The basics.

[omegalith]

Hey guys, I've been seeing a lot of info and rumours floating around about 5th edition... But nothing resembling a clear breakdown of what to expect from it.

Can you point me to what I'm looking for at all?

[Lokiare]

Hey guys, I've been seeing a lot of info and rumours floating around about 5th edition... But nothing resembling a clear breakdown of what to expect from it.

Can you point me to what I'm looking for at all?

You should take a look at the final play test packet that was released. Unfortunately you can no longer sign up and download it legally.

If you want an overview: 5E is an average retroclone of a mix between 2E/3E with a few mechanics of other editions thrown in haphazardly. It has a focus on tradition, simplicity, and avoiding anything that might resemble 4E at all, regardless of how well that thing might work.

[DontEatRawHagis]

My favorite thing is that Contests are now in the rules. Before I would set DC's based on the difficulty in the 4e book. Now I just roll an opposed check and see who got hire. Simpler and more fun for my players.

[cfalcon]

I would actually like a better summary here if possible.

I'm a 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder player, and I dislike the majority of everything about 4ed. I'm keenly interested in 5th, but it would have to feel like a 3.X improvement with remake of the things I didn't like.

1- I can't find out if this thing will be OGL or not. The online Pathfinder summary is so excellent that I wouldn't want to give that up (even the 3.5 hypertext SRD is amazing), and I could never find anything like this for 4ed, likely because it doesn't exist. It's likely we don't know this yet? There was some buzz in late 2013, but this is big.

2- Will the classes be like fighter/wizard/rogue/cleric (3.X/2ed/1st), or will they begin with classes that I don't understand, aren't in history or mythology? Or is it too early to call? Do we know the base classes?

3- Is there the concept of "cooldowns" as a universal resource, as it was in 4ed? For instance, the metered uses of powers of different abilities, often with elaborate names. Or is it something more like the older editions where it's more based on a high level of simulation, with a generic attack action and specific combat actions?

4- How are spells handled? Vancian casting and levels like all the 1974-2006 stuff? A "mana" system? Something else?

5- How is combat handled? How is the battle mat? What kind of actions are permitted? Will I have a hard time running it on hexes?

[Tovec]

You should take a look at the final play test packet that was released. Unfortunately you can no longer sign up and download it legally.

If you want an overview: 5E is an average retroclone of a mix between 2E/3E with a few mechanics of other editions thrown in haphazardly. It has a focus on tradition, simplicity, and avoiding anything that might resemble 4E at all, regardless of how well that thing might work.

This is an amazingly biased response. Really all responses to this topic that I've seen are. @Lokiare you prefer 4e and dislike 5e, assuming I'm reading your response correctly.

From my perspective (someone preferring 3e/PF and being slightly on the side of not liking 5e) would say it looks like an evolution of 2e, with barely any 3e touches - except those pieces which standardized mechanics like Positive AC instead of THAC0 - but with 4e crap mixed in. Especially with several powers that don't make sense, non-magical healing from nowhere, and similar shenanigans that I have come to associate with 4e.

Now I'm obviously being a little hyperbolic ("4e crap") but my point still remains that I see very little of the game I like (3e/PF) in 5e and you see only my game. More specifically that I think you are doing a great disservice to the OP by posting such a limited view to someone who hasn't read the materials.

Now to the OP:
I do mean what I say, I see it as an evolution of 2e's Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. I say this not just based on my sentiments but a common one I've seen online calling 5e the "3rd Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" or similar such titles. It has a retro feel, but modernized. There are also modern touches that drive me crazy, like the same HP bloat and lack of common sense in many powers and abilities (I'm looking at you Damage on a Miss).

At the moment my best suggestion is to wait until it comes out. At that point you'll either be able to pick up the FINISHED product for yourself or I'm sure find plenty of reviews and comparisons between 5e and your preferred edition; contrasting why or why not 5e is as good as X edition and in what ways. I can tell you that so far the lines of who likes the 5e packets doesn't seem to be clear. It isn't like people of ANY edition seem to like or hate it universally. It is overall more streamlined and much quicker to play than 3e and 4e. There is good definition in places and (IMHO) frustrating lack of definition in others. But going through all the features is very hard to do and I think ultimately pointless at this point in time. We've been told there are several changes occuring in closed playtests as well. So, just wait for the game, it'll be released soon and you'll have plenty of info to sort through and get a real idea of what the actual game will look like. Instead of just a playtest packet.

[cfalcon]

T So, just wait for the game, it'll be released soon and you'll have plenty of info to sort through and get a real idea of what the actual game will look like. Instead of just a playtest packet.

While your post is actually pretty helpful, this advice isn't. I don't need a full game to understand whether I'll like it or not- 4ed, for instance, was obviously not even trying to do what I wanted it to do, and the PHB just offered me more detailed rules about a game I was not interested in.

A post titled "the basics" that kind of answers what this game is in thread form is probably nice. I mean, if the game is at the core something I don't like, then I don't need to spend time learning it. If it's the second coming of 3.0, then I'd better pay attention!


Etc.

[Warskull]

I would actually like a better summary here if possible.

I'm a 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder player, and I dislike the majority of everything about 4ed. I'm keenly interested in 5th, but it would have to feel like a 3.X improvement with remake of the things I didn't like.

1 - This is still unknown. However, Wizards looks to be finally paying heed to electronic formats with DnDclassics.com being pushed.

2 - The final playtest packet follows the 3.5 tradition of classes. It has Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Mage (the new Wizard, between wizard and sorcerer), Monk, Paladin, Ranger and Rogue. It sounds like Sorcerer and Warlock will end up in the release version.

3 - There are no more per encounter abilities. Most abilities are recharged after a long rest, with a smaller amount recharged after a short rest (1 hour downtime.) So it is much closer to the way things were handled before 4th edition.

4 - This is a long one

A modified Vancian system. You now have casts per day, similar to how a sorcerer worked in 3.5. You then memorize what spells are available for the day. You get 1+Caster Level in spells. So a level 10 mage gets to memorize 11 spells with their long rest. Of specific note, many spells are no longer level specific. Instead of magic missile improving as you level, it can be cast as any level of spell. It fires one dart per spell level, dealing 1d4+1 damage each. So you can cast magic missile as a level 9 spell to fire 9 darts or as a level 3 spell to fire 3 darts. Spells have a minimum level, for example fireball must be at least a 3rd level spell. One you selected your memorized spells they can be cast from any appropriate spell slot like a sorcerer. All casting classes follow these basic principals.

Multiclassing caster classes is weird. All classes share the same spells per day pool which grows in caster level accordiing to class. So a 10 Cleric/10 Mage would have four 1st level spell slots and one 9th level spell slot. However, they would be unable to learn 9th level spells. The highest level spell they could learn in cleric or mage would be 5th level. So to use that 9th level spell slot they would have to cast a lower level spell as a 9th level spell such as Cure Wounds or Magic Missile. Caster classes are broken up into full CL (Druid, Cleric, Mage) classes and 1/2 CL classes (Paladin, Ranger, Bard.)

So a Cleric/Mage is actually quite viable and can cast spells at 9th level power. However, they lack access to true 9th level spells.

In summary all casters are halfway between Wizard and Sorc now.

5 - This one is kind of longer too

Combat is pretty similar to 3.5 in flow and style with simplified rules. The game should run perfectly fine on hexes.

Of major note, BAB, Skills points, and Save bonuses no longer exist. Everything has been boiled down to a single proficiency bonus. You get the bonus on any weapon, spell, save, or skill you are proficient in. Saves are now broken down by stat. So there is a strength save, con save, wisdom save, ect. For any non-standard action you can just make a skill check. Most players agree the simplified rules afford more liberty in what you can do.

The power gap between 1 and 20 is smaller. Instead of BAB progressing from 0-20, your proficiency bonus only progresses from 0-6. AC climbs less too. So there is less of an artificial treadmill where your BAB goes up, but then everything's AC goes up. Instead they focus on higher level stuff has more HP and can survive longer. However, 20 goblins can kill you if you just let them take pot shots at you. Lower level monsters are still a threat in numbers even to high level players.

Another big thing is the reduction of +1/+2 bonuses. You are far less likely to have a large amount of bonuses to track. It is mostly proficiency+stat+one bonus from buffs. They use advantage and disadvantage to replace a lot of bonuses. Advantage is roll two dice and take the highest, disadvantage is roll two dice and take the lowest. They are harder to get, but more powerful.

It should run just fine on hexes or a grid.

Overall

There is a very clear intention to get back 3.5 and earlier players, even if it costs them 4th edition players. I would describe it as having the feel and theme of 3.5 and earlier, but with a simplified, easier to work ruleset. From a mechanical standpoint the rules are actually pretty elegant and the game seems a lot less broken than previous editions. Classes are far closer in power without being homogeneous like 4th edition. The caster/fighter gap is closer than ever.

I believe if you order any 5th edition materials from dndclassics it comes with a copy of the final playtest.

[cfalcon]

Wow, thanks! This actually sounds really exciting. I don't understand where the modularity plugs into all this yet- they kind of hinted that there would be room for rules systems to plug in, but if the goal is to minimize pluses and minuses it seems like maybe that will be hard.

But that sounds like something I'm interested in.

The OGL thing is a pretty big deal, so I'll keep watching that.


2 - The final playtest packet follows the 3.5 tradition of classes. It has Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Mage (the new Wizard, between wizard and sorcerer), Monk, Paladin, Ranger and Rogue. It sounds like Sorcerer and Warlock will end up in the release version.

Yea, this list is what I was looking for. This sounds great.


A modified Vancian system. You now have casts per day, similar to how a sorcerer worked in 3.5. You then memorize what spells are available for the day. You get 1+Caster Level in spells. So a level 10 mage gets to memorize 11 spells with their long rest.

This sounds exciting. Simplified but with a lot of flexibility.


Multiclassing caster classes is weird. All classes share the same spells per day pool which grows in caster level accordiing to class. So a 10 Cleric/10 Mage would have four 1st level spell slots and one 9th level spell slot. However, they would be unable to learn 9th level spells. The highest level spell they could learn in cleric or mage would be 5th level. So to use that 9th level spell slot they would have to cast a lower level spell as a 9th level spell such as Cure Wounds or Magic Missile. Caster classes are broken up into full CL (Druid, Cleric, Mage) classes and 1/2 CL classes (Paladin, Ranger, Bard.)

I definitely like the idea of a viable multiclass cleric/mage, especially if a 9th level cure light wounds is actually worth casting. I guess I'll have to see how a 9th level cure light wounds differs from a 9th level cure serious wounds, and how a 9th level fireball differs from a 9th level meteor storm.


Of major note, BAB, Skills points, and Save bonuses no longer exist. Everything has been boiled down to a single proficiency bonus. You get the bonus on any weapon, spell, save, or skill you are proficient in.

Skills are... I'm just up in the air on that. The 3.X Skill system was only ok for PCs- making a crew of a dozen high level NPCs when I get to the skills section I'm just like "THEY HAVE MAX OF WHATEVER MAKES SENSE", which is mostly ok, but also lame. I'll see how the simplified version works- I bet this is an area that they make modular. It's also odd that the proficiency bonus is going to be small. I would think for a skill you'd want it to be MOST of the die, like hiding or whatever.


However, 20 goblins can kill you if you just let them take pot shots at you.

Cautiously, I'm thrilled about this.

My big concern is that high level encounters will take longer than 3.X high level, which already is rather burdensome. But the simplifications sound like they will really counteract this.


Another big thing is the reduction of +1/+2 bonuses. You are far less likely to have a large amount of bonuses to track. It is mostly proficiency+stat+one bonus from buffs. They use advantage and disadvantage to replace a lot of bonuses. Advantage is roll two dice and take the highest, disadvantage is roll two dice and take the lowest. They are harder to get, but more powerful.

That sounds very clever. I'll have to see it a bit finished at this point, but I would definitely like less of those if possible. Doesn't this reduce high level customization options?





Thanks a lot for your response. I'll have to check this out in great detail!

[Lokiare]

This is an amazingly biased response. Really all responses to this topic that I've seen are. @Lokiare you prefer 4e and dislike 5e, assuming I'm reading your response correctly.

I kept my tone neutral and described the game. I did only use a few sentences though. I could have done what the poster above did and describe 90% of the mechanics, but I didn't feel it was necessary.


From my perspective (someone preferring 3e/PF and being slightly on the side of not liking 5e) would say it looks like an evolution of 2e, with barely any 3e touches - except those pieces which standardized mechanics like Positive AC instead of THAC0 - but with 4e crap mixed in. Especially with several powers that don't make sense, non-magical healing from nowhere, and similar shenanigans that I have come to associate with 4e.

This is not factually accurate. There isn't healing the comes from nowhere. You either bandage your wounds to expend hit dice, in which case its the healing kit you consume or its a spell or a bard song, which is described as magic. Its way closer to 2E/3E than anything in 4E.


Now I'm obviously being a little hyperbolic ("4e crap") but my point still remains that I see very little of the game I like (3e/PF) in 5e and you see only my game. More specifically that I think you are doing a great disservice to the OP by posting such a limited view to someone who hasn't read the materials.

You'll notice in my post there was zero hyperbole. I used the word 'average' because 5E has literally nothing new that it adds that many other retro clones didn't already do. If I were to use hyperbole, I would have used words like 'below average', 'oversimplified' etc...etc...


Now to the OP:
I do mean what I say, I see it as an evolution of 2e's Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. I say this not just based on my sentiments but a common one I've seen online calling 5e the "3rd Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" or similar such titles. It has a retro feel, but modernized. There are also modern touches that drive me crazy, like the same HP bloat and lack of common sense in many powers and abilities (I'm looking at you Damage on a Miss).

Damage on a miss was removed in one of the recent articles. Hp is at 2E levels which is below 3E.


At the moment my best suggestion is to wait until it comes out. At that point you'll either be able to pick up the FINISHED product for yourself or I'm sure find plenty of reviews and comparisons between 5e and your preferred edition; contrasting why or why not 5e is as good as X edition and in what ways. I can tell you that so far the lines of who likes the 5e packets doesn't seem to be clear. It isn't like people of ANY edition seem to like or hate it universally. It is overall more streamlined and much quicker to play than 3e and 4e. There is good definition in places and (IMHO) frustrating lack of definition in others. But going through all the features is very hard to do and I think ultimately pointless at this point in time. We've been told there are several changes occuring in closed playtests as well. So, just wait for the game, it'll be released soon and you'll have plenty of info to sort through and get a real idea of what the actual game will look like. Instead of just a playtest packet.

That's strange the internal testers I've talked to say that all they are doing is adjusting some numbers but not any real mechanics.


While your post is actually pretty helpful, this advice isn't. I don't need a full game to understand whether I'll like it or not- 4ed, for instance, was obviously not even trying to do what I wanted it to do, and the PHB just offered me more detailed rules about a game I was not interested in.

A post titled "the basics" that kind of answers what this game is in thread form is probably nice. I mean, if the game is at the core something I don't like, then I don't need to spend time learning it. If it's the second coming of 3.0, then I'd better pay attention!


Etc.

Its neither. Its a cleaned up 2E with many elements of 3E tacked on. For instance the number of spells casters get is severely trimmed down and they reintroduced concentration without the ability to make a skill check to avoid it. I think in the last packet you rolled a save against 10 + damage taken or something like that.


Wow, thanks! This actually sounds really exciting. I don't understand where the modularity plugs into all this yet- they kind of hinted that there would be room for rules systems to plug in, but if the goal is to minimize pluses and minuses it seems like maybe that will be hard.

But that sounds like something I'm interested in.

What they appear to have meant when they said modularity is a few optional rules you can throw in like critical hit tables or armor as DR, they aren't talking about a module you put in that has 20 rules that make the game play like 3E.


The OGL thing is a pretty big deal, so I'll keep watching that.

What will likely happen is that they won't release it under the OGL. Instead they will release it under a completely new license that says you can't make products for competitors if you use the new agreement, and preclude the use of the OGL and any products made with it. Kind of like they did with 4E.


Yea, this list is what I was looking for. This sounds great.



This sounds exciting. Simplified but with a lot of flexibility.

Mostly just simplified. There is little flexibility. You have all the same flexibility you have in any edition where the DM decides whether the check DC is easy, medium, or hard. They lost the flexibility of customizing your character as you level though. You can only customize at level 3 by picking a sub-class which is just a list of features you gain as you level and can't be changed. Some classes get 4-5 feats over 20 levels, but the feats are more like taking prestige classes than older edition feats. For instance Arcane Archer is now a feat, and polearm Fighter is a feat. You can trade a feat for a +2 to a stat or +1 to two stats, but your stats can't go past 20. Fighters get lots of feats (4-6), other classes get less. The only flexibility is with casters who get to pick the spells they learn on each level up.


I definitely like the idea of a viable multiclass cleric/mage, especially if a 9th level cure light wounds is actually worth casting. I guess I'll have to see how a 9th level cure light wounds differs from a 9th level cure serious wounds, and how a 9th level fireball differs from a 9th level meteor storm.

From the play test, we know that there is only one cure spell known as "Cure Wounds" that scales depending on which level spell slot you cast it out of. It gains 1d8 for each spell slot above 1st.

Meteor Swarm is nothing like fireball. Fireball scales at +1d6 damage per spell slot level. Meteor swarm can be cast from a mile away and makes 4 20' radius circles that deal 10d6 bludgeoning and 10d6 fire damage to anyone in the area. It takes up your only 9th level slot.


Skills are... I'm just up in the air on that. The 3.X Skill system was only ok for PCs- making a crew of a dozen high level NPCs when I get to the skills section I'm just like "THEY HAVE MAX OF WHATEVER MAKES SENSE", which is mostly ok, but also lame. I'll see how the simplified version works- I bet this is an area that they make modular. It's also odd that the proficiency bonus is going to be small. I would think for a skill you'd want it to be MOST of the die, like hiding or whatever.

Currently, a commoner with a -1 in the appropriate skill has a pretty decent chance to outdo someone that is trained and has a +5 in the appropriate skill. I don't like that myself. There should be some things that gifted masters should be able to do that clumsy commoners should not.


Cautiously, I'm thrilled about this.

My big concern is that high level encounters will take longer than 3.X high level, which already is rather burdensome. But the simplifications sound like they will really counteract this.

Its been simplified from 4E, not really that much from 3E. The only improvement I've seen is the use of advantage and disadvantage to remove small bonuses and penalties. Of course 4E did this too. It only has a few penalties every once in a while you can give out a -2 or -4 to attack, combat advantage (+2 to attack), cover or concealment is -2, greater cover or total concealment is -5. That's about it in 4E. Everything else is precalculated into your character.


That sounds very clever. I'll have to see it a bit finished at this point, but I would definitely like less of those if possible. Doesn't this reduce high level customization options?

Yes the only options you have to customize at high levels is the 1 or 2 feats you get and if you are a spell caster you get to pick a new spell every level.


Thanks a lot for your response. I'll have to check this out in great detail!

Yep.

[Mewtarthio]

3 - There are no more per encounter abilities. Most abilities are recharged after a long rest, with a smaller amount recharged after a short rest (1 hour downtime.) So it is much closer to the way things were handled before 4th edition.

"Recharges after a short rest" is the same thing as "per encounter" (or at least it was in 4e, where an "encounter" was defined ending at a short rest).

[Warskull]

The OGL thing is a pretty big deal, so I'll keep watching that.

I completely agree. Wizards has been in a tough position losing marketshare to Pathfinder (and some other smaller games.) OGL would really help bring gamers back. They can try the system for free and if they like it, start buying stuff and delve into. Even just making the basic rules OGL could be a big deal. If they don't do OGL, I hope they put up some PDFs for very low prices. If they try to push $50 for the player's guide, $50 for the DM guide, and $50 for the beastiary it will very negatively impact adoption rates. There is very aggressively priced competition these days. While each system has its flaws, players will be willing to put up with those flaws if Next is too expensive.


I definitely like the idea of a viable multiclass cleric/mage, especially if a 9th level cure light wounds is actually worth casting. I guess I'll have to see how a 9th level cure light wounds differs from a 9th level cure serious wounds, and how a 9th level fireball differs from a 9th level meteor storm.

For reference in the last playtest, Meteor Swarm is 9th level and does 6d6 fire+6d6 bludgeoning. It has a 1 mile range and summons four 40ft aoe impacts. A target can only take damage from one impact.

Fireball is a 3rd level and does 6d6 damage+1d6 for each additional level beyond 3rd it is casted at. It hits in a 20ft AoE and has a 100ft range.

Cure Wounds is 1st level and heals for 2d8+2, it gains an additional 2d8 per level. There are no more Cure X Wounds. Cure Wounds is all the cure X wounds spells in a single memorized slot.

Heal is a 6th level spell restores a flat 60 HP, plus removes blindness, deafness, and disease. Cure Wounds has the potential to cure a bit more, but most of the time will cure less. However, heal doesn't improve when cast in a higher level spell slot.

This post has a file listing all the spells (http://community.wizards.com/forum/playtest-packet-discussion/threads/3939111)

Most of the lower level sells are competitive in raw number. However, the higher level spells tend to offer a bit more functionality and give you more options. A fireball at 9th level hurts just as much as a meteor and would even be preferable against targets weak to fire or when collateral damage is a concern. Meteor Swarm is better when you want to blow a lot of stuff up in a huge area from a far distance.


Skills are... I'm just up in the air on that. The 3.X Skill system was only ok for PCs- making a crew of a dozen high level NPCs when I get to the skills section I'm just like "THEY HAVE MAX OF WHATEVER MAKES SENSE", which is mostly ok, but also lame. I'll see how the simplified version works- I bet this is an area that they make modular. It's also odd that the proficiency bonus is going to be small. I would think for a skill you'd want it to be MOST of the die, like hiding or whatever.

Remember, DCs don't scale up as much either. DCs are meant to be pretty much constant. A player will also have fewer skills than in previous editions. You pick a background and gain three skills, you then make pick an additional one of three with your class. Think of backgrounds like non-combat classes. They give you 3 skills, some tool use and/or some languages, and a trait.


That sounds very clever. I'll have to see it a bit finished at this point, but I would definitely like less of those if possible. Doesn't this reduce high level customization options?

How so? Not gaining as many +1s doesn't actually matter since the +1s you do gain tend to matter more. Also the current multiclass system is incredibly flexible. Do you want to be a magic fighter? Take 10 levels of fighter, then 10 levels of mage. You can swing your sword with a full +6 bonus and cast in armor. You lose higher level mage spells and the extra attacks a fighter gains past level 10. However, you can do both your jobs adeptly.

In fact a mage who took a feat granting 2-handed proficiency would have the same attack bonus as a fighter using two-handed weapons. He would just gain fewer fighter features.

Another item of note along these lines feats are bigger impact and grow with level, but you will take less of them. You gain ability improvements (+2 stat points any way you want, max natural stat is 20) at set points for classes. You can choose to take a feat instead of an ability improvement.

Furthermore, in the flexibility department, they have done away with alignment requirements for classes. It is mentioned that most monks are lawful and that barbarians tend to be chaotic. Paladins are not required to be lawful good, in fact they describe neutral vengeance driven paladins in addition to the normal holy warrior paladins. They seem to be going with more of a recommendation for alignment with certain classes.

[Kurald Galain]

How so? Not gaining as many +1s doesn't actually matter since the +1s you do gain tend to matter more.

No, they don't.

This is simple math. A +1 bonus is the smallest bonus possible on an 1d20 roll, makes only a marginal difference, and in practice is not at all noticeable in gameplay. If such bonuses are rare, they still are small and marginal and not noticeable.

And yes, this reduces character diversification. For example, at low to moderate level, in 5E it is simply not noticeable in gameplay whether or not a character is trained in a skill. Your character can claim to be good/trained/masterful at anything he likes; but when push comes to shove and you have to make a check? You're likely to be upstaged by your untrained party members.

[Jacob.Tyr]

No, they don't.

This is simple math. A +1 bonus is the smallest bonus possible on an 1d20 roll, makes only a marginal difference, and in practice is not at all noticeable in gameplay. If such bonuses are rare, they still are small and marginal and not noticeable.


I don't know, man, this is sort of like arguing that $5 in 1902 isn't worth more than $5 now, because its still only $5 even though it is harder to get $5 in 1902. In bounded accuracy the numbers go up slower, as do the target numbers. Sure, a +1 is only a 5% increase in to hit, but what odds does that give you against appropriate challenge rating monsters? In 3.x if you don't have something like a +10 by level 5 you're only hitting 5% of the time, while in 5e the number you need to be viable most of the time is a lot lower.

You're also entirely discounting how advantage works, which at the end of the day makes a +1 more than a +1 if you're using your class abilities, environment, and teamwork to gain advantage.

[1337 b4k4]

I don't know, man, this is sort of like arguing that $5 in 1902 isn't worth more than $5 now, because its still only $5 even though it is harder to get $5 in 1902. In bounded accuracy the numbers go up slower, as do the target numbers. Sure, a +1 is only a 5% increase in to hit, but what odds does that give you against appropriate challenge rating monsters? In 3.x if you don't have something like a +10 by level 5 you're only hitting 5% of the time, while in 5e the number you need to be viable most of the time is a lot lower.

You're also entirely discounting how advantage works, which at the end of the day makes a +1 more than a +1 if you're using your class abilities, environment, and teamwork to gain advantage.

In addition to this, it's also worth noting that how much a +1 is worth to the player is largely based on how frequent the roll is. A +1 to hit is actually a pretty big deal in a game where a lot of combat is going on. Same with a +1 to defense. It's even more valuable if getting to the number provided by the +1 is difficult (that is to say, a +1 on and AC of 9 isn't as valuable as a +1 on an AC of 18 because getting to AC 10 without a +1 is fairly easy, getting to AC 19 without a +1 is much more difficult). On the other hand, a +1 on a roll that only comes up once every 3 sessions has less value to the player because it doesn't happen often enough for the player to notice. Incidentally, you can sort of see this in the fact that in 5e, skill training gives a +3 instead of a +1 despite "bounded accuracy". That's because any one particular skill will come up rarely, but when it does, you want to feel your training have an impact.

[Kurald Galain]

I don't know, man, this is sort of like arguing that $5 in 1902 isn't worth more than $5 now, because its still only $5 even though it is harder to get $5 in 1902. In bounded accuracy the numbers go up slower, as do the target numbers.
All of which is completely irrelevant. A 5% bonus is a 5% bonus. It doesn't magically become a bigger bonus if it's hard to obtain. Math doesn't work that way.

[SiuiS]

While your post is actually pretty helpful, this advice isn't. I don't need a full game to understand whether I'll like it or not- 4ed, for instance, was obviously not even trying to do what I wanted it to do, and the PHB just offered me more detailed rules about a game I was not interested in.

A post titled "the basics" that kind of answers what this game is in thread form is probably nice. I mean, if the game is at the core something I don't like, then I don't need to spend time learning it. If it's the second coming of 3.0, then I'd better pay attention!


Etc.

Wizards of the coast went through hell specifically obscuring what their final product would be. There isn't enough information to help you; it doesn't exist. So unfortunately, waitin is what has to happen.

So far we know that numbers are supposed to be small, so every d20 roll is swingy. We know that saving throws are supposed to be ability checks. We know that skill DCs are being changed but not how or to what or even why, and we may or may not have a rule that may or may not say that it may or may not be optional to only roll when dramatically appropriate.

It has classes, hit points, armor classes, spells, and monsters. Items give you bonuses and let you do things. Classes have powers. They are supposed to be thematic but might not be.

That's about as far, literally, as it got. It's all watered down crap. It may or may not stay that way.


*



Kurald; the value of a +1 is based on both it's scarcity and it's power, not just one or the other. A 5% bonus that is game changing is 100% guaranteed worth more than a 5% bonus which doesn't matter. Math and economics does work that way.

[Kurald Galain]

Kurald; the value of a +1 is based on both it's scarcity and it's power, not just one or the other. A 5% bonus that is game changing is 100% guaranteed worth more than a 5% bonus which doesn't matter. Math and economics does work that way.
No, that's incorrect. The value of +1 is based on its power (which is 5%). Its scarcity has absolutely nothing to do with that, because math doesn't work that way. Although economy does.

Here's a simple comparison: take a common Magic the Gathering card, like a 1/1 goblin. If this card is printed as a mythic rare, then its sale value goes up, because economy works that way. However, its effectiveness in the game does not go up, because math doesn't care whether the goblin is common or rare.

But unless WOTC is going to sell booster packs containing individual feats or items, economy isn't relevant here, only math. So no, making things rare doesn't make them more powerful in the game, and a +1 in 5E ends up being exactly as big a bonus as a +1 in 3E.

[Warskull]

No, they don't.

This is simple math. A +1 bonus is the smallest bonus possible on an 1d20 roll, makes only a marginal difference, and in practice is not at all noticeable in gameplay. If such bonuses are rare, they still are small and marginal and not noticeable.

And yes, this reduces character diversification. For example, at low to moderate level, in 5E it is simply not noticeable in gameplay whether or not a character is trained in a skill. Your character can claim to be good/trained/masterful at anything he likes; but when push comes to shove and you have to make a check? You're likely to be upstaged by your untrained party members.

The math says they matter, you just have to do it. In a treadmill system where your bonus increased by 1, but DCs and ACs also increase by 1, your probability to hit has not changed at all. In a system with a reduced treadmill where your bonus increased by 1, but ACs/DCs do not improve, your chance to succeed just improved by 5%. 5% is a non-trivial amount.

For example in pathfinder a young red dragon has 22 AC, while a level 10 fighter has +10/+5 BAB. That fighter has a 40% chance to hit on the first attack and a 15% chance to hit on the second attack. A similar dragon in next has an AC of 15, but a level 10 fighter has two attacks at +3/+3. That gives him a 40%/40% chance to hit.

As you can see despite the fact that you the 3.5/Pathfinder fighter has a bigger bonus, but his probability of hitting is equal on the first blow and less on the second blow. This is because less of the +1s are lost to the treadmill. The +10 and the +3 are roughly equivalent in value in the two systems vs a level 10 appropriate dragon.

Now let's take a terminally stupid character who tries to stab a dragon at level 1. The pathfinder fighter has a +1 bonus against a 22 AC. He has actually has a 0% chance to hit the dragon before crit rules factor in. He is so far behind the treadmill his +1 bonus doesn't matter. You need +12 in bonus just to get back to an even 50/50 chance. Meanwhile with the smaller treadmill the level 1 next fighter has a 40% chance to hit. His +1 bonus makes an impact because he isn't hopelessly behind the treadmill. 20 Level level 1 fighters in Pathfinder are a negligible thread to the dragon, landing only 1 hit per round, while 20 level 1 fighters in Next will land 8 hits per round.

+1s are more significant when you have fewer factors negating them. In Pathfinder and 3.5 you did a lot of running to to just stay where you were.

3.5/Pathfinders are more like:
50% + 5% + 5% + 5% + 5% + 5% + 5% - 5% - 5% - 5% - 5% - 5% - 5%

Whereas Next is more like:
50% + 5% +5% - 5%


Here's a simple comparison: take a common Magic the Gathering card, like a 1/1 goblin. If this card is printed as a mythic rare, then its sale value goes up, because economy works that way. However, its effectiveness in the game does not go up, because math doesn't care whether the goblin is common or rare.

But unless WOTC is going to sell booster packs containing individual feats or items, economy isn't relevant here, only math. So no, making things rare doesn't make them more powerful in the game, and a +1 in 5E ends up being exactly as big a bonus as a +1 in 3E.

You have misunderstood the application of economy. Economy does not mean money. Economy means value and resources. In this example +1 bonuses are a resource, their value is how desirable they are to a player. +1 BAB is less desirable than +1 Proficiency in next, it is less likely to have an impact. Resources can be money, but it can also be time, manpower, actual physical resources, ect. You can discuss the economy of bonuses in D&D, in fact that's what you have been doing.

[1337 b4k4]

All of which is completely irrelevant. A 5% bonus is a 5% bonus. It doesn't magically become a bigger bonus if it's hard to obtain. Math doesn't work that way.

The value of a bonus is different from it's magnitude. A bonus has value based in part on it's magnitude (5%) but also as I mentioned based on it's frequency of applicability, it's frequency of availability relative to penalties, it's frequency of availability relative to other similar bonuses and a number of intangibles based on how the player perceives the bonus' impact on their game. The problem with doing a purely mathematical analysis of game mechanics is that it misses the human impact. Perception is in many ways more important than reality, especially when playing a game which relies on fantasy (in the imaginative sense, not the elves sense) and immersion. People prefer an experience that "feels" better to one that is "mathematically" better. This is part of why despite the fact that mathematically you are better off buying the plush bears that you want, people will play a claw game, even though they know the game is rigged against them (and often blatantly so, as in most machines can be configured to only have enough claw strength to actually pull up a prize once every X plays).

[Shining Wrath]

No, they don't.

This is simple math. A +1 bonus is the smallest bonus possible on an 1d20 roll, makes only a marginal difference, and in practice is not at all noticeable in gameplay. If such bonuses are rare, they still are small and marginal and not noticeable.

And yes, this reduces character diversification. For example, at low to moderate level, in 5E it is simply not noticeable in gameplay whether or not a character is trained in a skill. Your character can claim to be good/trained/masterful at anything he likes; but when push comes to shove and you have to make a check? You're likely to be upstaged by your untrained party members.

Well, this seems inaccurate. In practice, you don't hit on a 2, you hit on a 10 or a 12 or a 15, depending on the toughness of the target. If I can only hit the target on a 15, and now I can hit it on a 14, I've increased my chance of success from 30% to 35%, and therefore my expected damage increased by 16%.

16% is non-trivial.

[obryn]

Yeah, in a Bounded system, the relative value of a +1 is higher than it is in an unbounded one like 3.x.

This increases substantially when you have damage that outpaces hp, as you do in Next; and when you have riders that can pretty much win a fight, as you do in 4e and 3.x spellcasting.

It will matter in 1 out of 20 rolls, which could be once every session. I wouldn't call that situational, really.

[Knaight]

Well, this seems inaccurate. In practice, you don't hit on a 2, you hit on a 10 or a 12 or a 15, depending on the toughness of the target. If I can only hit the target on a 15, and now I can hit it on a 14, I've increased my chance of success from 30% to 35%, and therefore my expected damage increased by 16%.

16% is non-trivial.

Sure, but this is the exact same thing that happens with a +1 in a game that hands out more of them. The value of a +1 hasn't really changed. What would change it is something like a change in the die system. +1 on 1d10 is substantial, +1 on 1d6 is downright solid.

[Seerow]

I am amazed at how few people in this thread seem to understand math. Kurald is right here.

Here's the thing that seems to be causing the confusion: Treating the treadmill as something that is 100% defined and hardcoded into the game, so once you're level 10 with your +10 BAB, every enemy around you has +10 armor class to compensate.

That isn't how it works. You have enemies with lower AC, enemies with higher AC. You have allies with lower to-hit bonuses. You have attributes, abilities, and feats that give you bonuses that exist outside the normal bonuses for leveling.


The only time a 3.X +1 is worth less than a DDN +1 is when the RNG has been skewed by the various factors so that you hit on a 2 (or miss on a 19) whether you have the bonus or not. This isn't an issue inherent to the treadmill, or a problem with having multiple sources of bonuses. It's a problem inherent with no effort being made at all to control the RNG.


If you're a 3.5 Fighter with +35 to hit against a Dragon with 45 AC, and take Weapon Focus, that +1 to hit will mean exactly as much as it would for a DDN Fighter with +10 to hit against a dragon with 20 AC. Literally. These are mathematically exactly the same thing. The +1 does not magically mean more to the DDN Fighter because his to-hit bonus is lower, or because he had fewer opportunities to get a +1.




Now if you want to make the argument that 3e's RNG is broken because you end up with level 20 players who have below 20 AC and level 20 monsters with +60 attack bonuses; Or because you have player characters with 80 strength and +90 to hit when the toughest enemies in the game have below 50 AC; then I'm right there with you. 3.5 has a serious RNG range issue, and has a lot of trouble keeping characters on the same RNG. That is something that needed fixing. 4e tried to address this, but in a way that took away a lot of customization from characters and was ultimately unsatisfying. 5e is trying to address this by removing even more customization from characters, and selling it as a defining innovative aspect of the game. And suckers are falling for it left and right because math is hard.


edit:

Well, this seems inaccurate. In practice, you don't hit on a 2, you hit on a 10 or a 12 or a 15, depending on the toughness of the target. If I can only hit the target on a 15, and now I can hit it on a 14, I've increased my chance of success from 30% to 35%, and therefore my expected damage increased by 16%.

16% is non-trivial.

This is actually a different argument from what most of the rest of the discussion is about. Everyone else is talking about how having higher bonuses makes a +1 worth less (which is provably wrong). What you are discussing is how a +1 can be valuable due to where you are on the RNG. This same argument actually holds true with or without bounded accuracy, so isn't particularly relevant except to say "A +1 is worth this much". But the issue is you aren't fighting a static AC, so you can't say for sure what kind of benefit that +1 is actually giving you in any given encounter. At least not as a percentage.

Just to use your example, say that target just gained 5 extra AC. You can only hit that target on a natural 20. Now you gain your +1, you just went from hitting 5% of the time to 10% of the time, a 100% increase! Obviously that +1 was worth a lot, right?

Well... yes and no. Objectively, given a long enough time of play, that extra +1 did double your average damage per round. In practice though, say you deal 20 damage per hit. You just went from dealing average 1 damage per round to 2 average damage per round. The actual gain? 1 damage per round (a 100% increase!). And that same thing is true in your initial example, going from 30% to 35%, you go from 6 damage per round to 7 damage per round. But it's still 1 extra damage per round on average.

Basically a +1 to hit is worth 5% of your attack's damage, as long as you are on the RNG. How valuable is that? That depends on how much damage you deal on an average hit, and how many hit points the enemy has. But typically? Not very. There's also the point that a 5% shift in probability really isn't perceptible to us, especially when combat isn't dragging out to 10-20+ rounds.

I tend to prefer having fewer but larger modifiers, so when you get that boost, you can really notice it and feel the difference in play.

[1337 b4k4]

I am amazed at how few people in this thread seem to understand math. Kurald is right here.

It's not that people don't understand math, it's that they understand that value and magnitude are only partially related. Value is more than the mathematical impact of a bonus on the particular roll the bonus is applied to. Heck, we intrinsically use this argument all the time even in talking about D&D. Would you rather have a +1 to hit, or a +1 to detect invisible faeries when the ambient temperature is below 0 degrees? Would you rather have a +1 AC or a +1 to your saving throw against rocks falling from space? I strongly suspect that you will tell me that one of these "+1" bonuses is more "valuable" than the other, even though they both amount to a mere 5% increase.

Similarly when would you rather have a +2 sword? In a system where everyone around you has a +1 sword, or a system where everyone around you has a +5 sword? Is that not a change in the value of the +2, even though in both cases it represents a 10% increase in your abilities?

Finally, imagine a system that suffers from the "christmas tree" effect. Your character, after 10 levels of play, is outfitted with a +1 sword, a +1 dagger, +2 gauntlets of slaying, +2 boots of butt kicking, +3 platemail of targeting, +1 bracers of poise and a +1 cod piece of david bowie, everyone in your party is similarly equipped. The DM has a goblin sneak into your camp at night and abscond with your +1 sword. Do you care all that much? Is it worth going and hunting down the goblin and his tribe to get your +1 sword back? Now imagine instead that after 10 levels of play you have amongst your whole party exactly 2 +1 swords and a single +1 gauntlet of slaying. Your character personally has one of the +1 swords. When the goblin steals your sword in the night, do you care more now? Why, in both scenarios the bonus from the sword is a mere 5%, so why do you care more when you have less gear?

Now, I'm not saying that 5e does all of these restrictions properly, or even that 5e's +1 bonuses really are or are not more valuable than they are in 4e or 3e. What I am saying is that the value of the bonus is more than simple math, and that you can't evaluate value in a vacuum.

[Morty]

I maintain that bounded accuracy, as an idea, is good - you just need to do more than cut the numbers, like D&D Next does.

[Noldo]

This is actually a different argument from what most of the rest of the discussion is about. Everyone else is talking about how having higher bonuses makes a +1 worth less (which is provably wrong). What you are discussing is how a +1 can be valuable due to where you are on the RNG. This same argument actually holds true with or without bounded accuracy, so isn't particularly relevant except to say "A +1 is worth this much". But the issue is you aren't fighting a static AC, so you can't say for sure what kind of benefit that +1 is actually giving you in any given encounter. At least not as a percentage.

However, with bounded accuracy the characters’ positions on the RNG should be more static and the likelihood that the characters’ are positioned on the RNG in a way that makes a “+1” valuable is higher than without the bounded accuracy, where the characters can end up all over the RNG (and sometimes beyond or below it).

Moreover, this effect is further amplified by the advantage system, assuming that advantage will be available in suitable frequency. Looking at combat, it seems that there will actually be three systems contributing towards the effectiveness of a character: (i) to hit bonuses, (ii) access to advantage and (iii) damage potential. Thus the changes to improve the character’s abilities should also be spread over the three elements.

[1337 b4k4]

I maintain that bounded accuracy, as an idea, is good - you just need to do more than cut the numbers, like D&D Next does.

This is true. Most specifically what you need to do is shift to bell curve RNGs for less common rolls. For all the people really dislike d20 for skill systems, I rarely see a serious (more than complaining about frequency of criticals and fumbles) complaint about the d20 for combat. That's because combat is both inherently swingy but also because combat in D&D (since AD&D 2 at least, if not earlier) happens often, and happens fast (pre-3e and 4e high level). Each miss is felt less, each +1 has a bigger likelihood of making a difference in a given session (let alone in a given combat). For less frequent rolls, a bell curve RNG gives both more believable results (ref: the entire argument over 5e's skill system) and gives you the ability to stay on the RNG, bound your accuracy and make each individual +1 worth more and be felt more. A perfect example is Traveller, which uses 2d6 >=7 for everything. Rarely (if ever) do characters see a bonus greater than +3, but I assure you they notice each and every +1 they get.

[Mewtarthio]

The trouble is that, regardless of what everyone else's bonuses are, 1d20 is just too swingy to let a +1 change things. You need a smaller range or a sharper curve (ie 3d6) for it to make a difference.

Let's assume, for example, that you're rolling against someone with the same bonuses as you. If you're both rolling 1d20, you've got a 47.5% chance of strictly (ie, no ties) winning the contest. If you add a +1 bonus, that rises to 52.5%. That's barely noticeable. Okay, let's add advantage/disadvantage to the mix: If you're rolling best-of-2d20 and your opponent isn't, you've got a 64.1% chance of winning, which a +1 raises to 69.1%. If you're rolling worst-of-2d20, that +1 boosts your 30.9% to 35.9%. If you've both got advantage or disadvantage, +1 raises a 46.7% to 53.3%. No matter how you slice it, +1 on a 1d20 is nothing.

[Knaight]

It's not that people don't understand math, it's that they understand that value and magnitude are only partially related. Value is more than the mathematical impact of a bonus on the particular roll the bonus is applied to. Heck, we intrinsically use this argument all the time even in talking about D&D. Would you rather have a +1 to hit, or a +1 to detect invisible faeries when the ambient temperature is below 0 degrees? Would you rather have a +1 AC or a +1 to your saving throw against rocks falling from space? I strongly suspect that you will tell me that one of these "+1" bonuses is more "valuable" than the other, even though they both amount to a mere 5% increase.

The situation here is comparing +1 to attack to +1 to attack. Moreover, those get into the matter of frequency of use, which is an entirely unrelated phenomenon that is largely irrelevant when it is the exact same thing being boosted in both cases.

[Seerow]

The situation here is comparing +1 to attack to +1 to attack. Moreover, those get into the matter of frequency of use, which is an entirely unrelated phenomenon that is largely irrelevant when it is the exact same thing being boosted in both cases.


Exactly this. The 1337's whole thing about frequency of use is a complete non-sequitor in the context of the conversation of comparing DDN's bounded accuracy to older editions of the game. DDN is making no changes to make certain types of rolls occur more or less often (I guess you could argue that they're trying to simplify the action economy, thus reducing number of attacks and rolls... but that would work against the intended point of +1 meaning more in DDN, since rolling less often means you're less likely to notice the impact of that +1 in a given session). That entire schpiel is nothing more than a deflection, to avoid the actual point.


Similarly when would you rather have a +2 sword? In a system where everyone around you has a +1 sword, or a system where everyone around you has a +5 sword? Is that not a change in the value of the +2, even though in both cases it represents a 10% increase in your abilities?

This quote similarly misses the point. You measure the +1 by comparison to what is around you. If the game expects the average person to have a +1, then having a +2 puts you 1 above the average. If the game expects you to have a +5, having a +2 puts you 3 below the average. This doesn't mean a +1 is worth less, it means that the baseline expectations are different. You measure bonuses beyond the baseline expectation, not in a vacuum.

I guess the point trying to be made here is a +1 sword is worth more in DDN than in 3.5, because the default assumption for 3.5 is to have a stronger weapon, while the default assumption for DDN is to have no magic at all. But that doesn't actually make the +1 itself more valuable, it just means the game's assumptions are different.

Note: In the examples I was giving, I never talked about specific pieces of gear, it was specifically about the value of a +1, which means the value of a +1 in relation to an expected baseline. If you want to say that a +1 weapon is worth more because a +5 weapon is not expected of you, then that's fine. Just recognize it's not what was being discussed.


I maintain that bounded accuracy, as an idea, is good - you just need to do more than cut the numbers, like D&D Next does.


I've never seen anyone actually give a clear definition of what a good implementation of bounded accuracy would look like.

If all that's meant by that is "Bring the RNG in line", I can get wholeheartedly behind that. I however do not believe that it is necessary to remove the majority of level based scaling to make that happen. The idea of the RNG being bounded at any given level, but when dealing with opponents outside your level you are better or worse relative to them is something I find frankly integral to making the game function (and is one of 3e's major failings). The idea that a 20th level specialist needs to be on the same RNG as a 1st level character who has no training is one I rail violently against.


