Wow, it's been a long time since I've updated. What can I say, the field season is a busy time. It's also proving pretty difficult to organize an online game with my group(s) from home while I'm out of state. So far I've only gotten to run a single (short) session with some non-gamers, but it seems like this round of playtesting will last longer that initially expected anyways, so there's still time.
Here is today's Legends and Lore article where Mike Mearls gives an update on how the feedback from the first playtest packet is shaping the ongoing design of the game.
It's no surprise that a lot of people are clamoring for more combat options for Fighters (and martial characters in general). "I hit with my sword" Fighters have their place (given how many non-gamers I've introduced to D&D I can definitely appreciate them!), but the 4E Fighter was by far the most engaging incarnation of the class, and it'll be nice to see some meaningful choices to make during combat. I'm hoping that they'll be simple (quick to resolve), redundancy will be avoided (no more "it's a different power because now it's 2[W]+mods and prone!"), and flexible enough for further improvisation. I like that complexity will be catered to in both a tactical rules module and a narrative rules module, and I'm sure I'll be using both in my games depending on the situation.
In addition to maneuvers in general, it's looking like the Fighter will be more than just "I have better stats." Which is definitely a good thing. After all, of the 4 core classes it's pretty obvious that the Fighter should be the best at Fighting, but what about when the Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin come out? All of these classes should also have very competitive damage, HD, etc., and they also have a bunch of "extras." Giving the Fighter some "extras" as baseline opens up the opportunity for the other warrior classes to actually have competitive combat stats. Otherwise where would a Ranger fall compared with a Rogue vs Fighter, for example?
I'm glad that a lot of people commented on not liking the Surprise rules, because there wasn't very much discussion about them online. Personally I think that it should at least grant advantage to the attackers, if not an extra turn. An initiative bonus is not quite exciting enough.
I'm NOT thrilled about the new skills system they're tinkering with. It's sloppy design if two different characters roll 2 different types of checks just because one is trained and one isn't. Furthermore, why should training make everyone exactly equal? Why should an 8 Int Rogue be just as good at disarming traps that require logic and/or knowledge as a 15 Int Rogue just because both are trained? After all, just because a whole class of students is exposed to the same material doesn't mean they're all equally proficient and knowledgeable. Some get As, some get Ds. I vastly prefer the +3 bonus that you add onto an ability check. It makes different characters approach the same skill in different ways. An 8 Str Gnome Wizard will be far more successful threatening someone with a force of magic using Cha to Intimidate, whereas an 18 Str Minotaur Fighter can punch a hole in the wall and threaten to do the same to your face, adding Intimidate to a Str check. With an "Intimidate check" replacing the ability score check the Gnome could say that he's punching a hole in the wall and it would be fine mechanically, despite the fact that he's a spindly little guy even by Gnome standards. I certainly wouldn't feel threatened if he flexed his muscles at me.
The article concludes with healing and resting. I'm honestly not sure what kind of system I'd prefer, but I definitely do NOT want a healbot to be required (and that includes wands of CLW). I do like the idea of making the healing rules modular, with options for high-action, quick-recovery games as well as grittier, more deadly games. Hopefully there's also some middle ground.
Anyways, it also seems like the next round is put off until later in the summer (as opposed to early July). Given that I haven't messed around with this first playtest all that much, I can't complain. I'd like to make some minor tweaks to the system while it's still in a very bare-bones state, without getting distracted by all of the shiny new modules.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
D&D Pronunciation
Found this Pronunciation Guide on EN World (which I now know how to pronounce, lol). Nifty stuff.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
DM rolls
I had a random thought the other day after reading a discussion about the lack of passive perception in the D&D Next playtest. The way I see it, the advantage of passive Perception is that it speeds up task resolution, but more importantly it allows the DM to gauge the party's awareness by not alerting them to the fact that something's up (which is obvious when the DM asks you to "make a Perception check").
The disadvantage, of course, is that "assuming the average" can get pretty boring since you know you'll always succeed at a given DC. Does this realistically represent awareness? You can assume that the adventurers are always "on alert" and cautious, but nobody can spend 100% of their day completely focused on every little aspect of their environment. Trust me, I do bird surveys for a living and it's tough to keep track of every individual singing and calling around you even for just 10 minutes. To suggest that an adventurer is constantly equally aware (unless they're "actively searching," in which case they can do worse) is, quite simply, pretty absurd. Minds wander, people daydream, sometimes people are talking with each other and other times they're silent, and perhaps most importantly sometimes people focus on the wrong thing. You can't give everything equal attention, so why assume that you're always focusing equally on The Thing That Matters regardless of what it might be?
My solution - the random number table! No, really! A DM can simply roll up a list of random numbers between 1 and 20 (easy enough to do in Excel), crossing off each number as it gets "used." You'd also need a reference sheet with all of your player's modifiers (which is no different than keeping note of their passive perception scores, really). I'm constantly scribbling things down when I DM, so the players would be none the wiser that I just "used up" a perception roll for them. If you work from a laptop you could even use an electronic dice roller without your players knowing.
I haven't tested this idea in play yet, but theoretically it combines the advantages of passive perception (fluid play and not cluing your players in that something's up) with the advantages of rolling (simulating random chance in a variable task). Win, win, if you ask me.
The disadvantage, of course, is that "assuming the average" can get pretty boring since you know you'll always succeed at a given DC. Does this realistically represent awareness? You can assume that the adventurers are always "on alert" and cautious, but nobody can spend 100% of their day completely focused on every little aspect of their environment. Trust me, I do bird surveys for a living and it's tough to keep track of every individual singing and calling around you even for just 10 minutes. To suggest that an adventurer is constantly equally aware (unless they're "actively searching," in which case they can do worse) is, quite simply, pretty absurd. Minds wander, people daydream, sometimes people are talking with each other and other times they're silent, and perhaps most importantly sometimes people focus on the wrong thing. You can't give everything equal attention, so why assume that you're always focusing equally on The Thing That Matters regardless of what it might be?
My solution - the random number table! No, really! A DM can simply roll up a list of random numbers between 1 and 20 (easy enough to do in Excel), crossing off each number as it gets "used." You'd also need a reference sheet with all of your player's modifiers (which is no different than keeping note of their passive perception scores, really). I'm constantly scribbling things down when I DM, so the players would be none the wiser that I just "used up" a perception roll for them. If you work from a laptop you could even use an electronic dice roller without your players knowing.
