Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition Announced

[AyeEmBored]

Link from Wizards http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120109

Link from New York Times (!) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/arts/video-games/dungeons-dragons-remake-uses-players-input.html

The game is already in early playtesting, but the playtest process will be much more open. The public gets their first look at the Dungeons and Dragons Experience convention this month. The goal is to be inclusive of player of all previous versions. Color me intrigued, but I'm also going to start working to an endpoint of my current campaign.

[Ink Asylum]

I would be much more interested in any PnP company that released a feature-rich app that made it easy to play online. The days where I could get together regularly with a dedicated group of players is all but over.

[Panthera]

Just reading the title of this thread makes me pucker up a little.

In short, we want a game that is as simple or complex as you please, its action focused on combat, intrigue, and exploration as you desire. We want a game that is unmistakably D&D, but one that can easily become your D&D, the game that you want to run and play.

So they're going to republish 1st ed?

[AyeEmBored]

I would be much more interested in any PnP company that released a feature-rich app that made it easy to play online. The days where I could get together regularly with a dedicated group of players is all but over.

Wizards has shown with their Virtual Table debacle that they're not capable of doing such a thing internally. However, I'd think that there SHOULD be a way to make a modular style table were things can be added. They've FINALLY got it right (mostly) with Magic the Gathering Online. They can do it here. But for it to work, it HAS to release, in working order, with the launch of 5th Ed.

Just reading the title of this thread makes me pucker up a little.

So they're going to republish 1st ed?

The feeling I'm getting from the Wizards article is that they're looking at how to release material that can be used for all editions, whether that means easy conversion or stats for different editions in each product or what, I don't know. Fluff is edition neutral. Will the fluff be in the books and the crunch on the web, specific to each edition? Hrmm.

[Panthera]

The feeling I'm getting from the Wizards article is that they're looking at how to release material that can be used for all editions, whether that means easy conversion or stats for different editions in each product or what, I don't know. Fluff is edition neutral. Will the fluff be in the books and the crunch on the web, specific to each edition? Hrmm.

That's an interesting thought, since that's how D&D more or less worked in previous editions. That's a ton of material out there that can be put right into any edition or clone of D&D from original to (with a lot of squinting) third because really, the basic mechanics of hit dice, armour class and damage hadn't changed. And up to 3rd edition, the balance hadn't changed all that much, either.

There's a whole movement (the Old School Renaissance or OSR) that's out there publishing material for D&D and clones of it and other games of the period. Books, blog posts, modules, supplements, all compatible because of the modularity of the original games.

I doubt they'll have the balls to get back to something like that, even if not the same system, but a measure of that modularity would welcome.

[Shieldmaiden]

I'm interested in seeing how they're going to handle the cosmology and Forgotten Realms. My biggest beef with 4E is that they gutted the existing stuff for no good reason and then fucked with the Realms to get it to fit.

Also, I find the OSR hilarious. It seems that the reason people are into it is because the systems that they are using are so lightweight that they have to make everything up themselves, thus giving them a system that they love.

[SilentScreams]

I would be much more interested in any PnP company that released a feature-rich app that made it easy to play online. The days where I could get together regularly with a dedicated group of players is all but over.

This 100 times. Same goes for Games Workshop stuff.

[Panthera]

Also, I find the OSR hilarious. It seems that the reason people are into it is because the systems that they are using are so lightweight that they have to make everything up themselves, thus giving them a system that they love.

How did you come to this conclusion, curiously? I can't see any way at all in which that's true.

[Pale Ale]

Link from Wizards http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120109

Link from New York Times (!) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/arts/video-games/dungeons-dragons-remake-uses-players-input.html

The game is already in early playtesting, but the playtest process will be much more open. The public gets their first look at the Dungeons and Dragons Experience convention this month. The goal is to be inclusive of player of all previous versions. Color me intrigued, but I'm also going to start working to an endpoint of my current campaign.

Oh goody are 3rd generation of the same arguments describing how last edition was best edition.

[Serapth]

I would be much more interested in any PnP company that released a feature-rich app that made it easy to play online. The days where I could get together regularly with a dedicated group of players is all but over.

This is why the death of Google Wave should cause you to shed a tear or two. It was absolutely PERFECT for this, rife for a RPG system, especially pared to a video conferencing service for those who want a face to face experience.


I always thought about creating just such a service, basically a video conferencing service with RPG features ( dice rolling, maps, etc... ) built in. Then taking it one step further and "digitizing" then selling "e-modules", which are basically templates for running existing modules, such as Against the Giants, or whatever.

Lots of free ( shitty ) tools in this space though, so never really figured I could make a go of it commercially.

[Shieldmaiden]

How did you come to this conclusion, curiously? I can't see any way at all in which that's true.

I'm just speaking anecdotally, really. I can't say that I really get the OSR, I don't see the point. The only GM I speak to who has really embraced it usually runs 70's or 80's fantasy systems anyway, so it's not exactly made a massive difference to the games at his table.

[Karak]

This is why the death of Google Wave should cause you to shed a tear or two. It was absolutely PERFECT for this, rife for a RPG system, especially pared to a video conferencing service for those who want a face to face experience.

I always thought about creating just such a service, basically a video conferencing service with RPG features ( dice rolling, maps, etc... ) built in. Then taking it one step further and "digitizing" then selling "e-modules", which are basically templates for running existing modules, such as Against the Giants, or whatever.

Lots of free ( shitty ) tools in this space though, so never really figured I could make a go of it commercially.

I totally agree!

We are using an 8 person videoconfrencing program that has worked pretty well. What's nice is its somewhat high res so most of us play using our tablets or PC's piped out to our HDTV that sits behind us. So everyone can see everyone else's tablet or PC output as thats in the camera view as well. Strange way to do it but its worked pretty damn well. Graphing pens and pads output to the TV's so we can run GFX programs and so forth and still fully see each other.

It got easier when we assigned 1 or 2 people to specific things like dice roller. So that persons entire screen is a big dice rolling program. Each person can do their own but it works well.

We rarely ever have to use maps and never use miniatures so its way easier than some people who have those 2-3 extra things to worry about.

