstance modifiers. I haven't played enough 3E to know which system is heavier in play, but the elements of their complexity are different.

Anyway, RM is not a system that is going to play the same from table to table - with different options in play (from the core books and the Companions), with different expectations from a GM about what the base DCs are for various actions, it will turn out quite different. (Obviously all will involve similar procedures - of looking up charts and rolling lots of percentile dice - but the outcomes of resolution will be different.)


----------



## jonesy (Oct 6, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> If you wanted to and play the sort of game that goes to that extreme, sure.



I think you missed my point entirely. When the game degenerates into a situation where everyone involved has to keep checking a codebook in order to perform the simplest of tactical decisions you are no longer spending most of your time playing the game itself, but rather wasting time on something trivial and useless. And at that point it's easier for everyone to just rule that having to do that is stupid.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 6, 2018)

pemerton said:


> This gets into fairly contentious territory - but my answer is a firm "yes", and it's probably the main reason I'm not very enthusiastic about 5e as a system.
> 
> I'll elaborate - I've got two reasons, a primary one and a secondary one.
> 
> ...



Very informative, thanks. Food for thought.

 As an aside: Engaging the fiction, for sure, and also I'd say Engage the Setting, as players, so to have "new information", about the game fiction, flowing from PCs* to the GM, not only the usual way around,  from Gm to Pcs. 

*PCs decisions, choises, investment of resources and creativity to alter the setting/situation, "forcing" the Gm to react to them, and enjoy the unexpected new stuff brought to the table by players. 
Not an easy task, btw.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 6, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Not going to argue it.  Saying “one” generally takes someone a second of time.  “Chocolate” is more complicated, but folks say and do things differently and that’s the beauty of life.



Unless you have a different source of data than I do, most English speakers average between 110-150 words per minute when speaking, which is about 4-5 syllables per second.  

Heck, I just tried reading a 30 word sentence in exactly 30 seconds, and it was painfully slow to do so.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 6, 2018)

Let's take the "exchange of information" at the table as keyword and guideline, and analize WotC work by that.

In Magic, the game is symmetric between the players, the "information" brought to the table coming from both their decks of cards' builds

In 3e, given the asymmetrical traditional rpg type of game (one DM with full information "vs" many players with virtually none):  they provided a rigid and "bloated" rules framework to spread the required basic information available at any moment, in any table as evenly as possible, for both sides. Moreover providing players with lots of choices to be optimized in char-gen & advancement to create their pc builds, in order to (let's say) compensate the Monster Manual of the DM. 

In 5e they realized that equity, fair play, at the table could be obtained more easily by the "mere" consensus among people playing, not necessarily by rules overload.
Fine. The problem I'm starting see in this approach, is that they are just redistributing the load of "information" available in the system only on one side, the DM side. 

Power gaming & rules lawyering, might not be the problem itself, the cause, but rather the symptom: a big (and for some: really bad) side effect of the Magic cardgame approach of 3e. 
I'd like to think that what these people want (me included, even if I am more of an immersive guy) is, in abstract terms, more "information" to operate more efficiently in the system/world/setting/game/whatever, and the only way would be to have this information to go from them to the DM also (and back again, of course). 

Thinking more in abstract, the conversation at the table is the medium, while the information is the content. 
Both sides should have the means to exchange valuable info to the other (valuable by having either mechanical weight, or agreed consensus, thus providing active actions, actual changes in the setting; things the DM would be willingly forced to reckon with... IMO). 

Going back to topic, I'd argue that 3e premise/goal/intention was fair in this regard, but in practice failed because of the cardgame mindset; while 5e just missed the point of said premise, only streamlining the practice itself at the table, without recognizing the underlying desire of a more evenly spread agency at the table (that I like to define by the exchange of interactive&proactive information). 
Now all the frame (the management) of the campaign, seems lifted from the players' side and loaded on the DM. 
I'm not saying this is bad per se, I'm only noting the shift. 

Does it make sense? 

Not sure if it does to me, anyway; but these are my thoughts emerged from following, with interest, this whole thread.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 6, 2018)

Numidius said:


> Let's take the "exchange of information" at the table as keyword and guideline, and analize WotC work by that.
> 
> In Magic, the game is symmetric between the players, the "information" brought to the table coming from both their decks of cards' builds
> 
> ...



An example of information exchange from PC to DM: the PC background; or goals of the party. 

Very basic ones, actually, but might be powerful in the campaign. 

What I have seen in games I played in, is that dismissing those bg/goals is a habit of both DMs that prefer a railroad game or a sandbox one. 

In both cases the DMs become the only providers of information in the game. 

(Just to tell you where I'm coming from...)


----------



## pemerton (Oct 6, 2018)

Numidius said:


> As an aside: Engaging the fiction, for sure, and also I'd say Engage the Setting, as players, so to have "new information", about the game fiction, flowing from PCs* to the GM, not only the usual way around,  from Gm to Pcs.
> 
> *PCs decisions, choises, investment of resources and creativity to alter the setting/situation, "forcing" the Gm to react to them, and enjoy the unexpected new stuff brought to the table by players.
> Not an easy task, btw.



If I'm understanding you right, that's very much my preferred approach to RPGing.

Here's an actual play report (first session of a 4e Dark Sun campaign) which is fairly representative.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 6, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Unless you have a different source of data than I do, most English speakers average between 110-150 words per minute when speaking, which is about 4-5 syllables per second.



The rule of thumb I use when preparing to give a talk (which is a regular part of my job, as an academic) is 100 words per minute. (And half that, or less, for a lecture, because you have to repeat yourself so the students can get it down!)

The most common weakness when junior academics give their first talks and their first lectures is that they talk too fast. Ordinary conversational pace - especially a nervous pace - is quite a bit faster than the speed at which you want to talk if presenting complex and novel material to an audience who are expected to be absorbing it in a serious way.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 6, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Unless you have a different source of data than I do, most English speakers average between 110-150 words per minute when speaking, which is about 4-5 syllables per second.
> 
> Heck, I just tried reading a 30 word sentence in exactly 30 seconds, and it was painfully slow to do so.




I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again at some point.  I'm obviously living in some sort of reality distortion field based on my own way of speaking and an incorrect view of time.

Thanks,
KB


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 6, 2018)

pemerton said:


> The rule of thumb I use when preparing to give a talk (which is a regular part of my job, as an academic) is 100 words per minute. (And half that, or less, for a lecture, because you have to repeat yourself so the students can get it down!)
> 
> The most common weakness when junior academics give their first talks and their first lectures is that they talk too fast. Ordinary conversational pace - especially a nervous pace - is quite a bit faster than the speed at which you want to talk if presenting complex and novel material to an audience who are expected to be absorbing it in a serious way.




.. this is at least part of my time abstraction problem for those who were following my admission of inaccuracy.   

Much of my time has been spent mentoring and teaching older and younger co-workers.  I had to un-learn speaking at the speed of my thoughts in order to be effective.  

Thanks Pem.
KB


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 6, 2018)

pemerton said:


> The rule of thumb I use when preparing to give a talk (which is a regular part of my job, as an academic) is 100 words per minute. (And half that, or less, for a lecture, because you have to repeat yourself so the students can get it down!)
> 
> The most common weakness when junior academics give their first talks and their first lectures is that they talk too fast. Ordinary conversational pace - especially a nervous pace - is quite a bit faster than the speed at which you want to talk if presenting complex and novel material to an audience who are expected to be absorbing it in a serious way.




How about when you're in the middle of mortal combat?


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 6, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> How about when you're in the middle of mortal combat?




The announcer does speak pretty slowly.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 6, 2018)

[MENTION=6972053]Numidius[/MENTION] - I found your long post interesting. If I've followed you properly, you're suggesting that 5e "solves" the issue of rules bloat/complexity by shifting to a very GM-driven game. To me, that seems fair, and consistent with how I generally see the game presented on these boards. (Of course that's generalising across a wide degree of individual variation.)

Thinking about action resolution, I believe there are two main ways to achieve a greater degree of symmetry at the table.

One is to go for relatively hard-coded "subjective" DCs, which then provide a reasonalby "knowable" framework for the players to exert themselves against. I look at 4e in this light; and a non-D&D system that I also think fits this description is Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic - though rather than a table/formula for level appropriate DCs like 4e has, it uses GM-side dice pools to generate the opposition.

Another is to go for "objective" DCs - which therefore give the GM a lot of latitude in establishing the DCs and, thereby, the "feel" of the setting (especially when, unlike 3E, GM discretion is prioritised more highly and there are fewer long lists of DCs-by-circumstance) - but to give the players (i) less reason to want to succeed all the time (eg "fail forward" techniques of resolution) and/or (ii) resources on their side that allow them to adjust upwards from their basic competence if the GM turns out to have set the DCs higher than the players hoped/planned for. Burning Wheel is a system I play and GM that has both (i) (by way of fail forward, and also because its advancement system means sometimes your PC needs to lose) and (ii).

4e also has (ii) (eg action points, healing surges, many boosting powers, etc), which combines with its use of "subjective", system-driven DCs to generate a very high degree of player capacity to respond to, engage and shape (not in meta-ways, but by rich and ambitious action declarations) the situations the GM frames the PCs into. I think for those who haven't played much 4e in accordance with this logic of the system, and whose conception of player-side RPGing comes from relatively sparse systems where the only high-octane player-side resources are spells and magic-items, it can be hard to convey the difference of play in 4e compared to those sparse systems, that results from all these player-side resources in combination with the system-driven DCs and creature builds.

Another two systems I'm currently GMing are Prince Valiant and Classic Traveller. The former has a few player-side meta-resources, but not many: players are mostly just rolling pools built from their PC stats and skills. And it uses "objective" DCs. So it relies on "fail forward"-type adjudication to encourage player-first rather than GM-driven play.

Classic Traveller also uses "objective" DCs, but - a bit like the way in which D&D spells are notionally ingame rather than meta but are able to play the role that meta resources play in other systems - the objective DCs in Classic Traveller generally happen to have a nice spread relative to the sorts of bonuses PCs have. And it also uses a lot of dice-driven stuff on the GM-side as well as the player side. This led me to make a post late last year about Classic Traveller as a very dice-driven game. (So "negatively symmetrical", neither player nor GM driven.)


----------



## pemerton (Oct 6, 2018)

The only RPG I know that has rules for how quickly you can speak is Burning Wheel - (i) it's a pretty heavy system; (ii) it has rules for magic (especially prayer) that require the player to actually speak the words of supplication; and therefore (iii) has rules for how long, in combat turns, it takes you to get your stuff said.

Its rule is 6 to 8 syllables per "volley" - a volley is one to two seconds. So it allows the faithful to recite their prayers rather quickly!


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 6, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> The announcer does speak pretty slowly.



And yet there's never enough time to input the fatality.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 6, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Its rule is 6 to 8 syllables per "volley" - a volley is one to two seconds. So it allows the faithful to recite their prayers rather quickly!



As a (lapsed) Roman Catholic, I can confirm the necessity.  That rosary isn't going to pray itself.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 6, 2018)

pemerton said:


> If I'm understanding you right, that's very much my preferred approach to RPGing.
> 
> Here's an actual play report (first session of a 4e Dark Sun campaign) which is fairly representative.



I'm definitely going to have a look at that


----------



## Numidius (Oct 6, 2018)

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=6972053]Numidius[/MENTION] - I found your long post interesting. If I've followed you properly, you're suggesting that 5e "solves" the issue of rules bloat/complexity by shifting to a very GM-driven game. To me, that seems fair, and consistent with how I generally see the game presented on these boards. (Of course that's generalising across a wide degree of individual variation.)
> 
> Thinking about action resolution, I believe there are two main ways to achieve a greater degree of symmetry at the table.
> 
> ...



Thanks for taking the time to read it. 

I have some familiarity with BW, having read it and owning Gold ed, Magic Burner and another book, but never played it. 
Cortex+ also, I ran a few of sessions of Marvel Heroic in the fantasy variant: found it very interesting by a GM perspective, not so my players, unfortunately. 
We had an hex crawl with it that I actually enjoyed. If we had to continue, I was supposed to add a skill system of sort, bc my friends can't play happily without skills on their sheets, apparently  
In this regard I found very insightful your many references and descriptions of 4e in this thread. 

I also read your review of Prince Valiant.
Classic Traveller, we still have a copy somewhere, from that period long ago inbetween 80's & 90's when we may have played a bit of it. 

On the information stuff I wrote: I'd like sometimes, as a GM, to just sit down at beginning of the session, and let the players do the talk, giving away info on what is going to happen on their behalf and me react to them accordingly, as single PCs, or as chiefs of a faction of some kind, with decisional power in the setting on their own.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 6, 2018)

Hussar said:


> And, just to add to that, you have Monte Cook, who was pretty instrumental in the design of 3e, who came from designing Rolemaster and Champions.  I mean, you can pretty much draw a direct line from 3e to Rolemaster.  And those priorities have really influenced how we have proceeded from there.




Hussar, 
You, like many people, you are too quick to put the blame on Cook based upon him being the designer must public about discussing the game. The lead  for 3.0 was Tweet not Cook.  Prior to Tweet taking over as the lead,  it was Peter Adkinson. As for 3.5, by the time of 3.5, Cook was gone given that he was running Malhavoc.

Furthermore, several elements of 3.0 can also be said to share similarities to Ars Magica which Tweet  co- created.  Both games have a basic resolution mechanic of  (die roll + skill  mod + other mod )vs DC .  You have a long list of skills in both games.  Also, Ars Magica Virtues can be seen seen as analogous to 3e Feats (Actually, now, I wish 3e had an equivalent to Ars Magica flaws).


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 6, 2018)

Numidius said:


> Going back to topic, I'd argue that 3e premise/goal/intention was fair in this regard, but in practice failed because of the cardgame mindset; while 5e just missed the point of said premise, only streamlining the practice itself at the table, without recognizing the underlying desire of a more evenly spread agency at the table (that I like to define by the exchange of interactive&proactive information).
> Now all the frame (the management) of the campaign, seems lifted from the players' side and loaded on the DM.
> I'm not saying this is bad per se, I'm only noting the shift.



A few things to reply to here...

First: the shift, which you've quite correctly noticed, is somewhat of a return to the way things worked in 1e (and 0e and to some extent 2e) but doesn't go as far as those systems had it.

Second: whether shifting the management of the campaign (back) to the DM is a feature or a bug probably depends on how you want to play the game.  Many players, myself included, are quite happy to let the DM worry about the setting and rules and so forth while we just role-play our characters within said setting - and to us it's a feature.  But others want more control over the setting and story , or elements therein, and consider that control to be a part of player agency - so to them this would be a bug.



> Does it make sense?



Sort of.  I think 3e off-loaded a lot of mechanical stuff (far too much, IMO) from the DM to the players, and then 4e followed up by also off-loading - or at least providing a framework to facilitate the off-load of - some elements of setting design and fiction control via things like skill challenges.  This holds appeal for some, though not for me.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 6, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> It does not mean direct opposition at all.  It's entirely possible for two parties to encounter each other, roll initiative, and never intend to oppose each other at all.




I used to run encounters that way. As soon as the parties were within encounter distance of one another I’d ask for initiative just in case combat broke out. Then some of the good folks here introduced me to the idea of asking for initiative only once someone declares an action that requires resolution in combat. I find it works very well and think the combat rules were written with the intent that they be used only when combat is happening. In light of this, if at least one party is not attacking the other, I think it's premature for the DM to call for initiative.



Maxperson said:


> I can prove this to be false.  Both sides can in fact be surprised and get no actions.  Two stealthy groups round a corner and everyone ends up surprised.  Roll initiative and yet nobody has started any sort of attack whatsoever.




I wouldn't resolve that situation like that at all. The two parties are unaware of each other until they meet at the corner, so neither is attacking the other. There's no need at that point to start combat. After they meet, they can decide to parlay, retreat, or commence hostilities, and only in the event of hostilities is there any reason to roll initiative.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 6, 2018)

Eric V said:


> Part of the reason it's not done is the reason I mentioned upthread about how people want "official" products only:




Another reason many folks go "official only" or at least "WotC only" is that it helps broker peace at the table. In 3.X especially there was a lot of OP third party content (or even WotC published content) and more potentially broken combos. Even if the content wasn't broken it could be hard for the DM or other players to keep track of it all. "We're only using WotC-published material" just cuts all that short. 



> All these people who do this in their spare time (unless they have a TON of that...) who think they can produce better work...man, I don't know. Sounds like hubris to me, especially since WotC can bring more resources to bear on the idea than I can (playtesting, for example).




Maybe but in many cases a home designer isn't constrained the way the pros are. For example, the 2E designers were instructed to maintain as much backwards compatibility with 1E material. Thus there were aspects of the system they wanted to change---such as AC going down rather than up or evening out the stats and getting rid of percentile strength---but weren't allowed to by the business model. 5E clearly had a similar brief, insofar as there are things that weren't done that I suspect they'd have chosen to do but were afraid of provoking a backlash. 

In other cases, designers make choices that they think will be simple for the median player but may have been done better other ways. IMO lots of mathematical mistakes that show up in games happen this way. 3.X's saving throw advancements was like that. I think the double proficiency bonus from Expertise in 5E is another example. It works OK at lower levels but it really starts to undermine bounded accuracy in higher levels.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 6, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> I allow speech as a free at-will action for short things like my earlier examples, in order to better replicate the fog of war where everyone's shouting at once.  Poetry recitals and election speeches, however, are right out.




I don't have a problem with out-of-character conversation at the table. There can be any amount of that going on during an individual player's turn. But if a character needs to say something in the fiction during combat, the limit is six seconds of talking per round.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 6, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> A few things to reply to here...
> 
> First: the shift, which you've quite correctly noticed, is somewhat of a return to the way things worked in 1e (and 0e and to some extent 2e) but doesn't go as far as those systems had it.
> 
> ...



Seems legit. Thanks for the clarification. 
(Now I MUST take a deeper look at 4e...)


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 6, 2018)

Hriston said:


> I don't have a problem with out-of-character conversation at the table. There can be any amount of that going on during an individual player's turn. But if a character needs to say something in the fiction during combat, the limit is six seconds of talking per round.




Interesting. I'll let people monologue a bit longer than is strictly correct, kind of like dramatic time, but I get annoyed if people start spending tons of time planning in between turns. A bit, OK, but not tons.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 6, 2018)

Greg K said:


> Hussar,
> You, like many people, you are too quick to put the blame on Cook based upon him being the designer must public about discussing the game. The lead  for 3.0 was Tweet not Cook.  Prior to Tweet taking over as the lead,  it was Peter Adkinson. As for 3.5, by the time of 3.5, Cook was gone given that he was running Malhavoc.
> 
> Furthermore, several elements of 3.0 can also be said to share similarities to Ars Magica which Tweet  co- created.  Both games have a basic resolution mechanic of  (die roll + skill  mod + other mod )vs DC .  You have a long list of skills in both games.  Also, Ars Magica Virtues can be seen seen as analogous to 3e Feats (Actually, now, I wish 3e had an equivalent to Ars Magica flaws).




I was more referencing the idea of a "rule for everything".  Which is very much a Rolemaster thing.  Not that there were no other influences.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 6, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I was more referencing the idea of a "rule for everything".  Which is very much a Rolemaster thing.  Not that there were no other influences.




I think, more importantly, it was also very much a Skip Williams thing. For some reason, everyone forgets he's the third major designer in the triumvirate. *And* he was the one talking about making sure the players could make meaningful choices by putting all of the rules in their hands in the interviews.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 7, 2018)

billd91 said:


> I think, more importantly, it was also very much a Skip Williams thing. For some reason, everyone forgets he's the third major designer in the triumvirate. *And* he was the one talking about making sure the players could make meaningful choices by putting all of the rules in their hands in the interviews.




I was just starting to reply to Hussar that Skip was a likely influence given that he admits in an interview to  pushing Gygax for more rules codification back between OE and 1E in order to empower players.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 7, 2018)

billd91 said:


> I think, more importantly, it was also very much a Skip Williams thing. For some reason, everyone forgets he's the third major designer in the triumvirate. *And* he was the one talking about making sure the players could make meaningful choices by putting all of the rules in their hands in the interviews.




As I recall he had written Sage Advice for a long time so I can get where he's coming from on that score. Of course, too much codification often just overwhelms everyone and ultimately it disempowers players. I remember more than once hearing "if you want to do that, make a feat for it." 

One thing that seems to always happen---and it might be inevitable---is going overboard fixing the perceived flaws of the previous edition. 1E/2E having inconsistent rules and a lot of interpretation left to the DM? 3E to the rescue! 3.X having too many rules, not a lot of options for some character types, and a lot of game balance problems? 4E to the rescue! 4E falling into a game design uncanny valley that's too far away from the way the game used to feel, prescribing too many things for the DM, and having grindy combat? 5E to the rescue! I wonder what's going to happen when 6E rolls around?


----------



## R_Chance (Oct 7, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> As I recall he had written Sage Advice for a long time so I can get where he's coming from on that score. Of course, too much codification often just overwhelms everyone and ultimately it disempowers players. I remember more than once hearing "if you want to do that, make a feat for it."
> 
> One thing that seems to always happen---and it might be inevitable---is going overboard fixing the perceived flaws of the previous edition. 1E/2E having inconsistent rules and a lot of interpretation left to the DM? 3E to the rescue! 3.X having too many rules, not a lot of options for some character types, and a lot of game balance problems? 4E to the rescue! 4E falling into a game design uncanny valley that's too far away from the way the game used to feel, prescribing too many things for the DM, and having grindy combat? 5E to the rescue! I wonder what's going to happen when 6E rolls around?




It's a cyclical thing. It'll be back to more rules for everything and empowering players


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 7, 2018)

R_Chance said:


> It's a cyclical thing. It'll be back to more rules for everything and empowering players




When I was in grad school one of the professors had a poster on his door that said "We Recycle" and had three prominent theoretical positions mapped to the green recycling triangle, which captured that dynamic very well. 

In many ways I hope not too much. IMO 5E isn't perfect. There are some areas that don't quite work as they should---saving throw and skill math being most notable---and a few other areas that are kind of OP, but for the most part it's pretty good.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 7, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I was more referencing the idea of a "rule for everything".  Which is very much a Rolemaster thing.  Not that there were no other influences.




3.X definitely had a lot of Rolemaster influence, but one thing they missed was that RM had diminishing returns baked into the system as I recall. (It's been a while.) So initial advances in skills gave a +5%, then it dropped to +3%, and I think it went down even farther. 

5E would benefit from this more in the skill system, especially if they made more use of lower DCs and multiple successes needed to complete a task, in effect making skills work more like hit points. They implemented bounded accuracy fairly well for combat, but not so much for skills and saves.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 7, 2018)

Numidius said:


> I have some familiarity with BW, having read it and owning Gold ed, Magic Burner and another book, but never played it.



I think it's worth trying. It's very heavy rules-wise (heavier than 5e, I would say) and players have to engage the mechanics to make it work - they can't be "carried" by the GM like they can in 5e or even Rolemaster.

And I find it a pretty demanding game, both as player and GM. But it produces some pretty intense FRPGing.



Numidius said:


> Cortex+ also, I ran a few of sessions of Marvel Heroic in the fantasy variant: found it very interesting by a GM perspective, not so my players, unfortunately.
> We had an hex crawl with it that I actually enjoyed. If we had to continue, I was supposed to add a skill system of sort, bc my friends can't play happily without skills on their sheets, apparently



We played some MHRP (here's a session report - a post about a more recent session seems to have been lost in an ENworld crash) but I'm the only in my group who's a big comics person, so that game is currently unresolved (with Wolverine trapped on a power-cancelling slab in Dr Doom's secret sub-level in the Latverian embassy in Washington DC, where there is reason to think Mariko Yashida is being held prisoner). We've also played a Fantasy Hack version (obilgatory link to report of first session) which has proved popular with the gang. Compared to 4e, the system is very free-flowing, and compared to BW it's light in its demands (both cognitive and emotional) on the players.

Our approach hasn't been hex-crawl so much as hijinks. Because PC advancement is about milestones, which often depend on intraparty interactions or player responses to situation, there's less pressure on me as GM to come up with thematically engaging stuff: like a comic, it's more about just presenting opposition and then seeing how the players express their PCs as they engage with it and trigger their milestones and rack up their XP (I've found advancement to be fairly rapid - we've now got quite a few d12 abilities on the table).



Numidius said:


> In this regard I found very insightful your many references and descriptions of 4e in this thread.
> 
> I also read your review of Prince Valiant.



Thanks on both counts.

Prince Valiant is a game I've read quite a bit about over the years. And I'm a big fan of LotR/Arthurian-style romantic anti-modernist fantasy. So when the chance to pick it up via Kickstarter came along I did. We've played 3 sessions so far, and it's fun: light in overall theme, but with moments of drama when the opposed rolls for jousts or other fights are made.

In the lead-up to 4e I was following the development repotts from WotC, and participating in discussion on these boards. My group was just finishing up a long Rolemaster campaign, and with a couple of group members having moved overseas we merged with another group (who had one member overlapping with our group, and whose other members were also long-time friends of mine) and started a 4e game. That game ran steadily for 7 or so years, and is at 30th level, but about a session or two from its resolution - around 2 years ago one of the guys started a serious building/renovation project, and so can't make many sessions, and we have an undertanding that we're not going to play the 4e game unless everyone can be there, given how close it is to its climax.

I had high expectations for 4e based on the previews and pre-release discussion, and from my point of view it more than delivered. For me, it showed how all the Gygaxian "unrealisms" that systems like RM, RQ, Traveller etc repudiate (ever-growing hit points; level-based saving throws; and the like) could be combined with the fiddly PC-build of 3E to create a game of character-driven gonzo fantasy heroics with this really engaging tactical combat subsystem embedded as a coherent vehicle for that and not just an afterthought or a separate mini-game.



Numidius said:


> Classic Traveller, we still have a copy somewhere, from that period long ago inbetween 80's & 90's when we may have played a bit of it.



I mucked around a bit with this in the early-to-mid 80s but never really worked out what to do with it. I can't remember what prompted me to revisit it a bit over a year ago, but I'm glad that I did: as I've said in the threads I've started about it, it holds up really well and delivers a distinctive play experience: not really character driven like 4e or BW, not as light as Cortex+ Heroic or Prinve Valiant, but interesting setting supporting intriguing situations, and all these robust subsystems for finding out what happens.



Numidius said:


> I'd like sometimes, as a GM, to just sit down at beginning of the session, and let the players do the talk, giving away info on what is going to happen on their behalf and me react to them accordingly, as single PCs, or as chiefs of a faction of some kind, with decisional power in the setting on their own.



Of the systems I've posted about, I reckon both BW and Classic Traveller could support this: in BW using Wises and Circles as the mechanics to support giving effect to the players' declarations about what is going to happen; in Traveller using the robust content generation like patron encounters and the like to let the players drive it with you just reacting and generating the worlds etc to support it as needed.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 7, 2018)

Hriston said:


> I used to run encounters that way. As soon as the parties were within encounter distance of one another I’d ask for initiative just in case combat broke out. Then some of the good folks here introduced me to the idea of asking for initiative only once someone declares an action that requires resolution in combat. I find it works very well and think the combat rules were written with the intent that they be used only when combat is happening. In light of this, if at least one party is not attacking the other, I think it's premature for the DM to call for initiative.
> 
> I wouldn't resolve that situation like that at all. The two parties are unaware of each other until they meet at the corner, so neither is attacking the other. There's no need at that point to start combat. After they meet, they can decide to parlay, retreat, or commence hostilities, and only in the event of hostilities is there any reason to roll initiative.




Me: The rules allow for simultaneous surprise, so attacks haven't necessarily happened when initiative is rolled.

You: Well, I used to run combat like the rules say, but then I decided to change them and run it differently.

So you run encounters differently than the game says.  How is that relevant to a discussion on how to run encounters per RAW?


----------



## Harzel (Oct 7, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Thinking about action resolution, I believe there are two main ways to achieve a greater degree of symmetry at the table.
> 
> One is to go for relatively hard-coded "subjective" DCs, which then provide a reasonalby "knowable" framework for the players to exert themselves against. I look at 4e in this light; and a non-D&D system that I also think fits this description is Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic - though rather than a table/formula for level appropriate DCs like 4e has, it uses GM-side dice pools to generate the opposition.
> 
> Another is to go for "objective" DCs - which therefore give the GM a lot of latitude in establishing the DCs and, thereby, the "feel" of the setting (especially when, unlike 3E, GM discretion is prioritised more highly and there are fewer long lists of DCs-by-circumstance) - but to give the players (i) less reason to want to succeed all the time (eg "fail forward" techniques of resolution) and/or (ii) resources on their side that allow them to adjust upwards from their basic competence if the GM turns out to have set the DCs higher than the players hoped/planned for. Burning Wheel is a system I play and GM that has both (i) (by way of fail forward, and also because its advancement system means sometimes your PC needs to lose) and (ii).)




Could you expand a bit on the "subjective" vs. "objective" DC distinction, or give a pointer to an explanation elsewhere, please?  I'm not getting it.  Thanks.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 7, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I think it's worth trying. It's very heavy rules-wise (heavier than 5e, I would say) and players have to engage the mechanics to make it work - they can't be "carried" by the GM like they can in 5e or even Rolemaster.
> 
> And I find it a pretty demanding game, both as player and GM. But it produces some pretty intense FRPGing.
> 
> ...



BW: It's been years in the waiting, maybe we should just sit down, make characters and see what happens. Well, char-gen wouldn'be a problem, I'm afraid the world/initial situation-building phase would be...
I dunno if we're just getting old, or it's a matter of immersion-breaking, but while they say they like to put (initial) creative input in a game, they actually don't. 
(Our Dungeon World campaign showed this attitude pretty badly, that's why I started to look around for new players, and since the majority plays 5e... well, here I am  
Anyway, Circles&Wises: noted, thanks. 

MHRP: As you named Mariko, suddenly a pop up in my mind: a white chrysanthemum offered to a surprised japanese woman thru the car window by a gloven hand (ah, John Byrne...)

PV: Your report made me want to try it, with two of my oldest friends (and ex Pendragon Rpg lovers), while tasting slowly a bottle of good wine, wearing a cape. 

4e: That campaign of yours sounds like fun. 
Care to elaborate the player driven aspect of 4e? 
I had a look at how skill challenges work, also the shorter Obsidian variant: reminds me of how conflicts work in Trollbabe (except that them are usually ple-planned in 4e, but very interesting nonetheless). Someone even proposed to resolve combat as a skill challenge... that would be a cool feature, i must admit it. 

CT: The dice driven, charts, old school feeling is appealing. It would also be an excuse to contact the owner of the game, it's been years now... maybe when we retire ;D


----------



## pemerton (Oct 7, 2018)

Numidius said:


> Dungeon World



I've played a short campaign of this but never GMed it. It's on my list!



Numidius said:


> That campaign of yours sounds like fun.
> Care to elaborate the player driven aspect of 4e?
> I had a look at how skill challenges work, also the shorter Obsidian variant: reminds me of how conflicts work in Trollbabe (except that them are usually ple-planned in 4e, but very interesting nonetheless). Someone even proposed to resolve combat as a skill challenge... that would be a cool feature, i must admit it.



We'e never done combat-as-skill-challenge - the closest we've come is using a skill check in the appropriate context to "minionise" an opponent (ie render the opponent vulnerable to a one-shot kill).

I like the skill challenge system as set out in the DMG and DMG2 - I can't compare it to Trollbabe (I know that game by reptuation but that's all) but can compare it to HeroWars/Quest extended resolution, and to Duel of Wits in BW: unlike those systems there is no active opposition, so the GM really has to work hard on the narration to keep the pressure up to the players, so they have a reason to keep declaring actions; but the flipside is that the fiction is really front-and-centre, because there's no other way to make the process unfold - it can't degenerate into just opposed checks.

Seeing as I'm posting links to actual play, here are three to some of my favourite skill challenges from my 4e game.

When I talk about 4e as player-driven, I'm thinking of both PC build and play. Theme and action permeate the PC-building elements (most of the races, most of the classes, paragon paths, epic destinies); the encounter building is mechanically incredibly robust, so as a referee its easy to build situations that will engage with that theme and action (it's almost the opposite of classic D&D in this respect: instead of caution and preparation and worries about adversarial GMing, as a GM you can just let yourself go with gonzo framing and consequences, and the players have the resources and narrative context to respond and really engage); and the structure of PC resources allows really easy adjudication of all sorts of improvisation - producing play that in some was resembles "free descriptor" games even though it's a list-based system. Rather than reading what is possible off the mechanics (as in a sim game like Traveller or RQ, which is also, I think, how D&D is normally played), what is possible in the fiction is established by reference to the descriptions in the PHB and DMG of the "tiers of play", supplemented by the narrative aspects of class, paragon path and epic destiny, seen through each table's particular lens into what it all means. (Here's an example of improvisation - sealing the Abyss - which is ultra-gonzo in the fiction but easy to frame and adjudicate in mechanical terms.)



Harzel said:


> Could you expand a bit on the "subjective" vs. "objective" DC distinction, or give a pointer to an explanation elsewhere, please?  I'm not getting it.  Thanks.



I'll give an abstract explanation first, and then relate it to the discussion of 4e play just above.

By "objective" DCs I mean a method of setting difficulties where the difficulty is read off a prior in-fiction understanding of how hard the situation is. This is how Classic Traveller, Rolemaster, RuneQuest and Burning Wheel work. I suspect it's how most people run 5e, although the actual 5e rules don't come out and say this. AD&D doesn't really have a system for setting DCs - it's just got all its singluar little sub-systems - but some parts of AD&D work like this (eg applying modifications to climbing checks set out in Gygax's DMG).

But other aspects of AD&D exhibit "subjective" DCs: the saving throw rules, for example, where the difficulty is set not by the fiction but by a system stipulation, and we read the fiction off that. 4e works like this - the DCs are set in combat by creature level and out of combat by the DC-by-level chart, and the GM narrates the fiction in a way that conforms to those fiction-set DCs. MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic works the same way, though using a dice pool to set the difficulties rather than a chart or formula like in AD&D and 4e. Dungeon World and HeroQuest revised are two more systems that use "subjective" DCs: in DW, the difficulties are built into the mechanics of each "move"; in HQrev the dfficulties are generated by a formula that factors in PC skill levels and pacing considerations.

In a "subjective" DC game, we don't work out what a PC can do by comparing his/her bonus to the DC that is read off the fiction. We work out what a PC can do by reading _that_ straight off the fiction and the logic of the game's genre - and when a player delcares an action for his/her PC that is consistent with that fiction/genre logic, the difficulty is then established using the relevant mechanical system (chart, table, dice pool, the definitions of the "moves" in DW, etc).

In the 4e example of sealing the Abyss, there is no DC for sealing the Abyss, such that a player knows that when his/her PC's bonus gets to a certain level that feat is within the realm of possible accomplishments. Rather, at my table we know that the PC can attempt sealing the Abyss because he is an epic tier chaos sorcerer and emergent primordial. We know that Arcana is the relevant skill because the skill description says that it can be used to manipulate magical phenomena. And I then set the DC by reference to the DC-by-level chart.

LostSoul described the contrast nicely (using 3E and 4e as his comparitors) in this old post:



LostSoul said:


> How the imagined content in the game changes in 4E as the characters gain levels isn't quite the same as it is in 3E.  I am not going to pretend to have a good grasp of how this works in either system, but my gut says: in 4E the group defines the colour of their campaign as they play it; in 3E it's established when the campaign begins.
> 
> That's kind of confusing... let me see if I can clarify as I work this idea out for myself.
> 
> ...



What [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] says here is absolutely true to my experience with 4e. And his description of 3E is true to my experience of "objective" DC systems like Rolemaster, BW, etc.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 7, 2018)

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]
(Excellent long explanatory post, wow)

Quickly on Trollbabe: yes exactly as you say the player facing dice roll without direct opposition of the Skill Ch. in 4e, producing fiction and RP, is the base of TB resolution mechanic:

As conflicts arise ( unlike 4e: emergent; not preplanned) and situation and goal is agreed upon, an arena of conflict is chosen (combat, social, magic ritual), number of successes before failures (1, 2, or 3), PC can reroll failures by spending resources/using relationships, ecc. until exaustion or ...death.

The unusual rule is: the player describes PC failures, the GM PC successes (incorporating bits of the ambience around them, as well as minor NPCs, resources spent and the like). 

Of course is at first extremely rules light, concealing the complexity among metagame choices, fiction description, scaling fast across the campaign from 1st level like to planetary influence.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 7, 2018)

R_Chance said:


> It's a cyclical thing. It'll be back to more rules for everything and empowering players



My first thought is that it'll bring back more character building and options. 

But... with so many new players in the game, I'm uncertain if they'll even want that, since they won't miss what they didn't have. And games like Pathfinder 2 have that covered. 
It's an odd thought, as D&D is still growing its audience at surprising speeds. Even if it flattens or slows down its growth, there's a LOT of players who may want very different things for a new edition.

It could be cyclical. But so far it hasn't. It might be more of a pendulum swing, that could go to "players" or stay with "DMs" or find a place in the middle. 

Heck, it could even surprise everyone and the "Player Empowerment" could be a storyteller type innovation, adding plot points that give players narrative influence.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 7, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Maybe but in many cases a home designer isn't constrained the way the pros are. For example, the 2E designers were instructed to maintain as much backwards compatibility with 1E material. Thus there were aspects of the system they wanted to change---such as AC going down rather than up or evening out the stats and getting rid of percentile strength---but weren't allowed to by the business model. 5E clearly had a similar brief, insofar as there are things that weren't done that I suspect they'd have chosen to do but were afraid of provoking a backlash.



I think they were a little afraid of backlash after 4e, but some aspects they wanted to keep because they were identifiably D&D. Ability Scores where 18 is high, Armour Class, longswords, Hit Dice, etc. Some terms that all D&D gamers know regardless of edition, that help distinguish D&D from other generic fantasy RPGs.

Other bits of design were less about backlash, and more about the direct wishes of the playerbase. They did a massive public playtest, and that gave them a good idea of what the players want. They were added explicitly because the players wanted it and that's what the feedback reported.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 7, 2018)

Hussar said:


> And, just to add to that, you have Monte Cook, who was pretty instrumental in the design of 3e, who came from designing Rolemaster and Champions.  I mean, you can pretty much draw a direct line from 3e to Rolemaster.  And those priorities have really influenced how we have proceeded from there.