However, with bounded accuracy the characters’ positions on the RNG should be more static and the likelihood that the characters’ are positioned on the RNG in a way that makes a “+1” valuable is higher than without the bounded accuracy, where the characters can end up all over the RNG (and sometimes beyond or below it).

Moreover, this effect is further amplified by the advantage system, assuming that advantage will be available in suitable frequency. Looking at combat, it seems that there will actually be three systems contributing towards the effectiveness of a character: (i) to hit bonuses, (ii) access to advantage and (iii) damage potential. Thus the changes to improve the character’s abilities should also be spread over the three elements.


This implies a belief that it is impossible to maintain characters on the RNG as long as scaling is in place. I do not hold to that belief.


A perfect example is Traveller, which uses 2d6 >=7 for everything. Rarely (if ever) do characters see a bonus greater than +3, but I assure you they notice each and every +1 they get.

Traveller's 2d6>7 system is a vastly different RNG than a d20. They are not comparable in the way you are trying to imply. First, 2d6 forms a minor bell curve, with the average centered at 7. It also has a much narrower range (2-12, the RNG is literally half the size of a d20). A +1 there causes a MUCH more dramatic shift in the RNG than 5% (it's actually around 16%, roughly the equivalent of a +3 on the roll for a d20. Note that +3 is generally the number I consider as being a noticeable bonus on the d20 rolls).

[Tovec]

So, just wait for the game, it'll be released soon and you'll have plenty of info to sort through and get a real idea of what the actual game will look like. Instead of just a playtest packet.While your post is actually pretty helpful, this advice isn't. I don't need a full game to understand whether I'll like it or not- 4ed, for instance, was obviously not even trying to do what I wanted it to do, and the PHB just offered me more detailed rules about a game I was not interested in.
I think that there are two important parts here. First, while it's true that you don't need to read the full game rules to tell if you will like something or not - I'm not suggesting you personally have to do that. In fact I advocate seeing what others have written and then making up your mind. I say this because (Secondly) the final game isn't released. That is why I italicized actual game. I think that there are a whole host of changes still coming and that much of the playtest was to see where the players were as opposed to judging the actual system. I say this based on the very sparse reports I've seen (mostly from ENWorld's Cybit, but also other reports and articles online) that say that the metrics of the system aren't done. Certain mechanics have been tested, reconfigured and dropped; but there is no telling which ones will appear by the final version of the game and as such I think it may be too early to count our chickens. That is why in my first reply on this thread I said I'm slightly on the side of not liking 5e - but I am not ruling it out until I can get a better grasp on the game at release - regardless whether or not I personally shall be picking up and examining the book for its goodies. I don't own 4e and have barely ever cracked the cover of that book, yet I firmly know from reports, mechanics, pdfs and playtests that I know I have no interest in playing the game. But I came to such a decision once the game was out. I had to, since I was actually on board with much of what I heard before release.

I'm just saying I think it is early to be discussing "the basics" since they are still in flux and likely will be until release - or at the very lease we are unlikely to see the non-flux versions before release. If you, the OP, or anyone wants a better grasp of what is being designed then I would suggest looking at ALL threads which touch on the subject, as well as the articles released by WotC which discuss the most recent changes and attitudes of the game. Any information compiled on a thread such as this will be biased. Biased by people who like 5e, those who hate it and like 4e (Lokaire), biased by those who dislike 5e and like 3e (me), or even those who have hated everything since the original Dungeons and Dragons written by Gygax all those years ago. Bias at this particular juncture is a major thing and if people looking let it then it will keep them out of the new game, before that game is even released, regardless if it is something they love or hate.


I kept my tone neutral and described the game. I did only use a few sentences though. I could have done what the poster above did and describe 90% of the mechanics, but I didn't feel it was necessary.
Obviously I don't think it is necessary either.

My point to you Lokaire is that you describe 5e as having 3e mechanics which you hate and therefore think it bad. Without finding any 4e mechanics which you love in the game. I feel this is just wrong. Simply a bias of not liking 5e and prescribing bits of games you also don't like as parallels. I can (and do) see the same things, but from a different angle. I see too much "modern" aka 4e-ness in the game. I see mechanics which (IMHO) don't make sense and to that end I see far too much 4e in 5e - whereas you don't see enough. I think that both of these opinions don't help describe 5e to someone who hasn't seen it.

Imagine if someone was asking you to describe the new tangerine flavoured ice cream who had never had tangerines. Now let's say your favourite ice cream is chocolate and mine is vanilla. You are telling this person asking about the new tangerine ice cream that you don't like it because it doesn't taste like chocolate and reminds you much too much of vanilla. Whereas I see it tasting nothing like vanilla and thus compare it to chocolate. Neither of these opinions are really accurate. They are both in fact saying the same thing; that the tangerine simply IS NOT their preferred taste and prescribing the major alternative taste to it - instead of actually describing what it DOES taste like.. a citrus flavour instead of a chocolate or vanilla one.



From my perspective (someone preferring 3e/PF and being slightly on the side of not liking 5e) would say it looks like an evolution of 2e, with barely any 3e touches - except those pieces which standardized mechanics like Positive AC instead of THAC0 - but with 4e crap mixed in. Especially with several powers that don't make sense, non-magical healing from nowhere, and similar shenanigans that I have come to associate with 4e. This is not factually accurate. There isn't healing the comes from nowhere. You either bandage your wounds to expend hit dice, in which case its the healing kit you consume or its a spell or a bard song, which is described as magic. Its way closer to 2E/3E than anything in 4E.
I'm assuming the part you are referring to is: "non-magical healing" as opposed to comments about THAC0 and what not. I'm REALLY not going to get into non-magical healing with you on this thread Lokiare. In fact I'm really uninterested in getting into that conversation with anyone at any time. It has gone on for far too long with the only resolution I can see of "I dislike random healing from nowhere" and others saying "It makes sense" or "It is abstract" or "It is a balance issue" and therefore good. Suffice it to say non-magical healing is in the last packet and I dislike it. It reminds me of 4e. Obviously you don't see it that way. But this goes back to what I'm saying about chocolate and vanilla. It is an aspect that reminds me of something I don't like, though I am far enough away from the issue to say that it is its own thing that just bugs me and reminds me of being bugged by 4e's mechanics rather than being directly drawn from 4e's mechanics.


You'll notice in my post there was zero hyperbole. I used the word 'average' because 5E has literally nothing new that it adds that many other retro clones didn't already do. If I were to use hyperbole, I would have used words like 'below average', 'oversimplified' etc...etc...
The only hyperbolic part of my post was saying that all 4e was crap, as I already noted last post. What is more, I never said YOU were being hyperbolic. I said your comments were amazing biased, but that is hardly what you responded to here.


Damage on a miss was removed in one of the recent articles. Hp is at 2E levels which is below 3E.
I have no idea if/when damage on a miss was removed. I'm glad IF it is, but I haven't been paying close enough attention to the articles to really care or remember.

As far as the HP bloat - this is a 3e and 4e thing as far as I know. I have next to no knowledge of 2e and its levels but from all reports I have found it seems that 3e and 4e were the worst offenders - adding in HP as a balance thing to make fights last a certain length. 3e of course was bad for the meta-game of finding ways around the huge HP. And 4e bad for the regulation and extra healing (including non-magical) that kept the fights going for a predetermined amount of time. From what I've seen there is still a rather lot of HP (a bloat) compared to what I've heard of earlier editions and thus I don't think it resembles those retroclones so much as later edition figures. Add onto this fewer ways around the HP (Save or Dies/Sucks) and harder ways to cut into those bloated HP with bounded accuracy, which in my biased view looks a lot LESS like 3e and a lot more like 4e where you have to play all 9 innings. I'm not saying that 3e was perfect by any means, but since it is the game I like most I find it very hard to see aspects of what I like and find most fitting in 5e.


That's strange the internal testers I've talked to say that all they are doing is adjusting some numbers but not any real mechanics.
You are the one who said damage on a miss was cut after the final packet and mentioned in an article. How is that not playing around with mechanics? Also if crunching the numbers was the only thing left then they wouldn't need playtesters, they'd need computers to do the math. I have heard reports - articles and actual posted reports - that say they are still playing around. There were no sorcerers or warlocks in the last packet, but I think both have appeared after the packets in playtests. Monks have gotten different modifications to their attacks. As of a couple weeks ago they were talking about new and shiny things being given to Fighters as well as retooling how and when they got these powers. All of these things strike me as playing around with the mechanics and not about adjusting the +1s and +2s.


Its neither. Its a cleaned up 2E with many elements of 3E tacked on. For instance the number of spells casters get is severely trimmed down and they reintroduced concentration without the ability to make a skill check to avoid it. I think in the last packet you rolled a save against 10 + damage taken or something like that.
It is 2e with NEW FEATURES tacked on. It is no more resembling 3e than 4e does. As I said before it is 2e without THAC0. It is a modernized 2e. Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Third Edition, is the closest title I have found that most can seem to agree on. There are no features of 3e that are exclusive to 3e that I can think of. There are numerous updates of 2e things which also makes it distinctly NOT 2e as well. But I agree that it does have a retro feel more than anything.

------

Most importantly to cfalcon or people like you, as I already said last time, is that there are no hard lines in the sand of who likes 5e and who doesn't and for what reason. If you have a most have in the OGL (or similar thing for 5e) then that is your own breaking point and it will be completely different than my issue with HP. There are no groups that seem to mostly like or dislike the game. Everyone personally seems to buy into it for their own reasons, regardless of which game they came from before. It may allure people from 2e's days with a similar feel. Or from 3e with less silliness. Or from 4e with a quicker fight. Or turn all three groups off for not being enough like the game they're coming from. It is far from cut and dry. cfalcon, if you (which you do) have specific things to look for when the game is out then that is great. But look at "the basiscs" probably isn't for you to begin with since you don't care about the basics so much as you care about the specifics.

[Knaight]

I see too much "modern" aka 4e-ness in the game. I see mechanics which (IMHO) don't make sense and to that end I see far too much 4e in 5e - whereas you don't see enough. I think that both of these opinions don't help describe 5e to someone who hasn't seen it.

Modern and 4e-ness are two very different things. The biggest change in the RPG market is the staggering increase in sheer variety of games - which very much includes older styles (e.g. retroclones). If anything, 4e is mostly an older style game. Class and levels, alignment as the sum total of role-playing mechanics, the d20, the whole focus on dungeons, all of these are old, and while they've stuck around they don't characterize modern gaming at all.

[Lokiare]

My point to you Lokaire is that you describe 5e as having 3e mechanics which you hate and therefore think it bad. Without finding any 4e mechanics which you love in the game. I feel this is just wrong. Simply a bias of not liking 5e and prescribing bits of games you also don't like as parallels. I can (and do) see the same things, but from a different angle. I see too much "modern" aka 4e-ness in the game. I see mechanics which (IMHO) don't make sense and to that end I see far too much 4e in 5e - whereas you don't see enough. I think that both of these opinions don't help describe 5e to someone who hasn't seen it.

Sorry no. I described it as a retroclone, that includes editions 0-3. I did not describe it as having 3E mechanics, nor do I 'hate' 3E mechanics. Please quit putting words in my mouth or trying to extrapolate what I'm thinking. You don't appear to be too good at it.

I described it as a 2E/3E retroclone because it has a similar premise to 3E with things like vancian casting, fighters that are ineffectual unless the casters hold back. My major concern with 3E is not how its mechanics are laid out. Its more to do with the lack of balance and the lack of tactical options on some classes. 4E gives me those things as well as many many ways to customize my character from selecting a background with a mechanical benefit to picking a theme that grants features and additional powers to choose from. All the way up to selecting at least one thing at each level that I can customize about my character, even if its only to retrain a power.

I also see too many things that don't make sense, but from my view they got those things from previous editions like the whole vancian casting mechanic, which outside of tradition makes absolutely no sense. Magic has never been represented that way (even in the Jack Vance novels it was 3-5 spell total and only the most powerful casters could hold 5 spells at once, and they could stop at any point and take an hour or two to rememorize their entire allotment of spells.). Fighters in previous editions not even able to do things that we have real life examples of like making ricochet shots, wrestle with bears exceeding their normal strength and speed for a short time etc...etc... Then we see examples of things that people in real life can't do like falling from hundreds of feet and standing up like nothing happened...etc...etc...

The only reason people feel that 3E is more 'realistic' is because they are so used to the game and don't have to think about it. When that happens they are being dominated by the game or being submissive to it. Which is fine, if you are into that kind of stuff. Personally I like games that are fun because they resemble obstacle courses and can be won based on the choices that I make rather than random rolls of dice, but that's another issue.


Imagine if someone was asking you to describe the new tangerine flavoured ice cream who had never had tangerines. Now let's say your favourite ice cream is chocolate and mine is vanilla. You are telling this person asking about the new tangerine ice cream that you don't like it because it doesn't taste like chocolate and reminds you much too much of vanilla. Whereas I see it tasting nothing like vanilla and thus compare it to chocolate. Neither of these opinions are really accurate. They are both in fact saying the same thing; that the tangerine simply IS NOT their preferred taste and prescribing the major alternative taste to it - instead of actually describing what it DOES taste like.. a citrus flavour instead of a chocolate or vanilla one.

If we were talking to someone who's never played an TTRPG in their life your example might hold some weight, unfortunately this person already has plenty of experience with D&D in particular so saying '2E/3E retroclone' will keep me from having to spend 3 pages describing what a role playing game is, how different editions vary from each other and the various parts that come from 2E and 3E.


I'm assuming the part you are referring to is: "non-magical healing" as opposed to comments about THAC0 and what not. I'm REALLY not going to get into non-magical healing with you on this thread Lokiare. In fact I'm really uninterested in getting into that conversation with anyone at any time. It has gone on for far too long with the only resolution I can see of "I dislike random healing from nowhere" and others saying "It makes sense" or "It is abstract" or "It is a balance issue" and therefore good. Suffice it to say non-magical healing is in the last packet and I dislike it. It reminds me of 4e. Obviously you don't see it that way. But this goes back to what I'm saying about chocolate and vanilla. It is an aspect that reminds me of something I don't like, though I am far enough away from the issue to say that it is its own thing that just bugs me and reminds me of being bugged by 4e's mechanics rather than being directly drawn from 4e's mechanics.

I understand completely, you are part of the group that views hit points as meat only and therefore fall into the group with another unrealistic problem that you are overlooking in your preferred edition and 5E. So that makes 3E and previous along with 5E very unrealistic. We've covered a number of things that are not realistic and getting hit in the face full force with an axe, yet continuing to fight like you were fresh out of bed falls into that category. It all goes into that traditional mindset that because you are familiar with it, that makes it ok, because you don't have to really think about it. You are just used to it.

If you approach 4E with the idea that all hit points are meat, of course you are going to feel its unrealistic, unfortunately hp in 4E is RAW described as endurance, luck, divine favor, and basically anything that can cause a fatal blow to turn into a scratch. The first half of your hit points aren't even considered to bleed in 4E by the rules (thus 'bloodied' at half hp). So what's happening is you are falling back on your preconceived notions of what hp mean. This is similar to those people that freak out because fireball isn't a level 3 spell in 4E. Not realizing that 4e has 30 levels instead of 20 which means fireball should be level 4-6 instead.


The only hyperbolic part of my post was saying that all 4e was crap, as I already noted last post. What is more, I never said YOU were being hyperbolic. I said your comments were amazing biased, but that is hardly what you responded to here.

Again describing 5E as 'a 2E/3E retroclone that avoids anything 4E' is accurate. The developers have over and over omitted 4E when they say they want to include things from all editions. They give examples of things from 1E, 2E, and 3E, but gloss over anything from 4E or use ambiguous phrases like 'as easy to DM as 4e'. I don't view 2E in a negative light. So there is no insult here, only an accurate description to someone who is familiar with one or more editions of D&D.

You may be seeing parts of what you perceive to be 4E in the game, but 4E is based on the integration of a number of mechanics to work in concert to bring a balance tactical option filled experience. When they made 'hit dice', that isn't from 4E. That's supposed to make characters not have to waste 50gp on potions and instead spend 10gp on healers kits. In 4E healing surges limited the total amount of healing you could receive in a day. (there were a few exceptions, but generally they were limited in being encounter or daily powers). They could also be expended to power various maneuvers and out of combat martial practices (mundane version of rituals which were long casting time spells). So hit dice is not even close to being a 4E mechanic. What other mechanics do you think came from 4e? Encounter powers? Sorry, no those were introduced in 2E and 3E with barbarian rages and other features.


I have no idea if/when damage on a miss was removed. I'm glad IF it is, but I haven't been paying close enough attention to the articles to really care or remember.

And yet you are discussing the subject?


As far as the HP bloat - this is a 3e and 4e thing as far as I know. I have next to no knowledge of 2e and its levels but from all reports I have found it seems that 3e and 4e were the worst offenders - adding in HP as a balance thing to make fights last a certain length. 3e of course was bad for the meta-game of finding ways around the huge HP. And 4e bad for the regulation and extra healing (including non-magical) that kept the fights going for a predetermined amount of time. From what I've seen there is still a rather lot of HP (a bloat) compared to what I've heard of earlier editions and thus I don't think it resembles those retroclones so much as later edition figures. Add onto this fewer ways around the HP (Save or Dies/Sucks) and harder ways to cut into those bloated HP with bounded accuracy, which in my biased view looks a lot LESS like 3e and a lot more like 4e where you have to play all 9 innings. I'm not saying that 3e was perfect by any means, but since it is the game I like most I find it very hard to see aspects of what I like and find most fitting in 5e.

All editions of D&D starting with 1E used the same hit point system. The only changes were in 3E they stopped capping the rolls at level 10 and 4E they have you add your constitution score instead of your modifier to your hp total (which actually means you have less hp around level 12 or so than in 3E). I think you added your constitution modifier in previous editions too.


You are the one who said damage on a miss was cut after the final packet and mentioned in an article. How is that not playing around with mechanics? Also if crunching the numbers was the only thing left then they wouldn't need playtesters, they'd need computers to do the math. I have heard reports - articles and actual posted reports - that say they are still playing around. There were no sorcerers or warlocks in the last packet, but I think both have appeared after the packets in playtests. Monks have gotten different modifications to their attacks. As of a couple weeks ago they were talking about new and shiny things being given to Fighters as well as retooling how and when they got these powers. All of these things strike me as playing around with the mechanics and not about adjusting the +1s and +2s.

Moving around when someone gets a new maneuver is not playing around with the mechanics, that's still on the level of +1's and +2's. If they were to alter the fundamental maneuver system, then that would be playing around with the mechanics. From the play testers I've read posts from and talked to, they aren't doing any of that. They are fiddling with numbers and shuffling around when people can access their features. The fundamental game isn't changing. As to sorcerers and warlocks, they were in a previous packet. The only new class is the bard which has been confirmed by the articles to be just another spell caster gish that is better than any other class at present.


It is 2e with NEW FEATURES tacked on. It is no more resembling 3e than 4e does. As I said before it is 2e without THAC0. It is a modernized 2e. Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Third Edition, is the closest title I have found that most can seem to agree on. There are no features of 3e that are exclusive to 3e that I can think of. There are numerous updates of 2e things which also makes it distinctly NOT 2e as well. But I agree that it does have a retro feel more than anything.

------

It has many features from 3E, from the out of control vancian casting without the drawbacks of 2E to the fighters with only bonus feats and a few weak class features that are obviated by 2nd level spells. Due to the way prone works in 5E, the fighters ability to prone or knock people back a few feet are equivalent to the +1 they got from 3E. Granting an ally advantage instead of attacking is actually worse, because while your ally will most likely hit, they aren't going to do their damage plus yours. Giving yourself advantage on your next attack by giving up an attack is also equally senseless. You are doing half the damage you would normally do just to have a slightly higher chance to hit on an upcoming attack that you may not even be able to make if the target moves away from you or out of reach. I could go on and on listing the 3E exclusive things in it, but I won't make this a wall of text post.


Most importantly to cfalcon or people like you, as I already said last time, is that there are no hard lines in the sand of who likes 5e and who doesn't and for what reason. If you have a most have in the OGL (or similar thing for 5e) then that is your own breaking point and it will be completely different than my issue with HP. There are no groups that seem to mostly like or dislike the game. Everyone personally seems to buy into it for their own reasons, regardless of which game they came from before. It may allure people from 2e's days with a similar feel. Or from 3e with less silliness. Or from 4e with a quicker fight. Or turn all three groups off for not being enough like the game they're coming from. It is far from cut and dry. cfalcon, if you (which you do) have specific things to look for when the game is out then that is great. But look at "the basiscs" probably isn't for you to begin with since you don't care about the basics so much as you care about the specifics.

I'd like to see your numbers on that. From what I've observed, I haven't heard on any of the forums I frequent or people I talk to in person of any 4E fans that like 5E. What I've seen is 4E fans generally have dismissed it and have moved on to either 13th age or just keep playing 4E. To them 5E is a dead cause and when it comes out and everything I've predicted comes true, I'll be right there with them.

[Tovec]

Modern and 4e-ness are two very different things. The biggest change in the RPG market is the staggering increase in sheer variety of games - which very much includes older styles (e.g. retroclones). If anything, 4e is mostly an older style game. Class and levels, alignment as the sum total of role-playing mechanics, the d20, the whole focus on dungeons, all of these are old, and while they've stuck around they don't characterize modern gaming at all.
I've seen the argument that 4e is an older style or feel before. I don't see it. And since it is at best a playstyle or feel and not a quantifiable aspect I'll just have to say that I'll agree to disagree. Beyond that. I don't even care if it is an old style or not. It is a modern game. It was released fairly recently and is a reflection of the times. I see that in 5e. 5e is also a reflection of the times. It is modernized since it is made NOW instead of years ago. The fact I see parallels between its style and the 4e style is my own preference. Also, as I repeatedly state it is my personal bias and I recognize it. It is simply how I see 5e. Regardless whether it is accurate it is my bias. What I see is Lokiare (and others) also having a bias yet seeming to be ignorant of their bias.


Sorry no. I described it as a retroclone, that includes editions 0-3. I did not describe it as having 3E mechanics, nor do I 'hate' 3E mechanics. Please quit putting words in my mouth or trying to extrapolate what I'm thinking. You don't appear to be too good at it.
"a game that is designed to emulate the rules of an older out of print game (so as to be compatible with anything produced for the older system)." That is how google defines retroclone. Soon that is going to include 4e. I just don't usually include 3e and you didn't seem to be including 3e either. Nor do I see it applying to 5e in any significant way.

Beyond that, as far as "describing it as having 3e mechanics," you said:

Its neither. Its a cleaned up 2E with many elements of 3E tacked on. For instance the number of spells casters get is severely trimmed down and they reintroduced concentration without the ability to make a skill check to avoid it. I think in the last packet you rolled a save against 10 + damage taken or something like that.

You should take a look at the final play test packet that was released. Unfortunately you can no longer sign up and download it legally.

If you want an overview: 5E is an average retroclone of a mix between 2E/3E with a few mechanics of other editions thrown in haphazardly. It has a focus on tradition, simplicity, and avoiding anything that might resemble 4E at all, regardless of how well that thing might work.
So while you may not have explicitly the words "3e mechanics" you do seem to describe it as a 3e game/retroclone.

What is more, in my first post on this thread I said that it was my guess that you liked 4e and disliked 5e and 3e. I said this before reading anything more on this forum and before getting more used to your positions over all. After reading more I'm fairly positive that is your position. Downgrade or replace the word "hate" with something that is more suitable. You seem to very much be opposed to the direction 5e is going and prefer the game 4e was. I had similar feelings of dislike in relation to 4e and preferring 3e (mostly after the release) and wishing that the mechanics looked differently. I'm not putting words in your mouth - I'm trying to understand your background which I think I have gotten a fair sense of in the intermediate time from my first on this thread to now. I'm not saying it is a bad thing to like 4e or any game. I think it is a bias. I have one too. That is all I've ever been trying to say.


I described it as a 2E/3E retroclone because it has a similar premise to 3E with things like vancian casting, fighters that are ineffectual unless the casters hold back.
Based on virtually all reports - fighters aren't ineffectual (in 5e). And 3e is hardly the first or only edition with vancian casting. So these criticisms I find are rather off-place.

My major concern with 3E is not how its mechanics are laid out. Its more to do with the lack of balance and the lack of tactical options on some classes. 4E gives me those things as well as many many ways to customize my character from selecting a background with a mechanical benefit to picking a theme that grants features and additional powers to choose from. All the way up to selecting at least one thing at each level that I can customize about my character, even if its only to retrain a power.
It is hard to see why I would say you like 4e, clearly I am putting words in your mouth. Oh wait. No I'm not. Either way. As I have already said I AM NOT HAVING THIS CONVERSATION WITH YOU HERE OR ELSEWHERE. I FIND IT POINTLESS AND AM NOT GOING TO ENGAGE ANYMORE. I'm not going to discuss aspects of 3e mechanics, HP bloat or anything else. It is not the time or place for such things and honestly after the myriad of conversations I've had on the subject it is a near impossible sell for either of us to make any traction about such things. It doesn't matter whether or not I find 5e has bloat. It is irrelevant to this thread, especially at this stage of development. If you want to try and rope me into a conversation actually about HP bloat, 3e mechanics, 4e mechanics or really anything of any topic that is fine. I wish you well and luck. But do so elsewhere. This thread is about the basics of 5e. I'm simply ignoring any further attempts to get me to discuss it on this thread.


If we were talking to someone who's never played an TTRPG in their life your example might hold some weight, unfortunately this person already has plenty of experience with D&D in particular so saying '2E/3E retroclone' will keep me from having to spend 3 pages describing what a role playing game is, how different editions vary from each other and the various parts that come from 2E and 3E.
Except saying it is a retroclone is not helpful. It doesn't accurately describe the game. Nor its functions within the game - I'm sure what the OP was actually looking for. Regardless of how much or how little 5e might remind you of 3e it is a different beast. Describing it solely as a 2e/3e retroclone does it disservice. I don't like 5e either. Heck I don't like 4e, but I would never have described it as a 1e retroclone because it is an inaccurate description.


Again describing 5E as 'a 2E/3E retroclone that avoids anything 4E' is accurate.
No it isn't.

It is as accurate as saying '5e is a copy of 4e, that avoids all the goodness of 3e.' It is bias, just a different bias, and equally as wrong.


The developers have over and over omitted 4E when they say they want to include things from all editions.
If this were true we wouldn't see parallels to 4e in many areas. Not least of which is a concept of limitless cantrips, long rests and short rests, second winds and what not. Again, saying there is nothing of 4e is false. There is as much of 4e as there is that is uniquely 3e - which is to say not much in the grand scheme.


They give examples of things from 1E, 2E, and 3E, but gloss over anything from 4E or use ambiguous phrases like 'as easy to DM as 4e'.
Again false. Look at their discussions of cosmology or monsters and trying to include aspects of ALL editions. If they wanted to completely ignore and exclude 4e they'd have a much simpler job. They are reversing several decisions but they are also trying to keep many changes. They want to capture the feel of older games, but include many newer aspects as well.


You may be seeing parts of what you perceive to be 4E in the game, but 4E is based on the integration of a number of mechanics to work in concert to bring a balance tactical option filled experience. When they made 'hit dice', that isn't from 4E. That's supposed to make characters not have to waste 50gp on potions and instead spend 10gp on healers kits. In 4E healing surges limited the total amount of healing you could receive in a day. (there were a few exceptions, but generally they were limited in being encounter or daily powers). They could also be expended to power various maneuvers and out of combat martial practices (mundane version of rituals which were long casting time spells). So hit dice is not even close to being a 4E mechanic. What other mechanics do you think came from 4e? Encounter powers? Sorry, no those were introduced in 2E and 3E with barbarian rages and other features.
Do you think I'm confused about why certain aspects exist? I'm not. I always understood why damage on a miss existed as an option - why it was supposed to work. But it never did for me. You can give similar reasoning to many things that may or may not resemble 4e bits. At this point I don't really care where or if they came from other editions. It is inconsequential if they are direct rips of 4e or 2e or any e, or less obvious rips, or complete new fabrications (a fairly rare and astonishing feat these days). I'm not asking you to justify or explain second winds, healing surges, hit dice, non-magical healing or anything. That isn't the purpose for this thread. My point has always been that you don't see enough 4e goodness and that I don't see enough 3e goodness in 5e. We seem to both take offense at that. We both have biases and blame aspects of other editions for this. But it doesn't matter at this point, since that is not what the OP asked about and so it should be kept from being discussed.



I have no idea if/when damage on a miss was removed. I'm glad IF it is, but I haven't been paying close enough attention to the articles to really care or remember. And yet you are discussing the subject?
I am discussing that I saw many 4e influences in the playtests. I don't care if a single influence has been scrubbed or not after the fact. It is not relevant to what I was talking about. Taking away damage on a miss from the fighter does not 'save' the game for me. Nor, by itself, does its inclusion. It is just one aspect that I saw that I disliked. A fairly obvious and controversial one and thus (I suspect) why it was removed.

That said, I'm not going to continue to discuss this because if it was removed then it goes back to what I've been saying: that the mechanics are still being tooled and played around with. That anything I tell the OP will be at best inaccurate and at worst contradictory when the final product is released soon. And I think if the OP or anyone is going to base their decision on any aspect of the game then they should probably be careful to make sure that aspect is still in the game at release - which is why I find this discussion a little premature.. as I've been saying since my first post.


All editions of D&D starting with 1E used the same hit point system.
No it really doesn't. It uses a similar system, but with many extra bits that change how it is used. Saying they are all the same is like saying Fable, Tekkan, and the Legend of Zelda are all the same since they have HP bars. Length of combat rounds, weapon damage dice, how you got HP and how many; are all huge variations between editions. So, once again irrelevant as far as I can tell to this conversation.


Moving around when someone gets a new maneuver is not playing around with the mechanics, that's still on the level of +1's and +2's. If they were to alter the fundamental maneuver system, then that would be playing around with the mechanics. From the play testers I've read posts from and talked to, they aren't doing any of that. They are fiddling with numbers and shuffling around when people can access their features. The fundamental game isn't changing. As to sorcerers and warlocks, they were in a previous packet. The only new class is the bard which has been confirmed by the articles to be just another spell caster gish that is better than any other class at present.
A few weeks ago they talked about different paths - was that one for the bard? I forget - that significantly change how much spellcasting they get and introduced a gish path for them.. part of the reason I feel like this was a fighter thing and not bard, but whatever.

My point is at what point do you consider the game TO BE in mechanical development.. because for me it has certainly been happening. It isn't a matter of just moving around when someone gets a power. It is redefining what powers they get to start with. Being any variation of fighter you want to be is now automatic. So sword and boards will be next to nimble duelists, ranged archers, mounted guys and gishes all at level 1. That means the fighter doesn't look very much like they did in the last packet. They showed us the sorcerer and warlock.. but not in the final packet and they have been altered in power and ability since then as confirmed by the WotC video playtest and the articles. Many aspects like those are in flux. I suspect that giving the OP the information from the first packet is about as helpful at describing the final packet (well, maybe the fourth and then final..) as describing the last packet for the final product at release will be. That is to say that some things may be close. Others will be very different. And it is at best a confirmed discussion on which is which, and at worst a pure guess at what has changed and exactly how. If the OP is going to be basing their decision on looking at the released game based on what we say here then I feel awfully sorry for WotC - since we have next to no accurate idea of what that game will look like.


It has many features from 3E, from the out of control vancian casting without the drawbacks of 2E to the fighters with only bonus feats and a few weak class features that are obviated by 2nd level spells. Due to the way prone works in 5E, the fighters ability to prone or knock people back a few feet are equivalent to the +1 they got from 3E. Granting an ally advantage instead of attacking is actually worse, because while your ally will most likely hit, they aren't going to do their damage plus yours. Giving yourself advantage on your next attack by giving up an attack is also equally senseless. You are doing half the damage you would normally do just to have a slightly higher chance to hit on an upcoming attack that you may not even be able to make if the target moves away from you or out of reach. I could go on and on listing the 3E exclusive things in it, but I won't make this a wall of text post.
I don't really see your point here. Some of it I find contradictory and some inaccurate of how you say 3e works compared to how it actually works. But I ask you, if these are all things that strike you as 3e.. then how come when I look at the things you describe such as "giving ally advantage" of "ability to prone or knock people back" and see nothing but 4e style powers? Again, I don't see your point but I suspect it is something along the lines of "5e looks like 3e because X" but I see those same things (in the game file) and say they look like 4e. But worst of all is that describing things in this way DOES NOT DESCRIBE 5e AT ALL. It does not describe the wording of the ability, when you get it, how it works in game, how good it is, or anything truly about 5e - it only describes how much you seem to think it looks like 3e and that is not helpful for someone in the OP's position.


I'd like to see your numbers on that. From what I've observed, I haven't heard on any of the forums I frequent or people I talk to in person of any 4E fans that like 5E. What I've seen is 4E fans generally have dismissed it and have moved on to either 13th age or just keep playing 4E. To them 5E is a dead cause and when it comes out and everything I've predicted comes true, I'll be right there with them.
My numbers on what? "That" is a really vague term when describing a paragraph of text. My guess is.. "There are no groups that seem to mostly like or dislike the game. Everyone personally seems to buy into it for their own reasons, regardless of which game they came from before." which is honestly my best guess at what you want numbers for. But why would I need numbers? Nothing in that paragraph was describing futures, percentages, or even probabilities - "most people think X." No, I said that there seems to be no clear consensus. No 100% universal agreement from 4e people of dislike for 5e. If I can find a single person who says they like 4e and who will play 5e when it comes out that is all I need. Why would I need figures?

Beyond that, I can tell you that I know people who are uninterested in 5e. Others who seem to be interested and happily anticipating and waiting for it to come out. And I see yet others who have no idea 5e is even a thing. I've seen the types of people (who play 4e) that you describe as well. I've seen people who play 3e in my personal circle who mostly fall into the 'uninterested' and the 'no clue' fields and have otherwise moved onto Pathfinder or just never left 3e. But that limited grouping (my own personal RPG network) is far smaller than those who frequent forums who can actually and actively give me their opinions. Of those people, I see a mix from all editions very happy to see 5e coming out and liking it for all manner of reasons. Many will have similar reasons for liking 5e but their reasons for leaving their old RPGs are varied so are the games they are leaving. I'm seeing people from ALL editions (primarily 2e-4e) who plan on leaving or at least trying 5e and almost as many who are uninterested or otherwise going to actively boycott the new game. It is not a universal thing one way or another, regardless of which edition they are coming from. I have seen polls describing this and so I don't have to rely on my own personal group, nor yours. Now polls are only as good at those people answering them. But the lines of people, how many from any given edition, are certainly unclear as to which way they're going to go. It isn't a matter of all or even most 4e players hating 5e and not going to give it a try. Nor it is a matter of all or even most 2e and 3e players liking it and wanting to give it a try - as you seem to imply. It is not that cut and dry, and if you think it is then I'm going to have to ask to see YOUR numbers.

As an aside: Much of what I see from staunch 4e supporters, when talking about 5e, is similar to what I saw from staunch 3e supporters talking about 4e in the days, weeks, months, before it was released. They want their game and not something foreign to them. Now, I have no idea how many people continue to play 3e or how many switched to 4e. I doubt those figures exist for the general public. All I'm saying is that I find it funny how similar the cries of dissatisfaction about 5e are coming from 4e'rs whereas people from older ed's don't seem to care as strongly - I'm guessing it is because they have already moved on.. just as I expect most 4e'rs will eventually do - thus why 13th age seems to be so booming.

[Seerow]

I just want to point out that from the player character side, 4e was the edition that has the least HP bloat out of any other edition at high levels. Put a level 20 Fighter from each edition side by side, and the 4e Fighter will have the lowest HP of the lot. Saying that HP Bloat is a 4th edition thing isn't just wrong, it flies in the face of the game mechanics.

4th edition gave starting characters more hit points, but did so at the cost of dropping hit point advancement at higher levels. Seriously, let's look at 3 Fighters in AD&D, 3e, and 4e respectively.

1st level:
AD&D: d10 HD, 18 con. 9 hp.
3.5e: d10 HD, 18 con. 14 hp.
4e: 15+con HP, 18 con. 33 hp

20th level:
AD&D: 20d10 HD, 25 con (+7/level, minimum HD roll of 4). 262 hit points.
3.5: 20d10 HD, 34 con (+12/level). 354.5 hit points.
4e: 15+con+(6*19) HP, 30 con. 159 hit points.


Note: Even if you don't go for crazy levels of con in AD&D and stick at the 18 level (since improving stats after char gen was harder in that edition), 2nd edition HP still hit 190, higher than 4e.



No, 4e's cardinal sin wasn't hit point bloat. It was making low level characters capable of facing off against weak enemies without being in imminent fear of death because they rolled high on their 1d8 damage attack. Now, there were issues with enemy hit point scaling (especially solos), which caused a lot of fights at higher levels to drag. But usually when people are talking about hit point bloat, they're talking about player health, not monster health (where 3.5 has the Tarrasque with over 800 hit points, competing with even some Epic Tier solo monsters in 4e, and I'm sure if I looked through my old monster manual I'd find a few similar gems from AD&D, though on average AD&D monsters were MUCH squishier).

[Kaisos Erranon]

That, er, isn't how hit dice worked in AD&D.

Fighter HD caps at 9, with three more HP at each following level, for a total of 9d10+33 at 20th level.

(I also don't think it's really fair to assume 18 con at chargen given the standard method of rolling stats, but whatever.)

So that would only be 9d10+36+33, average being only 114 HP, even lower than the 4E Fighter.

[OldTrees1]

Ok this has gone on long enough. There are 2 arguments going on that are being confused with each other.



Argument 1:
If the maximum bonus to a 1d20 roll is lower, the effect of skill is reduced relative to the RNG.
1d20+0 vs 1d20+10 11.25% chance of RNG trumping Bonus
compared to
1d20+0 vs 1d20+1 42.75% chance of RNG trumping Bonus


Argument 2:
If bonuses are rarer, small bonuses become more valuable relative to the other optimization options.


Do not confuse these arguments.

[Seerow]

That, er, isn't how hit dice worked in AD&D.

Fighter HD caps at 9, with three more HP at each following level, for a total of 9d10+33 at 20th level.

(I also don't think it's really fair to assume 18 con at chargen given the standard method of rolling stats, but whatever.)

So that would only be 9d10+36+33, average being only 114 HP, even lower than the 4E Fighter.

You're right, I knew that and meant to check what the cutoff point of gaining hit dice was in AD&D, then somewhere along the way I forgot. Are you sure you didn't gain con mod as well when you started getting your set 3hp per level though?

And yeah, an 18 con isn't standard in any of the games. AD&D also doesn't let anyone but a Fighter benefit from more than +2 hp from con. I was showing the high end to make a point.




Argument 1:
If the maximum bonus to a 1d20 roll is lower, the effect of skill is reduced relative to the RNG.
1d20+0 vs 1d20+10 11.25% chance of RNG trumping Bonus
compared to
1d20+0 vs 1d20+1 42.75% chance of RNG trumping Bonus


Argument 2:
If bonuses are rarer, small bonuses become more valuable relative to the other optimization options.


Do not confuse these arguments.

I actually don't think Argument 1 has been a big point at all in this thread. I mean that is a stance I take and agree with, but it hasn't been relevant to the discussion being made here.

[Mewtarthio]

Do not confuse these arguments.

I'm not. If you've got the only +1 sword in all of existence, then yes, you are pretty special. It's just that, mechanically speaking, you're not that much better off than you were with a +0 sword.

[OldTrees1]

I actually don't think Argument 1 has been a big point at all in this thread. I mean that is a stance I take and agree with, but it hasn't been relevant to the discussion being made here.

I believe Argument 1 starts in post 12. Argument 2 starts in post 13 as a reply to post 12. Etc.

[Kaisos Erranon]

Are you sure you didn't gain con mod as well when you started getting your set 3hp per level though?
Not in 2E, at least.
I'm still not really sure of your point, HP bloat is a 3E thing due to 18+ Con being trivial to obtain and there being no HD cutoff, not something that 4E "fixed" relative to every earlier edition of the game.
If you're saying that higher HPs across the board is less of a problem in 4E though, I'd agree.

[Stubbazubba]

However, with bounded accuracy the characters’ positions on the RNG should be more static and the likelihood that the characters’ are positioned on the RNG in a way that makes a “+1” valuable is higher than without the bounded accuracy, where the characters can end up all over the RNG (and sometimes beyond or below it).

Bounded accuracy doesn't keep characters of similar level on the same RNG, it keeps the entire breadth and depth of the game on the same RNG. You could do the former without doing the latter and reap all the benefits of bounded accuracy without its associated pitfalls:


The difference in performance between a complete newb and a grandmaster is only observable over many repetitions of a task, because the random element in all these rolls outweighs the fixed element more than it should. Therefore, you can't count on skill to win out in any individual roll.
In a related way, any actual bonus the game gives is very difficult to perceive, because that random element is still overwhelmingly more consequential than the bonus.


RNG positioning is a tricky business of looking at each level in the game, what the range of expected challenges for that level are, and then working backwards to find numbers that keep everyone (both PCs and NPCs) sufficiently differentiated but still on the same RNG at each level. Bounded accuracy accomplishes that by making everyone on the same RNG regardless of level, which kills differentiation and any actual sense of progress.

On that note, I do think that D&D would benefit from dramatically reducing the treadmill effect. Create several tiers of "context" (i.e. everything else in the world besides the PCs), and for each tier define a sort of baseline DC, maybe 15 early on, 30 later, and 45 even later. This DC can be raised or lowered based on the relative difficulty for that tier of each task. Then, as PCs progress through that tier, it's not that they are consistently just fit to face the same odds of success for greater and greater challenges, but rather they get a real sense of progress as they are succeeding more and more frequently until the tier-change hits.

And said tier-changes should be on both sides of the PC/NPC divide, and they should change the in-game stakes significantly:


At level 1, a single Orc barbarian might be a challenge for a party of 3-4. At level 10, though, they feel comfortable outnumbered 2:1, because the to-hit hasn't changed while their numbers have. Along comes a demon, though, and they feel like they're fighting the Orc barb at level 1 all over again.
They prevail and pick up paragon classes that bump their numbers by probably +5 or more. They fight more and more demons until they're again at the top of the food chain, and along comes a demigod.
Assuming they survive, they pick up epic classes, lather, rinse, repeat.


Thus instead of a constant treadmill, you have three static states (though the PCs are constantly developing) and momentous jumps between them, so the experience actually changes somewhat as you play the game.

[Morty]

I've never seen anyone actually give a clear definition of what a good implementation of bounded accuracy would look like.

If all that's meant by that is "Bring the RNG in line", I can get wholeheartedly behind that. I however do not believe that it is necessary to remove the majority of level based scaling to make that happen. The idea of the RNG being bounded at any given level, but when dealing with opponents outside your level you are better or worse relative to them is something I find frankly integral to making the game function (and is one of 3e's major failings). The idea that a 20th level specialist needs to be on the same RNG as a 1st level character who has no training is one I rail violently against.

As I see it, working bounded accuracy means that flat numerical increases are kept in check, while mechanics are introduced to represent advantage and competence in other ways, which are easier to scale and keep track of and also make rolling less swingy and binary - an important thing when using a rolling method that produces a flat curve. Mechanics such as the advantage/disadvantage system, which remains one of the few good ideas 5e designers have ever had, degrees of success, which 1337 b4k4 elaborated on upthread, abilities that obviate the need for rolling and other things that I might come up with.

Of course, I may very well be wrong. I'm not a game designer. And I probably wouldn't cut down on the numbers quite as much as D&D Next does. But that's how I envision it.

[Stubbazubba]

Mechanics such as the advantage/disadvantage system, which remains one of the few good ideas 5e designers have ever had, degrees of success, which 1337 b4k4 elaborated on upthread, abilities that obviate the need for rolling and other things that I might come up with.

It seems like all these do is dance around the fact that low numerical bonuses leave the overly swingy d20 to wreak havoc on all your attempts without offering interesting gameplay to make up for the added complexity. Yes, low bonuses + advantage gets you in the same ball park statistically as higher bonuses, but it still seems like you're taking three lefts to go right to me. And degrees of success works equally well with or without bounded accuracy, at least as I understand them.

I think the real problem is that WotC does not know how to rein in the d20 and make it work for them. In 3.X the bonuses can keep up with the d20, but it's also optional, so any given party's spread of bonuses can be extreme, to the point that no challenge is appropriate for all party members. 5E, on the other hand, nixes that by going too far the other way; not only is every party's spread very well-contained (too contained, really), the entire game's spread of bonuses is on the same RNG. The ideal is somewhere in the middle: you want the game to be able to expand through multiple d20 spans, but you want the various bands of power to stay within one d20 span of each other (if not less).

Let's take the following scenario: The 4-person party needs to sneak through a dungeon room to get to the other side without waking the sleeping beast that might kill them. This is not meant to be a terribly difficult task, so we'll call it DC 15.


In a totally unbounded system, the Rogue might already have a +19 while the Cleric is at +0. The Rogue doesn't even roll while the Cleric is going to have a hard time just making it (30%). That's too far apart.
In bounded accuracy, the Rogue has a +5 while the Cleric is at +0. The Rogue can probably get Advantage somehow, so he has about an 80% chance of success. If the Cleric has the same Advantage, then he has about a 50% chance of success. If they don't get Advantage, though, the Rogue is at 50% chance, and the Cleric still at 30%. So they either both have good/decent odds or they both don't, depending on Advantage. Beyond that, we're relying on additional mechanics to get the expected result, possibly for most every challenge: more moving parts in the system provide more opportunities for the system to break down because one part or the other fails.
In my ideal, the Rogue has a +10 while the Cleric is at +0. The Rogue has an 80% chance without the extra step of Advantage, while the Cleric is at 30%. That actually gives a nice spread between a professional sneak and a clunkering Dwarf, where one can have good odds and the other not-so-good odds even when facing the same challenge. It also means we can use Advantage sparingly, instead of it becoming a necessary part of almost every challenge. Note that I generally wouldn't want a same-level party to spread much more than 10-12 points on a d20.