Program my Kinect Sarepth! I want some virtual reality DND!

[Panthera]

I'm just speaking anecdotally, really. I can't say that I really get the OSR, I don't see the point. The only GM I speak to who has really embraced it usually runs 70's or 80's fantasy systems anyway, so it's not exactly made a massive difference to the games at his table.

It's just a community of people making stuff and playing old games. You know, keeping it supported. There have actually been a lot of really interesting titles published under that banner.

There's not much to get. People like the old games, so they make new stuff with the old systems. A lot of it is very creative and some of it very weird. (http://www.stargazersworld.com/2011/12/16/first-look-carcosa/) And since the old books aren't really available any more, they've been cloned for easy access. OSRIC (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/) is my retro-clone of choice, which is really just AD&D without the copyright, re-organized to make it easier to use.

[Drayven]

I would be much more interested in any PnP company that released a feature-rich app that made it easy to play online. The days where I could get together regularly with a dedicated group of players is all but over.

Considering Wizards can't even build a character builder app that doesn't crash constantly and adds up the numbers wrong on a regular basis I wouldn't hold my breath.

Curse you Wizards! Give me back the downloadable character builder and not this web based non-sense you can't figure out!

[AyeEmBored]

Or better, give me character creation where a character builder isn't (almost) necessary!

[Drayven]

*cough cough*
http://www.crackedmonocle.com/tephra/

[Dahzer the Cosmic Fool]

very interesting drayven, interesting indeed

[Deadend]

I don't have a major problem with 4e. In fact, the thing I think it does right is that it lets you establish a character's playstyle at lv1. The main difficulty is how things scale up and high level characters.

3.5 had the opposite problem, of having characters that were so boring at low levels and didn't really become interesting until high levels, and some that stopped being valid, it involved lots of picking a build and sticking to it, for dozens of sessions.

Then there is the difference between how 3 and 4 did out of combat, with 3rd edition heavily favoring int rogues for doing everything with how skills increased, while 4e wanted skills split around the party as a whole, neither method really felt good.

What I'd like to see for 5e would be skills increasing via usage in a system like Mouseguard/Burning Wheel (requiring success + almost the same number of failures, meaning that progression gets harder once characters get AMAZING).

I also wouldn't mind seeing feats go away, and become something like combat bonuses on level, as skills would be progressing on their own. Mechanic changer feats only. Learning exotic weapons would fall under skills.

I'm not really sure what would be best, however.
I'd also love a change to the way combat and move actions resolve (because being able to run, but not make a shitty sword swing makes no sense on the same turn, and then sitting for an attack.) It's the whole way that a turn is to represent 3 seconds of time, but it all happens sequentially.

I'd really like Wizards to go and look at the fundamentals of how their turns work and resolve, along with 5 foot squares.

[Panthera]

I don't have a major problem with 4e. In fact, the thing I think it does right is that it lets you establish a character's playstyle at lv1. The main difficulty is how things scale up and high level characters.

3.5 had the opposite problem, of having characters that were so boring at low levels and didn't really become interesting until high levels, and some that stopped being valid, it involved lots of picking a build and sticking to it, for dozens of sessions.

I find it interesting that these editions have lead people to believe that mechanical support for builds and specialization are necessary and what make a character interesting.

[TheKeck]

I find it interesting that these editions have lead people to believe that mechanical support for builds and specialization are necessary and what make a character interesting.

That is an astute observation.

[Drayven]

My problem with 4e wasn't in the begining but it came later when my players were spending more time sorting through their cards trying to figure out what they still had available this fight and what they didn't than they were rolling dice. I like my systems to be more streamlined. To me a good PnP system is a solid guide line for combat with some lore guidlines tossed in. I always feel it's up to the GM to create the world. 4e was definitely more focused on the combat mechanics but it got bogged down in so many once per encounter abilities that all of a sudden you had this giant stack of abilities that you could only use once a fight.

[Panthera]

To me, good combat in an RPG means that your choices are interesting and evocative. Abstract or crunchy, I want the discussion at the table to be about the kinds of things the characters would talk about. For example, if the players are discussing these things:

1) Fight or flight?
2) Close to melee or shoot?
3) Advance carefully into melee or charge?
4) Keep fighting and push your luck or retreat?

That's a good thing. These are all strong narrative points and easily descriptive. The dice throwing is just a way to resolve this, and should happen quickly. I like the AD&D rhythm of declaring first and then rolling group initiative because the group can make a quick game plan and then throw all their dice at once while the action unfolds, but that's hardly the only way to do it.

Now, let's throw some crunch in there.

1) What weapon do I use for this circumstance?
2) Do I expend a resource? (Drink something, cast something, throw oil, etc)
3) Can I move to a better tactical position, ie to avoid being flanked?

Still great. You can expand this list out as much as you want, there are systems that have done great things with piles of detail, and that might be suitable too. GURPS, for instance. Everything is tightly associated with actions the character is deciding on, though the amount of detail you can pile on with that is endless so you have to be careful.

An alternative is highly narrative systems to take the place of crunch. I like those a lot, too. Burning Wheel, Fudge, Fate and so on. RPGs have really gone through a lot of innovation and learned a lot of lessons and the variety out there is fantastic. I run Ironclaw, which is highly narrative.

What does not work is when you're making your decisions based on loosely described abilities that are charmingly named and have strange reasoning for the limitations of their use.

1) Do I use attack A with flowery name which is just an attack or attack B with a flowery name but also somehow heals someone?
2) Have I already used attack C or not? Did it still count as the same combat as when I did?
3) Do I expend vaguely described but tightly balanced resource D to heal myself?

You can still have a fun game with that kind of system, but you've strayed very far from what makes RPGs fun and exciting. It plays more like a series of board game encounters. Hell, I think 4th ed would work great as a video game, I'd buy that in a heartbeat. It just does not work for me at all as a pen and paper game, and I did give it a fair try.

Damn, I really didn't intend to write so much, but I really find it frustrating when people assume the only reason you can dislike the new thing is unfounded nostalgia.

[Deadend]

I find it interesting that these editions have lead people to believe that mechanical support for builds and specialization are necessary and what make a character interesting.

