As I am want to do in games that I’m in, I let my mind wander and I came up with a character that fits the campaign and the party better. So rather than playing the character that wins the vote *Combat Assistance Prototype 0.0* I will instead be playing a Half-Orc Warlord. I do want to thank everyone who voted and to say that I am sorry.
Abraxus is also sorry that his creator is a moron.
Wednesday, July 9th, 2014, a day that will live in infamy, the day that Abraxus the Drunk my Dragonborn Barbarian died. Cut down in the prime of his life by a goblin shaman shunting a 34 damage critical hit on to him. Let us have a moment of silence.
Now that that’s over, I find myself with a problem, I need a new character. I’ve talked it over with the party and they’ve said that they want a character with a functional Intelligence score and training in Arcana. (This is not surprising as Abraxus was the smartest member of the party at an Intelligence of 13). Anyone who knows me will tell you that I like designing D&D characters and after working my way through several I have come up with two contenders. The trick is that I like them both and don’t know which one to choose so I’m going to put it up to the blog to vote on the favorite. However, I am not going to tell you anything about them other than give a story hook for each one. No race, no class, and no stat information except that they both have an Intelligence of 18 and are trained in Arcana. Although you will probably be able to figure out races. So with out further ado, here they are.
Prince Marthas the Crown of Storms:
Prince Marthas hurried down the hall to the scrying chamber, his servant following behind. “Do keep up Talan, this is an important day for me.”
“I’m confused my lord, why is this even necessary? Surely your mother isn’t mad enough to pass the mantle to anyone else, who else can compare to you?”
Marthas turned on the elemental with lightning flashing in his eyes, “Tell me Talan did the Glory of Prominence sit idly by and wait for my grandfather to gift her the mantle?”
“No sir.”
“Did the Fury of Gales wait for my great grandfather to bestow the mantle upon him?!”
“No…”
“No they did not!” the prince shouted, “My family have been the God Kings of the Throne of Elements for the last ten generations because no one else was worthy of the title. My birthright is not something that is bestowed, it is not hereditary, it is something you earn. If another in the court proves to be more worthy, more accomplished, more useful than I, where does that leave me?!”
“I… see my lord,” Talan was worried calming his master when he had his thunder up was often quite tricky.
“Good,” said the prince the jovial tone returning to his voice, Talan sighed with relief as they started down the hall again. “Now is everything prepared as I asked?”
“Yes lord, but I must ask, why are you seeking the aid of mortals?” He spat the word the disdain filling his voice.
“Because my faithful servant, I know nothing of the mortal world. Its woes, its hopes, its dreams, and its people are mysteries to me. I could spend years, nay decades learning what needs to be done to preform great deeds. The very deeds that will earn me my throne. No, far wiser to find a group of mortals already preforming great deeds and grant them my aid.”
Two lesser air elementals opened the door to the scrying chamber. “I’ve picked out three groups that seem promising my lord, but I must warn you groups like this are often stubborn and independent.”
“Please Talan, who would be foolish enough to insult a god?”
Designation Combat Assistance Prototype 0.0:
Journal Entry designation day 37
Life Signs: Negligible
Contact: None
Notes: The master has still not returned from his task, this number will continue to wait as instructed.
Journal Entry designation day 103
Life Signs: Negligible
Contact: None
Notes: This number is growing concerned the master has been gone for far to many days now. However this number can not override orders. This number will continue to wait as instructed.
Journal Entry designation day 357
Life Signs: Present
Contact: Multiple
Notes: This number is confused multiple life signs have enter the lab through force. When attempting to intercede with intruders this number discovered the it has been secured to it holding bed and can not move. The master said it was important for this number to stay hidden while he was away, but it can not understand why the master would confine it so. The intruders have destroyed the lab and this number could not prevent it.
Journal Entry Designation day 542?
Life Signs: Negligible
Contact: None
Notes: It is dark, this number finds itself unable to properly designate time without visual input. The bonds that hold this number has broken and it can move freely around the remnants of the lab. Regrettably the entrance to the lab has been destroyed preventing this number from escaping to seek the master. This number will continue to wait.
Journal Entry Designation day unkown
Life Signs: Present
Contact: Five Life Forms
Notes: It is dark, this number detects five new intruders in the lab. However this number can find no logical reason for intruders to be hostile when the lab was destroyed so long ago. This number will attempt contact, perhaps these new life forms can assist it in locating the master.
Rian frowned at the bubbling mixture in the larger cauldron. Something was not quite right. He found some tarmis bark and scraped off some of the inner layers into a pestle, then crushed a handful of myar berries onto the powder. The resulting paste looked a lot like fresh blood, if a little thick. He poured it into the cauldron and the potion darkened. He chanted for a moment, smiling as he felt the spell take root. This would be an especially potent batch of feverbrew.
He moved the cauldron to the edge of the fireplace, where it would slowly cook down. In a few hours, he would chip out the dried sludge and grind it into a powder that was the best-known relief for fever. In the meantime, he had to cook dinner and prepare paper packets for the feverbrew. Jora would be irritated that he had used their best pot for his alchemy. She hated the taste of feverbrew.