[Seerow]

In a totally unbounded system, the Rogue might already have a +19 while the Cleric is at +0. The Rogue doesn't even roll while the Cleric is going to have a hard time just making it (25%). That's too far apart.


Why is that too far apart?

Seriously. While attacks/defenses are something you want to keep on the same RNG among all characters, because everyone needs to be able to survive/contribute to combat to some degree, why does a rogue need to be able to fail a "not terribly difficult task"? The challenge isn't the rogue sneaking past, but the party sneaking past. If the rogue is able to sneak past without trouble but others still find it a challenge, or even impossible without outside help, why is that a problem?

[OldTrees1]

Why is that too far apart?

Seriously. While attacks/defenses are something you want to keep on the same RNG among all characters, because everyone needs to be able to survive/contribute to combat to some degree, why does a rogue need to be able to fail a "not terribly difficult task"? The challenge isn't the rogue sneaking past, but the party sneaking past. If the rogue is able to sneak past without trouble but others still find it a challenge, or even impossible without outside help, why is that a problem?

I agree with you:
Opposed checks (attack/defense) should keep characters of similar level on the same RNG.
Non-Opposed checks should not keep characters of different talents on the same RNG.

[Lokiare]

The solution is have alternative means of achieving party checks. For instance in your scenario where the Cleric would have a +0 on their own and the Rogue has a +10 on their own, allow the Rogue to take disadvantage to grant the Cleric advantage. Describe it in game as the Rogue pointing out where the Cleric should step and the Rogue padding the Clerics clanking armor. Then you end up with the Rogue having a 64% chance and the Cleric having a 51% chance, where normally the Rogue has an 80% chance and the Cleric has a 30% chance.

Then when the Rogue is on their own they don't even have to roll for certain stealth checks against certain foes. The Cleric however has a very low chance on their own of succeeding against those same foes, so this couldn't be used in combat for instance without the rogue giving up their action.

Mechanically balanced, and realistic.

[Kurald Galain]

Why is that too far apart?

Seriously. While attacks/defenses are something you want to keep on the same RNG among all characters, because everyone needs to be able to survive/contribute to combat to some degree, why does a rogue need to be able to fail a "not terribly difficult task"? The challenge isn't the rogue sneaking past, but the party sneaking past. If the rogue is able to sneak past without trouble but others still find it a challenge, or even impossible without outside help, why is that a problem?

I completely agree.

"Make a DC 20 stealth check" is not a challenge; "get past the guards" is a challenge (which some characters may want to resolve by making stealth checks, but they could also use other means). So it's completely unnecessary that every class in the game can equally contribute to "making DC 20 stealth check", they just need to be able to contribute somehow to "getting past the guards". It's fine if their contribution is social skills, or utility magic, or tools or whatever.

[Stubbazubba]

I agree with you:
Opposed checks (attack/defense) should keep characters of similar level on the same RNG.
Non-Opposed checks should not keep characters of different talents on the same RNG.

What about an attack roll vs. DC makes it more opposed than making a Stealth check vs. Perception?

Regardless, I will concede that there's no strong reason to keep similarly-leveled characters on the same RNG in skills. I don't think there's necessarily a strong reason against it, either, but sure, either way.

That doesn't change my overall point about 5E's definition of bounded accuracy using needlessly complex methods to arrive at the same ends.

[Lokiare]

What about an attack roll vs. DC makes it more opposed than making a Stealth check vs. Perception?

Regardless, I will concede that there's no strong reason to keep similarly-leveled characters on the same RNG in skills. I don't think there's necessarily a strong reason against it, either, but sure, either way.

Except of course the reason of realism, when the plate mail wearing dwarf manages to sneak past the goblin camp, but the stealthy leather armored rogue manages to fail. If they aren't on the same RNG then the stealthy Rogue may not even have to roll while the plate mail dwarf might have a small chance of getting lucky. How it is now however the difference between a stealthy Rogue and a plate mail wearing dwarf with a -1 dexterity modifier is around 20% or so.


That doesn't change my overall point about 5E's definition of bounded accuracy using needlessly complex methods to arrive at the same ends.

Yes, I agree with this point here. Instead of using natural numbers and getting a bounded system from the emergent properties of those numbers, they instead use artificial limits to try to impose bounded accuracy which causes realism to exit stage left.

[OldTrees1]

What about an attack roll vs. DC makes it more opposed than making a Stealth check vs. Perception?
What difference? Attack/Defense was one example. Stealth vs Perception is another.

An opposed check is when a PC makes a roll against an NPC's roll AND the PC is meant to be challenged by the roll.

[Stubbazubba]

What difference? Attack/Defense was one example. Stealth vs Perception is another.

An opposed check is when a PC makes a roll against an NPC's roll AND the PC is meant to be challenged by the roll.

Well, yes, that's typically what an opposed check means, but it seems to have little to do with the context being discussed, I was just confused.

[cfalcon]

The only reason people feel that 3E is more 'realistic' is because they are so used to the game and don't have to think about it.

No. Not this or any reason like that.

Realism is basically, you have a situation that is reality plus more- normally, this is reality plus magic. This means that a martial character, like the fighter, should have an abstracted version of reality as his rule sets. If this becomes named attacks with cooldows, that is fundamentally less realistic than if it's pretty much anything else.

Many players like this stuff- they feel the game mechanics are more fun, and they figure it's a wash anyway with the realism stuff. That's fine, and I'm pretty sure 4ed was pretty much exactly what they were looking for, and 9swords before that was pretty exciting too.


But it's not what I want. That doesn't make me defective or lesser or whatever. No one will convince me otherwise. The game I want doesn't have "Mortal Strike" or whatever. It should have "try to hit the opponent over a space of time modeled in this way". I'm not married to the model, but instead the intent to seriously model historical combat and then add magic to that world.

That's the game *I* want. I *GET* that it isn't the game everyone wants. I'm tired of hardened edition warriors trying to shout down any simulationist DM who doesn't want cooldowns, taunts, named maneuvers, and other mechanicy tricks, as part of a mundane fighting system. I'll get told that it DOES model reality because (reason I never heard before WoW came out) or that it's appropriate because (balance complaint that I solved at MY table in the 90s), or that a move that can be used once per "encounter" models reality because (something related to surprise, or fatigue).

These arguments draw me thin. They are clearly justified after the fact- debate points. I want something that clearly looks like it started with "how do I best model reality with just some dice?", not stuff that was cobbled together to justify odd things after the fact. I'm totally fine with magic being added later, resource systems including cooldowns, etc. As long as they are clearly that. If the only way to balance the fighter is to make him a wizard I'm not interested.


I don't want a Warblade, I want a Fighter. I want warriors and rogues, not tanks and dps. I want a character class to limit you roleplay wise. I don't believe that character classes are just "crunch" meant to achieve an end, I want them to be an archetype that sets a clear path for a player.
I'm not- ever- going to be convinced otherwise. I don't expect to convince anyone else, either, and I'm not trying.




- - - - - - - -
As to the bounded chances- it sounds as if by limiting the way the numbers change, that they are essentially stretching low levels into higher levels, in the interpretation of that that we have seen in the past. A low level party often has little idea what result will happen for a lot of actions. The fighter puts everything into +hit, but he can still miss the enemy wizard. The rogue has lots of ranks of whatever, but he can totally fail. Likewise, if you're trying to convince someone of a reasonably believable lie, you have a pretty good chance of success just based on luck of the die, and the wizard can actually poke a dagger into the enemy warrior.

By late game, the party is MUCH more specialized. The high diplomacy skill suddenly persuades people who are very hard to persuade- epically so in some cases. The fighter, on the other hand, is going to roll to assist- he can't pass that check with a 20 and enough whiskey to double count his bonuses. He will however, almost guaranteed, hit the bad guy- the question mostly being, can he hit him more than one time.



The removal of this... could be fine. Unlike some changes which I can read right now and like or dislike, this one I'll actually need to playtest.


As for how much it makes a bonus worth- that's a tricksy question that has been addressed pretty well. The "it's worth 5% unless the odds are really high or low" is reasonble, but just a start. If something makes your chances of surviving go from 80% to 85%, I think that's VERY valuable, because it cut the chances of death down from 20% to 15%- a huge drop in how often that occurs. Meanwhile, if bonuses are rare, you might be willing to give up more for your character to gain one- because it's less likely, versus a bonus-heavy system, that you'll be EXPECTED to gain the bonus, and as such it may sway the expected outcome in your favor.

I'm definitely down for a situation with less bonuses to track as well.


Still cautiously excited about 5ed.

[Morty]

The only reason people feel that 3E is more 'realistic' is because they are so used to the game and don't have to think about it. When that happens they are being dominated by the game or being submissive to it.

That's very true. 3e is about as realistic as a cardboard cutout. It just pretends hard enough and has enough trappings of realism that people are fooled. 4e isn't really any less realistic, it's just more honest about it.

[Kurald Galain]

That's very true. 3e is about as realistic as a cardboard cutout. It just pretends hard enough and has enough trappings of realism that people are fooled. 4e isn't really any less realistic, it's just more honest about it.

And that is what makes all the difference. 3E tries to be realistic, 4E does not. That influences a lot of the game design.

Let's face it, its lack of realism is probably the most common complaint about 4E. Now you may say that all of these many complainers are simply wrong, and perhaps they are, but from the point of view of WOTC who wants to sell games, they'd better listen.

(they'd also better listen to complaints about 3E; the common complaints about 3E are very different than those about 4E, and lack of realism isn't one of them).

[Lokiare]

No. Not this or any reason like that.

Realism is basically, you have a situation that is reality plus more- normally, this is reality plus magic. This means that a martial character, like the fighter, should have an abstracted version of reality as his rule sets. If this becomes named attacks with cooldows, that is fundamentally less realistic than if it's pretty much anything else.

Many players like this stuff- they feel the game mechanics are more fun, and they figure it's a wash anyway with the realism stuff. That's fine, and I'm pretty sure 4ed was pretty much exactly what they were looking for, and 9swords before that was pretty exciting too.


But it's not what I want. That doesn't make me defective or lesser or whatever. No one will convince me otherwise. The game I want doesn't have "Mortal Strike" or whatever. It should have "try to hit the opponent over a space of time modeled in this way". I'm not married to the model, but instead the intent to seriously model historical combat and then add magic to that world.

That's the game *I* want. I *GET* that it isn't the game everyone wants. I'm tired of hardened edition warriors trying to shout down any simulationist DM who doesn't want cooldowns, taunts, named maneuvers, and other mechanicy tricks, as part of a mundane fighting system. I'll get told that it DOES model reality because (reason I never heard before WoW came out) or that it's appropriate because (balance complaint that I solved at MY table in the 90s), or that a move that can be used once per "encounter" models reality because (something related to surprise, or fatigue).

These arguments draw me thin. They are clearly justified after the fact- debate points. I want something that clearly looks like it started with "how do I best model reality with just some dice?", not stuff that was cobbled together to justify odd things after the fact. I'm totally fine with magic being added later, resource systems including cooldowns, etc. As long as they are clearly that. If the only way to balance the fighter is to make him a wizard I'm not interested.


I don't want a Warblade, I want a Fighter. I want warriors and rogues, not tanks and dps. I want a character class to limit you roleplay wise. I don't believe that character classes are just "crunch" meant to achieve an end, I want them to be an archetype that sets a clear path for a player.
I'm not- ever- going to be convinced otherwise. I don't expect to convince anyone else, either, and I'm not trying.




- - - - - - - -
As to the bounded chances- it sounds as if by limiting the way the numbers change, that they are essentially stretching low levels into higher levels, in the interpretation of that that we have seen in the past. A low level party often has little idea what result will happen for a lot of actions. The fighter puts everything into +hit, but he can still miss the enemy wizard. The rogue has lots of ranks of whatever, but he can totally fail. Likewise, if you're trying to convince someone of a reasonably believable lie, you have a pretty good chance of success just based on luck of the die, and the wizard can actually poke a dagger into the enemy warrior.

By late game, the party is MUCH more specialized. The high diplomacy skill suddenly persuades people who are very hard to persuade- epically so in some cases. The fighter, on the other hand, is going to roll to assist- he can't pass that check with a 20 and enough whiskey to double count his bonuses. He will however, almost guaranteed, hit the bad guy- the question mostly being, can he hit him more than one time.



The removal of this... could be fine. Unlike some changes which I can read right now and like or dislike, this one I'll actually need to playtest.


As for how much it makes a bonus worth- that's a tricksy question that has been addressed pretty well. The "it's worth 5% unless the odds are really high or low" is reasonble, but just a start. If something makes your chances of surviving go from 80% to 85%, I think that's VERY valuable, because it cut the chances of death down from 20% to 15%- a huge drop in how often that occurs. Meanwhile, if bonuses are rare, you might be willing to give up more for your character to gain one- because it's less likely, versus a bonus-heavy system, that you'll be EXPECTED to gain the bonus, and as such it may sway the expected outcome in your favor.

I'm definitely down for a situation with less bonuses to track as well.


Still cautiously excited about 5ed.

There are several false premises in this post. First WoW came out before 4E, so of course you never heard any justification for or explanation of 4E powers and how they model reality before WoW, because there was nothing to talk about.

Second no one even hinted that you were lesser or whatever. That was only stated by you.

Third you make one statement "No one will convince me otherwise." this means you aren't even open to looking at another viewpoint and checking to see if it applies or where its flaws are.

Fourth 'seriously modeling medieval combat' would entail not getting hit until the death blow, because even a flesh wound would start to bleed you out and no matter how good you were, you would die shortly after from shock, blood loss, or a fatal mistake due to the inability to move fast enough to block or make an effective attack. They also named their attacks fancy things like "Mortal Strike". You can find some of them here http://www.khukriwala.com/sword-fencing-terminology.html Armor would work more like DR in that it would ward off glancing blows, but direct hits would still bruise, break, or pierce the skin, bone or organs. In fact solid armor like plate could be detrimental if bent up with blunt attacks to the point that the person in plate armor wouldn't be able to move to defend themselves.

Fifth, I'm not an edition warrior. I don't denigrate editions or say any edition is better than another, except for my personal preference. I address specific mechanics and specific reasons. In this case the idea that 3E is somehow more 'realistic' than 4E, which we've proved its not. Now whether you like 3E or 4E is an entirely different issue and completely your opinion. However you are making a claim that 3E is more realistic than 4E. Neither of them model reality very well. We have reasons to think that 4E can model reality well if you excuse some of the abstractions. However I haven't really seen any good reasons to believe that 3E can model reality if you excuse some of the abstractions. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to those reasons rather than posting a wall of text that basically says 'Nothing you say matters, and my opinion won't change'. We aren't trying to get you to change your opinion, only be more precise in your reasoning, and expressing your likes and dislikes and why you have come to those conclusions. Try addressing the issues we bring up, instead of assuming we are attacking you.

Sixth, there are many ways to balance the Fighter. One is being nearly indestructible as they are in 5E where they can take 2-3 additional hits after they should be KO'd and have insane saving throw bonuses as well as tons of hp. Another would be to reign in the magic users to a believable level of casting ability that doesn't overshadow the Fighter. Another is to try to balance everyone on the same level where no single round of damage or effects could be above another other of the same level. This would be accomplished with maximum damage per level and seeing how effective non-damaging attacks are on combats.

Seventh, we aren't 'justifying anything after the fact'. We are looking at reality and seeing that it matches or doesn't match up to how the game is interpreted. For instance 'Come and Get It' is an encounter power. It isn't an encounter power because it tires the fighter out, its an encounter power because you can only trick enemies once in a while, and you certainly can't trick them multiple times in the same fight in the same way. You might find that a lot of 4E fans agree that being able to use one daily power and then not use it again, but be able to use another daily doesn't make sense. That however could be fixed, rather than throwing the entire game out of the window.

Eighth, without looking at DPR (Damage Per Round not DPS which is Damage Per Second) you can't have a role playing archetype. If your fighter deals 1-2 damage every round at level 20, and other classes (like casters) can deal 30-40 per round, then you aren't a fighter. You are some kind of weak commoner that can barely swing a blade. You couldn't even defend your home from a goblin, let alone adventure in a dungeon for weeks on end. Its a fatal mistake to think the mechanics don't inform the feel of the game. The same mistake Mike and Co. are making with 5E. Many people have this mistaken impression that you can't have an effective character and role play at the same time. Which is completely wrong. I am in 2 4E groups right now and in both we like to role play AND be effective. In order for a fighter to keep up with a caster in 5E, they would require 8 attacks that add an additional 4x strength bonus as well as con and dex bonus to attack rolls and damage each round and have around 400 hp by level 20. Since casters by that level can cast a 9th, 8th, 7th, or 6th level spell and several 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, and 1st level spells in every combat as well as having unlimited Cantrips that are nearly as good as all the fighters attacks in any given round on the off chance they run out of daily spells. Its similar in 3E. There is no way that the fighter can keep up with a caster. Just a few spells makes the caster as good as the Fighter: Heroism (2nd level, grants fighter feats), Stone Skin (4th, grants the equivalent number of hp that the fighter has), Mage Armor + Shield (both 1st level and as good as Plate Armor, plus dex), Tensor's Transformation (5th, grants the caster all the bonuses of being a fighter), etc...etc... You can't be better than someone that can emulate everything you do and then some (All of that was from memory, in case I got anything wrong).

The problem is 5E is supposed to make everyone who's ever played D&D want to play it and its just not doing that. They have to traverse the mine field surrounding peoples likes and dislikes. The only way they can do that is if we examine ourselves and get to the root cause of us liking or disliking things. Someone here stated they didn't like 4E because its unrealistic. Well that doesn't help because 3E and 5E right now are equally unrealistic. So there has to be something more. Specifically you mentioned you don't like cool down timers. Maybe you don't like 4E because of the power recover methods or the fact that traditionally fighters don't have powers. Is it really that hard to just admit that? Its perfectly fine to dislike 4E for real reasons, whatever they may be. Its not ok to say you dislike 4E for reasons that are not actually true, that borders on edition warring.

[OldTrees1]

Well, yes, that's typically what an opposed check means, but it seems to have little to do with the context being discussed, I was just confused.

Example party is made of a Stealth Rogue and a Social Bard trying to infiltrate a city. The Stealth Rogue and the perception of the guards should be on the same RNG if the infiltration is meant to be a challenge. The same applies to the Social Bard's bluff and the guards' sense motive. However I think the Rogue's stealth and the Bard's stealth should eventually not be on the same RNG (since the Rogue is specialized and the Bard is not).

In 3rd/4th edition this was easily accomplished.
In 5th edition, it sounds like the bounded accuracy design limits this functionality. It sounds like the closest you would get is specialized (low modifier & advantage) vs untrained (lower modifier & disadvantage).

[obryn]

I'm not- ever- going to be convinced otherwise. I don't expect to convince anyone else, either, and I'm not trying.
So why are we talking about this, again?

[1337 b4k4]

Example party is made of a Stealth Rogue and a Social Bard trying to infiltrate a city. The Stealth Rogue and the perception of the guards should be on the same RNG if the infiltration is meant to be a challenge. The same applies to the Social Bard's bluff and the guards' sense motive. However I think the Rogue's stealth and the Bard's stealth should eventually not be on the same RNG (since the Rogue is specialized and the Bard is not).

In 3rd/4th edition this was easily accomplished.
In 5th edition, it sounds like the bounded accuracy design limits this functionality. It sounds like the closest you would get is specialized (low modifier & advantage) vs untrained (lower modifier & disadvantage).

Well, part of this design decision is whether more players have more fun being specialized or working as a group. The "Decker Problem" is a real thing in TTRPGs, and is exasperated when extreme skill discrepancies meets up with "don't split the party" mentality + GMs unable or unwilling to plan multiple paths of success. It's right to say that "make a stealth check" isn't a challenge, but at the same time, sometimes "sneak past the guards" is the most appropriate way to infiltrate the castle, especially when you have 4 or 5 party members, each with varying strengths and weaknesses and each needing a different path to get in. I mean if we're talking an adventure / mission where part of the challenge is getting into the hall of the dragon king, then fine, Nibmlefoot the Thief gets in via sneak, and Silvertounge the bard gets past the guards talking up a story about being the caterer for the feast tonight (what luck!), and Svarbald the Wizard gets by with invisibility + disguise self. So what does Brutus the Barbarian do? And what happens when Silvertounge gets caught? Now they're alone facing 3 or 4 guards and an unknown army between them and their nearest friends elsewhere in the castle.

Don't get me wrong, none of these problems are intractable per se, and the better your DM, the easier these are to solve or the better your DM avoids these things (seriously, don't pick scenarios with only one solution that only one character can achieve, it's bad juu juu). But, another completely valid option is to have everyone be roughly within a standard deviation of each other for most things, where specialization is a slight advantage, but not so much that half the party sits out while the wizards kills everyone decker hacks the gibson rouge sneaks through the treasure room one party member who's really good at something solves the problem for the rest of the party.

Some people have more fun with extreme specialization, others with generic competence, and it's not black and white either. Some games have fairly extreme specialization, but are heavily "specialized team members that have to work together in their own roles to accomplish something" like Traveller (crewing a ship is complicated) and no one really cares but other games (like Shadowrun) are the trope namer for this problem. On the other hand, some games have limited specialization (early D&D comes to mind) but sometimes the implementation crosses the line into "WTF territory" (a complaint for 4e was everyone going up in all the skills as they leveled).

It appears that WotC believes (rightly or wrongly) that more people would prefer playing in broadly competent groups with limited specializing, than in groups where specialization more strongly reflects real life specialization. As a result of this belief, and WotCs (IMO, obsessive and harmful) dedication to use 1d20 for ALL THE THINGS, we have the system you see before you today.

[Seerow]

It appears that WotC believes (rightly or wrongly) that more people would prefer playing in broadly incompetent groups with limited specializing

Fixed that line for you. Easy mistake, anybody could have made it.

[Stubbazubba]

I'm not- ever- going to be convinced otherwise. I don't expect to convince anyone else, either, and I'm not trying.

So, then...awesome? Go play what you want to play? If all the above is true, I don't see any reason for your post. Provoking Lokiare, maybe?

[1337 b4k4]

Fixed that line for you. Easy mistake, anybody could have made it.

Yeah... not really interested in swinging this conversation back around to the "don't make your players roll to chew bubble gum while kicking ass" argument. Suffice it to say that yes, the DCs need to be corrected, but successes generally in the 30-70% range tend to be more interesting to players than outside that range. This is modified by frequency of roll and expected payout, but when I talk of "broadly competent" I mean capable of doing many things generally as well as their party members and successful often enough that they keep coming back to try again. This can also be further compounded by implementing degrees of success. Dungeon World for example, only ever gives you everything you want on a 10+ on 2d6. That's a mere 16.6% of the time for someone with a +0 modifier (from attributes, as general +X modifiers are very difficult if not impossible to come by) and a mere 58.3% of the time with a +3 modifer (the max you can get). You do get some of what you want, but also some sort of cost or penalty with a 7+ (translating to a success rate of 58.3% and 91.6% respectively). I don't know that I've ever heard anyone claim that a Dungeon World character is incompetent.

[obryn]

Yeah, some cleaner "partial success" and/or "fail forward" mechanics can go a long way towards cleaning up a bounded skill system.

[Seerow]

Yeah... not really interested in swinging this conversation back around to the "don't make your players roll to chew bubble gum while kicking ass" argument. Suffice it to say that yes, the DCs need to be corrected, but successes generally in the 30-70% range tend to be more interesting to players than outside that range. This is modified by frequency of roll and expected payout, but when I talk of "broadly competent" I mean capable of doing many things generally as well as their party members and successful often enough that they keep coming back to try again. This can also be further compounded by implementing degrees of success. Dungeon World for example, only ever gives you everything you want on a 10+ on 2d6. That's a mere 16.6% of the time for someone with a +0 modifier (from attributes, as general +X modifiers are very difficult if not impossible to come by) and a mere 58.3% of the time with a +3 modifer (the max you can get). You do get some of what you want, but also some sort of cost or penalty with a 7+ (translating to a success rate of 58.3% and 91.6% respectively). I don't know that I've ever heard anyone claim that a Dungeon World character is incompetent.

My point was less about the current rates of success, and more about the fact that players aren't "generally competent", because the baseline is set at that of a normal person. Unless they introduce some rule that says NPCs take an additional -10 because they're not player characters, or something dumb like that, the PCs aren't actually generally competent above the average. They're all right at the average, give or take, and nobody progresses beyond that.

4e had characters who were generally competent. People hated that because it meant you had Paladins who got as good at sneaking around and stealing things as the Rogue. Their solution wasn't to fix this by making the Paladin not get better at these things, but by making NOBODY get better at them. That isn't general competence. That's general incompetence. Nobody is allowed to be good at anything, because anybody being good means everyone else must be bad. And that's stupid design.

[cfalcon]

There are several false premises in this post. First WoW came out before 4E, so of course you never heard any justification for or explanation of 4E powers and how they model reality before WoW, because there was nothing to talk about.

My point here is that all the justification I hear for these mechanics came after the mechanics. Aka, not from history, or trying to emulate something that occurred in reality. It's all after the fact.


Second no one even hinted that you were lesser or whatever. That was only stated by you.

but you also said...


When that happens they are being dominated by the game or being submissive to it. Which is fine, if you are into that kind of stuff.

And I explained, no, no, no. That is not correct.


Third you make one statement "No one will convince me otherwise." this means you aren't even open to looking at another viewpoint and checking to see if it applies or where its flaws are.

CORRECT! I'm not at all interested in having an edition war. I really super dislike 4ed- but I dislike it pretty much from the ground up. There's nothing wrong with my opinions about how the game I run should work, and I would love to read a thread about 5ed without a bunch of proselytizing guys telling me what I want sucks. I know it doesn't. What I like is not up for debate. And I don't like 4ed- a bunch of carefully crafted arguments about how everything I have believed about what an RPG is for my whole life are wrong will just insult me, and persuade no one.
I could do a massive rant about how how very much I don't like the design philosophy of 4ed- and I never have. Why? Because it won't improve anyone's fun. Your life won't get better if I was to convince you, or anyone else stumbling upon this thread through google.



Fourth 'seriously modeling medieval combat' would entail not getting hit until the death blow, because even a flesh wound would start to bleed you out and no matter how good you were, you would die shortly after from shock, blood loss, or a fatal mistake due to the inability to move fast enough to block or make an effective attack.

Well, that's not accurate- many people fought on after receiving flesh wounds and other more serious injuries, some of them even healing and living reasonably afterwards- but even if that's your take on it, that's fine- you can model hitpoints much more abstractly. I don't recall them being considered how much of a beating your body can take even in the 80s. You "lose luck" in some ways, and this has been talked to death in plenty of other places.

But.... pretend that I hadn't read everything Gygax and others wrote about this for twenty years, and I found it persuasive. Do you think I'd go "well clearly, forget everything I know about gaming, this one random 4ed evangelist brought up one minor quibble with the way a game models injuries, I've been wrong this whole time, throw it all out and bring on the red life bars and taunts".

No. No, I would not. Quibbles like this were solved a generation ago in the gaming community, as they were only ever a mild bit of confusion in the minds of certain players to begin with. Obviously a second level fighter doesn't have to be hit twice in the neck with a longsword- the first 8 points jarred him but didn't pierce his skin, and the second 8 points killed him just as they would have the first level fighter from the get-go.



They also named their attacks fancy things like "Mortal Strike".

I'm well aware that certain attacks have names. However, these attacks don't take seconds to execute, but fractions of seconds. Many of them combine over the course of a round (several seconds long!) to actually have a chance of dealing damage. As selected moves, with cooldowns, they have no historical merit at all- many are assumed to occur as part of the actual fighting of the actual fighter. You are just trying to justify what's in the book, which wasn't based on history and the devs would definitely not bother trying to blow smoke up my ass on this topic.

Remember, even if we took the argument seriously that these individually named moves are somehow representative, they aren't the ones used in history, which they would need to be. They are just things chosen for game mechanical reasons.

They are horribly ahistorical. Modelling real combat at that level? I think not.


Fifth, I'm not an edition warrior. I don't denigrate editions or say any edition is better than another, except for my personal preference.

You've bled plenty of electronic ink in this very thread trying to tell me that what I believe is wrong. Currently your list is at:

>Hit points can't model structural damage properly
>Some people named moves in their historical martial arts systems, so therefore making up a set of named moves is both historically valid, as is assigning them cooldowns.
>3rd edition is not more realistic than 4ed, despite not having all the gamist arbitrary rules and powers with no basis in reality

Sound like edition knightery to me man. Spend more time talking about "the basics" (the thread name) of 5ed (the forum name) and less telling me why I'm gaming wrong and I'm wrong to not play your favorite version of D&D.




In this case the idea that 3E is somehow more 'realistic' than 4E, which we've proved its not.

No such thing has been proven. A game that models combat abstractly impugns reality and history far less than one that has named moves with cooldowns- mostly because the former makes few claims about reality, and the latter makes MANY.



Neither of them model reality very well.

I think 3ed does a good job, mostly because it handles everything that is not explicitly magical mostly abstractly. I find that very compelling.


Perhaps you could enlighten us as to those reasons rather than posting a wall of text that basically says 'Nothing you say matters, and my opinion won't change'.

Why? Nothing you say matters to me, and my opinion WON'T change. Meanwhile, I don't particularly believe I could persuade you to understand where I'm coming from and neither of us would have been improved if I could. I'm not here to argue, but every time I show up to this URL some 4ed cavalier or 9swords defender comes charging out of nowhere to attack any expressed preference towards a game that doesn't meet THEIR standards. I don't CARE about how YOU play. Why do you have to try to crap all over how I do?

So many threads were "help me make this fighter" and the response would be "do warblade" followed by "no 9swords DM says" then "I WILL FIGHT YOUR DM WITH MY FIST". End result: guy has to make his fighter on his own.


Sixth, there are many ways to balance the Fighter.

There's lots of ways besides those (and those are fine). I mean, a wizard could burst higher than a fighter, as long as that burst doesn't make the fighter worthless. You could make the fighter excel under some circumstances. But the ones you list can definitely work too. I thought I'd love a game version that shipped without needing to houserule a bunch of crap for balance purposes- but then 4ed shipped and I didn't love that.



Seventh, we aren't 'justifying anything after the fact'.

Anything that defends gamists constructs is guilty of this. For instance, the existence of a warblade or 4ed fighter having named techniques gets you pointing to historical examples of some named techniques. In the past, no one was looking through old fighting manuals and asking which of http://www.amazon.com/Sigmund-Ringecks-Knightly-Art-Longsword/dp/1581606885 the moves in here were going to be modeled in the game- everyone understood that it was just generally too complex to model historical combat in that detail, especially given that all of the stuff in any one of those sources was just one weapon- and the game has weapons we know were used historically, but not how they were used (say, the Gladius) as we have no extant records.

But this misses the point. If you want to defend the reality of named moves, you have to actually show their historical use. I think that trying to specifically defend "knee breaker", "come and get it", "serpent's coil" and other game artifacts is not something that the designers anticipated- and would likely squint their eyes at.

You can't link a manual. You'd have to defend those specific moves. Their existence makes that claim.





The problem is 5E is supposed to make everyone who's ever played D&D want to play it and its just not doing that.

It can't. I think it's fair to say that if you love 5ed, I'll probably hate it. I'm fine with that- I'll simply not fill a bookshelf with it or play it. But if I *DO* like it, I'd love to maybe hear a discussion about that instead of someone constantly telling me that I'm wrong for not wanting a game that makes all these design decisions I despise.



Someone here stated they didn't like 4E because its unrealistic. Well that doesn't help because 3E and 5E right now are equally unrealistic.

I find 3ed far more realistic than 4ed to me, and I've explained why several times. What's the historical basis for a "comeback strike" or whatever? I'm sure I could get into the details here if I get home and dig out my 4ed PHB, but why? You clearly don't care about this stuff. I clearly do. You will NEVER convince me otherwise.


Maybe you don't like 4E because of the power recover methods or the fact that traditionally fighters don't have powers.

REAL LIFE FIGHTERS DON'T HAVE COOLDOWN POWERS





And that is what makes all the difference. 3E tries to be realistic, 4E does not. That influences a lot of the game design.

THIS SO MUCH

If designer A walks into the room and says "it would be cool if this guy could do X", and designer B says "I don't think so, a german knight couldn't have done that", then designer A either is like "ok" or he's like "who cares?". In the first case, I'm interested in your game. In the second case, I'm just NOT.

I'm sure someone is. But I'm not, never will be, and I just get cross when someone tries telling me otherwise.


Oh well. I guess this forum will probably just be more of this until it comes out, when at least it will be moderated as off topic.

[Talakeal]

So, then...awesome? Go play what you want to play? If all the above is true, I don't see any reason for your post. Provoking Lokiare, maybe?

If I may play armchair psychologist for a moment:

People generally consider their knowledge and opinions to be both a part of their identity and a marker of social status (i.e. I know the truth so therefore people who believe differently are wrong and therefore inferior), although they seldom realize this consciously, let alone say it out loud.

Therefore it is very seldom that you will actually change someone's mind in a debate (or even a lesson when it comes to factual accuracy), but it does sometimes happen.

However, you can still educate others about what you believe even if you aren't going to change their minds.

More importantly, however, are the people who have not yet made up their minds or given the subject much thought. By stating your opinion repeatedly these people will, more often than not, accept it as the truth, and it is the "fence riders" in the audience that you are really trying to convince when you have a debate, rather than your opponent.



Back on topic, I primarily agree cFalcon, but I do think he is taking it to far. I don't know about real life, but I can't think of a single action movie where someone doesn't "taunt" at some point to draw attention to themselves to protect someone or something else, and sometimes (although no where near as often as 4E depicts) fatigue or surprise will limit how often a move can be done.

[Kurald Galain]

But this misses the point. If you want to defend the reality of named moves, you have to actually show their historical use. I think that trying to specifically defend "knee breaker", "come and get it", "serpent's coil" and other game artifacts is not something that the designers anticipated- and would likely squint their eyes at.

You can't link a manual. You'd have to defend those specific moves. Their existence makes that claim.

Knee Breaker is actually hilarious.

You break your opponent's knee! Doing so isn't any harder than hitting him in the torso! It doesn't make him fall over, and also works on creatures without legs! With an arbitrary subset of weapons, this hurts more depending on your toughness, and this trick is so inspiring that it protects you from a future wound! Most importantly, after about ten seconds the knee grows back!

Yup, very realistic :smallbiggrin:

[Morty]

While it is absolutely correct that 4e has nothing to do whatsoever with any historical model of combat... neither does 3e. If the argument was between 4e and a system that does actually represent medieval and renaissance martial arts with any degree of accuracy, I could understand this argument. As it is, I don't. The end result of both systems are warriors whose fighting methods don't really resemble anything real-life combatants have ever done, but 4e makes it at least a bit more interesting. 3e might try, I suppose, but even if I were privy to the designers' motivations, which I'm not, I'm disinclined to give them points for trying. I'm looking at the result, and it is what it is.

[cfalcon]

While it is absolutely correct that 4e has nothing to do whatsoever with any historical model of combat... neither does 3e. If the argument was between 4e and a system that does actually represent medieval and renaissance martial arts with any degree of accuracy, I could understand this argument. As it is, I don't.

I disagree. I believe it does model that combat, to a moderate degree. Because of the abstract nature of hit points and the very moderate claims 3ed and previous make about the combat cycle, I find this to be a reasonable mapping to reality.

Mostly because it doesn't make detailed claims. The attack action models a great deal of events.

MUCH more importantly, what do you hope to accomplish by walking in and saying "Hey, your abstract thing is too abstract so you aren't doing it right. What you need is taunts and cooldowns and specifics that couldn't possibly map to reality, because getting something super inaccurate is fundamentally the same as getting it a little wrong."?

[1337 b4k4]

Incidentally, I missed these from Seerow earlier, but I think they're worth responding to. Spoilered because the thread has drifted a bit from this point.




Exactly this. The 1337's whole thing about frequency of use is a complete non-sequitor
...That entire schpiel is nothing more than a deflection, to avoid the actual point.

No it really isn't and I'll thank you to not be projecting bad arguing on me simply because I don't agree with you. My whole point is that the "value" of a +1 in a game is relative to the game as a whole and comparing across different editions while only looking at one aspect doesn't do the evaluation of the value justice.




This quote similarly misses the point. You measure the +1 by comparison to what is around you.

...

You measure bonuses beyond the baseline expectation, not in a vacuum.

I'm pretty sure I said exactly this before in the thread. Yes, let me see here there was this time when I said a +1 is measured by more than just it's mathematical value:


The value of a bonus is different from it's magnitude. A bonus has value based in part on it's magnitude (5%) but also as I mentioned based on it's frequency of applicability, it's frequency of availability relative to penalties, it's frequency of availability relative to other similar bonuses and a number of intangibles based on how the player perceives the bonus' impact on their game. The problem with doing a purely mathematical analysis of game mechanics is that it misses the human impact. Perception is in many ways more important than reality, especially when playing a game which relies on fantasy (in the imaginative sense, not the elves sense) and immersion. People prefer an experience that "feels" better to one that is "mathematically" better. This is part of why despite the fact that mathematically you are better off buying the plush bears that you want, people will play a claw game, even though they know the game is rigged against them (and often blatantly so, as in most machines can be configured to only have enough claw strength to actually pull up a prize once every X plays).

And then from the very same post that you quote and tell me I'm wrong and how you can't measure bonuses in a vacuum I say:


What I am saying is that the value of the bonus is more than simple math, and that you can't evaluate value in a vacuum.


It's almost like I keep saying exactly what you're saying I'm not saying.



I guess the point trying to be made here is a +1 sword is worth more in DDN than in 3.5, because the default assumption for 3.5 is to have a stronger weapon, while the default assumption for DDN is to have no magic at all. But that doesn't actually make the +1 itself more valuable, it just means the game's assumptions are different.

So, the value of a +1 can't be measured in a vacuum but nothing else (like the entirety of the rest of the game and what assumptions it makes about your power level) has nothing at to do with the value of a +1? The point I keep trying to get at (and the point you keep missing) is that value is more than somethings mathematical effect.

[/quote]
Traveller's 2d6>7 system is a vastly different RNG than a d20. They are not comparable in the way you are trying to imply. First, 2d6 forms a minor bell curve, with the average centered at 7. It also has a much narrower range (2-12, the RNG is literally half the size of a d20). A +1 there causes a MUCH more dramatic shift in the RNG than 5% (it's actually around 16%, roughly the equivalent of a +3 on the roll for a d20. Note that +3 is generally the number I consider as being a noticeable bonus on the d20 rolls).[/QUOTE]

Yes, I do believe I said that. In fact, the second sentence of the post you quote is as follows:


Most specifically what you need to do is shift to bell curve RNGs for less common rolls.

That looks suspiciously like me acknowledging that the Treveller system is a different RNG, that it forms a bell curve, and if you read further in the post, I mention that each +1 on that curve is worth more. Yes I admit I didn't actually break it down into the specific mathematics, but my point was not to directly compare the d20 RNG vs 2d6 but to state that if you want to stay in a set of numerical bounds and you want to cover rolls that occur less frequently than combat does in D&D, you need to change the RNG. Seriously, it would be nice if you would read the things I say, it would save you a lot of repeating the things I say.




While it is absolutely correct that 4e has nothing to do whatsoever with any historical model of combat... neither does 3e. I.

and


I disagree. I believe it does model that combat, to a moderate degree. Because of the abstract nature of hit points and the very moderate claims 3ed and previous make about the combat cycle, I find this to be a reasonable mapping to reality.

What we have here is the heart of most "realism" debates when it comes to D&D. As has been pointed out repeatedly, D&D isn't realistic, but for every person engaging in this fantasy game, there is a level of disbelief that they are willing to suspend in order to enjoy a game about combat instead of a simulation of combat. That there are games that are much more realistic than D&D is more or less irrelevant except as a calibration of expectations (that is, a way to say that D&D can be made much more realistic). The balancing act that WotC has to engage in is finding that sweet spot that allows the game to proceed at a reasonable pace and in a way that most people find fun while at the same time not tripping player's willing suspension of disbelief. Regardless of whether 3e accurately models combat, I think it's fair to say that 4e goes further down the abstraction model and further afield from reality than 3e does (and it's worth noting that 3e I think is more abstracted or gamist in some areas than earlier editions). And I also think it's fair to say that given the number of people who have issues with 4e's "lack of realism" that 4e tripped a number of people's suspension of disbelief in ways that 3e didn't. I think a lot of this was a matter of marketing on WotC's part, though not in the commercial kind, but in the kind that Kurald pointed out above: if you call a move "leg breaker" than it better damn well break a leg. Largely 4e failed to meet the expectations it set, and I think that was a major component in breaking people's suspension of disbelief. While cfalcon might still have an issue with it, were 4e's moves, fluff and fiction more in line with the reality of it's mechanics, I think it would have preserved that suspension of disbelief in players much better.

Incidentally, the move of all classes to AEDU also contributed to this, but as I stated above, the actual functionality isn't the real issue, and I honestly think you could model a pretty good fighter in (a slightly modified form of) AEDU and come up with one most people would buy as "realistic". And I really do think this could live side by side with pre-4e D&D's "realistic" wizards.

[cfalcon]

More importantly, however, are the people who have not yet made up their minds or given the subject much thought. By stating your opinion repeatedly these people will, more often than not, accept it as the truth, and it is the "fence riders" in the audience that you are really trying to convince when you have a debate, rather than your opponent.

I entirely believe that much of the edition knightery is just that, and that's a very good point. But it's fundamentally the same as smearing advertisements everywhere- it's a belief that you want people to keep in mind because you personally stand to benefit in some way. If the 5ed forums are gonna be that, ugh.


Back on topic, I primarily agree cFalcon, but I do think he is taking it to far. I don't know about real life, but I can't think of a single action movie where someone doesn't "taunt" at some point to draw attention to themselves to protect someone or something else, and sometimes (although no where near as often as 4E depicts) fatigue or surprise will limit how often a move can be done.

The thing is, that taunt isn't a mechanic. It's a roleplay. I get wanting to have some dice so you don't have to do the roleplay every time (though I do not use dice for this), but when it becomes a game mechanic it suddenly becomes mind control. If a movie hero taunts the villain and the villain attacks foolishly, the hero outsmarted the villain, who acted foolishly. There's all manner of foolish actions the villain could take- why is target acquisition the one selected? It's not because of action movies, or history, it's because it's an interesting game mechanic that some MMOs got started.

In my games, enemy NPCs are still characters with their own minds. They come to their own conclusions. PCs aren't any more special than anything else. You can roleplay trying to get someone to make a suicidal decision like attacking the fighter 15 feet away instead of the wizard 5 feet away ("sure I'll charge and let you attack by face instead of finishing off this guy who can kill me with words!")- but in my games, this will fail barring some very extreme circumstance. You can see other DMs who run things differently, and that's fine. But if a game has taunts in the baseline, I can't take them out without breaking the balance- the guys with the taunts will be intended and tested with them. If it doesn't have them in baseline, I can just bat them down as they come along in splatbooks.

[Morty]

I disagree. I believe it does model that combat, to a moderate degree. Because of the abstract nature of hit points and the very moderate claims 3ed and previous make about the combat cycle, I find this to be a reasonable mapping to reality.

Mostly because it doesn't make detailed claims. The attack action models a great deal of events.

If you can describe 3e's model of standing in place and swinging your weapon until someone drops dead in terms of realistic combat, why can't you do it with 4e's abstract mechanics like encounter and daily powers?


MUCH more importantly, what do you hope to accomplish by walking in and saying "Hey, your abstract thing is too abstract so you aren't doing it right. What you need is taunts and cooldowns and specifics that couldn't possibly map to reality, because getting something super inaccurate is fundamentally the same as getting it a little wrong."?

And I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by putting words in my mouth despite this forum having a perfectly functional quote function. But as far as my intention goes, it is to point out that 4e's combat model isn't fundamentally less realistic than 3e's. Encounter and daily powers aren't very elegant, and I'd rather use a different resource mechanic for non-magical types if I could, but they're good enough.


But if a game has taunts in the baseline, I can't take them out without breaking the balance- the guys with the taunts will be intended and tested with them. If it doesn't have them in baseline, I can just bat them down as they come along in splatbooks.

As far as I remember, all "taunting" powers fighters have in 4e are optional.

And just so it's absolutely clear and I'm not accused of "edition warring" or somesuch - I don't like either system, nor do I play them. 3e is largely a mess, and while 4e does what it sets out to rather well, I'm not that interested in what it does.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm not sure why people want to compare 3E and 4E in this thread. I would be more interested in seeing a comparison between 4E and 5E (or the latest playtest thereof).

In that light: it has been obvious for awhile that the most common complaint about 4E is how unrealistic it is. It strikes me that WOTC is well aware of that, and is therefore making a conscious effort to make 5E more realistic. So, I'm curious if 5E so far has any powers/spells/abilities that are as silly as Knee Breaker, Sunder Armor, or Iron Fist; as far as I can tell it doesn't. And that may well be one of the basic selling points of 5E.

[obryn]

I disagree. I believe it does model that combat, to a moderate degree. Because of the abstract nature of hit points and the very moderate claims 3ed and previous make about the combat cycle, I find this to be a reasonable mapping to reality.

Mostly because it doesn't make detailed claims. The attack action models a great deal of events.