I haven't tested this idea in play yet, but theoretically it combines the advantages of passive perception (fluid play and not cluing your players in that something's up) with the advantages of rolling (simulating random chance in a variable task). Win, win, if you ask me.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Tenents of Old School Gaming
The other day I came across A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming on a thread on Enworld. Given that one of the goals of D&D Next is to allow for a wide range of play experiences with the same rules set, it occurred to me that I should look deeper into what a more "old school" style has to offer. The most salient points are organized into what the author calls the four "zen moments."
First Zen Moment: Rulings, Not Rules
This is an interesting point, and even if it's one that's widely known it's not necessarily one that's widely understood. The assumption that many people make is that the first TTRPG systems lacked a plethora of rules because the hobby hadn't evolved that refinement yet. This may be true to some extent, but it doesn't explain the recent proliferation of retro-clones. I personally appreciate a simple, streamlined system with only a few core concepts that can be applied to a wide variety of situations. The reason why I haven't embraced Basic D&D, AD&D, etc. is because after looking through the books I find the rules that do exist to be clunky. There are a lot of tables (some that need to be regularly consulted in-game), situational subsystems, and that's not to mention the utter lack of balance and non-intuitive systems like THAC0 (the system whereby lower AC is better). 4E may have suffered from supplement glut, confusing errata, and a few math errors here and there, but the core system was very solid and intuitive.
Here is where D&D Next has an interesting opportunity to realize a more old-school style of play while using modern rules to do it. Not only that, but players can toggle anywhere they like on the spectrum, and in some cases the more complex modules can inform rulings using the more simple core. To illustrate what I mean by this, let's use the Fighter as an example. The Fighter is going to have the option for maneuvers-based, 4E-style builds that will presumably be as balanced against competing options as possible (that's what a whole team of game designers, as well as a slew of playtesters who in some cases are competent in game design themselves, are tasked with accomplishing). Even if you're not interested in using those tactical modules or that complex Fighter build, it pays to be familiar with it because those maneuvers can serve as extremely useful reference points. In a purely old-school game using a non-modular system the GM can make rulings for improvised actions, but they'll always be a shot in the dark. The easiest methods are to substitute an attack for an improvised maneuver (like a Dex vs Dex contest to trip a foe), which if past experience is any measure is almost never going to be used because it's usually underpowered, or to simply allow the Fighter to attempt things like this in addition to attacking, which is obviously overpowered (and will result in players fishing for improvised actions every single turn, which will bog down gameplay). The middle ground is much more interesting, where maneuvers and attacks can be combined with a drawback in some sort of middle ground, with the end result being tactically powerful but not automatically the obvious choice all the time.
Improvisation and creativity can be maintained alongside balance, instead of "you need a feat/power/etc. for that" for the sake of balance. Ultimately I do think that rewarding creativity and improvisation is important because that's the biggest strength of tabletop gaming. You can attempt anything you come up with instead of being railroaded by computer codes like in video games. In a way, some modern game rules bring that "coded" element too far into the foreground, and that's just not playing to the advantage of the medium.
Second Zen Moment: Player Skill, not Character Abilities
This one's a little more contentious in my opinion, but the beauty of delving into this old-school toolkit is that everything doesn't come pre-packaged; groups can choose different elements to suit their tastes. Aside from the fact that simply testing player skill can bog things down (i.e. requiring players to specify searching every corner of a room instead of simply rolling a search check), it also breaks the immersion of roleplaying a character who is different from you.
The biggest sticking point to me comes into play during social challenges, and there are two issues here. The first is simply that different players have different levels of comfort and interest getting into character and actually acting. The classic example is a shy player who wants to play a smooth-talking Bard. Requiring such a player to come up with the actual speech he uses to change the king's mind is simply not good gaming if the player would rather just give a short, general description and roll a Diplomacy check. The rules shouldn't restrict personal style too much, and besides that it's easier to give roll-players what they want and allow roleplayers to ignore it than it is to force rollplayers to invent their own mechanics. Second, there's a disconnect with a clever player controlling a stupid character, or a smooth-talking player controlling a character who dumped Cha, etc. The idea is that Int, Cha, or whatever can be dumped but the character won't really suffer the drawbacks of doing so. In other words, the player's skill gives the character a free ability. Why should the Fighter be able to out-Charisma the Bard when the Bard class specifically gives up some combat expertise in order to have more of a social presence?
Ultimately, there's not "right answer" and fortunately it seems like D&D Next will support both playstyles well.
Third Zen Moment: Heroic, Not Superhero
I'm not sure that this one's all that important, but perhaps old-school grognards would disagree. The premise is that starting out as Joe Normal is requisite for the experience, and I don't necessarily buy that. More adept individuals have just as much of a need to survive using their wits as every day people, because the simple fact is that every day people don't run around doing the sorts of things that adventurers tend to do! It's really a question of how deep into the "origin story" you want to go ("I just picked up a sword for the first time" vs "I've already demonstrated my skill and potential in the field"). Where your character eventually ends up isn't necessarily an old school vs modern element, either. I would argue, in fact, that old school Magic Users are indeed superheroic; the goal of modern games is simply to allow the non-magic guys to do the same.
Fourth Zen Moment: Forget "Game Balance"
Isn't this an interesting point! As someone who was attracted to 4E specifically because the classes are all balanced against each other, you might think I'd wholeheartedly take issue with this. True, I don't want to repeat my 3rd edition experience where the casters are all but useless in the first few levels, and by the high levels the situation is flip-flopped. However, one component of the argument is that not every encounter should be assumed to be "fair," and I've come to realize that this is a very good point. Of course a modern game like 4E gives you to tools to finely craft a balanced encounter, but that doesn't necessarily mean you need to adhere to them! Admittedly it's easier in a more streamlined system to gauge threat level more quickly (in real time), but I think this is generally good advice for GMs in any system to keep in mind, as it grounds the players into the game world (which feels more dynamic and realistic by being inhabited by all manners of creatures, and not just those that are an "appropriate challenge").
Player Advice
It takes the effort of everyone in the group to run a game more old-style, and it's helpful for players to know the basic assumptions of what they should be doing. Mapping is emphasized (even if it's just a flowchart), as the player needs to keep in mind where things are to use the environment and terrain to not only their advantage, but to avoid getting flanked by reinforcements or trapped. Dungeons tend to be tests of attrition, with the end goal being the monsters near the end with the big loot pile. Fighting everything means you'll never make it far enough, so scouting ahead is important (see also using the environment to your advantage). Asking a lot of question is important, both to clarify what you may be facing and any details of the environment that may be important. As a side note, this is valuable in any game from the GM's perspective because having to think about such details can provide a spark of inspiration (which can lead to an interesting scenario, or just help to more fully flesh out the world).