He grabbed their spare pot and headed toward the well. It was later than he expected, with the sun just barely peeking above the horizon. The dawnward sky was already a deep, rich blue. As he scanned for the night’s first stars, he noticed a twinkle on the mountain ridge. A sickly yellow-green light glowed from the watchtower. The king’s watch soaked their coal in special oils to produce a variety of colors, each with their own meaning. The poisoned emerald hue spelled plague.
Rian sighed, knowing that Jora would want to pack up and head straight towards that trouble. Her thinking was that disease meant goblins, goblins meant orcs and orcs meant murder. She had sworn an oath to kill as many orcs as she could. Rian often wished to retire and leave the fighting to the younger, less scarred warriors, but Jora would have none of it. She viewed the peaceful days on the farm as nothing more than the lull before the next storm.
She had intended to plow the fields towards the river, so he had not expected her to be back until well after dark. He should have known better. He found her in the barn, the horses already combed and fed. She was testing the belts for her breastplate, leather strips already cut and holed for when she found wear. Rian hated everything about the armor. Yes, it was magical, but it could still be pierced.
What he really hated, however, was the enchantment that had been laid upon it. The wearer would not grow weary and could feel no pain. Worse, they could not die so long as the tiniest shred of will remained. They could be hacked into bloody chunks, unable to move or breathe, yet still trapped within their ruined body as long as they still felt purpose.
They had been married a less than a year the first time she fell in combat. An orc had gotten behind her and driven his spear into her armpit. She had turned and killed it, but not before the beast had twisted the jagged blade within her chest. Her last breaths had covered her chest in a bloody froth.
He had been certain that she was beyond his help, but she fixed him with those terrible, unflinching eyes and he had reached down into the depths of his gift. He chanted through the night, long after the battle had ended and all but a few had fallen down in exhaustion. His lips grew chapped and bloody, the words losing all meaning save as a focus for his plea to the Healer. Other clerics came to beg him to stop or to offer to relieve him for a while. He ignored them all.
The sun was well in the sky when her chest heaved like a drowning man gasping for air. When she could speak again, she cupped his face in her hand and thanked him. From then on, it seemed that she was badly hurt at least once each summer. The other warriors both feared and respected her, calling her “deathless” behind her back, though she would not have minded the name, even had she known. Rian had long since lost the ability to make sense or order of her many wounds… save one.
Four years earlier, at the battle of Bheren’s Creek, a mountain troll had clouted her across the back of her head. While she was dazed, an orc had done its best to sever her head. That was when Rian had discovered the limits of his power. He could force breath back into her lungs, he could will her heart to beat, but he could not knit her severed vocal chords. Her last words to him had been, “Fear not, love,” as she kissed his forehead and held him close.
Now they spoke with secret signs in a language they had made up together. It amused her to make him blush with lewd suggestions while they were in public, though it also aroused her, as well. It had served them well to be able to speak silently and in code.
* WATCHTOWER * FIRE * SICKNESS *
“Yes, I saw it too,” he replied. “I have some feverbrew on the fire. I will finish it tonight and we can leave in the morning.” He could see that she was not going to budge on going.
* NO * TONIGHT * Her signs were crisp and irritated.
Rian sighed. “We can’t leave tonight. We need someone to come watch the livestock. The horses are lathered. I haven’t packed.”
* TONIGHT * NOW * Jora’s face was stony and cold.
“Not without an explanation.” Rian crossed his arms.
* DREAMS * FEAR * DEATH *
Rian was shocked. Paladins received many powers from their patrons, but mostly in the form of strength and courage. Jora served the Honorable Warrior. For her to have been gifted with a premonition was exceedingly rare. Rian worried that this was a bad sign.
“Fine, we’ll go, but you’ll have to gather our things while I finish up the feverbrew and make us something to eat.”
*ACCEPTABLE * There was a long pause. *SORRY *
They went into the house. He noticed her watching the watchtower as they walked.
It was well into the small hours before they were ready to leave. As they were about to mount up, Jora turned to him and signed, * GRATITUDE * ME * DIFFICULT * YOU * ALWAYS *
He kissed her and it was good, like it always was.
Okay, so here’s how this works. The more people that respond to this, the better the bennies I give to my Wednesday 4e group. Think of it like KickStarter. I have reward tiers at 1, 3, 6, 10 and 20 respondents. This story takes place in the same setting as that group and will have an effect on that world.
Rewards
1 – The PCs may use their Second Wind twice in the current combat.
3 – Once each, during the current combat, the PCs may roll twice (declaring before the roll) and take whichever result they want.
Well, after a long hiatus, I’m back running a 4e game. We’re doing something special this time: we’re running it over the internet, using Skype and a virtual tabletop called roll20.net. This campaign is nowhere near as ambitious as Nations of Rage, but that’s okay. We’re having a lot of fun.
You can expect some commentary on playing 4e in the post 4e era and how we are using technology to create a very different roleplaying experience.
This post will look at The Hunger Games as a source of inspiration. As such, there will be spoilers. You have been warned.
If you haven’t read the book and don’t intend to, Wikipedia has a decent synopsis. For what it’s worth, I found it to be an enjoyable read, but you can pretty safely avoid the other two books in the series. It’s dystopian sci-fi, but it has relevance to running a D&D game. While the book borders on sci-fi and might be classified as action-adventure (it’s technically listed as young adult), it is still applicable to a fantasy game.
It’s okay for the world to suck, including the government.