I agree with this; but here's the rub that affects all rubs thereafter.

Rolemaster and HERO are games frameworks.  The first steps of using either of these games successfully are:

1. The GM reads everything.
2. The GM puts together a specific framework for the game he or she is running.  This framework basically gives the players the setting that the characters should be built for, (background, kits, etc.) as well as what optional rules are allowed and more importantly, what specifically is not allowed.

This runs directly into the two problems or walls inherent in any D&D community I've ever been a part of.

1. DMs don't read everything.
2. DMs don't create campaign primers.

Then you end up with the back and forth nonsense that Mearls and co don't want to design for anymore and everyone gets surprised by.

No intention to judge here but if you want crunch and you want to avoid bad outcomes, you have to put the work in as a DM.  If you don't have that time (because few do unless the hobby is their primary thing they do) - you're better off with 5e.

2c
KB


----------



## OB1 (Oct 7, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> I agree with this; but here's the rub that affects all rubs thereafter.
> 
> Rolemaster and HERO are games frameworks.  The first steps of using either of these games successfully are:
> 
> ...



Great insight here I think. 

For a great example of a DM working in a crunchy system putting in the work necessary for great outcome, check out the 4e real play podcast Critical Hit. The DM, Rodrigo, does exactly what you are describing and the result has been an 8 year long campaign that I’m sure is as fun to play as to listen to. 

I wish I had the kind of time, skill and energy Rodrigo has. Instead I play 5e


----------



## Hriston (Oct 7, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Me: The rules allow for simultaneous surprise, so attacks haven't necessarily happened when initiative is rolled.
> 
> You: Well, I used to run combat like the rules say, but then I decided to change them and run it differently.
> 
> So you run encounters differently than the game says.  How is that relevant to a discussion on how to run encounters per RAW?




No, the rules don’t say that. I understand how you might have misinterpreted them as saying that because I’ve made the same mistake myself, but if you recognize that the rules for combat always assume the participants are in combat with each other, you won’t have the problems that result from using the combat rules for encounters in which the parties aren’t fighting with each other, like rolling initiative when they aren’t taking directly opposing actions or having both sides stand around being surprised when no one’s attacking.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 7, 2018)

Jester David said:


> I think they were a little afraid of backlash after 4e, but some aspects they wanted to keep because they were identifiably D&D. Ability Scores where 18 is high, Armour Class, longswords, Hit Dice, etc. Some terms that all D&D gamers know regardless of edition, that help distinguish D&D from other generic fantasy RPGs.




Absolutely, and I think it was more than a little afraid. I suspect they were in "do or die" mode, at least insofar as corporate ownership was concerned, though I don't know. One thing with 4E was that I think it fell into the "uncanny valley": It was in the D&D family but changed a lot of aspects people expected to see. I'm not arguing whether some folks liked the changes or not, but they changed _a lot_. 5E went much back towards prior versions in many ways. 




> Other bits of design were less about backlash, and more about the direct wishes of the playerbase. They did a massive public playtest, and that gave them a good idea of what the players want. They were added explicitly because the players wanted it and that's what the feedback reported.




Yeah, though one problem I've had with their method for seeking feedback is that they run right into selection bias issues. Listening to a hyper-engaged group online isn't necessarily a good way to get feedback. By and large I think they did a good job, though there were some fairly core things I think they missed on.


----------



## Shasarak (Oct 8, 2018)

mbeacom said:


> I realize I'm late to the party and maybe this is in the very long thread somewhere. But can someone explain how designing with a greater complexity or level of mechanical options attracts s? Or am I misreading this somehow?




Dont worry about it, there is no correlation.

Its just marketing.


----------



## Shasarak (Oct 8, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> What made the difference with WotC however, and what many people either forget or ignore, is that WotC was coming from designing a very successful game where there really was a rule for everything: Magic the Gathering.  They then took that rule-for-everything ethos and tried to apply it to D&D, with decidedly mixed results.




I have to say that I have never heard that particular argument before.  Is there any evidence that the RPG team had anything to do with the CCG team?

Remembering that WotC essentially absorbed the TSR team.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 8, 2018)

Hriston said:


> No, the rules don’t say that. I understand how you might have misinterpreted them as saying that because I’ve made the same mistake myself, but if you recognize that the rules for combat always assume the participants are in combat with each other, you won’t have the problems that result from using the combat rules for encounters in which the parties aren’t fighting with each other, like rolling initiative when they aren’t taking directly opposing actions or having both sides stand around being surprised when no one’s attacking.




There is no rule that says what you are assuming.  It's also not a direct ability contest in any way, shape of form.  Initiative is as obviously indirect opposition, as sun will obviously come up tomorrow.  In any case, it's stated in Sage Advice that initiative is not a contest, so it isn't.  Since you can't seem to get that it's not direct opposition, just go with the Sage Advice.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 8, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Me: The rules allow for simultaneous surprise, so attacks haven't necessarily happened when initiative is rolled.
> 
> You: Well, I used to run combat like the rules say, but then I decided to change them and run it differently.
> 
> So you run encounters differently than the game says.  How is that relevant to a discussion on how to run encounters per RAW?




Attacks might not have happened, but combat has.  Attacks =/= combat.  Heck even without surprise, you can have a round of combat with no attacks quite easily - baddies go invisible and move away would be one example.

And since we're still flogging this equine - [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], are you seriously claiming that if 2 people tried to hold a door against one opponent, it would not be a contest since a contest can ONLY be 2 actors?  Or if three people tried to grab a ring, 5e D&D has no mechanics to support resolving the outcome, but, only houserules?

Seriously?


----------



## Hussar (Oct 8, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Absolutely, and I think it was more than a little afraid. I suspect they were in "do or die" mode, at least insofar as corporate ownership was concerned, though I don't know. One thing with 4E was that I think it fell into the "uncanny valley": It was in the D&D family but changed a lot of aspects people expected to see. I'm not arguing whether some folks liked the changes or not, but they changed _a lot_. 5E went much back towards prior versions in many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I've never seen anyone use the term uncanny valley for 4e, but, y'know, I think that's pretty spot on.  And, frankly, the whole concept does go a long way to explaining reactions.


----------



## Satyrn (Oct 8, 2018)

Should probably be called the Uncanny Dungeon instead, though.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 8, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> 1. DMs don't read everything.
> 2. DMs don't create campaign primers.




As someone that does these things, I, actually, will not play D&D with a DM that does not. Then again,  Rolemaster and Hero were two of my first non-TSR games and they, along with AD&D2e ,shaped my perception that the DM needs to design a campaign primer.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 8, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I have to say that I have never heard that particular argument before.



I heard it constantly during and for a while after the 3e release, and I think it valid.  



> Is there any evidence that the RPG team had anything to do with the CCG team?



The actual teams were separate AFAIK, but they both worked for the same boss/company in the same place and the cross-influence is clear.  Around the same time there was also a lot of talk (and considerable resistance, which never quite made sense to me) about actually cross-pollenating the games - have iconic D&D monsters show up as Magic cards, for example, and use Magic settings* and storylines for D&D.

 - this at least, 15+ years later, is finally starting to happen.



> Remembering that WotC essentially absorbed the TSR team.



Such as it was...


----------



## Shasarak (Oct 8, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> I heard it constantly during and for a while after the 3e release, and I think it valid.




Curious, I have never heard it until now.



> The actual teams were separate AFAIK, but they both worked for the same boss/company in the same place and the cross-influence is clear.  Around the same time there was also a lot of talk (and considerable resistance, which never quite made sense to me) about actually cross-pollenating the games - have iconic D&D monsters show up as Magic cards, for example, and use Magic settings* and storylines for D&D.
> 
> - this at least, 15+ years later, is finally starting to happen.




So this thing that was talked about constantly only actually happened...15 years later.

It really makes me wonder exactly how much cross-influence there actually was for there to be essentially no cross-influence.  Until a DnD designer switched to work in the MtG department.

I would probably put more stock into an arguement that Spellfire influenced DnD more then MtG since it was produced by the same boss/company.



> Such as it was...




Mmm, yes such as it was indeed.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 8, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> One thing that seems to always happen---and it might be inevitable---is going overboard fixing the perceived flaws of the previous edition. 1E/2E having inconsistent rules and a lot of interpretation left to the DM? 3E to the rescue! 3.X having too many rules, not a lot of options for some character types, and a lot of game balance problems? 4E to the rescue! 4E falling into a game design uncanny valley that's too far away from the way the game used to feel, prescribing too many things for the DM, and having grindy combat? 5E to the rescue! I wonder what's going to happen when 6E rolls around?



What frequently perceived or cited flaws of 5E do you believe exist for 6e to address? I do not want to suggest that there are no flaws, but I am curious about your own speculative reading of the upcoming Zeitgeist. 

I doubt, for example, 6e would go this route due to your aforementioned issues of "too much change" and the "uncanny valley," but I have noticed that a lot of contemporary D&D-inspired games have compacted their total class levels from 20 to 10.* The impetus for this change seems oriented around a growing "new normal" for both the average length of campaigns and the "sweet spot" for balance. 

* Though many others also preserve the 20 level structure (e.g., PF2, Fantasy Age, etc.).


----------



## pemerton (Oct 8, 2018)

Hussar said:


> And since we're still flogging this equine -  [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], are you seriously claiming that if 2 people tried to hold a door against one opponent, it would not be a contest since a contest can ONLY be 2 actors?  Or if three people tried to grab a ring, 5e D&D has no mechanics to support resolving the outcome, but, only houserules?
> 
> Seriously?



I already flagged those examples uprhread. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] answered yes, it is houseruling.

Likewise a footrace needs a houserule, but if there is a ring to grab at the end of it and only two participants than it is a RAW contest. (I don't understand why trying to be the first to break the ribbon at the finish line doesn't count as a contest, but maybe Maxperson will explain.)


----------



## clearstream (Oct 8, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I already flagged those examples uprhread. @_*Maxperson*_ answered yes, it is houseruling.
> 
> Likewise a footrace needs a houserule, but if there is a ring to grab at the end of it and only two participants than it is a RAW contest. (I don't understand why trying to be the first to break the ribbon at the finish line doesn't count as a contest, but maybe Maxperson will explain.)



I believe we agree that RAW is taken literally and all parts must be complied with. If there is cherry-picking, complying with some parts and ignoring others, that is fine at a DM's table, but it's not RAW.

For a footrace involving exactly two contestants, RAW _might_ just about be upheld by making the goal "_first to break the ribbon_" so that the race can end with one winner or "_remain the same_" with a tie. In the latter case, one is asked to ignore that the race has changed from a state of *started *to a state of *completed*, which I struggle to see as remaining the same.

However, that doesn't capture all of what we have been discussing. If there are more than two contestants, then "_remains the same_" can't be formally complied with because of the possibility of placings. There are about thirteen ways the contestants can finish, and only one of those (a dead heat) satisfies "_remains the same_" (with the same misgivings as above).

At that point, a DM can make a ruling and say that they like to apply the rules this way: they are houseruling.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 8, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Attacks might not have happened, but combat has.  Attacks =/= combat.  Heck even without surprise, you can have a round of combat with no attacks quite easily - baddies go invisible and move away would be one example.




Thank you for agreeing with me that it doesn't have to involve direct opposition.



> And since we're still flogging this equine - [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], are you seriously claiming that if 2 people tried to hold a door against one opponent, it would not be a contest since a contest can ONLY be 2 actors?  Or if three people tried to grab a ring, 5e D&D has no mechanics to support resolving the outcome, but, only houserules?




It would not be a contest per RAW.  I would treat it as a contest, though with my personal ruling for my game.  Something other tables might not do.  What do you call a personal ruling for only your game again?  I can't seem to recall what a rule you make that only applies to your house is called.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 8, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I already flagged those examples uprhread. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] answered yes, it is houseruling.
> 
> Likewise a footrace needs a houserule, but if there is a ring to grab at the end of it and only two participants than it is a RAW contest. (I don't understand why trying to be the first to break the ribbon at the finish line doesn't count as a contest, but maybe Maxperson will explain.)




The last time you incorrectly claimed that a footrace needs a house rule, I pointed you to the ability check section.  Dex checks are also for moving quickly, so a dex check can be used for a footrace.  Set the DC as you wish, and determine what success means.


----------



## clearstream (Oct 8, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> It would not be a contest per RAW.  I would treat it as a contest, though with my personal ruling for my game.  Something other tables might not do.  What do you call a personal ruling for only your game again?  I can't seem to recall what a rule you make that only applies to your house is called.



One option is to have only one character make the check, giving advantage for the other helping. I guess helping is permitted, for Contests...


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 8, 2018)

Greg K said:


> As someone that does these things, I, actually, will not play D&D with a DM that does not. Then again,  Rolemaster and Hero were two of my first non-TSR games and they, along with AD&D2e ,shaped my perception that the DM needs to design a campaign primer.




Probably pretty obvious from my post that I'm rowing the same boat that you are.

KB


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 8, 2018)

clearstream said:


> One option is to have only one character make the check, giving advantage for the other helping. I guess helping is permitted, for Contests...



That's probably better way to do it, really.  It works more smoothly than having the two PCs roll individually.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 8, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I've never seen anyone use the term uncanny valley for 4e, but, y'know, I think that's pretty spot on.  And, frankly, the whole concept does go a long way to explaining reactions.




I realized that the issue with 4E was that it had fallen into the uncanny valley a while ago in a discussion here. A ruleset is, even across editions, a family resemblance, meaning that a cumulation of many small changes, each of which would be relatively meaningless on its own, eventually moves too far away from the original to fit in the family.  

I played it and at times had fun but I always found running it incredibly frustrating. I had a pretty good feel for all prior editions of the game but I really couldn't run 4E that way but was instead very much channeled into running things the way the designers wrote it, which I found disempowering as a DM. This came 100% home to me in 2013 when I ran, on the request of an old player, my old 2E with houserules game and immediately felt "THIS is what I remember!". I never wanted to run 4E again. 5E, no problem, it was pretty much back to normal. 

In addition, the fact that D&D has a propensity to be the only game in town meant a lot of folks were more or less forced into playing it. 

And don't get me wrong, 4E had _many_ good ideas. A lot of folks really liked it and found what I considered "pinch points" to be comfortable.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 8, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> What frequently perceived or cited flaws of 5E do you believe exist for 6e to address? I do not want to suggest that there are no flaws, but I am curious about your own speculative reading of the upcoming Zeitgeist.
> 
> I doubt, for example, 6e would go this route due to your aforementioned issues of "too much change" and the "uncanny valley," but I have noticed that a lot of contemporary D&D-inspired games have compacted their total class levels from 20 to 10.* The impetus for this change seems oriented around a growing "new normal" for both the average length of campaigns and the "sweet spot" for balance.
> 
> * Though many others also preserve the 20 level structure (e.g., PF2, Fantasy Age, etc.).




I have no idea what WotC would change in a future edition, but here are the things I think are messed up:

(1) Combat: By and large it's pretty good. I think there are a few broken areas, such as attacks made on Bonus actions every round. Polearm Master crossed with Great Weapon Master, I'm looking at you. For the most part, though, it works fairly well. You can tell simply by the length of the sections in the game what WotC focused attention on. 

(2) Skills and Saves: While in combat, they managed to implement bounded accuracy fairly well, both skills and saves have issues. They work OK in lower to mid levels, but the scaling starts to break down at the higher levels. This is particularly obvious with regards to saves. Consider that at about 10th level a character who has a strong stat and a strong save has a bonus of around +9 or +10 while one that doesn't have a strong stat and save has a bonus of 0. This means that the first character essentially ignores all low DC threats while the second has about a 50/50 shot. However, high DC threats are essentially impossible for the second character and, without a lot of buffs, stays that way. As DCs get higher, characters gain glass jaws. Similar effects happen with DC creep in skills. At lower levels it's still worth it for many characters to keep trying to do things they're not strong at, but at high levels it's not even worth it. This happens IMO because skills and saves are both binary success/fail situations. One fix to allow DCs and accumulated bonuses to go down would be to make them work less as binary situations. A better skill challenge type mechanic (3 successes before 1 failure, etc.) means things can be more like the combat system. I'd also dump Expertise as written given that it contributes to DC creep. 

(3) Missed opportunities: Vulnerabilities and resistances are a great way to encourage PCs to move outside their comfort zones. For instance, monsters that have either resistances or vulnerabilities encourage the character using their favorite weapon or spell combos to try something else. To this end, I'd get rid of the "magic weapons hit everything to get through resistances to BPS damage". This would allow for some upper tier weapons having interesting properties, such as the ability to do two damage types, thus letting its wielder take advantage of vulnerabilities or avoid resistances. Magic armor doing something like this would also be really useful. It lets the bonus not get higher and higher. 

I'm sure there are some other things I could think of, but this is a pretty decent start. In general 5E is pretty well done, but it's got some rough patches. This is what you see over time and play.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 8, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> The actual teams were separate AFAIK, but they both worked for the same boss/company in the same place and the cross-influence is clear.  Around the same time there was also a lot of talk (and considerable resistance, which never quite made sense to me) about actually cross-pollenating the games - have iconic D&D monsters show up as Magic cards, for example, and use Magic settings* and storylines for D&D..



Actually, there was cross pollination. Peter Adkinson, the guy in charge of WOTC at the time, led the redesign for 3e before bringing in Jonathan Tweet to take over as lead for the design team.  Now, how much changed after Tweet took over, I have no idea.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 8, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> There is no rule that says what you are assuming.




It’s all over the combat section:This chapter provides the rules you need for your characters and monsters to *engage in combat*, whether it is a brief skirmish or an extended conflict in a dungeon or on a field of battle.​This tells you the purpose of the combat rules is for engaging in combat, not for interactions that don't fit that description.A typical combat encounter is *a clash between two sides*, a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork, and spellcasting.​Again, this tells you what combat is, and by extension, what it isn't. If two sides aren't clashing then it typically isn't combat, so don't use the combat rules for that situation.During a round, each participant *in a battle* takes a turn.​ This tells you that the characters taking turns in a combat round are participating "in a battle". They aren't standing around thinking about whether they want to talk to the other party. Someone is taking violent action against someone else.



Maxperson said:


> It's also not a direct ability contest in any way, shape of form.  Initiative is as obviously indirect opposition, as sun will obviously come up tomorrow.  In any case, it's stated in Sage Advice that initiative is not a contest, so it isn't.  Since you can't seem to get that it's not direct opposition, just go with the Sage Advice.




"Indirect opposition" isn't a category recognized in the rules, AFAIA. If I'm trying to hit you with my sword before you cast a spell on me, I'd say my effort to do so is directly opposed to your effort to cast your spell before I hit run you through. I understand that Jeremy Crawford has said the initiative roll is not a contest, but I also think it's much easier for him to say that than it would be for him to talk about how it conforms to the contest rules while at the same time constitutes an exception in terms of how ties are broken. Just look at the pushback I've gotten from you on this subject. He probably doesn't want to deal with that sort of thing on Twitter.


----------



## OB1 (Oct 8, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> (2) Skills and Saves: While in combat, they managed to implement bounded accuracy fairly well, both skills and saves have issues. They work OK in lower to mid levels, but the scaling starts to break down at the higher levels. This is particularly obvious with regards to saves. Consider that at about 10th level a character who has a strong stat and a strong save has a bonus of around +9 or +10 while one that doesn't have a strong stat and save has a bonus of 0. This means that the first character essentially ignores all low DC threats while the second has about a 50/50 shot. However, high DC threats are essentially impossible for the second character and, without a lot of buffs, stays that way. As DCs get higher, characters gain glass jaws. Similar effects happen with DC creep in skills. At lower levels it's still worth it for many characters to keep trying to do things they're not strong at, but at high levels it's not even worth it. This happens IMO because skills and saves are both binary success/fail situations. One fix to allow DCs and accumulated bonuses to go down would be to make them work less as binary situations. A better skill challenge type mechanic (3 successes before 1 failure, etc.) means things can be more like the combat system. I'd also dump Expertise as written given that it contributes to DC creep.




Just want to pop in to say that I personally see the way saves work as a huge feature of 5e rather than a bug.  I love the fact that high level characters have to account for their weaknesses and have to rely on their team to take down threats that target those flaws.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Oct 8, 2018)

OB1 said:


> Just want to pop in to say that I personally see the way saves work as a huge feature of 5e rather than a bug.  I love the fact that high level characters have to account for their weaknesses and have to rely on their team to take down threats that target those flaws.




I'll second this. The way saves work in 5E is effectively a fix that I've wanted since the 1st edition days of the game. It rendered interesting combats at high level an actual fun experience.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 8, 2018)

OB1 said:


> Just want to pop in to say that I personally see the way saves work as a huge feature of 5e rather than a bug.  I love the fact that high level characters have to account for their weaknesses and have to rely on their team to take down threats that target those flaws.







Doctor Futurity said:


> I'll second this. The way saves work in 5E is effectively a fix that I've wanted since the 1st edition days of the game. It rendered interesting combats at high level an actual fun experience.




Please don't misunderstand me, I still want high level threats to be hard! However, I think what you guys are citing as good is a side effect of crummy math, not an actual intended feature. Side effects aren't things you rely on. What you want to do is find a way to get the feature (high level stuff being hard) without the unintended consequences. 

The problem with really sky high DCs, such as 23 or more is that many characters essentially have 0 chance of breaking free of the effect unless the party is _very_ good at buffs. I'd like things to be somewhat viable for most parties even if they're not totally optimized, for instance, not having a dedicated buffer. This often means their character is essentially knocked out of the fight, which is IME very, very frustrating and boring for the player. This is particularly true for "lose a turn" type abilities. I've rarely seen (or felt myself) more frustrating times as sitting there doing nothing while long turns go around the table, waiting to make a save I basically can't succeed at. 

For example, one way to make high level threats tough without having DCs go nuts is to have higher level abilities and attacks require multiple saves against different stats. For example, if you have a dragon breath that attacks two different save types, different characters will fail different effects. Only really prepared characters or parties will save against all. That would let DCs stay lower (say 20 or less) but still keeping threat levels high. For example, if red dragon breath involved a Dex save to avoid fire damage but also a Con save to avoid some kind of debuff, say getting the wind sucked out of your lungs and having disadvantage until the end of your next turn, the rogue types would avoid the damage by rolling out of the way but end up getting the wind knocked out of them for a turn. White dragon breath might require a Str save to avoid being frozen in place (i.e., restrained) and Con save to avoid damage. etc.

Another method would be to have some threats have saves that start at disadvantage. If the character has a source of buff that breaks out of that, great, they're rolling straight up.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Oct 8, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Please don't misunderstand me, I still want high level threats to be hard! However, I think what you guys are citing as good is a side effect of crummy math, not an actual intended feature. Side effects aren't things you rely on. What you want to do is find a way to get the feature (high level stuff being hard) without the unintended consequences.
> 
> The problem with really sky high DCs, such as 23 or more is that many characters essentially have 0 chance of breaking free of the effect unless the party is _very_ good at buffs. I'd like things to be somewhat viable for most parties even if they're not totally optimized, for instance, not having a dedicated buffer. This often means their character is essentially knocked out of the fight, which is IME very, very frustrating and boring for the player. This is particularly true for "lose a turn" type abilities. I've rarely seen (or felt myself) more frustrating times as sitting there doing nothing while long turns go around the table, waiting to make a save I basically can't succeed at.
> 
> ...




I disagree that its crummy maths, and I think its designed to create characters with two key strong points and four exploitable weak points. The Issues with the DCs become noticeable against very potent opponents, but it makes the ability to engage high level PCs with lower CR challenges much more feasible and interesting. My own experience with D&D in general is that the DCs simply aren't tough enough for most of a PC's career, anyway, so the weak spots a PC has with saves are critical to making any threat feel "threatening" as a result. I suppose an argument could be made that there are other ways to balance this out, sure......but I am not having any issues with the system as it currently stands, and it functions a lot better for my needs than all prior save systems in editions 1 through 4, so it's hard for me to find a point of agreement that the maths are bad in this scenario when they finally, for the first time, feel right. Your own example, to use it again, demonstrates that you're trying to work out a contrived method of "fixing" something that isn't broken. The question I raise is: how often are your PCs actually running in to DC 23 saving throws? At what level are these a thing that happens consistently enough to be a major threat? And most importantly, how is it that the PCs have reached such a high level and are still (as a group) unable to resolve this DC? I've yet to see this happen in my games, but I'll concede I haven't run anything higher than level 17 yet.


(EDIT: to be clear, I have seen DC 23s come in to play on rare occasion and they appear to be very nonthreatening to players, especially players with a modicum of cooperation in the group; a PC with the right save will make it, every time, and the ones who don't have that save as a primary will usually fail, sure....but that's clearly the game working as intended, not some sort of accident of design. The fact that the GM can count on this to be a likely outcome is icing on the cake, it makes prepping high level conflicts and having some idea of how they will play out much easier to determine.)


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 8, 2018)

Doctor Futurity said:


> I disagree that its crummy maths, and I think its designed to create characters with two key strong points and four exploitable weak points.




I don't have a disagreement with the _goal_; I do think the math is messed up and things could be better. 




> The Issues with the DCs become noticeable against very potent opponents, but it makes the ability to engage high level PCs with lower CR challenges much more feasible and interesting.




I think you're mixing two things up here... not sure. I'm trying to keep the latter without the former, although I do think the game starts to break down without using mob rules when you have hordes of lesser foes due to the grind. 

Essentially I'm arguing that it's a good thing not to let save DCs get too high, although one might want to control bonuses too. The main reason is to maintain the ability to threaten characters without totally locking others out of being able to do things. 




> My own experience with D&D in general is that the DCs simply aren't tough enough for most of a PC's career, anyway, so the weak spots a PC has with saves are critical to making any threat feel "threatening" as a result. I suppose an argument could be made that there are other ways to balance this out, sure......but I am not having any issues with the system as it currently stands, and it functions a lot better for my needs than all prior save systems in editions 1 through 4, so it's hard for me to find a point of agreement that the maths are bad in this scenario when they finally, for the first time, feel right.




They're OK as long as you keep DCs to about 18 or under and for much of the game that's how they are. It's only when you start going into the upper reaches of DCs that it starts becoming a problem. I didn't really do the numbers until mid teen levels. 

I agree, though, that many DCs are probably a bit too low, while urging people to be careful of very high ones. 




> Your own example, to use it again, demonstrates that you're trying to work out a contrived method of "fixing" something that isn't broken. The question I raise is: how often are your PCs actually running in to DC 23 saving throws? At what level are these a thing that happens consistently enough to be a major threat? And most importantly, how is it that the PCs have reached such a high level and are still (as a group) unable to resolve this DC? I've yet to see this happen in my games, but I'll concede I haven't run anything higher than level 17 yet.




You start running into those kinds of foes when you get above those levels. You can tell WotC didn't follow their own guidelines written in the DMG because many monsters in the MM have saves that lie quite far from them. 

I'm not sure what's particularly contrived about having an effect like dragon breath attack multiple things. There are a number of spells (not enough IMO) that attack multiple saves or do multiple types of damage, e.g., _Hunger of Hadar_, _Ice Storm_, or _Flame Strike_. This is an elegant way of having effects that get around different kinds of defenses in a partial way. 




> (EDIT: to be clear, I have seen DC 23s come in to play on rare occasion and they appear to be very nonthreatening to players, especially players with a modicum of cooperation in the group; a PC with the right save will make it, every time, and the ones who don't have that save as a primary will usually fail, sure....but that's clearly the game working as intended, not some sort of accident of design. The fact that the GM can count on this to be a likely outcome is icing on the cake, it makes prepping high level conflicts and having some idea of how they will play out much easier to determine.)




IMO the fact that the _strong save characters make it every time and the others fail every time_ is *exactly* the problem. That predictability for the DM is also predictability for the players. "A dragon, well I'm screwed...." I don't want to have players in that situation. More than once I remember a fight where the poor barbarian's player was reduced to rolling a save for three or four rounds in a row when facing something mind-affecting. That really sucks to be stun-locked for that long. The gap between a strong save character who makes it most of the time and the weak save character who nearly always fails is the issue. At lower levels this isn't nearly so determinative and various things like advantage or disadvantage actually help. When the probability of success or failure is extreme, advantage and disadvantage stop mattering. Have a point of Inspiration against a high DC foe? Why bother? It won't help you. Even many buffs won't help you unless, of course, you built the party to be strong at that. A lot of parties aren't good at buffing. IMO this should not be a requirement but if you want to get to high level play given the structure of the save system, it kind of is. 

Challenging the strong save character by raising DCs very high is one reason why DCs have crept up, just as they did in previous versions of the game. It's the same with skills at high levels. Again, don't get me wrong, I want those great wyrms and liches to be tough! Hence having their attacks target multiple defenses. I don't see that being particularly contrived. It's actually playing to the features of the system of being pretty resilient against two attack types and relatively weaker against others and as I said previously there are a number of spells that use this; it's an underutilized approach. A number of spells in the book could be written this way, too, such as _Prismatic Spray_. 

So my point in the original post is that WotC's math was not as good as it could be, or, to use my stronger word, crummy. WotC often makes math errors to keep things simple but which create a number of potential problems. They did it in 3.X with saves as well. One of the big goals of bounded accuracy was to keep DC creep in check, which is an admirable goal. Unfortunately in the areas of the game where they have binary success/failure, most notably skills (which they didn't spend much time on, or at least chose to leave quite thinly developed, as the case may be) and saves, they didn't really manage. A cure is to keep the DCs (and bonuses) down but have success or failure not be so binary.


----------



## oknazevad (Oct 9, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> Should probably be called the Uncanny Dungeon instead, though.




Uncanny Vale. "Vale" is a thing in 4e.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Oct 9, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I don't have a disagreement with the _goal_; I do think the math is messed up and things could be better.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Food for thought....I haven't really found this issue to be one which bothers me, but I can see your logic. The main reason I fail to see it as a serious issue is twofold: first, DC 23 for saves is exceedingly rare until late in the game, and second, the odds of guaranteed crippling failure at high level are very situationally dependent. Yes, I can agree that could be a problem if those situations crop up a lot (e.g. DM regularly uses foes that hit the weak spots all the time), at least in the sense that the PCs may feel like their chance of success must be greater than it allows for (without making effort to build the PC toward that end goal). 

On your idea of one attack hitting for two or more saves with different effects, I think the idea itself is neat regardless of whether it is considered a fix for this issue or not. I seems like it's a fix in the sense of "spread the trouble" which is fine....but what it sounds like you're really interested in is finding a way high level PCs can show more proficiency in non class saves. OTOH the only things in the game I know of which ask for DC 23 saves tend to be world-ending boss monsters which, to be fair from the DM's perspective, are not creatures you want to see the PCs easily making saves from. Building better monsters with a wider range of effects across multiple saves would definitely make the misery spread around (in a good way).


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 9, 2018)

Doctor Futurity said:


> Food for thought....I haven't really found this issue to be one which bothers me, but I can see your logic. The main reason I fail to see it as a serious issue is twofold: first, DC 23 for saves is exceedingly rare until late in the game, and second, the odds of guaranteed crippling failure at high level are very situationally dependent. Yes, I can agree that could be a problem if those situations crop up a lot (e.g. DM regularly uses foes that hit the weak spots all the time), at least in the sense that the PCs may feel like their chance of success must be greater than it allows for (without making effort to build the PC toward that end goal).




A lot of that depends on those possibilities being in play but I know from having either played or looked through a lot of the WotC stuff that they have quite a number of such monsters. 




> On your idea of one attack hitting for two or more saves with different effects, I think the idea itself is neat regardless of whether it is considered a fix for this issue or not. I seems like it's a fix in the sense of "spread the trouble" which is fine....but what it sounds like you're really interested in is finding a way high level PCs can show more proficiency in non class saves.




I'm actually OK with having some of the really high bonuses go down, too. Ditto for skill checks. I'd have been happier if save proficiency was something like Advantage with the bonus remaining a stat bonus, and then keeping the DCs lower. Ditto for things like Expertise, which I feel also contributes to DC creep at high levels.  




> OTOH the only things in the game I know of which ask for DC 23 saves tend to be world-ending boss monsters which, to be fair from the DM's perspective, are not creatures you want to see the PCs easily making saves from. Building better monsters with a wider range of effects across multiple saves would definitely make the misery spread around (in a good way).




Oh like I said I wasn't at all trying to make the world-ending boss monsters easy, not at all. What I don't want is them being built to totally lock a player out for multiple rounds due to the DCs being so high nobody but the perfect match can make them. There are other ways to make things threatening while still preserving bounded accuracy.

But yes hitting multiple points is a good way of spreading the misery around and it's a good way to make higher level abilities work well.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 9, 2018)

Hriston said:


> It’s all over the combat section:This chapter provides the rules you need for your characters and monsters to engage in combat, whether it is a brief skirmish or an extended conflict in a dungeon or on a field of battle.​This tells you the purpose of the combat rules is for engaging in combat, not for interactions that don't fit that description.A* typical *combat encounteris a clash between two sides, a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork, and spellcasting.​Again, this tells you what combat is, and by extension, what it isn't. If two sides aren't clashing then it typically isn't combat, so don't use the combat rules for that situation.During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn.​This tells you that the characters taking turns in a combat round are participating "in a battle". They aren't standing around thinking about whether they want to talk to the other party. Someone is taking violent action against someone else.



Yep!  Nothing says that has to happen before initiative or surprise is rolled.  To groups sneaking around looking for people to attack can surprise each other before anyone ever attacks.

See, in language, words mean things.  I bolded the part that says I'm right.  It specifies typical for a reason.  And that reason as that there will be atypical combat encounters that don't fit that mold.  All of your quotes and explanations are brought to ruin by the one word.  In an atypical encounter, two sides can be surprised and roll initiative before anyone moves to attack.  



> "Indirect opposition" isn't a category recognized in the rules, AFAIA.




Yes it is.  By specifying "direct opposition", they automatically create "indirect opposition".  You can't have one without the other.



> If I'm trying to hit you with my sword before you cast a spell on me, I'd say my effort to do so is directly opposed to your effort to cast your spell before I hit run you through.




Cool beans.  1. Those are not ability checks, so they don't matter to a discussion on ability checks, and 2. they are not initiative.



> I understand that Jeremy Crawford has said the initiative roll is not a contest, but I also think it's much easier for him to say that than it would be for him to talk about how it conforms to the contest rules while at the same time constitutes an exception in terms of how ties are broken. Just look at the pushback I've gotten from you on this subject. He probably doesn't want to deal with that sort of thing on Twitter.



This is a cop out.  You don't get to assume motives for the game designer, especially when his answer doesn't even remotely indicate such a motive.  Let me demonstrate.

I understand that Jeremy Crawford has said that the initiative roll is not a contest, but I also think Alf told him to say what he said, rather than just say it was a contest.

My answer quite literally has as much to back it up as yours does.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 9, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Yep!  Nothing says that has to happen before initiative or surprise is rolled.




By “that”, I assume you mean combat. Since determining surprise and rolling initiative are part of the rules for resolving combat, I wonder why they’re being used to resolve a non-combat situation. It seems like a blatant misapplication of those rules in an effort to prove they’re not what they are. 



> To groups sneaking around looking for people to attack can surprise each other before anyone ever attacks.
> 
> See, in language, words mean things.  I bolded the part that says I'm right.  It specifies typical for a reason.  And that reason as that there will be atypical combat encounters that don't fit that mold.  All of your quotes and explanations are brought to ruin by the one word.  In an atypical encounter, two sides can be surprised and roll initiative before anyone moves to attack.
> 
> ...




I posted this prematurely. I’ll respond to the rest of this in a separate post.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 9, 2018)

Hriston said:


> By “that”, I assume you mean combat. Since determining surprise and rolling initiative are part of the rules for resolving combat, I wonder why they’re being used to resolve a non-combat situation. It seems like a blatant misapplication of those rules in an effort to prove they’re not what they are.




Context my friend.  Context.  We've been discussing one side attacking the other.  Context is your friend. "That" in the context of our discussion clearly meant your claim that one side has to be attacking the other before initiative is rolled.  It doesn't.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 9, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> They're OK as long as you keep DCs to about 18 or under and for much of the game that's how they are. It's only when you start going into the upper reaches of DCs that it starts becoming a problem. I didn't really do the numbers until mid teen levels.
> 
> I agree, though, that many DCs are probably a bit too low, while urging people to be careful of very high ones.



It's probably not much of a problem until level 15 or 16. And even then it's one you can skirt around by using two to four lower CR foes. 

Heck, I played in a handful of sessions at level 20 and the save problem wasn't *that* bad. Monsters saved against my attacks, and I saved against theirs. 



Jay Verkuilen said:


> You start running into those kinds of foes when you get above those levels. You can tell WotC didn't follow their own guidelines written in the DMG because many monsters in the MM have saves that lie quite far from them.



It's almost as if the DMG wasn't finished for a couple months after the _Monster Manual_. 



Jay Verkuilen said:


> IMO the fact that the strong save characters make it every time and the others fail every time is exactly the problem. That predictability for the DM is also predictability for the players. "A dragon, well I'm screwed...." I don't want to have players in that situation. More than once I remember a fight where the poor barbarian's player was reduced to rolling a save for three or four rounds in a row when facing something mind-affecting. That really sucks to be stun-locked for that long. The gap between a strong save character who makes it most of the time and the weak save character who nearly always fails is the issue. At lower levels this isn't nearly so determinative and various things like advantage or disadvantage actually help. When the probability of success or failure is extreme, advantage and disadvantage stop mattering. Have a point of Inspiration against a high DC foe? Why bother? It won't help you. Even many buffs won't help you unless, of course, you built the party to be strong at that. A lot of parties aren't good at buffing. IMO this should not be a requirement but if you want to get to high level play given the structure of the save system, it kind of is.



If you're playing at level 15+ and didn't skip ahead with pregens, you've likely spend a good hundred hours with that party. You should have an idea of their strengths and weaknesses, and maybe have stumbled over some tactics to negate their weaknesses. 
Yeah, it sucks to be stun-locked as the barbarian. Thankfully this is a team based game and someone can maybe pump a _lesser restoration_ or similar spell into you to get you back into the fight.

And as much as it sucks to be stunlocked, it sucks more to be dead. But I don't think I'd describe having the game potentially kill characters as a game breaking design flaw. It's so much worse when you spend an entire fight rolling 3s and 4s and unable to hit the side of a Huge object.