Other tips include using hirelings, protecting the Magic User, keeping in mind that not all monsters will be within the party's skill to defeat, and gathering information about a dungeon beforehand. This means doing your research and talking to people in-game before heading out. Ultimately, it's about preparation and careful thought.
DM Advice
Spicing things up outside of the standard procedure is required. Otherwise things turn into "I attack," "Monster Attacks," "I attack again," etc. Yes, you can spice things up in any system, but you arguably have more time for it when combat options are simple and fights end quickly. Coming up with random consequences for bad rolls (and benefits for good rolls!) is encouraged, as long as you play fair and don't favor either the monsters or the players. You need to give players a reason to trust your judgement.
Colorful descriptions and improvised actions are often easier without the constraint of a grid and minis. Even if you use a grid, go with what makes sense in the game world rather than just what makes sense on the table in front of you. Resource management is important to consider, and make sure you can think of ways to counter the 5 minute workday. Apparently a lot of old-school gamers consider this stuff a feature and not a bug (personally I'd rather not be bothered with tracking rations, arrows, etc., let alone being locked into a spellcasting system that assumes this is important to you).
The closing statements are "You are the rulebook. There is no other rulebook." and "Make it fast, make it colorful, and make it full of decisions for the players." At the very least it speaks to my aversion for 3rd edition's "you need to have complicated rules for everything, which then must be remembered or referenced" philosophy.
As a final thought I'll simply state that there's some valuable stuff in the old-school philosophy, as well as things that are eschewed by modern games for a reason. One thing that this reading has emphasized for me is the value of keeping in mind the strength of TTRPGs, which is maintaining the sense that truly anything is possible. The more I think about it, the more I've come to the conclusion that a simple core that can handle a wide variety of situations is an admirable quality in game design. D&D 3E had too many complicated sub-systems, whereas 4E probably had too many specific "exceptions" such that they became hard-wired pieces. That's not to say that either are bad games (even if I despise 3rd edition personally), but rather that they don't play to the main strength of the TTRPG. Third Edition's major goal is simulationism and system mastery, whereas Fourth Edition's is tactical combat that borderlines on being a miniatures war(mini)game. Both are valid experiences, but they give up some of the open-endedness that makes roleplaying games great. I sincerely hope that Fifth Edition's modularity really can allow groups to switch as the situation dictates (namely for me, being able to bust out a tactical combat for major battles but otherwise have a simple core).
First Zen Moment: Rulings, Not Rules
This is an interesting point, and even if it's one that's widely known it's not necessarily one that's widely understood. The assumption that many people make is that the first TTRPG systems lacked a plethora of rules because the hobby hadn't evolved that refinement yet. This may be true to some extent, but it doesn't explain the recent proliferation of retro-clones. I personally appreciate a simple, streamlined system with only a few core concepts that can be applied to a wide variety of situations. The reason why I haven't embraced Basic D&D, AD&D, etc. is because after looking through the books I find the rules that do exist to be clunky. There are a lot of tables (some that need to be regularly consulted in-game), situational subsystems, and that's not to mention the utter lack of balance and non-intuitive systems like THAC0 (the system whereby lower AC is better). 4E may have suffered from supplement glut, confusing errata, and a few math errors here and there, but the core system was very solid and intuitive.
Here is where D&D Next has an interesting opportunity to realize a more old-school style of play while using modern rules to do it. Not only that, but players can toggle anywhere they like on the spectrum, and in some cases the more complex modules can inform rulings using the more simple core. To illustrate what I mean by this, let's use the Fighter as an example. The Fighter is going to have the option for maneuvers-based, 4E-style builds that will presumably be as balanced against competing options as possible (that's what a whole team of game designers, as well as a slew of playtesters who in some cases are competent in game design themselves, are tasked with accomplishing). Even if you're not interested in using those tactical modules or that complex Fighter build, it pays to be familiar with it because those maneuvers can serve as extremely useful reference points. In a purely old-school game using a non-modular system the GM can make rulings for improvised actions, but they'll always be a shot in the dark. The easiest methods are to substitute an attack for an improvised maneuver (like a Dex vs Dex contest to trip a foe), which if past experience is any measure is almost never going to be used because it's usually underpowered, or to simply allow the Fighter to attempt things like this in addition to attacking, which is obviously overpowered (and will result in players fishing for improvised actions every single turn, which will bog down gameplay). The middle ground is much more interesting, where maneuvers and attacks can be combined with a drawback in some sort of middle ground, with the end result being tactically powerful but not automatically the obvious choice all the time.
Improvisation and creativity can be maintained alongside balance, instead of "you need a feat/power/etc. for that" for the sake of balance. Ultimately I do think that rewarding creativity and improvisation is important because that's the biggest strength of tabletop gaming. You can attempt anything you come up with instead of being railroaded by computer codes like in video games. In a way, some modern game rules bring that "coded" element too far into the foreground, and that's just not playing to the advantage of the medium.
Second Zen Moment: Player Skill, not Character Abilities
This one's a little more contentious in my opinion, but the beauty of delving into this old-school toolkit is that everything doesn't come pre-packaged; groups can choose different elements to suit their tastes. Aside from the fact that simply testing player skill can bog things down (i.e. requiring players to specify searching every corner of a room instead of simply rolling a search check), it also breaks the immersion of roleplaying a character who is different from you.
The biggest sticking point to me comes into play during social challenges, and there are two issues here. The first is simply that different players have different levels of comfort and interest getting into character and actually acting. The classic example is a shy player who wants to play a smooth-talking Bard. Requiring such a player to come up with the actual speech he uses to change the king's mind is simply not good gaming if the player would rather just give a short, general description and roll a Diplomacy check. The rules shouldn't restrict personal style too much, and besides that it's easier to give roll-players what they want and allow roleplayers to ignore it than it is to force rollplayers to invent their own mechanics. Second, there's a disconnect with a clever player controlling a stupid character, or a smooth-talking player controlling a character who dumped Cha, etc. The idea is that Int, Cha, or whatever can be dumped but the character won't really suffer the drawbacks of doing so. In other words, the player's skill gives the character a free ability. Why should the Fighter be able to out-Charisma the Bard when the Bard class specifically gives up some combat expertise in order to have more of a social presence?
Ultimately, there's not "right answer" and fortunately it seems like D&D Next will support both playstyles well.