MUCH more importantly, what do you hope to accomplish by walking in and saying "Hey, your abstract thing is too abstract so you aren't doing it right. What you need is taunts and cooldowns and specifics that couldn't possibly map to reality, because getting something super inaccurate is fundamentally the same as getting it a little wrong."?
I think you're missing the main thrust of the argument, but I'm also confused why you're responding to the argument because you said you weren't really interested in debate? Anyway, I'm not interested in contesting your views of 3e combat's realism, despite how obviously wrong it seems to me. You have said you don't want your views challenged, so I'll just talk about myself.

I prefer more varied combat and more balanced classes because of their ability to drive the entertaining and cinematic gameplay I'm looking for. I'm not playing D&D to have half the classes break the laws of reality while everyone else follows (the DM's idea of) them. I play D&D for a good mixture of action and adventure and exploration.

Martial encounter and daily powers aren't ever a concern for me or my table. They are a gameplay conceit to keep balance and drive action and - here's the key part for me - provide more cinematic, interesting, and believable combat outcomes. No, your Fighter may not have any idea what "tide of iron" means (maybe yours does? I dunno), but the outcome of a warrior pushing an enemy backwards and breaking a line? That's what I'm looking for. Your Ranger might not have any idea what "invigorating stride" is, but using fancy footwork to get out of the thick of combat and catch her breath? That's perfectly in keeping for the character. A Fighter may or may not refer to their Anvil of Doom technique, but conking an enemy so hard with a hammer that they're stunned? Perfectly believable. The examples go on.... Yes, 4e completely eschews process simulation, but the outcomes are very much in keeping with what I'd expect - if what you're looking for is pulp, cinematic, dynamic action.

Me? That's exactly what I want. For me, 4e finally fulfilled that promise that D&D had been making to me since I started playing around 1983 or 1984, and I think that's pretty rad.

[1337 b4k4]

As far as I remember, all "taunting" powers fighters have in 4e are optional.

Well, they're optional in that the player doesn't have to choose them, but given how limited your power choices are for each given level (each class usually picks between 2-4) and given that the game is built to some degree around the assumption you have those powers, denying them to your players would I think be seen as rather poor form, worse than denying your 3.x wizard access to certain spells. Bear in mind here I'm the type of person that believes in "DMs world, DMs rules and if the DM says no X, then that means no X", but I also believe in playing nice, and cutting your players options in their chosen class by a 1/4 to 1/2 would go a bit far to me. You could probably replace the power in question with your own but this is definitely the sort of thing you want to cover up front with your players before the game starts.

[Stubbazubba]

If I may play armchair psychologist for a moment:

People generally consider their knowledge and opinions to be both a part of their identity and a marker of social status (i.e. I know the truth so therefore people who believe differently are wrong and therefore inferior), although they seldom realize this consciously, let alone say it out loud.

Therefore it is very seldom that you will actually change someone's mind in a debate (or even a lesson when it comes to factual accuracy), but it does sometimes happen.

Yes, hence classical/Aristotelian rhetoric is a complete waste of time without a neutral arbiter or audience and Rogerian argumentation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogerian_argument) should be taught for actual discourse with individuals who hold a differing view.


However, you can still educate others about what you believe even if you aren't going to change their minds.

More importantly, however, are the people who have not yet made up their minds or given the subject much thought. By stating your opinion repeatedly these people will, more often than not, accept it as the truth, and it is the "fence riders" in the audience that you are really trying to convince when you have a debate, rather than your opponent.

Yes, and that is the default assumption I go into with all these threads, whenever I disagree with someone; not to convince them but to inform those who read later that what they said is not right or at least far from the whole story. However, cfalcon explicitly disavowed this justification for his wall of text when he said this:


I don't expect to convince anyone else, either, and I'm not trying.
Unless he meant "I'm not trying to convince Lokiare," it seems like he specifically isn't trying to convince those silent fence-sitters. In which case, I don't understand at all the motivation for his post. He has disavowed any motivation you or I can think of to post these things. Maybe some mysterious realism-in-games benefactor pays him if he meets a certain post quota?

[cfalcon]

If you can describe 3e's model of standing in place and swinging your weapon until someone drops dead in terms of realistic combat, why can't you do it with 4e's abstract mechanics like encounter and daily powers?

Because encounter and daily powers don't exist in the real world. If you have a bunch of rules that you actually have to actively handwave away ("oh, knee breaker is just an abstraction"), that is not something I'm interested in. I am only interested in mechanics that actually map to reality in some fashion, and if the 4ed party line is "just abstract away the whole combat system", then no, it's not something I want or care about.


4e's combat model isn't fundamentally less realistic than 3e's.

I have shown how it is to my own satisfaction. I view every mechanical ability as mapping to something that actually happens. 3ed accomplishes this very well, often by skipping details. 4ed does not even have that as a design goal in the slightest.


Encounter and daily powers aren't very elegant, and I'd rather use a different resource mechanic for non-magical types if I could, but they're good enough.

That's nice for you, but not for me. If a historical soldier didn't have that "resource mechanic", then I don't want a fighter that has it either, end of story.


As far as I remember, all "taunting" powers fighters have in 4e are optional.

Optional as in, they are in the PHB and if the DM throws them out he's a meanyface? Or optional as in, in clearly labeled optional splatbooks? I house rule a lot of things, but when it's such an uphill battle to make it right, it's just not worth it to me anymore.



I think you're missing the main thrust of the argument, but I'm also confused why you're responding to the argument because you said you weren't really interested in debate?

Generally just read how my messages go. I explain what I want, and ask about 5ed. In response, a bunch of 4ed guys come in and tell me I am wrong to want that thing, and ask that I elaborate.


Yes, 4e completely eschews process simulation, but the outcomes are very much in keeping with what I'd expect - if what you're looking for is pulp, cinematic, dynamic action.

And believe me, I've got no problem that you are digging that. It is not what I want though, as either a player or a DM. I'm hoping 5ed caters to me in this regard- and also, I'm hoping it does so with more game balance than pre-4 versions offered. If it doesn't, and it has the 4ed style of stuff, that's good for the folks who like that sort of thing, and I'll continue with 3ed and Pathfinder type things.

[Lokiare]

If I may play armchair psychologist for a moment:

People generally consider their knowledge and opinions to be both a part of their identity and a marker of social status (i.e. I know the truth so therefore people who believe differently are wrong and therefore inferior), although they seldom realize this consciously, let alone say it out loud.

Therefore it is very seldom that you will actually change someone's mind in a debate (or even a lesson when it comes to factual accuracy), but it does sometimes happen.

However, you can still educate others about what you believe even if you aren't going to change their minds.

More importantly, however, are the people who have not yet made up their minds or given the subject much thought. By stating your opinion repeatedly these people will, more often than not, accept it as the truth, and it is the "fence riders" in the audience that you are really trying to convince when you have a debate, rather than your opponent.



Back on topic, I primarily agree cFalcon, but I do think he is taking it to far. I don't know about real life, but I can't think of a single action movie where someone doesn't "taunt" at some point to draw attention to themselves to protect someone or something else, and sometimes (although no where near as often as 4E depicts) fatigue or surprise will limit how often a move can be done.

That's mostly right. My motivation is slightly different. I'm trying to delve deeper into CFalcon's mind and find out the core roots of where their like and dislike of 4E come from. Once we can determine that, we can look at 5E and see if it addresses their core root dislike of 4E and my core root dislike of 3E. For instance they keep referencing WoW, despite it having nothing to do with 4E and 4E not resembling WoW in any conceivable way. Even straining I can't make a connection between WoW and 4E. So unless someone can explain in detail, I can only surmise that this comes from the internet meme "4E is WoW" which makes no sense at all. Some have tried to explain that you hit a button and get healed, but that's closer to 3E than 4E, since 4E has healing surges that limit the number of heals you can have in a day. Others talk about 'cool down timers', 4E doesn't have those though. You don't get anything back after a certain amount of time. You get things back after resting (encounter powers after short rests of 5+ minutes and daily powers after rests of 6+ hours which you can only take one per 12 hours). You don't get things back after resting in WoW (maybe hp and mp or whatever, I've never played it myself).


What we have here is the heart of most "realism" debates when it comes to D&D. As has been pointed out repeatedly, D&D isn't realistic, but for every person engaging in this fantasy game, there is a level of disbelief that they are willing to suspend in order to enjoy a game about combat instead of a simulation of combat. That there are games that are much more realistic than D&D is more or less irrelevant except as a calibration of expectations (that is, a way to say that D&D can be made much more realistic). The balancing act that WotC has to engage in is finding that sweet spot that allows the game to proceed at a reasonable pace and in a way that most people find fun while at the same time not tripping player's willing suspension of disbelief. Regardless of whether 3e accurately models combat, I think it's fair to say that 4e goes further down the abstraction model and further afield from reality than 3e does (and it's worth noting that 3e I think is more abstracted or gamist in some areas than earlier editions). And I also think it's fair to say that given the number of people who have issues with 4e's "lack of realism" that 4e tripped a number of people's suspension of disbelief in ways that 3e didn't. I think a lot of this was a matter of marketing on WotC's part, though not in the commercial kind, but in the kind that Kurald pointed out above: if you call a move "leg breaker" than it better damn well break a leg. Largely 4e failed to meet the expectations it set, and I think that was a major component in breaking people's suspension of disbelief. While cfalcon might still have an issue with it, were 4e's moves, fluff and fiction more in line with the reality of it's mechanics, I think it would have preserved that suspension of disbelief in players much better.

Incidentally, the move of all classes to AEDU also contributed to this, but as I stated above, the actual functionality isn't the real issue, and I honestly think you could model a pretty good fighter in (a slightly modified form of) AEDU and come up with one most people would buy as "realistic". And I really do think this could live side by side with pre-4e D&D's "realistic" wizards.

It isn't so much a 'level' its specific mechanics that individuals are willing to overlook. For 4E its some of the abstractions like taunts and knee breaking creatures without knees (even though the only thing unrealistic about that power is the name). For 3E its the idea that a fighter can't get an adrenaline rush and do something outstanding like wrestle a polar bear or lift a 2 ton wagon off their friend. Its things like being able to fall 300 feet and get up and brush themselves off like nothing happened. So its specific things that get ignored. I put forth the idea that the person involved was first introduced to that type of TTRPG and was taught that it was realistic before they knew about reality or they played it not caring if it was real or not, but then years later when 'reality' gets brought up in conversations their brains don't examine those rules that aren't realistic because they are ingrained into them. Others might simply ignore the unrealistic rules because they really like the rest of the game (which is my case in 4E since I came into the game at 2E and played through 3E and 4E). So when someone says 4E isn't 'realistic' enough, I think what they are expressing is that they don't like 4E enough to overlook the parts that are not realistic. Once we find out the real reasons behind why people like or dislike an edition, then we can examine 5E and see if it fixes those problems so that it can reach all people that played D&D ever.


I entirely believe that much of the edition knightery is just that, and that's a very good point. But it's fundamentally the same as smearing advertisements everywhere- it's a belief that you want people to keep in mind because you personally stand to benefit in some way. If the 5ed forums are gonna be that, ugh.



The thing is, that taunt isn't a mechanic. It's a roleplay. I get wanting to have some dice so you don't have to do the roleplay every time (though I do not use dice for this), but when it becomes a game mechanic it suddenly becomes mind control. If a movie hero taunts the villain and the villain attacks foolishly, the hero outsmarted the villain, who acted foolishly. There's all manner of foolish actions the villain could take- why is target acquisition the one selected? It's not because of action movies, or history, it's because it's an interesting game mechanic that some MMOs got started.

In my games, enemy NPCs are still characters with their own minds. They come to their own conclusions. PCs aren't any more special than anything else. You can roleplay trying to get someone to make a suicidal decision like attacking the fighter 15 feet away instead of the wizard 5 feet away ("sure I'll charge and let you attack by face instead of finishing off this guy who can kill me with words!")- but in my games, this will fail barring some very extreme circumstance. You can see other DMs who run things differently, and that's fine. But if a game has taunts in the baseline, I can't take them out without breaking the balance- the guys with the taunts will be intended and tested with them. If it doesn't have them in baseline, I can just bat them down as they come along in splatbooks.

Would you be ok if the mechanics were just a penalty to attack if they don't target the Fighter? Would it be ok if it were a small bonus to the Fighter if the target didn't attack? A lot of people don't like having to micromanage every goblin or kobold that comes along and would rather a set of dice take care of it.


I'm not sure why people want to compare 3E and 4E in this thread. I would be more interested in seeing a comparison between 4E and 5E (or the latest playtest thereof).

In that light: it has been obvious for awhile that the most common complaint about 4E is how unrealistic it is. It strikes me that WOTC is well aware of that, and is therefore making a conscious effort to make 5E more realistic. So, I'm curious if 5E so far has any powers/spells/abilities that are as silly as Knee Breaker, Sunder Armor, or Iron Fist; as far as I can tell it doesn't. And that may well be one of the basic selling points of 5E.

We compare 3E and 4E because 5E is supposed to draw in players from both editions. They want to snare us we have to see what is divisive and then see if 5E fixed those problems. From my current viewpoint they actually just took all those problems and crammed them into an edition. There are mechanics that aren't realistic from both sides of the edition wars in 5E, which probably means its going to fail, especially if it doesn't wow both sides to the point that they can ignore the unrealistic bits.


Well, they're optional in that the player doesn't have to choose them, but given how limited your power choices are for each given level (each class usually picks between 2-4) and given that the game is built to some degree around the assumption you have those powers, denying them to your players would I think be seen as rather poor form, worse than denying your 3.x wizard access to certain spells. Bear in mind here I'm the type of person that believes in "DMs world, DMs rules and if the DM says no X, then that means no X", but I also believe in playing nice, and cutting your players options in their chosen class by a 1/4 to 1/2 would go a bit far to me. You could probably replace the power in question with your own but this is definitely the sort of thing you want to cover up front with your players before the game starts.

You mean the 10+ powers that each class gets to pick from at each level up? They only get 1 new power each level and some levels they instead get a feat or an ability increase. So yeah, if a DM said "No Come and Get It" like powers. I don't think there would be a problem. Especially since there are only 1 or 2 of those per level.

[Lokiare]

Because encounter and daily powers don't exist in the real world. If you have a bunch of rules that you actually have to actively handwave away ("oh, knee breaker is just an abstraction"), that is not something I'm interested in. I am only interested in mechanics that actually map to reality in some fashion, and if the 4ed party line is "just abstract away the whole combat system", then no, it's not something I want or care about.



I have shown how it is to my own satisfaction. I view every mechanical ability as mapping to something that actually happens. 3ed accomplishes this very well, often by skipping details. 4ed does not even have that as a design goal in the slightest.



That's nice for you, but not for me. If a historical soldier didn't have that "resource mechanic", then I don't want a fighter that has it either, end of story.



Optional as in, they are in the PHB and if the DM throws them out he's a meanyface? Or optional as in, in clearly labeled optional splatbooks? I house rule a lot of things, but when it's such an uphill battle to make it right, it's just not worth it to me anymore.




Generally just read how my messages go. I explain what I want, and ask about 5ed. In response, a bunch of 4ed guys come in and tell me I am wrong to want that thing, and ask that I elaborate.



And believe me, I've got no problem that you are digging that. It is not what I want though, as either a player or a DM. I'm hoping 5ed caters to me in this regard- and also, I'm hoping it does so with more game balance than pre-4 versions offered. If it doesn't, and it has the 4ed style of stuff, that's good for the folks who like that sort of thing, and I'll continue with 3ed and Pathfinder type things.

So now you are claiming that in real life people can't perform specific adrenaline powered acts that drain them to the point of not being able to repeat them? How about not being able to repeat things because someone saw you do that trickery before and would instantly know what you were doing. Here let me help you with that:

Here's a primer on adrenaline (epinephrine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epinephrine

Here are real life examples of unrepeatable super acts http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/arts/circus-arts/adrenaline-strength.htm

It includes lifting a 3,500 pound car and a woman wrestling a polar bear and winning.

Here is one where a teenager lifted a car off his grandfather http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/michigan-teen-lifts-car-off-trapped-grandfather-15774359

Page 3 of the how stuff works article explains why people can't do those things all the time http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/arts/circus-arts/adrenaline-strength2.htm

"So why do we only possess strength in short bursts when confronted with danger? Why don't we walk around in a constant heightened state of agitation? The short answer is, it would kill us."

So the reason that the 4E fighter can't use their daily powers every round is that the stress would kill them. Lesser powers like encounter powers require several minutes for the body to recover. If it helps you out, imagine that the Fighter is trained to boost adrenaline on command and then enter a relaxed state to recover their body shortly after combat. Kind of like how apes and monkeys have the strength of many men. They don't actually have that. They can simply access their full strength at any time they want. 4E Fighters are trained to access their full adrenaline boosted strength in the same way.

[cfalcon]

So now you are claiming that in real life people can't perform specific adrenaline powered acts that drain them to the point of not being able to repeat them?

You're doing it again.

I claim that cooldown powers are not real world. You try to find ANYTHING at all to fit that. Now you are linking to people who are essentially using all of their muscles (past the failsafes), a specific type of medical event.

Daily powers aren't meant to model adrenaline or whatever. They are a gamist mechanic.

And even if I accepted this ONE SPECIFIC THING are going to claim that ALL OF THE FIGHTER IS THIS? And why would he not be able to repeat the thing? I can think of NOTHING in reality that would lead you to the 4ed fighter and his set of powers. You are assuming that if you can demonstrate ONE thing that VAGUELY meets a description, that I guess everyone will throw their hands up. That doesn't cut it, at all. Nothing about combat in the real world plays out like the 4ed powers, and you know this.


How about not being able to repeat things because someone saw you do that trickery before and would instantly know what you were doing.

Oh, are the powers written that way? Can you use them as often as you like, but they fail if they are within line of sight of people? Like if you use an encounter power on some war-bear or whatever, but his mate doesn't see it because you aren't in line of sight, you can then use it on her the next round? Is this how the game is mediated, from a real world perspective, with explanations?

Again, that isn't the model. You are trying to fit ANYTHING in the real world to something like that, and then, I guess, expand it into an entirely fictional resource system.


It includes lifting a 3,500 pound car and a woman wrestling a polar bear and winning.

Is it your assessment that every daily power is this? Why can you not repeat a daily power, but do another one instead? You aren't modeling reality, you are grabbing at straws.


4E Fighters are trained to access their full adrenaline boosted strength in the same way.

That would be something more like rage, and it would boost strength, the stat meant to model that already. It also would be acts of strength, not martial acts with well defined outcomes.




At this point, I believe posters like you are just trying to drive away anyone who disagrees with you. You can't be trying to persuade me, especially not with random events that you think might justify one manner or other- RARE events, mind you- and somehow claim that 4ed is using that to make a whole system. Do you think the devs would agree with you? Or would they agree with me and say that that isn't the design goal of 4ed? Which is more likely?

These boards become so tiring. If it isn't you it will be someone else. I just want to find out if 5ed is the sort of game I want to play. If it isn't, I won't be in these forums, just like I don't go into the 4ed forums and try to evangelize there. If it is, will I at least be able to look forward to you not typing all this gamist rationalization into it then?

[Lokiare]

You're doing it again.

I claim that cooldown powers are not real world. You try to find ANYTHING at all to fit that. Now you are linking to people who are essentially using all of their muscles (past the failsafes), a specific type of medical event.

Daily powers aren't meant to model adrenaline or whatever. They are a gamist mechanic.

And even if I accepted this ONE SPECIFIC THING are going to claim that ALL OF THE FIGHTER IS THIS? And why would he not be able to repeat the thing? I can think of NOTHING in reality that would lead you to the 4ed fighter and his set of powers. You are assuming that if you can demonstrate ONE thing that VAGUELY meets a description, that I guess everyone will throw their hands up. That doesn't cut it, at all. Nothing about combat in the real world plays out like the 4ed powers, and you know this.



Oh, are the powers written that way? Can you use them as often as you like, but they fail if they are within line of sight of people? Like if you use an encounter power on some war-bear or whatever, but his mate doesn't see it because you aren't in line of sight, you can then use it on her the next round? Is this how the game is mediated, from a real world perspective, with explanations?

Again, that isn't the model. You are trying to fit ANYTHING in the real world to something like that, and then, I guess, expand it into an entirely fictional resource system.



Is it your assessment that every daily power is this? Why can you not repeat a daily power, but do another one instead? You aren't modeling reality, you are grabbing at straws.



That would be something more like rage, and it would boost strength, the stat meant to model that already. It also would be acts of strength, not martial acts with well defined outcomes.




At this point, I believe posters like you are just trying to drive away anyone who disagrees with you. You can't be trying to persuade me, especially not with random events that you think might justify one manner or other- RARE events, mind you- and somehow claim that 4ed is using that to make a whole system. Do you think the devs would agree with you? Or would they agree with me and say that that isn't the design goal of 4ed? Which is more likely?

These boards become so tiring. If it isn't you it will be someone else. I just want to find out if 5ed is the sort of game I want to play. If it isn't, I won't be in these forums, just like I don't go into the 4ed forums and try to evangelize there. If it is, will I at least be able to look forward to you not typing all this gamist rationalization into it then?

I never said it didn't have problems. I said it is an abstraction of reality. Just like 3E and falling 300 feet and getting up and walking away. The adrenaline things perfectly fits the explanation if you would just go back and actually read the articles I linked, then you would find that it is true. Rather than bloating each power out describing how if someone saw you do this power it automatically fails on them when you attempt it on them, they abstracted it to be an encounter power. To me that is an acceptable abstraction. To you it is not. However falling 300 feet and not dying is not an acceptable abstraction to me, but it is to you. This backs up my theory that it is specific mechanics that break people out of their suspension of disbelief. 5E has to avoid all of these mechanics in order to appeal to both our play styles. Unfortunately you can find the same problems as I find in 5E with falling damage as well as toe-to-toe fighting, limited options for non-casters, etc...etc... and the same problems you dislike 4E for with hit dice healing where a bandage some how heals from 1/2 to 1/20th of your hit points each time it is applied over the course of a couple of minutes, Fighters healing themselves in the middle of combat, etc..etc...

So if your criteria for liking a game is not having the same unbelievable things as 4e, then you probably won't like 5E.

[cfalcon]

Just like 3E and falling 300 feet and getting up and walking away.

While I don't like that one either, it's a pretty bad example: there's plenty of stories of people getting thrown out of airplanes and surviving, some of them physically bouncing. The thing where the fighter can tank terminal velocity with absolute certainty of success is at least only true at high level, however- a rank at which he can attack faster than any real world human, etc. 20d6 will kill an 6th level fighter with a Con of 20 almost all the time- it would take something really far beyond real world to, err, bounce back from that. Even with that, I'm not a fan of the falling rules. Choosing a system that tries to model reality over one that doesn't is my choice, even if parts of the system default to pretty crappy models. I can house rule those. I can't rewrite a whole system!



The adrenaline things perfectly fits the explanation if you would just go back and actually read the articles I linked, then you would find that it is true.

The devs definitely didn't state that every fighter is doing this every time, you know this. Adrenaline Rush in life or death doesn't map to comeback strike or villain's menace. Why would you think that? If they were trying to model that, they'd give you a huge buff to strength at some cost.



they abstracted it to be an encounter power

And the whole combat system becomes based around this "abstraction", such that nothing that happens with the player choices maps to the narrative on the board. This is unacceptably unrealistic to me, and I think I've made my point pretty well here.




So if your criteria for liking a game is not having the same unbelievable things as 4e, then you probably won't like 5E.

This could be, I'll see. I don't find a guy bandaging himself to be entirely ludicrous, at least.

[obryn]

cfalcon - I think you're confusing process sim with outcome sim. I think the argument about cool-downs in real life is silly, much like arguments about hit points, but use-based maneuvers better model the ebb and flow of combat in their outcomes and events.

Mechanics like Fate Points are similar - completely metagame tools that make it so (for example) alcoholics act like alcoholics, buffoons act like buffoons, etc. and make for truer narratives, despite fate points modeling nothing in the game world.


Choosing a system that tries to model reality over one that doesn't is my choice, even if parts of the system default to pretty crappy models. I can house rule those. I can't rewrite a whole system
Have you looked into the many systems that fulfill this goal better? It's cool this is your goal, but it's weird to me that 3.x is the best fit you've found for it. :)

[Kurald Galain]

The bottom line is that the power "knee breaker" doesn't actually do anything related to breaking knees; the power might as well be called "fluffy teddy bear" instead. :smallamused:


Here's an important distinction to realize: falling damage is an abstraction, that is, it's was a real-world concept first, and a rule was based on that. As with all abstractions, it doesn't 100% model the real world, but it tries. Knee breaker is not an abstraction, it's a disassociated mechanic; that is, it's a game-rule concept first, and if it happens to match with a real-world concept that's nice but ultimately not important. It doesn't model the real world and it doesn't try; the label "knee breaker" has no relevance to what the power does, and it could just as easily have been called anything else.

The former is simulationist, the latter is gamist. Guess what? Just like strawberry and chocolate ice cream, not everybody likes the same one. But when designing games, it's good to realize the difference.

[Stubbazubba]

Yes, and if Lokiare can just get off this beef with cfalcon's feelings towards 3.5/4/5E, we can get back to debating 'the basics.' What are those again?

@cfalcon, the playtest packets are widely available online, just Google them and take a glance yourself if you want an unbiased, unfiltered perspective. All of us here have our own opinions on it, but even if we didn't, it sounds like your gaming preferences are quite different from most of ours, so we would be very hard-pressed to tell you if you would like it. That being said, I think you are right in believing that they have tried to cut down on the more 'gamist' rules that make sense first as game mechanics and only afterwards as real events, but I don't know how that compares to 3.5. You may very well appreciate a lot of what 5e is doing, but beyond that first hint, you'll have to do the digging yourself.

Edit: OK, OK, contributing to actual conversation this time.

Not long ago, partial success mechanics were mentioned. Do these have a place in DDN, especially with a bounded accuracy system?

[obryn]

The bottom line is that the power "knee breaker" doesn't actually do anything related to breaking knees; the power might as well be called "fluffy teddy bear" instead. :smallamused:
No, because that's not as flavorful or evocative and tells you nothing about what the exploit does.

Daily Invigorating, Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage, and the target is slowed (save ends). If the target is already slowed, it is instead immobilized (save ends).
Weapon: If you’re wielding an axe, a hammer, or a mace, the attack deals extra damage equal to your Constitution modifier.
Miss: Half damage, and the target is not slowed or immobilized.

The power is an ability that evokes hitting someone hard in the leg and slowing them down or making them unable to move until recovery. The name is not the thing; if you wanted to call it "toe-crusher" or "leg-smacker" or "stomp on their foot" or whatever, it'd be fine, but the mechanics evoke a description of the event happening in the world which is consistent with smacking someone in the knee. The name's just over-dramatic.

[obryn]

Not long ago, partial success mechanics were mentioned. Do these have a place in DDN, especially with a bounded accuracy system?
I think they not only do, they almost must with the twin limitations of boundless accuracy and the d20 RNG.

[1337 b4k4]

The power is an ability that evokes hitting someone hard in the leg and slowing them down or making them unable to move until recovery. The name is not the thing; if you wanted to call it "toe-crusher" or "leg-smacker" or "stomp on their foot" or whatever, it'd be fine, but the mechanics evoke a description of the event happening in the world which is consistent with smacking someone in the knee. The name's just over-dramatic.

I think this is going to be 4e's epitaph, I really do. "Here lies 4e. It was a good game, it just couldn't live up to its own hype". Seriously, so many issues with 4e are presentation issues. The more I look at it, the more I sort of get the impression that the basic problem was one of trying to convey non-D&D* mechanics in D&D language. That is, in any edition before 4e, if you had seen a spell or even a feat called "knee breaker" you would expect it to do pretty much what it says on the tin, plus or minus a bit for size modifiers what have you. Yes I know about "toughness", and that a lot of 3.e's trap feats suffered from this problem as well, but as noted 4e really tried to turn the names up to 11, but at the same time, they were dialing back the power represented by those names from prior expectations. It's not that the mechanic is unsound per se, but as I said above, it's about suspension of disbelief. When you name a power "toe crusher", the 4e power lines up mostly, and everyone could reasonably buy an enemy shaking that off after a bit. But when you name it "knee breaker" and your opponent doesn't suffer a broken knee or even anything remotely resembling that sort of crippling injury, it breaks the suspension of disbelief. Do this often enough and in enough places and suddenly you have people complaining that your game isn't "realistic" enough.


I think they not only do, they almost must with the twin limitations of boundless accuracy and the d20 RNG.

This so much this. With WotC's unholy wedding to the d20 for all the RNGs ever, and their continued insistence on single or limited roll skill checks, they desperately need to use degrees of success if they're going to make this work.

[Morty]

I think they not only do, they almost must with the twin limitations of boundless accuracy and the d20 RNG.



This so much this. With WotC's unholy wedding to the d20 for all the RNGs ever, and their continued insistence on single or limited roll skill checks, they desperately need to use degrees of success if they're going to make this work.

Agreed to both. I think degrees of success would greatly benefit the d20 model even without bounded accuracy. With bounded accuracy, they, or something similar, might be necessary to make it work - if they're not introduced, DMs will use them anyway just to make it work and be believable.

[Lokiare]

Agreed to both. I think degrees of success would greatly benefit the d20 model even without bounded accuracy. With bounded accuracy, they, or something similar, might be necessary to make it work - if they're not introduced, DMs will use them anyway just to make it work and be believable.

I share the angry DMs view on failing forward:

http://angrydm.com/2012/12/five-simple-rules-for-dating-my-teenaged-skill-system/

Its long so I spoilered it:



Whereas I actively avoided bringing up the “making failure interesting” and “failing forward” bulls$&%. Hahaha. Can you tell I get a little worked up about skills?

First of all, in essence I am saying that you should only roll when failure is interesting. That is, if failure doesn’t cost the party something or carry some consequence, you should not roll. The word interesting is kind of a useless word. Because it is utterly subjective. Telling DMs to “make failure interesting” isn’t helpful. Telling them what makes failure interesting is useful. In this case, it has to cost the party something or endanger them or kill them. Costs or consequences.

The concept of failing forward, however, rankles me. I’m not going to lie. For a couple of reasons. First of all, its a waste of time in a focused, goal-oriented adventure. Take the “escort the prisoner” example you offered. The party is trying to accomplish something – solve a mystery, achieve a goal, what have you. If they fail at something, they have a set back and have to find an alternate route to their goal. They can’t get the documents and need to find another bluff to pull or another source of the information they need.

But that “failure forward” means they still get what they were after, except we have to be distracted by some unrelated garbage first. I don’t want to waste time playing out the PCs escorting some felon to prison. Especially because, in order to make that interesting, I need to have an escape attempt. Its a distraction. Stop doing what you were doing.

I want failure to require the players to find a different path forward, not force them to wander a mile out of their way then pick up where they left off.

Moreover, failing forward is not failing. It says that no matter what, you will succeed at the adventure. Its just a matter of how much you have to put up with before we all decide its time to end the story. That’s fine if you want to tell “an interesting story,” but it is not a challenge. The players don’t accomplish something. They don’t solve something. They just either succeed forward or fail forward until they get to the end.

Now, if you want to play that way, I won’t begrudge you. But I wouldn’t run a mystery like that. A well-crafted mystery is a complex thing and it is very hard to create a good one players can solve. I would caution any DM from rewriting reality to make failures fail forward and distracting the party with extraneous sidetracks.

I will also reiterate that the concept of “making failure interesting” and “failing forward” is too focused on the outcome of random die rolls to be the source of what’s interesting in the story. The focus is on the choice they made. The fact that the party chose to impersonate police officers as their approach should be the focus, not the fact that they failed at it by “succeeding too well.” In the end, it comes down to whether or not you are willing to let the PCs lose: http://angrydm.com/2010/07/winning-dd/


Summary: Failing forward and degrees of success pretty much say you can't fail at the task,you just have to spend time working at it and the only real factor is how long it takes. You shouldn't even be rolling if failure is not an option or interesting.

[Stubbazubba]

I, too, was of the opinion that failing forward was a good idea in D&D; given all the investment of time and energy in creating storylines and characters and what-not, it seemed only fair for the system to provide some insurance by default. But when I found Angry DM's description of skill use, it rang true inside of me, and got me really excited to play/run a really engaging game of D&D, not just try to squeeze a story out of a game. That changed the way I look at the games I play.

I understand the worry that with bounded accuracy and the d20 being handled so terribly in 5e, failing forward would be an important way to mitigate the random bad consequences. But that seems like a problem with bounded accuracy and/or the d20 that we're just (once again) dancing around in order to make the game playable. Maybe we should all just house-rule a new skill system for 5E? A working skill system would be a step forward for any D&D game, methinks.

Edit: Just realized we did just that in the other thread...

[obryn]

I share the angry DMs view on failing forward:

http://angrydm.com/2012/12/five-simple-rules-for-dating-my-teenaged-skill-system/

Its long so I spoilered it:



Whereas I actively avoided bringing up the “making failure interesting” and “failing forward” bulls$&%. Hahaha. Can you tell I get a little worked up about skills?

First of all, in essence I am saying that you should only roll when failure is interesting. That is, if failure doesn’t cost the party something or carry some consequence, you should not roll. The word interesting is kind of a useless word. Because it is utterly subjective. Telling DMs to “make failure interesting” isn’t helpful. Telling them what makes failure interesting is useful. In this case, it has to cost the party something or endanger them or kill them. Costs or consequences.

The concept of failing forward, however, rankles me. I’m not going to lie. For a couple of reasons. First of all, its a waste of time in a focused, goal-oriented adventure. Take the “escort the prisoner” example you offered. The party is trying to accomplish something – solve a mystery, achieve a goal, what have you. If they fail at something, they have a set back and have to find an alternate route to their goal. They can’t get the documents and need to find another bluff to pull or another source of the information they need.

But that “failure forward” means they still get what they were after, except we have to be distracted by some unrelated garbage first. I don’t want to waste time playing out the PCs escorting some felon to prison. Especially because, in order to make that interesting, I need to have an escape attempt t. Its a distraction. Stop doing what you were doing.

I want failure to require the players to find a different path forward, not force them to wander a mile out of their way then pick up where they left off.

Moreover, failing forward is not failing. It says that no matter what, you will succeed at the adventure. Its just a matter of how much you have to put up with before we all decide its time to end the story. That’s fine if you want to tell “an interesting story,” but it is not a challenge. The players don’t accomplish something. They don’t solve something. They just either succeed forward or fail forward until they get to the end.

Now, if you want to play that way, I won’t begrudge you. But I wouldn’t run a mystery like that. A well-crafted mystery is a complex thing and it is very hard to create a good one players can solve. I would caution any DM from rewriting reality to make failures fail forward and distracting the party with extraneous sidetracks.

I will also reiterate that the concept of “making failure interesting” and “failing forward” is too focused on the outcome of random die rolls to be the source of what’s interesting in the story. The focus is on the choice they made. The fact that the party chose to impersonate police officers as their approach should be the focus, not the fact that they failed at it by “succeeding too well.” In the end, it comes down to whether or not you are willing to let the PCs lose: http://angrydm.com/2010/07/winning-dd/


Summary: Failing forward and degrees of success pretty much say you can't fail at the task,you just have to spend time working at it and the only real factor is how long it takes. You shouldn't even be rolling if failure is not an option or interesting.
It's funny because I don't think we understand "fail forward" in the same way. Like, at all.

So much so that when he's saying, "Failing forward sucks; here's how a game should be run," it matches how failing forward should work.

"I want failure to require the players to find a different path forward, not force them to wander a mile out of their way then pick up where they left off."

YES, PRECISELY. It's still failure. It still must have a cost, not just worthless time-wasting. But there's still a story to be told.

re: Partial Success - There still must be failure conditions even if partial success exists in the system.

[Lokiare]

It's funny because I don't think we understand "fail forward" in the same way. Like, at all.

So much so that when he's saying, "Failing forward sucks; here's how a game should be run," it matches how failing forward should work.

"I want failure to require the players to find a different path forward, not force them to wander a mile out of their way then pick up where they left off."

YES, PRECISELY. It's still failure. It still must have a cost, not just worthless time-wasting. But there's still a story to be told.

re: Partial Success - There still must be failure conditions even if partial success exists in the system.

That's not really failing forward then. When we say failing forward, we mean that if you fail the required skill check, you are X steps away from succeeding at the task. So you roll against and are now X+Y steps closer to succeeding. You continue to do that until the specific situation you are in is resolved. The common example is a Rogue picking a lock. The DC is 25, the Rogue makes multiple checks to try to open the lock in sequence getting 16, 18, 12, and 20. Well if you 'fail forward' then maybe each failed roll reduces the DC by 2 or grants you a cumulative +2 bonus to your next check. Either way they would have succeeded at the final roll. In those cases if the Rogue fails on the first check, you shouldn't make them continue to roll. Instead you just say "This lock is going to take you about 10 minutes to open, do you open it or do something else?" at which point the Barbarian/Paladin/Fighter walks up and says "Hulk smash!" and ends the challenge.

What you are talking about is just not creating a bottle neck in the adventure that can be failed at. Instead you make multiple paths to further the adventure around the bottle neck. For instance if there is a portal the bad guy is trying to escape though and the party walks into the room just as the villain steps through, and the Wizard is meant to use Arcana to keep it open long enough for the party to step through but fails just as the halfling rogue is half way through (being the first one to try) and it snaps shut leaving half of a halfling laying in the now empty portal, oh well. The party can't escape the pyramid of doom that has no doors. They are just out of luck. End of adventure/characters.

[Kurald Galain]

I, too, was of the opinion that failing forward was a good idea in D&D;
I think Fail Forward is a good idea in general, but it has nothing to do with BA. Also, WOTC doesn't seem to understand how FF should work.


Maybe we should all just house-rule a new skill system for 5E? A working skill system would be a step forward for any D&D game, methinks.

Edit: Just realized we did just that in the other thread...
Precisely :smallcool:

[Morty]

I share the angry DMs view on failing forward:

http://angrydm.com/2012/12/five-simple-rules-for-dating-my-teenaged-skill-system/

Its long so I spoilered it:



Whereas I actively avoided bringing up the “making failure interesting” and “failing forward” bulls$&%. Hahaha. Can you tell I get a little worked up about skills?

First of all, in essence I am saying that you should only roll when failure is interesting. That is, if failure doesn’t cost the party something or carry some consequence, you should not roll. The word interesting is kind of a useless word. Because it is utterly subjective. Telling DMs to “make failure interesting” isn’t helpful. Telling them what makes failure interesting is useful. In this case, it has to cost the party something or endanger them or kill them. Costs or consequences.

The concept of failing forward, however, rankles me. I’m not going to lie. For a couple of reasons. First of all, its a waste of time in a focused, goal-oriented adventure. Take the “escort the prisoner” example you offered. The party is trying to accomplish something – solve a mystery, achieve a goal, what have you. If they fail at something, they have a set back and have to find an alternate route to their goal. They can’t get the documents and need to find another bluff to pull or another source of the information they need.

But that “failure forward” means they still get what they were after, except we have to be distracted by some unrelated garbage first. I don’t want to waste time playing out the PCs escorting some felon to prison. Especially because, in order to make that interesting, I need to have an escape attempt. Its a distraction. Stop doing what you were doing.

I want failure to require the players to find a different path forward, not force them to wander a mile out of their way then pick up where they left off.

Moreover, failing forward is not failing. It says that no matter what, you will succeed at the adventure. Its just a matter of how much you have to put up with before we all decide its time to end the story. That’s fine if you want to tell “an interesting story,” but it is not a challenge. The players don’t accomplish something. They don’t solve something. They just either succeed forward or fail forward until they get to the end.

Now, if you want to play that way, I won’t begrudge you. But I wouldn’t run a mystery like that. A well-crafted mystery is a complex thing and it is very hard to create a good one players can solve. I would caution any DM from rewriting reality to make failures fail forward and distracting the party with extraneous sidetracks.

I will also reiterate that the concept of “making failure interesting” and “failing forward” is too focused on the outcome of random die rolls to be the source of what’s interesting in the story. The focus is on the choice they made. The fact that the party chose to impersonate police officers as their approach should be the focus, not the fact that they failed at it by “succeeding too well.” In the end, it comes down to whether or not you are willing to let the PCs lose: http://angrydm.com/2010/07/winning-dd/


Summary: Failing forward and degrees of success pretty much say you can't fail at the task,you just have to spend time working at it and the only real factor is how long it takes. You shouldn't even be rolling if failure is not an option or interesting.

Like obryn said, you seem to be talking about something altogether different. Degrees of success and failure aren't the same as "failing forward" or receiving something even if you fail a roll. They mean that successes and failures aren't equal. You can succeed by the skin of your teeth, or you can comfortably complete the task in a way that gives you additional benefits or makes it easier to continue the task.

As for why they would apply to bounded accuracy - the RNG that D&D Next uses makes it very unlikely that you have no chance to fail or no chance to succeed. Degrees of success would help with the issue of a rank amateur having a 5-10% chance of succeeding while a master always has a 5-10% chance of failure. Because if an amateur rolls a 19 and passes, the rules would treat such a result differently than when a master rolls a 19.

I do agree that a new, functional skill system would be a step up. I've had a chance of a system that works on a proficiency basis, telling you what you can do at a given level and how - on rank X of skill Y, you can do certain things if you roll for them, others if you roll with a penalty, and some things you just don't roll for if you're good enough. It'd be supplemented with "skill tricks" for skill-specialized characters such as rogues or bards.

[1337 b4k4]

That's not really failing forward then. When we say failing forward, we mean that if you fail the required skill check, you are X steps away from succeeding at the task. So you roll against and are now X+Y steps closer to succeeding. You continue to do that until the specific situation you are in is resolved. The common example is a Rogue picking a lock. The DC is 25, the Rogue makes multiple checks to try to open the lock in sequence getting 16, 18, 12, and 20. Well if you 'fail forward' then maybe each failed roll reduces the DC by 2 or grants you a cumulative +2 bonus to your next check.

No, that isn't what failing forward means. What you're talking about is sometimes referred to as "skill hit points" but I've never seen it described as failing forward. Just to be sure, I did some digging elsewhere to make sure the definition I had heard was confirmed by others, and so to that end, I present my evidence:


What does "fail forward" mean? (http://www.ukroleplayers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=15314)


It means that something interesting has to happen on a failure and the game does not roadblock itself. The game moves forward and the players still have opportunities to make decisions in spite of the impact of the failure.

...

A failure shouldn't stop the game and be a blocker. The game should continue forward, but with complications, or delays, or consequences.


Failing Forward, Let it Ride, and When to Roll (http://****yeahdnd.tumblr.com/post/58087444594/failing-forward-let-it-ride-and-when-to-roll)


Failing Forward is quite simply the idea that there is no such a thing as a failure where nothing happens. When you try to pick the lock on a door and fail, the result is never “Well, you didn’t manage to pick the lock. What do you do?” but that something else happens in the fiction, not directly stemming from the failure but related to it. Using failing forward the aforementioned failure at lock-picking could easily result in “Well, you didn’t manage to pick the lock, and you can hear the sounds of approaching footsteps from around the corner. What do you do?”

Yes,but; No, and; etc. (http://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1ytykk/yes_but_no_and_etc/)


Burning Wheel has a really great system. Not only do you better you skills through failure. As we all learn more from failing. But you always fail forward. The plot doesn't stall out because you failed. It just gets more interesting. Burning Wheel has the 'Just Say Yes' rule which states: Unless there is an interesting failure outcome say yes, describe what happens and move on. The example given in the book goes like this.

PC is trying to pick the lock on a door before the guards catch up to him. He fails. The outcome is that as soon as the lock clicks open the guards arrive. Or the lock opens but you pick is broken.

The biggest thing I took away from playing Burning Wheel is interesting failure consequences and always failing forward. Never again will a plot stall out because of a bad roll in my games, regardless of which system we are playing.




The point being that failing forward has nothing at all to do with eventually succeeding and everything to do with keeping the game moving in an interesting way despite the failure*. Note in particular the last example I quoted, which addresses the picking the lock scenario. The key thing to take away from this is that failing forward requires evaluating the situation for more than just the immediate goal of the skill check. Picking the lock isn't just about getting in the room, it's about getting in the room without being spotted, and ideally without leaving a trace after the fact. Failing forward means the DM should adjudicate that the overall goal failed, not necessarily the specific action. It means putting a bit more trust in the DM, but that means the DM can do interesting things like delayed failure ("ok, you succeeded in getting in the room and you get out ok, unfortunately, you didn't notice when picking the lock that it had a tamper seal on the reverse side, and the corrupt mayor knows some one has been in his room, you wakeup this morning to find the town guard has been tripled and they're searching everyone going in and out of the city"

One key thing about failing forward is that it means that rolling a skill check MUST have interesting failure options. That means, if it's just a locked chest in a room, with no time constraints (they've taken it back to HQ) then don't have them roll to open the chest, either let them open it, tell them they can't open it because it's beyond them at the moment, or if it's really supposed to be a challenge, then present the challenge outright and offer the alternatives (picking the lock, smashing the chest) with the failure option be not "fail to get in" but "fail to get in without damaging the contents"

As another example, let's go back to our group sneaking example. Under current D&D skills and interpretation, the party is trying to sneak by the guards and Clanky McPlatemail rolls his sneak check (with pentalties) and succeeds, so he gets by. Then Clumsy Stumblefoots the halfling cleric with a bum leg rolls her sneak check and also succeeds so she gets by. Then Lightfoot the Wind, the elven master thief of generations goes and fails the roll. The way most people interpret this, somehow Clanky McPlatemail is better at sneaking in this instance than Lightfoot the Wind and the guards know you're there and now there's a big fight and all the sneaking was a waste.