They both place such an emphasis on combat that is "balanced" toward the specialized and optimized builds that a character that isn't good at fighting on paper ends up being annoying as D&D always comes down to fighting monsters, as everything is a skill check with very little variance. "I persuade Guy to Do Stuff *roll*" "I disarm the trap! *roll*" at least with bashing monsters there is more thought put into making it more likely that you bash the monster, and monsters can bash back, NPCs can't counter-persuade characters, traps have no real intricacy of having it come down to "You have most of it figured out, but there are 2 wires to cut, which one?"

Then the way feats are setup, where there are non-combat feats.. but picking them hurts the combat viability of a character and most of those feats are "+2 to 2 skills" which are kind of shitty as they don't grow over time.

Yeah, some of it comes down to GMs who love fights and are grognards. But the books are also written for them too, as look at the D&D books, 89% of the content is combat oriented. Character sheets are 2 pages long, with 3/4s of the space is combat oriented.

Maybe THAT is the problem with D&D.

[Panthera]

They both place such an emphasis on combat that is "balanced" toward the specialized and optimized builds that a character that isn't good at fighting on paper ends up being annoying as D&D always comes down to fighting monsters, as everything is a skill check with very little variance. "I persuade Guy to Do Stuff *roll*" "I disarm the trap! *roll*" at least with bashing monsters there is more thought put into making it more likely that you bash the monster, and monsters can bash back, NPCs can't counter-persuade characters, traps have no real intricacy of having it come down to "You have most of it figured out, but there are 2 wires to cut, which one?"

Then the way feats are setup, where there are non-combat feats.. but picking them hurts the combat viability of a character and most of those feats are "+2 to 2 skills" which are kind of shitty as they don't grow over time.

Yeah, some of it comes down to GMs who love fights and are grognards. But the books are also written for them too, as look at the D&D books, 89% of the content is combat oriented. Character sheets are 2 pages long, with 3/4s of the space is combat oriented.

Maybe THAT is the problem with D&D.

You've identified a large part of the problem, alright. I like a lot of what's in 3rd edition, but to me D&D is at its best when it's focused on a few strong assumptions about what it means to be an adventurer and not an ordinary person. To me, you don't need a lot of systems to describe what adventurers can and can't do - for every skill you define, you're just as much defining what other character's can't. If you want a more flexible character system, you're better off ditching levels and D&D entirely for one of dozens of more suitable systems out there.

One thing that the newer editions have unwisely discarded is the wilderness/dungeon exploration games. You have ten minute turns representing careful progress through a hostile location, with clear descriptions of what a party could do during these turns, which were in turn tied to wandering monsters and expendable resources like torches. Suddenly you have consequences for waiting around too long - do you spend another ten minutes searching for secret doors when another group of orcs could stumble across you at any moment?

It's the exploration/adventuring game that really drives D&D and puts all the fights in context, and the fights should be over fast. To me, progressing room-by-room through a dungeon full of tactical set pieces isn't as dynamic and interesting, and that's where D&D has been going. Though, that doesn't mean you shouldn't have interesting storylines with NPCs and cities and character backgrounds and so on. I just don't find that you need a lot of rules for that.

[Karak]

I don't have a major problem with 4e. In fact, the thing I think it does right is that it lets you establish a character's playstyle at lv1. The main difficulty is how things scale up and high level characters.

3.5 had the opposite problem, of having characters that were so boring at low levels and didn't really become interesting until high levels, and some that stopped being valid, it involved lots of picking a build and sticking to it, for dozens of sessions.


ARG. This is everything that is wrong with how DND has evolved.
Roleplaying..usurped by rollplaying. UHG.

[Karak]

My problem with 4e wasn't in the begining but it came later when my players were spending more time sorting through their cards trying to figure out what they still had available this fight and what they didn't than they were rolling dice. I like my systems to be more streamlined. To me a good PnP system is a solid guide line for combat with some lore guidlines tossed in. I always feel it's up to the GM to create the world. 4e was definitely more focused on the combat mechanics but it got bogged down in so many once per encounter abilities that all of a sudden you had this giant stack of abilities that you could only use once a fight.

One of the reasons we have stuck with old Warhammer Roleplay rules. Its not perfect, but it isn't incredibly well defined and the game is focused on story and roleplaying rather than rollplaying. Of course we removed the dice and replaced them with 1-10 from a card deck but that was for speed and roleplaying as well.

It is up to the DM or GM now to create the world. But many times everything is so poorly explained because they want to make sure that a 1st level character has enough skills and battle rolls and somersaults and UBER AWESOME stuff that much of the lore isn't even in the books.
I think you are 100% right about the cards as well for 4th E. A ok idea, but over used...as is the typical routine now.

I also tip my hat to Wizards. They set out to create a boardgame/videogame hybrid for pen and paper and they succeeded. Sadly.

[Deadend]

ARG. This is everything that is wrong with how DND has evolved.
Roleplaying..usurped by rollplaying. UHG.

DnD has always been about the numbers with characterizations thrown on top. When I actually want to do interesting characters interacting with each other, instead of trying to "win" there are much better systems.

I'd love to have exploration become interesting, including evasion and escaping from monsters, plus shorter fights. A single fight can suck up an hour in either 3.5 or 4th ed, and to me, isn't that compelling. Final Fantasy Tactics did that stuff better.

Both editions also make it so that doing cool things like swinging from chandeliers and such are actually high-risk low-reward, and things like pushing enemies out of the way or trying to do a cool fight like this:

l0JYNznbL0Q

[PathMaster]

I have to say, I would love for their to be a program, one program, that would encompass parts of a game, so I can play with friends when we have time, or back and forth. I would be willing to even go low tech, email back and forth, or hell be able to log in to a website, that my friends can also all log into and use the tools hosted there.

[Karak]

DnD has always been about the numbers with characterizations thrown on top. When I actually want to do interesting characters interacting with each other, instead of trying to "win" there are much better systems.

I'd love to have exploration become interesting, including evasion and escaping from monsters, plus shorter fights. A single fight can suck up an hour in either 3.5 or 4th ed, and to me, isn't that compelling. Final Fantasy Tactics did that stuff better.