In the book, there was a rebellion and the government punishes the descendents of the rebels in a variety of ways, not the least of which is the actual hunger games. Prior to the lottery, much is made of the oppressive government and the dreary, impoverished existence forced upon the descendents of the rebels. Things are so bad that, just to feed her family, Katniss must risk her life and defy the law. After Katniss and Peeta become the Tributes and head to Capital, the focus shifts to the decadence and cruelty of the elites.
Obviously, the Dark Sun campaign setting shows that there’s a place for stories of hardship and survival. Beyond that, however, it’s okay for governments to treat their people badly. When I hear people talk about their games, nations are most often ruled by benevolent monarchies where the taxes are low, if they exist at all, and all of the citizens are empowered with rights. They seem to be a perfect libertarian paradise, where the roads get paved and the army keeps everyone safe, but the ruler isn’t building a floating summer home or a giant statue to their favorite deity. The grim truth is that, historically, governments have not really existed for the benefit of the people, but to keep power and money in the hands of a select few.
It’s also true that many GMs choose to gloss over this dimension of their campaign and there’s nothing wrong with that. I happen to think that exploring the themes of taxation, despotism and inequality can add a lot to a game. The downside can be that the players will feel that they are at an unfair disadvantage if they play a member of a group that is part of a definitional underclass, even if it’s only in one part of the world.
Now, obviously you can go in too far with a dystopian setting and the theme presents some special storytelling challenges. Tyrannical settings suffer from the same problem as slave settings: either things change for the better – normally instigated by the PCs – or the entire campaign gets locked into a power balance where the characters have little agency or authority unless they’re playing the bad guys, which opens up a whole separate set of considerations.
Sometimes, there is no winning.
In order to create a facade that will appeal to the people who can help them win the Games, Katniss and Peeta have to pretend to be in love. The people running the Games endorse this for better ratings, even going to far as to change the rules so that two players can win – and survive – as long as they are from the same district. When Katniss and Peeta are the only survivors, the game masters capriciously revert the rules. In response, Katniss and Peeta decide on a mutual suicide pact using poisoned berries that is only stopped by yet another reversal. In the aftermath, both are permitted to live, but they have to maintain the charade of a relationship. Neither of them are happy about the outcome.
The Kobayashi Maru scenario remains one of the trickiest feats for a GM, because you are doing a very bad thing [1] in order to either advance the story or to prove a point [2]. The thing we can learn from The Hunger Games is that sometimes it’s okay to take away some of the victory or to thwart their goals. This is a very different thing from putting them in a scenario where the only correct plays are to run or submit. In D&D terms, Katniss and Peeta get to keep on playing, but the nature of the game has changed. Would it have been nice for the government to have gotten all warm and fuzzy over their love story and left them to live in peace? Absolutely, but it would have been a different story.
That’s the real lesson of The Hunger Games, that you can win and still not get what you want. The story goes on, but in a different direction. Once you’ve internalized that concept, you have to learn how to find the middle ground. Not giving them what they want creates tension, which is good. Denying the players too much, however, can lead towards resentment. Looking at the reverse, how often you tell the players yes, the real danger is giving them too much and draining out the sense of accomplishment.
Sometimes the good guys are just pawns.
The government uses the hunger games for some specific purposes. First, it reinforces the subjugated status of the people living in the districts. The government forces them to submit to something awful as a reminder of their impotence. The games also reinforce the idea of shame in rebellion.
There’s definitely room in a campaign for a stretch where the PCs lack genuine agency. They might not be subjugated themselves, but they also lack any sort of control or authority. They aren’t Robin Hood. They’re just people trying to get by in a shitty world. The concern with these types of stories is that, sooner or later, the players are going to expect to emerge from the cocoon, so to speak. That’s why you should definitely have an exit strategy.
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.
Many of the characters in the book, particularly Katniss, do things because they don’t feel that they have a choice. Katniss goes beyond the fences because she can’t see another way to survive. She volunteers to take the place of her younger sister in the games. Interestingly enough, Katniss doesn’t kill any of the other Tributes without having been attacked first. Instead, she tries very hard to simply disappear into the forest so as to simply out wait her opponents.
The choices that people make under duress can be excellent fodder for a story, but you have to be careful not to take it too far. You don’t want the players to feel that they are being railroaded or that they don’t have any control.
[1] I know that there are some simulationists who take exception to the idea that a scene in which the “correct” play is to run away is generally unfun, but I’m not going to proselytize to them. If your players appreciate that particular flavor of chocolate, then by all means serve it to them. I’m just not the guy that can teach you how to do it.
[2] I think that trying to force your players to see their characters as weak is almost certainly the most dangerous justification for a no-win scenario. Part of the allure of roleplaying is getting to feel things that might not be accessible in “real life.” Taking away that ability to escape can seriously dampen your game and it strongly defines what you’re trying to do as a GM.
I’m still not going to be all the way back yet, but reading Mearls’ most recent Legends and Lore got under my skin. Part of the reason I wanted to take a break is because I felt that too much of what I’ve been doing here is bitching about Next. I would much rather be writing about something positive, but obviously we’re in the doldrums between editions. It’s worse in this transition because they killed 4e so far in advance of Next.
Let’s skip to what I consider the money quote:
“If the five-minute workday bothers you, you have the tools to judge its effect on your game and can take steps to fix it. If you don’t care or have never noticed the issue, we don’t make it one for you.”