Failing forward suggests that the true goal of these sneak checks was, akin to a D&D 4e skill challenge, getting the whole party smoothly past the guards. Under a fail forward model, the interpretation of these events is perhaps rather than Lightfoot the Wind being "unable" to sneak, as Lightfoot gets halfway down the hall and stops behind a pillar, the guard starts walking down the hall in Lightfoot's direction, beginning a patrol route or a gust of wind has come down the hall blowing out the lights and the guard is coming to relight the torch on Lightfoot's pillar, or even that Lightfoot gets by but the king's corrupt advisor (who didn't previously exist in this hallway until this moment) happened to be walking by on a balcony above at just that moment and saw the party sneaking by and is planning on ambushing them further down the hall.

In an amusing twist, D&D has unofficially had a fail forward mechanic before. Fumble tables are examples of a rudimentary fail forward mechanic, where missing your opponent is more than just "you missed, next" , now your sword is across the room, or you're hobbled or there's some other penalty that has changed the dynamic of the situation.




*Seriously, I know I keep harping on this game but if you haven't read it, read Dungeon World. Even if you never play the game, understanding how the game is supposed to be played will make you a better GM. Most of the advice is of that "obvious, why didn't I think of that before" kind, but it really is good for putting into words what you know you should be doing as a GM anyway.

[Kurald Galain]

Failing forward suggests that the true goal of these sneak checks was, akin to a D&D 4e skill challenge, getting the whole party smoothly past the guards. Under a fail forward model, the interpretation of these events is perhaps rather than Lightfoot the Wind being "unable" to sneak, as Lightfoot gets halfway down the hall and stops behind a pillar, the guard starts walking down the hall in Lightfoot's direction, beginning a patrol route or a gust of wind has come down the hall blowing out the lights and the guard is coming to relight the torch on Lightfoot's pillar, or even that Lightfoot gets by but the king's corrupt advisor (who didn't previously exist in this hallway until this moment) happened to be walking by on a balcony above at just that moment and saw the party sneaking by and is planning on ambushing them further down the hall.

The problem I have with this is that it still means that Lightfoot's training in stealth is a waste. It doesn't matter whether he's good at stealth, something just randomly happens to invalidate it anyway.

[1337 b4k4]

The problem I have with this is that it still means that Lightfoot's training in stealth is a waste. It doesn't matter whether he's good at stealth, something just randomly happens to invalidate it anyway.

Only if you assume that training means or should mean 100% success at all times. Lightfoot's training still gives Lightfoot a better chance at getting a "full" success, that is, getting everything Lightfoot wants. Something "random" didn't happen to invalidate it. Something happened because despite the training, Lightfoot still failed the check. The purpose is to interpret that failure
1) In a way that doesn't make sense (the master thief is unable to perform)
and
2) In a way that drives the game forward and causes interesting outcomes rather than simply "yes you succeed" or "no you didn't, try again" or "no you didn't and now all your sneaking is wasted because all the guards are alerted to you"

It's also worth noting that the DM should be taking things like training into account to determine how to fail forward. Lightfoot failed the check and so it's perhaps appropriate that the sneak succeeds, but the advisor spots you from the balcony above. Clanky McPlatemail fails and perhaps it is more appropriate to interpret the failure as a stumble alerting the guards down the hall.

Failing forward is really nothing revolutionary, as I said before a lot of this stuff is "common sense" once you say it out loud, but clearly not every DM does this sort of thing, and it's something the game should encourage.

[Stubbazubba]

This is the idea of "failing forward" I've been laboring under:


So in this case, if Lucy Clawless the Ranger is searching for the clue and her player rolls a 1, she can still find the clue. However, there is some additional cost. Maybe another adventuring group finds out what they’re looking for and now it’s a race to the Caves of Order. Maybe the agents at the Cave catch wind of the group’s efforts and set a trap.

Notice how even though she failed the skill check, she still achieved the objective of the check. It's just that now there's a tangentially-related complication that you deal with afterwards. That's not what I call failing at all. That's a "yes, but," and a generous one at that.

Or this:


Failing Forward is a term used to describe a failed die roll still allowing the Players to succeed in their endevour [sic], just not in the method they had planned. This article will discuss a number of ways a Game Master can keep a night of bad dice from ruining an evening's Game.

A simple example would be to have the Player's main objective fail, but their action still have a beneficial effect. As an example, take a Wild West Shootout. A Player shoots at the Bad Guys and misses. Instead of hitting the Villain, the bullet hits the rope causing the chandelier to fall against the door, preventing enemy reinforcements from arriving.

This can only very generously be called "failing." If most every time you decide to act, something beneficial is bound to happen, the decision is that much less meaningful, and whatever steps the player has taken to make their character proficient in their attempt are also less meaningful.

This definition of "failing forward" actually seems closest to what it sounds like to me: you fail, but even your failure moves you closer to your goal. In which case there simply is no failure, just degrees of complexity in success. Having alternative paths to victory so that no single failure grinds the entire story to a halt is less "failing forward" and more "failure necessitates a change in direction," which is just good DMing/adventure design but has nothing to do with what failure actually does.

[Stubbazubba]

Lightfoot's training still gives Lightfoot a better chance at getting a "full" success, that is, getting everything Lightfoot wants.

And this is my issue with degrees of success: it actually reduces the weight of the decisions you make, and increases the importance of rolling high. Rolling high is great, but the game should focus on the decisions made by the players, because that's where they are role-playing. For instance, let's say the reason they're sneaking through the hall in the first place is to get to the Duke's treasure room to steal a magical artifact they need to prevent some doomsday scenario, but which the Duke is irrationally unwilling to give up. To do this, they brainstormed and came up with a variety of approaches that might work:



Trick the guards into believing they are nobles or something with every right to be there
Storm the citadel!
Sneak in somehow


Obviously, they chose the latter. Now, the thing to realize is that each of these has its own benefits and drawbacks already: tricking the guards would let them move about freely but it's unlikely to work and if they weren't believed they could be reported; storming the citadel is extremely risky but it would give them the entire citadel if they succeed; sneaking in is easier but then they have to remain hidden the entire time. Choosing between those options is where we get to see some real character involvement and role-playing. It's where the players actually reason among each other and interact.

Shifting the benefits/drawbacks to the skill roll - instead of leaving them inherent in the choice being made - means all approaches are equally good or bad, it just depends on how well we roll, so just pick the approach that uses our highest skills. A cognitive problem becomes simply a math problem, and the players never get to weigh those options and choose what their character would choose. Binary pass/fail states raise the stakes and allow, I think, for greater depth in the decisions you make as a player.


The purpose is to interpret that failure
2) In a way that drives the game forward and causes interesting outcomes rather than simply "yes you succeed" or "no you didn't, try again" or "no you didn't and now all your sneaking is wasted because all the guards are alerted to you"

When the options are already laden with consequences regardless of success or failure, a simple "Yes, you succeed" is plenty interesting. "No, you didn't, try again" shouldn't happen if you're using skill checks correctly (http://angrydm.com/2012/12/five-simple-rules-for-dating-my-teenaged-skill-system/), and "No, you didn't and now all your sneaking is wasted because all the guards are alerted to you" is...not interesting? I mean, it sucks to force the party to make a plethora of rolls where any one failure brings that kind of cascading scenario, but assuming you have avoided failure-by-attrition setup, how is that last option less interesting than anything else that could happen?

[obryn]

Trick the guards into believing they are nobles or something with every right to be there
Storm the citadel!
Sneak in somehow


Obviously, they chose the latter. Now, the thing to realize is that each of these has its own benefits and drawbacks already: tricking the guards would let them move about freely but it's unlikely to work and if they weren't believed they could be reported; storming the citadel is extremely risky but it would give them the entire citadel if they succeed; sneaking in is easier but then they have to remain hidden the entire time. Choosing between those options is where we get to see some real character involvement and role-playing. It's where the players actually reason among each other and interact.

Shifting the benefits/drawbacks to the skill roll - instead of leaving them inherent in the choice being made - means all approaches are equally good or bad, it just depends on how well we roll, so just pick the approach that uses our highest skills. A cognitive problem becomes simply a math problem, and the players never get to weigh those options and choose what their character would choose. Binary pass/fail states raise the stakes and allow, I think, for greater depth in the decisions you make as a player.
You'll need to explain how you're getting that all approaches are equally good or bad in your example, and that "partial success" or "partial failure" can't mean different things in different situations.

[1337 b4k4]

And this is my issue with degrees of success: it actually reduces the weight of the decisions you make, and increases the importance of rolling high.

...

Shifting the benefits/drawbacks to the skill roll - instead of leaving them inherent in the choice being made - means all approaches are equally good or bad, it just depends on how well we roll, so just pick the approach that uses our highest skills. A cognitive problem becomes simply a math problem

...

"No, you didn't and now all your sneaking is wasted because all the guards are alerted to you" is...not interesting? I mean, it sucks to force the party to make a plethora of rolls where any one failure brings that kind of cascading scenario, but assuming you have avoided failure-by-attrition setup, how is that last option less interesting than anything else that could happen?

It's important to remember that "failing forward" doesn't mean that sometimes straight up "no it doesn't happen" isn't an interesting outcome. It simply encourages DMs to make all outcomes interesting (and by extension, reduce the rolling for non interesting things). Working backwards through your post:

Yes, it is quite possible that "now all the guards are alerted" is interesting. But it's also possible it isn't. If you're having a long stealth / espionage quest, "oh no you failed, another battle!" is about as interesting as random encounters in a JRPG. They may serve a purpose (whittling down your resources) but that doesn't make them "interesting" either to you or your players. It's also not interesting if your DM hasn't planned another way for you to get in. Maybe (because they're an inexperienced DM) your DM has decided that this session was supposed to be about the party sneaking in, and if you don't sneak in, the game doesn't go anywhere. Failures which result in you failing to sneak in (as opposed to making sneaking in more costly, or more dangerous, or lose access to certain items) are uninteresting because the story stops progressing, and especially so if it isn't because you don't have sneaky characters, but because your party is just rolling poorly tonight.

Look at it this way, have you ever played a computer game where sneaking was part of a level, and every time you're caught, you fight a battle and if you survive you start the section over? If you're not getting through the section, it doesn't matter how tense the battles are, this is uninteresting because the price for failure is the same binary thing every time and your story has come to a halt.


As to cognitive vs mathematical approaches. Failing forward encourages cognitive (and thematic) approaches more than a simple binary pass / fail system does. With a binary pass fail system, your players will optimize for the choices which require the least number of rolls and the rolls in which they have the best bonuses, and thus the best chances to pass. With a failing forward system, it is possible to encourage your players to take less mathematically optimal courses because the results can be just as (or more) interesting. And remember that the DM's responsibility in a fail forward system is to take player actions and thought process into account. Let's go back to getting into the castle:

1) Trick the Guards
2) Storm the Citadel
3) Sneak in

In any case (pass/fail or fail forward), the players are going to choose the option for which they are best optimized. If they have a lot of high CHA, high WIS characters, they're going to go with Tricking the Guards. If they have a lot of high STR, high CON, they're going for storming the Citadel and if they have high DEX, high INT, they're going for Sneaking in. Once they've made their choice though, fail forward can produce more interesting results that challenge the players to think on their feet. If they chose to sneak in, in a pass fail system (as is common in D&D today) a player who fails their sneak rolls has failed to sneak at all and thus has alerted the guards, prepare for a fight. In a fail forward system, the DM is encouraged to examine the situation as a whole. Your players chose sneaking in and might have a plan, how can you use that plan against them since they failed? Maybe a failed roll now means around the next corner they encounter a young child playing with a ball that lands at their feet. Do they take the ball and silence the child (possibly raising the alarm when the boy is discovered missing)? Do they run (and what does the boy do if they do)? Or do they charm the child and sneak away? How often do we see in movies the sneaking heroes smiling at the young boy, giving the boy his ball back and putting a finger to their lips as they pass by with a wink? How often do we see it in sneak checks in RPGs?

And in the end, it doesn't mean your players can't fail to sneak in anyway, but it does encourage the DM not to hinge the entire concept of "sneaking in" on the mathematical chances of the players never blowing a stealth role, and more on the challenges to maintaining stealth that blowing such a role might entail. But in the end if they keep blowing roles, they can still be caught and discovered, it's just about having it all flow together better rather than be "you failed to sneak, now you must fight, you failed to fight, now you are in prison, or alternatively there is no fight, the guards overwhelm you and now you're in prison". And again, that option could be interesting, as long as the DM is willing to allow it to be interesting. If all it is though is simply starting over on the sneak checks or a temporary holding pattern until they can get back to sneaking and getting to the macguffin, then it may not be the most interesting option either.

Please note that I'm not saying you can't do stuff like this in binary pass fail, especially because every skill check boiled down to its minimum is a binary question (do I get what I want the way I want it or not). As I said before all of this stuff is what normally we call "good DMing", mixed with a bit of fudging. The problem is, the way the material has traditionally been presented, new DMs (and experienced ones) don't quite pick up on this. They see "failure means no progress" and they read it literally. The read "failure to sneak" as "fell down and made a lot of noise". Fail forward is less about always succeeding and more about evaluating the totality of the situation and making it so that "failure" can apply beyond the immediate concerns.

And finally, please note also that fail forward as a default doesn't completely preclude binary "you fail, your head asplode" stuff either. If your player insists on making a running leap across a 50 foot chasm with a 1 in 100 chance of success, they can still fail, and fall and die and you don't need to make up a "as you fall, you catch a vine and now you're dangling 100 feet down on a rapidly fraying vine" if you don't want. But as a DM it does allow you to have the flexibility to do this (without introducing "dirty" concepts like fudging). And in the end, it might just be more interesting to ask the players "what are you going to do about your buddy" rather than tell them "your buddy is dead, here's the nearest cleric who can cast reincarnation, and here's a blank character sheet. What do you want to do?"

I guess what I'm trying to get at is fail forward is less a replacement for binary pass fail, and more of an explicit statement of what and how a DM is supposed to run a skill check.

[Stubbazubba]

You'll need to explain how you're getting that all approaches are equally good or bad in your example, and that "partial success" or "partial failure" can't mean different things in different situations.

OK, let me break it down a little more:

First, "partial success" and "partial failure" obviously do and must mean different things in different situations. I agree with you here.

With just binary pass/fail outcomes, each of the listed approaches (deceit, force, or stealth), all have inherent benefits and drawbacks, regardless of the die roll, which I listed. But if you hard-code "yes, and," "yes, but," "no, but," and "no, and" into the resolution mechanic (i.e. the most popular form of partial success/failure I'm aware of), then the benefits or drawbacks are determined by the dice, not by the decision made by the players.

Let's switch hypos. An army from Enemydor is attempting to capture a valuable region of Alliedor. Their camp is building up for an attack over the border. Alliedor has placed an army on the other side of the border, but to cross it would be a declaration of war. The Alliedor commander instead hires mercenaries to harass the enemy camp, hoping they won't ever be able to successfully launch their attack. The mercenaries are, of course, the party.

The Alliedor commander is pretty stern; failure is usually met with punishment. He contracts with the party to go set fire to the Enemy camp or something, but insists that one of his lieutenants (who happens to be his brother-in-law) accompanies you. During the mission, something goes wrong, and the party faces the choice to dishonorably leave the lieutenant to die and escape themselves, or all be captured. They choose the former. Upon their return, they face the choice of owning up to that action or trying to deceive the commander into believing that they thought the lieutenant had escaped on a different path or something along those lines, thereby avoiding having to tell him what they did.

If they own up, whether the commander decides to punish them or not (the success or failure of a Diplomacy check), they might get a reputation for honesty. If they try to cover it up, they might get off scot-free (Bluff check), although there's a chance that the truth might later be uncovered (say, the lieutenant ends up alive and eventually returns to tell the tale).

Each of these methods has different consequences, regardless of the success/failure of either the Diplomacy or the Bluff roll involved. The benefits or drawbacks are inherent to the decision, and a binary success/fail result only tells half the story. The role-play occurs in making that choice, with both negative and positive consequences attached, and then reacting to those consequences.

If, however, the benefits/drawbacks are subsumed into the resolution mechanic, then it's the dice that determine the consequences, not the players. For instance, now, if the players choose to be up front about it and they get a "yes, and" result (i.e., they roll very fortunately), then the commander won't punish them and he esteems them for their honesty. If they roll a "yes, but" result, he doesn't punish them, but also doesn't care about their honesty. If they get a "no, but" result, he punishes them, but also esteems them for their honesty. Finally, if they roll a "no, and" result, he both punishes them and could care less that they were honest.

On the flipside, if they choose to deceive him and get a "yes, and" result, he believes them and the lieutenant probably doesn't come back to haunt them. If they get a "yes, but" result, he believes them but the lieutenant does eventually come back to haunt them. If they get a "no, but" result, the commander doesn't believe them, but, I dunno, the day after they're banished the Enemy troops come in and destroy the camp anyway? Finally, a "no, and" result involves both the commander not believing them and the lieutenant somehow haunting them (possibly literally). I dunno, however these would fall out.

The yes/no and/but degrees of success/failure prompt interesting consequences, but in doing so they divorce those consequences from player agency. So as far as the players are concerned, the likelihood of facing negative consequences is based not on which choice they make, but how well they roll. So both confessing to the commander or lying to him have a chance of going totally well, not too bad, bad but survivable, or completely awful. And the odds of those consequences are based on the skill in either Diplomacy or Bluff, so they'll just choose whichever one is higher. So if you ignore the differences in skill ranks, confessing and lying have the same odds of producing really good, good, bad, and really bad consequences. The options are all equally good/bad in that sense, and all you have to do is determine which skill to use to give you the best chance for good results and the lowest chance for bad ones. It's a mathematical puzzle, period.

In a binary system, though, those consequences, whether they are benefits or drawbacks, exist independent of the die roll, and so players actually have to weigh their options carefully; odds of success are just one of several variables they have to consider when deciding what to do. Those kinds of decisions are where RP happens, so outsourcing the consequences to the die roll (even if those benefits/drawbacks are random instead of tied to the 'degree of success/failure' as I assume above) robs the players of that chance.

Does that make any more sense?

[1337 b4k4]

The yes/no and/but degrees of success/failure prompt interesting consequences, but in doing so they divorce those consequences from player agency. So as far as the players are concerned, the likelihood of facing negative consequences is based not on which choice they make, but how well they roll. So both confessing to the commander or lying to him have a chance of going totally well, not too bad, bad but survivable, or completely awful. And the odds of those consequences are based on the skill in either Diplomacy or Bluff, so they'll just choose whichever one is higher. So if you ignore the differences in skill ranks, confessing and lying have the same odds of producing really good, good, bad, and really bad consequences. The options are all equally good/bad in that sense, and all you have to do is determine which skill to use to give you the best chance for good results and the lowest chance for bad ones. It's a mathematical puzzle, period.

In a binary system, though, those consequences, whether they are benefits or drawbacks, exist independent of the die roll, and so players actually have to weigh their options carefully; odds of success are just one of several variables they have to consider when deciding what to do. Those kinds of decisions are where RP happens, so outsourcing the consequences to the die roll (even if those benefits/drawbacks are random instead of tied to the 'degree of success/failure' as I assume above) robs the players of that chance.


I'll be honest, I really don't get how you're reaching this conclusion. If you ignore the differences in skill ranks, confessing and lying have the same odds of producing good and bad results in a binary system too (whatever the default odds for an unmodified check are). If you're not ignoring the differences is skill, how are you players choosing to confess because Susan has a really high Diplomacy check, but no one in the party has good Bluff checks any different from the outcomes under "fail forward"?

[Stubbazubba]

Failing forward encourages cognitive (and thematic) approaches more than a simple binary pass / fail system does. With a binary pass fail system, your players will optimize for the choices which require the least number of rolls and the rolls in which they have the best bonuses, and thus the best chances to pass. With a failing forward system, it is possible to encourage your players to take less mathematically optimal courses because the results can be just as (or more) interesting.
[...]
In any case (pass/fail or fail forward), the players are going to choose the option for which they are best optimized.

Oh, well, then, why did you say they wouldn't a few lines above that?


If they have a lot of high CHA, high WIS characters, they're going to go with Tricking the Guards. If they have a lot of high STR, high CON, they're going for storming the Citadel and if they have high DEX, high INT, they're going for Sneaking in. Once they've made their choice though, fail forward can produce more interesting results that challenge the players to think on their feet. If they chose to sneak in, in a pass fail system (as is common in D&D today) a player who fails their sneak rolls has failed to sneak at all and thus has alerted the guards, prepare for a fight. In a fail forward system, the DM is encouraged to examine the situation as a whole. Your players chose sneaking in and might have a plan, how can you use that plan against them since they failed? Maybe a failed roll now means around the next corner they encounter a young child playing with a ball that lands at their feet. Do they take the ball and silence the child (possibly raising the alarm when the boy is discovered missing)? Do they run (and what does the boy do if they do)? Or do they charm the child and sneak away? How often do we see in movies the sneaking heroes smiling at the young boy, giving the boy his ball back and putting a finger to their lips as they pass by with a wink? How often do we see it in sneak checks in RPGs?

That's an awesome scene! But why wouldn't that initial optimization analysis also apply to what they do with the boy? Why, in the first instance, is optimization all they care about, when in the second all these consequences of their actions over which they have no direct control are at play? Note that the consequences of decisions that you put in parentheses are exactly what I am arguing make a binary system superior to one where those consequences are determined by the die roll in addition to the success of the actual action you're taking (e.g. silence the child, run, etc.)

It seems like the problem in this setup is that it is one of those "failure by attrition" setups. This can be solved by simply running a skill check (http://angrydm.com/2012/12/five-simple-rules-for-dating-my-teenaged-skill-system/) and/or encounter (http://angrydm.com/2013/07/how-to-build-awesome-encounters/) correctly.


I guess what I'm trying to get at is fail forward is less a replacement for binary pass fail, and more of an explicit statement of what and how a DM is supposed to run a skill check.

Relevant link. (http://angrydm.com/2012/12/five-simple-rules-for-dating-my-teenaged-skill-system/)


I'll be honest, I really don't get how you're reaching this conclusion. If you ignore the differences in skill ranks, confessing and lying have the same odds of producing good and bad results in a binary system too (whatever the default odds for an unmodified check are). If you're not ignoring the differences is skill, how are you players choosing to confess because Susan has a really high Diplomacy check, but no one in the party has good Bluff checks any different from the outcomes under "fail forward"?

Because the consequences of your chosen approach are (1) independent of the success of the roll, and (2) not limited to be equally positive or negative for you. You could roll a really high Bluff and convince the commander that you did everything in your power to save his brother-in-law when you didn't, and he would believe you, but that success has no effect on whether or not the lieutenant comes back and reveals you for the cowards you are. That is a huge risk that you would be taking, and you can't measure it. That makes it an actual decision, not a calculation.

[1337 b4k4]

Oh, well, then, why did you say they wouldn't a few lines above that?

Poor phrasing on my part. Your players will pick the option for which they are maximally optimized for, plus add in anything they know about the consequences of failure. If you run your games such that pass / fail is binary and game stopping until you pass, your players will always choose the most mathematically optimal solution since failure means no progress and trying a less optimal solution. If on the other hand you are known to apply thematically appropriate consequences to failures, even including allowing a small success for a greater consequence, then your players will be factoring that in as well. Their decision making will then include "what are the likely consequences if we fail or mess up? If we fail but continue to progress anyway, what is the likely looming consequences" vs "if we fail, we stop and have to try a different tactic or we don't progress". In that case, not only do their chances of success matter, but also their chances of failure. Is it better to fail a diplomacy check or a bluff check? If I have a 15 in 20 shot to succeed at a diplomacy check, but an 18 in 20 shot to succeed at bluffing, a binary system says that I should bluff because if I fail, I'm going to have to deal with that consequence and then roll diplomacy, and possibly have to deal with that consequence. A fail forward system allows for the possibility that because I could still succeed even with a diplomacy check failure (because hurt feelings don't necessarily mean not getting the immediate goal), but failure of the bluff might have bigger consequences. As an off the cuff example, if I'm negotiating for a reward from the king for the slaughter of an enemy that I have no proof of, a failed diplomacy check might still get me my reward, but get me kicked out for insulting the king, or it might reduce my reward. On the other hand, a failed bluff check might get me put in jail for defrauding the king, or get me into a fight right there ("OFF WITH HIS HEAD!"). So even though I have a better chance of succeeding at bluffing, I should probably use diplomacy since fail forward suggests I'll still get something and the consequences of failure might be less.




That's an awesome scene! But why wouldn't that initial optimization analysis also apply to what they do with the boy? Why, in the first instance, is optimization all they care about, when in the second all these other factors are at play?

They would, the trick is, fail forward can turn each failure into another skill check rather than into a rail road or a simple bad scenario.



It seems like the problem in this setup is that it is one of those "failure by attrition" setups. This can be solved by simply running a skill check (http://angrydm.com/2012/12/five-simple-rules-for-dating-my-teenaged-skill-system/) and/or encounter (http://angrydm.com/2013/07/how-to-build-awesome-encounters/) correctly.

Well, fail forward is essentially making every non trivial skill check a skill challenge or encounter and running it correctly. Which is exactly what a good DM is supposed to do, and exactly what the current D&D presentation of skills as binary succeed / no progress discourages. Realistically, fail forward is running a skill check correctly.



Note that the consequences of decisions that you put in parentheses are exactly what I am arguing make a binary system superior to one where those consequences are determined by the die roll in addition to the success of the actual action you're taking (e.g. silence the child, run, etc.)

But how do these consequences not also exist in a fail forward system? I'm not arguing that every skill should come with a list of pre-determined outcomes for various degrees of success (a la a 4e or 3e knowledge check). I'm arguing that the system should encourage the DM to look at a failure as a chance to throw a wrench in the players plans, even if that means the players still accomplish their immediate goal.


Because the consequences of your chosen approach are (1) independent of the success of the roll, and (2) not limited to be equally positive or negative for you. You could roll a really high Bluff and convince the commander that you did everything in your power to save his brother-in-law when you didn't, and he would believe you, but that success has no effect on whether or not the lieutenant comes back and reveals you for the cowards you are. That is a huge risk that you would be taking, and you can't measure it. That makes it an actual decision, not a calculation.

How does a fail forward system have any impact on whether or not the lieutenant comes back? Sure, in a fail forward system, that might be the consequence the DM chooses for failure, but it could also be something else entirely. It's possible the DM was planning on having the lieutenant come back anyway and failure just increased the speed at which he came back. Or maybe instead he's already returned and the captain is testing you. Again, I'm not seeing our disagreement.

Perhaps what would be best is if I laid out a scenario, and you tell me how you expect it to be resolved in a binary system and a fail forward system and how they're different (and please bear in mind, I agree that you can do the things fail forward encourages in a binary system, it's called being a good DM, my issue is the current rules don't encourage being a good DM).

The party has successfully infiltrated the castle. They're now before the child king, trying to persuade him that the advisor is really an evil sorcerer and is taking over the kingdom. The advisor is aware and is rushing to the keep with his minions to stop them. The party has some limited proof but it's weak. For relevant skills they have the following:

They can try diplomacy, convincing the king of their evidence and their sincerity. Best character 14:20 success

They can try bluffing the king, inflating the strength of their evidence. Best character 16:20 success

They can try intimidating the king, forcing him to give in to their demands with threats of violence, on the assumption that once the advisor is deposed, everything can be cleared up. Best character 15:20 success

They can wait to fight the advisor and his minions.

So for the sake of this discussion, how do you see this playing out under a fail forward system and under a binary system as you envision it. I'm not trying to play a "gotcha" game here. I really think that we're much closer to the same page than it appears, I just think there's some disconnect between our terms that we can't get past.

[Mewtarthio]

Does that make any more sense?

I can understand why you'd be opposed to that system, but I can't think of any system that actually works like that. There are systems that distinguish between "barely succeed" and "dramatically succeed," yes: That doesn't mean the entire direction of the plot contorts itself so that only good things come from a critical success.

Let's take your above example: The PCs abandoned the lieutenant to die (though unbeknownst to them, he's still alive) and have to explain themselves to the commander. If they use Diplomacy to apologize, then a success means the commander spares the PCs serious punishment, but they can still suffer some drawbacks. Maybe he refuses to trust them in the future or withholds a significant cut of their pay or something. A critical success could mean the captain is mollified and the PCs escape with some harsh words. Even on a complete failure, people are still capable of appreciating the PCs honesty*; the roll is about how well they present themselves to the captain. If they use Bluff to get out of it, degree of success may indicate how much effort the commander puts in to investigating their story (though the fact that they succeeded at all means he believes them enough that they can generally go about their business unmolested until he finds contradictory evidence). The lieutenant isn't retroactively slain by their critical success just to cover their tracks (nor is he resurrected on a partial success just to complicate things).

Of course, social rolls involve a lot of context, so let's take something simpler: A locked door. You're at a locked door, the goblin barracks are just down the hall, and you've only got an hour until the solar eclipse. What do you do?

You can, of course, smash the door down. On a critical success, you kick it down quickly. It's loud, so you've woken the goblins, but you've got a head start on them. On a partial success, it takes you several tries to break down the door; by the time you've got it open, the goblins are swarming the halls, hot on your heels! On a failure, the goblins are on top of you, and the door still hasn't budged. You'll just have to devote combat actions to breaking the thing, or else defeat the entire goblin horde so you can open it at your (relative) leisure.

You can also pick the lock. On a critical success, you get it open in fifteen minutes. Nobody heard you, but you'd better be quick to get to Sorcerer's Peak before the eclipse! On a partial success, you get it open in half an hour. Now you really have to leg it up the mountain! On a failure, your rogue is still cursing after half an hour. Time to do something drastic...

Lastly, you can summon a demon to teleport you straight to Sorcerer's Peak. On a critical success, he puts you right next to the circle of cultists. On a partial success, he puts you inside the circle of cultists. On a failure, he puts you a hundred feet above the circle of cultists.

As you can see, each approach has its own advantages and disadvantages. Degree of success matters, but it does not completely overwhelm every other factor. Picking the lock is slow, even on a critical success. Summoning a demon is fast, even on a failure. A critical success does not mean "You succeed and there are no negative consequences to your actions": It means "You get the best result you could reasonably get under the circumstances."

*Though, seriously, they disobeyed orders and abandoned a comrade to die; that hardly seems very honest.

[Lokiare]

It's important to remember that "failing forward" doesn't mean that sometimes straight up "no it doesn't happen" isn't an interesting outcome. It simply encourages DMs to make all outcomes interesting (and by extension, reduce the rolling for non interesting things). Working backwards through your post:

Yes, it is quite possible that "now all the guards are alerted" is interesting. But it's also possible it isn't. If you're having a long stealth / espionage quest, "oh no you failed, another battle!" is about as interesting as random encounters in a JRPG. They may serve a purpose (whittling down your resources) but that doesn't make them "interesting" either to you or your players. It's also not interesting if your DM hasn't planned another way for you to get in. Maybe (because they're an inexperienced DM) your DM has decided that this session was supposed to be about the party sneaking in, and if you don't sneak in, the game doesn't go anywhere. Failures which result in you failing to sneak in (as opposed to making sneaking in more costly, or more dangerous, or lose access to certain items) are uninteresting because the story stops progressing, and especially so if it isn't because you don't have sneaky characters, but because your party is just rolling poorly tonight.

Look at it this way, have you ever played a computer game where sneaking was part of a level, and every time you're caught, you fight a battle and if you survive you start the section over? If you're not getting through the section, it doesn't matter how tense the battles are, this is uninteresting because the price for failure is the same binary thing every time and your story has come to a halt.


As to cognitive vs mathematical approaches. Failing forward encourages cognitive (and thematic) approaches more than a simple binary pass / fail system does. With a binary pass fail system, your players will optimize for the choices which require the least number of rolls and the rolls in which they have the best bonuses, and thus the best chances to pass. With a failing forward system, it is possible to encourage your players to take less mathematically optimal courses because the results can be just as (or more) interesting. And remember that the DM's responsibility in a fail forward system is to take player actions and thought process into account. Let's go back to getting into the castle:

1) Trick the Guards
2) Storm the Citadel
3) Sneak in

In any case (pass/fail or fail forward), the players are going to choose the option for which they are best optimized. If they have a lot of high CHA, high WIS characters, they're going to go with Tricking the Guards. If they have a lot of high STR, high CON, they're going for storming the Citadel and if they have high DEX, high INT, they're going for Sneaking in. Once they've made their choice though, fail forward can produce more interesting results that challenge the players to think on their feet. If they chose to sneak in, in a pass fail system (as is common in D&D today) a player who fails their sneak rolls has failed to sneak at all and thus has alerted the guards, prepare for a fight. In a fail forward system, the DM is encouraged to examine the situation as a whole. Your players chose sneaking in and might have a plan, how can you use that plan against them since they failed? Maybe a failed roll now means around the next corner they encounter a young child playing with a ball that lands at their feet. Do they take the ball and silence the child (possibly raising the alarm when the boy is discovered missing)? Do they run (and what does the boy do if they do)? Or do they charm the child and sneak away? How often do we see in movies the sneaking heroes smiling at the young boy, giving the boy his ball back and putting a finger to their lips as they pass by with a wink? How often do we see it in sneak checks in RPGs?

And in the end, it doesn't mean your players can't fail to sneak in anyway, but it does encourage the DM not to hinge the entire concept of "sneaking in" on the mathematical chances of the players never blowing a stealth role, and more on the challenges to maintaining stealth that blowing such a role might entail. But in the end if they keep blowing roles, they can still be caught and discovered, it's just about having it all flow together better rather than be "you failed to sneak, now you must fight, you failed to fight, now you are in prison, or alternatively there is no fight, the guards overwhelm you and now you're in prison". And again, that option could be interesting, as long as the DM is willing to allow it to be interesting. If all it is though is simply starting over on the sneak checks or a temporary holding pattern until they can get back to sneaking and getting to the macguffin, then it may not be the most interesting option either.

Please note that I'm not saying you can't do stuff like this in binary pass fail, especially because every skill check boiled down to its minimum is a binary question (do I get what I want the way I want it or not). As I said before all of this stuff is what normally we call "good DMing", mixed with a bit of fudging. The problem is, the way the material has traditionally been presented, new DMs (and experienced ones) don't quite pick up on this. They see "failure means no progress" and they read it literally. The read "failure to sneak" as "fell down and made a lot of noise". Fail forward is less about always succeeding and more about evaluating the totality of the situation and making it so that "failure" can apply beyond the immediate concerns.

And finally, please note also that fail forward as a default doesn't completely preclude binary "you fail, your head asplode" stuff either. If your player insists on making a running leap across a 50 foot chasm with a 1 in 100 chance of success, they can still fail, and fall and die and you don't need to make up a "as you fall, you catch a vine and now you're dangling 100 feet down on a rapidly fraying vine" if you don't want. But as a DM it does allow you to have the flexibility to do this (without introducing "dirty" concepts like fudging). And in the end, it might just be more interesting to ask the players "what are you going to do about your buddy" rather than tell them "your buddy is dead, here's the nearest cleric who can cast reincarnation, and here's a blank character sheet. What do you want to do?"

I guess what I'm trying to get at is fail forward is less a replacement for binary pass fail, and more of an explicit statement of what and how a DM is supposed to run a skill check.

The problem with this is that its more unrealistic than the other approaches. If you roll bad enough there's a child in the way? So the child wouldn't exist if you rolled high enough? You are completely contorting the game world at the whim of the dice. At some point the players are going to realize this and act accordingly. "What happens now, does a dragon fall out of the sky and land on my forehead?"

Of course some DMs also aren't good at coming up with problems to throw in the way at a moments notice.

Even with your definition of failing forward I still subscribe to the angry DMs view. If the players can't really fail, you shouldn't have them roll, or you have them roll and on a failure, you tell them it will take a while to do this task, something bad might happen during that time, then you ask them if they want to continue. However this bad thing isn't something you just thought of. Its part of the game world and was a danger long before they decided to use a skill. As in the example of the locked door. Where the bad thing is the goblin patrols they've been avoiding up until this point. Basically the bad thing is emergent from the factors of a realistic game world, rather than made up or contorted on the spot. Its much more realistic.

As part of DMing you should never have any failure result in the adventure coming to a halt. There should always be another way to proceed. That's separate from whether you should use failing forward or binary skills. If you follow that DM advice then there is no problem with binary skills. If you fail your stealth rolls, you might have to fight a guard patrol. If you fail to stop the guard patrol, the citadel is alerted to your presence and more guard patrols will be searching for you. Not only is that interesting, its also entertaining. So a failure at a stealth check doesn't automatically end the adventure. It means you have to quickly knock out a set of guards and then hide the bodies and continue on your way. If you fail that, you have to make more stealth checks more often. Eventually you either knock out all the guards or successfully infiltrate and get the McGuffin. If you fail a stealth check in a binary skill system, there is nothing that says a guard on the balcony doesn't see you and later sets an ambush. That's not a property of the fail forward system. That's just the DM playing an NPC guard captain realistically.

Edit: As to what would work in a skill system, the only requirements I have is that it be realistic in that a complete noob at a skill that has no ranks or training and even has a negative ability modifier to that skill should not have a chance at succeeding at 'hard' checks and a master that is also a natural at a skill should never fail at a 'normal' or 'moderate' check in that skill unless there is outside interference. The complete noob should never be able to succeed at a check where a natural master can fail. I realize that means throwing bounded accuracy out the window or using a non-traditional approach, but that's what would be realistic to me.

[Kaisos Erranon]

No offense, but it's pretty funny how much you're obsessing over "realism" when you love 4th Edition to the extent that you've set up camp here specifically to complain about just how much Next isn't like 4th Edition.

I don't see anything wrong with a DM introducing new complications on the spot. Improvisation is an excellent skill for a DM to have... not every adventure has to actually be a realistically-designed, pre-planned world, it just has to feel like one for those on the other side of the DM screen.

[Lokiare]

No offense, but it's pretty funny how much you're obsessing over "realism" when you love 4th Edition to the extent that you've set up camp here specifically to complain about just how much Next isn't like 4th Edition.

No offense, but you don't know a thing about me. I view 4E as being 'realistic except as noted' where levels 1-10 is the edge of what is humanly possible with extreme training, 11-20 is what is possible when people exceed what most think as humanly possible (but is still relatively close), 21-30 is wuxia and mythic levels of character ability. I have not 'set up camp here to complain how much next isn't like 4E'. I've set up camp here because the moderators don't appear to have an aversion to the truth like on some forums. They don't automatically ban people that talk about the negative aspects of a system or mechanic. I've set up camp here to examine specific parts of 5E in order to see if I can get the same thing that 4E gave me, balanced tactical options on character creation and level up as well as during play, regardless of whether it duplicates any mechanics of 4E, which it doesn't. However it also doesn't offer balanced tactical options. Now that we are done addressing your personal attacks against me:


I don't see anything wrong with a DM introducing new complications on the spot. Improvisation is an excellent skill for a DM to have... not every adventure has to actually be a realistically-designed, pre-planned world, it just has to feel like one for those on the other side of the DM screen.

I have no problem with them doing that either. I just noted that not all DMs can do that, nor should they have to. Unfortunately unless you as a DM are pretty good at on the spot improvisation, fail forward just doesn't work that well. Even if you are, the players lose a sense of continuity and lose expectations of a realistic world. They start thinking that no matter what they can't fail and that it doesn't matter what course they choose, the train will continue down the railroad just at a slower pace. They lose the sense that they can affect things.

[Stubbazubba]

Is it better to fail a diplomacy check or a bluff check? If I have a 15 in 20 shot to succeed at a diplomacy check, but an 18 in 20 shot to succeed at bluffing, a binary system says that I should bluff because if I fail, I'm going to have to deal with that consequence and then roll diplomacy, and possibly have to deal with that consequence. A fail forward system allows for the possibility that because I could still succeed even with a diplomacy check failure (because hurt feelings don't necessarily mean not getting the immediate goal), but failure of the bluff might have bigger consequences. As an off the cuff example, if I'm negotiating for a reward from the king for the slaughter of an enemy that I have no proof of, a failed diplomacy check might still get me my reward, but get me kicked out for insulting the king, or it might reduce my reward. On the other hand, a failed bluff check might get me put in jail for defrauding the king, or get me into a fight right there ("OFF WITH HIS HEAD!"). So even though I have a better chance of succeeding at bluffing, I should probably use diplomacy since fail forward suggests I'll still get something and the consequences of failure might be less.

That is very close to what I described as independent consequences in a binary system. The only difference in my version is that if you are negotiating with the king for the reward, a failure means you don't get the reward, but other than that you have no long-term consequences because you didn't try anything fishy. Trying to defraud the king, as you said, carries greater consequences if you are discovered. But maybe you have a better shot at that because you can produce some falsified evidence (some other kind-of-similar-looking guy's head)? If that's the case, then you have to decide between low-risk, low-reward, or high-risk, high-reward. Of course if that's not the case, then there's little reason to try to bluff the king when you'd be no better off just asking him really nice. And that's fine. So the same calculus applies, it's just that I think actions should have clear intentions and success or failure pertain to those intentions directly. The independent consequences are a function of the chosen approach to achieve those intentions and are independent of the achievement.


Well, fail forward is essentially making every non trivial skill check a skill challenge or encounter and running it correctly. Which is exactly what a good DM is supposed to do, and exactly what the current D&D presentation of skills as binary succeed / no progress discourages. Realistically, fail forward is running a skill check correctly.

Read my link. At no point should a failed skill check mean "nothing happens."


But how do these consequences not also exist in a fail forward system? I'm not arguing that every skill should come with a list of pre-determined outcomes for various degrees of success (a la a 4e or 3e knowledge check). I'm arguing that the system should encourage the DM to look at a failure as a chance to throw a wrench in the players plans, even if that means the players still accomplish their immediate goal.

Why not just let the dice accurately predict success or failure and then throw a wrench in their plans because that's more interesting anyway?


How does a fail forward system have any impact on whether or not the lieutenant comes back?

I'm actually talking about something just left of fail forward in that post, and that is the Yes/No And/But mantra that is a very popular alternative. I think that's why we're not connecting. What you describe as fail forward is, like you said, pretty much just good DMing. However, I think success and failure being tied to the intent of an action and not blurring helps the integrity of the role play.

I'll get back to your scenario.

@Mewtarthio: Sure, if by degrees of success you mean exactly that, then that is one thing. I'm fine with doing more damage for each 5 or 10 I beat the AC by. But there are many games that put both success/failure and positive/negative consequences into the hands of the dice. SW: Edge of the Empire, for one. I think Burning Wheel might also be one? But I'm not positive on that one. Is it Dungeon World where you are assumed to succeed, you just roll to see what you have to sacrifice to do so? I've been out of the loop for a year or so, but there are a variety of games that include both success/fail and breadth of consequence in the dice mechanics themselves.

Furthermore, D&D groups roll the dice in skill checks way too often, as-is. Skill checks should have a very narrow application that revolves around break points in what is going on, not modeling individual attempts. Relevant link (http://angrydm.com/2012/12/five-simple-rules-for-dating-my-teenaged-skill-system/).

[Mewtarthio]

Is it Dungeon World where you are assumed to succeed, you just roll to see what you have to sacrifice to do so?

Dungeon World makes every roll a 2d6 (+whatever bonus you have). 10+ is a critical success, 7-9 is a marginal success, and 6- is a failure. A 10+ gets them what they want (within reason), a 7-9 gets them part of what they want or a drawback alongside what they want, and a 6- throws pain or complications their way without necessarily giving them what they want.

I think the problem is that you seem to think "fail forward" is applied universally. It's not. It's something to keep in mind, but if saying "no" doesn't halt the plot, then it's perfectly fine for players to just fail. You mentioned "fail forward" when negotiating with a king, for instance. In the example you used (the evil vizier is on his way right now!), failing forward is unnecessary. Ordinary failure already leads to a dramatic plot point: The vizier shows up with his minions, the king blabs your plans to him, the vizier says "Don't worry, friend; I'll deal with this myself," and pats him on the back with a knife, the minions sucker-punch the surprised guards (also with knives), and now you're in for it!

A better example of failing forward would be a situation where outright failure is uninteresting, either because it leads nowhere or because it leads to a very bad and anticlimactic ending. An example of the former would be a roll to use your underworld contacts to find the one they call "Sharkfang." An outright failure ("Nope, nobody's heard of this guy") is a waste of time. Failing forward would be more like "You suddenly become aware that every patron in the bar is armed. Perhaps not unreasonable, but now that they're all glaring at you, it feels a bit uncomfortable. A group in the corner moves aside, and a halfling emerges from them. When he smiles, you see rows of razor-sharp teeth. 'Looking for someone?' he asks." In short, they "succeed" in that they actually do end up closer to the goal, but they may wish they hadn't.

The other type of uninteresting failure is, say, a roll to get a plane started back up while you're plummeting to the ground. Failure means everyone dies. Assuming your group's not okay with that, failing forward is a more merciful alternative, letting them fail while still softening the blow a bit: "Well, you manage to get it started eventually, and level it out a bit, but you're too close to the ground to work out flying. You at least manage to turn a complete taildive into an inelegant crash landing. You all take ten damage, and now the plane's on fire."

[Stubbazubba]

I think the problem is that you seem to think "fail forward" is applied universally. It's not. It's something to keep in mind, but if saying "no" doesn't halt the plot, then it's perfectly fine for players to just fail. You mentioned "fail forward" when negotiating with a king, for instance. In the example you used (the evil vizier is on his way right now!), failing forward is unnecessary. Ordinary failure already leads to a dramatic plot point: The vizier shows up with his minions, the king blabs your plans to him, the vizier says "Don't worry, friend; I'll deal with this myself," and pats him on the back with a knife, the minions sucker-punch the surprised guards (also with knives), and now you're in for it!

That was not my example, but yes, I agree, the situation is already ripe for a total lack of workarounds because the PCs know they are on a timer and the premise includes that engaging failure state.