Both editions also make it so that doing cool things like swinging from chandeliers and such are actually high-risk low-reward, and things like pushing enemies out of the way or trying to do a cool fight like this:

l0JYNznbL0Q

Nah not really. But your talking to an original Red Box lover where you had a couple stats and the rest was roleplaying. So to those who came later it may seem to be.

I agree with everything your saying there.

For me, if a game can't make it up to half an hour without a roll. I am not that interested. Not that it has to always be that way but some troll in some fucking office somewhere seemed to think that a roll a minute was the way to create a fun game.

You may have hit on why I like Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay so much. Good long battles are maybe 10-15 minutes tops with normal fights pretty much done in the same speed a normal fight happens in real life:) I enjoy that. Sharp, dangerous and real. Like you indicate that god damn 1 hour tactical battle with a goblin is fucked really.

I seem to like games that have basic stats and whatever you want to do is simply attempted with modifiers, but very few powers/skills/feats/whatever the new fad is to call it. Our battles are quick super intense and that's one of the thing our games when I DM are known for. With the rest of the time actually involving the roleplaying aspects.

[Scull]

I simply can't ret behind anyone that argues role vs. roll playing. That isn't defined by the system. That's defined by the players and the DM. Sure some systems allow you to roll for non-combat activities, but honestly, anyone that feels they have to do that and rely on those rules simply doesn't get the point. The only thing I need out of any game system is a method to resolve combat and physical actions. If the rules demand you use dice for other actions I simply ignore those bits. In my games, story and characters are king, and dice are the last resort, much like the real world where violence is the last resort.

With the right group playing entirely cinematic is a blast. No one needs dice, merely their wits and ability to describe their actions. Combat is fast and dramatic, and roleplaying is the focus for everyone at the table.

[Karak]

I simply can't ret behind anyone that argues role vs. roll playing. That isn't defined by the system. That's defined by the players and the DM. Sure some systems allow you to roll for non-combat activities, but honestly, anyone that feels they have to do that and rely on those rules simply doesn't get the point. The only thing I need out of any game system is a method to resolve combat and physical actions. If the rules demand you use dice for other actions I simply ignore those bits. In my games, story and characters are king, and dice are the last resort, much like the real world where violence is the last resort.

With the right group playing entirely cinematic is a blast. No one needs dice, merely their wits and ability to describe their actions. Combat is fast and dramatic, and roleplaying is the focus for everyone at the table.

Oh of course its defined by the system and the books. Thats obvious. Without support for an aspect. Sadly that aspect declines. Pretty simply really. And sadly the roleplaying versus rollplaying debate isn't up for debate. As the actual people who create these games discuss it themselves and came up with the actual argument during roleplaying game creation. It is in many of their design docs.

But I see what you are saying. Which is break what you don't like out of the game. Which proves the point. The system has more rollplaying than roleplaying as defined by the very system. So you are involved in that aspect of the debate.
We can call it whatever we want. Cats versus dogs. But plain and simple thats the fact of it. As the creators themselves even discuss during creation.

And lets not pretend for an instant that just removing some aspects fixes it. It actually does not as the systems are built around particular things if you remove some of them you can break builds, ruin advancement skews, or upset character dynamics. You can't just pick and play with any system so rules heavy. I mean you could ignore those issues and just live with them, and I have done that too. But the very complexity or simplicity of the system identifies just how much leeway you have with those changes and also how much work you have to do when you decide to make those changes.

Don't get me wrong, removing a shitton of 4e stuff would make the game playable in a way I enjoy and I have done that. But they did such a good job of tying every single thing together roll wise that it just isn't worth it. Because by that time...why do it? It's strengths which are rolls and systems and such become less and less. Might as well just grab a system based a bit more on narrative. In my opinion.

[Scull]

Creators can say anything they want, but the simple fact is that every system is truly defined by the table, not the creators. If you think that the rules explicitly state how to play your character and what sort of interactions are allowed for every situation then you're probably playing an MMO and not a tabletop RPG, and it really is as simple as that. D&D 4E was so very light on non-combat interactions because the developers got tired of trying to tell everyone that there was no box to constrain players. Players, new players for the most part, never got past the fact that they weren't told how to do non-combat interactions, so they never did. Because they never got the point that the system was only there to deal with one aspect of the game. The worst systems are those that try to define every aspect of a character and their interactions with the world. 4E tried not to do that. They succeeded on that aspect, but too many people were unable to wrap their heads around that, or simply didn't know that they were missing out on a whole dimension of play. It may simply be a case of the grognard vs. the newb, but most of the groups that I play with have no issues with any system's focus, or lack thereof, on non-physical actions. We know how to play a role.

As for the argument that it was designed to be light on the non-combat rules, you are absolutely correct. It was a very conscious choice made by the designers, and there is nothing wrong with that. To feel that it forces you to be a roll player though, is entirely on you. You, in particular, know better than to say "Oh, well there's no info on non-combat activities, so we have to ignore them." You make the story what it is, not the rules. Never the rules.

[Karak]

Creators can say anything they want, but the simple fact is that every system is truly defined by the table, not the creators. If you think that the rules explicitly state how to play your character and what sort of interactions are allowed for every situation then you're probably playing an MMO and not a tabletop RPG, and it really is as simple as that. D&D 4E was so very light on non-combat interactions because the developers got tired of trying to tell everyone that there was no box to constrain players. Players, new players for the most part, never got past the fact that they weren't told how to do non-combat interactions, so they never did. Because they never got the point that the system was only there to deal with one aspect of the game. The worst systems are those that try to define every aspect of a character and their interactions with the world. 4E tried not to do that. They succeeded on that aspect, but too many people were unable to wrap their heads around that, or simply didn't know that they were missing out on a whole dimension of play. It may simply be a case of the grognard vs. the newb, but most of the groups that I play with have no issues with any system's focus, or lack thereof, on non-physical actions. We know how to play a role.