I happen to think that this is exactly the wrong perspective and it’s emblematic of Next development. If I think that the 5-minute workday is a problem – and I’m hardly alone in thinking that it is – I shouldn’t have to cut things out of the core game to fix it. The Vancian play style is distinctive enough that it should be an optional module. They’ve gone to tremendous lengths to avoid offending the Grognards, but I’m going to make a radical suggestion:
Why not avoid offending any substantial segment of the population?
Take the gridless “Theater of the Mind” combat. Yeah, the majority of the community is probably going to use a map and minis, but having tactical combat live in an optional module means that people who want it can make that choice. When they announced that tactical combat wasn’t going to be the default, there was a certain amount of panic and then the community wrapped their brains around the notion. Some people who hadn’t considered trying it gave it a shot. This is exactly what we want. Moving the Vancian play style to a module makes it a deliberate choice, rather than the default option, and prevents us from having to carve into the base system to root it out.
“We do not want groups to feel that they must rest after a single battle. If you’re exploring a dungeon, we want to make sure that you feel like you can make good progress each day. We’re also aware that classes that need to rest to regain spells are the main source of this pressure, though hit point loss also plays a role. Since the game balances the fighter’s and rogue’s staying power against the wizard’s and cleric’s spell attrition, it’s important that the “workday” last long enough for the rogue and fighter to shine.”
There’s so much wrong with this that I hardly know where to begin. How about:
Do NOT define one class’ cool by the absence of someone else’s power!
No offense [1], but this is one of the stupidest concepts I have ever heard floated about in a design discussion. It’s LFQW, but in reverse and at the encounter level, so the players are experiencing it all the time. No game should be designed so that the GM has to artificially extend the time between rests so that certain characters can “shine.” What happened to allowing the story to progress organically? Worse, this is hard-coding in a specific style of encounter design, a style that is questionable at best. If the Vancian classes are doing their job, they will have considerably more center-stage time than the non-Vancian classes.
I can tell you right now what will happen if this design philosophy persists. Vancian players will complain that the things they get to do when they’re out of spells suck too much. People will design more exciting at-will abilities to compensate and the non-Vancian players will get an even smaller share of the coolness pie.
Further, I still have major issues with the notion that someone that does big, flashy things some of the time is no more exciting or rewarding than a character that does less powerful things all of the time. Do you really want the Rogue to turn to the Wizard and say, “Neener! You didn’t get a chance to memorize your spells! Guess this fight sucks for you!” Obviously I’m exaggerating, but I think the point is still valid. Having to wait until the cool kids run out of ammo before you get to shine sucks donkey balls.
“What does this mean for the five-minute adventuring day? DMs will have a crystal clear guideline on how many rounds of combat a group should tackle before resting. If the group spends less time in fights, casters grow stronger. If the characters spend more rounds fighting, the fighter and rogue grow stronger. The solution to the problem rests in the DM’s hands, who can use the tools and guidelines that we provide, plus keep track of how long fights take and adjust adventures accordingly.”
It’s a bug, not a feature.
If you want to truly understand how ridiculous and useless that statement is, imagine that you’re an experienced GM and you have to explain this concept to someone just taking up the mantle. Look, I get that you want to teach GMs how to tweak their game. That’s the main purpose of this blog. When I talk about tuning, however, I’m not talking about spackling over a fundamental imbalance between characters – when you have to “add rounds to combat” so that certain classes aren’t awesome all the time, you have a balance problem.
“That means that during the typical adventure, we expect the average party to defeat X levels worth of monsters over Y rounds of combat. In other words, we’re assuming that an adventure includes a certain amount of combat, and this amount is defined in terms of rounds and enemies.”
Is anyone else confused by the use of the word “adventure” where we would expect to see “day”? Maybe that’s just me.
Anyhow, the problem I have with this is that it seems to be an oblique fix to a concern that hasn’t seen a lot of discussion: Vancian characters have traditionally enjoyed a profound edge over non-Vancian characters in what they can do outside of combat. Rather than giving every class equal access to abilities in the Interaction and Exploration pillars, they’re mandating that you provide enough combat that people don’t feel left out. I don’t have a problem with assuming that combat will happen. I do have a problem with telling GMs that they have to include combat to make the system work.
There’s actually a fairly simple solution to this problem and, as an added benefit, it’s even classical. Why not grant non-Vancian characters access to certain things in the interaction and exploration arenas as part of their advancement?As an example, Fighters used to get men-at-arms at certain levels. Rogues used to get guild connections. At the very least, give me a module that allows me to empower the Fighter and the Rogue in non-combat situations.
[1] – Most of the time where someone says “no offense”, what they really mean is, “I’m about to say something insulting, but I want to cockblock you from being offended.” That’s not my intent here. I have respect for Mearls. I just think that this is a very destructive design philosophy.
(Note: I’m not back for realsies yet. This just happened to be a quick thought I had this afternoon.)
I’ve long known how competitive I am, which is to say very competitive. It’s no secret where it comes from; My parents are also both highly competitive, exacting people. As a teenager, I realized that my attitude wasn’t earning me any friends – in fact, it was making me look like a jerk. I learned to make the distinction between games I play to win and games I play for fun.
Today, I was reading and saw an article about this video:
In case it isn’t clear, this is two dads fighting over a little league game.