Third Zen Moment: Heroic, Not Superhero
I'm not sure that this one's all that important, but perhaps old-school grognards would disagree. The premise is that starting out as Joe Normal is requisite for the experience, and I don't necessarily buy that. More adept individuals have just as much of a need to survive using their wits as every day people, because the simple fact is that every day people don't run around doing the sorts of things that adventurers tend to do! It's really a question of how deep into the "origin story" you want to go ("I just picked up a sword for the first time" vs "I've already demonstrated my skill and potential in the field"). Where your character eventually ends up isn't necessarily an old school vs modern element, either. I would argue, in fact, that old school Magic Users are indeed superheroic; the goal of modern games is simply to allow the non-magic guys to do the same.
Fourth Zen Moment: Forget "Game Balance"
Isn't this an interesting point! As someone who was attracted to 4E specifically because the classes are all balanced against each other, you might think I'd wholeheartedly take issue with this. True, I don't want to repeat my 3rd edition experience where the casters are all but useless in the first few levels, and by the high levels the situation is flip-flopped. However, one component of the argument is that not every encounter should be assumed to be "fair," and I've come to realize that this is a very good point. Of course a modern game like 4E gives you to tools to finely craft a balanced encounter, but that doesn't necessarily mean you need to adhere to them! Admittedly it's easier in a more streamlined system to gauge threat level more quickly (in real time), but I think this is generally good advice for GMs in any system to keep in mind, as it grounds the players into the game world (which feels more dynamic and realistic by being inhabited by all manners of creatures, and not just those that are an "appropriate challenge").
Player Advice
It takes the effort of everyone in the group to run a game more old-style, and it's helpful for players to know the basic assumptions of what they should be doing. Mapping is emphasized (even if it's just a flowchart), as the player needs to keep in mind where things are to use the environment and terrain to not only their advantage, but to avoid getting flanked by reinforcements or trapped. Dungeons tend to be tests of attrition, with the end goal being the monsters near the end with the big loot pile. Fighting everything means you'll never make it far enough, so scouting ahead is important (see also using the environment to your advantage). Asking a lot of question is important, both to clarify what you may be facing and any details of the environment that may be important. As a side note, this is valuable in any game from the GM's perspective because having to think about such details can provide a spark of inspiration (which can lead to an interesting scenario, or just help to more fully flesh out the world).
Other tips include using hirelings, protecting the Magic User, keeping in mind that not all monsters will be within the party's skill to defeat, and gathering information about a dungeon beforehand. This means doing your research and talking to people in-game before heading out. Ultimately, it's about preparation and careful thought.
DM Advice
Spicing things up outside of the standard procedure is required. Otherwise things turn into "I attack," "Monster Attacks," "I attack again," etc. Yes, you can spice things up in any system, but you arguably have more time for it when combat options are simple and fights end quickly. Coming up with random consequences for bad rolls (and benefits for good rolls!) is encouraged, as long as you play fair and don't favor either the monsters or the players. You need to give players a reason to trust your judgement.
Colorful descriptions and improvised actions are often easier without the constraint of a grid and minis. Even if you use a grid, go with what makes sense in the game world rather than just what makes sense on the table in front of you. Resource management is important to consider, and make sure you can think of ways to counter the 5 minute workday. Apparently a lot of old-school gamers consider this stuff a feature and not a bug (personally I'd rather not be bothered with tracking rations, arrows, etc., let alone being locked into a spellcasting system that assumes this is important to you).
The closing statements are "You are the rulebook. There is no other rulebook." and "Make it fast, make it colorful, and make it full of decisions for the players." At the very least it speaks to my aversion for 3rd edition's "you need to have complicated rules for everything, which then must be remembered or referenced" philosophy.
As a final thought I'll simply state that there's some valuable stuff in the old-school philosophy, as well as things that are eschewed by modern games for a reason. One thing that this reading has emphasized for me is the value of keeping in mind the strength of TTRPGs, which is maintaining the sense that truly anything is possible. The more I think about it, the more I've come to the conclusion that a simple core that can handle a wide variety of situations is an admirable quality in game design. D&D 3E had too many complicated sub-systems, whereas 4E probably had too many specific "exceptions" such that they became hard-wired pieces. That's not to say that either are bad games (even if I despise 3rd edition personally), but rather that they don't play to the main strength of the TTRPG. Third Edition's major goal is simulationism and system mastery, whereas Fourth Edition's is tactical combat that borderlines on being a miniatures war(mini)game. Both are valid experiences, but they give up some of the open-endedness that makes roleplaying games great. I sincerely hope that Fifth Edition's modularity really can allow groups to switch as the situation dictates (namely for me, being able to bust out a tactical combat for major battles but otherwise have a simple core).
Thursday, May 31, 2012
D&D Next Pregens (Round 1)
Lightfoot Halfling Rogue
Halfling traits allow you to hide behind creatures larger than you, and to re-roll something twice per day. I find the hiding thing to be a bit silly, but whatever. This Rogue has the Commoner background (backgrounds determine skills) which allows you to choose a common profession, gaining knowledge and contacts relevant to your trade. You also gain the skills Animal Handling, Commerce, and Folklore (as you can see, the skills are very open-ended and almost resemble Traits in The One Ring). Training in a skill gives you a +3 bonus to any relevant attribute check.
Rogue builds are known as "schemes," and this guy is a Thief. This seems to be a heavily skill-based scheme, with less of an emphasis on combat. You can hide while only lightly obscured (or with only a quarter cover), you gain knowledge of Thieves' Cant, and you have training in Open Locks, Find/Remove Traps, and Stealth. Aside from your scheme, a Rogue also has Skill Mastery, which lets you take 10 if you roll lower than that with a trained skill. One bug related to this is that the Rogue pregen is just 1 away from auto-succeeding at finding any trap in the sample adventure. Given that perception is a Wisdom roll, and this Rogue has a Wisdom of 8, that's very problematic. Unless adjusted, most Rogues will earn too many auto-successes. Finally, Rogues get free Thieves Tools and, of course, the ability to Sneak Attack. For the 3 levels provided, Sneak Attack scales by 1D6/level. That could get messy. Additionally, while it's not worth spending your action to Hide just for Sneak Attack at level 1, by level 3 it becomes a more viable tactic. That's my biggest sticking point with this Rogue; a signature ability varies in its viability based on level.
The Rogue's theme is Lurker, which gives him various perks while hiding. Themes are really just pre-selected feats, and the designers talk about them as defining how you do your job. In broad terms, class is your combat abilities (and sometimes a few extras), background gives you skills, and theme is your style (how you use your abilities).
Hill Dwarf Fighter
I've seen a lot of complaints about this Fighter being too simple. The designers assure us that a more tactical 4E-style Fighter is forthcoming, and I don't lament that they decided to test drive the core rules with the simple version. They need to get the simple Fighter balanced and polished before they can design something more complicated, after all.