As for the argument that it was designed to be light on the non-combat rules, you are absolutely correct. It was a very conscious choice made by the designers, and there is nothing wrong with that. To feel that it forces you to be a roll player though, is entirely on you. You, in particular, know better than to say "Oh, well there's no info on non-combat activities, so we have to ignore them." You make the story what it is, not the rules. Never the rules.

Well you are right about one thing. 4e is a MMO. They designed it that way. They actually admitted that was their goal. They had a target which was WOW. Thats been commented on hundreds of times and thats reflected even in some of the language.

Here is the thing. Especially when it comes to house rules and indicated by the thousands of papers, documents, and entire 100 page forum threads written on creating rules for 4E.
You can't go into a mathematical calculation and remove the 3rd number in a string of 5. Its gonna break a ton of shit. 4E is not a suitable system to go erasing stuff.

And it is absolutely defined by the creators, at the very minimum the complexity of the system they built. I mean sure we can mini max, and grab things and such but at some point your not playing 4E your playing your own game.

Now gamers do define the world as well. However, you can only use what is given to you as the BASE of the game for its rolling rules. Their base makes it so hard to remove aspects without breaking everything that is balanced and traced in the game. Why not just use whatever little bits you like from their game and put them into one more suitable for roleplaying? Its wasted energy. Its saddling a mazda with wrinkle wall slicks.

There is a reason why so many papers, documentation, even Podcasts have discussed this in since its release.

In the end you have to ask yourself why? Why ever use it if you are removing that much? It is at the very least, work for work sake when systems have been designed to be about roleplaying not rollplaying. I mean I can make monopoly a roleplaying game if...I want.

I guess it really doesn't matter. They have stated it pretty clearly so if there is disagreement its probably towards the creators who said it first the legions of people who seem to agree.

I for one would rather take what little character bits there is from the game and put it into a system that has been planned as a roleplaying game and not be hobbled by the very basic premise of the actual system.

[Karak]

I have to say, I would love for their to be a program, one program, that would encompass parts of a game, so I can play with friends when we have time, or back and forth. I would be willing to even go low tech, email back and forth, or hell be able to log in to a website, that my friends can also all log into and use the tools hosted there.

Ya there are tons of side programs tons of suites but nothing that really does it right yet.

I think Sarepth was talking about how much he wanted to make one. That would rock for an indie to give it a try.

[Panthera]

I gotta admit, when I was learning how to run a proper D&D game it was really hard not to lean on skills rolls hard, and the books do nothing to discourage it. My first campaign that really lasted was 3rd edition, and damned if I wasn't handing out spot checks like candy. Looking out at the desert? Spot check. Monster? Spot check. Walking down the road? Spot check. Look at a wall that's five feet in front of you? Spot check.

All for things that I just should have described without hesitation based on common sense.

So, yeah, you don't need a lot of rules to handle out-of-combat gameplay. The problem is when combat and character building is so burdensome that it really insists on itself and crowds out everything else. It takes up brainspace. Character optimization becomes a game in itself. The game is defined by the table, sure, but to say that the system has no effect on role vs rollplaying isn't really correct.

[Scull]

I think you're missing a vital aspect here. You aren't removing anything. Not a single bit. The core of the system remains. The additional materials remain. The math remains, the balance remains, the skills and powers and all of it remain. You simply add onto that. You add the story bits. You add the socialization bits. You add the bits that aren't defined in the rules. The bits that are intentionally left out because there is no way to adjudicate them, so trying to create a system that defines the non-combat aspects is a waste of time and energy.

If I need to punch an orc, I have rules for that. If I need to talk the orc down and make him my friend, I do not have rules for that. That talky bit is defined by the group. Why do you need a rule for it? How will having a rule for it help the game be better? Best case scenario, the DM is told exactly how every social interaction goes and there are massive tomes that define all possible aspects of interacting with another sentient being and you are never left to guess or make up what the orc will say or do next. Worst case, you are told nothing at all and left to create your own story for the orc and how he reacts the way he does. That bit was sarcasm if you missed it. No system can define the social aspect of the game, and those that try usually fail at it.

The variable at play is really if you choose to use a defined campaign setting where lots of people, places, races etc. are defined for you. If you go that route, more power to you. You get a smaller box to play in, but one that requires less effort to make it feel alive. If you choose not to use a defined setting, then it is on you to create and facilitate everything. If you need a house rule, you make one. If you need to remove a rule, you do so. But as with any system, you do so at your own peril. This is true of any system though. If you make it, you live with it, and if you break it, you fix it, or your figure out how to work around it.

The team that created 4E was absolutely targeting the MMO scene. Telling me that was their intention is like telling me the sun will rise tomorrow. They need to draw players away from the PC in order to stay alive. Without young blood coming into the games they will die out in a generation or two. So to combat the PC they tried to make a system that flowed like an MMO. With just the base set, they accomplished that pretty well. With the additional books it has become more and more convoluted and forgotten the original intent. But of course, they have to release new material, or they go out of business. So the waters get muddy, the game evolves, and people change their attitudes towards the game. It happens to any system with a long enough production lifecycle.

One question for you, what system has been designed to be about roleplaying, but not roll playing? Most LARP systems try for that goal to simplify a cumbersome activity, but they are all failures at creating anything even remotely balanced. White Wolf went for heavy atmosphere but they had a horribly broken base to build off of. Fudge is so rules light that there may as well be no rules at all. Burning Wheel is more of a framework of a game system to give you some guidance and constraints, but not hold you back. Older versions of D&D are all broken in one way or another, but they all come down to a set of number that you build a persona on top of. Rifts was broken from the first, by design, and is probably the second worst system I've ever played for roleplaying as defined by the rule books. I've played everything, and to the last, no game system focuses on role playing at its core. Every roleplaying game, no matter how you choose to slice it up comes down to a system design to resolve conflicts. No system can define all the various aspects of interaction and playing a role.

[Scull]

I gotta admit, when I was learning how to run a proper D&D game it was really hard not to lean on skills rolls hard, and the books do nothing to discourage it. My first campaign that really lasted was 3rd edition, and damned if I wasn't handing out spot checks like candy. Looking out at the desert? Spot check. Monster? Spot check. Walking down the road? Spot check. Look at a wall that's five feet in front of you? Spot check.