The article also mentionedthis article about students cheating on tests, partially because of the pressure to succeed.
I want you to think for a moment about how we value winning in our society and consider how some of the allure of certain hobbies is that we get to win. This is the core concept behind most video games: find the sweet spot where the game is challenging enough that the player feels that they have accomplished something meaningful, but not so challenging that the player can actually lose.
The dirty little secret of roleplaying is that, for a large segment of the population, winning is a consideration.
If you take out the social gamers, who are satisfied just being around other people, and the storytellers, who mostly only care that rules not get in the way of story, you’re pretty much left with the gamists. Those are the people who, consciously or subconsciously, want the rules to have meaning and structure. Roleplaying just isn’t satisfying to them otherwise. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that these people are all rules-lawyer assholes, either. In my experience, the digital age has made it easier for groups to kick people out, leading to a reduction in the number of overt jerkwads.
It has been interesting listening to my players talk about the Fate system, because it says something about what they want from the hobby. For most of them, it’s something like this: “Well, if we were to play, I think I want to go with [character concept and backstory], which I would represent by taking [powers and abilities], which would make me the [role, not necessarily combat-oriented].” Even in a very “rules lite” system like Fate, they’re looking for core mechanical competency.
I think that the greatest strength of 4e was that its design choices were deliberate. In Next, we’re being told that we get to make those design choices for ourselves, which has the potential to be the next big advancement in roleplaying theory, but only so long as we’re teaching players and GMs to think honestly about how they approach the hobby. For right now, I think there’s a little too much “Look, we have stuff!” and not enough “here’s our thinking on why you might like this stuff.”
I try very hard to update this blog at least weekly, but my personal life has been exceptionally hectic lately. I’m going to take some time off – probably until the end of July. In the meantime, if there’s anything you wish I had written about but haven’t, feel free to drop me a line.
Okay, this is the last one, I promise. 50 questions seemed to call for five separate days.
Question #41
Can the Warlord PLEASE be a theme as opposed to a separate class? My players really want to be able to build this type of character through other classes, such as Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, etc., and we all feel that making the Warlord a separate class is simply too limiting, especially when the idea of a base class is that it should be broad.
Answer #41
It’ll really come down to how it feels in play. I wouldn’t be surprised if we tried designing it both as a class and as a theme to see how it plays out.
My Thoughts
This comment saddens me. I didn’t think testing it as both was such a big deal.
Question #42
What about Warlords? I know the grognards hate those guys but they were my favorite addition to 4E. Will Warlords, as a non magical support character be in 5E?
Answer #42
How would this strike you – would you be cool with a maneuver system that also included tactical plans, and if fighters are the best at using maneuvers, a fighter with a warlord theme feels a lot like that class in play?
The hard thing with the warlord was that its powers in 4e are very dependent on the grid or on giving out extra attacks, and both of those pose some challenges to us. The 3e marshal class does pose another model we could follow, but I’m not sure people found that class satisfying.
My Thoughts
I don’t think that the Warlord relies on a grid any more than any other 4e class. That’s in the nature of 4e rather than something essential to the Warlord.
I suspect that what they fear about the Warlord granting extra attacks is the “killer combos” of Wizards that they mentioned as a design concern, though I don’t know what you could do with Wizard + Warlord that wouldn’t be easier with Wizard x2.
I think that Mearls does a disservice to the design space that the Warlord could occupy. People seem to like healing and boosts that come from someone other than the Cleric.
Question #43
First of all, thanks for all the work you’re doing, also on communication. I always felt I was “in tune” with the design principles behind Next, and now I have the proofs (Also, I played every edition, and loved them all, with a special mention to late 3.5 and 4e). I will provide a lot of feedback soon I hope, and it will include some tinkering like new feats, new backgrounds and even modified spells and completely new races. Premature, but I think it’s gonna be feedback nonetheless, and being different could even be of help (I hope). QUESTION: We know that the Fighter is a problematic class that sparked 90% of the questions and all. Don’t you think that the approach summarized by the “Fighters should be the best at fighting” motto is the root of the evil, here? I mean, isn’t it clear that the name of the class (although unchangeable) generates a lot of its problems? And ultimately, don’t you think that tying Fighter as a class more to “war” would make it more focused and avoid the too broad scope that generates problems? My opinion and that of many is that many classes fight and have the right to fight as well as the fighter. My solution to this would be to make classes more situational in their math bonuses, and where fighters would have the most “easily occurring situations”, they’d also have consistent, but not flashy bonuses to balance. I wrote a short blog about this here: http://community.wizards.com/lordarchaon/blog/2012/06/15/a_solution_to_balance_vs_tradition_in_next_classes As a clarification to it and my question, I know the fighter also has the metagame purpose of being the “starter’s class”, but are you considering the other fighting classes when you develop the Fighter? And are you considering making them all potentially equally (in different ways) good at fighting – provided their favorite situation come up or is set up? Thanks and sorry for the wordy thing.
Answer #43
I think you really hit on the key issue with the fighter – the class has a definition that has ranged from the hyper focused to the overly broad.
I thought a bit about it overnight, sparked by questions here and discussions elsewhere, and it might make a lot of sense to think about the fighter as good at something a little broader.
For instance, wizards cast spells, but they also know a lot of lore, they’re smart, they can translate runes, and so on. You have a clear body of traits for the class. The fighter needs something similar that speaks to its core definition.