Jay Verkuilen said:


> So my point in the original post is that WotC's math was not as good as it could be, or, to use my stronger word, crummy. WotC often makes math errors to keep things simple but which create a number of potential problems. They did it in 3.X with saves as well. One of the big goals of bounded accuracy was to keep DC creep in check, which is an admirable goal. Unfortunately in the areas of the game where they have binary success/failure, most notably skills (which they didn't spend much time on, or at least chose to leave quite thinly developed, as the case may be) and saves, they didn't really manage. A cure is to keep the DCs (and bonuses) down but have success or failure not be so binary.



It was a bit of a disconnect, but really unrelated to "the math". 

Spell save DCs go up for players for the same reason attack bonuses go up: so accuracy improves and your chances of succeeding increase against the flat DCs. That makes sense there. 
The problem is that monster saves go up as well and are tied to proficiency bonuses, like PC saves. Which was probably a mistake. Monster save DCs should increase at a different rate: monster saves need to be higher, but not increase at the same rate as PC saves.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 9, 2018)

Hriston said:


> By “that”, I assume you mean combat. Since determining surprise and rolling initiative are part of the rules for resolving combat, I wonder why they’re being used to resolve a non-combat situation. It seems like a blatant misapplication of those rules in an effort to prove they’re not what they are.




I occasionally slip into Initiative for other reasons, such as when navigating a trap filled hallway or performing a complicated task. Anytime when it's important to know who acted first and in what order (and/or location) people are.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 9, 2018)

Jester David said:


> I occasionally slip into Initiative for other reasons, such as when navigating a trap filled hallway or performing a complicated task. Anytime when it's important to know who acted first and in what order (and/or location) people are.



That's a good example of how initiative can be important outside of a "pure" combat.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 9, 2018)

Jester David said:


> It's probably not much of a problem until level 15 or 16. And even then it's one you can skirt around by using two to four lower CR foes. Heck, I played in a handful of sessions at level 20 and the save problem wasn't *that* bad. Monsters saved against my attacks, and I saved against theirs.




The fact that you need to skirt around it is a sign the high level math is messed up. You don't start really noticing it until about levels 15 or so, but it's around even before that. There are characters with save numbers that are too high as well. 




> It's almost as if the DMG wasn't finished for a couple months after the _Monster Manual_.




That was when it was _published_. If they didn't actually make a "here's how the numbers work" bible until after the _Monster Manual _was finished.... 




> If you're playing at level 15+ and didn't skip ahead with pregens, you've likely spend a good hundred hours with that party. You should have an idea of their strengths and weaknesses, and maybe have stumbled over some tactics to negate their weaknesses.
> Yeah, it sucks to be stun-locked as the barbarian. Thankfully this is a team based game and someone can maybe pump a _lesser restoration_ or similar spell into you to get you back into the fight.




By construction it's very hard to boost up things like that---and to be clear, preventing this kind of stacking is something the game was designed for explicitly and is, IMO, a good thing. For example, if you have a weak save and have a bonus of, say +1 vs a DC 23 threat, it's exceptionally hard to dig out of a net 12 hole. Bless adds about +2, which gets to you to needing to roll a 20. Inspiration not quite doubles the chance of getting a 20, to 19/400, which is a bit under 10%. Bardic Inspiration (bad WotC for naming a class feature for something else!) is one of the few actual adds and that certainly helps, if you happen to have a very high level bard in your party. Many parties do not. Given that most combats last about five or six rounds, this is a recipe for the player to hand sit for the fight. Finally, _Lesser Restoration_ does nothing to help against something like stunlock. 

Just because it's strongly noticeable at that point doesn't mean it's not emerging at lower values, though. Furthermore, one of the design goals of the game was to try to help ensure that certain classes weren't necessary. 




> And as much as it sucks to be stunlocked, it sucks more to be dead. But I don't think I'd describe having the game potentially kill characters as a game breaking design flaw. It's so much worse when you spend an entire fight rolling 3s and 4s and unable to hit the side of a Huge object.




I'm not sure I follow this. I _think_ you're getting at the fact that ACs shouldn't get too high, which is indeed a feature of the Bounded Accuracy approach. By and large they do not. So what I'm saying is that saves and skills (which we haven't talked about much) start to violate BA in the levels past 10 but certainly by the mid teens. This tempts DMs and WotC back into DC creep. 

What makes BA work for combat is that success is rarely all-or-nothing and making things in those realms less all-or-nothing would help keep DCs lower. 




> It was a bit of a disconnect, but really unrelated to "the math".




Nope, it's the math. While people keep focusing on holding the weak save numbers down much of the problem IMO is caused by the fact that _strong_ save bonuses get large too fast. IMO the math would work much better if for saves proficiency gave you advantage on the save rather than adding your proficiency bonus on top of your stat bonus, though that's just a hunch on my part. 




> Spell save DCs go up for players for the same reason attack bonuses go up: so accuracy improves and your chances of succeeding increase against the flat DCs. That makes sense there.




I'm not arguing with that. My issue is with bonuses being set with too much range between non-proficient characters, who essentially stay at 0 their entire career and proficient characters with strong stats, who essentially become immune to the vast majority of challenges. You can't even fail on a 1 anymore. 

This tempts WotC into setting DCs too high to challenge the high level bard, sorcerer, or warlock facing a Charisma attack (let's say). While this is makes it threatening to the bard, it makes it overwhelming to the other PCs. You could, of course, have the same thing happen with some other save, I'm just picking the stunlocked barbarian as a vivid example. 

That is to say, high level characters develop a glass jaw with respect to the threats they face, which they really didn't have before. The main buff most PCs will have access to and control themselves is Advantage (via Inspiration) but when the probability of success is very low, Advantage has essentially no effect. The buffs available to most PCs actually had an effect. 

And I want to reiterate: I'm not saying make high level threats _weak_. What I'd really like to avoid is the "I can't make this save" situation, which I think is really frustrating for the player and starts necessitating particular kinds of parties. I believe this was explicitly a design goal for 5E to avoid.  




> The problem is that monster saves go up as well and are tied to proficiency bonuses, like PC saves. Which was probably a mistake. Monster save DCs should increase at a different rate: monster saves need to be higher, but not increase at the same rate as PC saves.




That's an interesting point, though it wasn't what I was thinking of per se. I think WotC just sets DCs arbitrarily. This is OK in the sense that "it works" as long as you don't get past about 18 because the math works out there. However, the very lack of a basic set of underlying math is why they have these kinds of more common that you'd like corner cases. 

Admittedly, I am certainly more strongly bothered by math that's not as elegant or clearly thought out as it could be than most people. However, usually when the math isn't worked out right, there's going to be exploits or undesirable side effects to be had.


----------



## cmad1977 (Oct 9, 2018)

I’ve found the high DCs to be a feature, not a bug, of high level play. 

Characters at high levels usually have an array of abilities/items to help them. Also... god forbid they be challenged a bit.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 9, 2018)

cmad1977 said:


> I’ve found the high DCs to be a feature, not a bug, of high level play.
> 
> Characters at high levels usually have an array of abilities/items to help them. Also... god forbid they be challenged a bit.




Oh I want those high level characters to _fear_ encounters. 

I guess what I'm saying is that there are ways of challenging high level parties without raising DCs to astronomical levels. Bonus and DC creep is bad. It _really_ hurt both 3.X and 4E and was something that WotC tried (not entirely successfully IMO) to avoid in 5E. Motivational psychology suggests that once the probability of success gets lower than about 25% helplessness ("too hard") sets in and about 75% boredom ("too easy") sets in. A well designed game should endeavor to keep probabilities in that range most of the time and only rarely let them drift outside. By and large, 5E does this but there are spots, such as very high DCs in skills and saves, where they violate it, either by letting bonuses get too high or DCs being too low or too high, or both. 

An attack that requires multiple saves is good because chances are you can get through to some weak spots, as an example. If you have dragon breath requiring multiple saves for multiple effects, the chances that every party member is affected by _something_ is much higher, whereas what you have with only one very high DC is that strong save types can often avoid the effect entirely while weak saves just take it. In the context of skills, one way of keeping DCs be lower is to require multiple successes to do something such as open a lock or disarm a trap. Of course, this would require reworking the numbers in the game so I'm not pretending it would be a totally off-the-shelf change.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 9, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Oh I want those high level characters to _fear_ encounters.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is that there are ways of challenging high level parties without raising DCs to astronomical levels. Bonus and DC creep is bad. It _really_ hurt both 3.X and 4E and was something that WotC tried (not entirely successfully IMO) to avoid in 5E. Motivational psychology suggests that once the probability of success gets lower than about 25% helplessness ("too hard") sets in and about 75% boredom ("too easy") sets in. A well designed game should endeavor to keep probabilities in that range most of the time and only rarely let them drift outside. By and large, 5E does this but there are spots, such as very high DCs in skills and saves, where they violate it, either by letting bonuses get too high or DCs being too low or too high, or both.
> 
> An attack that requires multiple saves is good because chances are you can get through to some weak spots, as an example. If you have dragon breath requiring multiple saves for multiple effects, the chances that every party member is affected by _something_ is much higher, whereas what you have with only one very high DC is that strong save types can often avoid the effect entirely while weak saves just take it. In the context of skills, one way of keeping DCs be lower is to require multiple successes to do something such as open a lock or disarm a trap. Of course, this would require reworking the numbers in the game so I'm not pretending it would be a totally off-the-shelf change.



Smells like modularity to me, your solution. 
Very interesting. 
Keeping numbers low (so basicly the same % chance thru the levels), while increasing, instead, the tiers of power/influence/effect of the pc vs the world and viceversa.
(Like: on an enemy inferior by two/three tiers, you just deal damage/crit; one tier below: roll to hit with automatic advantage, same level: no change; and viceversa) 

I think this kind of approach could lead to getting rid of levels and DCs altogether, in favor of a more spread out growth and resolution mechanic, with more emphasis on situational, narrative bonus/malus, extended contests, multiple successes and the like. 

Maybe...


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 9, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Oh I want those high level characters to _fear_ encounters.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is that there are ways of challenging high level parties without raising DCs to astronomical levels. Bonus and DC creep is bad. It _really_ hurt both 3.X and 4E and was something that WotC tried (not entirely successfully IMO) to avoid in 5E. Motivational psychology suggests that once the probability of success gets lower than about 25% helplessness ("too hard") sets in and about 75% boredom ("too easy") sets in. A well designed game should endeavor to keep probabilities in that range most of the time and only rarely let them drift outside. By and large, 5E does this but there are spots, such as very high DCs in skills and saves, where they violate it, either by letting bonuses get too high or DCs being too low or too high, or both.
> 
> An attack that requires multiple saves is good because chances are you can get through to some weak spots, as an example. If you have dragon breath requiring multiple saves for multiple effects, the chances that every party member is affected by _something_ is much higher, whereas what you have with only one very high DC is that strong save types can often avoid the effect entirely while weak saves just take it. In the context of skills, one way of keeping DCs be lower is to require multiple successes to do something such as open a lock or disarm a trap. Of course, this would require reworking the numbers in the game so I'm not pretending it would be a totally off-the-shelf change.




Hi - 

Fear isn't mechanical, it's social.  Saying you want people to fear high level encounters because the dice enforce it is sort of underwhelming and setting the DM up to be the bad person at the table.

Far better in my opinion to "know" as a DM what the big bad is in your story and foreshadow bad things happening to important characters throughout the games being played. Drop some prophecy about the heroes who finally defeat it losing everything they hold dear to do it, and actually have them making compromises for the greater good along the way, and they'll fear what's coming far more effectively than raising your DCs or making something hard to hit.

2c
KB

Note: A lot of my posts lately have had at their core DM mastery of the rules AND planning ahead with an eye to story.  I think a lot of these discussions center around problems that happen when one of these two things is lacking.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 9, 2018)

Numidius said:


> Smells like modularity to me, your solution.
> Very interesting.
> Keeping numbers low (so basicly the same % chance thru the levels), while increasing, instead, the tiers of power/influence/effect of the pc vs the world and viceversa.
> (Like: on an enemy inferior by two/three tiers, you just deal damage/crit; one tier below: roll to hit with automatic advantage, same level: no change; and viceversa)
> ...




Hmm, maybe. That's farther than I was thinking... but interesting.

I like the fact that, say, ogres, are still viable thugs even for higher level characters so I wouldn't want to tier it _too_ much. In many respects I think they got the combat system fairly right (with some not super difficult to fix exceptions), but I think the kinds of things you're thinking about would be pretty good in skills especially.  

For example, Expertise might provide Advantage on skill checks (as opposed to doubling proficiency bonus), while some higher level threats might impose Disadvantage. Thus a character with Expertise would be rolling straight up against such a threat.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 9, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Hi -
> 
> Fear isn't mechanical, it's social.  Saying you want people to fear high level encounters because the dice enforce it is sort of underwhelming and setting the DM up to be the bad person at the table. <...> Far better in my opinion to "know" as a DM what the big bad is in your story and foreshadow bad things happening to important characters throughout the games being played. Drop some prophecy about the heroes who finally defeat it losing everything they hold dear to do it, and actually have them making compromises for the greater good along the way, and they'll fear what's coming far more effectively than raising your DCs or making something hard to hit.




Oh absolutely, you have to set it up as part of the secondary reality. I totally agree with that and wasn't implying otherwise. However, it works best when the mechanics line up with the foreshadowing, and help evoke the right kind of tension from the players. I want to make sure that the high level monsters were sufficiently threatening. All too often they have glass jaws, too, or don't do enough damage, and thus feel quite underwhelming. 

One reason I'm so averse to things like stunlock is that they deny a player the ability to participate in the game. Too much of that doesn't mean the players like what's happening, it makes them irritated and/or helpless. Those aren't the emotions I'm looking for. Debuffs like prone combined with forced movement are good because they make it _harder_ for a PC to do something but they don't totally invalidate the PC's turn. If they have a ranged weapon, it might be time to switch to that instead of relying on their devastating melee axe abilities over and over, at least until they get back into the fight.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 10, 2018)

An encounter is not difficult for the player because it bites into your resources or makes you lose control of your character. It is difficult for the player because they have to make difficult decisions. A difficult encounter should engage a player's skill at reasoning about the fiction as well as their mechanical ability. What we need is more effort put into the design of higher level threats that provide compelling fictional hooks to engage with along with unique mechanics that players should have to cope with and learn.


----------



## KenNYC (Oct 10, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Oh I want those high level characters to _fear_ encounters.




 Level Drain.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 10, 2018)

KenNYC said:


> Level Drain.




Heh, that would do it! 

Practically speaking, though, level drain and the like have a way of totally ruining the campaign. In many respects I think it's worse than a TPK.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 10, 2018)

Campbell said:


> An encounter is not difficult for the player because it bites into your resources or makes you lose control of your character.




IMO losing control of your character via turn denial, stunlock, and other "suck" powers seems to engender more frustration in players than anything else. A little of this goes a LONG way and too much quite swiftly turns into anger. I don't think that's what we're usually wanting. 




> It is difficult for the player because they have to make difficult decisions. A difficult encounter should engage a player's skill at reasoning about the fiction as well as their mechanical ability. What we need is more effort put into the design of higher level threats that provide compelling fictional hooks to engage with along with unique mechanics that players should have to cope with and learn.




I agree. For instance, I think solo monsters would best be handled in a way that video games often do: Essentially treating them as composite monsters of some sort. This could be quite literal, in the sense that you could simply have something like two or three different monsters that cosmetically appear to be one, and perhaps share a pool of hit points but not actions. 

Another way that I've thought would be useful is for the solo monster to gain a number of legendary actions that is based on the number of PCs (or PC-grade characters if there are such NPCs floating around). This helps having the PCs try to force the three legendary saves and then going to town but it also lets a party that's good at lockdown still have it be worthwhile, given that the legendary foe isn't using attacks or other things at that time.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 10, 2018)

Numidius said:


> Keeping numbers low (so basicly the same % chance thru the levels), while increasing, instead, the tiers of power/influence/effect of the pc vs the world and viceversa.
> (Like: on an enemy inferior by two/three tiers, you just deal damage/crit; one tier below: roll to hit with automatic advantage, same level: no change; and viceversa)



4e is a version of this: in combat, for instance, PC and opponent bases scale at basically the same rate, and so the % chance remains largely the same through the levels; but creatures that are inferior _per the fiction_ relative to the PC tier are framed as minions, and hence die on a hit; or get bundled up as a swarm, and hence get taken down in swathes.

4e non-combat has less tight maths, which can produce some of the issues [MENTION=6873517]Jay Verkuilen[/MENTION] has identified (the big offender in my game is the +6 to all knowledge skills that a Sage of Ages gets). But the orientation of the game is still towards what you describe - level-appropriate DCs that try to establish roughly consistent chances of success, with the differences of tier being expressed in the fiction rather than the mechanics.



Numidius said:


> I think this kind of approach could lead to getting rid of levels and DCs altogether, in favor of a more spread out growth and resolution mechanic, with more emphasis on situational, narrative bonus/malus, extended contests, multiple successes and the like.



Again, 4e can be considered a version of this (and literally _is_ a version of this if you strip out the level adjustments for creatures and the stat gain and enhancement bonuses for PCs). The differences between tiers are really about complexity (higher level PCs have more, and more complex, options); the range of effects available, which straddles fiction and mechanics (eg flight is available reliably only in paragon tier; stun, likewise, isn't really a feature of heroic tier) and hence also feed into the fiction of the situation (eg in paragon tier you can run fights that involve the PCs having to avoid falling into lava, and perhaps falling into it and surviving - heroic tier doesn't support that sort of fiction give the lack of flight abilities, the lack of condition-removal that helps the players deal with a mechanically tenable representation of lava, etc)

For 4e to work as I've described the GM has to use the level mechanics properly when doing the mechanical side of encounter-framing, and also has to pay attention to the fiction that is implicit in that mechanical framing given the tier of the PCs. I personally didn't find that very challenging (the guidelines are clear and the maths transparent and robust), but I think that need for the GM to think about encounter-framing in mechanical as well as in-fiction terms was quite unpopular.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 10, 2018)

Campbell said:


> An encounter is not difficult for the player because it bites into your resources or makes you lose control of your character. It is difficult for the player because they have to make difficult decisions. A difficult encounter should engage a player's skill at reasoning about the fiction as well as their mechanical ability. What we need is more effort put into the design of higher level threats that provide compelling fictional hooks to engage with along with unique mechanics that players should have to cope with and learn.



Now that's what I call serious thinking about encounter design in a RPG!

I want to elaborate on it a bit. _Compelling fictional hooks_ aren't trivial to come up with. In my experience (reading D&D modules, and modules for other systems too; reading posts on these boards; what I've seen from other GMs; etc) these are often done in terms of MacGuffins that the players are expected to collect/identify and then deploy - the Sunsword vs Straad would be a well-known example. Another common variation is the gate/portal that the "big bad" has to be forced through by the PCs. But this sort of thing can just re-establish the "control of your character" issue at a higher level, by setting up steps that have to be taken to resolve the encounter. Everything becomes a puzzle with a single (or a small set of) pre-established solution(s).

I think for fictional hooks to permit, and even better _invite_, open-ended play we need reliable ways of setting difficulties for various sorts of interaction with the fiction, of establishing balanced consequences of various choices, etc. (It _can_ be done through unmediated adjudication of the fiction, but I think this always in danger of collapsing into sheer player persuasion/GM fiat - I felt the pressure of this in my Classic Traveller game when the PCs got taken as prisoners on board an enemy starship and the players used that opportunity to stage a hijacking (taking advantage of their numbers being about twice what the NPCs were expecting, having taken on some unknown-to-the-NPC recruits). The outcome wasn't sheer GM fiat, but it had strong elements of it, because Classic Traveller doesn't have a conflict resolution mechanic for this particular sort of scenario. I tried to use Burning Wheel-style framing and adjudication of the discrete checks in the process to manage it; and frankly, even in BW this sort of scenario is not easy to handle in a fiat-free way.)

I think at least one edition of D&D obviously provided such reliable ways. Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic does likewise.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 10, 2018)

pemerton said:


> For 4e to work as I've described the GM has to use the level mechanics properly when doing the mechanical side of encounter-framing, and also has to pay attention to the fiction that is implicit in that mechanical framing given the tier of the PCs. I personally didn't find that very challenging (the guidelines are clear and the maths transparent and robust), but I think that need for the GM to think about encounter-framing in mechanical as well as in-fiction terms was quite unpopular.




You explayned it very well. I think I can understand that feeling of unpopularity, because I tend to do less prep as possible. Referring to my previous post on "information sharing at the table", and applying to 4e SkChallenge, I can see how is completely one-sided on the Gm shoulders, meaning a lot of prep, as you say: both mechanically and fictionally. 
Meaning: deciding when & where to have the challenge, possible outcomes, numbers of successes needed, DC, skills involved, and so on. 
Not only this "one-sided info" burdening the Gm homework (YMMV), but also limiting the surprise factor in-game, having pre-planned the most of it (again, YMMV and IMHO). 
A lighter, less crunchy approach to Skill Challenges,  might also provide a frame to improvise them on the fly? 
Thus sharing more evenly the "information" among players, in real time, and rapidly agreeing at the table about the crunchy bits and the situation in fiction, before going to roll.


----------



## KenNYC (Oct 10, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Heh, that would do it!
> 
> Practically speaking, though, level drain and the like have a way of totally ruining the campaign. In many respects I think it's worse than a TPK.





Level drain is no fun but I love it as a mechanic because the fact that it exists means you should make sure as a player it never happens to you.   It just is so great in distinguishing the undead from everything else, and really, the undead shouldn't be just another monster with just another attack.  It's a freaking vampire, you better be afraid, right?

As it is now, all the undead do is make you need to take a nap for a night and then you are good as new nice and spiffy.   With level drain lets see how fast the 9th level fighter wants to mix it up with a wight or wraith, or what the party does when a mummy or vampire come calling.   Suddenly it's no longer stats, math, and we know we can win this.   Yes, you can win this but at what cost?   It really heightens the tension and as a side bonus it really brings the cleric class to the fore.   With the undead, all the fighters, barbarians, rogues with the 5 dice of sneak damage and whatever else all have to hide behind the cleric.

It also shouldn't wreck a campaign.  Yes it is frustrating and sucks, but your character is still your character and if the campaign has an interesting storyline the level shouldn't matter as much--especially in 5e where  every time you turn around someone is leveling up.   The last 5e campaign I played in I think I was 4th level after seven sessions.   If I got zapped back to third what difference would it make really?  Next week I will be 4th again probably, or the week after that.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 10, 2018)

Numidius said:


> I tend to do less prep as possible. Referring to my previous post on "information sharing at the table", and applying to 4e SkChallenge, I can see how is completely one-sided on the Gm shoulders, meaning a lot of prep, as you say: both mechanically and fictionally.
> Meaning: deciding when & where to have the challenge, possible outcomes, numbers of successes needed, DC, skills involved, and so on.
> Not only this "one-sided info" burdening the Gm homework (YMMV), but also limiting the surprise factor in-game, having pre-planned the most of it (again, YMMV and IMHO).
> A lighter, less crunchy approach to Skill Challenges,  might also provide a frame to improvise them on the fly?
> Thus sharing more evenly the "information" among players, in real time, and rapidly agreeing at the table about the crunchy bits and the situation in fiction, before going to roll.



I don't think you're right about skill challenges - they don't require prep at all, because the level of the challenge is given (= PC level), the GM can just set the complexity on the fly (depending on how big a deal you want it to be paced on in-fiction plus pacing concerns) and then you can get on with it.

But 4e's combat system is different. Improvisation is perfectly feasible _if the creatures you need are already statted up in a Monster Manual or similar_. But if you want to do something bespoke, you have to write up the creature/NPC in advance. And because the system loves terrain in its combat, it can also be helpful to draw up maps in advance.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 10, 2018)

KenNYC said:


> With level drain lets see how fast the 9th level fighter wants to mix it up with a wight or wraith, or what the party does when a mummy or vampire come calling.



Not to be _too_ pedantic, but traditionally a mummy inflicts mummy rot (a magical wasting curse/disease that impedes healing and eventually kills the victim) rather than level drain.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 10, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Now that's what I call serious thinking about encounter design in a RPG!
> 
> I want to elaborate on it a bit. _Compelling fictional hooks_ aren't trivial to come up with. In my experience (reading D&D modules, and modules for other systems too; reading posts on these boards; what I've seen from other GMs; etc) these are often done in terms of MacGuffins that the players are expected to collect/identify and then deploy - the Sunsword vs Straad would be a well-known example. Another common variation is the gate/portal that the "big bad" has to be forced through by the PCs. But this sort of thing can just re-establish the "control of your character" issue at a higher level, by setting up steps that have to be taken to resolve the encounter. Everything becomes a puzzle with a single (or a small set of) pre-established solution(s).
> 
> ...



Again, I propose it being a matter of "information". 
The wargame origin of D&D assumes a default binary opposition of fronts, Us vs Them. 
Which is fine, and I believe it works better with Hidden Information for the players' side, at least during combat and initial exploration of an area/scenario (I recently played Sekigahara, a two players light wargame with hidden info, and enjoyed this aspect, but also started the Sword&Sorcery co-op boardgame campaign in which the info about the ongoing scenario is necessarily mostly openly displayed). 
Back to the roleplay, in particular outside combat&initial exploration, I think it could be more satisfactory for both Gm and players, when the information is not hidden and the opposition is not binary: having more factions involved, of course some hooks for the PCs, something at stakes fictionally valuable for everyone involved (not just a McGuffin). 
Not an easy task, for sure, but starting to spread the info more openly and freely from the gm side, leads to the opportunity of meaningful choices on the player' side, so They provide more new "info" in return. 
As many game designers suggested: picturing a Triangle like situation (npc-pc-monster/npc) to start with, and let the outcomes occurr in a more spontaneous way.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 10, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I don't think you're right about skill challenges - they don't require prep at all, because the level of the challenge is given (= PC level), the GM can just set the complexity on the fly (depending on how big a deal you want it to be paced on in-fiction plus pacing concerns) and then you can get on with it.
> 
> But 4e's combat system is different. Improvisation is perfectly feasible _if the creatures you need are already statted up in a Monster Manual or similar_. But if you want to do something bespoke, you have to write up the creature/NPC in advance. And because the system loves terrain in its combat, it can also be helpful to draw up maps in advance.



Right, I see. Y'know, I'm a bit concerned about prep work


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 10, 2018)

pemerton said:


> 4e is a version of this: in combat, for instance, PC and opponent bases scale at basically the same rate, and so the % chance remains largely the same through the levels; but creatures that are inferior _per the fiction_ relative to the PC tier are framed as minions, and hence die on a hit; or get bundled up as a swarm, and hence get taken down in swathes.
> 
> 4e non-combat has less tight maths, which can produce some of the issues  @_*Jay Verkuilen*_ has identified (the big offender in my game is the +6 to all knowledge skills that a Sage of Ages gets). But the orientation of the game is still towards what you describe - level-appropriate DCs that try to establish roughly consistent chances of success, with the differences of tier being expressed in the fiction rather than the mechanics. <...> Again, 4e can be considered a version of this (and literally _is_ a version of this if you strip out the level adjustments for creatures and the stat gain and enhancement bonuses for PCs).




In many respects 5E tried to keep this logic in the form of bounded accuracy by making level adjustments on success down. So unlike 4E where there was a fairly relentless level-based scaling, 5E tries to keep large degrees of scaling to hit points and class features, and keep most bonuses within a smaller operating range overall.  

However, the areas I'm talking about---save DCs for some monsters and, especially, skill bonuses for some characters---they just blew it. We haven't talked about it much in this thread, but IMO the skill system has more problems than saves, which I think could be handled by keeping most save DCs below 20 and just making some of the boss monsters tougher in other ways than cranking up save DCs, although the fact that the gap between strong saves and weak saves gets extremely wide even by level 10 is a bit of a problem. 

Expertise itself is fine if you use it to become good at a skill you're ordinarily not supposed to be. For example, the Wisdom 10 Rogue who uses Expertise to rock out Perception is not going to be too crazy. The final ability will be on par with other characters who are just proficient in an ordinary way and have a strong stat. However, when Expertise is used to, say, boost Thieves' Tools, essentially no lock or trap is much of a barrier to that character without heavy contrivance. Nor is it often perceived as worth it for any other character to pursue having proficiency in that. Yes I could triple lock everything and make sure every encounter involving a lock has some kind of countdown timer that means the rogue is always under time pressure or present dilemmas that push someone else to have to make those rolls... or I could take the path of least resistance and DC creep. I'd simply be better off without doing that and making Expertise cool _some other way_. 

If you want a really simple fix, just making Expertise grant Advantage instead of doubling the proficiency bonus would rein in the numbers. It would be undeniably useful and clearly make the character more effective than normal due to making a low roll less likely. There may be other ways to make use of this, too. If more skill checks were like skill challenges, i.e. requiring a few successes to fully complete, the character rolling with Advantage could tally up successes on both dice, meaning that tasks could be accomplished more quickly. 

Example:Using just Expertise = Advantage here. Louvin Lightfinger, thief extraordinaire, has Expertise with Thieves Tools. He's picking a lock in the workshop of Gnimbly Gnob the Gnomish jeweler. He has a bonus of +7 (18 Dex, proficiency of +3). The fairly complex lock has a DC of 15 and requires 3 successes to pick and a failure represents the lock being stuck permanently. He rolls 18 and 18 on the first two dice, a success. This takes a minute. The next minute he rolls a 2 and 11. He breathes a sigh of relief that he's rolling two dice and can ignore that 2.... 

I'm sure there are holes in this---I mean I just thought of it at the moment so it'd need testing and calibration---but it represents Expertise not as a _quantitative_ difference simply by making the numbers higher (and thus tempting the DM into DC creep to boost up perceived challenge) but by making a more _qualitative_ difference. Here Expertise means you're much more reliable than someone with just ordinary proficiency. The big thing is that Advantage has relatively limited impact in that it does not allow you to roll above what you could ordinarily accomplish, while still being undeniably beneficial. 




> For 4e to work as I've described the GM has to use the level mechanics properly when doing the mechanical side of encounter-framing, and also has to pay attention to the fiction that is implicit in that mechanical framing given the tier of the PCs. I personally didn't find that very challenging (the guidelines are clear and the maths transparent and robust), but I think that need for the GM to think about encounter-framing in mechanical as well as in-fiction terms was quite unpopular.




As I've said many times, 4E had many good ideas. I think some of them ended up being taken too far. For instance, it was _too_ relentlessly game balanced for my taste. I felt when I ran it, especially, the constant and heavy hand of the designer, which I did not like. I enjoyed playing 4E much more than running it, which I found an exercise in frustration as I am not the sort of person who adapts myself to someone else's vision. It also seemed to bring out the rules lawyer in players, even ones who'd not been especially rules lawyer-y before. 

But all that aside, 4E had a number of good ideas and WotC kept a number of them in 5E, though in some cases I'm not sure they did it as well as they could in some spots.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 10, 2018)

KenNYC said:


> Level drain is no fun but I love it as a mechanic because the fact that it exists means you should make sure as a player it never happens to you.   It just is so great in distinguishing the undead from everything else, and really, the undead shouldn't be just another monster with just another attack.  It's a freaking vampire, you better be afraid, right?




Well the charm ability (as badly and ambiguously worded as it is) works pretty well for Lord Blah, but yeah, you're certainly right that undead aren't nearly as fear-inducing as they had been, although the hit point maximum drain does create issues if you're not able to long rest. IMO a lot of it is the rest mechanic: A good night's sleep and it's all better! In _Adventures in Middle Earth_, long rests are much rarer and you really value your hit dice. So if undead started draining those and long rests were uncommon... look out! 




> It also shouldn't wreck a campaign.  Yes it is frustrating and sucks, but your character is still your character and if the campaign has an interesting storyline the level shouldn't matter as much




IMO the general reaction I would expect from my players, who I think of as generally being pretty mature plus/minus on some, to massive level drain or maiming would not be positive. I doubt I'd react too well, either, just being honest, although there might be ways of handling it. 




> --especially in 5e where  every time you turn around someone is leveling up.   The last 5e campaign I played in I think I was 4th level after seven sessions.   If I got zapped back to third what difference would it make really?  Next week I will be 4th again probably, or the week after that.




That pace of leaving hasn't been my experience in 5E, but I long ago (i.e., many editions) abandoned the XP tally system for a more milestone paced leveling. But if you look at levels 1-3, advancement is quite quick there but slows down markedly after that. So I wouldn't generalize from a short low-level campaign.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 10, 2018)

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 
I read your Underdark report linked above. 
Man...
Such a vivid, intense interaction 'tween the party, enemies, ambience/terrain, and rules/fiction. 
Now I'm having an idea 4e potential. 
I'd say my games are gonzo fantasy (as you used this term days ago in a reply), yours are a full-on hell of a ride.

I totally second the positive influence of Claremont's narrative. 
Heck I grew up with his 13 (maybe more?)  years long management of the X-men.
I'd fairly say: unrivalled storytelling. 
 Speaking of level drain, how about Storm's story arc?  (Paul Smith penciler? The duel vs Cyclops for leadership...)


----------



## S'mon (Oct 10, 2018)

Skill checks - I really don't want the expert-lockpick PC to be unable to pick locks! Locks open up game content! In fact I lean towards PCs being able to pretty much always succed in their areas of expertise, just as they almost always win combat.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 10, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> when Expertise is used to, say, boost Thieves' Tools, essentially no lock or trap is much of a barrier to that character without heavy contrivance. Nor is it often perceived as worth it for any other character to pursue having proficiency in that.



How big a problem is this? If the 10th+ level thief can bypass all ordinary locks and traps, is the game going to break?

To me it looks like putting the opening of locks into the same category as the ritual magic of a spell-caster of similar level. Is there an aspect to it that I've missed? Or am I getting the maths wrong?



Jay Verkuilen said:


> I felt when I ran it, especially, the constant and heavy hand of the designer
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I am not the sort of person who adapts myself to someone else's vision.



I don't fully get this, except as a comment that you didn't like the design. I look at 5e and see the "heavy hand of the designers" ie the system won't balance without a fairly action-packed "adventuring day". Which is one of the reasons I'm not very enthusiastic about it.


----------



## Numidius (Oct 10, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> In many respects 5E tried to keep this logic in the form of bounded accuracy by making level adjustments on success down. So unlike 4E where there was a fairly relentless level-based scaling, 5E tries to keep large degrees of scaling to hit points and class features, and keep most bonuses within a smaller operating range overall.
> 
> However, the areas I'm talking about---save DCs for some monsters and, especially, skill bonuses for some characters---they just blew it. We haven't talked about it much in this thread, but IMO the skill system has more problems than saves, which I think could be handled by keeping most save DCs below 20 and just making some of the boss monsters tougher in other ways than cranking up save DCs, although the fact that the gap between strong saves and weak saves gets extremely wide even by level 10 is a bit of a problem.
> 
> ...



Has anyone already suggested to roll all of adv/disadv-dice, instead of cancelling them out, to have a more bell-like probabily curve? 
Like: with two adv and one disadv dice, roll all 4 and keep the second highest...


----------



## pemerton (Oct 10, 2018)

Numidius said:


> Speaking of level drain, how about Storm's story arc?  (Paul Smith penciler? The duel vs Cyclops for leadership...)



Now you're talking! My partner doesn't read many comics, but has read Lifedeath and some of the consequences. We're waiting for a version of the Storm/Forge arc to appear in the movie version!

I've never tried that in a RPG. I think the closest I've come in mechanical terms was when the PCs confronted Torog and destroyed his Soul Abattoir, the invoker/wizard was the one who had to make the choice as to who would get the flow of underdark souls freed from Torog's control: the Raven Queen (his notional mistress) or Vecna (with whom he had dallied a bit, and who possessed the PC's imp - which had the Eye of Vecna implanted in it - to insist on getting the souls). The PC chose the Raven Queen; Vecna shut down his imp, which remained non-functional until the PCs were able to defeat an Aspect of Vecna and the affected PC, aided by the paladin of the Raven Queen in the party, created a ward over the Aspect to sever Vecna's connection to his eye, allowing the imp to come back to life. (In play terms I think it was probably two or three sessions.)

20+ years ago, running Rolemaster, we had a different version of that sort of thing. It was an all-wizard party, around 20th level. Most of the PCs had strong meditation skill to expedite rapid recovery of spell points, but one of the PCs had been built with super-strong perceptoin and social, which had left him weak on meditation. So when he found himself unable to keep up with the meditators, he used his social skills and underworld contacts to get access to a spell-recovery-enhancing drug (Hugar) instead. And subsequently became addicted, spent all his money, was unable to renew the lease on his urban compound, etc. Generally hit rock-bottom, compounded by some non-Hugar related incidents like being pushed to his death (necessitating subsequent Lifegiving) off a conjured flying platform (the RM equivalent of the Silver Surfer's board) when another PC's summoned demon went out of control.

It reached a nadir when the character, out on a mission and out of spell points and out of Hugar went into a withdrawal-induced mental and physical collapse. Only to be rescued by a NPC valley elf who (for various subplot-related reasons) had been following the PCs. The revived PC was grateful, and also - given his uber social skills - very personable and he and the elf fell for one another. He kicked the Hugar habit, found new meaning in life, helped the elf break free of servitude to the Mage of the Valley (this PC himself had been born into slavery and freed himself from servitude) and in the process recruited a strong new wizard (shapechanger and enchanter) into the party.

And then, out on a mission, the same other PC lost control of another summoned demon and this time it cut the elf in half with its demonic two-handed sword. And healing elves in RM is not an easy matter, especially if you're still broke because you spent all your money on Hugar and are still trying to pay off your debts.

Needless to say, more self-destructive behaviour on the part of this PC ensued . . .


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 10, 2018)

pemerton said:


> How big a problem is this? If the 10th+ level thief can bypass all ordinary locks and traps, is the game going to break?




If it was limited to just that, of course not, but the hand of DC creep is in other areas of the game, too. 




> To me it looks like putting the opening of locks into the same category as the ritual magic of a spell-caster of similar level. Is there an aspect to it that I've missed? Or am I getting the maths wrong?




I wouldn't do this with everything, it's just an example. But what doing something like this would provide is a way to make a lot of the non-combat (exploration, social) aspects more interesting than you can do with just a binary success/fail system where the only boost to a character is by making their numbers higher. 