A better example of failing forward would be a situation where outright failure is uninteresting, either because it leads nowhere or because it leads to a very bad and anticlimactic ending. An example of the former would be a roll to use your underworld contacts to find the one they call "Sharkfang." An outright failure ("Nope, nobody's heard of this guy") is a waste of time. Failing forward would be more like "You suddenly become aware that every patron in the bar is armed. Perhaps not unreasonable, but now that they're all glaring at you, it feels a bit uncomfortable. A group in the corner moves aside, and a halfling emerges from them. When he smiles, you see rows of razor-sharp teeth. 'Looking for someone?' he asks." In short, they "succeed" in that they actually do end up closer to the goal, but they may wish they hadn't.

The problem with this scenario is that there's no break point in what's going on if you're just looking for a guy. If you have underworld contacts and Sharkfang is an underworld figure, and there is no time pressure, then yeah, you eventually just find him. There was no reason for that roll in the first place. I think most "halted progress" issues are really just a failure to realize that half the skill checks we make in the typical D&D game are outright unnecessary. Now, if you need to find Sharkfang before X happens, then you're back to the vizier situation; the premise already includes a nice failure state, which is "X happens." You should actually roll that check. But as presented? You should not be rolling. Seriously, read the link, it's brilliant.


The other type of uninteresting failure is, say, a roll to get a plane started back up while you're plummeting to the ground. Failure means everyone dies. Assuming your group's not okay with that, failing forward is a more merciful alternative, letting them fail while still softening the blow a bit: "Well, you manage to get it started eventually, and level it out a bit, but you're too close to the ground to work out flying. You at least manage to turn a complete taildive into an inelegant crash landing. You all take ten damage, and now the plane's on fire."

Other merciful alternatives include fudging die rolls and deus ex machina. Yes, if your group is unwilling to be wiped out in a plane accident, I would try to avoid this situation in the first place instead of trying to soften it afterwards. But in a pinch, sure, you do things like this when fun is at stake, but it's no better an alternative than a deus ex machina or a fudged roll, because that is essentially what it is.

[cfalcon]

Nothing to add, just that I really like where the thread is at the moment!

[Mewtarthio]

The problem with this scenario is that there's no break point in what's going on if you're just looking for a guy. If you have underworld contacts and Sharkfang is an underworld figure, and there is no time pressure, then yeah, you eventually just find him. There was no reason for that roll in the first place. I think most "halted progress" issues are really just a failure to realize that half the skill checks we make in the typical D&D game are outright unnecessary. Now, if you need to find Sharkfang before X happens, then you're back to the vizier situation; the premise already includes a nice failure state, which is "X happens." You should actually roll that check. But as presented? You should not be rolling. Seriously, read the link, it's brilliant.

Right, I was assuming the player went looking for Sharkfang on his own initiative. If it's more of a "So the guards think Sharkfang's responsible? What do my contacts know about this guy?" situation, then I'd agree, there's no need to roll. In this case, though, I meant something more like "Right, I'm going to hit up my contacts and find out who this guy is, where he lives, who his parents are... If he's so much as looked at someone in the past year, I want a full dossier!"; in that case, it's reasonable to assume that Sharkfang has contacts of his own who'll alert him to the player's interest, so the roll becomes "Can you find Sharkfang before he finds you?"

(I suppose your counterargument is that if you'd defined the roll as a race against Sharkfang from the start, you wouldn't need to fail forward. This is totally valid. Still, nobody's perfect.)


Other merciful alternatives include fudging die rolls and deus ex machina. Yes, if your group is unwilling to be wiped out in a plane accident, I would try to avoid this situation in the first place instead of trying to soften it afterwards. But in a pinch, sure, you do things like this when fun is at stake, but it's no better an alternative than a deus ex machina or a fudged roll, because that is essentially what it is.

In this case, though, a failed roll does still hit them with consequences. A fudged roll or deus ex machina makes the actual roll irrelevant. Failing forward means you still [i]fail[//i], it's just that you do so in a way that keeps the game moving.

(Again, I realize that if you'd said "Yeah, you can get it started. Roll to see if you can manage anything better than a crash landing" from the start, you wouldn't need to fail forward. Failing forward is more of a philosophy: Make sure every failure is interesting. If you already define your rolls so that failure is interesting, you won't need to fail forward. Still, maybe you're a new GM, or maybe you thought the failure state was "everyone has to bail out before the plane crashes" before realizing the Wizard didn't know Feather Fall. Think of failing forward as a backup tool to keep in your box, just in case.)

[1337 b4k4]

The problem with this is that its more unrealistic than the other approaches. If you roll bad enough there's a child in the way? So the child wouldn't exist if you rolled high enough? You are completely contorting the game world at the whim of the dice. At some point the players are going to realize this and act accordingly. "What happens now, does a dragon fall out of the sky and land on my forehead?"

The consequence must still logically extend from the circumstances. So no, unless you're in a battle with dragons flying about and falling from the sky, no dragons will be falling and landing on your head for a failed roll. The point is not that the child materializes out of thin air (even if they may not have been in the DMs notes or plans before) but that a part of the world that we normally gloss over and don't worry about suddenly becomes an interaction or complication because you failed to accomplish your goal. It's only unrealistic if you assume that the only things that ever exist in the game world are things meant for the PCs to interact with or avoid. Otherwise it's perfectly realistic to interpret a failure on a sneak roll to mean that even though your master thief has all the guards routes mapped out and all the shadows known and has his boots of super silence and is indeed eluding the guards, that a small child (perhaps a child of the party goers) went chasing after his ball at just the right moment as your thief was making his move and is now something your thief has to deal with in one way or another. I mean, after all that's what we're rolling dice for right? To adjudicate the result of an uncertain event including all of the unknowns?

It's not like we don't do this sort of stuff already. We add environmental pluses and minuses all the time, and DMs have secret modifiers for things the players don't know about. Skill checks are never pure measures of raw skill, they've always been a resolution of a (more or less appropriate) skill vs nature, man and random chance. Random chance includes there being a child where you didn't expect. Or a guard turning around at just the wrong time.



Even with your definition of failing forward I still subscribe to the angry DMs view. If the players can't really fail, you shouldn't have them roll, or you have them roll and on a failure, you tell them it will take a while to do this task, something bad might happen during that time, then you ask them if they want to continue. However this bad thing isn't something you just thought of. Its part of the game world and was a danger long before they decided to use a skill. As in the example of the locked door. Where the bad thing is the goblin patrols they've been avoiding up until this point. Basically the bad thing is emergent from the factors of a realistic game world, rather than made up or contorted on the spot. Its much more realistic.

Fail forward neither means that you can't fail or that the bad thing isn't emergent from the game world. Seriously, do you not read anything other people say to you?



As part of DMing you should never have any failure result in the adventure coming to a halt. There should always be another way to proceed. That's separate from whether you should use failing forward or binary skills. If you follow that DM advice then there is no problem with binary skills.

Which if you note, is nothing different from what I've said, nor what fail forward proscribes. Fail forward can apply to a binary success system. The problem is, binary success in D&D has been consistently defined (and currently is in 5e) as "No progress is made on a failure". That is uninteresting most of the time.


The complete noob should never be able to succeed at a check where a natural master can fail. I realize that means throwing bounded accuracy out the window or using a non-traditional approach, but that's what would be realistic to me.

Then you know nothing about realism. The fact is, there is almost NOTHING in this universe that a complete noob can succeed at where a master can't fail. Pick any skill and I can find you a master that has made a complete noob blunder and screwed it all up. It's part of being human. We roll the dice to adjudicate more than pure skill, we roll it to also adjudicate random chance, because the game is more fun if you have a chance to miss. If the master is always supposed to be succeeding, then you shouldn't be rolling dice in the first place.



I have no problem with them doing that either. I just noted that not all DMs can do that, nor should they have to.

They can and they must as a prerequisite of being the DM in a D&D type game. To paraphrase a general, no plotline or plan survives first contact with the players. Your players will always do something or go somewhere you didn't plan or account for. In order to be a good DM you must learn to improvise, to extrapolate from the logical consequences of the world and to present reasonable outcomes to your players for the choices that they make, and the rolls that they make even if you don't have a pre made plan for it.


They start thinking that no matter what they can't fail and that it doesn't matter what course they choose, the train will continue down the railroad just at a slower pace. They lose the sense that they can affect things.

This is not failing forward. Again, please read what you have been told and the links you've been provided. For that matter, read up on Dungeon World.


That is very close to what I described as independent consequences in a binary system. The only difference in my version is that if you are negotiating with the king for the reward, a failure means you don't get the reward, but other than that you have no long-term consequences because you didn't try anything fishy.

But there's no reason it has to. There's no reason that a failure on the diplomacy roll can't mean a lesser reward, or a reward with strings or a reward with an assassination bounty on your head because the king you insulted the king with your negotiations and he's a vengeful king. The reason this is so is because the roll isn't a "get the exact reward money or else go home broke" roll, it's a roll to use your diplomatic skills to get the result you want, which is "getting the exact reward (or more) and move on with no trouble", the loss of any single aspect of that can still be a failure. That is to say any roll has an intent (getting your full reward and moving on), and many times that intent is larger than the immediate concern (getting the reward). The fail forward philosophy asks DMs to consider the full intent of the roll, and realize that failure comes in more ways than just the obvious ones.



Read my link. At no point should a failed skill check mean "nothing happens."


Agreed, which is what the fail forward idea espouses.



Why not just let the dice accurately predict success or failure and then throw a wrench in their plans because that's more interesting anyway?


There's nothing about failing forward that suggests you should do otherwise.



However, I think success and failure being tied to the intent of an action and not blurring helps the integrity of the role play.

And I'm arguing intent stretches beyond the immediate concerns.



Furthermore, D&D groups roll the dice in skill checks way too often, as-is. Skill checks should have a very narrow application that revolves around break points in what is going on, not modeling individual attempts. Relevant link (http://angrydm.com/2012/12/five-simple-rules-for-dating-my-teenaged-skill-system/).

You will not get an argument from me on this point. Unfortunately, there is a rather noticeable contingent of players who have trust issues with their DM and who feel that if they have skill X written down on their character sheet, that any time the DM says something about their characters success in a topic related to that skill and doesn't allow a roll is overriding their agency as a player. There's also the fact that it can be dissatisfying to tie the entire success of failure of a complicated system with moving parts (disguising the party, getting together catering carts and sneaking past the guards) with a single roll of a single player's single skill. And the same problem exists for the auto success issues. See previous discussions over whether the DM should require the barbarian to roll to arm wrestle a peasant and why if he doesn't the enemy dragon should have to roll to pin the barbarian.

Frankly I think this problem could be solved by discouraging the idea that skill rolls are supposed to be representative and map to actual physical actions as opposed to a totality of circumstances coming together to result in a moment of uncertainty.



Other merciful alternatives include fudging die rolls and deus ex machina. Yes, if your group is unwilling to be wiped out in a plane accident, I would try to avoid this situation in the first place instead of trying to soften it afterwards. But in a pinch, sure, you do things like this when fun is at stake, but it's no better an alternative than a deus ex machina or a fudged roll, because that is essentially what it is.

Again, I think it helps to remember that fail forward is not a specific proscription for a set of things to do, but a reminder to the DM to be continually examining the totality of the situation. We see it often in threads where DMs ask "what should I do" after getting themselves painted into a corner over some circumstance and now their players are on the verge of a TPK and it really wasn't the DMs intent (or the players intent) to wind up there. The problem often stems from the DM (and the players) being a bit to literal and narrow focused for the intent of their rolls. Fail forward as standard advice tries to keep the DM (and the players) thinking beyond just the immediate concerns, so that if your players are unwilling to be wiped out in a plane accident, you are thinking of other outcomes to a failed "pilot" check than just "you fail to fly and crash"


I suppose your counterargument is that if you'd defined the roll as a race against Sharkfang from the start, you wouldn't need to fail forward. This is totally valid. Still, nobody's perfect.

...

Again, I realize that if you'd said "Yeah, you can get it started. Roll to see if you can manage anything better than a crash landing" from the start, you wouldn't need to fail forward. Failing forward is more of a philosophy: Make sure every failure is interesting. If you already define your rolls so that failure is interesting, you won't need to fail forward. Still, maybe you're a new GM, or maybe you thought the failure state was "everyone has to bail out before the plane crashes" before realizing the Wizard didn't know Feather Fall. Think of failing forward as a backup tool to keep in your box, just in case.

This is actually a really important point that I'd like to emphasize. I've said before that failing forward is really nothing revolutionary beyond what good DMing really is, and it's true. Fail forward as a philosophy (and as GM advice) recognizes that we're humans, imperfect, flawed and prone to failure humans. It acknowledges that we don't always phrase our skill checks properly, it acknowledges we don't always set up the scenario just right, and it acknowledges that our previous actions can have unintended consequences. It's a reminder to the DM that you don't have to be limited to the initial problem statement if it was a flawed problem statement.

[Stubbazubba]

But there's no reason it has to. There's no reason that a failure on the diplomacy roll can't mean a lesser reward, or a reward with strings or a reward with an assassination bounty on your head because the king you insulted the king with your negotiations and he's a vengeful king. The reason this is so is because the roll isn't a "get the exact reward money or else go home broke" roll, it's a roll to use your diplomatic skills to get the result you want, which is "getting the exact reward (or more) and move on with no trouble", the loss of any single aspect of that can still be a failure. That is to say any roll has an intent (getting your full reward and moving on), and many times that intent is larger than the immediate concern (getting the reward). The fail forward philosophy asks DMs to consider the full intent of the roll, and realize that failure comes in more ways than just the obvious ones.

Again, that ties the consequences to your performance: If I roll really well, the vengeful king won't put a bounty on my head.* That's a risk you should be taking when you negotiate with a vengeful king regardless of how well you roll, isn't it? If not, then all risk is mitigated by simply having higher numbers, and all decisions boil down to "which has the highest modifier?" Because you can always define your full intent as "all the good things, none of the bad." And your ability to get that result requires no thought on your part, just high numbers. I don't like that.

*a result which makes no sense in the first place; if the king doesn't like me, he'd just throw me out or kill me in his audience chamber, wouldn't he?


And I'm arguing intent stretches beyond the immediate concerns.

Intent and hope are not the same thing. Of course the full intent of every single roll is "I want things to go swimmingly." But if full success means no negative consequences, you no longer have to weigh any actual options, because the optimal answer is always "whichever skill gives me the best chance of avoiding all/most of the negative consequences." That's why Intent should be interpreted narrowly and very concretely, and consequences beyond that narrow intent are independent factors you have to weigh non-numerically. Otherwise decisions are meaningless, you're just following your skill rank carrot through the DM's story.


This is actually a really important point that I'd like to emphasize. I've said before that failing forward is really nothing revolutionary beyond what good DMing really is, and it's true. Fail forward as a philosophy (and as GM advice) recognizes that we're humans, imperfect, flawed and prone to failure humans. It acknowledges that we don't always phrase our skill checks properly, it acknowledges we don't always set up the scenario just right, and it acknowledges that our previous actions can have unintended consequences. It's a reminder to the DM that you don't have to be limited to the initial problem statement if it was a flawed problem statement.

Yes, every group will have a different threshold for how much failure they can enjoy, and DMs should be sensitive to that. That is a basic principle of DMing, not a new philosophy.

"Failing forward" is, I think, distinct from the idea of mitigating failure for OOC reasons. The justification of "failing forward" is not "We must do this or else our players will mutiny," it's "the specific consequences don't matter as much as keeping the narrative momentum moving, so we do the latter with just a bit of guidance from the former." It's supposed to be more fun for certain tables, and I agree that it can be for people who want to experience/observe an interesting story more than they want to really step into their character's head and face the dilemmas that they face. For me, I don't want to abdicate my ethical or survival quandaries to a die roll, I want those die rolls to be narrow, and the context of them to be broad and, in the end, more meaningful than the die roll itself. I want my choice to knock the guard out instead of bluffing or sneaking past to matter, regardless of how well I ended up rolling for the action. Binary success/fail with limited intent and independent benefits/drawbacks allows my decisions to impact the story more than just my numbers.

[Mewtarthio]

Again, that ties the consequences to your performance: If I roll really well, the vengeful king won't put a bounty on my head.* That's a risk you should be taking when you negotiate with a vengeful king regardless of how well you roll, isn't it? If not, then all risk is mitigated by simply having higher numbers, and all decisions boil down to "which has the highest modifier?" Because you can always define your full intent as "all the good things, none of the bad." And your ability to get that result requires no thought on your part, just high numbers. I don't like that.

That example was about failure. Nobody is saying that a success (even a critical/stylish/10+/what-have-you success) gets you everything you want. What 1337's saying is that a failure does not get you everything you want.

[1337 b4k4]

Again, that ties the consequences to your performance: If I roll really well, the vengeful king won't put a bounty on my head.* That's a risk you should be taking when you negotiate with a vengeful king regardless of how well you roll, isn't it? If not, then all risk is mitigated by simply having higher numbers, and all decisions boil down to "which has the highest modifier?" Because you can always define your full intent as "all the good things, none of the bad." And your ability to get that result requires no thought on your part, just high numbers. I don't like that.

Why should it require no thought on your part? The fact that you're negotiating with the vengeful king (a choice you had and a decision you made) has put you at risk of the vengeful king's vengeance if you fail your diplomacy roll. You certainly could avoid the consequence of a vengeful king by avoiding the diplomacy route entirely. The point is that the entirety of a particular intent is included in "success". The only other option is every skill check is for a very narrow and specific outcome and plays out something like this:

DM: You stand before Chucky the Petulant, your bounty papers in hand. He looks at you as if you were something the dog puked on the floor.
PC: I tell him I have slain the jabberwock, and ask for the reward.
DM: Roll diplomacy to see if the king believes you and is willing to give you the full reward.
PC: *roll*
DM: You have succeeded and gain the full reward.
DM: The king is also a vengeful king, roll diplomacy to see if in the process of negotiation you offend him.
PC: *roll*
DM: You have failed and offended the king.
PC: Can a roll to see if I can recover or at least leave in peace never to return?
DM: Sure, roll diplomacy to see if you can recover.
PC: *roll*
DM: You have failed and it is impossible to recover from your gaffe, roll diplomacy to see if you successfully beg for your life.
PC: *roll*
DM: You have succeeded. The king advises you to leave the kingdom and never return on pain of death.

Failing forward acknowledges that most of the time, we wrap a lot of these individual checks into a single roll. If you play out your games with very narrow individual rolls for every skill then sure, failing forward probably doesn't do a whole lot for you. But most gamers that I've known subsume a lot of smaller ideas and intents into single rolls, mostly because unless they're really interested in breaking it down into round by round diplomacy, most players don't want to spend 10 or 15 rolls wrapping up their adventure. Of course, you also don't need fail forward if you don't roll at all in the above scenario and success or failure is based entirely on how well you role play, then mathematics doesn't enter into it at all. And none of these are bad options, or invalid ways of playing D&D, but in my experience, most players fall in the middle of the spectrum, with roll play in everything other than combat setting up the preparations, planning and execution and one or two rolls representing the uncertainty and determining whether the whole thing was successful or not. For these players, a set of rules which encourages good DMing (which we've already agreed is exactly what "fail forward" espouses) is better than "failure means no progress".



*a result which makes no sense in the first place; if the king doesn't like me, he'd just throw me out or kill me in his audience chamber, wouldn't he?

Only if you assume the king is also capricious. The king may not like you, but if in the process of your interactions you don't offend him, he has no reason to throw you in the jail if you have indeed don't the kingdom a service.

Sorry on re-reading it appears you mean that the result of placing a bounty is illogical compared to simply jailing you or killing you on the spot. Perhaps the king is maintaining a charade of benevolence in his court. He is vengeful but secretly so. He doesn't get rid of his enemies by killing them in court or putting them in jail. That's too crude and obvious. He forges crimes after you leave and are unable to defend yourself. He places bounties, declaring you to have been found guilty and are a fugitive from justice, knowing that the local mercenaries are more apt to collect your head than deal with a hostage. Who knows, it was an of the cuff example.


Intent and hope are not the same thing. Of course the full intent of every single roll is "I want things to go swimmingly." But if full success means no negative consequences, you no longer have to weigh any actual options, because the optimal answer is always "whichever skill gives me the best chance of avoiding all/most of the negative consequences." That's why Intent should be interpreted narrowly and very concretely, and consequences beyond that narrow intent are independent factors you have to weigh non-numerically. Otherwise decisions are meaningless, you're just following your skill rank carrot through the DM's story.


Full success doesn't mean no negative consequences, it means you get the result you're aiming for in the intent of the action. You can get what you want and still have negative consequences, see also being careful what you wish for. But I don't want to do pixel bitching with my players either. When they speak with the king and say they're going to use diplomacy to ask for their reward, I assume unless they say otherwise that they intend to do so diplomatically, which includes observing proper protocol in as much as they can and not spitting on the floor and opining about the king's sexual proclivities. So success means they negotiate for their reward and do so in a diplomatic way. Failure though (under fail forward) means that I don't have to simply deny my players their reward. They might get it, but now they've made an enemy because they failed to be diplomatic, that is, they failed at their chosen skill. The skill wasn't "getting rewards" it was "diplomacy". But even if they succeed, that doesn't mean there are no negative consequences. Perhaps the king's money is cursed. Perhaps leaving the castle with jingling pockets is something that grabs the attention of local thieves. The intent of the diplomatic action doesn't extend to intending that throughout all of history the king has never made any enemies. It doesn't extend to properly securing their treasures such that no one outside knows they're suddenly much richer.

[Stubbazubba]

That example was about failure. Nobody is saying that a success (even a critical/stylish/10+/what-have-you success) gets you everything you want. What 1337's saying is that a failure does not get you everything you want.

Then what, pray tell, does a success get? Also not everything you want? Why did you roll, then?

And I'm not convinced "nobody is saying that a success gets you everything you want."


The reason this is so is because the roll isn't a "get the exact reward money or else go home broke" roll, it's a roll to use your diplomatic skills to get the result you want, which is "getting the exact reward (or more) and move on with no trouble", the loss of any single aspect of that can still be a failure. That is to say any roll has an intent (getting your full reward and moving on), and many times that intent is larger than the immediate concern (getting the reward).

That sounds like "all of the good stuff, none of the bad" to me. If that's "success," then yeah, I guess "only" getting 1/2 of the reward is a pretty colossal failure, but considering you don't really have the evidence to support getting any reward, I would actually count that as a kind of success. You have to measure these things by the change in the status quo they accomplish, not just by whatever arbitrary goalposts the PCs set. You have no evidence that you completed the deed, ergo the king has no reason to give you any reward. Changing that status quo to any degree is a success. What the king thinks of you for speaking pretty at him while you got money from him is independent of your success in getting money from him.


Why should it require no thought on your part? The fact that you're negotiating with the vengeful king (a choice you had and a decision you made) has put you at risk of the vengeful king's vengeance if you fail your diplomacy roll.Yes, exactly! All the associated consequences are tied to how well I roll, therefore I will avoid the greatest # of consequences if I go for whichever skill is higher! That's not a decision, it's a calculation.


The only other option is every skill check is for a very narrow and specific outcome and plays out something like this:

No, you don't just roll for every single possibility. You have a status quo; the player wants to change said status quo by their character's actions. You roll to adjudicate the success of their efforts, not just to see if some random thing happens to them.

DM: You stand before Chucky the Petulant, your bounty papers in hand. He looks at you as if you were something the dog puked on the floor.
PC: I tell him I have slain the jabberwock, and ask for the reward.
DM: The full reward? That'll be a hard sell just going on your word. He might not take it very well. You sure you don't want to shoot for something a little humbler?
PC: Nah, I've got a super-high diplomacy, I think I can pull it off.
DM: You realize that your audacity will not be mitigated by your silver tongue, right?
PC: Worse comes to worst, I can send some hookers and blow his way later, that should smooth it over. I want that reward!
DM: *Sigh*, this is why I refuse to donate to your city council campaign.
PC: What?
DM: Roll diplomacy to see if the king believes you and is willing to give you the full reward.
PC: *roll*
DM: The king asks what kind of fool you think he is. He raises his arm and the guards level their crossbows at you. He orders you out of his domain, and warns that if you are ever seen in his borders again, it'll be your family and friends that suffer first, and then you. He must not know that you have no family and friends.
PC: I want to talk my way out of this.
DM: Oh, boy. What's your plan?
PC: I offer him hookers and blow.
DM: A bribe? Well, Chucky is a bit of a hedonist. OK, roll diplomacy to see if you can ameliorate him with, uh, goods.
PC: *roll*
DM: The king seems pleased. He tells the guards to escort you to where you keep your, ahem, penance tax, and that if you're trying anything funny they will chop off your hands and feet and throw you into the rancor pit for his amusement.
PC: Sweet, I have that Protection from Rancors wand lying around here somewhere.
DM: *facepalm*

You took a high-risk, high-reward shot and lost, so you certainly don't get a consolation prize. Because this is Chucky the Petulant you feel his wrath. He would have threatened you if you had succeeded, too ("If I so much as have a good reason to think you've deceived me, it'll be your family and friends..."). If this were not Chucky the Petulant but Caesar the Long-suffering, you might get another chance to go for a lower reward even if you fail. Heck, if you had gone for a humbler reward due to your lack of evidence (and failed) Chuckles might have just dismissed you without banishment.

But once there's a new status quo, you can again try to change it. In this case, it worked. But the king's opinion of you should not be determined by how convincing you are that you deserve the reward, but by the things you try to get away with in his court and, of course, his personality.


Failing forward acknowledges that most of the time, we wrap a lot of these individual checks into a single roll.

It wasn't your failure at diplomacy that offended him, it was your asking for the full reward on your word alone, and that didn't take a die roll, it was a PC decision to role-play a very brash character. There is no check to see if you offend him, not in anyone's game. Making up die rolls to determine every random factor of a social encounter is a bad idea no matter what, but it also has nothing to do with binary vs. degrees of success or fail forward.


For these players, a set of rules which encourages good DMing (which we've already agreed is exactly what "fail forward" espouses) is better than "failure means no progress".

I think "fail forward" espouses a lot more than just not turning social situations into stupidly convoluted, randomly-determined outcomes that have nothing to do with the obvious original intent of the character. I can agree with the latter without agreeing with the former.


Full success doesn't mean no negative consequences, it means you get the result you're aiming for in the intent of the action.

This doesn't square with what you said earlier, about the full intent of the action being "getting a full reward (or more), and going on your way without issues." But even this one sentence of yours doesn't make sense. If I'm aiming for a magical Christmas outcome (the king gives me 110% of the reward and bears me no ill will whatsoever), and I get a full success, where are the negative consequences? Sure thieves might be interested in me, but that has nothing to do with my interaction with the king, and no one is saying that all of a sudden the game should become a walk in candyland because you rolled one full success. I'm talking about your interaction with the king: if you fail and the king still gives you the reward but puts a bounty on your head (I accept the justifications you listed for this, btw), vs. you succeed and get the reward but something bad might happen to you anyway (because it's a game and that's how things stay interesting), then what was the point of succeeding or failing in the first place? I mean sure, the DM might be prompted to make the next encounter about assassins or bounty hunters on your tail since it came from this, but there's nothing stopping a DM in a binary game from doing that, too, where success and failure actually mean succeeding and failing in the PC's attempted action.

I don't see what your concept of failing forward achieves that a paragraph or two of instruction to DMs wouldn't. Heck, with failing forward you might have to use those two paragraphs to instruct DMs how not to fall into silly failing forward pitfalls, anyway. But keeping success and failure binary, with consequences based on the choice of approach (not the outcome), leaves a whole lot more room for role-playing, because your choices directly lead to consequences that you will face, instead of consequences just accompanying the obligatory consolation prize when you "fail." Because if a failed check means you succeed but with complications/consequences, and a success means you succeed without them, then I can avoid all the interesting consequences simply by choosing the best skills. If a failed check means you succeed but with complications/consequences, and a success also means you succeed with complications/consequences, then the rolls are kind of meaningless, aren't they?

[Lokiare]

Just a note about skill use. In all editions of D&D, the Diplomacy skill does not work like mind control. It makes the target friendlier to you, when you. What you say is still based on the role play of the character. For instance:

Player: Rolls diplomacy successfully with the knight "Good, sir, knight, Would you accompany us on this quest?"

NPC Knight: "Alas, brave adventurers the king forbids me to enter the woods of haunted evil. I cannot."


vs.


Player: Rolls diplomacy and fails with the knight "Good, sir, knight, Would you accompany us on this quest?"

NPC Knight: "Hardly knaves, your uncouth words, offend mine ears. Besides the king has forbidden it. Begone with you."


Now sometimes this might mean someone bordering on helping might do so, but in the majority of cases the role play determines what happens and the dice simply determine the mood.

The other skill in question is Bluff. Bluff only determines whether they believe your lies:

Player: Rolls a successful bluff check "We'll drop you in the pit of vipers over there if you don't start answering our questions!"

NPC Well Trained Hobgoblin Spy "Do what you will, I won't speak. Whatever you do to me won't be half as bad as what Tyranthraxus will do to me!"

In this case the Hobgoblin spy completely believed what the players said, but was still unwilling to answer their questions. Its a fundamental misunderstanding of how skills work in every edition of D&D.

[1337 b4k4]

Changing that status quo to any degree is a success. What the king thinks of you for speaking pretty at him while you got money from him is independent of your success in getting money from him.

This is clearly untrue in any real world interaction. Since in the real world we usually interact with people (and government) on more than one occasion, how we go about accomplishing the immediate goals of a particular interaction even if we're successful at it, can have profound (and negative) impacts on our relationship and further interactions. This is the very concept behind customer service and retention. Once can successfully gain their reward from the king, but in doing so offend the king such that they are banished to never return. A change in the status quo that is clearly a negative, and a failure on the part of any bounty hunting party. On the other hand, you can simply get your reward, changing nothing at all about the status quo except that you now have money. On the gripping hand, you could get your reward and entertain the king so much with your tales of heroism that your party is invited to the next royal ball as guests of the king. A change in the status quo that is clearly a success beyond dreams.

I guess, here's a question that might help. I know that critical/nat20 successes for skills are not in the D&D rules, but most gaming groups I've encountered use them, or allow bonuses for doing well on a skill check. Do you never grant your characters a critical success on a skill? They do so well, on something that you give them more than they immediately desired? If you do, why is it such a problem that they might be able to fail a roll, but still get some part of what they were after? If you don't, well I guess that explains the whole disconnect. You never give more or less than exactly what is declared as wager when the dice are rolled. That's cool don't get me wrong, but I think it's sort of major league DMing, and while we shouldn't be writing the rules for T-Ball league, we should at least be recognizing that not everyone who picks up the book will be starting in the majors. We should tell them how to play big league, but we should give them tools they can use until they get there.


Yes, exactly! All the associated consequences are tied to how well I roll, therefore I will avoid the greatest # of consequences if I go for whichever skill is higher! That's not a decision, it's a calculation.

Which is exactly what your players do with a binary system too. Look at your immediately following example: "I've got a super-high diplomacy, I think I can pull it off". Your player made a mathematical decision, weighing the likelihood of a negative outcome against the likelihood of a positive one and chose the action for which they had the greatest chance of getting what they wanted. If their diplomacy was bad, they would have made a different decision to avoid the consequences associated with rolling poorly on diplomacy.




DM: You stand before Chucky the Petulant, your bounty papers in hand. He looks at you as if you were something the dog puked on the floor.
PC: I tell him I have slain the jabberwock, and ask for the reward.
DM: The full reward? That'll be a hard sell just going on your word. He might not take it very well. You sure you don't want to shoot for something a little humbler?
PC: Nah, I've got a super-high diplomacy, I think I can pull it off.
DM: You realize that your audacity will not be mitigated by your silver tongue, right?
PC: Worse comes to worst, I can send some hookers and blow his way later, that should smooth it over. I want that reward!
DM: *Sigh*, this is why I refuse to donate to your city council campaign.
PC: What?
DM: Roll diplomacy to see if the king believes you and is willing to give you the full reward.
PC: *roll*
[COLOR=#000000]DM: The king asks what kind of fool you think he is. He raises his arm and the guards level their crossbows at you. He orders you out of his domain, and warns that if you are ever seen in his borders again, it'll be your family and friends that suffer first, and then you. He must not know that you have no family and friends.
PC: I want to talk my way out of this.
DM: Oh, boy. What's your plan?
PC: I offer him hookers and blow.
DM: A bribe? Well, Chucky is a bit of a hedonist. OK, roll diplomacy to see if you can ameliorate him with, uh, goods.
PC: *roll*
DM: The king seems pleased. He tells the guards to escort you to where you keep your, ahem, penance tax, and that if you're trying anything funny they will chop off your hands and feet and throw you into the rancor pit for his amusement.
PC: Sweet, I have that Protection from Rancors wand lying around here somewhere.
DM: *facepalm*


Just to highlight, this is a fantastic example of another way to be a good DM. Inform your players of the risks and rewards and let them make an informed decision. But you also described a perfect example of failing forward. It would be equally valid for the DM to have said "The king says no", and let it at that, after all, failure means no progress. But you failed forward, you put the player in a spot (threatened with execution, ordered out) and gave the player a new scenario based on their failure that was interesting. In fact, your example was a perfect example of the "No, and..." scenario. Your player wanted all the gold, the DM said "no, and now the king is threatening you and kicking you out"


You took a high-risk, high-reward shot and lost, so you certainly don't get a consolation prize. Because this is Chucky the Petulant you feel his wrath.

Fail forward isn't about consolation prizes. You can give them as part of failing forward to be sure, but it's not necessary.


He would have threatened you if you had succeeded, too ("If I so much as have a good reason to think you've deceived me, it'll be your family and friends...").

Sure, but he might not have too. Maybe the king is instead amused at your audacity. If you as a DM have already made these decisions (that no matter the outcome, the king will threaten the PCs) that's fine. But if you haven't, or if you're not sure, the success and failure of your players and the various paths they take to accomplishing that success or failure can give you plenty of fodder to work from too.


But the king's opinion of you should not be determined by how convincing you are that you deserve the reward, but by the things you try to get away with in his court and, of course, his personality.

Is not your success or failure in convincing the king not something you "try to get away with" in court? Are you saying that success or failure, the king should view the attempt the same exact way? Why? Why shouldn't the players failed attempt appear different to the king than their success? If they weren't different, why would they get different outcomes?



It wasn't your failure at diplomacy that offended him, it was your asking for the full reward on your word alone, and that didn't take a die roll, it was a PC decision to role-play a very brash character. There is no check to see if you offend him, not in anyone's game. Making up die rolls to determine every random factor of a social encounter is a bad idea no matter what, but it also has nothing to do with binary vs. degrees of success or fail forward.

Except the skill is called "diplomacy" and it encompasses all the parts of diplomacy, including not offending the king. Yes, you can (and in many cases should) offload a lot of that for social skills to the role playing part. Not every group is comfortable doing that (see also discussions of whether slow or non charismatic players should be able to play intelligent charmers). Yes, the better you as a DM and your players are as a group at spelling out all the details of the actions and doing detailed and informed risk / reward analysis for each interaction, the less you need to rely on fail forward (and frankly, the less you need to rely on skill checks in general). Fail forward is a tool, and one that acknowledges that not every DM is perfect, and not all players are perfect, and sometimes you don't want to get that detailed over a particular interaction for whatever reason (maybe your players really dislike social encounters, they're still mandatory sometimes). Fail forward isn't a replacement for doing other good DM things (let your players know the risks and rewards, force players to make player skill decisions) but it's a tool for interacting with a smoothing over those places where you as a DM roll a 1 on your DM check.



I think "fail forward" espouses a lot more than just not turning social situations into stupidly convoluted, randomly-determined outcomes that have nothing to do with the obvious original intent of the character. I can agree with the latter without agreeing with the former.

Nothing about anything I've suggested is "randomly determined". As I've said over and over, the consequences of a success or failure still need to flow out of the established game world. A child who 10 minutes before wasn't in my plans as a DM, but is now because of a failed stealth roll is not random if it makes sense for the child to be there, just unplanned. There is a difference.



if you fail and the king still gives you the reward but puts a bounty on your head (I accept the justifications you listed for this, btw), vs. you succeed and get the reward but something bad might happen to you anyway (because it's a game and that's how things stay interesting), then what was the point of succeeding or failing in the first place?

Because the success or failure determined what sort (and how many) consequences you experience. Your choices as a player impact the path the game takes, and impact how your other actions might play out. Let's continue looking at the example of the vengeful (but masquerading) king. You succeed, gain your reward and are waylaid by bandits on your way back to the inn. It's a standard encounter and everything goes as such encounters do, and life moves on for you. On the other path, you failed, the king is planning on putting a bounty on your head. You might still get waylaid (because you know, jingling pockets), but now you're being framed for murder. The king has decreed that the bandits you killed were noble upstanding members of the community, viciously attacked by mercenaries who just hours earlier had been given a gracious reward by the just and good king for their services to the kingdom, despite their offenses to the crown.

Getting your money, successfully or not, had consequences (being waylaid by bandits), but a diplomatic failure while getting your money turned a simple basic encounter into a PR disaster for the party.


I don't see what your concept of failing forward achieves that a paragraph or two of instruction to DMs wouldn't.

Given that failing forward is a paragraph or two of instructions on good DMing, it would accomplish nothing different because it's the same thing. I keep saying it because it's true. Failing forward is being a good DM. If you're a good DM, you don't need (or are already doing) failing forward. If you're not a good DM, or you're just a new DM, failing forward is a tool to use to help you become a better DM and is a thousand times better advice than "failure means no progress is made". Seriously, the Next DMG in the last playtest does cover some basics about not rolling for things that are obviously easy, or obviously impossible, and taking into account character ability, background and skill when determining this (but again, see prior discussion on tiny tim vs conan vs dragon). But the How to Play document, right under the first section on ability checks says this about failure:


If your check result is equal to or greater than the DC, you succeed. Otherwise, you fail. When you succeed, your action works as intended. When you fail, you either make no progress or perhaps suffer a setback.

It's this advice that leads to people looking at the skill system and going "Tiny Tim will outwrestle Conan 10% of the time, its busted!". And to be fair it's bad advice (and bad DMing) to assume that all failures are about making no progress or suffering a setback (to the immediate action). Failing forward suggests that instead, Conan failing the wrestling contest isn't Conan losing to Tiny Tim, it's Conan breaking Tiny Tim's leg because he got riled up and forgot his own strength. Oh he won the wrestling match alright. But now the town is out for his blood. Arguably that's a setback, but most people reading that sentence in the document don't appear to translate it that way.



Player: Rolls a successful bluff check "We'll drop you in the pit of vipers over there if you don't start answering our questions!"

NPC Well Trained Hobgoblin Spy "Do what you will, I won't speak. Whatever you do to me won't be half as bad as what Tyranthraxus will do to me!"

In this case the Hobgoblin spy completely believed what the players said, but was still unwilling to answer their questions. Its a fundamental misunderstanding of how skills work in every edition of D&D.

To be completely fair, some of this misunderstanding comes from the fact that D&D is sort of schizophrenic with respect to skills. Some skills are binary, and if you succeed at the roll, then you succeed at the intent of the skill. Some skills are like bluff, binary, but with an extra kick (though some would argue your player didn't succeed, your NPC had a super double secret +50 to the DC for being so well trained, whether such effects should come from numbers or from the world is a matter of much debate (again see prior discussions on the skill system)). Lastly, some skills are degree of success skills (knowledge checks fall into this category, jump checks in some editions too) where how high (or low) you roll has varying effects. And even here (IIRC) it's not consistent, some are success over DC, others are just straight numbers.

[Lokiare]

To be completely fair, some of this misunderstanding comes from the fact that D&D is sort of schizophrenic with respect to skills. Some skills are binary, and if you succeed at the roll, then you succeed at the intent of the skill. Some skills are like bluff, binary, but with an extra kick (though some would argue your player didn't succeed, your NPC had a super double secret +50 to the DC for being so well trained, whether such effects should come from numbers or from the world is a matter of much debate (again see prior discussions on the skill system)). Lastly, some skills are degree of success skills (knowledge checks fall into this category, jump checks in some editions too) where how high (or low) you roll has varying effects. And even here (IIRC) it's not consistent, some are success over DC, others are just straight numbers.

Actually no. In my example the hobgoblin completely believes the players will throw him into the pit. That doesn't affect the outcome because the hobgoblin is more fearful of his boss than the players ever will be to him, its a matter of which way he wants to die: get bit by a bunch of snakes and die painfully over a few minutes or get tortured for a month by a demon that knows everything about pain.

Now if the players change their tactics and threaten to send him to the elemental plane of pain and leave him there until he dies of sensory overload, he might change his mind, but that's a role playing concern and has nothing to do with the actual bluff check. Its about player agency and DM agency to control their actions, while being informed by skill checks and their results. Not skill checks and random rolls completely changing up the game.

There is also another aspect. Players should fail at some things completely. Part of the drive to win is the chance to fail. If you can't really and truly fail, only have setbacks, then you don't get a sense of what is valuable and you don't get that elated high when you do succeed, which is part of the draw to the game. Its important psychologically to have failure be something that can happen in the game.

[Mewtarthio]

Now if the players change their tactics and threaten to send him to the elemental plane of pain and leave him there until he dies of sensory overload, he might change his mind, but that's a role playing concern and has nothing to do with the actual bluff check. Its about player agency and DM agency to control their actions, while being informed by skill checks and their results. Not skill checks and random rolls completely changing up the game.

I'm not really sure who you're arguing against here. Has anyone said otherwise?


There is also another aspect. Players should fail at some things completely. Part of the drive to win is the chance to fail. If you can't really and truly fail, only have setbacks, then you don't get a sense of what is valuable and you don't get that elated high when you do succeed, which is part of the draw to the game. Its important psychologically to have failure be something that can happen in the game.

Why would it be otherwise? Failing forward is about not letting failure be boring. There are plenty of cases where a complete, unmitigated failure is perfectly interesting.

[Felhammer]

Hey guys, I've been seeing a lot of info and rumours floating around about 5th edition... But nothing resembling a clear breakdown of what to expect from it.

Can you point me to what I'm looking for at all?

We simply do not know. Everything is in flux and the latest version of the playtest packet (which probably was not an accurate assessment of the rules that the Devs were using) was released 7 months ago.

The best way is to check out the Scourge of Sword Coast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE-2AQhcf4w), to watch the devs play with the latest rules.

[Stubbazubba]

This is clearly untrue in any real world interaction. Since in the real world we usually interact with people (and government) on more than one occasion, how we go about accomplishing the immediate goals of a particular interaction even if we're successful at it, can have profound (and negative) impacts on our relationship and further interactions.

Yes, that's what I've been trying to say: the choice of approach will have consequences regardless of the success or failure of the attempt. And I don't want those consequences based on a die roll, I want them freely chosen and freely enacted in response.


I guess, here's a question that might help. I know that critical/nat20 successes for skills are not in the D&D rules, but most gaming groups I've encountered use them, or allow bonuses for doing well on a skill check. Do you never grant your characters a critical success on a skill? They do so well, on something that you give them more than they immediately desired?

Not really. I often ham up the description, but they don't get more than they were after. Unless there are already rules for that a la The One Ring, where one player's extraordinary success can hand another player a basic success so they don't have to roll (and potentially fail). In a failure-by-attrition scenario, I might still allow that, simply because so far I have no better way to get an entire party successfully sneaking together. I'd prefer a better solution than this odd "my stealth is so awesome it sucks the sound out of your footsteps," but I haven't really thought of one yet.


Which is exactly what your players do with a binary system too. Look at your immediately following example: "I've got a super-high diplomacy, I think I can pull it off". Your player made a mathematical decision, weighing the likelihood of a negative outcome against the likelihood of a positive one and chose the action for which they had the greatest chance of getting what they wanted.

What part of my portrayal of that player made him seem exemplary? He was doing that in direct disregard of the DM's warnings that it was his audacity to ask for the full reward that would tick off the king, not failure. And I explained that the king's reaction was determined by the PC's choice of action, not their success in it. It's entirely possible (as you pointed out) that the king could have paid him his bounty and then still banished him for having the gall to excise it from him with no evidence. The whole point is that PC will face consequences for his actions independently of his success in those actions. The fact that he considered everything except chance of failure a non-factor is a condemnation, not an endorsement. Or it could simply be that this PC just didn't care what the king did to him or felt about him. Either way, the consequences were set by the choice, not by success.


In fact, your example was a perfect example of the "No, and..." scenario. Your player wanted all the gold, the DM said "no, and now the king is threatening you and kicking you out"

True, but the "and" result was determined by the choice of intent, something that was completely under the player's control, and not by the success/failure.


Sure, but he might not have too. Maybe the king is instead amused at your audacity. If you as a DM have already made these decisions (that no matter the outcome, the king will threaten the PCs) that's fine. But if you haven't, or if you're not sure, the success and failure of your players and the various paths they take to accomplishing that success or failure can give you plenty of fodder to work from too.

I agree, but I don't think the success or failure of the skill check should obviate the personality of the NPC and the natural consequences of the attempt.


Is not your success or failure in convincing the king not something you "try to get away with" in court? Are you saying that success or failure, the king should view the attempt the same exact way? Why? Why shouldn't the players failed attempt appear different to the king than their success? If they weren't different, why would they get different outcomes?

Yes, the king should have a similar* reaction to the attempt either way. He's a vengeful, petulant king! Employing all your powers of persuasion to weasel a reward out of him based on pure rhetoric doesn't change that fact! Just because the judge in a trial allows a sketchy line of questioning doesn't mean he approves of the lawyer's use of it. The only difference is the success or failure, not the other parties' reaction to it. If I roll really well on an attack, does it change the enemy's defense? No, it just means I overcame it. If I want to lower his defense, I have to try something else. Likewise, if I want to convince the petulant king to not be petulant towards me when I try my shenanigans, I should try something else, like flattery, first.