My Thoughts
It might be better to think of the Fighter as something other than a lunk with a sword? **boggle** I honestly believe that this mindset is a leftover from Monte Cook’s participation in Next development. Cook genuinely believes – despite the fact that agency/LFQW come up as concerns all the frakking time – that the community lusts for simple melee combatants that just swing swords and other classes that “play smart,” never mind that a fair number of people continue to express a desire for clever, tactical play for the Fighter.
If you’re looking for what the Fighter has that sets him apart, I point back to my version of the Fighter core concepts, which included, “Every Fighter has a reputation and a story.”
Question #44
I don’t want anyone in my group to feel obligated to play a Cleric. I don’t even want them to feel that they have the option to play a Bard, Alchemist, Warlord, etc, but should play a Cleric because it’s best.
Hell, I don’t want anyone to feel obligated to play a “Leader” period – if we can ignore healing or survive on just a Theme or two, that’d be awesome.
I hope you’re already aiming for 1, but how about 2?
Do you feel like Dexterity is an uber-stat? Do you have any plans for making Dexterity be the sole determinant for fewer things on your character sheet?
Answer #44
Agreed.
Agreed.
That said, we’re having a devil of a time making that work, but we’re focusing on it.
Dexterity is a tricky stat. We have tried to remove it from AC for heavy armor characters and give medium armor characters a reason to ignore it (we’re revising armor for the next draft). The trick is that in trying to de-emphasize it, we often end up with more fiddly rules in the game. There’s tension there, but I think there are some release points for that.
My Thoughts
I want you to imagine a world without healing. We fight some monsters and get hurt, so we spend some Hit Dice, but they don’t really do all that much so we take a long rest. Either that long rest recovers most, if not all, of the party’s expended resources, in which case people complain about combat not feeling gritty or dangerous enough, or it doesn’t recover much at all, in which case we’re back to the 15-minute workday. It’s a pickle.
If being the healer is a theme and having healing is necessary (which it almost certainly will be), then the theme becomes as much of a non-choice as the class. All you’ve done is change the name.
Question #45
Are you doing anything to increase the open, sandboxy aspect of D&D?
I’ve done several premade adventures in my time, and while I think they’re pretty great, most of them are pretty linear. Sure, you can explore that necromancer’s tower in whatever order you want, but at the end of the day you’re running in one of the entrances and beating everything inside to death to see if loot or plot points come out. Even the ones that have more roleplaying in them seem to be linear. There’s a clear course of conversations and Diplomacy rolls you have to make on certain NPCs before they tell the secret mcguffin, or slap you in the face with a red herring.
I find it’s hard to motivate my players to think outside the box. They always seem to look for the conversation path of least resistance, so they can go to a dungeon and roll dice at their enemy. Then they complain about the boring, repetitive gameplay. I’m aware that as the DM, it’s my job to make the game interesting, but there seems to be little motivating my PCs to do more interesting things.
So my question is: Are there any new features to this next edition of D&D that will promote open-mindedness? My players look through the rulebooks for ideas on what they can do, but there’s so many more possibilities out there. I think the core rulebooks need more generic physics rules. How fast does a wagon move after three wizards cast Fly on it? How many HP does the Dragon loose if we cut off it’s tail in that portcullis/guillotine we made? How much damage do you take if you jump of a building and land in a haystack? Does that damage decrease if you have levels in Assassin? Are there any alchemical items that can force an Elf to lactate, and on an unrelated note, what is the going rate for a bottle of Elf Milk these days?
Answer #45
The open ended nature of RPGs is what makes them unique and has kept them around for so long, so I definitely want to see that emphasized. The trick lies in giving DMs some clear rules and guidelines for how things might work.
The tough part is figuring out where the divide between vague, easy, and complex lie. It’s frustrating if the rules don’t give enough info for a decision, but it’s just as bad if they give too much and the game becomes bloated and too complex.
Elf lactation is a serious issue that we haven’t even begun to tackle yet. The mind boggles at the intricacies, complexities, and comedy of the entire thing.
My Thoughts
Of course, the answer that Mearls can’t give is that this guy’s players are bored because he hasn’t engaged them with the story. Unless the players are invested, they won’t respond to a sandboxy environment because they lack the motivation to think of things to do.
Putting aside the creepiness of forced lactation, even if the question is asked in jest, I can’t help but notice that the questioner is asking the developers to do his work for him. If he thinks that the presence of “Elf milk” is good story, then he should be encouraged to come up with his own rules for it. This is called tailoring your campaign world to your needs and it’s a vital skill for a would-be GM to have.
Question #46
I started playing with 3e, so my experience is with 3, 3.5, 4, and 4.5; I don’t know much about 2e and below except from the classic video games like Baldur’s Gate.
It seems like in every edition, there will be disparities: some people / groups will be, agaisnt the same challenges, far more effective or competent at overcoming them than other groups. And for the most part, it’s felt like the official attitude towards the mechanics is that the devs are either not “good” at the game part of it that has rules, or are either dismissive or disparaging towards people who are, for whatever reason or purpose, good at building effective characters.
