Legends & Lore - Looking at the Past and the Future

Looking at the Past and the Future

This is the craziest part of this weeks article is this:

     "Second—and this sounds so crazy that you probably won't believe it right now—we're designing the game so that not every player has to choose from the same set of options. Again, imagine a game where one player has a simple character sheet that has just a few things noted on it, and the player next to him has all sorts of skills, feats, and special abilities. And yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced. Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need. Or vice versa. It's all up to you to decide."

I can't even wrap my head around this, how can one player play a 1st ed style, while another plays a 4th edition style character. I can understand a DM picking what rules are to be used, but letting a player choose their ruleset  really boggles my mind. I will definitely be watching this design process to see how the design team pulls this one off. 

Legends & Lore Redux - The Temperature of the Rules

The Temperature of the Rules

So the entire article is basically about a conversation about how to present the default setting of the rules. The DM being the arbitrator as to what rules are presented should be the default. It happens in every game, sometimes the game is presented with the rules in a pick and choose way, but more often than not, the game is presented in the default mode, and additional rules are presented as optional rules or variant rules. So what DnD Next is talking about is just presenting almost all the rules as optional, with a very small core of general rules.

This will make it a fully modular system. Will it be successful? Maybe...I know Monte Cook and Mike Mearls are both incredible designers with decades of experience, so if anyone can do it, they can. 

Legends & Lore Redux - Rules, Rules, Rules

Rules, Rules, Rules

Ah yes, "Rules, Rules, Rules," this is the meat of the contention in editions, the rules. Too simple, too complex, what is the proper balance?

As an example in the article Monte breaks the game into 3 options of complexity for a climb check. The first class is a basic all climb checks at half speed no checks...

WHUT? That would be just ridiculous, no climb skill, no reality, no challenge.

DM: "You approach the mage's tower, it appears to be made of a smoky glass and is slick to the touch. There's a door at the base but no means of visible entry otherwise" 
Players: "We climb it"
DM: "OK, I guess you climb it, it takes about an hour to climb, you don't have any climbing gear or anything, but you climb it anyway. You reach the top and realize the tower comes to a perilous point."
Players: "Oh well we climb back down."


The second option is a simplified version of the third option, the third option being the one that includes all the modifiers and exceptions. This is where I want my D&D rules, with modifiers, yes it CAN sow things down, but if you have a DM's Screen, not that much. What I don't want to see is SCALING challenges, that simple climb at level 1 might be a DC 5 climb, but once you're a level 22 character, suddenly that same climb is a DC27. Sorry, but challenges should scale by level, they should scale by the difficulty of the feat. A 22nd level character should be able to climb that simple wall without fail, and to be able to climb that slick wizard's tower that would kill a neophyte adventurer in the first 20 feet. Now, given the proper equipment, enough time and safety precautions, anyone should be able to scale anything..eventually, though there might be set-backs, that turns into a story element instead.

NOW, I'm not a DM who likes to kill player's for a failed skill roll, one of the reasons I hate having a single die for any roll, it's just TOO random, if you had to roll a d20 to walk across the street or fall down for 2d6 damage, there's a 5% chance you would fall every time. AD&D used percentile dice for rogue skills...maybe they should go back to that...it prevents stupid deaths due to stupid rolls. DC15 = 25% chance of success for the unskilled, but if you have 10 ranks, it increases to 75% chance of success. I know, a little bit of math...But if you can't do simple math, maybe you should be playing a video game...or LEARNING MATH. The design to the Least Common Denominator school of thought is insulting to the game, and should NEVER be done. True designing to the fullest extent should be avoided as well. Phoenix Command was over designed, when you have different results for being shot in eye or the pupil, you have definitely over-designed.

Legends & Lore Redux - What Can You Do?

What Can You Do?

OK, this isn't where I'd go with design. Monte is talking about only having a single action per round. Move or Attack or Cast a Spell...

This definitely isn't what I want to see, I want to see dynamic action, that's one of the reasons I like Savage Worlds, you can attempt to do lots of things in a round, but each additional thing is affected by penalties.

I want a game where a 1st level character can attempt to run past several foes striking each of them as he goes. I say attempt because say the character wants to make 3 attacks, while running. Those penalties might add up to a -8 to all actions. Could he get lucky and do all of them at 1st level? Yeah, he could. But it's not likely. As he gets more experienced, or if he takes feats which remove the penalties, then the chances of it working greatly increase. There would still be limits, unless you have a feat you can only cast 1 spell, move would be similar to what it is in 3.x.