But on an even deeper level, yes, the NPC should react similarly regardless of the check's outcome because that creates a space for role-play. If the king only reacts positively if I succeed and negatively (or worse, positively with tangential drawbacks) if I fail, then the choice of what to do in his court simply comes down to numbers; what can I roll the highest to get all the positives and fewest negatives? But if each option inherently has negative and positive consequences regardless of the check's outcome, then I have to consider: do I go for the lower reward hoping to not have to deal with an irate king? Do I try and trick him into thinking this other vaguely similar-looking guy's head is the bounty's and risk being discovered and getting into a huge bind? Do I just full-on demand the reward based on my story and risk a possibly similar bind? Do I tell him I completed the deed, but since I have no evidence I expect no reward? How would he react to that? And there is no mathematically correct answer, because the odds of the negative/positive side-effects here are not tied to the check (unless "low likelihood of working" is one of the cons). So you have to decide based on a range of things that are not on your character sheet, and that is where the game is played.**

*not exactly the same, no one is clamoring for such foolishness.
**for me, at least.


Except the skill is called "diplomacy" and it encompasses all the parts of diplomacy, including not offending the king. Yes, you can (and in many cases should) offload a lot of that for social skills to the role playing part. Not every group is comfortable doing that (see also discussions of whether slow or non charismatic players should be able to play intelligent charmers).

Diplomacy is a stupid skill name. By that name, it can only be used to not offend the king, and something else, like, say, persuasion, would be what you use to persuade him of something. Don't even get me started on the non-existent line between diplomacy and bluff. But even more universally, skills are not just buttons you push on a controller that have universal effects. "Diplomacy" might mean something totally undiplomatic in one scenario or another, it all depends on what you're using it to accomplish. What skills do are meaningless without context: What's your intended outcome, and what approach will you use to pursue it? "I [skill] it" is not a valid approach. This doesn't require anyone to actually be an orator or a charmer, it just requires them to think of what one might try to do. And since everyone at the table is freely allowed to pitch in ideas, I am confident that even the most non-charismatic player can make a decision that makes sense for his character in the terms of "X is what I intend to achieve, Y is how I want to approach it," without even referring to skills most of the time. And certainly not referring to "using diplomacy on it." Ugh.

I would continue replying to each point, but I think I've covered most of it so far and I'd only end up repeating myself. I'm not trying to say that everything you call "fail forward" is wrong, because I think we actually agree on a lot of fundamentals, I just think "fail forward" covers a slightly different spread of practices than you do. I have one opinion of how skills should play out, and you have another. I don't think either is inherently worse, I just think they give different outcomes and imply different player/character relationships.

[1337 b4k4]

Yes, that's what I've been trying to say: the choice of approach will have consequences regardless of the success or failure of the attempt.
...
The whole point is that PC will face consequences for his actions independently of his success in those actions.
...
Either way, the consequences were set by the choice, not by success.
...
True, but the "and" result was determined by the choice of intent, something that was completely under the player's control, and not by the success/failure.
...
I agree, but I don't think the success or failure of the skill check should obviate the personality of the NPC and the natural consequences of the attempt.
...
Likewise, if I want to convince the petulant king to not be petulant towards me when I try my shenanigans, I should try something else, like flattery, first.
...
If the king only reacts positively if I succeed and negatively (or worse, positively with tangential drawbacks) if I fail, then the choice of what to do in his court simply comes down to numbers;
...
But if each option inherently has negative and positive consequences regardless of the check's outcome, then I have to consider:
...
So you have to decide based on a range of things that are not on your character sheet, and that is where the game is played.
...
What's your intended outcome, and what approach will you use to pursue it? "I [skill] it" is not a valid approach.


You keep saying these things and things like it, but I have never once suggested otherwise. Seriously, I agree with every thing you've said up there. Every single word. But I do recognize that as much as that is the ideal we shoot for, we are human and sometimes we fall short. Fail forward as a philosophy and DM instruction is a tool to use when we fall short of the ideal gaming.

I also have suggested that there is no need for a DM to have meticulously plotted out every reaction to every course of action their players might take. That DM should use the descriptions their players give, plus the inherent world they have woven as part of their gaming, plus the outcome of their players rolls to improvise and make those spots where they aren't prepared just as interesting as the parts where they were prepared. I have also suggested there is no reason the success or failure of their characters at a task should be relegated to "you got what you want" vs "you got nothing". There's no reason that being a brash fool to the petulant king should have a failure outcome of no reward at all vs getting only part of the reward, either one is a failure when you're looking to get the full reward. What I suggest is that a DM should always be mindful of making sure the consequences of a roll, regardless of success or failure are interesting and non game stopping, and if it's more interesting to give your players partial success on a failed roll, there's no reason in the world why the DM shouldn't go with that outcome if it makes sense in context.

Frankly I think you and I are in violent disagreement and the only things we disagree on are whether the DMG should include "imperfect" fail forward examples and guides, or purely perfect scenarios as you've outlined. Frankly I think any book giving examples of play or rules application should always show one or two imperfect examples. In my opinion, any rule book that doesn't include some imperfect examples (where someone messes up, or there's a conflict of visions) is a rule book that assumes without any evidence that it's the first rulebook in history where two reasonable people can't come up with two different interpretations of the same rule, and the first rulebook in history that will be followed perfectly from day one. We have a lot of experience with TTRPGs to know this isn't true, and our rule books should be humble and self aware enough to acknowledge that, and provide examples of successful imperfect play as well.

The only other thing I think we disagree on is the extent of fail forward. You appear to think that fail forward subsumes all other parts of skill resolution and role playing. It doesn't (or more accurately, it shouldn't) and if someone ever suggests it should "they're doing it wrong (TM)" Fail forward is a tool, just like fumbles, just like criticals and just like ignoring the dice is a tool. It's to be used where appropriate, and left alone where not. There's no "one true and good way" to resolve all skill checks any more than there is "one true and good resolution mechanic" to resolve all possibilities ever. And slavish and foolish devotion to one single way (whether it's binary, degrees of success, fail forward, spell it all out or even pixel bitching) is to deny us one of the best tools in our TTRPG toolbox. The human DM factor that allows the system to adjust to the needs and desires of the players and the current situation at hand.

[Lokiare]

To be completely fair, some of this misunderstanding comes from the fact that D&D is sort of schizophrenic with respect to skills. Some skills are binary, and if you succeed at the roll, then you succeed at the intent of the skill. Some skills are like bluff, binary, but with an extra kick (though some would argue your player didn't succeed, your NPC had a super double secret +50 to the DC for being so well trained, whether such effects should come from numbers or from the world is a matter of much debate (again see prior discussions on the skill system)). Lastly, some skills are degree of success skills (knowledge checks fall into this category, jump checks in some editions too) where how high (or low) you roll has varying effects. And even here (IIRC) it's not consistent, some are success over DC, others are just straight numbers.


Now if the players change their tactics and threaten to send him to the elemental plane of pain and leave him there until he dies of sensory overload, he might change his mind, but that's a role playing concern and has nothing to do with the actual bluff check. Its about player agency and DM agency to control their actions, while being informed by skill checks and their results. Not skill checks and random rolls completely changing up the game.


I'm not really sure who you're arguing against here. Has anyone said otherwise?

I was responding to the comment that said that the skill check was a super secret +50. It wasn't. It was simply a bluff check where success didn't really mean anything, because the hobgoblin knew that much worse than being thrown in a pit awaited him if he told the secrets of the boss. So their role playing choice of threats, was what caused the hobgoblin not to talk, rather than the bluff check. (I really don't like quote hunting and wish there was a setting to keep embedded quotes.). Other than the +50 part. I pretty much agree. various skills are meant to be handled in different ways, some have degrees of success built in such as jumping where you jump X number of 5' squares by dividing your skill roll by 10 or 5, but even if you fail to fully jump over if you are within one 5' square you have a chance of grabbing the edge. Others are binary like bluff where the target either believes you or not. Then there are some that you can make multiple times and each success gives you more info like knowledge checks. It really is schizophrenic. Then you look at frequency of use and find that insight and perception are the two most used skills in the game and underwater basket weaving is the least used in the game. So frequency of use makes a difference too. 4E did the right thing when they took a lot of not very frequently used skills and merged them. So each skill is more likely to be used at the same frequency.


Why would it be otherwise? Failing forward is about not letting failure be boring. There are plenty of cases where a complete, unmitigated failure is perfectly interesting.

There is never a case where complete unmitigated failure is interesting, because the game takes place in a living breathing world. If you fail to open a lock, there are monsters patrolling the halls and a key somewhere else. If you fail to find information on a bad guy, he has a skill check's roll of a chance to find out that you are asking around about him and if that fails, there are divination rituals to give clues. I can't think of a single scenario where an unmitigated failure is not interesting.

[Stubbazubba]

There is never a case where complete unmitigated failure is interesting
[...]
I can't think of a single scenario where an unmitigated failure is not interesting.

...wut?

Did I miss something?

[Lokiare]

...wut?

Did I miss something?

Typo. It should read:


There is never a case where complete unmitigated failure is uninteresting
[...]
I can't think of a single scenario where an unmitigated failure is not interesting.

And its true. Part of DMing and creating adventures is placing failure points into the game and not creating road blocks.

[Sploggle1]

Talking about classes I did notice that they all got an insane bump on their abilities. I mean a barbarian with thick hide at first level, a Cleric with Deadly strike (Assassins creed selling out on that), The fighter with expertise at first level an extra 2d6 damage, The monks unarmed strike now being magical without a feat, A ranger getting spells at level 1, Rogues are now beefed by abilities as well (Distract/faint is now an ability), and much much more. I mean I looked through the last playtest packet and said. "Well better than 4e but still kinda on the broken side. But this is coming from a 1,2, and 3.5 fan.

[Lokiare]

Talking about classes I did notice that they all got an insane bump on their abilities. I mean a barbarian with thick hide at first level, a Cleric with Deadly strike (Assassins creed selling out on that), The fighter with expertise at first level an extra 2d6 damage, The monks unarmed strike now being magical without a feat, A ranger getting spells at level 1, Rogues are now beefed by abilities as well (Distract/faint is now an ability), and much much more. I mean I looked through the last playtest packet and said. "Well better than 4e but still kinda on the broken side. But this is coming from a 1,2, and 3.5 fan.

The question is "Would you play 5E over your preferred edition?" and the answer for many of us is just "Not really."

For 3.5E fans they see it as better than 4E, but not Pathfinder/3.5E and 4E fans see it as better than Pathfinder/3.5E, but not 4E. Which means two of the biggest market segments in the game are not going to be 100% (or even mostly in my estimation) on board with 5E, which means 5E will fail.

[Sploggle1]

I agree. They did do a playtest which was smart for wizards unlike what they did in the past decade, but they are again staying to their old ways and not giving their fans what they want. The 3.5 fans like pathfinder because its an improvement on what wizards originally messed up. I cant say much for the 4e fans because I haven't looked at 4e ineptly. The Ad&d fans will probably end up sticking with 2nd Even though they sprinkled a pinch of 2e elements in it. Again though they are not fully listening to their fan base they are like here lets throw 2nd, 3rd, and 4th in a blender and see what happens. Just saying lol.

[INDYSTAR188]

No, they don't.

This is simple math. A +1 bonus is the smallest bonus possible on an 1d20 roll, makes only a marginal difference, and in practice is not at all noticeable in gameplay. If such bonuses are rare, they still are small and marginal and not noticeable.

And yes, this reduces character diversification. For example, at low to moderate level, in 5E it is simply not noticeable in gameplay whether or not a character is trained in a skill. Your character can claim to be good/trained/masterful at anything he likes; but when push comes to shove and you have to make a check? You're likely to be upstaged by your untrained party members.

Do you think houseruling a 1/2 PC level bonus to trained skills would make that better?

[Lokiare]

Do you think houseruling a 1/2 PC level bonus to trained skills would make that better?

Not really.

What needs to happen is not only a +1/2 level PC bonus, or something similar, but the target DCs need to be spread out more so that its almost out of the range of a novice to get a moderate or hard check, while an expert with talent, has enough of a bonus that they cannot fail on moderate checks.

[Felhammer]

I agree. They did do a playtest which was smart for wizards unlike what they did in the past decade, but they are again staying to their old ways and not giving their fans what they want. The 3.5 fans like pathfinder because its an improvement on what wizards originally messed up. I cant say much for the 4e fans because I haven't looked at 4e ineptly. The Ad&d fans will probably end up sticking with 2nd Even though they sprinkled a pinch of 2e elements in it. Again though they are not fully listening to their fan base they are like here lets throw 2nd, 3rd, and 4th in a blender and see what happens. Just saying lol.


Did Pathfinder really improve D&D? It fixed some things but then messed other things up. I see it as more of a wash than anything else. More than any other reason, Pathfinder is popular is because it filled a void that WotC left by so markedly changing D&D.



The question is "Would you play 5E over your preferred edition?" and the answer for many of us is just "Not really."

For 3.5E fans they see it as better than 4E, but not Pathfinder/3.5E and 4E fans see it as better than Pathfinder/3.5E, but not 4E. Which means two of the biggest market segments in the game are not going to be 100% (or even mostly in my estimation) on board with 5E, which means 5E will fail.

The issue is not if D&D will be successful, it will be how successful it is.

D&D will still be incredibly popular even if the edition is a stinker simply due to its name alone. Whether or not it meets Hasbro's arbitrary monetary goals is a separate issue.

Think about it this way, the money WotC generates from the D&DI subscriptions in one year still amounts to more than half of what the whole of Paizo makes in a year. WotC has no reason to pull down the 4E material on D&DI and they will continue to produce content for the magazines as well as new tools for 5E. So if anything, subscriptions will likely increase. They will see a surge of sales as people rush out to buy the new core rule books and any other associated peripherals (DM screens, adventures, premium character sheets, etc.). The first year will simply be stellar. The real test will be the second year. By then everyone will have playtested the system enough to find all of its flaws (so errata will be flying out) and the Devs will have a firm grasp on the system, with which they will (hopefully) be able to produce solid content. If they cannot, then D&D will need new management and if they cannot make it successful, then Hasbro will have to make a decision (keep it, box it or sell it). Even then, D&D will still be a more profitable system than its competitors (just not profitable enough for its owner).

[Kurald Galain]

Do you think houseruling a 1/2 PC level bonus to trained skills would make that better?

Yes, or a flat +4 or so. In 4E the difference between trained and untrained is +5 and that works pretty well.

[Talakeal]

The question is "Would you play 5E over your preferred edition?" and the answer for many of us is just "Not really."

For 3.5E fans they see it as better than 4E, but not Pathfinder/3.5E and 4E fans see it as better than Pathfinder/3.5E, but not 4E. Which means two of the biggest market segments in the game are not going to be 100% (or even mostly in my estimation) on board with 5E, which means 5E will fail.

Honestly, I think I might. I am torn between 2E and 3.5 as my preferred edition. 2E has wonky math, is overly reliant on tables, has little character customization, and is full of arbitrary limitations. 3.5 on the other hand has far too much class imbalance, some classes all but useless and others virtually omnipotent, and there is just so much power creep and crunch between so many books it is impossible for everyone to be on the same page.

5E looks to be somewhere between these two extremes, and depending on the specific details I might come back to D&D again.

[Lokiare]

Honestly, I think I might. I am torn between 2E and 3.5 as my preferred edition. 2E has wonky math, is overly reliant on tables, has little character customization, and is full of arbitrary limitations. 3.5 on the other hand has far too much class imbalance, some classes all but useless and others virtually omnipotent, and there is just so much power creep and crunch between so many books it is impossible for everyone to be on the same page.

5E looks to be somewhere between these two extremes, and depending on the specific details I might come back to D&D again.

Actually 5E has near 2E levels of customization. Unless you are a caster, you have around 5-7 choice points for your entire 20 level career. If you are a caster you get to choose a new spell every level. If you are looking for customization, 5E does not give it to you.

5E also has wonky math. When they added (dis)advantage to the game they put in a bunch of places where you can trade it out for some other benefit. Because (dis)advantage is worth +2.5 to +4.5 depending on what your target number is and what your static bonuses are, you end up in situations where its difficult to tell whether its a good choice to swap it out for the other benefit.

5E is filled with arbitrary limitations like maximum ability score caps.

Class imbalance is in full swing. At early levels your caster is going to be standing around spamming weak cantrips in combat after the first few combats of the day while the non-casters are running around slaughtering low level enemies. At mid to high level your caster will have enough show stopper spells that they will end combats within a round or two with the non-casters getting lucky if they take out 1 or 2 enemies during that time. That's without counting high level spells like wish that allow the caster to create magic items all day every day.

We've already witnessed the power creep in the play test and the articles. Each class has been better than the previous class, until it culminated in the Bard who can wear nice armor, use all weapons, get full caster spells and can cast 2 spells as well as make up to 2 attacks in the same round (according to the Q&A and L&L articles).

Its not quite as bad as 2E or 3.5E at these things, but if you were wanting them to be absent, this isn't the edition for you.

[Talakeal]

Actually 5E has near 2E levels of customization. Unless you are a caster, you have around 5-7 choice points for your entire 20 level career. If you are a caster you get to choose a new spell every level. If you are looking for customization, 5E does not give it to you.

5E also has wonky math. When they added (dis)advantage to the game they put in a bunch of places where you can trade it out for some other benefit. Because (dis)advantage is worth +2.5 to +4.5 depending on what your target number is and what your static bonuses are, you end up in situations where its difficult to tell whether its a good choice to swap it out for the other benefit.

5E is filled with arbitrary limitations like maximum ability score caps.

Class imbalance is in full swing. At early levels your caster is going to be standing around spamming weak cantrips in combat after the first few combats of the day while the non-casters are running around slaughtering low level enemies. At mid to high level your caster will have enough show stopper spells that they will end combats within a round or two with the non-casters getting lucky if they take out 1 or 2 enemies during that time. That's without counting high level spells like wish that allow the caster to create magic items all day every day.

We've already witnessed the power creep in the play test and the articles. Each class has been better than the previous class, until it culminated in the Bard who can wear nice armor, use all weapons, get full caster spells and can cast 2 spells as well as make up to 2 attacks in the same round (according to the Q&A and L&L articles).

Its not quite as bad as 2E or 3.5E at these things, but if you were wanting them to be absent, this isn't the edition for you.


Better than previous editions is all we can hope for; it would still make it the best D&D yet.

As for arbitrary ability score caps, I thought all attributes ranged from 1-20 for human characters?

[Kaisos Erranon]

We've already witnessed the power creep in the play test and the articles. Each class has been better than the previous class, until it culminated in the Bard who can wear nice armor, use all weapons, get full caster spells and can cast 2 spells as well as make up to 2 attacks in the same round (according to the Q&A and L&L articles).
Except that you still haven't seen the finished bard class, so this is more or less you making things up again.


As for arbitrary ability score caps, I thought all attributes ranged from 1-20 for human characters?
20 is the maximum ability score possible for player characters, yes.
It's not really "arbitrary".

[GPuzzle]

Martial encounter and daily powers aren't ever a concern for me or my table. They are a gameplay conceit to keep balance and drive action and - here's the key part for me - provide more cinematic, interesting, and believable combat outcomes. No, your Fighter may not have any idea what "tide of iron" means (maybe yours does? I dunno), but the outcome of a warrior pushing an enemy backwards and breaking a line? That's what I'm looking for. Your Ranger might not have any idea what "invigorating stride" is, but using fancy footwork to get out of the thick of combat and catch her breath? That's perfectly in keeping for the character. A Fighter may or may not refer to their Anvil of Doom technique, but conking an enemy so hard with a hammer that they're stunned? Perfectly believable. The examples go on.... Yes, 4e completely eschews process simulation, but the outcomes are very much in keeping with what I'd expect - if what you're looking for is pulp, cinematic, dynamic action.

Sorry to reuse this old argument, but I'd like to give it a supporting argument.

Let's take, of all things, Battlemind Powers - power-source-wise, the Battlemind is basically a Fighter mixed with a Psion, just like an Ardent is a Psion mixed with a Warlord - they make their psionic powers flow through their weapon, and they're also tough as heck and they're Defenders, just like the Paladin, the Warden - Fighter mixed with Druid, and the Swordmage - as you can see, Fighter mixed with Wizard). Crunch-wise, they have augmentable powers. Fluff-wise, they're glory hogs with a limited range of emotions (or too many, depending on how you play them) who know their own skill is so great they combine both mental and physical abilities to become excellent warriors.

So, first power we're analyzing.

Intellect Snap.

What does that name invoke to you in your imagination? In this case, I want you to picture a fight, and this guy is fighting, say, an Orc.

To me, it invokes the image of a guy hitting the other in the head with a mace and letting the target's mind be flowed with so many thoughts he breaks down and can't focus correctly.

Now, let's look at what is the power's description:

Your weapon channels your psychic fury to distract and hinder you foe.

Now we've got something! This guy is confusing his target, making him think "what the heck is happening?!", making him unable to focus, by chanelling his emotions into the target's mind.

Let's see the power:

Attack: Constitution vs Will

Keywords: Augmentable, Psionic, Psychic, Weapon

That makes sense, he's targeting the guy's mind with his weapon.

Hit: Constitution modifier psychic damage, and the target is dazed until the start of your next turn.

Whoa, that matches what the power says! First, Psychic damage is generally related to the minds (Headband of Intellect, for example, gives a +1 to hit with Psychic powers). Second, Dazed. Now, Dazed is a condition in 4e that makes it so the target has either one Minor Action (similar to Swift Actions), one Move Action or one Standard Action - basically, one third of a turn.

Augment 1
Hit: As above, and you no longer are dazed or marked.

That's also matching the power's description! He's channeling his mind's power with more intensity, so he's basically taking something that'd hamper him and applying it to the other guy!

Augment 4
Hit: 2[W]+Constitution modifier psychic damage, and the target is dazed until the end of your next turn, and one ally within 5 squares of you can make a saving throw against an effect that dazes or stuns.

In this case, he's drawing the power not only from his mind, but from an ally's mind too!

Now, that's a very specific example. Let's go with Come and Get It, a Fighter power.

What does that name invoke to you? To me, it invokes a guy taunting "IF YOU'RE TRULY POWERFUL, COME AND GET ME, YOU SON OF A BITCH!", so after he taunts, angered people/genderless constructs/animals/displacer beasts/random monsters come towards him.

Now, let's look at the description:
You brandish your weapon and call out to your foes, luring them close through their overconfidence, and then deliver a spinning strike against them all.

See, that basically says: you taunt them, drawing them towards you and watch for their mistake so you can smack them with an attack.

Keywords: Martial, Weapon
Close Burst 3, Target: Each enemy you can see in the burst
Attack: Strength vs Will

Let's check:
-Taunt enemies and draw them towards you: check (burst 3, targeting everyone you can see)
-Watch for their mistake due to their anger: check (weapon keywords, STR vs Will)

Hit: You pull the target up to 2 squares, but only if it can end the pull adjacent to you. If the target is adjacent to you after the pull, it takes 1[W] damage.

Let's check again:
-Drawing them towards you because they're angry at you: check (pulling the targets two squares)
-Watching for their mistake and delivering an attack due to it: check (when they're adjacent to you, you hit them with weapon die damage).

So, while martial attacks may not be named like something that we see in real life, their name, their description and how does the power work, in general, are built to fit in together, to bring evocative images of combat and of things people might do.

4e's powers need to be read for people to think "hey, that's interesting!" - they look for the name first (for example, a Level 2 Utility Power from the Fighter was translated, here in Brazil, as basically - recursive translation will happen - "Get Over Here"), the description second, and what does the power do third, but they're built to be evocative.

[Talakeal]

20 is the maximum ability score possible for player characters, yes.
It's not really "arbitrary".

I don't either, I was just taking a guess at what Lokiare was referring to.

AD&D however, had all sorts of seemingly arbitrary numbers, with minimum and maximum scores for races, classes, and even genders, different level limits for each race and class, and ability score bonuses with no clear pattern (not to mention the insanity that was exceptional strength!).

[Lokiare]

Except that you still haven't seen the finished bard class, so this is more or less you making things up again.

Wow, really? I've never made anything up in a post on these boards. Please quit with the insults and personal attacks, it reduces your believability in future conversations. If you disagree, then present some evidence or just say you disagree. There is no call for personal attacks.

From http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140310


A bard casts as many spells per day as a wizard or cleric. Rather than being limited by a reduced casting slate, the bard can match any of the other caster classes in bringing magic to the table. A bard's magic focuses on trickery, words of power, and the ability to sway emotions. The class straddles the line between clerics and wizards, though it leans a bit closer to cleric with its access to healing magic.

Full caster, with both Cleric (healing) spells and Wizard spells.


A bard can inspire a creature with a performance or speech, using natural and trained leadership abilities to help others achieve greatness. The affected creature gains a d6 that it can add to any check, attack, or saving throw. The nice thing about this mechanic is its flexibility. Bardic Inspiration can be applied to any situation a party faces, and allowing the recipient character to determine how it is used helps to build the narrative component of a game.

So they can grant a +1d6 to any check, attack, or saving throw. Which is better than a Fighters maneuver to grant advantage to an attack.


Reflecting the feel of the bard as a resourceful hero across multiple editions, we've added two new features to the class. From 2nd level, a bard who doesn't apply a proficiency bonus to a check instead adds half the value of that proficiency bonus. A bard is thus always halfway between skilled and unskilled on any check.

In addition, like the rogue, the bard is a master of certain skills. At different points, a bard picks two skill proficiencies and adds double the character's proficiency bonus to checks involving those skills.

So they have half proficiency bonus on all skills they aren't proficient with and double proficiency on certain trained skills (thus out classing the Rogue in skill checks)

From http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dndqa/20140314


The College of Valor is still centered on providing a more combat-focused bard, who gains better armor, extra attacks, and the ability to cast spells and attack on the same round (outside of the normal swift spells, many of which appear on the bard spell list).

Better armor and extra attacks. If they start with studded leather or chain, do they move up to scale or plate?
Now it can be debated whether they will be able to make two attacks, cast a swift spell, and then cast a normal spell all in the same round, but unless they specifically exclude this, it is a possibility. Even so just being able to make an attack and cast a normal spell in one round is still light years better than any class feature that Wizards or Fighters get, and with full spell progression, we are talking about having a daily spell to cast every single round of every single combat by mid level all while making normal attacks.


20 is the maximum ability score possible for player characters, yes.
It's not really "arbitrary".

Its actually arbitrary by definition. What is their justification? Why can't a Fighter get the strength of Hercules who wrestled hydras and titans? There is no real reason.

In 2E at least they tried to come up with real reasons like halflings were small so they should have a lower maximum to their strength values and only fighters used strength to its fullest and specifically trained strength so only they (plus a few special fighter sub-classes) got exceptional strength. It was believed at the time that women couldn't attain the same strength as men which is why they put a limit on that. I'm sure if they had known different they wouldn't have put that limit on there.

So 5E doesn't really have a reason beyond the mechanic of 'bounded accuracy' to limit ability scores. 2E actually did (no matter how wrong they were).

[Talakeal]

Wait, the 20 is an absolute maximum? As in you can't have racial or magical abilities take you beyond normal human limits? That is pretty stupid. Although I didn't really mind having the 2E system where it was harder to gain stats beyond a certain point and 25 as an absolute maximum.

[Lokiare]

Wait, the 20 is an absolute maximum? As in you can't have racial or magical abilities take you beyond normal human limits? That is pretty stupid. Although I didn't really mind having the 2E system where it was harder to gain stats beyond a certain point and 25 as an absolute maximum.

Its the maximum you can raise it with ability score bumps or racial boosts. I think you can still grab a belt of giant strength to bypass it. But a Fighter will max out all stats pretty quickly if they choose not to take feats.

Edit: Its important to note that magic items are not guaranteed and if you follow the charts and tables, will be very rare to get an item that boosts a stat above 20.

[Kurald Galain]

Wait, the 20 is an absolute maximum? As in you can't have racial or magical abilities take you beyond normal human limits? That is pretty stupid. Although I didn't really mind having the 2E system where it was harder to gain stats beyond a certain point and 25 as an absolute maximum.
The issue is not so much that there is a maximum, but that this maximum is very close to what a level-1 character can start with.

From earlier editions, we're used to seeing level-1 fighters with 18 strength, and over the course of their career they'll likely get to 25 strength if they want to, and that's a big difference. In 5E, you can only improve a little bit until you hit the absolute cap.

[Lokiare]

The issue is not so much that there is a maximum, but that this maximum is very close to what a level-1 character can start with.

From earlier editions, we're used to seeing level-1 fighters with 18 strength, and over the course of their career they'll likely get to 25 strength if they want to, and that's a big difference. In 5E, you can only improve a little bit until you hit the absolute cap.

Its literally going from a +4 to a +5 and your done for your career.

[1337 b4k4]

The issue is not so much that there is a maximum, but that this maximum is very close to what a level-1 character can start with.

From earlier editions, we're used to seeing level-1 fighters with 18 strength, and over the course of their career they'll likely get to 25 strength if they want to, and that's a big difference. In 5E, you can only improve a little bit until you hit the absolute cap.

And even this is largely just a conflict of modern character creation rules combined with the traditional D&D ranges. There's nothing wrong with a system where ability scores scale from 1-20. The problem comes from when you have that scale, and then your character creation process averages with a starting score at 13, gives players the option to insert scores in whatever stats they want and then gives racial and class choices which allow those scores to be bumped further, as you point out, you start awful close to the max. Frankly simply reducing this to a 3d6 instead of a 4d6k3 character creation would help a lot.


Its literally going from a +4 to a +5 and your done for your career.

It's worth noting that this is not unusual in early editions of D&D. It's only since late 2nd and 3rd edition D&D that modifiers have ever been more than minor adjustments. Admittedly early edition D&D didn't expect and play off modifiers much, they were just bonuses.

[Kurald Galain]

It's worth noting that this is not unusual in early editions of D&D. It's only since late 2nd and 3rd edition D&D that modifiers have ever been more than minor adjustments.

Not exactly. Both 1E and 2E have the belts of giant strength, plus ability-boosting wishes, plus ability-boosting tomes, plus the ability to just make a Strength spell or potion permanent through various means. Although admittedly this is different from 3E where every fighter is expected to buy a stat booster at the magic mart at level 5 or so.

[1337 b4k4]

Not exactly. Both 1E and 2E have the belts of giant strength, plus ability-boosting wishes, plus ability-boosting tomes, plus the ability to just make a Strength spell or potion permanent through various means. Although admittedly this is different from 3E where every fighter is expected to buy a stat booster at the magic mart at level 5 or so.

But even then weren't the modifiers fairly low (relative to current expectations). I admittedly don't have my 1e material handy, but my RC material caps out at +3 at 18 attribute. Even looking at Dark Dungeons which expands on the RC material (and I assume consolidates rules that I may have missed in my brief glance through RC) gives a mere +6 at STR 25. And as you note, the frequency expectations of 1e is different from 3e. Which of course seems to be WotC's theme for bounded accuracy. There's nothing at all wrong with the idea of having limited bounds, but WotC seems unable to recognize that they need to then play in those bounds and adjust all the math relative to those bounds (rather than simply slapping limits on to the existing chassis. A max STR of 20 with a +5 modifier is perfectly fine for a cap if your system leads to starting (strength focused) characters with STRs around 13 and a +1 modifier or even lower*. It's funny to me that WotC has recognized that number inflation is an issue and had placed in a series of limits on the game and the games monsters to try to address that, but seem unwilling (or unable) to fight the battle that would be telling players "No, your fighter doesn't start with an 18 STR in a world where average is defined as 10"

*Seriously given that, with the current character generation systems; and the fact that most DMs won't force their players to start with poor stat characters; and the frequency of players who would choose purposefully negative stats is rare, there's no reason why stats should start with averages at 10 if they want to use bounded accuracy. Use 2d6 for stat generation and set average at 5 or 6. That gives plenty of room to scale up, while still keeping 95% of the game on the d20 RNG and doesn't leave half the attribute space unused by most players and DMs.

[Kurald Galain]

*Seriously given that, with the current character generation systems; and the fact that most DMs won't force their players to start with poor stat characters; and the frequency of players who would choose purposefully negative stats is rare, there's no reason why stats should start with averages at 10 if they want to use bounded accuracy. Use 2d6 for stat generation and set average at 5 or 6. That gives plenty of room to scale up, while still keeping 95% of the game on the d20 RNG and doesn't leave half the attribute space unused by most players and DMs.

True. But that requires sacrificing the sacred cows that all starting stats are in the 3-18 range, and that every player who wants to must get a character without penalties to anything. And if you do that, you should make every point in your ability scores add to your rolls (instead of only every other point), because you lose too much diversification otherwise.

[1337 b4k4]

True. But that requires sacrificing the sacred cows that all starting stats are in the 3-18 range, and that every player who wants to must get a character without penalties to anything. And if you do that, you should make every point in your ability scores add to your rolls (instead of only every other point), because you lose too much diversification otherwise.

Sorry, I don't think I was quite clear. When I said average should be 5 or 6, I meant to set the +0 modifier there as well, not keep the current modifiers. Off the top of my head, I think (assuming 5 for the average) below 5 is just a straight negative modifier (Atribute-5), and above 5 I think you could keep the +1 every 2 scaling (perhaps every 2 after 6) so that you get a +7 when you reach 19 or 20.

[Doug Lampert]

True. But that requires sacrificing the sacred cows that all starting stats are in the 3-18 range, and that every player who wants to must get a character without penalties to anything. And if you do that, you should make every point in your ability scores add to your rolls (instead of only every other point), because you lose too much diversification otherwise.

3-18 as baseline is a sacred cow. PCs not having anything less than 8 or so is a sacred cow, and negative modifiers for PCs are bad.

None of this requires that 20 be the top score.

So your modifier is Score/3-3 (round nearest). Now I can have scores of up to 25 and stay on the required PC RNG. 8-10 gives a zero modifier, 25 gives a +5 modifier.

No PC has a negative modifier unless he has a score of 7 or less, the range is actually a bit narrower than the current system, but you have room for real improvement from start.

[1337 b4k4]

3-18 as baseline is a sacred cow. PCs not having anything less than 8 or so is a sacred cow

Arguably, this means that 3-18 really isn't a sacred cow, but that 8-18 is the sacred cow. I'd go one further and suggest that for most tables the actual range they play in is 10-18 but either way that gives us a true range of 8-10 for variability. Given that, switching to what I suggested above would probably actually result in more scores (throughout the whole game) in the 3-18 range. I suggest this is so based on:

a) A 3 would then give a modifier of -2, which while painful would not be game breaking
b) The number of characters even with racial, class and good rolls, with a 19-20 ability score would be rather rare given how many more steps there are to get there.

So skewing the averages down, and modifying the modifier table would preserve both the 3-18 sacred cow range and the "negative modifiers for PCs are bad" sacred cow. It's only if we view 3d6 as sacred for ability score generation that we have an issue, and I would argue that 3d6 as the true attribute mechanism hasn't been sacred since Gygax himself was telling his players to roll 3d6k3 and place stats where you want.

[Warskull]

Its the maximum you can raise it with ability score bumps or racial boosts. I think you can still grab a belt of giant strength to bypass it. But a Fighter will max out all stats pretty quickly if they choose not to take feats.

Edit: Its important to note that magic items are not guaranteed and if you follow the charts and tables, will be very rare to get an item that boosts a stat above 20.

The way it currently works. 20 is the highest natural stat for a PC. Once your stat hits 20 it cannot be increased by ability increases.

Items can increase stats, but most stat increasing items now set your stats. Guantlets of Ogre power, set your strength to 19 and otherwise do nothing. A belt of Giant strength can set your strength anywhere from 21-29, but it is a fairly rare item and most will only set your strength to 21. An ioun stone can give you +1 strength. Rules are vague, but they probably don't stack.

There are no buffs that increase stats. Buffs instead grant +X to strength checks and attack rolls. These are also a little on the rare side.


Arguably, this means that 3-18 really isn't a sacred cow, but that 8-18 is the sacred cow.

Next already breaks this. Characters start at 8 and can only buy themselves up to 16. The whole 7/8 bottom limit is to prevent characters from dumping charisma too hard. Players would dump charisma to 0 if you let them in certain versions. The random determination is 4d6 drop the lowest.

[Talakeal]

I am seeing a midpoint between 2E and 3E here.

In 2E you did not raise stats over time. You were capped at 18, barring magic.

In 3E you got 5 stat increases over time. You were capped at 23 barring magic.

In 5E you do get stat increases over time, but are capped at 20 barring magic.

In 2E magic is rare; (the longest running campaign I played in went to level 11. Over that time the party (of 10 people might I add) found 2 tomes and 1 belt of giant strength.

In 3E magic is incredibly common and everyone is expected to buy stat boosts at the local magic mart.

Hopefully 5E will again be somewhere between the two.


Although I am very unhappy with how racial modifiers appear to work. Is it still true that humans get a +2 to every stat, and the 20 cap includes this +2 bonus?

[Kurald Galain]

In 2E you did not raise stats over time. You were capped at 18, barring magic.

In 3E you got 5 stat increases over time. You were capped at 23 barring magic.
This is not a meaningful comparison, because you very rarely do anything directly with your stats. Rather, you make e.g. attack rolls or skill checks.

In 2E, attack rolls go up by +24 over your adventuring career (not counting buff spells and stat boosting items). In 3E, they go up by +29 at least (just from the level boosts and the expected belt of strength +6). In 5E, attack rolls go up by... guess what... four points over your entire career, five if you're lucky.

So no, it's not a midpoint, it's a clear outlier.

[Lokiare]

3-18 as baseline is a sacred cow. PCs not having anything less than 8 or so is a sacred cow, and negative modifiers for PCs are bad.

None of this requires that 20 be the top score.

So your modifier is Score/3-3 (round nearest). Now I can have scores of up to 25 and stay on the required PC RNG. 8-10 gives a zero modifier, 25 gives a +5 modifier.

No PC has a negative modifier unless he has a score of 7 or less, the range is actually a bit narrower than the current system, but you have room for real improvement from start.

I agree, make the bonus go up by +1 every 3 stats so we end up with:



Ability Score
Bonus/Penalty


1
-3


2
-3


3
-3


4
-2


5
-2


6
-2


7
-1


8
-1


9
-1


10
+0


11
+0


12
+0


13
+1


14
+1


15
+1


16
+2


17
+2


18
+2


19
+3


20
+3


21
+3


22
+4


23
+4


24
+4


25
+5


26
+5


27
+5


28
+6


29
+6


30
+6



Then just have no cap at all. If you can somehow get to 21 at 1st level naturally, go for it. No problem. Still well within the bounds.


I am seeing a midpoint between 2E and 3E here.

In 2E you did not raise stats over time. You were capped at 18, barring magic.

In 3E you got 5 stat increases over time. You were capped at 23 barring magic.

In 5E you do get stat increases over time, but are capped at 20 barring magic.

In 2E magic is rare; (the longest running campaign I played in went to level 11. Over that time the party (of 10 people might I add) found 2 tomes and 1 belt of giant strength.

In 3E magic is incredibly common and everyone is expected to buy stat boosts at the local magic mart.

Hopefully 5E will again be somewhere between the two.


Although I am very unhappy with how racial modifiers appear to work. Is it still true that humans get a +2 to every stat, and the 20 cap includes this +2 bonus?

Actually 3E didn't have a cap and with racial templates you could easily go over. 4E also doesn't have a cap, but there is simply no way to go over 20 at 1st level.

[Talakeal]

This is not a meaningful comparison, because you very rarely do anything directly with your stats. Rather, you make e.g. attack rolls or skill checks.

In 2E, attack rolls go up by +24 over your adventuring career (not counting buff spells and stat boosting items). In 3E, they go up by +29 at least (just from the level boosts and the expected belt of strength +6). In 5E, attack rolls go up by... guess what... four points over your entire career, five if you're lucky.

So no, it's not a midpoint, it's a clear outlier.

Would you mind repeating this in more detail? I cannot figure out where you are getting these numbers from, I don't see any numbers that have a 24 point range in 2E that correspond to a 29 point range in 3E.

Also keep in mind that in 3E odd stats don't actually do anything, so if you want a realistic comparison you should probably divide them. 2E stats at least do something every point, although what that is wildly wonky and different.

[Kurald Galain]

Would you mind repeating this in more detail? I cannot figure out where you are getting these numbers from, I don't see any numbers that have a 24 point range in 2E that correspond to a 29 point range in 3E.
In 2E, compared to a level-1 fighter, a level-20 fighter has a to-hit roll of about 24 points more (+19 from THAC0, +5 from a magic sword). That's pretty much the minimum expectation, mind you; over 20 levels, he would likely have some way to improve his strength, and then there's weapon specialization.

In 3E, compared to a level-1 barbarian, a level-20 barbarian has 29 more points on his attack rolls (+19 from BAB, +5 from magic sword, +2 from level boosts to strength, +3 from girdle of giant strength). Again, minimum expectation; this doesn't count feats like Weapon Focus, or strength boosts from other sources, or even his rage ability.

Let's look at 4E as well. Over the course of his career, a fighter or barbarian's to-hit bonus goes up by about 28 points (+15 from half level, +4 from level boosts to strength, +3 from expertise, +6 from magic weapon). Again, not counting additional feats, boosts from epic destiny, and so forth.

What does this all mean? In all earlier editions, a high level character has improved a lot and can do many things that you couldn't do before. In 5E, compared to these figures, your character just doesn't improve a lot, ever, over the scope of your career. Well, except if you're a caster of course.

(then what about class features? Most earlier edition classes get better class features, they're just harder to compare than strict numbers.)

[obryn]

In 2E, compared to a level-1 fighter, a level-20 fighter has a to-hit roll of about 24 points more (+19 from THAC0, +5 from a magic sword). That's pretty much the minimum expectation, mind you; over 20 levels, he would likely have some way to improve his strength, and then there's weapon specialization.
...
What does this all mean? In all earlier editions, a high level character has improved a lot and can do many things that you couldn't do before. In 5E, compared to these figures, your character just doesn't improve a lot, ever, over the scope of your career. Well, except if you're a caster of course.
This ignores the very limited range of ACs, in the -10 to +10 range, with most enemies getting nowhere near that -10 figure. (I think only Lolth, in Fiend Folio.)

That's relevant here because in 1e/2e, low levels involve a lot of missing. It was pretty remarkable when I recently ran AD&D how often 1st level PCs need 15+ to hit. In Next, the expectation is hitting substantially more often at low levels - at least it was in the last packet.

[Lokiare]

This ignores the very limited range of ACs, in the -10 to +10 range, with most enemies getting nowhere near that -10 figure. (I think only Lolth, in Fiend Folio.)

That's relevant here because in 1e/2e, low levels involve a lot of missing. It was pretty remarkable when I recently ran AD&D how often 1st level PCs need 15+ to hit. In Next, the expectation is hitting substantially more often at low levels - at least it was in the last packet.

Actually you could make a humanoid enemy that wears magical armor and uses a magical shield that got past -10 (which capped at -10).

So our choice is to play 1E or 2E and start out missing a lot, and then get to the point where we are hitting all the time, or go with 5E where we start out hitting 60% of the time and by level 20 we are hitting 70% of the time. Sorry, but I'd go with 1e/2e over that. Growth is an intrinsic part of the game, at least as much as vancian casting.

[1337 b4k4]

Growth is an intrinsic part of the game, at least as much as vancian casting.

Arguably if WotCs research into it is correct (and I'm not saying it is, just saying that WotC is probably working in part from that research) then, no significant growth is not an intrinsic part of the game for many tables. If WotC is correct and most people play between levels 3 and 10 then the growth that most players and tables are experiencing is significantly reduced from the full potential of the system. If that were the case, then making a game where the whole of the game comprises the growth most people are used to would not be a substantial loss.

Of course, the problem with the argument is that it assumes that players don't want more growth, but do not play within the expanded bounds because of other issues beyond a desire to constrain growth. But it's not illogical to think that at least some is a desire to keep growth within certain bounds for everyone. I would venture that most people playing D&D like a form of fantasy that rests squarely in the "just this side of unbelievable" rather than herculean gods power levels.

It's also worth considering that there are probably more than a few tables where they want to go up against and have enemy X in their game (vampires, dragons, what have you), and while in pre-3e D&D, that could happen and you were expected to deal with it outside of standard combat, since 3e, it's been about monsters of the appropriate challenge rating. It's somewhat disappointing if you're playing "dungeons and dragons" and you never fight a dragon because you're games never get that high level. By keeping AC and To Hit values within a certain range, all tables regardless of level could at least have a chance at whatever monsters they want. Yes I know, DMs can make any changes they want, make weaker dragons or stronger goblins, not everyone does though, sometimes the DM is more interested in building a world than having to build monsters.

And there's always the (admittedly very remote) possibility that WotC actually does know what they're doing when it comes to pure math, and the reason they are so hell bent on staying as much within certain boundaries. If it's done right, a "module" adding more expansive advancement could be as simple as a few X' = X * 2, Y' = Y + 10 / 2 type conversions rather than a full on replacement of the core system.

[Morty]

A factor that might skew the players' preferences here is that they might prefer to stick to levels below 10 because at least the third edition of the game gets progressively worse afterwards. It's well known that the problems which plague D&D 3e get worse as you go up in levels. So it might not be an issue of the power level, but rather that the game they play does a poor job at handling it.

[Kurald Galain]

Yes. Or it might be that many campaigns start at level 1-3, play one session every other week, and last no more than a year. At a rate of one level per three sessions, this means people generally won't get further than level 8-9 or so. Of course, this applies to every edition, and over the scope of eight levels, players are going to see much more progress in 2E/3E/4E than in 5E.

[INDYSTAR188]

Yes. Or it might be that many campaigns start at level 1-3, play one session every other week, and last no more than a year. At a rate of one level per three sessions, this means people generally won't get further than level 8-9 or so. Of course, this applies to every edition, and over the scope of eight levels, players are going to see much more progress in 2E/3E/4E than in 5E.