As such, it’s also felt like while these are fully legitimate players who enjoy the game, the game doesn’t work well for them. You can have a group of strong wizards or highly competent warblades, and they will do nasty things to what they’re “supposed” to be facing – and it’s never felt, officially, or with the dominant community, that that’s okay. It feels like we’re being told we’re playing it wrong, or that we care about something we shouldn’t care about.
I guess what this whole little editorial question is building towards is this: looking at 4e, but especially at 3e, I’ve wished that the DMG, or some other official book, would address very real disparities in character effectiveness from a standpoint from a standpoint less of presenting a set level of challenge and more like “here are some things powerful groups can do, these are ways you challenge them” – because it doesn’t matter, to me, as a player, if I can routinely trash encounters that “should” challenge people five levels above me: all that matters is that I, and my group, are actually challenged. The level of the challenge matters less than the on-the-ground concerns of level … and I’ve also wished deep in my heart that we’d see some sort of official, printed-in-the-rulebook statement that it’s okay to make “good” choices. It’s not the only way to play but it’s a valid and fine way to play, as long as you’re not disrupting the rest of the group.
Will we ever see anything along those lines in Dungeons and Dragons?
tl;dr, sort of: Can you please get permission from him and print the Stormwind Fallacy somewhere in the DMG or PHB for DnD Next?
(sorry for my rambling)
Answer #46
I think this is actually a really important issue, because it speaks to a core thing we need to deal with – it’s OK to do different things with D&D.
One of the things I really want to do with Next is build in different group and DM styles, and make it clear that those are just ways to play the game. Like, if you’re group likes to make optimized characters the DM runs the game in Nightmare mode and that’s fun, or the group that hates combat uses story-based XP and never fights anything.
My Thoughts
I’m certain that Mearls was very happy to see this question because it comes from a person with the philosophy that he thinks personifies Next.
My problem with this mindset isn’t the house rules, which I think generally make things hard on the community but not as much on your gaming group, it’s the notion that groups are somehow magically going to consist of players that have uniform desires about complexity, character management and agency. My experience with 3.5 was that the presence of a single power gamer meant that everyone had to become one, at least to a certain degree. This is also true of 4e, but to a lesser extent. Mearls wants us to imagine a magical fairyland where this doesn’t happen in Next.
I think that you encourage different play styles by creating a robust narrative system over a balanced combat system. The problem with 4e was that it never endorsed or supported narrative play.
Question 47
I’ve only played 4th and 3.x, but even in a well-balanced game like 4th edition it’s become clear by the end of its life-cycle that some choices were clearly better than others. In a game with a larger power disparity like 3.x, some choices were not only better but often the only functional build. How do you plan to combat/prevent power creep in supplementary material?
Branching off of that, how do you plan to keep the support for new classes balanced with new character options for old classes? When you look at the dozen of functional builds for 4th edition Wizards, the dearth of comparable variety in classes like the Seeker and Runepriest doesn’t seem very fair.
Will all the math be baked into the system? Playing 4th edition, I always hated having to choose “math-fixing” feats over ones that gave me special maneuvers or powers because if I didn’t choose the “fixers” I wouldn’t be able to hit with the powers and special abilities I currently had.
Finally, your design team has mentioned that fighters are often a “beginner” class, but as an experienced player I like to have melee classes with dynamic and interesting combat choices, just like a spellcaster. My first class was a 3.x Wizard because at the time all I really wanted to do was throw spells around.
Do you plan on having class options for beginners who are only interested casting spells?
Do you plan on having options for advanced players who like some variety in their melee class?
If not (to either question above), why?
If so, how do you plan on making beginner choices balanced against advanced choices, especially without one option being too dull to engage new players or too complex for even advanced players to consider accessible?
Answer 47
First, I think it’s important that we learn from the past and guard against those mistakes. So, we’ve seen the sort of mechanics that cause issues in 3e and 4e.
Second, we’ve made a big effort this time to define what exists within each piece of a character – race, class, feat, spell, magic item, and so on. Before, there were a lot of grey areas. For instance, in 4e powers were fairly well defined, but feats were all over the place.
So, the key lies in establishing the limits in each area and then, most importantly, throttling way back on the flood of mechanics. We have to consider each spell, theme, or whatever with the same attention that the Magic team regards a new card.
By keeping the core options under control and expanding slowly, we can keep a handle on the worst excesses.
This ties back into class support, where we want to release overall less stuff, and the stuff we do release make as usable across classes as possible. So, we’re more likely to introduce new themes that any class can take rather than spells for one specific class.
The math will be baked into the class and race. Since those are the only things that are 100% required for the game, between the two of them they contain all the math that we assume.
We 100% will support sliding complexity within classes, though with some limits (wizards and clerics are inherently a little more complex than non-casters).
Balancing the simple vs. the complex is tricky. The important thing is to keep the math level and make the simple character feel effective, even if the experienced played who takes a few maneuvers and applies them intelligently comes out ahead. We have to allow for skill and experience -otherwise the game gets stale – but I think we can mitigate that if the beginner feels like he has an effective characters and has some obvious, clearly useful things he can do.
For instance – the pregen fighter’s damage on a miss. A beginner player always feels like he or she is contributing in a fight.
My Thoughts
Mearls continues to mention the mechanical problems in 3.5 and 4e without seeming to acknowledge that there were just as many – if not more – mechanical problems with AD&D. It was just that the system was so rudimentary and dysfunctional that there was a subconscious understanding that house rules were required. Next seems to be built on the notion that house rules are a good thing.