4E had that with skill challenges, but the way the designers built it they tried to force all players to participate. Or at least that's how they were often interpreted. I found it led to absurdities such as the barbarian doing pushups to impress the king in a social encounter. 

So basically I'm suggesting (a) keeping numbers lower to respect bounded accuracy and (b) make more use of things that function in a way similar to the good aspects of skill challenges (i.e., requiring X successes before Y failures) without the bad aspects. 




> I don't fully get this, except as a comment that you didn't like the design. I look at 5e and see the "heavy hand of the designers" ie the system won't balance without a fairly action-packed "adventuring day". Which is one of the reasons I'm not very enthusiastic about it.




Sure. As I've said before and this isn't something we need to rehash, I wasn't a giant fan of the "let's throw out the cosmology, abandon the alignment system as weird as the old one was, change most of the names, introduce all sorts of weird races, etc." that happened with 4E. 4E had a lot of good ideas that I think went too far and drifted into the uncanny valley/dungeon of game design. I'm _not_ saying other people were wrong to like 4E but I think uncanniness combined with D&D generally being the only game in town go a long way to explaining why many people had the reaction they did. 

But with regards to the heavy hand of the designer, IMO one of the worst aspects of the 5E design is precisely the rest system and the degree to which different characters are dependent on it, so I'm with you there. 

The main thing is that I feel more free in 5E to move things around, switch out abilities or powers, and I generally have a much better intuitive feel for it than I ever did with 4E. It feels and runs much more like prior versions of D&D. A 4E class is pretty intricately constructed and a 4E monster, as you noted elsewhere, requires a good bit of pre-planning. A 5E class is generally a fairly well laid out chassis with some customization. In addition, 5E is much less level banded than 4E was due to bounded accuracy. You can still viably use much lower CR threats.


----------



## Sadras (Oct 10, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> IMO a lot of it is the rest mechanic: A good night's sleep and it's all better!




This I believe is the biggest stumbling block of 5e: The Rest Mechanic. 
There was a large thread here on Enworld about it with various posters coming up with some amazingly good ideas on how to tweak and adjust it to suit a particular purpose or style of play. I compiled them all in a pdf and now use a variation of one. It is critically important the DM finds out early which rest mechanic works best for him/her to assist in the preparation of adventures and pacing.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 10, 2018)

S'mon said:


> Skill checks - I really don't want the expert-lockpick PC to be unable to pick locks! Locks open up game content! In fact I lean towards PCs being able to pretty much always succed in their areas of expertise, just as they almost always win combat.




Yeah, I want them to succeed, too, but I don't want it to be trivial and even more I want to respect bounded accuracy. I mean, most people don't enjoy cakewalk combat after combat where the PCs just wipe the opposition without any challenge. 

And to be 100% clear, I would NOT run every lock (or whatever) as a mini skill challenge. Most locks wouldn't be that. I'd only want to use it for something that's supposed to be difficult.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 10, 2018)

Numidius said:


> Has anyone already suggested to roll all of adv/disadv-dice, instead of cancelling them out, to have a more bell-like probabily curve?
> Like: with two adv and one disadv dice, roll all 4 and keep the second highest...




I haven't but I think the stats would be a bit tricky and would ultimately converge on 10 pretty fast. WotC was trying to cut down on how much thought the DM had to put into advantage and disadvantage when dealing with stacking effects, which I wholeheartedly endorse, but I also don't think we need to fear them nearly so much and could probably make more use of them.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 10, 2018)

Sadras said:


> This I believe is the biggest stumbling block of 5e: The Rest Mechanic.
> There was a large thread here on Enworld about it with various posters coming up with some amazingly good ideas on how to tweak and adjust it to suit a particular purpose or style of play. I compiled them all in a pdf and now use a variation of one. It is critically important the DM finds out early which rest mechanic works best for him/her to assist in the preparation of adventures and pacing.




Can you post a link to this PDF? 

Yes, IMO the rest mechanic is... messy. Among other things, it induces pointless inter-party friction that's fundamentally focused on something induced by the rules as opposed to in-game fiction. "Sorcerer: What kind of _arcane wimp_ needs a short rest? Warlock: ...Me?"


----------



## pemerton (Oct 10, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> 4E had that with skill challenges, but the way the designers built it they tried to force all players to participate. Or at least that's how they were often interpreted. I found it led to absurdities such as the barbarian doing pushups to impress the king in a social encounter.



Frankly, with that sort of thing the absurdity is in the GM who accepted that as a viable action declaration. The way you impress a king (absent rather unusual circumstances) is to talk to him: so the barbarian who wants to impress a king should be making a Diplomacy check like anyone else would!

Participation by other characters is how I manage high bonuses on the Sage of Ages in my 4e game. But participation by other characters is - in my experience - not very hard to achieve. How do you get a wizard PC to participate in combat? Threaten something the player cares about (either the wizard him-/herself, or perhaps some other party member the wizard is committed to defending).

How do you get the player of the barbarian to particiapte in the attempt to talk to the king? Threaten something the player cares about - this can be as easy as having the king ask the barbarian to tell him (the king) something about his/her (the barbarian's) valiant exploits. Is the player of the barbarian going to refuse to talk? Then an automatic failure is notched up, as the king clearly won't be impressed by that!

No one thinks it's unfair to engage a wizard PC in melee; but for some reason there seems to be some idea that it's unfair to frame the barbarian into a situation where s/he has to talk to get what s/he wants. Personally, I don't understand this way of thinking.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 10, 2018)

Or maybe the Barbarian supplies their Nature skill to convince the king that CAMPAIGN ISSUE exists by noting how nature is all out-of-whack and what these signs may portend.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 10, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Frankly, with that sort of thing the absurdity is in the GM who accepted that as a viable action declaration. The way you impress a king (absent rather unusual circumstances) is to talk to him: so the barbarian who wants to impress a king should be making a Diplomacy check like anyone else would! <snip>




True, but this makes my point about why having skill bonuses inflate dramatically and DCs go up correspondingly is a problem. If the DC is set to challenge the face character with a massive bonus _no matter what the barbarian does he notches a failure_, unless the DM pushes the DCs around. 

This is why many skill challenges were written the way they were. I understand what they were trying to do but often felt that, at least the way they were implemented in play (and I played with three or four different DMs, so it wasn't just one) they tried to force participation and often turned into a situation of "guess which skill applies here". It's a good idea and I think they were trying to implement something cool but got caught by the relentless growth of bonuses. 




> No one thinks it's unfair to engage a wizard PC in melee; but for some reason there seems to be some idea that it's unfair to frame the barbarian into a situation where s/he has to talk to get what s/he wants. Personally, I don't understand this way of thinking.




This isn't a straight on comparison. The social system works _very_ differently than combat in most games. Combat does some damage and the wizard doesn't have to just sit there in melee but has various abilities to escape or do _something_. In the social system, most non-social characters essentially have no ability at all, certainly in higher levels.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 10, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Or maybe the Barbarian supplies their Nature skill to convince the king that CAMPAIGN ISSUE exists by noting how nature is all out-of-whack and what these signs may portend.





I agree with you, this is a good way of handling it and it is what the Skill Challenge mechanic was trying to get at. However, the way many classes are constructed it's not at all unlikely that they won't have these skills at all. Even if they do, the DCs are often so high that their check is unlikely to be useful. Furthermore skill challenges were written (at least that's how I saw them written) in a way that forced participation. It's an admirable goal in a way, to try to keep everyone engaged and not zoned out during non-combat scenes, but it ran right into bonus/DC creep.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 10, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> True, but this makes my point about why having skill bonuses inflate dramatically and DCs go up correspondingly is a problem. If the DC is set to challenge the face character with a massive bonus _no matter what the barbarian does he notches a failure_, unless the DM pushes the DCs around.



In 4e, this will only be a problem if the GM ignores the actual rules for DC by level. I'm sure there were plenty of GMs who did that - but that feeds into the discussion in another current thread about GMs who play systems that have clear and working encounter-building guidelines and ignore them. (I call those GMs _bad ones_.)

The 30th level fighter in my 4e game has a CHA of 10 and no trained social skills, but is able to succeed on Diplomacy checks from time-to-time.



Jay Verkuilen said:


> This is why many skill challenges were written the way they were. I understand what they were trying to do but often felt that, at least the way they were implemented in play (and I played with three or four different DMs, so it wasn't just one) they tried to force participation and often turned into a situation of "guess which skill applies here".



My view is that there is a significant gap between the actual rules and advice for skill challenges, and their presentation in published modules, much as there is a significant gap between the advice for encounter building and establishing quests and their presentation in published modules.

To some extent this was probably inevitable, in that 4e as presented and in its advice is the least GM-driven version of D&D published (at least since Moldvay Basic) whereas contemporary modules are all about a GM-driven play experience.

But anyway, the idea that a player needs to "guess the skill" is completely at odds with the DMG advice, which says (i) that players should explain what their PCs are doing to resolve the situation - which is fiction first, skill second (although the player's description of what his/her PC is doing may include reference to an intended skill), and (ii) that the GM should indicate what skills might be useful (in my own experience that's normally redundant because a vivid description of the fictional situation should make that clear - but in any event it speaks directly contrary to a "guess the skill" approach).



Jay Verkuilen said:


> The social system works _very_ differently than combat in most games. Combat does some damage and the wizard doesn't have to just sit there in melee but has various abilities to escape or do _something_. In the social system, most non-social characters essentially have no ability at all, certainly in higher levels.



If the player of the wizard doesn't want to solve the problem as a melee one, s/he declares appropriate actions to change the situation. (They may or may not work. They may or may not be popular with other members of the group.)

If the player of the barbarian doesn't want to solve the problem as a social one, s/he declares appropriate actions to change the situation. (In People of the Black Circle, Conan meets the princess (?? queen?) - a social situation - but then kidnaps her, changing the attempt to persuade the governor to spare his men into a different sort of challenge!)

If the convention at the table is that one doesn't do that, then the barbarian player either needs to build some social skill into his/her PC, or cope with the fact that s/he will suck a bit. In my 4e game, there are two CHA PCs with good social; a wizard/invoker and ranger/cleric who have unexciting CHA but social skill training and hence average social; and a fighter with 10 CHA and no social skills. The player of the fighter just sucks up the fact that often his attempts at persuasion will not succeed; and sometimes he looks for other ways to contribute When the PCs were trying to persuade the Raven Queen's marut allies that the end times had not come, because this arising of the tarrasque was _not_ the one that signalled those end times, the fighter's contribution was to solo the tarrasque for a couple of rounds and come close to killing it single-handedly - which showed, as one of the other PCs explained to the maruts, that this could not _possibly_ be the coming of the tarrasque that was meant to herald the end of all things.

Social situations are only different from combat situations if the table chooses to make them so. In which case they can hardly complain about it!


----------



## pemerton (Oct 10, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Or maybe the Barbarian supplies their Nature skill to convince the king that CAMPAIGN ISSUE exists by noting how nature is all out-of-whack and what these signs may portend.



Sure, that works too!

When the PCs in my 4e game were trying to persuade the baron who had invited them to his dinner party to _really_ trust them, at a certain point they were discussing how they had defeated some gelatinous cubes in combat. To answer a query from the baron, and encouraged by his friends (the fellow PCs), the fighter got up and demonstrated how one uses polearm techniques to defeate a gelationous cube. I can't remember if the check was made on Athletics or as a combat check, but that was an occasion where the players set things up so that it made sense, in the fiction, for the PC to impress a baron with a display of physical prowess.

 [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] upthread talked about the challenge in an encounter being the way it makes the players think, and have to engage the ficiton. Shaping the way things unfold in a skill challenge, so as to open up opportunities to bring your talents to bear, while protecting your weak links, is an example of that.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 10, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I agree with you, this is a good way of handling it and it is what the Skill Challenge mechanic was trying to get at. However, the way many classes are constructed it's not at all unlikely that they won't have these skills at all. Even if they do, the DCs are often so high that their check is unlikely to be useful. Furthermore skill challenges were written (at least that's how I saw them written) in a way that forced participation. It's an admirable goal in a way, to try to keep everyone engaged and not zoned out during non-combat scenes, but it ran right into bonus/DC creep.





Jay Verkuilen said:


> True, but this makes my point about why having skill bonuses inflate dramatically and DCs go up correspondingly is a problem. If the DC is set to challenge the face character with a massive bonus _no matter what the barbarian does he notches a failure_, unless the DM pushes the DCs around.



This is one of the reasons why I am considering adopting a more modern/sleeker OSR-inspired roll under system like Black Hack. Less need to alter DCs. Plus, ability checks and not skills.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 10, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Social situations are only different from combat situations if the table chooses to make them so. In which case they can hardly complain about it!




Agreed here, and I think every table does it a bit different.  My preference is to not let the social skill system overtake actual role-playing so I don't set DCs for a diplomacy or social check until I see what the player actually says or does in roleplay.  If the player is in character and acts appropriately to the situation, the DC lowers.  If they're not, it goes up.

Simulates the ability some people have to tell someone to go to heck in a handbasket and have the person enjoy it.  Obviously a high roll.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 10, 2018)

pemerton said:


> In 4e, this will only be a problem if the GM ignores the actual rules for DC by level. I'm sure there were plenty of GMs who did that - but that feeds into the discussion in another current thread about GMs who play systems that have clear and working encounter-building guidelines and ignore them. (I call those GMs _bad ones_.)




I would prefer to call them "people who could improve in this area of GMing." 




> My view is that there is a significant gap between the actual rules and advice for skill challenges, and their presentation in published modules, much as there is a significant gap between the advice for encounter building and establishing quests and their presentation in published modules.




Yep, exactly. 




> To some extent this was probably inevitable, in that 4e as presented and in its advice is the least GM-driven version of D&D published (at least since Moldvay Basic) whereas contemporary modules are all about a GM-driven play experience.




I have no warm fuzzies for Moldvay Basic or even a copy of it, so I'll have to take your word on it. Most contemporary modules don't seem to be GM-driven but more _writer_-driven, particularly Adventure Paths with a lot of things written as a sequence of scripted set pieces with the GM needing to keep things on book. To some degree this is just fine. I mean, a dungeon is often a setting with a bunch of boundaries and various encounters, although Ye Olde Claffick Dungeonne usually didn't have much of a story associated with it and the PCs often wander around as needed kicking in doors. 




> But anyway, the idea that a player needs to "guess the skill" is completely at odds with the DMG advice, which says (i) that players should explain what their PCs are doing to resolve the situation - which is fiction first, skill second (although the player's description of what his/her PC is doing may include reference to an intended skill), and (ii) that the GM should indicate what skills might be useful (in my own experience that's normally redundant because a vivid description of the fictional situation should make that clear - but in any event it speaks directly contrary to a "guess the skill" approach).
> 
> I teach at a university for a living and one key maxim is: "If many students are making the same mistakes over and over, the problem is the curriculum and instruction."
> 
> ...


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 10, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Agreed here, and I think every table does it a bit different.  My preference is to not let the social skill system overtake actual role-playing so I don't set DCs for a diplomacy or social check until I see what the player actually says or does in roleplay.  If the player is in character and acts appropriately to the situation, the DC lowers.  If they're not, it goes up.
> 
> Simulates the ability some people have to tell someone to go to heck in a handbasket and have the person enjoy it.  Obviously a high roll.




I definitely try to weight it based on what the RP was or what the preconceived notions of the person in interaction would have, but I do actually want the _character's_ attributes to matter, not just the speaking ability of the _player._ I mean, maybe I'm a fairly smooth talking person who's playing a alcoholic pseudo-Scottish walking stereotype dwarf who has an uncanny ability to offend. Or, vice versa as is more common, I'm a fairly mundane, normal person who ums and ahs but I'm venturing to play a face character. I don't want the latter person to roll-play, of course, but do want the system to back up the fact that they're able to say things that most folks wouldn't and get away with it. So, maybe the dwarf is talking to another pseudo-Scottish dwarf. I'll give advantage on that roll, absolutely, and maybe throw disadvantage to the half elf bard, but I'd still want to make sure that investment in social skills was valuable, meaning that another dwarf who had invested in some Persuade would be better. 

So it's part of the "Simulates the ability some people have to tell someone to go to heck in a handbasket and have the person enjoy it."


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 10, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I definitely try to weight it based on what the RP was or what the preconceived notions of the person in interaction would have, but I do actually want the _character's_ attributes to matter, not just the speaking ability of the _player._ I mean, maybe I'm a fairly smooth talking person who's playing a alcoholic pseudo-Scottish walking stereotype dwarf who has an uncanny ability to offend. Or, vice versa as is more common, I'm a fairly mundane, normal person who ums and ahs but I'm venturing to play a face character. I don't want the latter person to roll-play, of course, but do want the system to back up the fact that they're able to say things that most folks wouldn't and get away with it. So, maybe the dwarf is talking to another pseudo-Scottish dwarf. I'll give advantage on that roll, absolutely, and maybe throw disadvantage to the half elf bard, but I'd still want to make sure that investment in social skills was valuable, meaning that another dwarf who had invested in some Persuade would be better.
> 
> So it's part of the "Simulates the ability some people have to tell someone to go to heck in a handbasket and have the person enjoy it."




Sure.  Depends on your group too.

My strong preference is to have the majority if not all of my table be strong with the kibitz because it's boring as heck otherwise.  That preference informs my approach.  If I had someone who wasn't as social at the table, I'd probably aim your way.  However, that only works so long as the person isn't a drag on the energy at the table otherwise.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 10, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Sure.  Depends on your group too.
> 
> My strong preference is to have the majority if not all of my table be strong with the kibitz because it's boring as heck otherwise.  That preference informs my approach.  If I had someone who wasn't as social at the table, I'd probably aim your way.  However, that only works so long as the person isn't a drag on the energy at the table otherwise.




Oh, me too, but even there it's possible for some to be more vocal than others. In addition, I feel that the roll helps keep me honest. As I've said elsewhere I use rolls a fair bit to help push me as a GM into not necessarily going with my own inclinations as they happen. But usually that comes at the end of a fairly substantial bit of RP.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 10, 2018)

KenNYC said:


> Level drain is no fun but I love it as a mechanic because the fact that it exists means you should make sure as a player it never happens to you.   It just is so great in distinguishing the undead from everything else, and really, the undead shouldn't be just another monster with just another attack.  It's a freaking vampire, you better be afraid, right?
> 
> As it is now, all the undead do is make you need to take a nap for a night and then you are good as new nice and spiffy.   With level drain lets see how fast the 9th level fighter wants to mix it up with a wight or wraith, or what the party does when a mummy or vampire come calling.   Suddenly it's no longer stats, math, and we know we can win this.   Yes, you can win this but at what cost?   It really heightens the tension and as a side bonus it really brings the cleric class to the fore.   With the undead, all the fighters, barbarians, rogues with the 5 dice of sneak damage and whatever else all have to hide behind the cleric.
> 
> It also shouldn't wreck a campaign.  Yes it is frustrating and sucks, but your character is still your character and if the campaign has an interesting storyline the level shouldn't matter as much--especially in 5e where  every time you turn around someone is leveling up.   The last 5e campaign I played in I think I was 4th level after seven sessions.   If I got zapped back to third what difference would it make really?  Next week I will be 4th again probably, or the week after that.



And as something of a mitigator you can always have (Greater) Restoration give back the lost level(s) at a cost.

Level-draining would work better in 5e than in 3e or 4e in part because 5e can better handle a variable-level party., where in 3e and 4e the PCs all kinda needed to be pretty close in level if not all the same.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 10, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> And as something of a mitigator you can always have (Greater) Restoration give back the lost level(s) at a cost.




Yeah this would be a pretty cool in a story if you had to quest to find a caster capable of doing it but I still think you'd need to have the right players with buy in to make it work. I could see someone I play with---he's a good player in a lot of ways but a little too competitive---_really_ not handling it. Possibly weirdly I think he adapts to character death better. 




> Level-draining would work better in 5e than in 3e or 4e in part because 5e can better handle a variable-level party., where in 3e and 4e the PCs all kinda needed to be pretty close in level if not all the same.




2E could handle it to a reasonable degree, too. However, I do think you have to be careful about making players feel too much like their character is playing second fiddle.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 11, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Yeah this would be a pretty cool in a story if you had to quest to find a caster capable of doing it but I still think you'd need to have the right players with buy in to make it work. I could see someone I play with---he's a good player in a lot of ways but a little too competitive---_really_ not handling it. Possibly weirdly I think he adapts to character death better.



I've had (and have) players to whom major loss of PC wealth is worse than PC death.



> 2E could handle it to a reasonable degree, too.



Ditto 1e.



> However, I do think you have to be careful about making players feel too much like their character is playing second fiddle.



Funny story there. 

The party I'm currently running has two Necromancer PCs in it.  One is our crew's GOAT for the class while the other is very much an understudy - a few levels lower, worse spell selection, overall lower stats, etc.  Up until last session this didn't look like much fun for the understudy...but last session the party ate a fireball: the 'star' lost 2/3 of the spells in his books along with some other gear and is now going to be quite reliant on said understudy for spell access; suddenly having this second Necromancer along for the trip is looking like a pretty good idea!

This is also where cycling characters in and out can help - you might be second-fiddle one adventure and the star soloist in the next, depending on the composition of the party at the time.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 11, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Ditto 1e.




They're not really that different IME. 




> The party I'm currently running has two Necromancer PCs in it.  <...>




Cool tale!



> This is also where cycling characters in and out can help - you might be second-fiddle one adventure and the star soloist in the next, depending on the composition of the party at the time.




Absolutely. The really old skool "ensemble cast with henchmen" type style of play works great---that's how the Lake Geneva crowd did it. In many respects I like it better than traditional party play. I like a smaller group of players (2-3) so almost always the party needs some filling out. We played a lot of "ensemble cast" where the general rule was "one upper tier PC and one henchman" in a given story, with the henchman being typically about three or four levels back. Each of us had, oh, three upper tier PCs, though it varied and sometimes one would retire for good reasons---called to found a temple, for instance, or killed. In the 2E days this worked fairly well because once you got to about fifth level for the henchmen they could still contribute to a ninth level party without just dying ignominiously. 

Sometimes the henchmen were super fun to play, too. One of my favorite characters was the intrepid (and foul-mouthed) Buckminster "Bucky" Burrmaster II, a halfling fighter with throwing specialization. He wasn't the sort of character I'd have played for an entire campaign but he was a blast to play when it fit. His campaign end worked, too. One of the other hench-level characters, a dwarf fighter named Borlin, was one-shotted by a greater demon the party went up against. After that, Bucky said "Well, _that_ could have been me..." and decided to cash out his magic weapons and such (except for a magic dagger he kept for old times' sake) and got married to the heiress Euphemia Morris, daughter of pipeweed baron Philip Morris. Two PCs were later introduced to the campaign through his wedding....

The thing about this kind of game is that everything's clear and laid out: Hench is hench so those characters are going to be a level back and will be more crunchy than main PCs.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Oct 11, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Can you post a link to this PDF?
> 
> Yes, IMO the rest mechanic is... messy. Among other things, it induces pointless inter-party friction that's fundamentally focused on something induced by the rules as opposed to in-game fiction. "Sorcerer: What kind of _arcane wimp_ needs a short rest? Warlock: ...Me?"



I thought people wanted the classes to be different from each other?  Giving them unique rest requirements would certainly go a long way in that regard.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 11, 2018)

MichaelSomething said:


> I thought people wanted the classes to be different from each other?  Giving them unique rest requirements would certainly go a long way in that regard.




It does, but IME it tends to make for pointless inter-party friction due to the fact that some classes really benefit from short rests (e.g., Warlocks, Fighters, Monks) and others don't all that much (e.g.,. Sorcerers, Paladins, Clerics), so while that's differentiation it's not differentiation I feel is particularly useful. I guess it's fine if you want to coordinate so that rest needs synergize. Obviously your mileage may vary.


----------



## R_Chance (Oct 11, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> It does, but IME it tends to make for pointless inter-party friction due to the fact that some classes really benefit from short rests (e.g., Warlocks, Fighters, Monks) and others don't all that much (e.g.,. Sorcerers, Paladins, Clerics), so while that's differentiation it's not differentiation I feel is particularly useful. I guess it's fine if you want to coordinate so that rest needs synergize. Obviously your mileage may vary.




There have always been classes that require more / less rest or what have you. Generally my players who don't require "it" (whatever "it" is) have always been fine with "it" because their survival is important and that relies on the other PCs and their resources. That goes for downtime, healing, research, crafting, recruiting henchmen etc. (depending on the edition). Patience is a survival trait 

*edit* to clarify my thoughts... hopefully.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 11, 2018)

R_Chance said:


> There have always been classes that require more / less rest or what have you. Generally my players who don't require "it" (whatever "it" is) have always been fine with "it" because their survival is important and that relies on the other PCs and their resources. That goes for downtime, healing, research, crafting, recruiting henchmen etc. (depending on the edition). Patience is a survival trait




I have no problem with needing different resources, but would rather have those differences manifest as something that reinforces the fiction, such as needing resources to purchase spells, do research, etc. IMO those are things that are part of the secondary reality. I find the rest mechanics start to rub against the secondary reality because it's very game-mechanical and it happens nearly every session. 

I use the term "secondary reality" rather than "suspension of disbelief" because I know I'm playing a game and I'm not really disbelieving anything. Secondary reality (or secondary belief), a term coined by J. R. R. Tolkien, captures the idea better IMO, meaning that the world makes sense more or less on its own terms. I guess what I prefer is, insofar as it's possible, for the game mechanics to align with the fiction and not rub against them. To some degree this can't actually happen because it's hard to know how spell slots and hit points actually work. Nonetheless I prefer things to "feel" right and for some reason, the rest mechanics feel awkward and wrong. I don't think they work that well, either. I dislike attunement and concentration for the same reasons, not because the ideas are inherently bad but because they are just implemented in such an arbitrary fashion. (No I didn't like 1E's race and class limits, either.) 

Of course, that's me. There are plenty of folks who are just fine feeling the rules more.


----------



## SkidAce (Oct 11, 2018)

I dislike attunement also.  Okay with concentration though.

And we ignored 1st ed race and class limits from the get go.  

(except there is no such thing as a dwarven wizard, never has been, all the dwarves will tell you so, unless they find you rude for bringing it up, cause its a taboo discussion, and the end of the world is at stake/could be caused)


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 11, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I have no problem with needing different resources, but would rather have those differences manifest as something that reinforces the fiction, such as needing resources to purchase spells, do research, etc. IMO those are things that are part of the secondary reality. I find the rest mechanics start to rub against the secondary reality because it's very game-mechanical and it happens nearly every session.
> 
> I use the term "secondary reality" rather than "suspension of disbelief" because I know I'm playing a game and I'm not really disbelieving anything. Secondary reality (or secondary belief), a term coined by J. R. R. Tolkien, captures the idea better IMO, meaning that the world makes sense more or less on its own terms.



I call this 'internal consistency'.



> I guess what I prefer is, insofar as it's possible, for the game mechanics to align with the fiction and not rub against them. To some degree this can't actually happen because it's hard to know how spell slots and hit points actually work. Nonetheless I prefer things to "feel" right...



Same here. 



> ...and for some reason, the rest mechanics feel awkward and wrong. I don't think they work that well, either. I dislike attunement and concentration for the same reasons, not because the ideas are inherently bad but because they are just implemented in such an arbitrary fashion. (No I didn't like 1E's race and class limits, either.)



Agreed re 5e rest mechanics.  Agreed to a point re attunement, as one can easily come up with an in-fiction rationale for it.  Ditto concentration - it makes sense in a few instances but 5e went overboard with it as a balancing mechanic.

As for 1e: I don't mind some races flat-out not being able to be some classes ( [MENTION=7706]SkidAce[/MENTION] mentions Dwarven wizards as an excellent example, with which I fully agree) but I feel that if you can be a class at all there should be no arbitrary racial limits on how far you can advance.  Stat-based limits, sure - you have to be smart enough to advance to this level of wizard, or wise enough to be allowed into the innermost mysteries of your temple, or nimble enough to master the most demanding aspects of thievery - and note this in a small way builds in racial limits as some races simply can't achieve high scores in some stats.

Lan-"half the characters in my game right now are probably at or beyond their RAW level limits by race - hasn't hurt the game any"-efan


----------



## Sadras (Oct 11, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Can you post a link to this PDF?




Found it - it was very much a collective Enworld project.
Hope it helps.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 11, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> I call this 'internal consistency'.




That works, too. 




> Agreed re 5e rest mechanics.  Agreed to a point re attunement, as one can easily come up with an in-fiction rationale for it.  Ditto concentration - it makes sense in a few instances but 5e went overboard with it as a balancing mechanic.




Yep, and then they have spells that violate their own principles, such as _Mirror Image_. 




> As for 1e: I don't mind some races flat-out not being able to be some classes ( [MENTION=7706]SkidAce[/MENTION] mentions Dwarven wizards as an excellent example, with which I fully agree) but I feel that if you can be a class at all there should be no arbitrary racial limits on how far you can advance.  Stat-based limits, sure - you have to be smart enough to advance to this level of wizard, or wise enough to be allowed into the innermost mysteries of your temple, or nimble enough to master the most demanding aspects of thievery - and note this in a small way builds in racial limits as some races simply can't achieve high scores in some stats.




I don't mind limits if they're provided an in-game rationale. In my own campaign world it's a rare elf who's a divine caster. That's because gods are a human thing. (And now they've been banished from the world due to campaign events, and are thus very rare.) Becoming a divine caster for an elf means seriously following a god, which means abandoning the elven way. This comes with in game consequences. However, if a player wanted to provide a rationale, sure, I'd let them. 




> Lan-"half the characters in my game right now are probably at or beyond their RAW level limits by race - hasn't hurt the game any"-efan




 Those draconian "balancer" mechanics are often not needed.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 11, 2018)

SkidAce said:


> I dislike attunement also.  Okay with concentration though.




I don't mind either in principle, but the execution of both just throws me out of the fiction. It pushes me to look for spells that aren't concentration so I don't have to worry about it, for instance. 

Attunement is also annoying because slot swapping is yet another reason for the ubiquitous short rest. Evidently it's a law of the universe that 3 is the number and the number is always 3. 




> (except there is no such thing as a dwarven wizard, never has been, all the dwarves will tell you so, unless they find you rude for bringing it up, cause its a taboo discussion, and the end of the world is at stake/could be caused)


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 11, 2018)

I would say one of the most egregious problems of 5e, for me at least, is the odd balance between Short and Long Rest-dependent classes. It makes running encounters a bit trickier. Though sometimes the Per Short Rest folk come out ahead in days with lots of encounters, more often then not the Per Day folk come out on the better end of things because encounters in most games I have played tend to be rarer per day than assumed.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 11, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Ditto concentration - it makes sense in a few instances but 5e went overboard with it as a balancing mechanic.



Having played Pathfinder lately, concentration is a godsend for preventing buff stacking. I had many end game fights where, before rushing in to face a boss, the party would stop and cast buff spells for a solid minute. 
And every NPC in Pathfinder tended to have variant statblocks of them without buffs as most had a half-dozen magical effects on them. 

Plus, knowing that you can knock out someone's concentration and end a negative spell affecting an ally is great and allows for some amazing teamwork. Dropping the evil wizard's concentration has led to some great moments at my table. 



Jay Verkuilen said:


> Attunement is also annoying because slot swapping is yet another reason for the ubiquitous short rest. Evidently it's a law of the universe that 3 is the number and the number is always 3.



It needs to be a number, so why not three? Three has literary significance and religious significance.

Three is also just the baseline. If you need more because you're handing out more magic items and want a more monty haul game, then it becomes four or five. If you have a magic-lite setting with that kind of item being rare and special, then perhaps a single attunement slot works.


----------



## 5ekyu (Oct 11, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> If it was limited to just that, of course not, but the hand of DC creep is in other areas of the game, too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



On a minor note, my first house rule in 5e was that extended tasks (takes more than a turn or two) are resolved using trio- checks where you work to get three successes before getting three failures and depending on the nature of the task different "skill" can provide different ways to get those successes. (Derived from their death saves.)


----------



## 5ekyu (Oct 11, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Yeah, I want them to succeed, too, but I don't want it to be trivial and even more I want to respect bounded accuracy. I mean, most people don't enjoy cakewalk combat after combat where the PCs just wipe the opposition without any challenge.
> 
> And to be 100% clear, I would NOT run every lock (or whatever) as a mini skill challenge. Most locks wouldn't be that. I'd only want to use it for something that's supposed to be difficult.



Worth noting that the default definition of not getting the needed DC for ability checks in the PHB can be makes some progress with setback, not just fails to make progress. 

So technically from the day one definition, failure doesn't mean any lock remains unpicked if that's not a result th GM chooses.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 11, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Context my friend.  Context.  We've been discussing one side attacking the other.  Context is your friend. "That" in the context of our discussion clearly meant your claim that one side has to be attacking the other before initiative is rolled.  It doesn't.




Are you seriously taking issue with my use of the word _combat_ for a situation in which at least one side is attacking the other? I don't know how you think combat could happen without creatures attacking each other.



Maxperson said:


> Yep!  Nothing says that has to happen before initiative or surprise is rolled.  T[w]o groups sneaking around looking for people to attack can surprise each other before anyone ever attacks.




What are they surprised by if not surprise _attacks_? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I'm imagining what you're describing is two parties are sneaking along, each undetected by the other, until they come upon each other at an intersection. At that point in time, they both notice each other, so by the surprise rules, no one is surprised if combat breaks out. Am I missing something here?



Maxperson said:


> See, in language, words mean things.  I bolded the part that says I'm right.  It specifies typical for a reason.  And that reason as that there will be atypical combat encounters that don't fit that mold.  All of your quotes and explanations are brought to ruin by the one word.  In an atypical encounter, two sides can be surprised and roll initiative before anyone moves to attack.




I don’t think the word _typical_ explains how participants “in a battle” “engage in combat” by standing around dumbfounded that they’ve managed to bump into someone else in a dungeon. Has it occurred to you that combat is *typically* a clash between two sides because sometimes it’s a clash between three or more sides? Or would you rather maintain your assertion that sometimes combat isn't a clash between any sides, at which point I think we've departed significantly from the meaning of the word _combat_?



Maxperson said:


> Yes it is.  By specifying "direct opposition", they automatically create "indirect opposition".  You can't have one without the other.




Well, they give two examples of directly opposed efforts in the contest section, another two in the section on melee attacks in the form of grapple and shove attacks, and of course the most common example is in the hiding rules, but there aren't any examples or mention in the book of efforts that are considered _indirectly_ opposed. I honestly don't think it's worth distinguishing them as a separate category. 

Contests are also defined in the "Contests in Combat" sidebar as representing challenges that pit one participants prowess against that of another. In initiative, each participant's Dexterity, which represents prowess in reacting quickly among other things, is pitted against the Dexterity of his/her opponents.

Me: If I'm trying to hit you with my sword before you cast a spell on me, I'd say my effort to do so is directly opposed to your effort to cast your spell before I hit [_sic_] run you through.​
You: 







Maxperson said:


> Cool beans.  1. Those are not ability checks, so they don't matter to a discussion on ability checks, and 2. they are not initiative.




Both of your statements are false. Initiative is how we find out whether I'm successful in swinging my sword before you cast your spell, so it most certainly is initiative, and initiative most certainly is an ability check. 



Maxperson said:


> This is a cop out.  You don't get to assume motives for the game designer, especially when his answer doesn't even remotely indicate such a motive.  Let me demonstrate.
> 
> I understand that Jeremy Crawford has said that the initiative roll is not a contest, but I also think Alf told him to say what he said, rather than just say it was a contest.
> 
> My answer quite literally has as much to back it up as yours does.




There's no indication from his tweet that his motive has anything to do with combat sometimes involving more than two participants or the degree of directness of the opposition represented by initiative.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 11, 2018)

R_Chance said:


> There have always been classes that require more / less rest or what have you.



I'm not sure what you mean by "always". In 4e all classes are on the same resource recovery schedule. It makes a huge difference to how 4e plays, because intraparty balance is not hostage to any notion of the "adventuring day".


----------



## Imaro (Oct 11, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "always". In 4e all classes are on the same resource recovery schedule. It makes a huge difference to how 4e plays, because intraparty balance is not hostage to any notion of the "adventuring day".




I believe there were exceptions like the classes in PHB 3 as well as some of the essentials classes.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 11, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I don't mind limits if they're provided an in-game rationale. In my own campaign world it's a rare elf who's a divine caster. That's because gods are a human thing. (And now they've been banished from the world due to campaign events, and are thus very rare.) Becoming a divine caster for an elf means seriously following a god, which means abandoning the elven way. This comes with in game consequences.



Sure, and this is a perfectly reasonable one-off for your particular table.  We're talking about the game as a whole, though, and banning or neutering Elf Clerics in the greater game wouldn't serve much useful purpose.



			
				Jester David said:
			
		

> Having played Pathfinder lately, concentration is a godsend for preventing buff stacking. I had many end game fights where, before rushing in to face a boss, the party would stop and cast buff spells for a solid minute.
> And every NPC in Pathfinder tended to have variant statblocks of them without buffs as most had a half-dozen magical effects on them.



The solution there is to get rid of most of the buff spells entirely.  3e went overboard with them; as PF is 3e's direct descendant the problem remains.  In 5e the same solution applies - get rid of a lot of the buff spells and then ask if you still need concentration for anything other than a very few spells where it makes narrative (and maybe balance-ive) sense.

A side effect of ditching buffs, for those as care about such, would be to make encounter planning easier: you wouldn't have to take into account the buffed-or-not-buffed variable for either the PCs or the foes.

Lanefan


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 11, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Worth noting that the default definition of not getting the needed DC for ability checks in the PHB can be makes some progress with setback, not just fails to make progress.
> 
> So technically from the day one definition, failure doesn't mean any lock remains unpicked if that's not a result th GM chooses.




Absolutely true but they provide comparatively little guidance as to how one would structure partial success. I guess on one hand that "leaves it up to the DM" which is true, but like nearly anything else some structured examples provides a lot of help implementing it in practice.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 11, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> The solution there is to get rid of most of the buff spells entirely.  3e went overboard with them; as PF is 3e's direct descendant the problem remains.



Most of them existed in 1e and 2e as well. It's not that there were more buffs, it's that characters effectively got more low level spell slots. 