Making a single action game is BORING, with a Capital REALLY. Unless the game is free-form enough to have that action include anything. When its your turn you act, you swing from a chandelier shouting "Your Momma was a Half-orc!" and swinging your sword at every spear that comes close.  You should be able to defensively attack, while readying to cut the tip of the spears off as they thrust. You should be able to do the same stuff, sorry attempt the same stuff at level 1 that you can attempt at level 20.

Sorry on a tangent now.


What should really be decoupled again is the single attribute having a single modifier, 20 = +5, in the case of strength, that lead to things hitting well and powerful. In OD&D an 18/00 Str was +3 to hit and +6 dmg, That was good, because it didn't skew the game as much. And it was better both directions, for players and monsters. Minimum strengths, prevalent in other games SHOULD be instituted in the new version. 7 str, hope you like that dagger. Want to wield a two handed sword, 17 Str, sorry 16 Str rogue, no back-stabbing with that two-hander. 

Legends & Lore Redux - A Different Way to Slice a Pie

A Different Way to Slice a Pie

Now we're seeing similarity between what DnD Next might be, and what Pathfinder is, With the beginner box release, we're seeing which rules can be easily stripped from play for new and/or younger players. We have seen this in other games such as Dragon Age, where they split the various rule sets into levels 1-5, 6-10, etc. However, this isn't a new concept in reality, as OD&D originally came in sets of varying complexity, Basic, Companion, Expert, Immortals and Master sets.  When AD&D came out, the main rules were covered in the Player's Handbook, and Dungeon Master's Guide, but as the game advanced new rules were introduced in new optional books, such as the Wilderness Survival Guide or Unearthed Arcana. In 3.0 and later rules, this became gluttonous, with so many splat books, that the rules became unwieldy, but they were optional.

Unfortunately this sounds like a step backwards though, Monte is discussing breaking Attacks of Opportunity back into individual rules based upon situations. I feel they should keep it as it is, the complexity would be which parts you want to be in there, moving away and ranged attacks only. More complex might add spellcasting and scroll use. Continue adding complexity as needed, not removing the words like Attack of Opportunity.

Many games have sidebars for optional rules (3rd edition Earthdawn is one of these with lots of optionals). I see the rules for D&D Next having checklists.  Whether this will work or not again, remains to be seen . 

Legends & Lore Redux - Out of Bounds

Out of Bounds

Monte tackles the main problem that the "latest edition" had. The fact that everything was balanced and the difficult challenges were removed is one of his main points. Monte's specific example is that they removed Red Dragon's immunity to fire, so no one was left out if they had made poor choices, so you could still use fireballs against a red dragon.

I love providing challenges that make the players think. Paizo's adventures are very good at this, so if D&D Next is going to compete, they need to make sure there are challenges that require thought to succeed rather than a die roll or blasting it.

What if DnDNext fails?

What if the 5th edition of Dungeons & Dragons is the biggest flop since New Coke? I see it going down like this...

2012 Wizards of the Coast develops D&D Next with the help of the community
2013 The community ALL having their own id, egos and super egos, gets butt-hurt because their ideas didn't make it to print. "This isn't MY D&D!!!". Those individual communities continue to play the version they like, whether that's 1st, 4th or Pathfinder, and the game is a flop.
2014 Hasbro shelves The Role-playing game part of Dungeons and Dragons, shifting gears to more board games, card games and other ventures.
2024 After almost a decade on the shelf, with much fanfare Hasbro announces a D&D Classic for the 50th anniversary of Dungeons & Dragons. This new set is basically a revised Basic D&D
2027 Advanced D&D Classic is released for the 50th anniversary of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Another rework of the original 1st & 2nd editions.

This COULD happen if D&D Next fails...

Legends & Lore Redux - Customized Complexity

Customized Complexity

Now we're getting somewhere, some of the design parameters that they're going to be attempting to design to. So one of the stated design goals for 5th edition is a sort of backwards mindset, not compatibility per ce. It's more of a conceptual backwards progression. Being able to pick and choose the level of complexity, then tack on which rules you actually want to use. 