Hill Dwarves apparently get a boost to their Hit Die size, racial weapon affinities take the form of moving the damage die one step up, and Dwarves also get a list of other nifty racial traits (immunity to poison, low light vision, no speed penalty for being encumbered, and the ability to identify stonework and not get lost underground).
The Fighter's background is Soldier, and this lets him perform strenuous physical activity twice as long as normal. This is things like forced marches, holding your breath, etc. The trained skills that he gets are Intimidate, Perception, and Survival. These are a nice set of skills! I love how base skills are divorced from class now; no more being a second-class skill user just because you're a Fighter.
Simply put, Fighters have good armor, good weapon proficiencies, deal the most damage, and are tough. That's all this simple Fighter is, really, is class-based "better numbers." His theme (Slayer) provides a little more variety, however. The Reaper feat lets him deal Str mod damage even on a miss, and at 3rd level he gets Cleave, which lets you make another melee attack when you kill something. Nice! Oh yeah, and at 2nd level he gets something called Fighter's Surge, which is basically a twice per day action point.
Depending on what kind of guidance DMs are given on how to adjudicate improvised actions even the simple Fighter has the potential to be fairly interesting. Specifically, I don't think it would be a stretch to allow players to tack improvised actions onto their attacks (push enemies back, knock them prone, etc.) to "create" 4E style powers on the fly. Possible drawbacks might include a penalty to the attack, attacking with disadvantage, granting advantage to your opponents, or sacrificing some of your damage.
Human Cleric of Pelor
Humans appear to get bonuses in all of their attributes, and not much else. Interesting. This guy's background is priest, and that gives him free services when in a temple to his god. He also gains Diplomacy, Insight, Religious Lore, and Wilderness Lore as trained skills.
Clerics are kind of what you'd expect; they get a decent Hit Die, can wear good armor, get decent weapon selection, and they cast spells. They seem to get fewer spells than the Wizard, but can cast from a list of chosen spells spontaneously!!! I really hope that the Druid gets to do this as well. This Cleric gets Radiant Lance as his at-will spell (basically a big laser), as well as Detect Magic. He can also cast Cure Light Wounds, Spiritual Hammer, and Searing Light (a bigger laser). Clerics can also use Channel Divinity 4x/day, but you only start out with Turn Undead. You can channel other stuff as you level.
This pregen has the Healer theme, and it really turns him into a healbot. Your start with the Herbalism feat, which is basically "make antitoxin, healing potions, and healing kits for half price!" I can't say that I like this, as it hearkens back to the "spend gold for healing!" logic of 3rd edition (can we say "Wand of Cure Light Wounds?"). At 3rd level you maximize healing dice. Sick.
Mountain Dwarf Cleric of Moradin
Same traits as the Hill Dwarf, except I'm presuming the stat bonus is different. Also, it appears to get +1 to AC instead of a Hit Die increase, and its racial affinity is for hammers, not axes. Ok, cool.
This guy's background is Knight (can we say "Paladin?"), which gives you social perks when around nobility or others who recognize your station. You also gain training in Animal Handling, Diplomacy, Heraldic Lore, and Religious Lore.
The reason why 2 Cleric pregens were chosen was to highlight how your god can alter the playstyle of the class. Indeed! Whereas the Cleric of Pelor is a "zappy, zappy laser, oh you're hurt here's a heal spellcaster" this guy's very much an in-your-face warrior who buffs himself with his divine magic. His only at-will is Death Ward (which lets you stabilize your dying friends), and his prepared spells are Crusader's Strike (my hammer does more damage!), Divine Favor (buff those attacks!), and Healing Word (I'll heal you just a little bit as I'm smacking someone in the face). Again, he can choose to cast any of these spontaneously (but only 2x/day).
This PC has the most interesting Theme of the bunch, since as a Guardian he's kind of a defender. At 1st level you can use your reaction to give an attacker disadvantage when they attack an adjacent ally (you partially block it with your shield). At third level you say "you shall not pass!" to creatures your size or smaller, and they stop their movement when they enter your reach. Still not quite as functional as a 4E defender's mark + punishment, so we'll see how this develops.
High Elf Wizard
I'm sure the Elf gets some "hidden" stuff not directly stated on the character sheet (like the die increases of the Dwarves), but I don't know what they are. They do get their immunity to charm and sleep, auto-advantage to listen/search/notice, and low light vision.
The Sage background is thematic, and its Researcher trait allows you to know where to find a piece of information even if you fail a Lore check. Trained skills are Forbidden Lore, Magical Lore, Natural Lore, and Religious Lore. Forbidden Lore sure looks interesting (if situational)!
So casting restrictions are back. As in, you can't cast spells while wearing any type of armor, and when you take damage you have to make a Con check if you try to cast a non at-will spell. If you fail the action is wasted (but the spell isn't used). Wizards also have to prepare the exact spell that they want to use from their spellbook (didn't prepare Burning Hands, can't use it). Yeah, I like the Cleric's magic better. This Wizard does get a lot of spells, though. And his prepared spells do seem to be a good deal better than the Cleric's. Burning Hands, Comprehend Languages, Shield, and Sleep are your 1st level spells, and your at-wills (minor spells) are Detect Magic, Light, Mage Hand, Magic Missile, Ray of Frost, and Shocking Grasp. Ray of Frost does no damage but reduces speed to 0, which is interesting (you need to make a ranged attack to hit - oh, and a ranged attack with magic means you use your Int vs AC, so no need to have a decent Dex score just to hit stuff).
Two of those minor spells come from the Wizard's theme, Magic User. At 3rd level you get a familiar (which you can use touch spells with, hello Shocking Grasp!). Familiars are more like their 4E incarnations, in that they don't die permanently and you don't have to worry about Con loss.
Halfling traits allow you to hide behind creatures larger than you, and to re-roll something twice per day. I find the hiding thing to be a bit silly, but whatever. This Rogue has the Commoner background (backgrounds determine skills) which allows you to choose a common profession, gaining knowledge and contacts relevant to your trade. You also gain the skills Animal Handling, Commerce, and Folklore (as you can see, the skills are very open-ended and almost resemble Traits in The One Ring). Training in a skill gives you a +3 bonus to any relevant attribute check.