All for things that I just should have described without hesitation based on common sense.

So, yeah, you don't need a lot of rules to handle out-of-combat gameplay. The problem is when combat and character building is so burdensome that it really insists on itself and crowds out everything else. It takes up brainspace. Character optimization becomes a game in itself. The game is defined by the table, sure, but to say that the system has no effect on role vs rollplaying isn't really correct.

I'm not saying that the system has no bearing on how you do non-combat activities, I'm simply saying that no system defines it in a manner where you must or even should rely on the rules. They simply can't cover it well enough. If the game system tells you that you have a skill to use in an interaction, then by God, you're going to try to use that skill in every interaction. Bluff and Intimidate in D&D 3E and 3.5E were attempts at social interaction controlled by rules. If you read their usages in social situations, you'll quickly find that there is no reason not to try to bluff or intimidate every scene. It is broken. Severely.

If your table has to use rules to navigate non-combat scenes, so be it. 4E is not a system that encourages that style of play. And you'll either quickly run up against the limitations of the rules you are using, or start creating more and more rules to encompass the situations you encounter. That's a play style for lots of groups, just not mine, nor that of any groups that I have interacted with. We all go much more freeform outside of combat. Again, this could just be the years of experience I have. If I were coming into D&D today, I'd probably be doing all combat all the time, and quickly tire of the game.

A guide on how to be a storyteller would be much more useful to every role playing game as opposed to a guide telling you how to do non-combat actions. At the core of any game worth its weight is the ability to tell a story. Good stories, in my opinion, are never created by following the rules to the letter. And like any skill, to get good at it will require effort and practice. Tell more stories, follow fewer rules, have more fun :)

EDIT: Also, what's a "proper D&D game"?

[Karak]

I think you're missing a vital aspect here. You aren't removing anything. Not a single bit. The core of the system remains. The additional materials remain. The math remains, the balance remains, the skills and powers and all of it remain. You simply add onto that. You add the story bits. You add the socialization bits. You add the bits that aren't defined in the rules. The bits that are intentionally left out because there is no way to adjudicate them, so trying to create a system that defines the non-combat aspects is a waste of time and energy.


You are sort of all over the place here. So...I am not sure what we are even talking about now. I am not saying add rules for non combat but anyway.

You lost me after this. Not that the other stuff didn't probably make sense to you. But this doesn't make sense at all. Or you created cold fusion. You simply can not do what you said earlier, which was removing rules you didn't like from 4E and not break it requiring rework to various systems. Or if you did, please go to the dnd forums and post your changes because there are literally books and books worth of forums posts from people who attempted to do what you seemed to do instantly. Now you are later saying you don't remove rules from the game. But I don't know if you forgot or wrote something by mistake or what.

I am talking about source information and constructive narrative and roleplaying assistance being relayed to users to fit within the world. Something 4e took almost completely out compared to even their rules heavy 2.5 editions.

I would post all your rules you took out and how you fixed the system on one of the hundreds of boards where people discuss this very issue. Because an entire gambit of gamers would love to hear how.
There are also many podcasts devoted to 4e that discuss this every single week with tons of listeners and they are always having issues with this. So if its possible that's great. But almost the entire community disagrees with you. Its one of the major discussed caveats of the newer editions. And aside from the devs themselves, they too define it as roleplaying versus rollplaying.

I for one will just use a roleplaying system with its positives and negatives and not a rollplaying system with its positives and negatives. Then again I am far more for roleplaying and narrative and its structure and how it fits within the gameworld to get a cohesive picture than rollplaying and any structures it may have. An entire community thinks that this has occurred in the later editions of DND in particular. Not that the situation couldn't possibly be misconstrued by so many. But...well for now, and evidence supports that the community has a point.
Hopefully 5 strikes a balance with supporting structure.

[Scull]

I never said I took anything out of 4E. Not once. You may have read into that I did, but I didn't write it.

This is very, very simple. You have rules for combat resolution and feats of physical prowess. 4E does this. Most systems do this.

You do not have rules for non-combat resolution. Again 4E does this (mostly). Many other systems try to create rules around non-combat scenes, and all of them fail to varying degrees.

As a group of players, you have to create the non-combat portions of the game for yourself. You shouldn't, and maybe can't, rely on a rules system to govern that for you. The design for 4E embraced the idea that they couldn't successfully adjudicate non-combat rules, so they didn't even try.

You still have the combat resolution, which is really all 4E has, and then you figure out for yourself what works outside of combat. It is really that simple.

Outside of 4E I take it further, and look at stripping out rules that tell me how to do non-combat scenes, but with 4E I don't need to do that. When I boil it down, I put less effort in getting a 4E game set up than most others.

It baffles me that people have such a huge hang up on how to play a game. If you don't like it, you don't play it, that seems simple enough. If you spend as much time prepping for a game as you do at work, then you either have a very light job, or work way to hard at "fun" activities. I like it simple and quick, and usually 4E gives me that. The learning curve is something that everyone has to get over, but once they do, the game is usually very fast. If it isn't fun, don't so it.

I also don't care what other forums have to say about anything. It's my game, not theirs. I don't need to be rules intensive with my play style and my groups. If others need that, then they can work to make that happen. I prefer to say what happens and then move on. If it has stats it can bleed and therefore it can die. If I don't want it to die, it won't. It is really as simple as that. I try to maintain a consistent world and ecology and story, and as long as I'm within a few degrees of variance, my table is satisfied. I don't need to formalize and codify every detail to have fun. In fact that sounds like the opposite of fun to me.

[Panthera]

I'm not saying that the system has no bearing on how you do non-combat activities, I'm simply saying that no system defines it in a manner where you must or even should rely on the rules. They simply can't cover it well enough. If the game system tells you that you have a skill to use in an interaction, then by God, you're going to try to use that skill in every interaction. Bluff and Intimidate in D&D 3E and 3.5E were attempts at social interaction controlled by rules. If you read their usages in social situations, you'll quickly find that there is no reason not to try to bluff or intimidate every scene. It is broken. Severely.