Lanefan said:


> In 5e the same solution applies - get rid of a lot of the buff spells and then ask if you still need concentration for anything other than a very few spells where it makes narrative (and maybe balance-ive) sense.



Yes.
Because _greater invisibility_ and _fly_ would still be a thing, as both are fairly important to narratives.
And, again, buffing is also only half of concentration. Because the other aspect is action denial and continual damage spells. Being able to cancel those without a _dispel magic_ is super useful.

Removing them is problematic: most of the buff spells are iconic. They've been in the game since 1st Edition, if not older. It's hard to get rid of stuff like _bless_.

Plus, playing the "buffer" and a support character is a desired character archetype. Some people just want to enable others and be the helper. Even in 4e where every character was designed to be active in ever round of combat you had people building princess warlords that just sat back and made everyone else better. 
(And 4e got rid of traditional "buff" spells and prevented stacking without concentration, and that aspect wasn't exactly universally loved. 5e very deliberately returned to classic buff spells for a reason.)



Lanefan said:


> A side effect of ditching buffs, for those as care about such, would be to make encounter planning easier: you wouldn't have to take into account the buffed-or-not-buffed variable for either the PCs or the foes.



I've accepted that with 5e anyway. Because the solution was less about ditching buffs and more about accepting that "balanced encounters" were never a thing. There's too many variables. 
3e/PF/4e liked to pretend they were a thing, and that the game could balance what was a "hard" or "easy" encounter, an "effective level 5 encounter" and such. 5e only kinda-sorta does that, but doesn't bother with that in adventures. There are just encounters.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 11, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Having played Pathfinder lately, concentration is a godsend for preventing buff stacking. I had many end game fights where, before rushing in to face a boss, the party would stop and cast buff spells for a solid minute.
> And every NPC in Pathfinder tended to have variant statblocks of them without buffs as most had a half-dozen magical effects on them. <...> Plus, knowing that you can knock out someone's concentration and end a negative spell affecting an ally is great and allows for some amazing teamwork. Dropping the evil wizard's concentration has led to some great moments at my table.




As I said previously "I don't mind either in principle, but the execution of both just throws me out of the fiction."

I am 100% with you that Pathfinder, like its 3.5 daddy, is a nightmare of buffs and stacking rules. I _totally_ _agree_ these needed to be knocked back, maybe not as much as Lanefan would like (i.e., to none) but a fair bit. Advantage is a great example of how one can avoid painful stacking rules in a simple way. Temporary Hit Points is another example. 

However, WotC doesn't have much of a clear rationale for one spell being concentration versus another much of the time. I often think they just kind of fly by the seats of their pants with the decision. Consider _Mirror Image_ vs. _Blur_. The spells were different historically because the former was a Magic User spell (for some reason) and the latter was an Illusionist spell back in 1E. The spells are functionally similar---making it harder for the caster to be hit---and probably should just be the same spell. _Mirror Image_ has a fiddly and annoying mechanic and no concentration. _Blur_ has a really clean mechanic (disadvantage on attacks) but requires concentration. My guess is that many people don't take _Blur_ just to avoid concentration even though as DM I'm pretty sure I'd much rather deal with _Blur_ than _Mirror Image_. I know I go out of my way to avoid spells with it just so I don't have to keep track of it. A way to rewrite the spell to make it clean without concentration might be something like:

_Level 2 Blurry Image. Duration 1 minute. This spell induces a shifting, blurry mass where you are standing, making it hard for attackers to hit you. The next three attack rolls against you by any attacker without Truesight or Blindsight are made with disadvantage. Cast at a higher level: For every additional level slot used to cast this spell, add two more attack rolls made with disadvantage. _

Then the fact that there's no method for eliminating it, for example by casting with a higher slot. This means there are spells that are essentially "don't bother" because they require Concentration. _Web_ is a very good example of this. At level 3 it's cool but it rapidly becomes useless at higher levels for anyone but perhaps a wizard so it's pretty unlikely a character with a limited pool of spells would take it. 





> It needs to be a number, so why not three? Three has literary significance and religious significance.




So? Sounds like a Jeremy Crawford ad hoc rationalization. Those significances aren't in the fiction, even remotely. 



> Three is also just the baseline. If you need more because you're handing out more magic items and want a more monty haul game, then it becomes four or five. If you have a magic-lite setting with that kind of item being rare and special, then perhaps a single attunement slot works.




It is, though systems like D&D Beyond enforce it and disallow any violations of the rules, which is certainly a pain for folks who use it and might want to enact some kind of variation for their dreaded Monty Haul campaign. (I don't know how other online systems work, so I can't comment on them.) 

Furthermore, once again like concentration WotC just uses it as a balancer of sorts when they think an item is maybe a bit too potent but without some kind of clear rationale. For example, there are items that one might get at low levels that are, like Web, fairly cool then. They may be interesting and thematic but don't scale and are essentially blocks in the way of a more useful attunement slot. The _Ring of Mind Shielding_ is a good example. I can see why it requires attunement, too but it just seems to present players with a lot of rolling build traps. One thing I noticed over the course of a long campaign (that went to level 20) was that many items simply provoked a "meh, I'm not going to bother" reaction from players because they were stuck with the tradeoffs of which of their old items to eliminate. Much like with buffs, I totally get the reason for a limit of some sort but it would be nice if it scaled somehow. 

In sum, disliking the implementation of something is not saying that it serves no purpose. Yes, I could devise something like that myself but working out the bugs of a system like that is why I pay game designers!


----------



## Jester David (Oct 11, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I am 100% with you that Pathfinder, like its 3.5 daddy, is a nightmare of buffs and stacking rules. I _totally_ _agree_ these needed to be knocked back, maybe not as much as Lanefan would like (i.e., to none) but a fair bit. Advantage is a great example of how one can avoid painful stacking rules in a simple way. Temporary Hit Points is another example.



How would that work with someone lay _fly_ and _invisibility_? Or stacking something like _protection from energy_ on the entire party?



Jay Verkuilen said:


> However, WotC doesn't have much of a clear rationale for one spell being concentration versus another much of the time. I often think they just kind of fly by the seats of their pants with the decision.



Just because you don’t see the rationale doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist.



Jay Verkuilen said:


> Then the fact that there's no method for eliminating it, for example by casting with a higher slot. This means there are spells that are essentially "don't bother" because they require Concentration. _Web_ is a very good example of this. At level 3 it's cool but it rapidly becomes useless at higher levels for anyone but perhaps a wizard so it's pretty unlikely a character with a limited pool of spells would take it.



So then they swap it out? I don’t see the problem.



Jay Verkuilen said:


> So? Sounds like a Jeremy Crawford ad hoc rationalization. Those significances aren't in the fiction, even remotely.



So what should it have been? Two? Four? 



Jay Verkuilen said:


> It is, though systems like D&D Beyond enforce it and disallow any violations of the rules, which is certainly a pain for folks who use it and might want to enact some kind of variation for their dreaded Monty Haul campaign. (I don't know how other online systems work, so I can't comment on them.)



*shrug* So “attune” to any item with a mechanical change and just write the extra item on the character sheet. 
It’s not particularly hard, even for those people exclusively running their character off of D&D Beyond. 



Jay Verkuilen said:


> Furthermore, once again like concentration WotC just uses it as a balancer of sorts when they think an item is maybe a bit too potent but without some kind of clear rationale.



It’s mostly pretty logical. Items you can pass between people and the like require attunement, as does any item that might be a “signature” item. 

Sure, there’s oddities and quirks. Oh well, no game is perfect. That doesn’t mean the whole attunement system needs to be junked.



Jay Verkuilen said:


> One thing I noticed over the course of a long campaign (that went to level 20) was that many items simply provoked a "meh, I'm not going to bother" reaction from players because they were stuck with the tradeoffs of which of their old items to eliminate. Much like with buffs, I totally get the reason for a limit of some sort but it would be nice if it scaled somehow.



So it would be better if they could equip a dozen items? o.0
I’d that’s what you want… then do it. It’s your game.

But, really, I gave out my fair share of magic items in Pathfinder that the party went “meh” about and just instantly sold for gold. Not every item is going to be a winner.



Jay Verkuilen said:


> In sum, disliking the implementation of something is not saying that it serves no purpose. Yes, I could devise something like that myself but working out the bugs of a system like that is why I pay game designers!



So then don’t use attunement. Make your own system, write it out, and make money off the DMs Guild. 
If you don’t want the pay designers for content you don’t like, then make your own game.

Complaining is easy. Actually making something is hard. If you think you can do better, them prove it.


----------



## 5ekyu (Oct 11, 2018)

Jester David said:


> How would that work with someone lay _fly_ and _invisibility_? Or stacking something like _protection from energy_ on the entire party?
> 
> 
> Just because you don’t see the rationale doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist.
> ...



Actually, as a minor aside, I would use attune limits at con modifier *or* maybe tier or some othe element related to a character aspect or choice. I prefer for significant in world recognizable constants pr constraints to have an established in world basis. The system can balance based on the chosen values  constants. 

You could have used tier+conmod and set varying attunemdnt values for more potent items and achieved much the same outcome but with more in game based rationalization and characterization. Given a relative uncommon pace of more powerful items, it's not a burden to tie it to features instead of arbitrary values, imo. 

Then again, it's also pretty easy to house rule for the same reasons.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 12, 2018)

Imaro said:


> I believe there were exceptions like the classes in PHB 3 as well as some of the essentials classes.



PHB 3 is not an exception.

Essentials is an exception, by reducing the daily resources of its martial classes. The disparity is still much less than in either classic D&D or 5e, but it is one of (what I regard as) the design weaknesses of Essentials.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 12, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Most of them existed in 1e and 2e as well.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



In AD&D (not 2nd ed) Fly was a MU spell while Improved Invisiblity was an illusionist spell, and so they were less likely to be used as a combination.



Jay Verkuilen said:


> Consider _Mirror Image_ vs. _Blur_. The spells were different historically because the former was a Magic User spell (for some reason) and the latter was an Illusionist spell back in 1E. The spells are functionally similar---making it harder for the caster to be hit---and probably should just be the same spell.



Good suggestion - or there is the 4e approach, which included both but gave Blur a flat +2 bonus while Mirror Image starts at +6 and steps down on miss.

But for the sake of pedantry: in AD&D illusionists did also get Mirror Image, but with 1d4+1 images rather than - as MUs did - having the number of images rolled on a % die with a level bonus to get 1 image per 25 or part thereof on the result.



Lanefan said:


> banning or neutering Elf Clerics in the greater game wouldn't serve much useful purpose.



Why not? That the gameworld contains no elven clerics (eg because elves live among the spirits of nature, they don't serve the gods that sit outside nature) could be an interesting feature of the implied setting.

When I played AD&D, I found the restriction to NPC-only for some classes (eg dwarven clerics and fighter/clerics) a bit odd, but the prohibition on dwarven wizards never bothered me.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 12, 2018)

pemerton said:


> PHB 3 is not an exception.
> 
> Essentials is an exception, by reducing the daily resources of its martial classes. The disparity is still much less than in either classic D&D or 5e, but it is one of (what I regard as) the design weaknesses of Essentials.




Ah nevermind I'm remembering it wrong PHB 3 just had a different structure for encounter powers... where essentially they were the only classes that could use the same encounter "augment" numerous times in a single encounter.


----------



## SkidAce (Oct 12, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Actually, as a minor aside, I would use attune limits at con modifier *or* maybe tier or some othe element related to a character aspect or choice. I prefer for significant in world recognizable constants pr constraints to have an established in world basis. The system can balance based on the chosen values  constants.
> 
> You could have used tier+conmod and set varying attunemdnt values for more potent items and achieved much the same outcome but with more in game based rationalization and characterization. Given a relative uncommon pace of more powerful items, it's not a burden to tie it to features instead of arbitrary values, imo.
> 
> Then again, it's also pretty easy to house rule for the same reasons.




I like attunement slots = proficiency bonus.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 12, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Most of them existed in 1e and 2e as well. It's not that there were more buffs, it's that characters effectively got more low level spell slots.



Looking at some of your examples, some of what you call "buffs" I've never really seen as such e.g. Fly and Invisibility - to me those are simple utility spells.  What I call buffs are those that boost your numbers: stats (Strength, Cat's Grace, etc.) and-or hit points (Aid) or to-hit/damage (Bless, Prayer, etc.).

Not sure about 2e but in 1e the only stat-booster was Strength.  Bless, Prayer, etc. are easy to control just by saying they do not stack; and if opposed (i.e. if the opponents cast one too and the AoE's overlap at all) they just wash out and cancel each other.  Aid is relatively trivial in what it gives, to the point I rarely if ever see it cast.

The ones in 1e that can become problematic IME are the varions Protection From xxxx effects.



> Yes.
> Because _greater invisibility_ and _fly_ would still be a thing, as both are fairly important to narratives.



Improved Invisibility in my games comes up so rarely I don't have to worry about it - it's Illusionist only and for some reason nobody plays Illusionists.  Fly is just a constant, and not even the spell: if any device that gives flight ever crosses the party's transom it's a sure bet someone will snap it up and never let it go.



> And, again, buffing is also only half of concentration. Because the other aspect is action denial and continual damage spells. Being able to cancel those without a _dispel magic_ is super useful.



Personally I prefer fire-and-forget continual damage spells, and that they can't be shut off early. 



> Removing them is problematic: most of the buff spells are iconic. They've been in the game since 1st Edition, if not older. It's hard to get rid of stuff like _bless_.



Bless rarely if ever gets cast in my games due to a restriction I put on it ages ago: it only affects you if you're not already in combat.



			
				Hester David said:
			
		

> So it would be better if they could equip a dozen items? o.0



Sure, why not?  But in my game if you fail a save vs. most AoE damage all those items are at significant risk - you pays yer money and you takes yer chances. 



> But, really, I gave out my fair share of magic items in Pathfinder that the party went “meh” about and just instantly sold for gold. Not every item is going to be a winner.



Obviously.  But those they can use, let 'em use.  And those that are only going ot be used once in a blue moon but at that time can be a game-saver - let 'em use those too. 

Attunement or something similar is fine for a very few specific items, particularly items that don't need to be in your possession to function e.g. Book of Infinite Spells.  But for most things it's just a layer of bureaucracy that IMO would add little if anything to the game.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 12, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Actually, as a minor aside, I would use attune limits at con modifier



So anyone with Con 11 or less could never attune anything?  Seems a bit harsh...



> *or* maybe tier or some othe element related to a character aspect or choice. I prefer for significant in world recognizable constants pr constraints to have an established in world basis. The system can balance based on the chosen values  constants.



Tying this to a stat is by extension going to greatly favour some classes over others, probably too much.  Perhaps instead randomize it a bit - everyone gets 2 but for each item you try to attune after that (as in, the 3rd, 4th, 5th... at once) you need to make an increasingly-difficult Int (or Cha?) based saving throw; and when you fail one you've just permanently set your attuneable limit.

So in practice this might look like:

Items 1 and 2 - automatic attunement if tried.
Item 3 - an easy save to attune; say DC 7, or DC 10 with advantage
Item 4 - a standard save to attune; maybe DC 12
Item 5 - a bit more difficult, this one's at DC 15
Item 6 and beyond - each of these are DC 15 with disadvantage.

You only do this once for each progression, at the time you first try to attune an item beyond your current limit.  Succeed and your limit permanently goes up by one.  Fail and your limit gets forever locked in where it is.


----------



## 5ekyu (Oct 12, 2018)

SkidAce said:


> I like attunement slots = proficiency bonus.



That works too. Anything tied to character trait to me is fine.


----------



## 5ekyu (Oct 12, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> So anyone with Con 11 or less could never attune anything?  Seems a bit harsh...
> 
> Tying this to a stat is by extension going to greatly favour some classes over others, probably too much.  Perhaps instead randomize it a bit - everyone gets 2 but for each item you try to attune after that (as in, the 3rd, 4th, 5th... at once) you need to make an increasingly-difficult Int (or Cha?) based saving throw; and when you fail one you've just permanently set your attuneable limit.
> 
> ...



Well, on Con 11-. you know if i ever see a pc with no bonus to con, i would worry about it. 

But yes it does shift con up a bit in value but since i have yet to see con used as any 5e character's primary stat, i dont see a problem there. 

I don't want to tie it to any favored stats but i can see some gms wanting it to not be a trade off choice but more of an auto-gain.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 12, 2018)

Hriston said:


> Are you seriously taking issue with my use of the word _combat_ for a situation in which at least one side is attacking the other? I don't know how you think combat could happen without creatures attacking each other.




Because it's the rules.  Initiative is a part of combat, but it happens before anyone can possibly attack anyone else.  It simply isn't possible for it to happen after someone attacks, because the very instant someone so much as thinks about attacking, initiative is rolled and that person could be going last, having never attacked.  Again, it's simply not possible to roll initiative AFTER someone attacks.  Even in a surprise round, initiative is rolled before a single person attacks.



> What are they surprised by if not surprise _attacks_? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I'm imagining what you're describing is two parties are sneaking along, each undetected by the other, until they come upon each other at an intersection. At that point in time, they both notice each other, so by the surprise rules, no one is surprised if combat breaks out. Am I missing something here?




They are surprised by the appearance of the other side.  I have walked around a corner and been surprised by a squirrel that I didn't know was there and run up a nearby tree.  I have rounded a corner and been surprised by a TV sitting on the sidewalk that I wasn't expecting to be in my path.  Are you really going to argue that the TV was attacking me?  

And no, if both are sneaking, then both can be surprised by RAW as neither side noticed the threat before it was upon them.  Initiative is rolled and they do nothing in surprise, then attacks begin in round 2.  



> I don’t think the word _typical_ explains how participants “in a battle” “engage in combat” by standing around dumbfounded that they’ve managed to bump into someone else in a dungeon. Has it occurred to you that combat is *typically* a clash between two sides because sometimes it’s a clash between three or more sides? Or would you rather maintain your assertion that sometimes combat isn't a clash between any sides, at which point I think we've departed significantly from the meaning of the word _combat_?




The word typical simply means how combats typically work.  The atypical portion is not defined, so is as likely to include what I described as it is to include more than two sides.



> Well, they give two examples of directly opposed efforts in the contest section, another two in the section on melee attacks in the form of grapple and shove attacks, and of course the most common example is in the hiding rules, but there aren't any examples or mention in the book of efforts that are considered _indirectly_ opposed. I honestly don't think it's worth distinguishing them as a separate category.




Whether or not you think it's worth distinguishing as a separate category, it is in fact a separate category.   You cannot determine what direct opposition is, without knowing what indirect opposition is.  Opposition is always one or the other, and only one uses the contest rules.



> Contests are also defined in the "Contests in Combat" sidebar as representing challenges that pit one participants prowess against that of another. In initiative, each participant's Dexterity, which represents prowess in reacting quickly among other things, is pitted against the Dexterity of his/her opponents.




You're stretching things here, but regardless, initiative is not direct opposition and never will be.



> Both of your statements are false. Initiative is how we find out whether I'm successful in swinging my sword before you cast your spell, so it most certainly is initiative, and initiative most certainly is an ability check.




No, initiative isn't finding out whether you are successful in swinging your sword before I cast the spell. Do you know why?  Because after you roll initiative, you might change your mind and push me, or grapple me, or run away, or a number of other things.  Winning initiative doesn't lock you into an action, while you are locked into your action as soon as a contest begins.  



> There's no indication from his tweet that his motive has anything to do with combat sometimes involving more than two participants or the degree of directness of the opposition represented by initiative.



Going by his tweet, all we know is that initiative is not a contest.  Period.  Nothing of his motives are given.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 12, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Well, on Con 11-. you know if i ever see a pc with no bonus to con, i would worry about it.




Had a drop-in player play a level 5 elf wizard with CON 10. Got hit by a CR 5 Wraith, took 22 damage and went straight from full to zero! Then rolled double 1s on an Inspired CON save and was dead in 2 rounds, arising as a Spectre.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 12, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Well, on Con 11-. you know if i ever see a pc with no bonus to con, i would worry about it.



Then I guess I should be mighty worried, as about half of my own PCs have Con 11 or less...in a few cases significantly less!

Humour aside, what this would also mean is that a simple commoner (whose stats by RAW are all either 10 or 11) could never attune to anything, which means bang goes the fairy-tale trope of a commoner stumbling onto a magic item and doing great things with it e.g. Jack and the beans or Aladdin and the lamp.



> But yes it does shift con up a bit in value but since i have yet to see con used as any 5e character's primary stat, i dont see a problem there.



You won't see Con used as a primary stat until there's a class that wants Con as its primary stat - there's just too much mechanical "value" in aligning your best stat with what your class wants it to be, and then jumping it up to max ASAP as you advance.

Now if you're rolling for stats and get two or three equally high then tossing one of those onto Con is never a bad idea.  But rolling is also where you'll get the 11-and-lower Con characters; I know I've rolled characters in the past that had one really good stat (which went into their primary) and the other five were all 11 or lower. I'm still playing at least one of them. (not talking about 5e here but the general idea is the same)


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 12, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> So anyone with Con 11 or less could never attune anything?  Seems a bit harsh...



General 5e design when assigning uses to a stat modifier is to also set a minimum value of 1.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 13, 2018)

S'mon said:


> Had a drop-in player play a level 5 elf wizard with CON 10. Got hit by a CR 5 Wraith, took 22 damage and went straight from full to zero! Then rolled double 1s on an Inspired CON save and was dead in 2 rounds, arising as a Spectre.




Heh, my ranger in a 5e Ravenloft game dump statted Con.  8 Con FTW baby.


----------



## 5ekyu (Oct 13, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Then I guess I should be mighty worried, as about half of my own PCs have Con 11 or less...in a few cases significantly less!
> 
> Humour aside, what this would also mean is that a simple commoner (whose stats by RAW are all either 10 or 11) could never attune to anything, which means bang goes the fairy-tale trope of a commoner stumbling onto a magic item and doing great things with it e.g. Jack and the beans or Aladdin and the lamp.
> 
> ...




*If you want the fairy tale for your game *- use an item that doesn't require attunement. Not all magic items require attunement. it would seem even a partially sentient Gm could conjure up some faerie trifle that does ABC and then vanishes to serve as their plot device (pun intended), right? 

Sure we are talking homebrew but then we are talking house rules.

For the rolling stats and non-5e games etc... i was suggesting for 5e homebrew and the PCs based on those - not other systems. i have no idea how attunement should work for HERo, CYBERPUNK2020, Space opera and all the other game systems running around. perhaps non-5e homebrew should have its own forum?

and - yes - the fact that no class in 5e has CON is probably linked to the reason its not seen much as a characters primary stat. that then leads to why i liked using it for attunement.


----------



## 5ekyu (Oct 13, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> General 5e design when assigning uses to a stat modifier is to also set a minimum value of 1.




yup and a formal write up of the house rule beyond casual discussion and brainstorming would likely include that, especially if the field is so rife with zero and negative con PCs by the bucket fulls. 

After all, heaven forbid a player chooses a penalty stat and that applies to his magic item tally.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 13, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> yup and a formal write up of the house rule beyond casual discussion and brainstorming would likely include that, especially if the field is so rife with zero and negative con PCs by the bucket fulls.
> 
> After all, heaven forbid a player chooses a penalty stat and that applies to his magic item tally.



No worries, more for Lanefan's edification than your own.

Personally, I like three.  But considering the magic item system as a whole doesn't have any mechanical balance, only DM fiat, it's pretty trivial to houserule.


----------



## R_Chance (Oct 13, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "always". In 4e all classes are on the same resource recovery schedule. It makes a huge difference to how 4e plays, because intraparty balance is not hostage to any notion of the "adventuring day".




Probably just another reason I never played 4E   Honestly it's the only edition I bought, read, and gave away. It looked like an OK game btw, just not one I was interested in playing (or more likely DMing since that's pretty much my full time gaming role). I stuck with 3.5 / PF (and some 2E and Traveller) until 5E came out.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 13, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Because it's the rules.  Initiative is a part of combat, but it happens before anyone can possibly attack anyone else.  It simply isn't possible for it to happen after someone attacks, because the very instant someone so much as thinks about attacking, initiative is rolled and that person could be going last, having never attacked.  Again, it's simply not possible to roll initiative AFTER someone attacks.  Even in a surprise round, initiative is rolled before a single person attacks.




You're mixing up fictional events with actual events at the table. Players at the table in the real world roll initiative to resolve who goes in what order each round in a fictional combat that has already been established to be taking place in the fiction. The way this is established is usually that one of the players or the DM declares an action for a character that s/he controls that requires resolution in combat rounds. Part of the resolution of that and subsequent actions declared for the participants is to roll initiative to determine the order of resolution. So first it's established at the table that combat is happening in the fiction, and only then are the combat resolution mechanics engaged, including the rolling of initiative.

I don't think it's a good call for a DM to call for initiative because a player or a character is thinking about attacking (it's unclear which you mean, but I don't think it matters), because I can imagine plenty of situations in which someone is contemplating making an attack but decides not to, and rolling initiative in that case would have been a pointless exercise. That's because it hasn't been established yet that combat is taking place.



Maxperson said:


> They are surprised by the appearance of the other side.  I have walked around a corner and been surprised by a squirrel that I didn't know was there and run up a nearby tree.  I have rounded a corner and been surprised by a TV sitting on the sidewalk that I wasn't expecting to be in my path.  Are you really going to argue that the TV was attacking me?
> 
> And no, if both are sneaking, then both can be surprised by RAW as neither side noticed the threat before it was upon them.  Initiative is rolled and they do nothing in surprise, then attacks begin in round 2.




Look at the examples under "Surprise". Adventurers surprise bandits by "springing from the trees to attack them." A gelatinous cube surprises adventurers by engulfing one of them before they notice it. In each case, the unnoticed party surprises the other by attacking before being noticed. The fact that the resolution of those attacks at the table awaits the engagement of the combat resolution mechanics in no way means that offensive action hasn't been committed to in the fiction. If not, then why engage the mechanics?



Maxperson said:


> The word typical simply means how combats typically work.  The atypical portion is not defined, so is as likely to include what I described as it is to include more than two sides.




No, "atypical" combat that isn't "a clash between two sides" is still defined by other statements about combat. It's a set of rules for "characters and monsters to engage in combat," not, as you have described, for them to have chance meetings in dimly lit hallways after which they decide how they feel about each other. The participants in combat are described as taking part "in a battle", not as deciding whether they want to be a part of a battle after initiative has been rolled. Combat, both typical and atypical, is just that.



Maxperson said:


> Whether or not you think it's worth distinguishing as a separate category, it is in fact a separate category.   You cannot determine what direct opposition is, without knowing what indirect opposition is.  Opposition is always one or the other, and only one uses the contest rules.




My point is the distinction you're making has no meaningful difference in actual play. I'm speculating, but I don't think the designers intended for the word _direct_ to hold as much weight as you're giving it. Compare this with the language used in the "Contests in Combat" sidebar where there's no mention of "direct opposition". All that's required for a contest under that description is that prowess is pitted against prowess. Dexterity is a form of prowess.



Maxperson said:


> You're stretching things here, but regardless, initiative is not direct opposition and never will be.




Yes, it is. It represents the directly opposed efforts of you and your opponents to do whatever it is you're doing on your turns before they do, and vice versa. 



Maxperson said:


> No, initiative isn't finding out whether you are successful in swinging your sword before I cast the spell. Do you know why?  Because after you roll initiative, you might change your mind and push me, or grapple me, or run away, or a number of other things.  Winning initiative doesn't lock you into an action, while you are locked into your action as soon as a contest begins.




The "action" you are locked into by rolling initiative is trying to do whatever it is you do on each of your turns in combat before your opponent does whatever it is they do on each of their turns. The sword swinging and spell casting were just examples.



Maxperson said:


> Going by his tweet, all we know is that initiative is not a contest.  Period.  Nothing of his motives are given.




Right, so my speculations as to his motives are just as valid as yours.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 13, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Sure we are talking homebrew but then we are talking house rules.
> 
> For the rolling stats and non-5e games etc... i was suggesting for 5e homebrew and the PCs based on those - not other systems.



Am I misreading, or are you trying to suggest that rolling for stats in 5e counts as homebrew?

Last I checked, rolling for stats as a method of char-gen is right there in the 5e PH...


----------



## 5ekyu (Oct 13, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Am I misreading, or are you trying to suggest that rolling for stats in 5e counts as homebrew?
> 
> Last I checked, rolling for stats as a method of char-gen is right there in the 5e PH...



You are misreading.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 14, 2018)

Hriston said:


> You're mixing up fictional events with actual events at the table. Players at the table in the real world roll initiative to resolve who goes in what order each round in a fictional combat that has already been established to be taking place in the fiction. The way this is established is usually that one of the players or the DM declares an action for a character that s/he controls that requires resolution in combat rounds. Part of the resolution of that and subsequent actions declared for the participants is to roll initiative to determine the order of resolution. So first it's established at the table that combat is happening in the fiction, and only then are the combat resolution mechanics engaged, including the rolling of initiative.




I'm not mixing up anything.  Initiative in the game is rolled before any attack happens.  That's the order of things.  It's very literally impossible for an attack to happen prior to initiative being rolled, so no side is attacking the other.  They may want to attack the other.  They may look like they are going to attack the other.  But no attack or combat has happened yet.



> Look at the examples under




Yes.  Let's look at them.



> "Surprise". Adventurers surprise bandits by "springing from the trees to attack them."




TO attack them.  Meaning, no attack has happened.  You can see the intent, but no attack or combat has happened prior to initiative.



> A gelatinous cube surprises adventurers by engulfing one of them before they notice it.




This is literally impossible until AFTER initiative is rolled.  Prior to that, no combat or attack has happened, even though initiative is a part of combat



> In each case, the unnoticed party surprises the other by attacking before being noticed. The fact that the resolution of those attacks at the table awaits the engagement of the combat resolution mechanics in no way means that offensive action hasn't been committed to in the fiction. If not, then why engage the mechanics?




In the first example it's irrelevant whether the action in the fiction has happened, since it is only the intent to attack and not an attack.  In the second example while the cube engulfs someone before being noticed, it does not engulf anyone before initiative.  In fact, that the cube can engulf someone before it is noticed, and yet that person still rolls initiative, is proof positive that no opposition has occurred with initiative.  You can't oppose something either directly or indirectly, if you are unaware of it.



> My point is the distinction you're making has no meaningful difference in actual play. I'm speculating, but I don't think the designers intended for the word _direct_ to hold as much weight as you're giving it. Compare this with the language used in the "Contests in Combat" sidebar where there's no mention of "direct opposition". All that's required for a contest under that description is that prowess is pitted against prowess. Dexterity is a form of prowess.




You seriously don't think that whether something is a contest or not is a meaningful difference in game play?



> The "action" you are locked into by rolling initiative is trying to do whatever it is you do on each of your turns in combat before your opponent does whatever it is they do on each of their turns. The sword swinging and spell casting were just examples.




I can opt to do nothing, which isn't an action or something that I would be trying to go first at, yet I still roll initiative.  



> Right, so my speculations as to his motives are just as valid as yours.




Is this some sort of "I'm rubber, you're glue." moment?  I said that already when you assumed what the designer meant without a single iota of evidence to back you up.  If I assume that aliens made him rule that way, it's just as valid a speculation about his motives as yours.  That validity is 0.  Or, you can just accept what he said at face value and not ascribe a motive pulled out of your backside to him.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 15, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I'm not mixing up anything.  Initiative in the game is rolled before any attack happens.  That's the order of things.  It's very literally impossible for an attack to happen prior to initiative being rolled, so no side is attacking the other.  They may want to attack the other.  They may look like they are going to attack the other.  But no attack or combat has happened yet.




You’re still mixing things up. Initiative is rolled at the table. Attacks happen in the fiction. You’re using the order of mechanical resolution to make an argument about the chronology of events in the fiction, which is like comparing apples to oranges. Initiative doesn’t relate to a discrete fictional event the way an attack roll does. What it represents in the fiction is a continuous effort to move and act quickly that lasts throughout the entire combat encounter. It’s part of the mechanical resolution of action declarations made at the table, including the one that initiated combat. I'm not here to tell you how to run your game, so do what you want, but I have to ask, what do you think the point is of the DM signaling the beginning of combat and asking for initiative rolls when neither s/he nor any of the other players has declared a combat-initiating action?



Maxperson said:


> Yes.  Let's look at them.
> 
> 
> 
> TO attack them.  Meaning, no attack has happened.  You can see the intent, but no attack or combat has happened prior to initiative.




It's pretty clear to me because of the context of this example being in the combat section and the way movement and action happen in turns in combat that the fiction being described here is the outcome of a combat-initiating action declaration on the part of the players to close to melee or attack range from a hidden position and initiate attacks all in a single round. The resolution of that declaration and subsequent actions requires the determination of surprise, rolling of initiative, and resolution of attacks in initiative order. All of that follows the players' declaration for their PCs to initiate combat against the bandits. Without that action declaration, there's no reason to begin combat by engaging the rules for combat resolution. 



Maxperson said:


> This is literally impossible until AFTER initiative is rolled.  Prior to that, no combat or attack has happened, even though initiative is a part of combat




Initiative is the *3rd* step of combat. The 1st is to determine surprise, so as soon as it has been determined that the cube has surprised the adventurers, combat has begun.



Maxperson said:


> In the first example it's irrelevant whether the action in the fiction has happened, since it is only the intent to attack and not an attack.




Without a declared action to attack on the part of the players there's no reason for the fictional outcome to be that the adventurers spring from the trees to attack. If the players had said they wanted to spring from the trees to say hello there'd be no reason to begin combat and no surprise determined. The context here is we're reading about combat and surprise in combat.



Maxperson said:


> In the second example while the cube engulfs someone before being noticed, it does not engulf anyone before initiative.  In fact, that the cube can engulf someone before it is noticed, and yet that person still rolls initiative, is proof positive that no opposition has occurred with initiative.  You can't oppose something either directly or indirectly, if you are unaware of it.




You're still mixing up rolling initiative, which happens in the real world, with a gelatinous cube engulfing an adventurer, which happens in the fiction. Initiative can certainly play a role in the opposed efforts of the cube and the adventurer in danger of being engulfed if, for example, the adventurer has the opportunity to use a reaction that affects his/her saving throw against becoming engulfed. 



Maxperson said:


> You seriously don't think that whether something is a contest or not is a meaningful difference in game play?




Listen to what I'm saying. This distinction between direct and indirect opposition you're insisting is important to whether an ability check counts as a contest isn't supported by the "Contests in Combat" sidebar. All that's required for a contest under that description is for one ability check to be compared to another. An initiative roll certainly fits that description.



Maxperson said:


> I can opt to do nothing, which isn't an action or something that I would be trying to go first at, yet I still roll initiative.




Rolling a higher initiative would give you the opportunity to do nothing first, but it's obviously not the intent of the rules that you do nothing with your turn. The assumption is that your character is a participant in a battle. In fact, if you told me at the beginning of combat that your character was going to do nothing during the battle, there wouldn't be any need for you to roll initiative or have a turn. Also, attacks against you might auto-hit. The rules assume a certain level of active participation on the part of the characters. 



Maxperson said:


> Is this some sort of "I'm rubber, you're glue." moment?  I said that already when you assumed what the designer meant without a single iota of evidence to back you up.  If I assume that aliens made him rule that way, it's just as valid a speculation about his motives as yours.  That validity is 0.  Or, you can just accept what he said at face value and not ascribe a motive pulled out of your backside to him.




Likewise your assumption that his ruling is based on more than two opponents in initiative and notions of it not being direct opposition.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 16, 2018)

Hriston said:


> You’re still mixing things up. Initiative is rolled at the table. Attacks happen in the fiction. You’re using the order of mechanical resolution to make an argument about the chronology of events in the fiction, which is like comparing apples to oranges. Initiative doesn’t relate to a discrete fictional event the way an attack roll does. What it represents in the fiction is a continuous effort to move and act quickly that lasts throughout the entire combat encounter. It’s part of the mechanical resolution of action declarations made at the table, including the one that initiated combat. I'm not here to tell you how to run your game, so do what you want, but I have to ask, what do you think the point is of the DM signaling the beginning of combat and asking for initiative rolls when neither s/he nor any of the other players has declared a combat-initiating action?




I'm not mixing anything up.  Initiative is rolled at the table, but initiative is an in game event that happens prior to attacks happening.  In game you have two sides and where everyone is going to be reacting at different times.  That happens before any in game attack can possibly happen.  You can't know if the first person is going to attack or do something else until after the initiative roll.



> It's pretty clear to me because of the context of this example being in the combat section and the way movement and action happen in turns in combat that the fiction being described here is the outcome of a combat-initiating action declaration on the part of the players to close to melee or attack range from a hidden position and initiate attacks all in a single round. The resolution of that declaration and subsequent actions requires the determination of surprise, rolling of initiative, and resolution of attacks in initiative order. All of that follows the players' declaration for their PCs to initiate combat against the bandits. Without that action declaration, there's no reason to begin combat by engaging the rules for combat resolution.




If that's what is clear to you, you are misreading things badly.  No movement can happen and no attack can happen until AFTER initiative is rolled.  This is true with or without surprise.



> Initiative is the *3rd* step of combat. The 1st is to determine surprise, so as soon as it has been determined that the cube has surprised the adventurers, combat has begun.




And yet not one single attack has happened prior to initiative being rolled.  "Combat" may have begun, but actual combat(the fighting part) doesn't happen until AFTER initiative.



> Without a declared action to attack on the part of the players there's no reason for the fictional outcome to be that the adventurers spring from the trees to attack. If the players had said they wanted to spring from the trees to say hello there'd be no reason to begin combat and no surprise determined. The context here is we're reading about combat and surprise in combat.




I get that.  The problem you are facing is that a declared attack isn't an attack.  No attack can happen until AFTER initiative happens both in and out of the game world. 



> You're still mixing up rolling initiative, which happens in the real world, with a gelatinous cube engulfing an adventurer, which happens in the fiction. Initiative can certainly play a role in the opposed efforts of the cube and the adventurer in danger of being engulfed if, for example, the adventurer has the opportunity to use a reaction that affects his/her saving throw against becoming engulfed.




No.  No I'm not.  I understand that the cube wanted to engulf the adventurer, but may never actually be able to accomplish that if it misses the initiative roll.  The guy next to the adventurer might use win initiative and use a reaction to alter things.