I'm not quite buying this being doable, it would take a lot of design, and then you would still run into the issue of some people wanting to use the 4E type of package while others want to go back and use a 2E style package. It seems a little too far reaching, too inclusive, and reactionary to compensate for the exclusionary mindset of 4e. 

Good luck

The real question is going to be what type of licensing, IF ANY, is Hasbro going to slap on this. An Open Game License, allowing people to use the system freely, or a GSL, forcing 3rd party publishers to jump through hoops. The OGL was wildly successful, but had issues with inferior work. The GSL had issues with 3rd party publishers not wanting to be forced into the restrictions. Notably, the inability to support both 3.5, 4.0 and Pathfinder with the same line of books.

Legends & Lore Redux - Live together, die alone

Live Together, Die Alone

Monte is reminiscing about the original concept of cooperation and teamwork in D&D. When you deal with a game in a manner of cooperation, you don't have to worry so much about whether a fighter is balanced against a wizard at every level. The concept of players being perfectly balanced is preposterous. Even on Paizo's boards, there are constant discussions about wizards and melee types not being balanced. What's the point if they're balanced, the game is supposed to be about cooperation, not competition.

One of the problems with 4th edition is the design philosophy of making all classes balanced. Everyone progressing at the same power level. Just re-skinned by power source and power name. Pathfinder tried smoothing some of the issues by making the classes seen only as "dip" classes more interesting, rear-loading the interesting powers after level 6 or so.

I don't care if a wizard isn't balanced to a fighter. They're not SUPPOSED to be. In 1st edition, the magic-user was THE glass cannon, with only 10d4(+change) hit dice max, they could easily be slain, but they also wielded the powers of the creation; The fighter was the ONLY class that had multiple melee attacks, the paladin had powers based upon getting a holy avenger. Rangers were the masters of Two-weapon fighting, Rogues were the ones who got the rogue skills. Now, 1st ed definitely had issues. The lack of a skill system for non-combat skills was a major one, thus was born AD&D 2nd ed, and eventually skills & powers.

Fun in paramount, balance is not. Flavor is important, balance is not. Cooperation is important...

Live Together, Die alone...Don't split the party...

Legend & Lore Redux - Magic & Mystery

This is the continuing commentary on Monte's D&D5e design blog posts.

Magic & Mystery

In this installment of my commentary, I'm covering the October 4th entry, wherein Monte talks shop about magic items and the current iterations of 4th edition, and both 3.x (and by being a derivative work Pathfinder; though he of course doesn't mention Pathfinder.)

Monte makes great points about the mere fact that the game design of these iterations are built around a party have specific gold piece expectations of gear does several things. It removes the mystique of magic items, and it removes the Dungeon Master's ability to reward the characters with mystical treasures.

One of the reasons I love Earthdawn so much is that the good magic items are individual items that grow with the characters as they grow in experience. A weapon or magic item with a history or backstory is much more interesting than popping down to Ye Olde Magic Shoppe and having a vorpal weapon made. Imagine if King Arthur just had Excalibur handed to him by Merlin.

Defeating a dragon and looting it's treasure loses appeal if you just go through it to price it, sell it and buy what you REALLY want.

This can easily be accomplished in existing games by limiting what can be crafted without specific components. If you really want to craft a vorpal sword, perhaps you need to have a sword crafted by a master craftsman of an alloy of adamantine and mithral folded 1000 times. Then diamond dust is sprinkled over the blade as you have an Elder Elemental Lord heat the blade. Lastly the finished weapon much be tempered in the blood of the Jabberwock. Knowing what your magic item can do is more interesting when you find out in the heat of battle. Remember when Bilbo learned Sting glowed blue when orcs were around?

Decoupling magic items from the expected gear is good design, even if I don't play 5e, this also gives me hope that Dungeons & Dragons will continue on in RPG format rather than just as board games.

Legends & Lore Redux - Very Perceptive

So, after the announcement of 5e, I began looking at Monte Cook's Legend and Lore articles to get an idea of where he's going with the design. I am already a bit more enthusiastic. So I will be reading each article and then comment on what I think about it.

Very Peceptive

I like where Monte is going with these ideas, by using passive metagaming numbers, the game master is able to determine secretly if the perception check is an auto success, or just missed. No taking 20 in a search ( A Rule I hate by the way.) If the player actually says they're searching the specific area bonuses are granted. This idea can easily be ported into many different games and shows promise.

News! Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition

5th edition announced by Wizards of the Coast

   We all knew it was coming (well some people denied it when I talked about it before GenCon), I expected the announcement as part of WotC's "Big Announcement" at GenCon. But not it's official, for soem reason they decided this time to use the New York Times as a precursor announcement. Followed up by an article that is obviously written by someone without a clue as to the RPG world.  There's a Forbes article which is written by someone who plays, that's written more clearly.

   It' is heartening that Wizard's is taking a clue from Paizo in the development of 5th edition. The use of community playtesting and feedback. One of the reasons Pathfinder became such a success was the fact that they worked with the gaming community. The gaming community that is notoriously arrogant. The gaming community that every game master has their own set of house rules, whether that be just a few rule tweaks or entire forests of changed information. When Wizard's excluded the community during their secret development of 4th edition, and the wholesale slaughter of many sacred cows; well, let's just say many in the community were butt-hurt about it. I know I was.

   I was pissed from the false announcement that 4th edition was not in development during GenCon, followed by the next year's announcement that it had been in development for years! (Especially since I thought the Rules Compendium was a book to help clarify issues before moving on, as I wasn't as involved in the community at that stage.) I watched the design boards on the website each week as they discussed the new system. I went from slightly optimistic,  to completely confused, to supporting Pathfinder when they starting asking the community  if they'd support a "3.75" project. I looked at 4e when it was released, but didn't get it. I was one of those that felt it was too balanced, and video game like from the beginning.

   Now for a bit of personal history. I have quit D&D twice before to play other games. I quit playing AD&D 2nd edition because my own house-rules became too cumbersome to new players in my games, so I moved on to other RPGs. I started again when 3rd edition was released, and I saw the innovations in it, a built-in skill system, and the feats! I quit when 3.5 was announced because I had already gotten most of my stuff for 3.0 and  was once again pissed about having to buy books again. I didn't actually come back to 3.5 it until Eberron was released, ironically enough, because of DDO. Which sucks for bringing the world of Eberron to the computer screen. (see tangential rant below). 

   This time I had an alternative that I had invested time into, I play-tested Pathfinder from the word Alpha. I gave enormous amounts of feedback, I even seen some of my feedback in the design of things like the qinggong monk. (look up Xaaon's monk on the Pathfinder boards). I understand why they left the monk as similar as it was left in the Core book. Will I have a similar investiture of time in D&D5e? It's not likely, but I will be commenting on the development of it on the blogs, my first feedback will be from the Gaming Club teacher, Mr. Schmid, I have a feeling he's very excited about it. I'll let you know tomorrow (if gaming club is on, but, I have a feeling after the break there will be meetings).

   Wizard's needs to make something amazing to bring back paizoans and grognard's alike. It could be what brings D&D back or it could be the death knell of the original franchise, only time will tell. There's a spark of hope, Monte Cook. Monte Cook is one one of the most incredible and dynamic designers in the industry, if he can bring his ideas to the table, there's a good chance it will succeed. Only time will tell. I'm signing up for the 5e development to let my ideas be heard. As I'm one of the vocal community. I am the 99%...wait, wrong slogan. I am the 55% (or something) So from the Forbes article, I garner that the framework of 5th edition is there, and has been tested in closed testing under NDA.

   Let's see where it goes, shall we? I will watch the development and report on it, and of course I will comment on it, What does Epic think? I will also ask people about it at Cons and the Game Stores, and then I'll tell you what they're thinking as well. Get ready to answer San Diego gamers, I may ask you "What do you think about the announcement of 5th edition."

I got a list of demands,
written on the palm of my hand...no wait, on my blog.

Honor Gary Gygax AND Dave Arneson in the next edition with a dedication page. Because without them we wouldn't be talking about this at all.
Don't release 12 hardbound books per year...they're expensive and HEAVY to carry.
Bring back Dragon and Dungeon magazine in print.
Stop the power-creep when releasing splat books.
Don't consider grognards a lost cause, and especially don't bash them on your website.



TANGENTIAL RANT: Eberron in DDO, Stormreach. Such small slices of far-spanning, RICH worlds, in a microcosm of blah. Like visiting Earth and only being allowed to go to Fargo, when you know how much is out there from the books you've read. Pathfinder Online sounds like it's going down the same dark road. Pathfinder Online should be about visiting the entire world of Golarion, not just squabbling over the River Kingdoms...otherwise the name just sucks.