Rogue builds are known as "schemes," and this guy is a Thief. This seems to be a heavily skill-based scheme, with less of an emphasis on combat. You can hide while only lightly obscured (or with only a quarter cover), you gain knowledge of Thieves' Cant, and you have training in Open Locks, Find/Remove Traps, and Stealth. Aside from your scheme, a Rogue also has Skill Mastery, which lets you take 10 if you roll lower than that with a trained skill. One bug related to this is that the Rogue pregen is just 1 away from auto-succeeding at finding any trap in the sample adventure. Given that perception is a Wisdom roll, and this Rogue has a Wisdom of 8, that's very problematic. Unless adjusted, most Rogues will earn too many auto-successes. Finally, Rogues get free Thieves Tools and, of course, the ability to Sneak Attack. For the 3 levels provided, Sneak Attack scales by 1D6/level. That could get messy. Additionally, while it's not worth spending your action to Hide just for Sneak Attack at level 1, by level 3 it becomes a more viable tactic. That's my biggest sticking point with this Rogue; a signature ability varies in its viability based on level.
The Rogue's theme is Lurker, which gives him various perks while hiding. Themes are really just pre-selected feats, and the designers talk about them as defining how you do your job. In broad terms, class is your combat abilities (and sometimes a few extras), background gives you skills, and theme is your style (how you use your abilities).
Hill Dwarf Fighter
I've seen a lot of complaints about this Fighter being too simple. The designers assure us that a more tactical 4E-style Fighter is forthcoming, and I don't lament that they decided to test drive the core rules with the simple version. They need to get the simple Fighter balanced and polished before they can design something more complicated, after all.
Hill Dwarves apparently get a boost to their Hit Die size, racial weapon affinities take the form of moving the damage die one step up, and Dwarves also get a list of other nifty racial traits (immunity to poison, low light vision, no speed penalty for being encumbered, and the ability to identify stonework and not get lost underground).
The Fighter's background is Soldier, and this lets him perform strenuous physical activity twice as long as normal. This is things like forced marches, holding your breath, etc. The trained skills that he gets are Intimidate, Perception, and Survival. These are a nice set of skills! I love how base skills are divorced from class now; no more being a second-class skill user just because you're a Fighter.
Simply put, Fighters have good armor, good weapon proficiencies, deal the most damage, and are tough. That's all this simple Fighter is, really, is class-based "better numbers." His theme (Slayer) provides a little more variety, however. The Reaper feat lets him deal Str mod damage even on a miss, and at 3rd level he gets Cleave, which lets you make another melee attack when you kill something. Nice! Oh yeah, and at 2nd level he gets something called Fighter's Surge, which is basically a twice per day action point.
Depending on what kind of guidance DMs are given on how to adjudicate improvised actions even the simple Fighter has the potential to be fairly interesting. Specifically, I don't think it would be a stretch to allow players to tack improvised actions onto their attacks (push enemies back, knock them prone, etc.) to "create" 4E style powers on the fly. Possible drawbacks might include a penalty to the attack, attacking with disadvantage, granting advantage to your opponents, or sacrificing some of your damage.
Human Cleric of Pelor
Humans appear to get bonuses in all of their attributes, and not much else. Interesting. This guy's background is priest, and that gives him free services when in a temple to his god. He also gains Diplomacy, Insight, Religious Lore, and Wilderness Lore as trained skills.
Clerics are kind of what you'd expect; they get a decent Hit Die, can wear good armor, get decent weapon selection, and they cast spells. They seem to get fewer spells than the Wizard, but can cast from a list of chosen spells spontaneously!!! I really hope that the Druid gets to do this as well. This Cleric gets Radiant Lance as his at-will spell (basically a big laser), as well as Detect Magic. He can also cast Cure Light Wounds, Spiritual Hammer, and Searing Light (a bigger laser). Clerics can also use Channel Divinity 4x/day, but you only start out with Turn Undead. You can channel other stuff as you level.
This pregen has the Healer theme, and it really turns him into a healbot. Your start with the Herbalism feat, which is basically "make antitoxin, healing potions, and healing kits for half price!" I can't say that I like this, as it hearkens back to the "spend gold for healing!" logic of 3rd edition (can we say "Wand of Cure Light Wounds?"). At 3rd level you maximize healing dice. Sick.
Mountain Dwarf Cleric of Moradin
Same traits as the Hill Dwarf, except I'm presuming the stat bonus is different. Also, it appears to get +1 to AC instead of a Hit Die increase, and its racial affinity is for hammers, not axes. Ok, cool.
This guy's background is Knight (can we say "Paladin?"), which gives you social perks when around nobility or others who recognize your station. You also gain training in Animal Handling, Diplomacy, Heraldic Lore, and Religious Lore.
The reason why 2 Cleric pregens were chosen was to highlight how your god can alter the playstyle of the class. Indeed! Whereas the Cleric of Pelor is a "zappy, zappy laser, oh you're hurt here's a heal spellcaster" this guy's very much an in-your-face warrior who buffs himself with his divine magic. His only at-will is Death Ward (which lets you stabilize your dying friends), and his prepared spells are Crusader's Strike (my hammer does more damage!), Divine Favor (buff those attacks!), and Healing Word (I'll heal you just a little bit as I'm smacking someone in the face). Again, he can choose to cast any of these spontaneously (but only 2x/day).
This PC has the most interesting Theme of the bunch, since as a Guardian he's kind of a defender. At 1st level you can use your reaction to give an attacker disadvantage when they attack an adjacent ally (you partially block it with your shield). At third level you say "you shall not pass!" to creatures your size or smaller, and they stop their movement when they enter your reach. Still not quite as functional as a 4E defender's mark + punishment, so we'll see how this develops.
High Elf Wizard
I'm sure the Elf gets some "hidden" stuff not directly stated on the character sheet (like the die increases of the Dwarves), but I don't know what they are. They do get their immunity to charm and sleep, auto-advantage to listen/search/notice, and low light vision.
The Sage background is thematic, and its Researcher trait allows you to know where to find a piece of information even if you fail a Lore check. Trained skills are Forbidden Lore, Magical Lore, Natural Lore, and Religious Lore. Forbidden Lore sure looks interesting (if situational)!
So casting restrictions are back. As in, you can't cast spells while wearing any type of armor, and when you take damage you have to make a Con check if you try to cast a non at-will spell. If you fail the action is wasted (but the spell isn't used). Wizards also have to prepare the exact spell that they want to use from their spellbook (didn't prepare Burning Hands, can't use it). Yeah, I like the Cleric's magic better. This Wizard does get a lot of spells, though. And his prepared spells do seem to be a good deal better than the Cleric's. Burning Hands, Comprehend Languages, Shield, and Sleep are your 1st level spells, and your at-wills (minor spells) are Detect Magic, Light, Mage Hand, Magic Missile, Ray of Frost, and Shocking Grasp. Ray of Frost does no damage but reduces speed to 0, which is interesting (you need to make a ranged attack to hit - oh, and a ranged attack with magic means you use your Int vs AC, so no need to have a decent Dex score just to hit stuff).