> Listen to what I'm saying. This distinction between direct and indirect opposition you're insisting is important to whether an ability check counts as a contest isn't supported by the "Contests in Combat" sidebar. All that's required for a contest under that description is for one ability check to be compared to another. An initiative roll certainly fits that description.




I hear what you are saying, and you are still wrong.  The contest section specifying that to be a contest the opposition must be direct not only defines indirect opposition as all opposition that is not direct, but also makes it very important.  The contests in combat sidebar isn't relevant as those are still contests, which must involve direct opposition.  At no point does the sidebar specifically override that requirement.  In fact, all of the examples and wording in the sidebar is about direct opposition.



> Rolling a higher initiative would give you the opportunity to do nothing first, but it's obviously not the intent of the rules that you do nothing with your turn.




This is just rubbish.  hundreds, if not a thousand times or more over the years I have declared that I am doing nothing on my turn, including round 1.  There are many reasons why such a declaration would be made and it doesn't go against the intent of the rules in any way, shape or form.



> In fact, if you told me at the beginning of combat that your character was going to do nothing during the battle, there wouldn't be any need for you to roll initiative or have a turn. Also, attacks against you might auto-hit. The rules assume a certain level of active participation on the part of the characters.




Nice Strawman.  I didn't say battle.  Winning initiative and doing nothing involves but a single round.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Oct 16, 2018)

The next person I see that says natural language is better then jargon is gonna get pointed to this thread.


----------



## ad_hoc (Oct 16, 2018)

MichaelSomething said:


> The next person I see that says natural language is better then jargon is gonna get pointed to this thread.




A few people arguing on the internet doesn't mean it isn't better.

They would still be arguing about something. 

The vast majority of groups are going to prefer the natural language so they don't need to learn a new language just to play a game.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 16, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I'm not mixing anything up.  Initiative is rolled at the table, but initiative is an in game event that happens prior to attacks happening.  In game you have two sides and where everyone is going to be reacting at different times.  That happens before any in game attack can possibly happen.  You can't know if the first person is going to attack or do something else until after the initiative roll.




You treat initiative as a discrete event in the fiction. How interesting! It's unclear to me from what you've written here, but it seems like you treat it as a sort of watching and waiting moment before anyone can take action. Is that right? What's also unclear is why there are sides and to what anyone is reacting if no attack is yet happening. Of course you won't know whose action and movement will be resolved first before initiative, but surely *something* has happened in the fiction to cause the DM to call for initiative in the first place. I know in my games it's what I've called a combat-initiating action declaration, but I'm curious what that event is like in your games. From what you've posted up-thread, I might conclude it happens anytime two parties meet each other, but that doesn't seem right to me because, at least in my games, that would lead to beginning a lot of non-combat encounters by rolling initiative. 



Maxperson said:


> If that's what is clear to you, you are misreading things badly.  No movement can happen and no attack can happen until AFTER initiative is rolled.  This is true with or without surprise.




Okay, so in your games, a player can't say, "I'm done haggling with this merchant! I unsheathe my sword and attack," until after initiative has been rolled? You see, to me, that's just the sort of thing that would *trigger* initiative being rolled.



Maxperson said:


> And yet not one single attack has happened prior to initiative being rolled.  "Combat" may have begun, but actual combat(the fighting part) doesn't happen until AFTER initiative.




Attacks aren't *resolved* until after initiative is rolled, but I think I've made it clear that, in my games, at least one combat-initiating action has been established as being in the process of happening in the fiction before we roll initiative and is actually why initiative is rolled. That way we don't need to put scare quotes around combat. It's very clear that the combat rules are being used because combat has been established as occurring in the fiction.



Maxperson said:


> I get that.  The problem you are facing is that a declared attack isn't an attack.  No attack can happen until AFTER initiative happens both in and out of the game world.




Attacks are resolved after initiative is rolled. That doesn't mean the attacks aren't already established as happening when initiative is rolled. In my games, if you declare an action, that means your character is attempting that action.



Maxperson said:


> No.  No I'm not.  I understand that the cube wanted to engulf the adventurer, but may never actually be able to accomplish that if it misses the initiative roll.  The guy next to the adventurer might use [_sic_] win initiative and use a reaction to alter things.




Right, that's why the initiative roll is part of the resolution of the directly opposed efforts of the cube and the adventurers.



Maxperson said:


> I hear what you are saying, and you are still wrong.  The contest section specifying that to be a contest the opposition must be direct not only defines indirect opposition as all opposition that is not direct, but also makes it very important.  The contests in combat sidebar isn't relevant as those are still contests, which must involve direct opposition.  At no point does the sidebar specifically override that requirement.  In fact, all of the examples and wording in the sidebar is about direct opposition.




Nothing indicates that the wording in the contests section supersedes that in the sidebar. All the sidebar requires is that prowess (Dexterity) be pitted against prowess (Dexterity). 



Maxperson said:


> This is just rubbish.  hundreds, if not a thousand times or more over the years I have declared that I am doing nothing on my turn, including round 1.  There are many reasons why such a declaration would be made and it doesn't go against the intent of the rules in any way, shape or form.




Of course it isn't against the rules to do nothing on your turn. What I mean is it's a corner case. The rules are built to allow you to do things on your turn, so saying you do nothing is going to make things like rolling initiative and having a turn seem superfluous.



Maxperson said:


> Nice Strawman.  I didn't say battle.  Winning initiative and doing nothing involves but a single round.




I didn't say you said that. I said "if" you said that. Also, initiative isn't part of any round, so technically what you're describing involves more than just a single round.


----------



## Satyrn (Oct 16, 2018)

Recursion ahoy!



MichaelSomething said:


> The next person I see that says natural language is better then jargon is gonna get pointed to this thread.




Natural language is definitely better than jargon.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 17, 2018)

Hriston said:


> You treat initiative as a discrete event in the fiction. How interesting! It's unclear to me from what you've written here, but it seems like you treat it as a sort of watching and waiting moment before anyone can take action. Is that right? What's also unclear is why there are sides and to what anyone is reacting if no attack is yet happening. Of course you won't know whose action and movement will be resolved first before initiative, but surely *something* has happened in the fiction to cause the DM to call for initiative in the first place. I know in my games it's what I've called a combat-initiating action declaration, but I'm curious what that event is like in your games.




It's based on intent.  You can usually tell when someone is hostile BEFORE they attack you, just as you can sometimes make mistakes and get into a combat with a side that wasn't going to ever attack you.  Initiative happens prior to any attack or the attack literally can't happen.



> Okay, so in your games, a player can't say, "I'm done haggling with this merchant! I unsheathe my sword and attack," until after initiative has been rolled? You see, to me, that's just the sort of thing that would *trigger* initiative being rolled.




In my game, too.  The player makes that declaration and before any sword attack happens, initiative is rolled.

Here's a major problem with treating the attack as happening before initiative is rolled.  The player says, "I'm done haggling with this merchant! I unsheathe my sword and attack!"  Now initiative is rolled and the merchants 4 guards all beat the PC.  All 4 hit, the first one knocks the PC unconscious and the other 3 kill him.  Under the way I run things, that's the end of it.  Under your system, the PC's attack has already happened and you have to roll to hit, even though the PC is now dead before his initiative comes up.  



> Attacks aren't *resolved* until after initiative is rolled, but I think I've made it clear that, *in my games, at least* one combat-initiating action has been established as being in the process of happening in the fiction before we roll initiative and is actually why initiative is rolled. That way we don't need to put scare quotes around combat. It's very clear that the combat rules are being used because combat has been established as occurring in the fiction.




And I have no problem with you doing that in your games.  If you want the attack to have happened before initiative is rolled, you can do that.  By RAW, though, that's impossible.



> Attacks are resolved after initiative is rolled. That doesn't mean the attacks aren't already established as happening when initiative is rolled. In my games, if you declare an action, that means your character is attempting that action.




It means he wants to attempt that action.  He may never get the chance to attempt it if he rolls poorly for initiative.



> Right, that's why the initiative roll is part of the resolution of the directly opposed efforts of the cube and the adventurers.
> 
> Of course it isn't against the rules to do nothing on your turn. What I mean is it's a corner case. The rules are built to allow you to do things on your turn, so saying you do nothing is going to make things like rolling initiative and having a turn seem superfluous.




It can't directly oppose.   You see, if it's possible for initiative to happen and a PC does nothing, and it's not a corner case as I see it happen once every few combats, then it can't require opposition.  If it required opposition, it wouldn't be possible to roll for it and do nothing.  



> Nothing indicates that the wording in the contests section supersedes that in the sidebar. All the sidebar requires is that prowess (Dexterity) be pitted against prowess (Dexterity).




It doesn't need to supersede the sidebar.  The sidebar agrees 100% with the contest section.  The Dex vs. Dex example is a one on one directly opposed contest.



> Also, initiative isn't part of any round, so technically what you're describing involves more than just a single round.




But all it takes is 1 single round of doing nothing to prove that initiative cannot be direct opposition, as doing nothing isn't any sort of opposition and initiative was still rolled.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 17, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> It's based on intent.  You can usually tell when someone is hostile BEFORE they attack you, just as you can sometimes make mistakes and get into a combat with a side that wasn't going to ever attack you.  Initiative happens prior to any attack or the attack literally can't happen.




So, you call for initiative the moment a participant intends to attack, right? If you're the DM, you know when the monsters are planning to attack and ask for initiative then, but how do you know when the PCs intend to attack? Do the players tell you their characters are contemplating an attack so you can call for initiative?



Maxperson said:


> In my game, too.  The player makes that declaration and before any sword attack happens, initiative is rolled.




Okay, but that's more than just thinking about attacking. That's an action declaration to attack. At that point in the fiction the character *is* attacking the merchant. Initiative is then rolled at the table as part of resolving that action declaration.



Maxperson said:


> Here's a major problem with treating the attack as happening before initiative is rolled.  The player says, "I'm done haggling with this merchant! I unsheathe my sword and attack!"  Now initiative is rolled and the merchants 4 guards all beat the PC.  All 4 hit, the first one knocks the PC unconscious and the other 3 kill him.  Under the way I run things, that's the end of it.  Under your system, the PC's attack has already happened and you have to roll to hit, even though the PC is now dead before his initiative comes up.




Why in your game did the merchant's guards suddenly decide to kill the PC in cold blood? According to everything you've told me about your game, the only thing that happened before that was the intent to attack the merchant had formed in the PC's mind. Those guards must be some terrific mind readers! And no, what you attribute to me is nothing like my game. In my game, the PC goes to unsheathe his sword so he can strike the merchant, and his guards, seeing this, react quickly and kill him before he can complete his attack. Combat is over before his turn comes up.



Maxperson said:


> And I have no problem with you doing that in your games.  If you want the attack to have happened before initiative is rolled, you can do that.  By RAW, though, that's impossible.




You aren't paying very close attention to what I've been saying. It's not that the attack *has* happened. It's that it's in the *process* of happening. The PC is in the *process* of unsheathing his sword and moving to attack the merchant. Direct conflict is underway and palpable. That's why the merchant's guards themselves move into action to defend their employer. Not only is this possible by the rules, but I believe it's intended.



Maxperson said:


> It means he wants to attempt that action.  He may never get the chance to attempt it if he rolls poorly for initiative.




No, he actually, in the fiction, attempts to attack the merchant, but he is apprehended and killed by the merchant's guards. The guards, in my game, wouldn't have killed him just for *wanting* to attack the merchant. I mean, they aren't *mind readers*!



Maxperson said:


> It can't directly oppose.   You see, if it's possible for initiative to happen and a PC does nothing, and it's not a corner case as I see it happen once every few combats, then it can't require opposition.  If it required opposition, it wouldn't be possible to roll for it and do nothing.




The combat rules presuppose opposition. If a player chooses to do nothing on his/her turn, not even taking the Dodge action, then that may very well be the best way to oppose his/her foes in that particular situation.



Maxperson said:


> It doesn't need to supersede the sidebar.  The sidebar agrees 100% with the contest section.  The Dex vs. Dex example is a one on one directly opposed contest.




I'm not sure what example you're talking about, but that's exactly what I'm saying initiative is: a one on one, DEX vs. DEX contest between you and anyone that takes opposing action, its main idiosyncrasy being that, similar to how a single DEX check stands for the entire time a character attempts to stay hidden, your initiative roll result stands for the entire time you're in combat.



Maxperson said:


> But all it takes is 1 single round of doing nothing to prove that initiative cannot be direct opposition, as doing nothing isn't any sort of opposition and initiative was still rolled.




You aren't going to convince me that opponents in combat aren't in opposition to each other, so we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 17, 2018)

Hriston said:


> So, you call for initiative the moment a participant intends to attack, right? If you're the DM, you know when the monsters are planning to attack and ask for initiative then, but how do you know when the PCs intend to attack? Do the players tell you their characters are contemplating an attack so you can call for initiative?
> 
> Okay, but that's more than just thinking about attacking. That's an action declaration to attack. At that point in the fiction the character *is* attacking the merchant. Initiative is then rolled at the table as part of resolving that action declaration.




No.  It's simply false that a declaration to attack is an attack.  It's a declaration and nothing more.



> Why in your game did the merchant's guards suddenly decide to kill the PC in cold blood? According to everything you've told me about your game, the only thing that happened before that was the intent to attack the merchant had formed in the PC's mind. Those guards must be some terrific mind readers! And no, what you attribute to me is nothing like my game. In my game, the PC goes to unsheathe his sword so he can strike the merchant, and his guards, seeing this, react quickly and kill him before he can complete his attack. Combat is over before his turn comes up.




A body language shift and/or he's reaching for his sword.  What those things aren't, though, is an attack.  The attack can't happen until after initiative. 



> You aren't paying very close attention to what I've been saying. It's not that the attack *has* happened. It's that it's in the *process* of happening. The PC is in the *process* of unsheathing his sword and moving to attack the merchant. Direct conflict is underway and palpable. That's why the merchant's guards themselves move into action to defend their employer. Not only is this possible by the rules, but I believe it's intended.




In the process does not equal an attack, though.  It's not an attack until the person actually, you know, attacks.



> The combat rules presuppose opposition.




So what.  That doesn't make initiative opposition.  Does the combat section as a whole presume opposition?  Yes.  Does every combat rule involve opposition?  Not even close.



> If a player chooses to do nothing on his/her turn, not even taking the Dodge action, then that may very well be the best way to oppose his/her foes in that particular situation.




LOL



> You aren't going to convince me that opponents in combat aren't in opposition to each other, so we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.



Great!  Since I never once claimed that.  We can agree to disagree about something I never said or agreed with in the first place.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 17, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Initiative is rolled at the table, but initiative is an in game event that happens prior to attacks happening.  ...
> 
> No movement can happen and no attack can happen until AFTER initiative is rolled.  This is true with or without surprise.
> 
> ...






			
				Hriston said:
			
		

> Attacks aren't resolved until after initiative is rolled ...
> 
> Attacks are resolved after initiative is rolled. That doesn't mean the attacks aren't already established as happening when initiative is rolled. ...
> 
> Right, that's why the initiative roll is part of the resolution ...



Ye gods, I'm having flashbacks to the rules arguments I sat through back when I was serious about M:tG...declaration of attack, resolution of attack, combat phase...next thing you'll both be on about is who's the active player and what order the reactions can happen in.

Lan-"I'm not entirely sure this represents 5e in the way the designers had in mind"-efan


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 17, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Ye gods, I'm having flashbacks to the rules arguments I sat through back when I was serious about M:tG...declaration of attack, resolution of attack, combat phase...next thing...




I interrupted you!


----------



## Hussar (Oct 17, 2018)

Can someone please summarize this for me?  I've totally lost track of this.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 17, 2018)

Hriston said:


> that's more than just thinking about attacking. That's an action declaration to attack. At that point in the fiction the character *is* attacking the merchant. Initiative is then rolled at the table as part of resolving that action declaration.



I think [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is from the school of thought that player action declarations don't in themselves change the fiction until they're mediated through whatever resolution process the GM calls for. As you note, this creates "mind reading" puzzles in some contexts, and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s response is that something happened in the fiction ("A body language shift and/or he's reaching for his sword") which is physical enough to perceptibly manifest an intention but muted enough to not violate the basic principle of this school of thought.

The strongest proponent of this school of thought on these boards is Saelorn (I can't mention him because he has me blocked), but it's one I've seen advocated by other posters quite frequently. It is typically connected to other views about the roles of GM vs players in establishing the content of the shared fiction. In its strongest form, a player action declaration is best understood as a _suggestion_ to the GM that the GM incorporate the occurrence of a certain event into the shared fiction.



Hriston said:


> You’re still mixing things up. Initiative is rolled at the table. Attacks happen in the fiction. You’re using the order of mechanical resolution to make an argument about the chronology of events in the fiction, which is like comparing apples to oranges. Initiative doesn’t relate to a discrete fictional event the way an attack roll does. What it represents in the fiction is a continuous effort to move and act quickly that lasts throughout the entire combat encounter.



This reminded me of the following comments by Ron Edwards:

The causal sequence of task resolution in Simulationist play must be linear in time. He swings: on target or not? The other guy dodges or parries: well or badly? The weapon contacts the unit of armor + body: how hard? The armor stops some of it: how much? The remaining impact hits tissue: how deeply? With what psychological (stunning, pain) effects? With what continuing effects? All of this is settled in order, on this guy's "go," and the next guy's "go" is simply waiting its turn, in time. 

The few exceptions have always been accompanied by explanatory text, sometimes apologetic and sometimes blase. A good example is classic hit location, in which the characters first roll to-hit and to-parry, then hit location for anywhere on the body (RuneQuest, GURPS). Cognitively, to the Simulationist player, this requires a replay of the character's intent and action that is nearly intolerable. It often breaks down in play, either switching entirely to called shots and abandoning the location roll, or waiting on the parry roll until the hit location is known. Another good example is rolling for initiative, which has generated hours of painful argument about what in the world it represents in-game, at the moment of the roll relative to in-game time.​
When I first read this I was in my fifteenth year, or thereabouts, of GMing Rolemaster, and thus intimately familiar and imbued with the requisite simulationist sensibilities. It explained why, of all the optional/supplementary systems found in the seven volumes of Rolemaster Companions, _initiative_ was the one that got the most attention and had the most variations, all trying to cope with this question about what it represents.

I haven't played RM for about 10 years now, but I currently play and GM another system which - in its core resolution mechanics - has very similar simulationist leanings, namely, Burning Wheel. And interestingly it doesn't have an initiative system at all! - it relies on (a moderately complex system of) blind scripting and simultaneous declaration and resolution.

Classic Traveller - another ultra-sim system that I am currently GMing - has no initiative either but rather simultaneous resolution. (It's not clear whether declarations are meant to be blind or not, but combat hasn't been a big enough part of our Traveller game for this to really need deciding in any non-ad hoc way.)

(Also, for completeness: Traveller has parry rules but no hit location so the other problem Edwards notes doesn't come up; RM has parrying which factors into (among other things) determining critical severity; and the crit roll determines both hit location and the bulk of the damage; so I think there is less dissonance in this respect than RQ; but the bump in the rug for RM is that it has a lot of trouble with piecemeal armour whereas RQ handles that very elegantly.)


----------



## pemerton (Oct 17, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Can someone please summarize this for me?  I've totally lost track of this.



My summary is perhaps biased because I think   [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] is right.

The questions are:

Is rolling initiative an aspect of combat resolution?

Is rolling initiative a type of stat-check contest?​
   [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] answers yes to both questions, along the following lines:

If a player (for a PC) or the GM (for a NPC) declares a combat-ish action (attacking with a weapon, fireballing, etc) then (i) the combat rules are activated, and (ii) two sides (in the typical case, at least) are in opposition in respect of the just-commenced battle.

The fact of (i) refers us to the combat rules, which say to do various stuff at the start of combat including determining initiative for each participant. The fact of (ii) helps us understand how and why determining initiative is a type of stat-check contest: we have these opposed entities, each trying (literally) to get and retain the initiative in the battle that has just commenced, and so we use DEX for this (because it's the quickness/reaction time stat) and we compare results to work out who wins (because that's how contests work); and, because there are (often) more than two participants, we rank the non-winners by result (which is a logical extrapolation from the simple case of only two opponents).​
   [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] answers no to both questions, along the following lines:

A contest depends upon opposition. (He also has views about _direct _opposition, but I think they can be set aside for economy.) Combat involves opposition; but combat doesn't commence until one entity attacks another; and an attack is not commenced/made until an attack action is declared; and an attack action cannot be declared until a character's turn comes up; and no one's turn _can_ come up until an initiative order is established; and establishing such an order depends upon making initiative checks; hence initiative checks happen prior to combat commencing and prior to any opposition arising; hence initiative checks are not a stat-check contest, even though they might superficially look like it.​
An apparent consequence of Maxperson's approach is that the GM has to call for initiative checks based on some sort of intuition, or an apprehension of the _possibility_ that an attack might be declared once the initiative sequence is established and hence characters start taking turns.

Hriston points to this consequence as one that _divorces_ the call for initiative from that mechanic's place in the combat chapter; and adduces this as evidence in favour of the alternative view!

As I said, I think Hriston is right. But as per my post just upthread, I also think it's no surprise that this is contentious.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 17, 2018)

pemerton said:


> My summary is perhaps biased because I think   [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] is right.
> 
> The questions are:
> 
> ...




Not quite.  Initiative is an aspect of combat resolution as combat cannot resolve without it.  It just doesn't doesn't involve opposition as actions it allows don't have to oppose anyone or anything.  The resulting actions are where opposition comes into play.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 17, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Can someone please summarize this for me?  I've totally lost track of this.




Two factions are having an extremely pedantic argument over the exact nature of initiative that in no way affects how the game is played or how initiative is used or defined. 
It's basically fifty pages of internet forum discussing rules with the intensity of arguing over what defines a sandwich.


----------



## cmad1977 (Oct 17, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Two factions are having an extremely pedantic argument over the exact nature of initiative that in no way affects how the game is played or how initiative is used or defined.
> It's basically fifty pages of internet forum discussing rules with the intensity of arguing over what defines a sandwich.




Yes. The list of people who’s input regarding the game I discard out of hand has gone up by at least two after going through this thread.


----------



## SkidAce (Oct 17, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Can someone please summarize this for me?  I've totally lost track of this.




Voila...

View attachment 102430


----------



## Hriston (Oct 17, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> No.  It's simply false that a declaration to attack is an attack.  It's a declaration and nothing more.




An action declaration to attack someone is something a player says at the table. An attack is a fictional event established in the fiction by said declaration. I haven't said those were the same thing, so if that's what you mean you must have misread something, but what I think you mean to say instead is that the only thing the player's action declaration establishes in the fiction is that his/her PC intends to attack. To me, that doesn't give the DM much to work with in resolving the actions of the PCs because it doesn't establish any actions. If all the players are allowed to say is the intent of their PCs then it would seem it's up to the DM to say what the PCs actually do in the fiction, at which point s/he's basically playing the players' characters for them. On the other hand, perhaps this distinction is mostly semantic.



Maxperson said:


> A body language shift and/or he's reaching for his sword.  What those things aren't, though, is an attack.  The attack can't happen until after initiative.




I'm surprised that you're admitting "reaching for his sword" into the fiction before initiative. I would think, given your approach, that was something that couldn't happen until the PC's turn. Nevertheless, it seems to establish opposition before initiative.



Maxperson said:


> In the process does not equal an attack, though.  It's not an attack until the person actually, you know, attacks.




If I swing a punch at someone but haven't yet made contact (nor have I missed them), would you say I'm attacking them or not? 



Maxperson said:


> So what.  That doesn't make initiative opposition.  Does the combat section as a whole presume opposition?  Yes.  Does every combat rule involve opposition?  Not even close.




It presents the initiative rules in the context of opposition.



Maxperson said:


> LOL




If you don't think doing nothing on your turn is a valid strategy for opposing your foes, then why did you do it?



Maxperson said:


> Great!  Since I never once claimed that.  We can agree to disagree about something I never said or agreed with in the first place.




Well, you're saying that opponents in combat aren't in opposition to each other when they roll initiative, aren't you? I don't agree that they stop opposing each other to roll initiative.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 18, 2018)

Hriston said:


> what I think you mean to say instead is that the only thing the player's action declaration establishes in the fiction is that his/her PC intends to attack. To me, that doesn't give the DM much to work with in resolving the actions of the PCs because it doesn't establish any actions. If all the players are allowed to say is the intent of their PCs then it would seem it's up to the DM to say what the PCs actually do in the fiction, at which point s/he's basically playing the players' characters for them.




This is untrue.  They declare their action, which includes signaling that the other side can pick up.  Initiative is rolled.  When the player gets his turn, he tells me what they do in the fiction, which doesn't have to be what they declared initially as things may have changed.  At no point am I dictating what the PCs do.  It's astounding that you could actually end up there from what I said.



> I'm surprised that you're admitting "reaching for his sword" into the fiction before initiative. I would think, given your approach, that was something that couldn't happen until the PC's turn. Nevertheless, it seems to establish opposition before initiative.




Opposition to what?  He's just reaching for a sword.



> If I swing a punch at someone but haven't yet made contact (nor have I missed them), would you say I'm attacking them or not?



If it's after initiative, yes.  If it's before, you haven't taken a swing.  You can't take the attack action, which is what a punch is, until after initiative is rolled. 



> It presents the initiative rules in the context of opposition.




No it doesn't.  It presents them in the context of determining order of turns.  It explicitly says  this.  It's the first line for God's sake, "Initiative determines the order of turns during combat."



> If you don't think doing nothing on your turn is a valid strategy for opposing your foes, then why did you do it?




Nothing to do.  Conservation of resources.  I don't agree with attacking these people.  Other reasons.  Opposing the enemy hasn't ever been a consideration when I decide to do nothing.



> Well, you're saying that opponents in combat aren't in opposition to each other when they roll initiative, aren't you? I don't agree that they stop opposing each other to roll initiative.




Opposition doesn't happen(and then only possibly) until someone takes the first action.  Before that, when one or both sides do something to cause the perception if imminent combat, you determine surprise, then establish positions, then roll initiative.  It's a pretty lame order as far as I'm concerned.  If you don't know the positions, you can't really determine surprise, but whatever.  That's the order they pick.  Once initiative has been rolled and people start taking actions, they can opt to take actions that pull them into opposition, like attacking or grappling.  Or they can take an action that doesn't involve opposition, like searching for an object, drinking a potion, casting a spell that doesn't oppose anything, moving and stopping and much much more!!


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 18, 2018)

pemerton said:


> My summary is perhaps biased because I think   [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] is right.
> 
> The questions are:
> 
> ...



And all of this presupposes turn-based cyclical play where initiative isn't re-rolled or otherwise redetermined each round or at some other regular interval during the combat.

If re-rolling is in play then initiative most certainly does become an integral part of combat resolution...after the first round.

The difference in the first round is that someone (or a number of someones) might be able to act before anyone else is aware of it - as in Max's example of suddenly pulling a sword and attacking.  Here some other mechanic - be it surprise or flat-footed or whatever else - is required to determine who gets to act right away vs. who is caught off guard.  Otherwise what ends up happening all too often is that the dice don't match the intended-by-the-player narrative: Max pulls out a sword and swings, thus triggering initiatives, but somehow ends up near the bottom of the initiative order even though his supposedly acting first is the reason they were rolled at all!  Personally, I often find this quite annoying when it happens.

Lanefan


----------



## S'mon (Oct 18, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Otherwise what ends up happening all too often is that the dice don't match the intended-by-the-player narrative: Max pulls out a sword and swings, thus triggering initiatives, but somehow ends up near the bottom of the initiative order even though his supposedly acting first is the reason they were rolled at all!  Personally, I often find this quite annoying when it happens.




Me too. Some reasonable solutions include:

Max rolls Deception vs target Sense Motive to achieve Surprise. Then roll initiative. But what about Max's allies?
Max has Surprise, everyone else is Surprised, roll initiative.
Max gets Advantage on his Initiative check.
Max gets a free attack outside the combat round system. Then roll initiative.

I've probably used all of these depending on the circumstances, but for 5e I think simply giving Max advantage on the init check is the most elegant solution.


----------



## Sadras (Oct 18, 2018)

S'mon said:


> I've probably used all of these depending on the circumstances, but for 5e I think simply giving Max advantage on the init check is the most elegant solution.




We have used this or with Max rolling but having a minimum 10 + Initiative Modifier.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 18, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> And all of this presupposes turn-based cyclical play where initiative isn't re-rolled or otherwise redetermined each round or at some other regular interval during the combat.



Of course! It's a discussion about the nature of 5e's intitiative rules, and 5e uses turn-by-turn combat resolution very similar to 3E and 4e.



Lanefan said:


> The difference in the first round is that someone (or a number of someones) might be able to act before anyone else is aware of it - as in Max's example of suddenly pulling a sword and attacking.  Here some other mechanic - be it surprise or flat-footed or whatever else - is required to determine who gets to act right away vs. who is caught off guard.  Otherwise what ends up happening all too often is that the dice don't match the intended-by-the-player narrative: Max pulls out a sword and swings, thus triggering initiatives, but somehow ends up near the bottom of the initiative order even though his supposedly acting first is the reason they were rolled at all!  Personally, I often find this quite annoying when it happens.



 [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] has already discussed this - if Max loses initiative, then (among other things) we learn that he is not very quick on the draw! It's certainly not unheard of in genre fiction for the villains to _try_ and get the drop on the hero, only for the latter to react unexpectedly quickly and turn the tables!

In 4e, Max might well get surprise if the others involved don't succeed on an appropriate Insight or Perception check. [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] has given some suggestions for how 5e would deal with this.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 18, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Of course! It's a discussion about the nature of 5e's intitiative rules, and 5e uses turn-by-turn combat resolution very similar to 3E and 4e.



Yes it does, but it doesn't have to.  Neither do 3e and 4e, for all that.



> [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] has already discussed this - if Max loses initiative, then (among other things) we learn that he is not very quick on the draw!



Which blows up the player-intended narrative of his swing being the thing that in fact starts the fight.



> It's certainly not unheard of in genre fiction for the villains to _try_ and get the drop on the hero, only for the latter to react unexpectedly quickly and turn the tables!



True, but it's overused there too and happens far more often than random chance would dictate.



> In 4e, Max might well get surprise if the others involved don't succeed on an appropriate Insight or Perception check. [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] has given some suggestions for how 5e would deal with this.



Saw those.  Another option in a case like this might be to just peg Max's initiative at a flat 20 and let everyone else roll, and if anyone beats 20 then so be it; otherwise he goes first.

The problem with this in a cyclic system is that any of these solutions lock Max into a high initiative for the whole combat, where it should really only be forced high for the first swing and after that be at some random point in the round - yet another argument in favour of re-rolling each round.  A further and probably messier argument can be made saying that because Max's swing is what starts the fight he should get that swing in effect as an out-of-round freebie - particularly if he catches his foe off guard - and then roll init. normally with everyone else after that.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 18, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Ye gods, I'm having flashbacks to the rules arguments I sat through back when I was serious about M:tG...declaration of attack, resolution of attack, combat phase...next thing you'll both be on about is who's the active player and what order the reactions can happen in.
> 
> Lan-"I'm not entirely sure this represents 5e in the way the designers had in mind"-efan




I think the question is whether declaring an attack or some other action that triggers resort to the combat rules is constitutive of fiction in which the participants are in opposition to one another. I clearly think it is, as are many other sorts of action declarations such as trying to determine the true intentions of an NPC that's lying to you or trying to notice a hidden threat. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] seems to think it isn't, due to his treatment of such action declarations as basically provisional until after initiative has been rolled. My problem with that is if there's no in-fiction conflict then why are combat rules like initiative being invoked?


----------



## Jester David (Oct 18, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> The difference in the first round is that someone (or a number of someones) might be able to act before anyone else is aware of it - as in Max's example of suddenly pulling a sword and attacking.  Here some other mechanic - be it surprise or flat-footed or whatever else - is required to determine who gets to act right away vs. who is caught off guard.  Otherwise what ends up happening all too often is that the dice don't match the intended-by-the-player narrative: Max pulls out a sword and swings, thus triggering initiatives, but somehow ends up near the bottom of the initiative order even though his supposedly acting first is the reason they were rolled at all!  Personally, I often find this quite annoying when it happens.



In that example, most of the time I rule/ describe that people can see him going for his sword and react accordingly. They’re just a faster draw. In the tense stand-off over a poker game, no one is “surprised” by someone drawing, and the person who slaps leather first might not be the one who shoots first.
If “Max” rolls poorly in such a situation, that can be reflected in the narrative, with Max’s weapon catching in the scabbard. 

In certain situations where there is more of an ambush or unexpected attack from unsurprised individuals, such as when the party is talking with someone and the unseen rogue attacks, I typically just start on their initiative turn. People who rolled better than the initiating rogue just end up unknowingly using their first turn talking or taking other actions.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 19, 2018)

As I recall, rerolling initiative is an optional rule in 5e.  IDHMBIFOM, but, I seem to recall something about that in the 5e DMG.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 19, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> This is untrue.  They declare their action, which includes signaling that the other side can pick up.  Initiative is rolled.  When the player gets his turn, he tells me what they do in the fiction, which doesn't have to be what they declared initially as things may have changed.  At no point am I dictating what the PCs do.  It's astounding that you could actually end up there from what I said.




You said it was *nothing more* than a declaration, which is something a player says at a table in the real world. To me that sounds like you mean it has no effect on the fiction, but now you've included the detail that it "includes signaling that the other side can pick up". That's pretty vague, but it clearly means that the action declaration does establish in the fiction that the PC is "signalling" the intent to commence hostilities, i.e. action that may provoke *opposing* action from the other side.



Maxperson said:


> Opposition to what?  He's just reaching for a sword.




Assuming the merchant wants to keep living, it establishes opposition between the PC and the merchant on which s/he's planning on using the sword.



Maxperson said:


> If it's after initiative, yes.  If it's before, you haven't taken a swing.  You can't take the attack action, which is what a punch is, until after initiative is rolled.




Then the answer is "yes", isn't it? As a DM, you don't allow the punch-swinging character's arms to move until after initiative has been rolled, and that's fine for your games. But once it's that character's turn, and s/he takes his/her swing, before the attack hits or misses, there's a moment in which the swing is in process and the character is attacking. That moment can be established in the fiction before rolling initiative in my games. All I'm concerned with happening after initiative is the *resolution* of the attack, the hit or the miss. I believe that initiative exists as a mechanic to tell us the order in which events are resolved, not when they're initiated.



Maxperson said:


> No it doesn't.  It presents them in the context of determining order of turns.  It explicitly says  this.  It's the first line for God's sake, "Initiative determines the order of turns during combat."




It's the "during combat" that gives you the context that initiative takes place in a situation where sides in a conflict are opposing one another.



Maxperson said:


> Nothing to do.  Conservation of resources.  I don't agree with attacking these people.  Other reasons.  Opposing the enemy hasn't ever been a consideration when I decide to do nothing.




Forgive me if that doesn't sound like a very interesting battle. Why isn't there anything to do, and why are you in a battle with people you don't want to attack?



Maxperson said:


> Opposition doesn't happen(and then only possibly) until someone takes the first action.  Before that, when one or both sides do something to cause the perception if imminent combat, you determine surprise, then establish positions, then roll initiative.  It's a pretty lame order as far as I'm concerned.  If you don't know the positions, you can't really determine surprise, but whatever.  That's the order they pick.  Once initiative has been rolled and people start taking actions, they can opt to take actions that pull them into opposition, like attacking or grappling.  Or they can take an action that doesn't involve opposition, like searching for an object, drinking a potion, casting a spell that doesn't oppose anything, moving and stopping and much much more!!




It's in what they do "to cause the perception of imminent combat" that I'm interested. That's what throws the sides into opposition.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 19, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Which blows up the player-intended narrative of his swing being the thing that in fact starts the fight.



This is where other aspects of action resolution methodology come into play.

For instance, in a "say 'yes' or roll the dice" framework, the GM can just "say 'yes'" and allow Max's sword blow to hit and/or kill the opponent (depending exactly what the action declaration is to which "yes" is being said).

In 5e, the GM could simply rule that there is no uncertainty and hence Max hits and deals damage.

But in a system like 5e - in which the rules are not a simulation but rather a device for managing changes in the fiction (this is evidenced by the fact that the GM is obliged to invoke the rules only if s/he thinks the situation warrants it) - _once the rules are invoked_ then player intent is not going to contribute to the outcomes except as mediated through those rules. So Max's player might _want _to be the one who strike first, but if the rules have been invoked then that outcome is precluded unless he gets the best initiative check.



Lanefan said:


> Ye gods, I'm having flashbacks to the rules arguments I sat through back when I was serious about M:tG...declaration of attack, resolution of attack, combat phase...next thing you'll both be on about is who's the active player and what order the reactions can happen in.
> 
> Lan-"I'm not entirely sure this represents 5e in the way the designers had in mind"-efan



You can't introduce a turn-by-turn resolution system, with rules for actions and reactions and bonus actions and the lilke, and yet not intend this sort of discussion to arise. They go together!

For more discussion on pretty much the same channel, drop into the currently active "Shield Master" thread!


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 19, 2018)

Hriston said:


> You said it was *nothing more* than a declaration, which is something a player says at a table in the real world. To me that sounds like you mean it has no effect on the fiction, but now you've included the detail that it "includes signaling that the other side can pick up". That's pretty vague, but it clearly means that the action declaration does establish in the fiction that the PC is "signalling" the intent to commence hostilities, i.e. action that may provoke *opposing* action from the other side.




The declaration is by the player.  The signaling is occurring in the game. 



> Assuming the merchant wants to keep living, it establishes opposition between the PC and the merchant on which s/he's planning on using the sword.




The merchant in my example did nothing.  He's a weak NPC putz.  That's why he has guards.  The action was over before he realized that he came close to death.



> Then the answer is "yes", isn't it? As a DM, you don't allow the punch-swinging character's arms to move until after initiative has been rolled, and that's fine for your games. But once it's that character's turn, and s/he takes his/her swing, before the attack hits or misses, there's a moment in which the swing is in process and the character is attacking. That moment can be established in the fiction before rolling initiative in my games.




That moment doesn't exist by RAW.  You don't get to attack until after initiative.  It's okay for you to do it that way in your games of course, but I'm discussing the rules as they are written.  Not the rules as they are changed.  By RAW, there is never a point in which a character can be attacking until after initiative is rolled.