If your table has to use rules to navigate non-combat scenes, so be it. 4E is not a system that encourages that style of play. And you'll either quickly run up against the limitations of the rules you are using, or start creating more and more rules to encompass the situations you encounter. That's a play style for lots of groups, just not mine, nor that of any groups that I have interacted with. We all go much more freeform outside of combat. Again, this could just be the years of experience I have. If I were coming into D&D today, I'd probably be doing all combat all the time, and quickly tire of the game.

A guide on how to be a storyteller would be much more useful to every role playing game as opposed to a guide telling you how to do non-combat actions. At the core of any game worth its weight is the ability to tell a story. Good stories, in my opinion, are never created by following the rules to the letter. And like any skill, to get good at it will require effort and practice. Tell more stories, follow fewer rules, have more fun :)

EDIT: Also, what's a "proper D&D game"?

You might want to read a little more closely what I'm writing, I don't really disagree too much with your conclusions. Have you read games with more narrative systems like Burning Wheel? I think you'll find that there are games out there that give you a better idea of how to do things even with a detailed system.

Actually, I find the phrase 'say yes or roll the dice' to be extremely useful. Though, the saying alone is misleading, the context about when to roll the dice instead of say yes is important too: http://www.burningwheel.org/wiki/index.php?title=Introduction_To_The_Rules#Say_Yes. 2C_or_Roll_the_Dice

A proper D&D game is one where you're playing D&D and having fun and people aren't bored.

[muddi900]

I would be much more interested in any PnP company that released a feature-rich app that made it easy to play online. The days where I could get together regularly with a dedicated group of players is all but over.

Spreadsheets + dropbox + google+ hangouts?

[Karak]

I never said I took anything out of 4E. Not once. You may have read into that I did, but I didn't write it.

Your words

If the rules demand you use dice for other actions I simply ignore those bits.
and
No one needs dice, merely their wits and ability to describe their actions. Combat is fast and dramatic, and roleplaying is the focus for everyone at the table.

End

So that's what I was going on as combat in 4e isn't fast as we have already established so the 2 together points to things being removed as even the out of combat systems can have impact on the combat systems. But that's a kudo to them as they wanted much of it that way.

Carry on the good fight and keep Gming good games tha'ts all that matters in the end.
It is obviously each to their own as always, because real crux is you may have a problem with a couple particular global defined terms. I don't have a problem with any terms I simply have a desire for more source material. So its really a circular argument as we aren't even talking about the same thing at all anymore.

[Ink Asylum]

Spreadsheets + dropbox + google+ hangouts?

I've been doing that, plus using an open source shared mapping tool. That makes for a lot of open windows and jumping around between programs to find information.

One official program that easily incorporates maps, character sheets, dice rolling, and looking up rules would be greatly appreciated.

[Panthera]

I find this does pretty much all of what you need short of the rules: http://gametableproj.sourceforge.net/

[Scull]

Your words

If the rules demand you use dice for other actions I simply ignore those bits.
and
No one needs dice, merely their wits and ability to describe their actions. Combat is fast and dramatic, and roleplaying is the focus for everyone at the table.

End

So that's what I was going on as combat in 4e isn't fast as we have already established so the 2 together points to things being removed as even the out of combat systems can have impact on the combat systems. But that's a kudo to them as they wanted much of it that way.

Carry on the good fight and keep Gming good games tha'ts all that matters in the end.
It is obviously each to their own as always, because real crux is you may have a problem with a couple particular global defined terms. I don't have a problem with any terms I simply have a desire for more source material. So its really a circular argument as we aren't even talking about the same thing at all anymore.

Sure, I said that. But I never said it about any particular game, and certainly not about 4E :)

As for 4E combat, I find it to be very fast if you have a group that knows how to move it along. Use a power, roll the dice, do what the power says and move on. It does take time to get there, but when it does it speeds along nicely. Certainly better than 2/3E in speed terms.

What we should be talking about isn't 4E anyway. We should really be talking about what we want to do and see in 5E. The grand concept of having everyone be able to play their way is probably unattainable by WotC, as the player base is just too fractured and the systems are too divergent to meld well and make everyone happy. WotC will certainly fail to make everyone happy, and if they try, they'll probably make no one happy.

I prefer fast and light rules. Things that require quicker thought to run as opposed to dice solving everything. I can pretty much be sure that WotC won't be delivering that.

You might want to read a little more closely what I'm writing, I don't really disagree too much with your conclusions. Have you read games with more narrative systems like Burning Wheel? I think you'll find that there are games out there that give you a better idea of how to do things even with a detailed system.

Actually, I find the phrase 'say yes or roll the dice' to be extremely useful. Though, the saying alone is misleading, the context about when to roll the dice instead of say yes is important too: http://www.burningwheel.org/wiki/ind..._Roll_the_Dice

A proper D&D game is one where you're playing D&D and having fun and people aren't bored.


I have read, and quite love Burning Wheel. But as I said, they are more of a framework for the game than a set of hard and fast rules for everything. In fact, if I had to pick a system that does more right than wrong in non-combat situations, it would be BW, but that is largely because it is so open to interpretation.

All that really matter is that we have fun playing. And one day we'll all have to try to play together.

[Lint of Death]

4th Edition was and is excellent, it's my favorite RPG and so I am not only sad to see a new edition come in so soon, but I am also doing my best to mitigate that sadness because - with 4th edition being so much improved over 3.5 for both players and DMs in my opinion - 5th edition might well be even better.

[Matthias]

To those that say 4E doesn't work well in non-combat situations (and really, to anyone who enjoys fantasy RPGs and wants a podcast to listen to), I invite you to check out Critical Hit on iTunes (put out by the guys from majorspoilers.com). They started with a grognard, a PNP newbie who only knew WoW, two well-varied PNP gamers and a solid DM (also an experienced PNP gamer). They have 129 mainline episodes so far, with quite an involved storyline. It is one of the best examples I've seen of roleplaying in general done right, much less D&D.