Two of those minor spells come from the Wizard's theme, Magic User. At 3rd level you get a familiar (which you can use touch spells with, hello Shocking Grasp!). Familiars are more like their 4E incarnations, in that they don't die permanently and you don't have to worry about Con loss.
D&D Next Initial Impressions
So the playtest is out, I've had time to digest the material, and I even played a short session with some non-gamer friends. Below are my commentary on various elements (note that this is based on the May 24th Playtest Packet).
The Core and Skills
The core system is really solid. Its strengths are simplicity, mechanical consistency, and (mostly) transparent math. I'm also a big fan of the flexibility. Essentially, all d20 rolls are either attribute checks or variants thereof. Even saving throws fall under their purview; there is a saving throw for each attribute, depending on the specific effect (for example, if something is best resisted or avoided by the use of intellect, you'd make an Int save). Since everything boils down to attribute checks, improvising actions is more intuitive. Because of clunkier math, in previous editions it often wasn't mechanically advantageous to "resort to" attribute checks, but in Next it actually works. Skills are an add-on to this system rather than a separate subsystem unto themselves. The open-endedness of skills also caters to improvisation really well, and rewards creativity with mechanical advantages. One of the big keys here is NOT tying a skill with a specific attribute. Finally, one of the major design goals is to support virtually any style of play via modularity. You could run a 1st Ed style game, a 4E style game, etc. but (presumably) without the quirks and bugs of those editions.
Gridless Combat
It's not inherently better or worse, but it is a specific tool in a DM's toolbox. One of 4E's big weaknesses is that it's extremely difficult to run combats gridless. While tactical depth is a huge strength of the system, from the scale of the adventure it's inflexible in that the system pushes DMs toward big set piece battles almost exclusively. If Next is able to replicate 4E's tactical depth (or near enough) for big set piece battles but allow for simple gridless skirmishes using the same rules then it'll be a huge win.
Advantage/Disadvantage
The idea here is an extension of situational modifiers like combat advantage. Instead of adding a +2 or a +4 to your roll, you get to roll 2 D20s and take the best result (if you have advantage) or the worst result (if you have disadvantage). While it's admittedly more difficult to simulate degrees of advantage using this system it does offer the tactile pleasure of rolling more dice, requires less math/bookkeeping, and is easier to apply after-the-fact. Besides, it's not like modifiers are completely gone (for example, half cover still provides +2 to AC and Dex saves, whereas three quarters cover provides +5 to AC and Dex saves).
Movement
One of the big weaknesses of this playtest in my opinion is that Opportunity Attacks (OAs) are not in the core rules. Combined with the fact that you can split up your movement (move 10 feet, attack, move 20 feet), and it's really easy to ignore the beefy melee guys and bash on the squishies. Which realistically doesn't make sense. A guy with a sword (who knows how to use it effectively) isn't going to let you traipse on by to beat up his friend. A common complaint regarding OAs is that they slow down combat. Quick combat is nice and all, but there needs to be something in place to give enemies a reason for fighting the Fighter. Personally I don't think that OAs suck up too much time (indeed, if a lot of extra attacks are rolled they could end a combat quicker), but there are also a few alternative systems. One is that enemies who walk past a melee guy attack with disadvantage. Another is that to get past you need to roll a Dex contest (opposed Dex checks). Finally, something that Mike Mearls (lead designer) proposed in a live chat is that if you want to disengage you can give up your action (attack) to do so, and if you opt not to do that only then will your opponent get a free swing (in other words, it's standard OA rules but they can be avoided for the price of an action).
Spellcasting
It's Vancian, but so far not so bad. The spells are more balanced than in previous incarnations, with many of the deadliest and/or most debilitating effects having HP thresholds (i.e. sleep cuts movement in half, but only creatures with 10 HP or less need to make a Wis save or fall unconscious). Casters also have at-will spells so they aren't stuck shooting crossbows or throwing daggers when they run out of spells. The number of spells is also reigned in (as is spell scaling). This will not only maintain better balance, but reduce bookkeeping. Consider me cautiously optimistic, but fearful of eventual power creep.
Healing and Resting
You can heal yourself non-magically, rolling your HD to regain health each day. I don't think it provides enough self-healing (at least not compared with healing surges), so dependency on magical healing and/or magic items is likely to be high. I'll need to see how it plays out over the long term before I pass judgement on it, but so far I'm not liking it.
Monsters
The designers admit that they've spent the least time working on monsters, and it definitely shows. It's a far cry from 4E's concise, functional stat blocks. Monsters lack variety (there's not much difference between a kobold and goblin except AC, HP, and attack values), and those that do get some neat toys (casters) use the PC spell list, which is STUPID. I want everything I need to run a monster contained in its stat block; I do NOT want to have to cross reference several spells on different pages of a player's book. Finally, in the sample adventure the condensed monster stats omit the monster's attribute scores/modifiers. Given how important attributes are in the core rules this decision completely lacks any semblance of logic.
Caves of Chaos
This updated version of a classic adventure module is what we're given in the first playtest. I won't go into details, but I really like the sandbox nature of the adventure. Even the layout of the map resists railroading. Also making a comeback is the notion that not everything you encounter is wise to fight. Specific instructions on having monsters call for reinforcements is provided, so players who make foolish decisions could end up way over their heads really quickly (whereas clever players will benefit from making wise decisions).
The Core and Skills
The core system is really solid. Its strengths are simplicity, mechanical consistency, and (mostly) transparent math. I'm also a big fan of the flexibility. Essentially, all d20 rolls are either attribute checks or variants thereof. Even saving throws fall under their purview; there is a saving throw for each attribute, depending on the specific effect (for example, if something is best resisted or avoided by the use of intellect, you'd make an Int save). Since everything boils down to attribute checks, improvising actions is more intuitive. Because of clunkier math, in previous editions it often wasn't mechanically advantageous to "resort to" attribute checks, but in Next it actually works. Skills are an add-on to this system rather than a separate subsystem unto themselves. The open-endedness of skills also caters to improvisation really well, and rewards creativity with mechanical advantages. One of the big keys here is NOT tying a skill with a specific attribute. Finally, one of the major design goals is to support virtually any style of play via modularity. You could run a 1st Ed style game, a 4E style game, etc. but (presumably) without the quirks and bugs of those editions.