And the arm can move.  It just can't attack.  The PC draws back to punch and ends up knocked out because he loses initiative to the 5 friends of the guy he was about to punch.  He pulled back his arm to launch the attack, but the attack never came.  Or alternatively, he does manage to attack AFTER initiative is rolled.




> It's the "during combat" that gives you the context that initiative takes place in a situation where sides in a conflict are opposing one another.




Sides opposing one another does not make initiative an opposed ability check.  I've already demonstrated several things that you can do while sides are opposed to one another that don't involve opposition of any kind.



> Forgive me if that doesn't sound like a very interesting battle. Why isn't there anything to do, and why are you in a battle with people you don't want to attack?




Perhaps the rest of the group has it easily in hand and I don't want to waste resources.  Perhaps there is simply no gain in it or me personally.  Perhaps we are being attacked by a group we know to be innocent or allies, but which aren't aware that we are with them and I don't want to harm them.  Perhaps hundreds of other reasons.  Use your imagination a bit.  It's not hard to see many reasons why you would do nothing that don't involved boredom.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 19, 2018)

Jester David said:


> In certain situations where there is more of an ambush or unexpected attack from unsurprised individuals, such as when the party is talking with someone and the unseen rogue attacks, I typically just start on their initiative turn. People who rolled better than the initiating rogue just end up unknowingly using their first turn talking or taking other actions.




I don't like that at all since it penalises characters for having high Init, and a DEX bonus or Alertness feat become negatives. 

Leaving aside RAW, I think it makes a lot more sense to keep the init roll as always higher-is-better, and allow unexpected attacks prior to the init roll if necessary.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 19, 2018)

S'mon said:


> I don't like that at all since it penalises characters for having high Init, and a DEX bonus or Alertness feat become negatives.
> 
> Leaving aside RAW, I think it makes a lot more sense to keep the init roll as always higher-is-better, and allow unexpected attacks prior to the init roll if necessary.




Having a high initiative is good for the first round of combat at best. Then initiative stops being a linear progression and becomes a cycle where it doesn't matter who rolled high or low. 

The thing is, starting with the initiator doesn't necessarily _punish _those with a high Dexterity, because the initiator *might* roll really high. Or really low and those with a high initiative follow them anyway. Realistically, people also roll poorly for initiative all the damn time, so I'm also "rewarding" people who had bad luck. There's even a decent chance a character with a normally high initiative rolled poorly in any given fight since the Alert rogue only gets a +10 and the dice add 1-20. 
Plus, characters with a high Dexterity has a high probability of being one likely to be hiding and starting trouble anyway, so this allows them to act first even if their initiative roll betrays them. Which is especially useful for assassin rogues.

Also, there's generally a tactical advantage from an ambush, so the players are being rewarded by enabling that. I like to reward smart, strategic play and not handicap cool strategies by slavishly adhering to RAW. 

This is also not the "norm" of initiative. Most fights have initiative rolled normally. I only do this when it would be weird and disrupting the narrative for that character to come later in the initiative order. So those with bonuses still get to act sooner (on average) in the majority of normal fights.


----------



## SkidAce (Oct 19, 2018)

Jester David said:


> In certain situations where there is more of an ambush or unexpected attack from unsurprised individuals, such as when the party is talking with someone and the unseen rogue attacks, I typically just start on their initiative turn. People who rolled better than the initiating rogue just end up unknowingly using their first turn talking or taking other actions.




I clicked laugh when I meant XP.


----------



## SkidAce (Oct 19, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> That moment doesn't exist by RAW.  You don't get to attack until after initiative.  It's okay for you to do it that way in your games of course, but I'm discussing the rules as they are written.  Not the rules as they are changed.  By RAW, there is never a point in which a character can be attacking until after initiative is rolled.




Just for MY clarity on your point...

If the unseen/undetected archer shot an arrow out of the darkness at the PCs, you would roll initiative, go through the order (assuming surprise) and then describe the arrow flying into the group when it got to the archers turn?

Or you would start with the "narrative" of the arrow, then roll init as above?


----------



## Numidius (Oct 19, 2018)

As per Zeno's paradox, that arrow should never hit the pc...
Nor Achilles win those contests against the tortoise


----------



## Satyrn (Oct 19, 2018)

Numidius said:


> As per Zeno's paradox, that arrow should never hit the pc...
> Nor Achilles win those contests against the tortoise




I suppose Achilles is worried that the tortoise will pull a Mike Tyson when he tries passing. 


. . . The tortoise being so short he's bound to get nowhere close to the ear and rather sink his jaw into Achilles' heel


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 19, 2018)

SkidAce said:


> Just for MY clarity on your point...
> 
> If the unseen/undetected archer shot an arrow out of the darkness at the PCs, you would roll initiative, go through the order (assuming surprise) and then describe the arrow flying into the group when it got to the archers turn?
> 
> Or you would start with the "narrative" of the arrow, then roll init as above?




In prior editions I'd just have the arrow fly out of nowhere.  In 5e, though, it would be wrong to do that in my opinion.  Especially since surprise and positioning have already been determined or the archer wouldn't be able to get ready to fire. Initiative would be rolled before the arrow was released, though.  Perhaps the creak of the bow or some animal being spooked potentially alerted the PCs.  The reason I'd do this is that if any of the PCs win initiative, he will potentially have a reaction that can be used against the attacker that is now revealed by the shot.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 19, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> In prior editions I'd just have the arrow fly out of nowhere.  In 5e, though, it would be wrong to do that in my opinion.  Especially since surprise and positioning have already been determined or the archer wouldn't be able to get ready to fire.



The example specified unseen and undetected, though, so the party in theory is off guard when the shot is taken. 


> Initiative would be rolled before the arrow was released, though.  Perhaps the creak of the bow or some animal being spooked potentially alerted the PCs.



This is exactly why there needs to be a separate surprise mechanic in the game, to deal with just this sort of thing outside of initiative.  Passive perception kinda waves at this, I suppose, though from what I've seen elsewhere in here it has problems too.


> The reason I'd do this is that if any of the PCs win initiative, he will potentially have a reaction that can be used against the attacker that is now revealed by the shot.



If they're not surprised, sure.  But without a surprise system a lot of realism is needlessly getting sacrificed to game mechanics in this example.  Bleah.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 19, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> The example specified unseen and undetected, though, so the party in theory is off guard when the shot is taken.




The party is in theory off guard during every surprise.  That's what makes it a surprise. 



> This is exactly why there needs to be a separate surprise mechanic in the game, to deal with just this sort of thing outside of initiative.  Passive perception kinda waves at this, I suppose, though from what I've seen elsewhere in here it has problems too.




Yeah.  I'm not sure how much I like this.  I'm just now preparing to run 5e for the first time and so I'm sticking to the books to learn the system as it is before I start tinkering with it.  I like to know what I'm doing before I start tossing in the wrenches. 



> If they're not surprised, sure.  But without a surprise system a lot of realism is needlessly getting sacrificed to game mechanics in this example.  Bleah.




I agree, but see above.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 20, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> The party is in theory off guard during every surprise.  That's what makes it a surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Seriously?!?!?  With all the back and forth about how the system works, you've never actually run it?  Good grief. X(


----------



## S'mon (Oct 20, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Seriously?!?!?  With all the back and forth about how the system works, you've never actually run it?  Good grief. X(




This is the usual danger with arguing on the Internet.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 20, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Seriously?!?!?  With all the back and forth about how the system works, you've never actually run it?  Good grief. X(




I've played it, and I can read and understand the rules(like say, initiative  ), but running the game gives a greater understanding.


----------



## epithet (Oct 20, 2018)

There is nothing magical about initiative; it doesn't activate the combat mini-game, or empower character abilities. It's very simple, really. When you need to know who goes first, use initiative. If everything happens at more-or-less the same time, you don't need it.

You seem to be getting hung up on pedantic nonsense instead of just understanding how the game works.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 21, 2018)

epithet said:


> There is nothing magical about initiative; it doesn't activate the combat mini-game, or empower character abilities. It's very simple, really. When you need to know who goes first, use initiative. If everything happens at more-or-less the same time, you don't need it.
> 
> You seem to be getting hung up on pedantic nonsense instead of just understanding how the game works.




Exactly.  Initiative just is.  It's not some sort of ability contest.


----------



## 5ekyu (Oct 21, 2018)

epithet said:


> There is nothing magical about initiative; it doesn't activate the combat mini-game, or empower character abilities. It's very simple, really. When you need to know who goes first, use initiative. If everything happens at more-or-less the same time, you don't need it.
> 
> You seem to be getting hung up on pedantic nonsense instead of just understanding how the game works.




But really this is about understanding how the game works.

RAW - initiative *is* an ability check, not just something else entirely. that means guidance and a host of other effects can be applied to adjust your initiative check. Also, since it is just an ability check, it can have either advantage or disadvantage applied due to the reasons that allow advantage and disadvantage to be applied. That alone should be HUGE in terms of several of the key providers of advantage and disadvantage - 
*Do circumstances, environmental factors, particular cunning or previous actions give the character an edge  - allowing advantage on the DEX check for initiative?*

Do circumstantial aspect, environmental factors not already factored in or some aspect of the plan/actions place the character at a diasadvantage or make it more likely they would not go first? if so, disadvantage on the DEX check for initiative.

If it were some separate thing all its on, not an ability check, there would be no such clarity that advantage could be applied.

i think that for instance a number of the "but we should get surprise" that dont quite really qualify for surprise are very well handled by advantage or disadvantage on init rolls to reflect those "circumstances" or "plans".

As an ability check, its also entirely possible for the Gm to invoke the "some progress with setback" as well (theoretically if one was third or lower on the init list) but i for one do not choose to invoke "some progress with setback" on GM called for skill checks usually (some exceptions.)


----------



## epithet (Oct 21, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Exactly.  Initiative just is.  It's not some sort of ability contest.




Well, it is, sort of. It is a contest to see who goes first. It is an opposed ability check, but you're right that it isn't like the typical check. For most ability checks, you say "I want the thing to happen" and then if you win the check, it happens. In this case, it's just an issue of who has the highest combined score, then who's in second place, etc. It is an opposed ability check that doesn't return a binary result.

But--and here's I think the big point of all this--it doesn't really matter. You know it's an ability check, so the Jack of All Trades feature applies, but beyond that you can call it what you want.


----------



## epithet (Oct 21, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> ...initiative *is* an ability check, not just something else entirely. that means guidance and a host of other effects can be applied to adjust your initiative check. Also, since it is just an ability check, it can have either advantage or disadvantage applied due to the reasons that allow advantage and disadvantage to be applied. That alone should be HUGE in terms of several of the key providers of advantage and disadvantage - ...




Absolutely. I think everyone agrees that it it an ability check. That's important, too, for the reasons you mention.

The debate seems to be, for whatever reason, whether it is an ability _contest_. I don't really get that part. I mean, I roll a dex check, you roll a dex check, and we compare them to see who has the highest score. Seems like a contest to me, but as I said above: it doesn't matter. It's not a typical opposed check, so call it what you want.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 21, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> The declaration is by the player.  The signaling is occurring in the game.




What about my post makes you think I don't already know this?



Maxperson said:


> The merchant in my example did nothing.  He's a weak NPC putz.  That's why he has guards.  The action was over before he realized that he came close to death.




Nevertheless, I'm sure he's opposed to someone trying to kill him.



Maxperson said:


> That moment doesn't exist by RAW.




Of course it does. The rules don’t say there’s no part of the swing midway between the punch being pulled back and it making contact. It’s a moment that “exists” in the fiction just as it would if the same situation happened in the real world. 



Maxperson said:


> You don't get to attack until after initiative.  It's okay for you to do it that way in your games of course, but I'm discussing the rules as they are written.  Not the rules as they are changed.  By RAW, there is never a point in which a character can be attacking until after initiative is rolled.




This is incorrect. There's nothing in the rules that requires initiative to be rolled before a player makes an action declaration for his/her character to attack. In fact, for combat to be happening in the first place, someone needs to have made such a declaration, otherwise there’s no combat to resolve. 



Maxperson said:


> And the arm can move.  It just can't attack.  The PC draws back to punch and ends up knocked out because he loses initiative to the 5 friends of the guy he was about to punch.  He pulled back his arm to launch the attack, but the attack never came.  Or alternatively, he does manage to attack AFTER initiative is rolled.




This seems like a ridiculous amount of parsing of the action in an effort to separate out an "attack proper" from the overall action. You establish that a character has assumed a defensive stance or has wound-up a punch but not thrown it before you roll initiative, but even those actions imply fighting between opposed sides. Combat is already happening before anyone gets hit.



Maxperson said:


> Sides opposing one another does not make initiative an opposed ability check.  I've already demonstrated several things that you can do while sides are opposed to one another that don't involve opposition of any kind.
> 
> Perhaps the rest of the group has it easily in hand and I don't want to waste resources.  Perhaps there is simply no gain in it or me personally.  Perhaps we are being attacked by a group we know to be innocent or allies, but which aren't aware that we are with them and I don't want to harm them.  Perhaps hundreds of other reasons.  Use your imagination a bit.  It's not hard to see many reasons why you would do nothing that don't involved boredom.




Sure, you can do things in combat that don't involve opposing your enemies, but if that was all that was going on there would be no need to roll initiative or resort to any other combat mechanics. It's the opposition between sides that initiative and the rest of the combat mechanics are called in to represent.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 21, 2018)

Well, from what I understand, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is insisting that as per RAW, a contest in 5e D&D can only be between two actors.  That any time you have more or less than 2 actors, it cannot be a contest.  It requires an extremely narrow interpretation of what's written there, but, from what I understand, that's the issue.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 21, 2018)

epithet said:


> Well, it is, sort of. It is a contest to see who goes first. It is an opposed ability check, but you're right that it isn't like the typical check. For most ability checks, you say "I want the thing to happen" and then if you win the check, it happens. In this case, it's just an issue of who has the highest combined score, then who's in second place, etc. It is an opposed ability check that doesn't return a binary result.




It doesn't count as an ability contest, though.  It is an ability check, but it's only kinda sorta opposed, since those who win don't have to do anything to oppose anyone with their turn.  Even when it is opposed, it's not direct opposition like you have when you arm wrestle or try to beat someone to a ring.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 21, 2018)

epithet said:


> Absolutely. I think everyone agrees that it it an ability check. That's important, too, for the reasons you mention.
> 
> The debate seems to be, for whatever reason, whether it is an ability _contest_. I don't really get that part. I mean, I roll a dex check, you roll a dex check, and we compare them to see who has the highest score. Seems like a contest to me, but as I said above: it doesn't matter. It's not a typical opposed check, so call it what you want.




An ability contest requires direct opposition, and initiative isn't direct at all.  Everyone is just moving to do stuff and the roll is to see who goes first, second, third, etc.


----------



## epithet (Oct 21, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Well, from what I understand, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is insisting that as per RAW, a contest in 5e D&D can only be between two actors.  That any time you have more or less than 2 actors, it cannot be a contest.  It requires an extremely narrow interpretation of what's written there, but, from what I understand, that's the issue.




Well, that's clearly not the case. If the Orc on the other side of the door is trying to push it open and the paladin is opposing that strength check, at the very least the ranger can use the help action to participate. It's not difficult to imagine that same paladin and ranger teaming up to push a hill giant over a cliff: "Let the warlock _hex_ his strength, then you take the left leg and I'll take the right leg." A contest happens whenever an ability check is opposed. It's ultimately flexible.

If you want an example of an ability contest that's more like initiative than, for example, a grapple check, consider the following: the party makes an uneasy alliance with a hobgoblin to overcome the threat of the drow slavers who have captured them all. The group manages to overwhelm the drow that has the key to the prison, but that drow throws the key to an accomplice on the other side of the room. The pass is incomplete, and there is a scrum to see who comes up with the key among the drow accomplice, the hobgoblin who will betray you if he can, and your party rogue. All three make an ability check, with the high score getting the key in hand. Now, Max _loves _initiative, so for the sake of argument we'll say that it was obvious to everyone a round ago that the first drow intended to throw the key to his accomplice, and the accomplice, the hobgoblin, and the rogue all readied actions to catch or intercept it, and we're on the first drow's turn when the key is thrown. These ability checks are all reactions, all simultaneous. It's a three-way ability contest.

Bam.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 21, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Well, from what I understand, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is insisting that as per RAW, a contest in 5e D&D can only be between two actors.  That any time you have more or less than 2 actors, it cannot be a contest.  It requires an extremely narrow interpretation of what's written there, but, from what I understand, that's the issue.




No.  It requires exactly what is written there.  It specifies two.


----------



## epithet (Oct 21, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> It doesn't count as an ability contest, though.  It is an ability check, but it's only kinda sorta opposed, since those who win don't have to do anything to oppose anyone with their turn.  Even when it is opposed, it's not direct opposition like you have when you arm wrestle or try to beat someone to a ring.




All true, which is why you can call it whatever you want to. You can call it a contest, or a not-contest, based on your perception of it relative to other ability checks (opposed and otherwise.) It doesn't matter what you call it, it's just initiative.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 21, 2018)

epithet said:


> Well, that's clearly not the case. If the Orc on the other side of the door is trying to push it open and the paladin is opposing that strength check, at the very least the ranger can use the help action to participate. It's not difficult to imagine that same paladin and ranger teaming up to push a hill giant over a cliff: "Let the warlock _hex_ his strength, then you take the left leg and I'll take the right leg." A contest happens whenever an ability check is opposed. It's ultimately flexible.




The ranger is helping one of the TWO in the contest.  If you read the contest section below, it specifies two.

"Sometimes *one character’s or monster’s* efforts are directly *opposed to another’s.* This can occur when* both of them* are trying to do the same thing and *only one
can succeed*, such as attempting to snatch up a magic ring that has fallen on the floor. This situation also applies when o*ne of them is trying to prevent the other one* from accomplishing a goal—for example, when a monster tries to force open a door that an adventurer holding closed. In situations like these, the outcome is determined by a special form of ability check, called a contest. *Both participants in a contest make ability checks* appropriate to their efforts. They apply all appropriate bonuses and penalties, but instead of comparing the total to a DC, they compare the totals of their *two checks*."



> If you want an example of an ability contest that's more like initiative than, for example, a grapple check, consider the following: the party makes an uneasy alliance with a hobgoblin to overcome the threat of the drow slavers who have captured them all. The group manages to overwhelm the drow that has the key to the prison, but that drow throws the key to an accomplice on the other side of the room. The pass is incomplete, and there is a scrum to see who comes up with the key among the drow accomplice, the hobgoblin who will betray you if he can, and your party rogue. All three make an ability check, with the high score getting the key in hand. Now, Max _loves _initiative, so for the sake of argument we'll say that it was obvious to everyone a round ago that the first drow intended to throw the key to his accomplice, and the accomplice, the hobgoblin, and the rogue all readied actions to catch or intercept it, and we're on the first drow's turn when the key is thrown. These ability checks are all reactions, all simultaneous. It's a three-way ability contest.




No one has said the rules can't be adapted to more, but by RAW it's two to a contest.


----------



## epithet (Oct 21, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> An ability contest requires direct opposition, and initiative isn't direct at all.  Everyone is just moving to do stuff and the roll is to see who goes first, second, third, etc.




That really depends on how you look at initiative. It's like hit points or armor class in that way - it is an abstraction that takes more than one thing into consideration. It does certainly reflect who has the better reflexes and can react to whatever happens in the round, but it also is an active effort to do unto others before they do unto you. It can be viewed either way, and either way you view it... it's still just initiative.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 21, 2018)

Hriston said:


> Of course it does. The rules don’t say there’s no part of the swing midway between the punch being pulled back and it making contact. It’s a moment that “exists” in the fiction just as it would if the same situation happened in the real world.




The rules also don't say that there's no part of the swing midway between the punch being pulled back and it making contact where a nuclear blast doesn't happen.  Rules aren't about what they don't way.  They are about what they DO say.



> This is incorrect. There's nothing in the rules that requires initiative to be rolled before a player makes an action declaration for his/her character to attack. In fact, for combat to be happening in the first place, someone needs to have made such a declaration, otherwise there’s no combat to resolve.




This is a yuge Strawman.  I didn't say that the player can't tell the DM what he wants his PC to do.  I said the attack cannot happen until after initiative is rolled, which is true.


----------



## epithet (Oct 21, 2018)

Max, come on man. Those are guidelines for playing a game, not Holy Writ and Scripture. The use of a two-person contest as an example doesn't mean, or even imply, that there can only ever be two people in the contest. The very phrasing of it: "Sometimes, this thing happens," implies that "other times, other things happen."


----------



## epithet (Oct 21, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> ...
> No one has said the rules can't be adapted to more, but by RAW it's two to a contest.




You didn't ask me, but I'm gonna give you some advice anyway, since you said you were going to be running your first 5e game here soon. Forget "RAW" and "RAI" as concepts in your first session, and for a few after that, too. They'll poison your thinking. Be flexible and adaptive, because you will be nervous (everyone is, even after they've been DMing for years) and you'll forget all kinds of things if you try to focus on details.

What you want to start with is "rules that work." That's got to be your foundation, and you can work from there. If you don't remember what the rule is for a situation, just think "what are they trying to do?" and "how hard is that going to be for them?" Wing it, make a ruling instead of looking up a rule, and the game will flow much better.

That said, when you get more comfortable with running the game, a few sessions in, trying to bring your game more in line with the technical rules isn't a bad idea. With a few exceptions, the 5e rules are a marvel of consistency and provide a pretty great framework to hang a narrative off of. Just remember that there will always be circumstances where you need to toss them out, even if just for a moment. Chris Perkins is a legitimately great DM, and he pulls stuff out of his butt when the situation calls for it. Your players _will _do things you're not prepared for, so be prepared to go off-roading.

Just remember, "the rules say you can't do that" is right up there with "rocks fall, you all die."


----------



## 5ekyu (Oct 21, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> The ranger is helping one of the TWO in the contest.  If you read the contest section below, it specifies two.
> 
> "Sometimes *one character’s or monster’s* efforts are directly *opposed to another’s.* This can occur when* both of them* are trying to do the same thing and *only one
> can succeed*, such as attempting to snatch up a magic ring that has fallen on the floor. This situation also applies when o*ne of them is trying to prevent the other one* from accomplishing a goal—for example, when a monster tries to force open a door that an adventurer holding closed. In situations like these, the outcome is determined by a special form of ability check, called a contest. *Both participants in a contest make ability checks* appropriate to their efforts. They apply all appropriate bonuses and penalties, but instead of comparing the total to a DC, they compare the totals of their *two checks*."
> ...



Except for the cases where RAW its not... 

DMG under a section enigmatically called Contests again uses the common nomenclature of referring to one vs one for "common cases but then specifically calls out Hide checks **as contests** and the last time I checked hide checks vs Wisdom could involve more than a pair of folks.

"For example, when a creature tries to hide, it engages in a contest of Dexterity against Wisdom. "

Note that, as in the case of initiative, a hide contest involving more than one spotter can turn into a case where you best some and you dont best others at the same time from the same check.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 21, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Except for the cases where RAW its not...
> 
> DMG under a section enigmatically called Contests again uses the common nomenclature of referring to one vs one for "common cases but then specifically calls out Hide checks **as contests** and the last time I checked hide checks vs Wisdom could involve more than a pair of folks.
> 
> ...




Also in that section it explicitly says as the very first thing, "A contest is a kind of ability check that matches two creatures against each other."  Two.  Only two.  The portion on hiding you point out seems to be yet another of the contradictions in the rules that I've noticed.  That appears to indicates more than two, but the wording in both the PHB and DMG specify that it is only two.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 21, 2018)

epithet said:


> You didn't ask me, but I'm gonna give you some advice anyway, since you said you were going to be running your first 5e game here soon. Forget "RAW" and "RAI" as concepts in your first session, and for a few after that, too. They'll poison your thinking. Be flexible and adaptive, because you will be nervous (everyone is, even after they've been DMing for years) and you'll forget all kinds of things if you try to focus on details.
> 
> What you want to start with is "rules that work." That's got to be your foundation, and you can work from there. If you don't remember what the rule is for a situation, just think "what are they trying to do?" and "how hard is that going to be for them?" Wing it, make a ruling instead of looking up a rule, and the game will flow much better.
> 
> ...




I've been doing this since 1e and I've found that the way that works best for me when starting to run a new edition is to start by following all of the rules, even to the point of slowing down the game to look things up.  I learn best by doing, and doing it this way gives me a strong foundation to jump off of when I start changing the hell out of the rules.  It won't poison my thinking, because my thinking is firmly in the land of the rules do my will, not the other way around.  After the first campaign, I will indeed be adaptable and flexible.

I really do appreciate the advice, though.  Not many here would try to help like that.


----------



## 5ekyu (Oct 21, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Also in that section it explicitly says as the very first thing, "A contest is a kind of ability check that matches two creatures against each other."  Two.  Only two.  The portion on hiding you point out seems to be yet another of the contradictions in the rules that I've noticed.  That appears to indicates more than two, but the wording in both the PHB and DMG specify that it is only two.



So, it's absolutely two, except when its not but once we throw out those as contradictions its back to exclusively two?

Alternatives, one could stick to RAW they use the two or one v one normally as frankly the most common cases likely are   but the exceptions they note show it can be more as well if one does not choose to throw them out.

As I recall, the general guideline is use the common language and I can tell you in my experience it's not unusual at all to refer to "how to instruction" as if it's one working on it or interactions as one-on-one but in many many cases that is not to be taken as "never do more".

I mean, most likely many fast food training on taking orders references it as one on one exchanges but I doubt if a couple walks up and orders together you stay employed long if you tell them one person per order.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 21, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> So, it's absolutely two, except when its not but once we throw out those as contradictions its back to exclusively two?




If you throw out the contradiction, then yes you're back to only two.  Two is specified a half dozen times, and there is one contradiction.  If you don't throw it out, then you have to change it to apply to more than two.  Those are your choices.  

Personally, I have no problem changing the rule to apply to more than two, and had intended to do so for my second campaign even before you pointed the contradiction out..  RAW is two, though.


----------



## 5ekyu (Oct 21, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> If you throw out the contradiction, then yes you're back to only two.  Two is specified a half dozen times, and there is one contradiction.  If you don't throw it out, then you have to change it to apply to more than two.  Those are your choices.
> 
> Personally, I have no problem changing the rule to apply to more than two, and had intended to do so for my second campaign even before you pointed the contradiction out..  RAW is two, though.



RAW is two plus a clear case that would involve more.

Key point being, saying "this is how two fo this" is not the same as saying " only two can do this" and having a reference to a case that's called out as one but would normally involve more than two is telling.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 21, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> If you throw out the contradiction, then yes you're back to only two.  Two is specified a half dozen times, and there is one contradiction.  If you don't throw it out, then you have to change it to apply to more than two.  Those are your choices.
> 
> Personally, I have no problem changing the rule to apply to more than two, and had intended to do so for my second campaign even before you pointed the contradiction out..  RAW is two, though.



And the holy number for all contests shall be two.  No more, no less.  One shall not be the number as it is too few, though its presence may be countenanced if used only as a means of progressing on to two.  Neither shall three be the number, as three by virtue of being more than two requires that one must be removed such that only two remain.

Four is right out.

Lan-"obviously the designers of this rule don't go in for team sports, where there can be considerably more than two people involved in the same contest"-efan


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 21, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> RAW is two plus a clear case that would involve more.
> 
> Key point being, saying "this is how two fo this" is not the same as saying " only two can do this" and having a reference to a case that's called out as one but would normally involve more than two is telling.




Except that if you read the rules, that's not how the designers present their rules.  They don't present combat, skills(other than ability contests), encounters, etc. by talking about two people.  Taking the rules as a whole, it's clear that what you are saying here is not what WotC is doing with ability contests.  They are saying it requires two, and then providing one contradictory example that CAN involve more than two.  They are not perfect.


----------



## epithet (Oct 21, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Except that if you read the rules, that's not how the designers present their rules.  They don't present combat, skills(other than ability contests), encounters, etc. by talking about two people.  Taking the rules as a whole, it's clear that what you are saying here is not what WotC is doing with ability contests.  They are saying it requires two, and then providing one contradictory example that CAN involve more than two.  They are not perfect.




I think it is more likely that they are saying it requires _more than one_ and using two as the standard, exemplary reference. It might be accurate to say that the presentation of the rule _assumes _two, but nowhere does it say that a skill contest requires exactly two contestants, and no more. That's something you're reading into it where it doesn't belong. Examples in the rules involving more than two contestants aren't a mistake or an accident, they serve to illustrate that the entire rule structure of an ability contest is designed to be flexible in that regard.

Why one Oerth would you think that Crawford & Co. would design a limitation into the ability contest rule that would restrict it to two contestants? That doesn't even make a little bit of sense. For Pelor's sake, it isn't even a discrete system within the rules, it's just an example of how to use ability checks. If you want to do something with an ability, and one or more other characters want to prevent you from doing that or to do it themselves first, everyone makes an ability check and you all see who comes out with the highest number. It is the most basic, simple thing, and you're trying to shoehorn artificial limitations and restrictions onto it on the basis of your assumption that the format of the rule's illustrative text is the rule itself, and sets the immutable structure to which all ability contests must adhere.

D&D doesn't work that way, Max. It moved a bit in that direction with 3.5 and 4e, but that's not how 5e is designed.

If Crawford had intended ability contests to be limited to two contestants, the rules would have said so. It would be explicit. "This is for two characters opposing each other. If you have more than two characters, each acting to oppose the others, use this other rule, as follows: ..." That's not what was done, at all. Instead they established the basic system of doing things with abilities, then refined it with DCs for character vs world situations and "high adjusted roll wins" for opposed checks, or character vs character situations. When there are exceptions, like saving throws, they describe them in detail. The simple fact that there is not an exception set out for resolving opposed skill checks among three or more characters means, definitively, that the basic system for resolving opposed skill checks applies to those scenarios. In other words, since "specific beats general," if you don't have a specific rule for "3 or more," then the general ability contest rules apply to contests among several characters.


----------



## 5ekyu (Oct 21, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Except that if you read the rules, that's not how the designers present their rules.  They don't present combat, skills(other than ability contests), encounters, etc. by talking about two people.  Taking the rules as a whole, it's clear that what you are saying here is not what WotC is doing with ability contests.  They are saying it requires two, and then providing one contradictory example that CAN involve more than two.  They are not perfect.



What is also not perfect is an arguement working from a position of RAW letter of the law which needs to throw out contradictory examples in RAW.

It is reasonable to say "contest cannot be more than one" and cite reasond that has to be the case from the play or the in-game reality - showing three man contests never make sense. That argument can survive and thrive in mixed RAW.

Its another to claim that in spite of those kinds of examples for multi-person contests RAW it must be two and only two **not** because three or more is explicitly forbidden but because the references are to two - and then just throw out the RAW that goes counter to two.

But, while I might have believed the "its RAW" was benefit of doubt before, now that its clear the actual position is more like "its RAW sometimes" - credibility is gone on this.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 21, 2018)

epithet said:


> I think it is more likely that they are saying it requires _more than one_ and using two as the standard, exemplary reference.




So you think that they don't do this anywhere else in any rulebook, but this ONE TIME, they do it for some strange and unknown reason?



> It might be accurate to say that the presentation of the rule _assumes _two, but nowhere does it say that a skill contest requires exactly two contestants, and no more. That's something you're reading into it where it doesn't belong. Examples in the rules involving more than two contestants aren't a mistake or an accident, they serve to illustrate that the entire rule structure of an ability contest is designed to be flexible in that regard.




No.  The first line of the contest section in the DMG very explicitly says that contests match two creatures against each other.  That's not an example.  That's a rule.



> Why one Oerth would you think that Crawford & Co. would design a limitation into the ability contest rule that would restrict it to two contestants? That doesn't even make a little bit of sense. For Pelor's sake, it isn't even a discrete system within the rules, it's just an example of how to use ability checks. If you want to do something with an ability, and one or more other characters want to prevent you from doing that or to do it themselves first, everyone makes an ability check and you all see who comes out with the highest number. It is the most basic, simple thing, and you're trying to shoehorn artificial limitations and restrictions onto it on the basis of your assumption that the format of the rule's illustrative text is the rule itself, and sets the immutable structure to which all ability contests must adhere.




For the same reason they introduce all the other vagueness and contradictions.  They want the DMs to make their own rules for the game, and there's no better way to do that than to provide rules that don't add up entirely.  Complete working rules discourage that sort of thing.



> D&D doesn't work that way, Max. It moved a bit in that direction with 3.5 and 4e, but that's not how 5e is designed.




Incorrect. 3e and 4e moved away from that sort of thing.  They attempted to provide clear rules for everything.  You are correct in that 5e is designed differently, though.



> If Crawford had intended ability contests to be limited to two contestants, the rules would have said so. It would be explicit. "This is for two characters opposing each other. If you have more than two characters, each acting to oppose the others, use this other rule, as follows: ..."




He was explicit.  "A contest is a kind of ability check that matches two creatures against each other."  It doesn't get more explicit than that.


----------



## epithet (Oct 21, 2018)

Ok, Max, so what's the rule for a 3-way opposed ability check? I mean, if the "ability contest" rule doesn't apply, then what does? What would you call it? Unless you can provide a specific rule for that situation, the general rule (everyone makes their ability checks, high adjusted roll wins) has to apply, right?

Or, are you perhaps arguing that, in the universe of D&D "rules as written," three or more people cannot ever oppose one another in any given activity or for any given objective?


----------



## Hriston (Oct 21, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> The rules also don't say that there's no part of the swing midway between the punch being pulled back and it making contact where a nuclear blast doesn't happen.  Rules aren't about what they don't way [_sic_].  They are about what they DO say.




That doesn't give you license to make up a rule that says when you punch someone, your fist is magically teleported from a cocked-back position to your opponent's face. If you do, I'm going to tell you the rules don't actually say that.



Maxperson said:


> This is a yuge [_sic_] Strawman.  I didn't say that the player can't tell the DM what he wants his PC to do.  I said the attack cannot happen until after initiative is rolled, which is true.




No, it isn't true. All that the combat rules require is that attacks are *resolved* in initiative order. Initiative isn't an event in the fiction with timing before or after someone's fictional attack, so the order of causality is as follows:
Outside of turn-based resolution, a player declares an attack-type action.
The DM calls for initiative.
The declared action is resolved according to the rules in initiative order relative to the action declarations of the other players.
 So the fictional act of *beginning* the declared action can be established in the fiction at any time between 1 and 3. I prefer it to be between 1 and 2 because then the fictional beginning of combat aligns with the mechanical beginning of combat. YMMV, of course.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 21, 2018)

Hriston said:


> That doesn't give you license to make up a rule that says when you punch someone, your fist is magically teleported from a cocked-back position to your opponent's face. If you do, I'm going to tell you the rules don't actually say that.




Correct.  If you haven't rolled initiative, you have not punched anyone, though.  Any ruling that says otherwise is a house rule.



> No, it isn't true. All that the combat rules require is that attacks are *resolved* in initiative order. Initiative isn't an event in the fiction with timing before or after someone's fictional attack, so the order of causality is as follows:






Go through every book and find me one single attack that can happen before initiative is rolled.  And yes, initiative is an event in the fiction.  That event is people going in an order for their actions.    It's not called initiative in the fiction, but initiative directly corresponds with who goes when in the fiction, so it is an in fiction event.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 22, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Correct.  If you haven't rolled initiative, you have not punched anyone, though.  Any ruling that says otherwise is a house rule.




You’re playing games with verb tenses now. I agree with you that for the fiction “I have punched someone” to be established, you must first roll initiative and an attack roll, compare the result to the target’s AC, and if it’s a hit, then it can be said that you have punched that person, and I haven’t claimed otherwise. My claim is that the fiction “I am trying to punch someone” and all attendant actions up to the moment of determining whether the punch hits or not can be established in advance of initiative being rolled and that it’s well within the rules to do so. 



> Go through every book and find me one single attack that can happen before initiative is rolled.  And yes, initiative is an event in the fiction.  That event is people going in an order for their actions.    It's not called initiative in the fiction, but initiative directly corresponds with who goes when in the fiction, so it is an in fiction event.




Participants don’t “go” in an order in the fiction. The players take their turns in an order at the table. What this corresponds to in the fiction is the order in which resolutions of actions taken in any given six-second period of time happen. This continues throughout the combat encounter, which is the only single event initiative can be said to represent, except it only represents the timing of its outcomes and not the outcomes themselves.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 22, 2018)

Hriston said:


> You’re playing games with verb tenses now. I agree with you that for the fiction “I have punched someone” to be established, you must first roll initiative and an attack roll, compare the result to the target’s AC, and if it’s a hit, then it can be said that you have punched that person, and I haven’t claimed otherwise. My claim is that the fiction “I am trying to punch someone” and all attendant actions up to the moment of determining whether the punch hits or not can be established in advance of initiative being rolled and that it’s well within the rules to do so.




And that sets up problems.  You've established the fist being an inch or less from the face of the person being punched, and yet if his guards kill you, that attack never lands gets an attack roll..........somehow.  That's why it's better to do it the way I do and just use it as signaling that you are going to attack, not that you are attacking.  The fist cocked back is plenty sufficient to illustrate that something bad is going to happen, without setting up the problem of a punch that has all but hit(all attendant actions up until the moment of determining whether the punch hits or not), yet never gets an attack roll.  Because if the punch is that close to getting an attack roll, virtually nothing could stop that attack roll, even being killed by 4 guards.



> Participants don’t “go” in an order in the fiction.




Sure they do.  All attacks don't happen in the same second or fraction of a second.  It's rare for something truly simultaneous to happen.



> The players take their turns in an order at the table. What this corresponds to in the fiction is the order in which resolutions of actions taken in any given six-second period of time happen. This continues throughout the combat encounter, which is the only single event initiative can be said to represent, except it only represents the timing of its outcomes and not the outcomes themselves.



Where initiative goes wrong is in carrying over round to round.  It's not even remotely realistic that people will have the same timing over and over and over.  I will be changing initiative after this first campaign to be re-rolled every round to represent a more realistic in-game initiative.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 22, 2018)

The problem with rerolling initiative every round, is that there are a number of knock on effects.  For example, there are a number of effects that last until the beginning or end of a character's next turn.  So, the Monk goes late in round 1, stuns the opponent, goes first in round 2 and his stun effect ends.  Or things like Opportunity attacks and other reactions get kinda wonky when you start messing with turn order.  