They think that 3.5 and 4e had “too much stuff.” Next will have less stuff by design.
Mechanical advancement will come from a limited number of sources so that you’re not having to assemble many features to get what you want. Outside of class and race, almost everything will be fluff (it will not address defenses, to-hit or damage).
Some classes will be more complex than others. Mearls continues to push the notion that people are desperate not only for simple classes, but specific simple classes, especially the fighter. Given that the generations of gamers most likely to be buying into this game (15-30) are more game savvy than us old-timers, I don’t know how well this will resonate with them.
The design team thinks that things like always doing damage make people feel like they’re contributing… despite the fact that they are very bland. This seems like very strange market research.
Question 48
With the return of Vancian casting are you planning on giving non-magical characters some sort of “pull out the stops” type of abilties?
I know the fighter has twice per day do 2 actions, but that’s not… you know, exciting, per se. The magic stuff allows casters to perform new and different abilities, even at a limited level.
Second Question: Is there any intention to add a Attacks of Opportunity system or somesuch to give players a more effective way to control the battlefield?
Answer 48
Yes, we’re looking at a set of maneuvers that characters can dip into to gain more concrete options in fights, along with options that you can use to push yourself beyond your limits for an action or two per encounter.
We’re strongly considering adding a free attack if someone breaks away from a melee. The playtest feedback has been a little soured on letting people move around without consequence. However, the rule would be much simpler than attacks of opportunity – likely it’ll be that if you start your turn in someone’s reach, they get an attack on you if you try to leave their reach using an action to withdraw.
My Thoughts
You’re going to be hearing “We’re working on something cool for the fighter” a lot, not just in this Reddit. I’m trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, but the longer they keep saying this without actually showing us anything, the more I worry. There seems to be tremendous pressure to keep certain classes as plug-stupid as possible.
“A little soured” is probably a huge understatement, as this was the second most common complaint among people I spoke to. In fact, if there has been any more sparkle in the actions available to the characters, I would bed good money that this would have been #1 with a bullet. Not only does it completely eliminate the positional aspect of play, it opens the door to any number of asshat moves, such as all the monsters just walking away to beat the Wizard to death. Not having any interaction leaves the combat feeling like something out of a Final Fantasy game… except with far fewer options.
Question 49
I hated attacks of opportunity. I often dropped them in my own house rules. Unnecessary complication IMHO.
Answer 49
Keep in mind that our goal for adding a mechanic like this would be to keep it very, very simple. We are 100% NOT going to give you a long list of things that provoke. It would be moving away from an enemy and nothing else.
My Thoughts
Translation: “We’re not adding anything more complicated because we don’t trust GMs who dislike the mechanic to be able to do what this guy did and just not use the rule. If you’re expecting optional modules to genuinely reflect all of the editions, you’re going to be disappointed.” Though, to be fair, their “damage math” doesn’t seem to be able to account for the additional DPR of opportunity attacks. With the increased frailty of characters, you run the risk of creating situations where the character can’t do anything without dying.
Question #50
I know there’s a million (okay, 500) questions in here, so I’ll keep it short and sweet:
Can you tell us more about the modular aspect of Next?
If the core rules are designed as a jumping off point where nothing that offends people is in, how will modular aspects work so we can add complexity we want back in, and how granular will these components be? Will these rules modules be in the core rulebooks, or have a separate distribution scheme?
Answer #50
You can expect the modules we see as the most popular or commonly used ones to come out with the core of the game, likely in the DMG.
The easiest way to think of modules and the core is this – the core is the generic RPG engine that powers the game. It’s fairly vanilla in design and is unfocused. Rules modules have a lot more focus. Their design starts first with asking, “Who is the target audience for this?” and designing from there. Since we 100% expect people to ignore them, we can go all out in speaking to the specific part of the audience a module addresses.
My Thoughts
When he says, “It’s fairly vanilla in design and is unfocused”, he’s not kidding. My concern is that, without the modules Next will be bland as hell (our experience with the playtest packet), but that deciding which modules to use is going to be a mess. There was a lot of pressure on GMs in 3.5 to include everything from Wizards, even if it didn’t make sense for the campaign setting and the most common rationale used was “It’s a game, shouldn’t I get to play it the way I want to?” I feel that they’re pouring all this effort into a very simple base game that’s hardly ever going to get used.
I love the phrase “nothing that offends people” with regard to Next, because that feels like the design philosophy, at least with regard to people who didn’t transition to 4e.
Notice how he avoids the question of modules being a separate product. This is a bad sign.
I think the use of the word “modules” is odd, given that it traditionally means something else entirely.
Whew… that was a lot of work. I feel like I’m supposed to summarize this and wrap it all up in a neat little thought package, but I’m not seeing anything that coalesces for me. I’m very grateful to Mearls for opening himself up like this. It takes a great deal of courage to open yourself up to so many armchair quarterbacks, myself included, this early in the design cycle.
I guess one thing that occurs to me is that they might have started talking about Next this early in large part to avoid the SURPISE! moment that tainted the launch of 4e. Another is that I’m becoming more convinced that they really believe that they can give us AD&D with a 3.5/4e shell. Maybe I just wasn’t ready to see that before now.
In any event, thank you for sticking with me as I slogged through this. I hope it was helpful and informative.