Gridless Combat
It's not inherently better or worse, but it is a specific tool in a DM's toolbox. One of 4E's big weaknesses is that it's extremely difficult to run combats gridless. While tactical depth is a huge strength of the system, from the scale of the adventure it's inflexible in that the system pushes DMs toward big set piece battles almost exclusively. If Next is able to replicate 4E's tactical depth (or near enough) for big set piece battles but allow for simple gridless skirmishes using the same rules then it'll be a huge win.
Advantage/Disadvantage
The idea here is an extension of situational modifiers like combat advantage. Instead of adding a +2 or a +4 to your roll, you get to roll 2 D20s and take the best result (if you have advantage) or the worst result (if you have disadvantage). While it's admittedly more difficult to simulate degrees of advantage using this system it does offer the tactile pleasure of rolling more dice, requires less math/bookkeeping, and is easier to apply after-the-fact. Besides, it's not like modifiers are completely gone (for example, half cover still provides +2 to AC and Dex saves, whereas three quarters cover provides +5 to AC and Dex saves).
Movement
One of the big weaknesses of this playtest in my opinion is that Opportunity Attacks (OAs) are not in the core rules. Combined with the fact that you can split up your movement (move 10 feet, attack, move 20 feet), and it's really easy to ignore the beefy melee guys and bash on the squishies. Which realistically doesn't make sense. A guy with a sword (who knows how to use it effectively) isn't going to let you traipse on by to beat up his friend. A common complaint regarding OAs is that they slow down combat. Quick combat is nice and all, but there needs to be something in place to give enemies a reason for fighting the Fighter. Personally I don't think that OAs suck up too much time (indeed, if a lot of extra attacks are rolled they could end a combat quicker), but there are also a few alternative systems. One is that enemies who walk past a melee guy attack with disadvantage. Another is that to get past you need to roll a Dex contest (opposed Dex checks). Finally, something that Mike Mearls (lead designer) proposed in a live chat is that if you want to disengage you can give up your action (attack) to do so, and if you opt not to do that only then will your opponent get a free swing (in other words, it's standard OA rules but they can be avoided for the price of an action).
Spellcasting
It's Vancian, but so far not so bad. The spells are more balanced than in previous incarnations, with many of the deadliest and/or most debilitating effects having HP thresholds (i.e. sleep cuts movement in half, but only creatures with 10 HP or less need to make a Wis save or fall unconscious). Casters also have at-will spells so they aren't stuck shooting crossbows or throwing daggers when they run out of spells. The number of spells is also reigned in (as is spell scaling). This will not only maintain better balance, but reduce bookkeeping. Consider me cautiously optimistic, but fearful of eventual power creep.
Healing and Resting
You can heal yourself non-magically, rolling your HD to regain health each day. I don't think it provides enough self-healing (at least not compared with healing surges), so dependency on magical healing and/or magic items is likely to be high. I'll need to see how it plays out over the long term before I pass judgement on it, but so far I'm not liking it.
Monsters
The designers admit that they've spent the least time working on monsters, and it definitely shows. It's a far cry from 4E's concise, functional stat blocks. Monsters lack variety (there's not much difference between a kobold and goblin except AC, HP, and attack values), and those that do get some neat toys (casters) use the PC spell list, which is STUPID. I want everything I need to run a monster contained in its stat block; I do NOT want to have to cross reference several spells on different pages of a player's book. Finally, in the sample adventure the condensed monster stats omit the monster's attribute scores/modifiers. Given how important attributes are in the core rules this decision completely lacks any semblance of logic.
Caves of Chaos
This updated version of a classic adventure module is what we're given in the first playtest. I won't go into details, but I really like the sandbox nature of the adventure. Even the layout of the map resists railroading. Also making a comeback is the notion that not everything you encounter is wise to fight. Specific instructions on having monsters call for reinforcements is provided, so players who make foolish decisions could end up way over their heads really quickly (whereas clever players will benefit from making wise decisions).
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
D&D Next Playtest Tomorrow!
My reactions to various details over the course of these several months has been very hit-or-miss. I'm excited to actually get my hands on some mechanics so that I can judge for myself. Lately I've liked what I've heard, so I'm really optimistic about this.
Oddly, one thing I'm looking forward to is the simple, bare-bones "core" that lies at the center of 5E's modular design. Several weeks ago I got a request for a quick game with a mix of new and very inexperienced players, and I just didn't have the energy (or inclination) to work up some pre-gens and design something with 4E, not to mention that I didn't have my battlemat, markers, minis, tokens, condition tracking paperclips, and power cards with me. I would have run The One Ring (since it's a simpler game with faster character generation), but it caters to a very specific tone and setting (obviously, being set in Middle Earth) and that wasn't quite what I would have gone for. To sum it up, I never ran the game and wished I had a really simple system that would have made it easier.
I've looked at some 1st and 2nd edition stuff, as well as D20 Microlight and some of the retro-clones, and they all have some combination of out-dated, clunky mechanics, rules that I'm not familiar with, and balance issues, among other things. Looking at it from this angle, it would be phenomenal if I could run a simplified game for a new group with the same rules (familiarity is key when GMing) that I use for my regularly gaming groups minus any tactical/complex modules. I think that's when the major strength of having a single, modular system really hit me.
In any case, I'm sure I'll have more to post come tomorrow (depending on what type of agreement WotC makes you sign before accessing the playtest materials).
Oddly, one thing I'm looking forward to is the simple, bare-bones "core" that lies at the center of 5E's modular design. Several weeks ago I got a request for a quick game with a mix of new and very inexperienced players, and I just didn't have the energy (or inclination) to work up some pre-gens and design something with 4E, not to mention that I didn't have my battlemat, markers, minis, tokens, condition tracking paperclips, and power cards with me. I would have run The One Ring (since it's a simpler game with faster character generation), but it caters to a very specific tone and setting (obviously, being set in Middle Earth) and that wasn't quite what I would have gone for. To sum it up, I never ran the game and wished I had a really simple system that would have made it easier.
I've looked at some 1st and 2nd edition stuff, as well as D20 Microlight and some of the retro-clones, and they all have some combination of out-dated, clunky mechanics, rules that I'm not familiar with, and balance issues, among other things. Looking at it from this angle, it would be phenomenal if I could run a simplified game for a new group with the same rules (familiarity is key when GMing) that I use for my regularly gaming groups minus any tactical/complex modules. I think that's when the major strength of having a single, modular system really hit me.
In any case, I'm sure I'll have more to post come tomorrow (depending on what type of agreement WotC makes you sign before accessing the playtest materials).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)