Turn order is an abstraction.  It's not meant to be realistic.  Heck, the arbitrary length of a round is an abstraction as well.  Trying to add "realism" to an abstract system is a deep dark rabbit hole that never really ends.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 22, 2018)

Hussar said:


> The problem with rerolling initiative every round, is that there are a number of knock on effects.  For example, there are a number of effects that last until the beginning or end of a character's next turn.  So, the Monk goes late in round 1, stuns the opponent, goes first in round 2 and his stun effect ends.  Or things like Opportunity attacks and other reactions get kinda wonky when you start messing with turn order.
> 
> Turn order is an abstraction.  It's not meant to be realistic.  Heck, the arbitrary length of a round is an abstraction as well.  *T**rying to add "realism" to an abstract system is a deep dark rabbit hole that never really ends.*




That's simply not true.  It would be true if I was trying to mirror reality, but that's not my goal.  Those issues you mentioned aren't very big over all.  They happen only on occasion, and it's actually more realistic if stuns aren't always precisely the same length


----------



## Hussar (Oct 22, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> That's simply not true.  It would be true if I was trying to mirror reality, but that's not my goal.  Those issues you mentioned aren't very big over all.  They happen only on occasion, and it's actually more realistic if stuns aren't always precisely the same length




I think that it happens a lot more than you think.  There's pretty much at least one effect every single round that keys off of a character's turn.  Whether it's reactions, things like Shield spells or monster effects.  I get the impulse, but, honestly, I think it's far more trouble than it's worth.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 22, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I think that it happens a lot more than you think.  There's pretty much at least one effect every single round that keys off of a character's turn.  Whether it's reactions, things like Shield spells or monster effects.  I get the impulse, but, honestly, I think it's far more trouble than it's worth.




It's another one of those perspective things.  For my group, the minor inconveniences of timing won't be a big deal and rolling every round is more fun and realistic.  To each his own.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 22, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> And that sets up problems.  You've established the fist being an inch or less from the face of the person being punched, and yet if his guards kill you, that attack never lands gets an attack roll..........somehow.  That's why it's better to do it the way I do and just use it as signaling that you are going to attack, not that you are attacking.  The fist cocked back is plenty sufficient to illustrate that something bad is going to happen, without setting up the problem of a punch that has all but hit(all attendant actions up until the moment of determining whether the punch hits or not), yet never gets an attack roll.  Because if the punch is that close to getting an attack roll, virtually nothing could stop that attack roll, even being killed by 4 guards.




The problems you’re talking about don’t exist. I think it’s sufficient to say if we haven’t determined whether the attack hit or missed yet, then uncertainty is still on the table. No one’s establishing an attack that “virtually nothing could stop”. It’s a punch in mid-swing. 



> Sure they do.  All attacks don't happen in the same second or fraction of a second.  It's rare for something truly simultaneous to happen.




I don’t know from where you’re getting “simultaneous”. Maybe what I said wasn’t clear. By “don’t ‘go’ in an order”, I meant not in initiative order. The absence of initiative order doesn’t imply simultaneity. What it means is that in a roughly six-second chunk of time, the participants take various actions at various times all of which take various amounts of time to resolve. For ease of gameplay, the initiative order establishes the order in which those actions are completed and resolved. 



> Where initiative goes wrong is in carrying over round to round.  It's not even remotely realistic that people will have the same timing over and over and over.  I will be changing initiative after this first campaign to be re-rolled every round to represent a more realistic in-game initiative.




That’s fine. There are lots of variations on initiative to choose from. I don’t think using a single initiative result for the entire combat is wrong, though, any more than using a single DEX (Stealth) check result to cover the duration of an attempt to stay hidden. It’s kept simple for ease of gameplay.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 22, 2018)

Hriston said:


> I don’t know from where you’re getting “simultaneous”. Maybe what I said wasn’t clear. By “don’t ‘go’ in an order”, I meant not in initiative order. The absence of initiative order doesn’t imply simultaneity. What it means is that in a roughly six-second chunk of time, the participants take various actions at various times all of which take various amounts of time to resolve..




The fact that they don't go at the same time IS an initiative order.  It's just not called out as that.  



> For ease of gameplay, the initiative order establishes the order in which those actions are completed and resolved.




Which is the same as the order they happen in.  The various actions at various times occur in a precise order determined by initiative.  If that wasn't the case, you could not stop someone from performing the action they declared, even by killing the PC.  There would be no way to tell that the action of the now dead PC didn't happen at a "various time" prior to being killed.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 22, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> The fact that they don't go at the same time IS an initiative order.  It's just not called out as that.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is the same as the order they happen in.  The various actions at various times occur in a precise order determined by initiative.  If that wasn't the case, you could not stop someone from performing the action they declared, even by killing the PC.  There would be no way to tell that the action of the now dead PC didn't happen at a "various time" prior to being killed.




If your action declaration to kill the PC is resolved at a higher initiative count than the PC’s action declaration to do whatever it was the PC was trying to do, then you can be sure that the PC’s action was left incomplete and didn’t have the effect the PC was trying to accomplish.  Narrate the outcome however you wish.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 22, 2018)

Hussar said:


> The problem with rerolling initiative every round, is that there are a number of knock on effects.  For example, there are a number of effects that last until the beginning or end of a character's next turn.  So, the Monk goes late in round 1, stuns the opponent, goes first in round 2 and his stun effect ends.  Or things like Opportunity attacks and other reactions get kinda wonky when you start messing with turn order.



For effects like this, have them last exactly a round.  If the Monk stuns someone on initiative 6 then that stun lasts until init. 6 next round, regardless of when the Monk's next initiative comes up.  These durations would be tracked by the player of the character that caused them, so here the Monk's player would, on init. 6 in the second round, advise the DM that the stun had worn off (unless of course it was renewed in the meantime, but you get the drift).

To cover Max's point about variable duration being more realistic (which it is), instead of having the duration be a locked-in 1 round (or 20 "segments") have the player roll a d20+10 to give how many segments the stun lasts.  Stunned on 6 this round means you could snap out of it anytime between 15 next round and 16 the round after.  (and don't bother telling me 5e doesn't have segments; for this, it would now)



> Turn order is an abstraction.  It's not meant to be realistic.  Heck, the arbitrary length of a round is an abstraction as well.  Trying to add "realism" to an abstract system is a deep dark rabbit hole that never really ends.



There's some places where one can very easily bring a bit of realism back in, and re-rolling initiative to simulate the unpredictability and fog of war is one.

Also, there's nothing saying that every round has to be exactly 6 seconds other than a "rule" (in other words, guideline) in the book.  Most of the time it might be, but I know in my own game (modified 1e where rounds are nominally 30 seconds) I've had "rounds" last anywhere from just a few seconds{a} to several minutes{b} each.

a - an example is purely psionic combat, where each "action" happens at the speed of thought - the whole thing can be over in 10 seconds or less.

b - ship-vs.-ship naval combat, where it can take minutes for the ships to maneuver into firing position.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 22, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> The fact that they don't go at the same time IS an initiative order.  It's just not called out as that.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is the same as the order they happen in.  The various actions at various times occur in a precise order determined by initiative.  If that wasn't the case, you could not stop someone from performing the action they declared, even by killing the PC.  There would be no way to tell that the action of the now dead PC didn't happen at a "various time" prior to being killed.






			
				Hriston said:
			
		

> If your action declaration to kill the PC is resolved at a higher initiative count than the PC’s action declaration to do whatever it was the PC was trying to do, then you can be sure that the PC’s action was left incomplete and didn’t have the effect the PC was trying to accomplish. Narrate the outcome however you wish.



Just want to throw in here that there's nothing at all wrong with simultaneity, even though for some reason - which I just can't fathom, other than a general American dislike of ties in anything - the game designers seem to despise it.

If I run the Orc archer through on the same initiative that it fires its arrow and hits the wizard, interrupting his spell and causing a wild surge that generates a feather that tickles the Ranger's nose, what's wrong with that?


----------



## 5ekyu (Oct 22, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> For effects like this, have them last exactly a round.  If the Monk stuns someone on initiative 6 then that stun lasts until init. 6 next round, regardless of when the Monk's next initiative comes up.  These durations would be tracked by the player of the character that caused them, so here the Monk's player would, on init. 6 in the second round, advise the DM that the stun had worn off (unless of course it was renewed in the meantime, but you get the drift).
> 
> To cover Max's point about variable duration being more realistic (which it is), instead of having the duration be a locked-in 1 round (or 20 "segments") have the player roll a d20+10 to give how many segments the stun lasts.  Stunned on 6 this round means you could snap out of it anytime between 15 next round and 16 the round after.  (and don't bother telling me 5e doesn't have segments; for this, it would now)
> 
> ...



"For effects like this, have them last exactly a round. If the Monk stuns someone on initiative 6 then that stun lasts until init. 6 next round, regardless of when the Monk's next initiative comes up. "

This could literally result in zero effect. 

Hit someone with an incapacitate effect on one round after they have already acted, then if they tell low init next turn the spell ends before it fever costs them an action even through failed save? 

If that's the impact of init ths group wants - fine. But I for sure might be seeking yo play that system with ability check adjusting effects to be sure.


----------



## 5ekyu (Oct 22, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Just want to throw in here that there's nothing at all wrong with simultaneity, even though for some reason - which I just can't fathom, other than a general American dislike of ties in anything - the game designers seem to despise it.
> 
> If I run the Orc archer through on the same initiative that it fires its arrow and hits the wizard, interrupting his spell and causing a wild surge that generates a feather that tickles the Ranger's nose, what's wrong with that?



What you describe seems non-simultaneous in the strictest sense because the archer's shot lands **before** the wizard finishes his spell. So there does seem to be a sequence of completion off tasks. 

This seems to indicate a set of staged resolution steps with spells after bows. 

Have seen that in systems before and nothing wrong with it especially when you dial those resolution stages to set the tone.

Buffy put spells evrn quick spells iirc after most other attacks or sctions.

Dr Who put talking first, run away second, then gadgety scifi stuff then last if all else was over attacking.

The key is tho you have still established an action order that matters a great deal. It's just not at the declaration stage.

Frequently in those, initiative determines who announces/chooses action first - low first, high last - giving high init ths advantage of seeing what others are doing before deciding their moves.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 22, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "For effects like this, have them last exactly a round. If the Monk stuns someone on initiative 6 then that stun lasts until init. 6 next round, regardless of when the Monk's next initiative comes up. "
> 
> This could literally result in zero effect.
> 
> Hit someone with an incapacitate effect on one round after they have already acted, then if they tell low init next turn the spell ends before it fever costs them an action even through failed save?



Doesn't cost them an action but it does otherwise hinder them during that time; no reactions, no AoO's, etc. in the specific case of stun.

And don't forget: for each time (more or less, there might be a minor mathematical discrepancy) it does nothing this will, by law of averages, another time cost the target *two* actions.  Stun it on a 6, it loses its initiative this round that would have been 3, then rolls 14 for next round and loses that one too.

Conversely, as you say, it could just as easily go this round 14: target action, 6: target stunned, next round 6: stun wears off, 3: target action.  Dice are fun that way. 

I don't know the odds of losing 0 vs 1 vs 2 actions - my gut tells me it's about 25-50-25% but I've no math to back that up.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 22, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> What you describe seems non-simultaneous in the strictest sense because the archer's shot lands **before** the wizard finishes his spell.



In a system without casting times the only chance to interrupt a spell is on the caster's initiative.  Therefore the arrow shot, the killing strike, and the spell are all on the same init. in that example.



> So there does seem to be a sequence of completion off tasks.
> 
> This seems to indicate a set of staged resolution steps with spells after bows.



Not necessarily.  It just happens to work out that way in the example I dreamed up.

It could just as easily be the wizard's spell kills the Elf who is simultaneously throwing a dagger that'll finish off the Orc who is in process of fatally stabbing the wizard in the back.  Result: all three die at once.

Doesn't happen often, but there's no sane reason for it never to be able to happen at all.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 22, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Just want to throw in here that there's nothing at all wrong with simultaneity, even though for some reason - which I just can't fathom, other than a general American dislike of ties in anything - the game designers seem to despise it.
> 
> If I run the Orc archer through on the same initiative that it fires its arrow and hits the wizard, interrupting his spell and causing a wild surge that generates a feather that tickles the Ranger's nose, what's wrong with that?




Nothing is wrong with it. A true tie is much rarer in the real world than in the game, since time is broken down much finer here.  That might be why they don't have it in game, though I doubt it.  It's probably to avoid potential timing issues with abilities.


----------



## epithet (Oct 22, 2018)

Hussar said:


> The problem with rerolling initiative every round, is that there are a number of knock on effects.  For example, there are a number of effects that last until the beginning or end of a character's next turn.  So, the Monk goes late in round 1, stuns the opponent, goes first in round 2 and his stun effect ends.  Or things like Opportunity attacks and other reactions get kinda wonky when you start messing with turn order.
> 
> Turn order is an abstraction.  It's not meant to be realistic.  Heck, the arbitrary length of a round is an abstraction as well.  Trying to add "realism" to an abstract system is a deep dark rabbit hole that never really ends.




We primarily use the Fantasy Grounds virtual tabletop, which has an amazing combat tracker built into it. Actually, you could say the entire program is built around the combat tracker. One of the 5e ruleset options you can toggle is "reroll initiative every round," and we recently decided to give that a try. We talked about it beforehand, and there was some concern regarding effects lasting "until your next turn" and whatnot, and we were prepared to put a little effort into figuring out when status effects should expire and so forth. It turned out to be effortless.

Those concerns really never materialized, to be honest. The fact that sometimes a character or creature gets to go twice in rapid succession while other times getting dogpiled has turned out to be much more of a feature than a flaw, and keeping up with effects is intuitive. Rerolling initiative every turn has become standard practice in my group based on our experience with that option.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice (Oct 22, 2018)

Whatever Mike Mearl's goals were for 5E, I doubt inspiring a 130 page thread over the exact wording of ability checks was among them.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 22, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Just want to throw in here that there's nothing at all wrong with simultaneity, even though for some reason - which I just can't fathom, other than a general American dislike of ties in anything - the game designers seem to despise it.




I think they provide methods for breaking ties in initiative for ease of play, so there's no ambiguity about the order of resolution. On the other hand, they put the responsibility of deciding the order resulting from a tie in the hands of the DM, so, as was mentioned up-thread, it's within the DM's purview to have ties result in simultaneous resolution.



Lanefan said:


> If I run the Orc archer through on the same initiative that it fires its arrow and hits the wizard, interrupting his spell and causing a wild surge that generates a feather that tickles the Ranger's nose, what's wrong with that?




Nothing, AFAIC. I'm inclined to let initiative-tied turns be resolved simultaneously, and also wouldn't be averse to treating each round as a "roughly simultaneous", six-second ball of activity, although the system may need some tweaking to accommodate that.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 22, 2018)

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> Whatever Mike Mearl's goals were for 5E, I doubt inspiring a 130 page thread over the exact wording of ability checks was among them.



What was that again, the part about the best-laid plans...?


----------



## Hussar (Oct 23, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Doesn't cost them an action but it does otherwise hinder them during that time; no reactions, no AoO's, etc. in the specific case of stun.
> 
> And don't forget: for each time (more or less, there might be a minor mathematical discrepancy) it does nothing this will, by law of averages, another time cost the target *two* actions.  Stun it on a 6, it loses its initiative this round that would have been 3, then rolls 14 for next round and loses that one too.
> 
> ...




Also noting [MENTION=6796566]epithet[/MENTION]'s post above too.

I could see this as being probably the biggest effect.  It would make combat very swingy.  It might be very possible for a critter to get two attacks in a row on a PC, which, potentially, can be devastating.  Particularly when you factor in abilities and whatnot that mitigate attacks - Shield fighters granting disadvantage, Light Clerics using Flare, various reroll mechanics that are tied to reactions.  

Not that that's necessarily bad.  Just that it will likely result in more deadly combats.  A monster getting to double up on effects can, potentially, be very dangerous to the party and, since it's all based on luck, it's automatically going to advantage the monsters rather than the PC's, over time.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 23, 2018)

Hriston said:


> I think they provide methods for breaking ties in initiative for ease of play, so there's no ambiguity about the order of resolution. On the other hand, they put the responsibility of deciding the order resulting from a tie in the hands of the DM, so, as was mentioned up-thread, it's within the DM's purview to have ties result in simultaneous resolution.




Which is why I dubbed it the non-rule rule.  If that rule didn't exist, there would literally be no difference in how initiative plays out.  The DM would still make the decision, which could still result in simultaneous resolution.  



> Nothing, AFAIC. I'm inclined to let initiative-tied turns be resolved simultaneously, and also wouldn't be averse to treating each round as a "roughly simultaneous", six-second ball of activity, although the system may need some tweaking to accommodate that.




I look at the dex of the tied individuals and high dex goes first.  If dex is tied, it's simultaneous.  As I mentioned earlier, truly simultaneous actions are fairly rare.


----------



## epithet (Oct 23, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Also noting [MENTION=6796566]epithet[/MENTION]'s post above too.
> 
> I could see this as being probably the biggest effect.  It would make combat very swingy.  It might be very possible for a critter to get two attacks in a row on a PC, which, potentially, can be devastating.  Particularly when you factor in abilities and whatnot that mitigate attacks - Shield fighters granting disadvantage, Light Clerics using Flare, various reroll mechanics that are tied to reactions.
> 
> Not that that's necessarily bad.  Just that it will likely result in more deadly combats.  A monster getting to double up on effects can, potentially, be very dangerous to the party and, since it's all based on luck, it's automatically going to advantage the monsters rather than the PC's, over time.




I have found the opposite to be true, actually. Rerolling initiative every round has generally been to the party's benefit, despite some "exciting" moments. It creates unpredictability, which the player characters (being more versatile) can take advantage of better than typical NPCs. This has been true of a party level 5 - 7, and a party 11 - 13. I might be the case that rerolling init made the lowest levels more difficult, I haven't tried that.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 23, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> For effects like this, have them last exactly a round.  If the Monk stuns someone on initiative 6 then that stun lasts until init. 6 next round, regardless of when the Monk's next initiative comes up.  These durations would be tracked by the player of the character that caused them, so here the Monk's player would, on init. 6 in the second round, advise the DM that the stun had worn off (unless of course it was renewed in the meantime, but you get the drift).
> 
> To cover Max's point about variable duration being more realistic (which it is), instead of having the duration be a locked-in 1 round (or 20 "segments") have the player roll a d20+10 to give how many segments the stun lasts.  Stunned on 6 this round means you could snap out of it anytime between 15 next round and 16 the round after.  (and don't bother telling me 5e doesn't have segments; for this, it would now)
> 
> There's some places where one can very easily bring a bit of realism back in, and re-rolling initiative to simulate the unpredictability and fog of war is one.




That's what we did in 1e and 2e and, frankly, it sucked. Effects like the monk's stun could be really good or really bad, all based on having to reroll initiative. And it wasn't one darn bit more realistic than setting the order and just running through the list cyclically. The only thing it did that might have been a positive was make turn order unpredictable - which was OK for characters that didn't have to track round-based durations.

Both systems are abstractions, but I do like the one where we deal with initiative numbers once and once only and I never really have to consult them again. I find it a lot more user friendly, both as a GM and as a player.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 23, 2018)

epithet said:


> I have found the opposite to be true, actually. Rerolling initiative every round has generally been to the party's benefit, despite some "exciting" moments. It creates unpredictability, which the player characters (being more versatile) can take advantage of better than typical NPCs. This has been true of a party level 5 - 7, and a party 11 - 13. I might be the case that rerolling init made the lowest levels more difficult, I haven't tried that.




Unpredictability is, in the long run, usually bad for the PCs. They are subject to a lot of it over the course of a game since they're at the center of all action that involves it.


----------



## epithet (Oct 23, 2018)

billd91 said:


> Unpredictability is, in the long run, usually bad for the PCs. They are subject to a lot of it over the course of a game since they're at the center of all action that involves it.




It has been my experience that the PCs are the cause of much more unpredictability than the dice are, and they usually find annoying ways to exploit it to their advantage.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 23, 2018)

billd91 said:


> That's what we did in 1e and 2e and, frankly, it sucked. Effects like the monk's stun could be really good or really bad, all based on having to reroll initiative. And it wasn't one darn bit more realistic than setting the order and just running through the list cyclically. The only thing it did that might have been a positive was make turn order unpredictable - which was OK for characters that didn't have to track round-based durations.



The very unpredictability is what makes it more realistic.

What happens when initiatives are locked in is that players start metagaming and making plans based on who goes when in the order; which should in theory be close to impossible on a chaotic fog-of-war battlefield.  Re-rolling, while not completely eliminating this, serves to greatly mitigate it.



> Both systems are abstractions, but I do like the one where we deal with initiative numbers once and once only and I never really have to consult them again. I find it a lot more user friendly, both as a GM and as a player.



Locking it in is easier, for sure, but sometimes the easy way isn't necessarily the best way.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 23, 2018)

epithet said:


> I have found the opposite to be true, actually. Rerolling initiative every round has generally been to the party's benefit, despite some "exciting" moments. It creates unpredictability, which the player characters (being more versatile) can take advantage of better than typical NPCs. This has been true of a party level 5 - 7, and a party 11 - 13. I might be the case that rerolling init made the lowest levels more difficult, I haven't tried that.




As [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] said, anything that increases randomness benefits the DM's side of the equation.  The players have to get lucky every time.  The monsters only have to get lucky once.  Sure, it might benefit the PC's and it likely will.  But, when it helps the other side, which should also happen fairly frequently, it can radically up the difficulty of an encounter.  

As far as realism goes, well, that's not a consideration for me.  I accept that D&D combat is largely abstract, so, trying to make it more realistic is, to me, just not something I really want to deal with.  If I did, I'd wind up rewriting the entire combat section to the point where I might as well play a game that actually has realistic combat.


----------



## 5ekyu (Oct 23, 2018)

epithet said:


> I have found the opposite to be true, actually. Rerolling initiative every round has generally been to the party's benefit, despite some "exciting" moments. It creates unpredictability, which the player characters (being more versatile) can take advantage of better than typical NPCs. This has been true of a party level 5 - 7, and a party 11 - 13. I might be the case that rerolling init made the lowest levels more difficult, I haven't tried that.



My experience with random init in other systems rolled turn by turn was that it attacked planning. If sequence order is at all important then it allows for planning and coordination of once known that order remains. 

If you have tactics that need the cleric fo follow up with the rogue "I use guiding bolt, you have advantage and sneak you can work that out even across turns **if** the init order remains the same. 

But if its random order each turn, forget it. 

You reduce the scope of tactics and combo play to only "what can we get done together in  this "segment of time" that exists between init rolls. 

If it remains static, the focus remains on the "turns" of a character not this arbitrary not seen in character reroll tick.

I prefer to not discourage planning and coordination.

If nothing else, if I were somehowxrequired to roll random init, I would have us roll init fir THE NEXT TURN at the start of a turn. 

So at any moment you know the sequence you are working thru **and** the next sequence. That at least allows you to coordinate across one init roll.

Personally I prefer far more systems which put the sequence of play order more into **choice ** control than dice control.

Hence my homebrew.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 23, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> My experience with random init in other systems rolled turn by turn was that it attacked planning.



Good. 



> If sequence order is at all important then it allows for planning and coordination of once known that order remains.
> 
> If you have tactics that need the cleric fo follow up with the rogue "I use guiding bolt, you have advantage and sneak you can work that out even across turns **if** the init order remains the same.
> 
> ...



My contention is that the focus shouldn't be on the metagame "turns" but rather on what's happening in the fiction in the chaos of war; and that the type of planning and co-orcination you're talking about should neither be free nor easy.



> I prefer to not discourage planning and coordination.



Ahead of time, sure.  But once the swords and axes start flying, forget it.



> If nothing else, if I were somehowxrequired to roll random init, I would have us roll init fir THE NEXT TURN at the start of a turn.
> 
> So at any moment you know the sequence you are working thru **and** the next sequence. That at least allows you to coordinate across one init roll.
> 
> Personally I prefer far more systems which put the sequence of play order more into **choice ** control than dice control.



Even if it's random they can still choose who goes when, but it would involve a lot of delaying while people waited for other turns to come up - in other words, their ability to pull off their co-ordinated plan comes at a cost of frequently acting late in the round. 

But this isn't even the worst part.  The worst part in cyclic init. is that the players also know when the opponent's turns are (or will after the first round), allowing them not ony to co-ordinate among themselves but to meta-plan around when the foes get to act.  This problem - for problem it is - goes away if init's are rerolled each round and the DM rolls opponent init's in secret.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 23, 2018)

Meh, I really don't see it as a problem.  It works both ways as well.  The DM gets to plan around things as well and since there's only one DM, he can implement his plans easier than if the players have to hash out ideas.  Like I said, it's just not worth the extra hassle IMO.


----------



## 5ekyu (Oct 23, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Good.
> 
> My contention is that the focus shouldn't be on the metagame "turns" but rather on what's happening in the fiction in the chaos of war; and that the type of planning and co-orcination you're talking about should neither be free nor easy.
> 
> ...



"Ahead of time, sure. But once the swords and axes start flying, forget it."

Mostly I see both, sometimes its things they discussed out of combat then work towards in combat. Add in a random roll between stages in a combat and you vastly reduce opportunities to implement plans just due to the added random screw of a new unit roll.

"Even if it's random they can still choose who goes when, but it would involve a lot of delaying while people waited for other turns to come up - in other words, their ability to pull off their co-ordinated plan comes at a cost of frequently acting late in the round. "

5e does not have delay, so if you are meaning this for some other game, not 5e, that's fine. 5e has ready and ready limits you to a rather selective sub-set of options and the if-then etc.

" The worst part in cyclic init. is that the players also know when the opponent's turns are (or will after the first round), allowing them not ony "

That's a feature, not a bug, it's not a problem, it's an option. 

Really, what makes it some objective problem ?

Both sides in a cyclic init learn the order and can make choices based on it.

Why is it good or better to have a random re-order at specified times making that "break for new init"  a much bigger element in how the combat plays?

"More random" and "less choice driven" are not goals I would choose to enhance combat scenes if I was focusing "on the fiction of the scene" because "random" does not care about fiction.


----------



## epithet (Oct 23, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Meh, I really don't see it as a problem.  It works both ways as well.  The DM gets to plan around things as well and since there's only one DM, he can implement his plans easier than if the players have to hash out ideas.  Like I said, it's just not worth the extra hassle IMO.




The reason rerolling initiative appealed to the group in the first place was that players wanted to have more control over when they took their actions. With static initiative, following the published turn order rules, you act on your turn, period. You can hold an action to take as a reaction, but you can't say "I going to wait and go after the rogue." We were letting people do that anyway, with the house rule that you can adjust your initiative down as much as you want to, but that meant that in subsequent rounds you'd be stuck down there at the bottom of the tracker. If you let players delay their turns once per round (stating on your original initiative what you want your lower adjusted initiative to be,) that means that if a player "wins" initiative it makes turn order into a tactical choice. It makes feats and items that give advantage to initiative more appealing, too.

Another thing it lets me do is create a hidden actor on the combat tracker for the lair with a +10 init bonus. Rerolling every turn means that the PCs are never quite sure when lair actions will come up, adding dramatic tension.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 23, 2018)

I don't think that the only options should necessarily be static initiative or re-roll per round initiative. 

The Cypher System, for example, has a pretty intuitive initiative system that is a mix of static and free form. Foes have an associated Target Number or Difficulty Class. Players roll initiative. Players who roll higher than the DC can act before the foe in whatever order they prefer. The foe acts. Players who roll lower act after the foe in whatever order they choose. Having multiple foes is generally not an issue either.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 23, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Which is why I dubbed it the non-rule rule.  If that rule didn't exist, there would literally be no difference in how initiative plays out.  The DM would still make the decision, which could still result in simultaneous resolution.




A strict reading of the initiative rules without the paragraph about what to do in the event of a tie would have combatants with tied initiative rolls *always* act simultaneously (at the same time). The 3rd paragraph allows ties to be broken.



Maxperson said:


> I look at the dex of the tied individuals and high dex goes first.  If dex is tied, it's simultaneous.  As I mentioned earlier, truly simultaneous actions are fairly rare.




Perhaps interestingly, the Holmes Basic Set (1977) rules decide initiative by comparing Dexterity scores, which is, I think, the earliest initiative system published specifically for D&D. The original rules (1974) use Chainmail's initiative system which has two options: the "Move/Counter move" system, the ancestor to AD&D's side initiative, and the "Simultaneous Movement" system, which requires players to write out orders for their units beforehand, simultaneously take half their movement checking for unintended melee contact, complete the movement phase, and then resolve missile fire and melees in simultaneous phases. Simultaneous in a system like this means something like "happening roughly in the same one minute of time". A similar system could be devised for 5E, all action in a given round happening "simultaneously" in roughly the same six seconds as a level of abstraction. 

Any simultaneity at all requires some level of abstraction. For example, if you're accustomed to resolving combat in Planck time units, simultaneous events are going to be far more rare than that in which your above method would result.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 24, 2018)

Hriston said:


> A strict reading of the initiative rules without the paragraph about what to do in the event of a tie would have combatants with tied initiative rolls *always* act simultaneously (at the same time). The 3rd paragraph allows ties to be broken.




Nah.  A strict reading shows that only one person can go at a time.  "The DM ranks the combatants in order from the* one with the highest** Dexterity check total to the one with the lowest*."  That necessitates having to break ties somehow, and without the non-rule rule, it falls to the DM to decide just like with the non-rule rule.



> Perhaps interestingly, the Holmes Basic Set (1977) rules decide initiative by comparing Dexterity scores, which is, I think, the earliest initiative system published specifically for D&D. The original rules (1974) use Chainmail's initiative system which has two options: the "Move/Counter move" system, the ancestor to AD&D's side initiative, and the "Simultaneous Movement" system, which requires players to write out orders for their units beforehand, simultaneously take half their movement checking for unintended melee contact, complete the movement phase, and then resolve missile fire and melees in simultaneous phases. Simultaneous in a system like this means something like "happening roughly in the same one minute of time". A similar system could be devised for 5E, all action in a given round happening "simultaneously" in roughly the same six seconds as a level of abstraction.
> 
> Any simultaneity at all requires some level of abstraction. For example, if you're accustomed to resolving combat in Planck time units, simultaneous events are going to be far more rare than that in which your above method would result.




I don't want to get too complicated with initiative.  A lot of those old 70s and 80s games had rulebooks that were thicker than Game of Thrones books, and more complicated than trying to figure out the tax code.  

A quick easy dex check with ties going to highest dex, and further ties being simultaneous is as complicated as I want it.


----------



## 5ekyu (Oct 24, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> I don't think that the only options should necessarily be static initiative or re-roll per round initiative.
> 
> The Cypher System, for example, has a pretty intuitive initiative system that is a mix of static and free form. Foes have an associated Target Number or Difficulty Class. Players roll initiative. Players who roll higher than the DC can act before the foe in whatever order they prefer. The foe acts. Players who roll lower act after the foe in whatever order they choose. Having multiple foes is generally not an issue either.



Indeed. While I see rolling randomly every turn as a bad option, I certainly don't thing rolling once is a good option, just better.

In my homebrew scifi 5e gsme, I use first or last.

On the opening turn, players quickly decided whether a PC goes first or a PC goes last.

If they choose first, a singlenpc goes first, their choice, then a foe (FM choice) alternate until you get yo the end where an npc is always going last.

If they choose last, a foe goes first alternate etc but a PC goes ladt.

That turn order is then set. 

Newly arriving characters are added into the middle but font change ghd first/last.

So its entirely choice driven with alternating play side hy side. 

Tactical aspects of the situation drive the choices, not the die rolls. 

Works great and plays quick.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 24, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Indeed. While I see rolling randomly every turn as a bad option, I certainly don't thing rolling once is a good option, just better.
> 
> In my homebrew scifi 5e gsme, I use first or last.
> 
> ...




That's an interesting system and I can see where it would have some appeal.  For myself, though, it doesn't make sense that sides alternate like that.  It makes sense to me that there would be clumps on one side or the other going before someone on the opposing side.  If three PCs beat my fastest monster, one PC loses to him, then two monsters go, I have no problem with that.


----------



## 5ekyu (Oct 24, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> That's an interesting system and I can see where it would have some appeal.  For myself, though, it doesn't make sense that sides alternate like that.  It makes sense to me that there would be clumps on one side or the other going before someone on the opposing side.  If three PCs beat my fastest monster, one PC loses to him, then two monsters go, I have no problem with that.



Absolutely. Every init system seems to embody some degree of compromise vs realism in order to reach whatever its goals are.

Part of my major focus in many games as they have developed over the years have been to focus on two keys - character capability and player choice (the former being a manifest coding of the latter.) 

One of my biggest gripes with most diced knit system has tended to be what rolls init? Mostly if it were me, it would be a combo of perception and quick thinking or tactics - more situational awareness - but also discipline could play a tole etc etc etc... 

All in all I see it as hard to tie to specific character traits in a simple way and my go to for "not character trait" is "choice".
So we tried it a while back and loved it. 

That said, with new groups of players where I want yo minimize house rules, I just go with regular init by RAW and let advantage and disadvantage play a significant role.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 24, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Absolutely. Every init system seems to embody some degree of compromise vs realism in order to reach whatever its goals are.
> 
> Part of my major focus in many games as they have developed over the years have been to focus on two keys - character capability and player choice (the former being a manifest coding of the latter.)
> 
> ...



What did you think of Merals' variant initiative system that he put out - was it last year?  earlier this year?  There was a big thread in here about it.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 24, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> One of my biggest gripes with most diced knit system has tended to be what rolls init? Mostly if it were me, it would be a combo of perception and quick thinking or tactics - more situational awareness - but also discipline could play a tole etc etc etc...



I believe that Pathfinder 2 shifts Initiative to Perception as a default, but empowers the DM to have Initiative key off other skills depending upon the situation: e.g., using Stealth, Survival, etc.


----------



## 5ekyu (Oct 24, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> What did you think of Merals' variant initiative system that he put out - was it last year?  earlier this year?  There was a big thread in here about it.



If it's the one I remember the hubbub over, it was more cumbersome than we liked, but I may be mistaking it for others.

We have used tons of different systems over the years so we have seen in play declare then resolve, actions all having speed delays, various levels from complex to simpler... so seen impacts of each. 

So far our choice driven one has done the trick for our needs.


----------



## 5ekyu (Oct 24, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> I believe that Pathfinder 2 shifts Initiative to Perception as a default, but empowers the DM to have Initiative key off other skills depending upon the situation: e.g., using Stealth, Survival, etc.



Some of the initial stuff there looked good.

I recall a few systems years ago that had a flare phase then the specific actions determined init order for resolutions.

Some used it divorced from character, as a thematic element- talking before running before tech before fighting for DrWho. Physicals before spells for Buffy.

Others had you go ahead and make the task check. The amount you beat the DC by set the order... 

There have been tons of systems doing init tons of ways thru the decades. My basic view of PF2 is overly complex and derivative but it will certainly find a market - because its following a repeated business model - find a very popular "light" ish game and produce a higher crunch clone that intends to draw away some of that audience by scratching itches the other didnt.


----------



## 5ekyu (Oct 24, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> What did you think of Merals' variant initiative system that he put out - was it last year?  earlier this year?  There was a big thread in here about it.




Follow-up - did a quick google and the Mearls was what i remember. there were systems like this as far back in the 80s being done with AD&D and others. Some went so far as to work multi-attack into initiative steps down etc but what mearls put forward is notable for being different from 5e but it was nothing new. 

We didn't find it particularly helpful then except to scratch the "mo' crunch" itches and make it "feel more gritty" when one interprets gritty as crunch.

Adding that much complexity *and* adding in more and more dice is not a direction we would go towards these days. Also moving every "end of effect" to the "round end" instead of character-based end is spotlighting even more the "end of round" break which i was glad to see was effectively mostly done away with in 5e. Part of why we like cyclical is that by the time your init comes around its "as if" you are the first in the init order with really no arbitrary breaks coming into play after that, no matter who you are.

Anyway - did a quick look to giver a more complete answer.

later.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 24, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> There have been tons of systems doing init tons of ways thru the decades. My basic view of PF2 is overly complex and derivative but it will certainly find a market - because its following a repeated business model - find a very popular "light" ish game and produce a higher crunch clone that intends to draw away some of that audience by scratching itches the other didnt.



Regardless of whether one intends to play PF2, its basic framing of Initiative as a contextually-determined skill/ability check is fairly easy to port into D&D, though not without its potential problem points (e.g., Expertise). 

In one of my Fate games, I abandoned initiative all together, which worked remarkably well. Just follow the fiction. Everyone acted once per round, but combat order was basically rooted in the circumstances of the fiction and how prepared the players themselves were to declare the actions for their PC. If a player takes forever to decide, then they naturally move themselves down the ladder. 

This is also why I found the intent of Mike Mearls's "Greyhawk Intiative" to be unnecessary for those seeking the "chaos of battle." Spellcaster PCs typically take longer to decide, as they have more complex options to consider, so they usually act slower than martial character players who may know their action in advance: shoot, stab, slash, etc.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 24, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Nah.  A strict reading shows that only one person can go at a time.  "The DM ranks the combatants in order from the* one with the highest** Dexterity check total to the one with the lowest*."  That necessitates having to break ties somehow, and without the non-rule rule, it falls to the DM to decide just like with the non-rule rule.




You left off an instructive part of that quote. I repeat it here in full: The DM ranks the combatants in order from the one with the highest Dexterity check total to the one with the lowest. *This is the order (called the initiative order) in which they act during each round.*​ This tells us that the order determines when they act. Combine that with the order being determined solely by the initiative roll result, and you can conclude that each participants turn happens on their initiative count, and if their initiative count is the same, their turns happen at the same time.

And your reading missed this: The DM makes one roll for an entire group of identical creatures, so each member of the group acts at the same time.​ This tells us that identical creatures have their turns at the same time explicitly because they all have the same initiative roll result. This certainly doesn't necessitate having to break a tie.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Oct 25, 2018)

Has anyone tried a real time initiative\combat system?  Bet that could work!


----------