The DM only has one house rule that I can remember, which is a slight mod to skill challenges so that people don't spam their best skills or repeat their neighbors. They regularly go long stretches (even multiple episodes) without rolling a single die, because the DM's primary focus is for social interactions to play out naturally; I can recall the occasional bluff check being made in a conversation, but it's always been part of an actually involved roleplay session where a PC makes an otherwise slightly dubious, but not plainly unacceptable bluff naturally. Likewise, the DM presents his characters well enough that PCs only rarely use perceptive rolls if they're really unsure in the presentation.

Both sides are expected to present at face value with no back-door hack around the situation, so social skill checks become more like subtle force powers, shifting things slightly your way. I really see the non-combat mechanics (besides the specific skill challenge "quicktime sequences") mostly as that--a way for larger-than-life heroes to bend reality a little bit in their favor, but not as a crutch to completely define that reality. I also don't think D&D 4E (or IIRC, 3.5, for that matter) requires you to use their skill system to define all of reality, though 3.5 had enough skills to really make it seem like you weren't supposed to be able to swim across a river unless you'd spent at least a point on it. I suppose it's easy to fall into that sort of numbers-are-the-fairest-arbitration-of-all mindset for groups that are not yet comfortable around each other, or for groups whose DM-PC relationship has gone beyond the "friendly adversary" territory into something more sinister.

Oh, and to my knowledge, the DM rarely, if ever, rolls a die behind the screen--certainly never for combat, and I don't think he's ever done so outside. Of course, 4E doesn't really have very many opposed checks, so there are very few situations for that.

I also like the little trick he used to get otherwise shy/non-commital players to flesh out their characters more--only one of the players designed his PC with a strong backstory in mind, and another with a very weak checklist. The DM did a really good job of taking little happenstance quirks like "my character is a stuck-up Eladrin, so he naturally hates Elves" and threw a few elves at the party in various contexts to encourage that to be fleshed out. He took a TPK and turned it into a character-defining moment for two of the characters, instead of a "well, you guys ruined my story. Roll new sheets!"

[Matthias]

I do think that the lack of codified rewards for doing things like "making a moderate-DC Acrobatics check to swing on a chandelier in combat" is unfortunate at times, but at the same time, I think codifying would make it hard to balance. If a successful Acrobatics check would allow you to always pass an enemy without provoking an attack of opportunity, every player will take Acrobatics over some less-immediately-combat-useful skill, and even if that's limited enough that only one PC in the party has the skill, that person can now ignore that combat risk most of the time.

On top of that, players are encouraged to improvise with their skills, and the Rules Compendium (I have that, but not the PG1 in front of me) even has a few common/strong suggestions; they tend to give more situational bonuses (to go with the Acrobatics example, you can make a check to jump down 10 feet and land standing, instead of landing prone and taking damage), but that feels right to me. A lot of the combat I've enjoyed has been in areas with an interesting terrain effect or two, such as changes in height, squares with effects, or even rotating sections of floors. Skills should be used to creatively overcome (with chance of failure) obstacles that the DM creatively imposed, whether it's terrain or some gimmick attack of a monster, and the DM should use unbiased judgement to decide whether the idea is cool enough to warrant a skill check. I've seen too many players who want to use skills to hack a situation, and too many DMs who try to block non-codified uses because they're either worried about said hacking, or upset that a player found a loophole in their carefully constructed situation.

That being said, you also shouldn't feel the need to make an acrobatics check because you want to add a little mid-air somersault flourish to the charging attack you're making against the big bad. Even a level 1 hero is beyond the normal abilities of a mere mortal. You can do cinematic combat from the get-go, and if you want to do something for story telling reasons, you probably don't need a check. In fact, if you end up whiffing and the baddie counters, you or the DM can throw in an awesome description of him batting you away, but you landing in a badass crouched position, for no change in crunch.

And you know what? If the great hall you're fighting in was described as having a large chandelier (or you're mid-combat and decide to ask), it's okay to have the exceptional check to swing from the balcony onto the chandelier, landing on the other side of a room of baddies. Sure, it's a large technical advantage, but it's awesome! Just don't expect to have something that exceptional happen to your character every encounter, and don't expect for the DC to be trivial.

[Panthera]

One of the better D&D blogs out there wrote up some interesting ideas for this:

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2012/01/excerpt-from-imaginary-type-v-players.html?zx=e82f062247023ce3

(Website has a mild NSFW warning)

[Drayven]

Since this is a d&d thread i'LL put this here. The wife and I just scored volumes 1-3 of the ad&d encyclopedia magica with the leatherish covers for 10 bucks a pop. Woot!

[Panthera]

Those were sweet little volumes, great deal.

[Matthias]

I'm actually liking most of what I hear about the new edition. They inverted the skill system a bit: instead of your core Abilities modifying skills, individual checks are now made based on an attribute itself, and skills modify those checks in certain situations. At first it seems like it's splitting hairs, but it makes a lot of sense, especially since they want to emphasize making a lot of dice-less checks. A Warrior with 18 Str is probably going to be able to bust down the wooden door, even if it takes a couple minutes. The DM should be able to ask for your Strength, perhaps modified by an applicable skill, and make a judgement call. Then a roll could be made if it's in combat. Likewise, a rogue with a high intelligence can probably be assumed to be able to find the hidden compartment on the top shelf, especially if the player specifically mentions searching that spot. It's no good for anybody to wonder whether the party is missing an important McGuffin because their Perception roll was shy of average.

Basically, the system is geared towards the process I was talking about earlier: rolled skill checks should be a way of "warping reality" a bit beyond what any battle-hardened, dungeon veteran hero should be able to do.

The other happy effect of this is that it's much easier for designers (professional or just a DM) to add skill categories that only make sense within a given setting, class, or player theme (which they described as being similar to an AD&D kit, and which also sounds similar to 4e themes). An example given was a Pub Crawler theme, which could include skills like "friends in low places" and "drink like a fish" (obviously with more standard names)--really situational stuff that can be really great for story reasons (and, in my speculation, may be cheaper to buy than more general skills). Another example I'm thinking of could be Mage specializations, so you could boost checks that deal with a particular element, etc.

While I hated the huge number of skills in 3.5e and the process of doling out skill points without any real knowledge what would come in handy where, this really makes me excited to deal more with that feature.