My group has been playing our campaign (4E) for about 2 1/2 years. We started at level 1 and I'm determined (as long as there is continued interest) to go all the way to 30th. We game every other Saturday from about 3-8pm. My players really like that Paragon tier and above but I would prefer to stay in Heroic to early Paragon myself. I think the most difficult part of keeping up game momentum with a two week break is that if you have to skip a session or two it can quickly turn into a month.

[Knaight]

Arguably if WotCs research into it is correct (and I'm not saying it is, just saying that WotC is probably working in part from that research) then, no significant growth is not an intrinsic part of the game for many tables. If WotC is correct and most people play between levels 3 and 10 then the growth that most players and tables are experiencing is significantly reduced from the full potential of the system. If that were the case, then making a game where the whole of the game comprises the growth most people are used to would not be a substantial loss.system.

Call it a 7 level change then. That still corresponds to about +9 with to-hit, and 7 levels in Next isn't getting anywhere near +9. They drastically cut down on how much characters improve. Whether this is a problem or not is up in the air - I personally don't think it fits with D&D, and consider the skill gaps a bit small (a level 20 fighter spends entirely too much time missing some barely trained guy with a sword, though part of that is just long combat rounds), but this is subjective.

[Lokiare]

Arguably if WotCs research into it is correct (and I'm not saying it is, just saying that WotC is probably working in part from that research) then, no significant growth is not an intrinsic part of the game for many tables. If WotC is correct and most people play between levels 3 and 10 then the growth that most players and tables are experiencing is significantly reduced from the full potential of the system. If that were the case, then making a game where the whole of the game comprises the growth most people are used to would not be a substantial loss.

If you acknowledge that 4E for the first 2 years had the same numbers as 3.5E did when it was shut down, then we both know that around half the D&D fans value advancement and getting better. We can infer this not only from the fun style of 4E (balanced tactical fun as an obstacle course with a clear win condition based on player choices), but 3.5E had a lot of advancement to it also. Fighters gains +1 to attacks every level. The DC's of spells went up with the spell level which the caster gained a new spell level every other level. You got skill points which you could apply one point per level to your highest skill or you could add a bunch of them to a lower skill that wasn't maxed out.

Just a note on WotC research: Their surveys were done poorly (several people that worked in that field tore them apart on the WotC forums). They didn't focus on advancement at all. The other data that they got from DDi doesn't touch on whether people like advancement or not, and even if it did, its likely to be flawed. Many, many 4E fans sit down and make random characters to try out a concept or just for fun, which means the majority of characters on DDi probably never saw or were meant for play.


Of course, the problem with the argument is that it assumes that players don't want more growth, but do not play within the expanded bounds because of other issues beyond a desire to constrain growth. But it's not illogical to think that at least some is a desire to keep growth within certain bounds for everyone. I would venture that most people playing D&D like a form of fantasy that rests squarely in the "just this side of unbelievable" rather than herculean gods power levels.

Unfortunately around half the people played 4E where it was standard to have herculean gods power levels. Which means they are throwing half their fan base under the bus on a hunch. (Note my 3.5E comparison above, its equally likely a lot of 3.5E players like advancement too).


It's also worth considering that there are probably more than a few tables where they want to go up against and have enemy X in their game (vampires, dragons, what have you), and while in pre-3e D&D, that could happen and you were expected to deal with it outside of standard combat, since 3e, it's been about monsters of the appropriate challenge rating. It's somewhat disappointing if you're playing "dungeons and dragons" and you never fight a dragon because you're games never get that high level. By keeping AC and To Hit values within a certain range, all tables regardless of level could at least have a chance at whatever monsters they want. Yes I know, DMs can make any changes they want, make weaker dragons or stronger goblins, not everyone does though, sometimes the DM is more interested in building a world than having to build monsters.

Due to the hit point bloat and damage capacity of monsters in 5E, it won't matter. If you put a lower level party up against a dragon it'll be a TPK. So the thing you think they did, they didn't actually do it.


And there's always the (admittedly very remote) possibility that WotC actually does know what they're doing when it comes to pure math, and the reason they are so hell bent on staying as much within certain boundaries. If it's done right, a "module" adding more expansive advancement could be as simple as a few X' = X * 2, Y' = Y + 10 / 2 type conversions rather than a full on replacement of the core system.

I've demonstrated over and over that they don't really know what they are doing with the math. That's not really in question.

They could add a module to increase the rate of advancement whether they understand the math or not, unfortunately it would have to change up quite a bit to balance out the game. Something I personally don't think they are capable of.

[1337 b4k4]

Call it a 7 level change then. That still corresponds to about +9 with to-hit, and 7 levels in Next isn't getting anywhere near +9. They drastically cut down on how much characters improve. Whether this is a problem or not is up in the air - I personally don't think it fits with D&D, and consider the skill gaps a bit small (a level 20 fighter spends entirely too much time missing some barely trained guy with a sword, though part of that is just long combat rounds), but this is subjective.

Depends on which edition of D&D you're talking about. Over the 7 levels in 1e, it would be a change of just +6. And again, this all assumes that most players value numerical advancement of their characters as opposed to other advancements (the story, the character story, options advancement etc). Again I'm not saying there isn't room for more numerical adjustments or advancement (though as I noted, if they want to stick in the 1-20 range, then the should drop the average down to 5) but 3.x and 4e were significant ramps up in the numerical scaling department for D&D.


If you acknowledge that 4E for the first 2 years had the same numbers as 3.5E did when it was shut down, then we both know that around half the D&D fans value advancement and getting better. We can infer this not only from the fun style of 4E (balanced tactical fun as an obstacle course with a clear win condition based on player choices), but 3.5E had a lot of advancement to it also. Fighters gains +1 to attacks every level. The DC's of spells went up with the spell level which the caster gained a new spell level every other level. You got skill points which you could apply one point per level to your highest skill or you could add a bunch of them to a lower skill that wasn't maxed out.

Aside from the fact that you and I have no agreement at all on the types of fun present in either edition of D&D or even what those types of fun actually mean, no you can not infer that because the two systems had similar player numbers for the first two years that they must therefore enjoy the advancement aspects of those systems. You have to still control for system intertia, enjoyment of other aspects despite (or in preference to) the advancement system and players who would prefer the older slower advancement systems from earlier editions, but play the newer editions because that's what their friends or DM choose to play. Also by limiting your analysis to just the first 2 years of 4e, you would be (assuming the number drop off) ignoring the flight of fans from the newest edition and the reasons for that flight (whether or not those reasons have anything to do with advancement). In short, no comparing two numbers of user base for two consecutive editions of a game in a very short time frame does not provide enough information to even begin to estimate the reasons people play or what parts of play they're enjoying.



Just a note on WotC research: Their surveys were done poorly (several people that worked in that field tore them apart on the WotC forums). They didn't focus on advancement at all. The other data that they got from DDi doesn't touch on whether people like advancement or not, and even if it did, its likely to be flawed. Many, many 4E fans sit down and make random characters to try out a concept or just for fun, which means the majority of characters on DDi probably never saw or were meant for play.

OTOH, even if they were never meant for play, one can assume (and then confirm via other research) that people who are creating concepts for fun are still doing so within the power range that they normally play. That is, if most people were playing in the level 20-30 range, you would still expect most "concept" builds to also be in the level 20-30 range since that's what's most relevant to your player base. And if they're not, if your players are playing in the 20-30 range, but they're creating concepts in the 3-10 range, the question then becomes why? Do they actually prefer that range (and it's a case of no one at the table speaking up because they assume no one else does?). Is it because despite preferring the power represented by 20-30 they find exploring the game is easier at lower levels?



Unfortunately around half the people played 4E where it was standard to have herculean gods power levels. Which means they are throwing half their fan base under the bus on a hunch. (Note my 3.5E comparison above, its equally likely a lot of 3.5E players like advancement too).

Objection. Facts not in evidence. You have not proved that "half the fan base [prefers herculean power levels and an advancement system that gets them there from a lower starting point]"




I've demonstrated over and over that they don't really know what they are doing with the math. That's not really in question.


No you really haven't. You have demonstrated that a public early playtest which is by definition both incomplete from a features standpoint and incomplete from a polish standpoint has mathematical flaws. This is not the same as demonstrating that WotC doesn't know how to do math. The facts we have on hand (4e, and MtG) both suggest otherwise. Whether those resources have been brought to bear on Next is still unknown.

[Lokiare]

Aside from the fact that you and I have no agreement at all on the types of fun present in either edition of D&D or even what those types of fun actually mean, no you can not infer that because the two systems had similar player numbers for the first two years that they must therefore enjoy the advancement aspects of those systems. You have to still control for system intertia, enjoyment of other aspects despite (or in preference to) the advancement system and players who would prefer the older slower advancement systems from earlier editions, but play the newer editions because that's what their friends or DM choose to play. Also by limiting your analysis to just the first 2 years of 4e, you would be (assuming the number drop off) ignoring the flight of fans from the newest edition and the reasons for that flight (whether or not those reasons have anything to do with advancement). In short, no comparing two numbers of user base for two consecutive editions of a game in a very short time frame does not provide enough information to even begin to estimate the reasons people play or what parts of play they're enjoying.

Actually its pretty simple, you aren't disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with an industry standard which I happen to agree to. Feel free to continue to disagree with it all you want, but I'm talking to the rest of the class here. You'll note the big 'if' I put in there, so I wasn't even talking to you.

In your analysis you make more assumptions than I do. You assume that people playing what their friends play is more numerous than people playing what they want to play. You assume that the drop off in 4E fans had something at all to do with the game itself rather than WotC's business practices at the time or the introduction of Essentials. You also assume that 4E advancement is different than 3E advancement, when in fact they are very similar in scale. So where are your facts? I've at least presented some evidence on my side with articles talking about the industry standard which you are arguing against, as well as some facts about the success of 4E during the first 2 years (books on best seller lists, and stories of why 4E would have failed no matter how much they made, etc...etc...).


OTOH, even if they were never meant for play, one can assume (and then confirm via other research) that people who are creating concepts for fun are still doing so within the power range that they normally play. That is, if most people were playing in the level 20-30 range, you would still expect most "concept" builds to also be in the level 20-30 range since that's what's most relevant to your player base. And if they're not, if your players are playing in the 20-30 range, but they're creating concepts in the 3-10 range, the question then becomes why? Do they actually prefer that range (and it's a case of no one at the table speaking up because they assume no one else does?). Is it because despite preferring the power represented by 20-30 they find exploring the game is easier at lower levels?

Lots of assumptions here too. They could have easily been making characters of any random level because they like to make characters. I have a player that talks to me about making 16th level characters all the time, right now we are playing a level 3 campaign. Other people host their entire groups characters and yet others have only their characters and their DM also requires they import their characters so you get lots of duplicates. DDi as a source of information is basically a dead end.


Objection. Facts not in evidence. You have not proved that "half the fan base [prefers herculean power levels and an advancement system that gets them there from a lower starting point]"

Really? Because both 3E and 4E have those features, and if people didn't like those features that much they wouldn't play either game. I think that's enough proof to go on, as opposed to your non-proof alternatives which are ???


No you really haven't. You have demonstrated that a public early playtest which is by definition both incomplete from a features standpoint and incomplete from a polish standpoint has mathematical flaws. This is not the same as demonstrating that WotC doesn't know how to do math. The facts we have on hand (4e, and MtG) both suggest otherwise. Whether those resources have been brought to bear on Next is still unknown.

They proved it themselves when they stated that the play test didn't worry about numbers because numbers don't inform the feel of the game. That alone should condemn them. Everyone knows that a Fighter with a great axe dealing 1d4+1 damage and hitting 20% of the time is going to feel much different than a Fighter with a great axe dealing 3d12+16 damage and hitting 80% of the time with three attacks per round.

Then of course there was the Ghoul incident where every round a character had a 40% chance of being paralyzed, but they didn't notice it until they played and started asking "why are we getting TPK's with ghouls all the time?" Like the math didn't exist to them or something.

I could go on and on and on and list examples where they didn't understand how the math works all day. Its not really in question like I said.

[1337 b4k4]

Actually its pretty simple, you aren't disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with an industry standard which I happen to agree to. Feel free to continue to disagree with it all you want, but I'm talking to the rest of the class here. You'll note the big 'if' I put in there, so I wasn't even talking to you.

Yeah, we've been down this road before. Your interpretation, and the actual paper you link to occupy two totally different worlds. Not interested in rehashing it with you, but since we're talking to the class, here's the original paper (http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/pubs/MDA.pdf), I don't have time to dig up the original discussion we had on the issue.



In your analysis you make more assumptions than I do. You assume that people playing what their friends play is more numerous than people playing what they want to play. You assume that the drop off in 4E fans had something at all to do with the game itself rather than WotC's business practices at the time or the introduction of Essentials. You also assume that 4E advancement is different than 3E advancement, when in fact they are very similar in scale. So where are your facts? I've at least presented some evidence on my side with articles talking about the industry standard which you are arguing against, as well as some facts about the success of 4E during the first 2 years (books on best seller lists, and stories of why 4E would have failed no matter how much they made, etc...etc...).

Except for the fact that I make none of these assumptions at all. My entire argument was that you can not conclude (as you have) that people are playing D&D because they enjoy D&D's advancement. I was proposing alternate possibilities that fit the same observed events. My entire point was without more information, your conclusion is just as likely as mine.



Lots of assumptions here too. They could have easily been making characters of any random level because they like to make characters. I have a player that talks to me about making 16th level characters all the time, right now we are playing a level 3 campaign. Other people host their entire groups characters and yet others have only their characters and their DM also requires they import their characters so you get lots of duplicates. DDi as a source of information is basically a dead end.

Again, just pointing out we need more research and can't draw the conclusions you have. In fact, I think I said that ... yes yes I did: " one can assume (and then confirm via other research) "



Really? Because both 3E and 4E have those features, and if people didn't like those features that much they wouldn't play either game. I think that's enough proof to go on, as opposed to your non-proof alternatives which are ???

Your assertion is that people will not play games that have features they don't enjoy? So then would you say that no one who plays D&D does not enjoy LFQW? Would you say that no one who plays D&D has an does not enjoy the skill system? It's not like 4e was the first TTRPG to feature class balance or better skills.



They proved it themselves when they stated that the play test didn't worry about numbers because numbers don't inform the feel of the game. That alone should condemn them. Everyone knows that a Fighter with a great axe dealing 1d4+1 damage and hitting 20% of the time is going to feel much different than a Fighter with a great axe dealing 3d12+16 damage and hitting 80% of the time with three attacks per round.


No, that's not proof they don't understand math. It is evidence that they understand that a TTRPG is about more than pure math. It's also evidence for my theory that the playtest was never about testing the math but getting information about those intangibles. Math is easy, I can make a numerically balanced system with my eyes closed, and so can you. Making a system that people want to play on the other hand is much more difficult and requires more than just pure math.


Then of course there was the Ghoul incident where every round a character had a 40% chance of being paralyzed, but they didn't notice it until they played and started asking "why are we getting TPK's with ghouls all the time?" Like the math didn't exist to them or something.

[CITATION NEEDED] Also assumes (without evidence) that this was an intentional design decision intended on going into the final product and not simply and oversight or error that would have been corrected (you know, as in a play test).



I could go on and on and on and list examples where they didn't understand how the math works all day. Its not really in question like I said.

And yet, this is the same company which produced both Magic: the Gathering, D&D 4e, D&D3e (which despite everything actually has decent math, it just starts breaking down as the system grows bigger), the Pokemon CCG and all the other products listed here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wizards_of_the_Coast_products)

Given the success of the company and most of the products on that list, the evidence seems to indicate that WotC does indeed know how to do math, otherwise (as you stated above) no one would be playing their games. The alternative interpretation of the evidence is that WotC doesn't know how to do math, but that their games are quality games that people enjoy playing despite this fact, which leads credence to the philosophy you just mentioned above (focusing on the intangibles rather than the math).


Edit
---------------

Incidentally, this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?343855-Why-do-you-play-dnd) ought to be an interesting thread to watch given the discussion here vis-a-vis the reasons people play. It will be interesting to see the number of times "advancement potential" is given.

[captpike]

No, that's not proof they don't understand math. It is evidence that they understand that a TTRPG is about more than pure math. It's also evidence for my theory that the playtest was never about testing the math but getting information about those intangibles. Math is easy, I can make a numerically balanced system with my eyes closed, and so can you. Making a system that people want to play on the other hand is much more difficult and requires more than just pure math.


if you don't at least have a good idea on how the math is going to work then you cant make anything else.

if you told me to make a rogue, someone who is "very sneaky, does ok damage when not backstabing but very good damage when backstabing" I could not do this if I had no idea on the math.

how much a bonus do I need to give him on stealth? or do I need to give a class feature to let him do it easier? I would need to have an idea what a "normal" stealth is before I could bump the rogue to the sweet spot between everyone else and auto-pass. I cant do that without the math.

and I very much need to math to know how to do the damage. I need to have an idea what "normal" damage is for a PC, how it scales by level so I can scale the rogues damage. if the target has to be make prone to backstab I need to know how common that is. I don't want to have backstab be a "save or die" ability any more then a wet noddle or something you only see every other level because its hard to make a target prone.

the way a game like this should be made is to start with a basic math framework, then start making the classes and whatnot and change the math if you have to. starting without math means you have no frame of reference and might as well be flipping coins when making classes.

[obryn]

And yet, this is the same company which produced both Magic: the Gathering, D&D 4e, D&D3e (which despite everything actually has decent math, it just starts breaking down as the system grows bigger), the Pokemon CCG and all the other products listed here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wizards_of_the_Coast_products)
It's unfortunate that all their top design talent - including the guys who really know how math and game theory works, now that Rob Heinsoo is gone - are working on MtG. Expected, since MtG makes about 50x what D&D does, but still. :smallsmile:

[Kurald Galain]

if you told me to make a rogue, someone who is "very sneaky, does ok damage when not backstabing but very good damage when backstabing" I could not do this if I had no idea on the math.

Or you could just give him a +1 on all stealth checks and hope for the best...

[1337 b4k4]

if you don't at least have a good idea on how the math is going to work then you cant make anything else.

Yes and no, but mostly agreed. But that's besides the point of the argument which is that the given statement is not evidence that WotC doesn't know how to do math.



if you told me to make a rogue, someone who is "very sneaky, does ok damage when not backstabing but very good damage when backstabing" I could not do this if I had no idea on the math.

how much a bonus do I need to give him on stealth? or do I need to give a class feature to let him do it easier? I would need to have an idea what a "normal" stealth is before I could bump the rogue to the sweet spot between everyone else and auto-pass. I cant do that without the math.

and I very much need to math to know how to do the damage. I need to have an idea what "normal" damage is for a PC, how it scales by level so I can scale the rogues damage. if the target has to be make prone to backstab I need to know how common that is. I don't want to have backstab be a "save or die" ability any more then a wet noddle or something you only see every other level because its hard to make a target prone.

the way a game like this should be made is to start with a basic math framework, then start making the classes and whatnot and change the math if you have to. starting without math means you have no frame of reference and might as well be flipping coins when making classes.

Here's where I say that other things need to come before math. You're assuming a lot of things with your line of questioning that haven't been answered and need to be before you even begin to process the math. For example you ask "how much of a bonus ... on stealth" but this assumes that stealth is going to be mathematically modeled in the system and that the chosen method for being better in this modeling system is to have a bonus. As an alternative, stealth could be left entirely to GM discretion, be obtained only via specific actions that have no mathematical modeling or even be mathematically modeled, but you decide to make the thief "better" by removing their need to roll entirely because "Thief". You also need to answer how often opportunities for stealth are expected to be presented in the system to determine whether "stealth" is even a feature you want to spend design resources on. And I'm assuming for the sake of argument you've already done the research to determine whether a "Thief" class is what your players want and that they want their Thieves to be stealthy people who deal more damage when stealthy. Once you have decided these things, then yes, you need to get into the math, but those other questions are vitally important and are only very tangentially related to doing math for your system.

I'm not entirely convinced yet that the playtest was not intended to answer the first set of questions rather than to answer math questions.


It's unfortunate that all their top design talent - including the guys who really know how math and game theory works, now that Rob Heinsoo is gone - are working on MtG. Expected, since MtG makes about 50x what D&D does, but still. :smallsmile:

Oh sure, and it's entirely possible that D&D Next will be pushed out the door without a math review. My issue is more with the claim (and idea) that WotC doesn't know how to do math. They clearly do. Whether or not they bring those skills to bear, and how much is a different question all together.


Going back a bit in the discussion to the baseline expectations for starting character scores and how they've changed over the years, I came across this today. Back in BECMI, on page 48, Mentzer states that a character who's highest ability score is less than 9, or a character who has two or more scores below a 6 are probably inadequate for playing and should be rerolled (but also notes you might want to try it anyway). So in BECMI, a character whose starting stat array looks like [9 9 7 6 6 5] would be considered an acceptable (if on the weakish side) character. Compare that to the last playtest packet which suggests a starting array of [16 14 13 12 10 8] or point buy starting at all 8s with 30 points to spend.

[Knaight]

Depends on which edition of D&D you're talking about. Over the 7 levels in 1e, it would be a change of just +6. And again, this all assumes that most players value numerical advancement of their characters as opposed to other advancements (the story, the character story, options advancement etc). Again I'm not saying there isn't room for more numerical adjustments or advancement (though as I noted, if they want to stick in the 1-20 range, then the should drop the average down to 5) but 3.x and 4e were significant ramps up in the numerical scaling department for D&D.

It's still about +1, maybe +2 in Next. As for the assumption that most players value numerical advancement - that doesn't come into this at all. It's a simple statement of fact that the numbers are smaller, and the modeled capability of characters thus smaller as a result. Whether this is a good or bad thing is entirely up in the air, but it's there.

[captpike]

I'm not entirely convinced yet that the playtest was not intended to answer the first set of questions rather than to answer math questions.



how classes feel is too dependent on the math for any other testing to be useful.

going with my rogue example again, if they put out a rogue with borked math then they can get no useful data on it. people say its crap and boring but that could easily be because he does not work, he does no damage, he is not sneaky ect.

they SHOULD know this, were they serious about the playtest and competent they would have had the math nailed down (or at least close) when the put the first public playtest out.

[1337 b4k4]

how classes feel is too dependent on the math for any other testing to be useful.

going with my rogue example again, if they put out a rogue with borked math then they can get no useful data on it. people say its crap and boring but that could easily be because he does not work, he does no damage, he is not sneaky ect.


Well that's why you ask for more feedback than just "do you like it". When people say "it does no damage" or "it's not sneaky enough" then that tells you what they're looking for. If on the other hand they say "wheres the assasination skill" or "how do we use poisons?" or "it's impossible to climb castle walls with the thief" that tells you different things your user base is looking for. Heck even the difference between "it doesn't do enough damage" and "it doesn't do enough damage on sneak attacks" tells you two very different things.

Disclaimer: The following paragraphs rely on my personal experience and observations. I'm fairly confident in most of the assertions presented therein, but if you have evidence in the form of studies or more formal polling and research, I'd be happy to look at it.

Look, you have to understand we're a self selected group of people here. A subset of a niche hobby which in and of itself is a subset of a larger niche hobby. Worse still, we're the subset of the aforementioned subset that cares about the playtest. We're particularly interested in the math of the game, and for some of us, more interested in the math than anything else. But we are a minority in our hobby. In my experience, most players of TTRPGs are interested in the math only to the extent that it gets out of their way and let's them get on with the playing of the game. If the math is "good enough" to give them the experience they want, they honestly don't care if there's a better mathematical system. Unless the better math generates a noticeable difference in feel to the player at the table, they just don't care. I've been in and sat through many TTRPG sessions and the number of people who are interested in the math of the game and how that math works is roughly proportional to the number of people who want to be (or are) DMs. To a large extent, this makes perfect sense. As DMs, our interaction with the math is much different from the (non DM) player's interactions. We use the math to help us build a world and construct characters and challenges. We use the math to help us fairly adjudicate situations of uncertainty. The math of the game is in everything we do. For most of the players, the math is something they interact with just long enough to accomplish their personal and character goals. In the grand scheme of things and in general, as long as the math keeps the players coming back for more and stays out of their way when they don't want it, the particulars of the situation couldn't matter less. It only really starts to be a problem when the math is getting in the way of fun (see LFQW when one party member is the LF and the other is the QW).

This isn't to discount the fact that there are players who find the math interesting and who don't DM. There are. They're the ones for whom their personal enjoyment of the game comes (in part or whole) from manipulating the mathematics and building with the tool set the game provides like a lego kit. Sometimes we disparagingly refer to them as Min-Maxers, but they're players who play with the math. To these players the math is important, but I would wager again, in a way that's different from how it's important for DMs. For many min-maxers (or at least the ones that I have had experience with), their interaction with the math is less dependent on how balanced it is and more with manipulating the system around whatever limitations there are. In fact, for a subset of these players, a broken math system could be more entertaining in that it provides challenges for creating a concept the system doesn't (by virtue of brokenness) normally allow.

End disclaimer section

Look. I'm not arguing that math isn't important to the game. It is. The game still uses math and RNGs to generate results and understanding your tools is part of being a good game designer and a good DM. I'm also not arguing that the system as presented doesn't need to have it's math fixed. What I am arguing is:

A) Math is not the end all, be all of the game. A game with bad math that's fun (in a non math sense) and engaging for the players is a better game than one with perfect balance and math that accurately reflects everyone's expectations but does so at the expense of fun (in a non math sense) or engaging. And make no mistake, unlike GURPS, D&D is a game, not a system. As such, it can have a lesser system and still be a fun game.

B) The playtest was not a mathematical playtest. WotC has and pays people to do math. The evidence suggests WotC knows how to do math. Generating a public playtest to do math testing is a waste of money and resources. Generating a public playtest to gather information about the intangibles that your players are looking for is valuable if done correctly. Whether or not WotC did this correctly remains to be seen. Personally I feel that miscommunication hobbled the playtest and that it wasn't nearly as valuable as WotC was hoping for.

[Kurald Galain]

While I agree that most players don't particularly care about the game math, I don't see that as an excuse for having bad math in the game.

[captpike]

While I agree that most players don't particularly care about the game math, I don't see that as an excuse for having bad math in the game.

most people don't care about the math as such, but they do care how it feels which is in large part due to the math.

its like how most people don't know or care the details of what is in gas, does not mean they wont notice if someone subed in water.

[1337 b4k4]

While I agree that most players don't particularly care about the game math, I don't see that as an excuse for having bad math in the game.

No it's not an excuse to have bad math, but when your facing down the realities of business and limited resources, it's a perfectly good excuse to have good enough math if there are other things which are more pressing to a majority of your players and target audience. Again I'm not arguing whether or not the math presented in the last playtest packet qualifies as "good enough" just arguing that math may not be the thing most players of the game really want.


most people don't care about the math as such, but they do care how it feels which is in large part due to the math.

its like how most people don't know or care the details of what is in gas, does not mean they wont notice if someone subed in water.

Not quite. It's more like how until gas is expensive enough, or unless they have a specific reason to care, most people will be perfectly happy driving around their 25mpg toyota camry or 30 mpg honda civic rather than seeking out the 50 mpg smart car. And if given 50k to spend on a new car, would probably spend it on a nicer car (like a BMW) than on a more efficient car.

Of course, this decision changes depending on how much gas costs, because high gas costs plus low mpg interferes with the primary purpose of the vehicle (getting from point a to point b quickly, comfortably and within budget). Similarly, when the math of the system interferes with the primary purpose of gaming for the players, they will care about the math. Until that point though, you're better off not spending too many resources on something most of your players don't care about.

If you're a computer person you can also draw a parallel to windows XP vs windows 7 or 8. In almost every measurable technical aspect, windows 7 and 8 are superior operating systems than XP. Yet thousands of millions of consumers preferred (and in many cases downgraded) to XP because a better so that doesn't meet the primary desires of the user is a worse choice than a lousy OS that does meet the primary desires.

[Lokiare]

Yeah, we've been down this road before. Your interpretation, and the actual paper you link to occupy two totally different worlds. Not interested in rehashing it with you, but since we're talking to the class, here's the original paper (http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/pubs/MDA.pdf), I don't have time to dig up the original discussion we had on the issue.

You were unable to refute me then, what new evidence have you provided that makes you think that has changed? My interpretation is accurate. All you have to do is read the paper and look up how its been applied to other games.


Except for the fact that I make none of these assumptions at all. My entire argument was that you can not conclude (as you have) that people are playing D&D because they enjoy D&D's advancement. I was proposing alternate possibilities that fit the same observed events. My entire point was without more information, your conclusion is just as likely as mine.

except of course that the last 2 editions have had a much greater advancement than 5E has. In fact I think most editions of D&D have had bigger advancement than 5E, which kind of points to an underlying trend. Its not concrete, but its at least circumstantial enough to put the ball in my court.

(Here: is where I would draw a parallel to the flat advancement in modern MMO's, but that would probably incite rage in some posters.)


Again, just pointing out we need more research and can't draw the conclusions you have. In fact, I think I said that ... yes yes I did: " one can assume (and then confirm via other research) "



Your assertion is that people will not play games that have features they don't enjoy? So then would you say that no one who plays D&D does not enjoy LFQW? Would you say that no one who plays D&D has an does not enjoy the skill system? It's not like 4e was the first TTRPG to feature class balance or better skills.

Class balance? Yeah, actually it was the first D&D games to even get close (See advertising:branding). Better skills? Just removed a lot of unused skills is all they did to try to balance the use of skills out. It isn't that people will not play when one part of the game comes up wanting. its when large chunks of it come up wanting that many people will stop playing it.


No, that's not proof they don't understand math. It is evidence that they understand that a TTRPG is about more than pure math. It's also evidence for my theory that the playtest was never about testing the math but getting information about those intangibles. Math is easy, I can make a numerically balanced system with my eyes closed, and so can you. Making a system that people want to play on the other hand is much more difficult and requires more than just pure math.

Unfortunately, without proper math the play test was worthless. When the Fighter could keep up with the damage of the Wizards spells for a few levels or on individual spells, everyone was happy, until people like me pointed out that the Wizard can cast a spell like that every other round by level 5 or so. Then they got mad and started complaining about LFQW. Math has as much to do with how a game feels as anything else. You can take the exact same features that were in the last packet and scale the math up or down on specific classes and get an entirely different feel. If you don't believe me, double the fighters bonuses and half the damage of all wizard spells and then run a play test, then do the exact opposite and run another play test with the same players. Then ask them if the game felt different. I guarantee they will say yes.


[CITATION NEEDED] Also assumes (without evidence) that this was an intentional design decision intended on going into the final product and not simply and oversight or error that would have been corrected (you know, as in a play test).

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20130705

The podcast talks about it and the video on that page shows it as it happened if its the right video). It wasn't some kind of oversight. They had been talking about going retro and including save or suck and save or die mechanics with monsters. It was intentional. They just didn't realize the impact it would have on the game because they didn't understand the math involved.

And yet, this is the same company which produced both Magic: the Gathering, D&D 4e, D&D3e (which despite everything actually has decent math, it just starts breaking down as the system grows bigger), the Pokemon CCG and all the other products listed here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wizards_of_the_Coast_products)

Given the success of the company and most of the products on that list, the evidence seems to indicate that WotC does indeed know how to do math, otherwise (as you stated above) no one would be playing their games. The alternative interpretation of the evidence is that WotC doesn't know how to do math, but that their games are quality games that people enjoy playing despite this fact, which leads credence to the philosophy you just mentioned above (focusing on the intangibles rather than the math).

Most of the people that worked on MtG never touched D&D and most of the people that helped make 4E have since been let go. Only a few people are still on the team that were there for 4E. So this is not valid evidence.


Edit
---------------

Incidentally, this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?343855-Why-do-you-play-dnd) ought to be an interesting thread to watch given the discussion here vis-a-vis the reasons people play. It will be interesting to see the number of times "advancement potential" is given.

The problem is that most people don't know why they like to play. They don't introspect and read up on how fun works and psychology. Its unlikely that anything but a survey given by a psychologist would be of any help here.


Or you could just give him a +1 on all stealth checks and hope for the best...

That's what they've been doing and it has failed over and over. Just guess is never a good answer in math class, why should it be the right answer in the business world when working with math.


Yes and no, but mostly agreed. But that's besides the point of the argument which is that the given statement is not evidence that WotC doesn't know how to do math.



Here's where I say that other things need to come before math. You're assuming a lot of things with your line of questioning that haven't been answered and need to be before you even begin to process the math. For example you ask "how much of a bonus ... on stealth" but this assumes that stealth is going to be mathematically modeled in the system and that the chosen method for being better in this modeling system is to have a bonus. As an alternative, stealth could be left entirely to GM discretion, be obtained only via specific actions that have no mathematical modeling or even be mathematically modeled, but you decide to make the thief "better" by removing their need to roll entirely because "Thief". You also need to answer how often opportunities for stealth are expected to be presented in the system to determine whether "stealth" is even a feature you want to spend design resources on. And I'm assuming for the sake of argument you've already done the research to determine whether a "Thief" class is what your players want and that they want their Thieves to be stealthy people who deal more damage when stealthy. Once you have decided these things, then yes, you need to get into the math, but those other questions are vitally important and are only very tangentially related to doing math for your system.

I'm not entirely convinced yet that the playtest was not intended to answer the first set of questions rather than to answer math questions.



Oh sure, and it's entirely possible that D&D Next will be pushed out the door without a math review. My issue is more with the claim (and idea) that WotC doesn't know how to do math. They clearly do. Whether or not they bring those skills to bear, and how much is a different question all together.


Going back a bit in the discussion to the baseline expectations for starting character scores and how they've changed over the years, I came across this today. Back in BECMI, on page 48, Mentzer states that a character who's highest ability score is less than 9, or a character who has two or more scores below a 6 are probably inadequate for playing and should be rerolled (but also notes you might want to try it anyway). So in BECMI, a character whose starting stat array looks like [9 9 7 6 6 5] would be considered an acceptable (if on the weakish side) character. Compare that to the last playtest packet which suggests a starting array of [16 14 13 12 10 8] or point buy starting at all 8s with 30 points to spend.

Teah, see my point above about the math. Run that play test I ask for and then see what the results are. Without having solid numbers beforehand you can't tell what is what. They go hand in hand. Since they used the word 'traditional' in their design, we've known the general structure of the game and how their overall design would work. What we didn't know was how the math would affect it and we still don't know.


Well that's why you ask for more feedback than just "do you like it". When people say "it does no damage" or "it's not sneaky enough" then that tells you what they're looking for. If on the other hand they say "wheres the assasination skill" or "how do we use poisons?" or "it's impossible to climb castle walls with the thief" that tells you different things your user base is looking for. Heck even the difference between "it doesn't do enough damage" and "it doesn't do enough damage on sneak attacks" tells you two very different things.

Unfortunately they didn't do this. They gave you a 1 to 5 rating bar and asked how you liked the class or a specific feature or spell. That was it. I remember being particularly frustrated when I found the wonky math for the sneak attack, where an optimized Rogue was better off making an attack with advantage, rather than giving up advantage for the damage boost from sneak attack. When I got to the survey all it asked was if I liked the new sneak attack mechanic. I had to put absolutely not on there without being able to tell them it was flawed math that caused me to not like it, not the mechanic itself. If they had upped the damage a bit, it would have been fine.


Disclaimer: The following paragraphs rely on my personal experience and observations. I'm fairly confident in most of the assertions presented therein, but if you have evidence in the form of studies or more formal polling and research, I'd be happy to look at it.

Look, you have to understand we're a self selected group of people here. A subset of a niche hobby which in and of itself is a subset of a larger niche hobby. Worse still, we're the subset of the aforementioned subset that cares about the playtest. We're particularly interested in the math of the game, and for some of us, more interested in the math than anything else. But we are a minority in our hobby. In my experience, most players of TTRPGs are interested in the math only to the extent that it gets out of their way and let's them get on with the playing of the game. If the math is "good enough" to give them the experience they want, they honestly don't care if there's a better mathematical system. Unless the better math generates a noticeable difference in feel to the player at the table, they just don't care. I've been in and sat through many TTRPG sessions and the number of people who are interested in the math of the game and how that math works is roughly proportional to the number of people who want to be (or are) DMs. To a large extent, this makes perfect sense. As DMs, our interaction with the math is much different from the (non DM) player's interactions. We use the math to help us build a world and construct characters and challenges. We use the math to help us fairly adjudicate situations of uncertainty. The math of the game is in everything we do. For most of the players, the math is something they interact with just long enough to accomplish their personal and character goals. In the grand scheme of things and in general, as long as the math keeps the players coming back for more and stays out of their way when they don't want it, the particulars of the situation couldn't matter less. It only really starts to be a problem when the math is getting in the way of fun (see LFQW when one party member is the LF and the other is the QW).

This isn't to discount the fact that there are players who find the math interesting and who don't DM. There are. They're the ones for whom their personal enjoyment of the game comes (in part or whole) from manipulating the mathematics and building with the tool set the game provides like a lego kit. Sometimes we disparagingly refer to them as Min-Maxers, but they're players who play with the math. To these players the math is important, but I would wager again, in a way that's different from how it's important for DMs. For many min-maxers (or at least the ones that I have had experience with), their interaction with the math is less dependent on how balanced it is and more with manipulating the system around whatever limitations there are. In fact, for a subset of these players, a broken math system could be more entertaining in that it provides challenges for creating a concept the system doesn't (by virtue of brokenness) normally allow.

End disclaimer section

Unfortunately the opposite could be true just as easily. We on the forums could represent the majority and most of the fans could actually think like us. Short of doing some kind of in depth survey of the thousands of D&D players out there, we will never know.


Look. I'm not arguing that math isn't important to the game. It is. The game still uses math and RNGs to generate results and understanding your tools is part of being a good game designer and a good DM. I'm also not arguing that the system as presented doesn't need to have it's math fixed. What I am arguing is:

A) Math is not the end all, be all of the game. A game with bad math that's fun (in a non math sense) and engaging for the players is a better game than one with perfect balance and math that accurately reflects everyone's expectations but does so at the expense of fun (in a non math sense) or engaging. And make no mistake, unlike GURPS, D&D is a game, not a system. As such, it can have a lesser system and still be a fun game.

Without the proper math, the mechanics and the 'fun' parts are meaningless. The math underlies the entire game, where there is no math, the game mechanics aren't what are bringing the fun. This is where things like story telling and role playing are bringing the fun and any game can do that. Its entirely independent of the fun.


B) The playtest was not a mathematical playtest. WotC has and pays people to do math. The evidence suggests WotC knows how to do math. Generating a public playtest to do math testing is a waste of money and resources. Generating a public playtest to gather information about the intangibles that your players are looking for is valuable if done correctly. Whether or not WotC did this correctly remains to be seen. Personally I feel that miscommunication hobbled the playtest and that it wasn't nearly as valuable as WotC was hoping for.

The evidence suggests they don't know how to do math or are choosing not to do it. Either way bodes ill for 5E.


No it's not an excuse to have bad math, but when your facing down the realities of business and limited resources, it's a perfectly good excuse to have good enough math if there are other things which are more pressing to a majority of your players and target audience. Again I'm not arguing whether or not the math presented in the last playtest packet qualifies as "good enough" just arguing that math may not be the thing most players of the game really want.



Not quite. It's more like how until gas is expensive enough, or unless they have a specific reason to care, most people will be perfectly happy driving around their 25mpg toyota camry or 30 mpg honda civic rather than seeking out the 50 mpg smart car. And if given 50k to spend on a new car, would probably spend it on a nicer car (like a BMW) than on a more efficient car.

Of course, this decision changes depending on how much gas costs, because high gas costs plus low mpg interferes with the primary purpose of the vehicle (getting from point a to point b quickly, comfortably and within budget). Similarly, when the math of the system interferes with the primary purpose of gaming for the players, they will care about the math. Until that point though, you're better off not spending too many resources on something most of your players don't care about.

If you're a computer person you can also draw a parallel to windows XP vs windows 7 or 8. In almost every measurable technical aspect, windows 7 and 8 are superior operating systems than XP. Yet thousands of millions of consumers preferred (and in many cases downgraded) to XP because a better so that doesn't meet the primary desires of the user is a worse choice than a lousy OS that does meet the primary desires.

This kind of thinking leads to games with 1-8 playable levels out of 20. Math errors that are indistinguishable at low levels become exponentially more pronounced at high levels. If they were smart, they would insert a mechanic or math into the game at level 1 and then see how it affects the game at level 20. They aren't so they won't.

[1337 b4k4]

You were unable to refute me then, what new evidence have you provided that makes you think that has changed? My interpretation is accurate. All you have to do is read the paper and look up how its been applied to other games.

Wrong.




except of course that the last 2 editions have had a much greater advancement than 5E has. In fact I think most editions of D&D have had bigger advancement than 5E, which kind of points to an underlying trend. Its not concrete, but its at least circumstantial enough to put the ball in my court.

No it doesn't. You have yet to introduce any evidence that significant advancement is a key element of the game that people are enjoying. That they play the game in order to see their characters gain numerical advancements over their previous characters as much or more than any other reason. You have yet to even provide any evidence (like a survey or study) that suggests significant advancement is anywhere in the top set of reason people play D&D. Until you do, you are interpreting minimal data in a way that is neither more nor less valid than any other interpretation that fits the data you do have.



Class balance? Yeah, actually it was the first D&D games to even get close (See advertising:branding). Better skills? Just removed a lot of unused skills is all they did to try to balance the use of skills out. It isn't that people will not play when one part of the game comes up wanting. its when large chunks of it come up wanting that many people will stop playing it.


That isn't what I said, and it isn't what you said either. You're shifting the goal posts here. You claimed:

"Really? Because both 3E and 4E have [significant advancement], and if people didn't like [significant advancement] that much they wouldn't play either game."

By your argument, if people don't like [feature] then they will not play a game with [feature]. What I said was that D&D 4e was not the first TTRPG that had better class balance or skills, and therefore by your argument, nobody should have been playing any D&D editions before 4e once those other TTRPGs came out.

If you are now changing your argument to "People assign importance to different aspects of the game and as long as a game has enough things which they rank highly in importance, they will overlook the other failings of that game", then I agree with you. Of course that's been my argument all along, but it would be nice for you to finally acknowledge it.



Most of the people that worked on MtG never touched D&D and most of the people that helped make 4E have since been let go. Only a few people are still on the team that were there for 4E. So this is not valid evidence.

The assertion is that WotC doesn't know how to do math. Therefore evidence that WotC has plenty of people who do math and plenty of games which get math "right" is evidence against the assertion.




The problem is that most people don't know why they like to play. They don't introspect and read up on how fun works and psychology. Its unlikely that anything but a survey given by a psychologist would be of any help here.

People know why they like the things they like, you just have to be able to interpret what they say into usable data. You don't need people to read up on how "fun" works or the psychology behind it to get an idea of what things they want and what things they don't want from asking them why they enjoy things. What do you think the initial guys who came up with the "types of fun" did?



Unfortunately they didn't do this. They gave you a 1 to 5 rating bar and asked how you liked the class or a specific feature or spell. That was it. I remember being particularly frustrated when I found the wonky math for the sneak attack, where an optimized Rogue was better off making an attack with advantage, rather than giving up advantage for the damage boost from sneak attack. When I got to the survey all it asked was if I liked the new sneak attack mechanic. I had to put absolutely not on there without being able to tell them it was flawed math that caused me to not like it, not the mechanic itself. If they had upped the damage a bit, it would have been fine.

So I take it you completely skipped all the free text fields in the surveys? And I take it you're assuming too that they are only reading the survey questions and have no other form of input on the game?



Unfortunately the opposite could be true just as easily. We on the forums could represent the majority and most of the fans could actually think like us. Short of doing some kind of in depth survey of the thousands of D&D players out there, we will never know.

It's possible, but unlikely. We even acknowledge this unlikeliness when we refer to the "internet echo chamber" and "forum only problems" (like trained rabbit speed walking). We also know that 3.x and Pathfinder continue to be popular despite their "math problems" as well as the OSR resurgence in recent years (a big enough thing to get WotC to take notice). Then there's also the fact that we know the majority of D&D players are players not DMs and we have the ongoing and continued popularity of games with weak math but strong other components (like WoD). So yes, it's possible that we -- the few (sub 200,000) D&D fans who populate these forums, who know that there's a D&D playtest going on, and who engage in internet combat to determine to the 10th of a percentage point how likely it is that conan the barbarian will lose to tiny tim but still beat a dragon 10 times his size in a wrestling match -- we might be the majority. But I'm willing to be we're not.



Without the proper math, the mechanics and the 'fun' parts are meaningless.


Good to know that all D&D before 4e was meaningless and not fun.



The math underlies the entire game, where there is no math, the game mechanics aren't what are bringing the fun. This is where things like story telling and role playing are bringing the fun and any game can do that. Its entirely independent of the fun.

One of these sentences is not like the other. Hint, it's not the first two.

Also, this would pretty much be a summation of my argument. That the math can be imperfect and flawed at the expense of more improvements in other parts of the game and it can still be a good game. So once again, thank you for making my argument for me.



This kind of thinking leads to games with 1-8 playable levels out of 20. Math errors that are indistinguishable at low levels become exponentially more pronounced at high levels. If they were smart, they would insert a mechanic or math into the game at level 1 and then see how it affects the game at level 20. They aren't so they won't.

Or, they might take a system that works for 1-8 playable levels and then slow the progression down and add in some width instead of depth so that such a system is stretched into 20 levels. You might try to take the kind of game that's encompassed in those 1-8 levels and try to turn it into a complete game that is comfortable and familiar to your fans and gives them the sorts of things they want. Kind of like D&D Next ...

[captpike]

Or, they might take a system that works for 1-8 playable levels and then slow the progression down and add in some width instead of depth so that such a system is stretched into 20 levels. You might try to take the kind of game that's encompassed in those 1-8 levels and try to turn it into a complete game that is comfortable and familiar to your fans and gives them the sorts of things they want. Kind of like D&D Next ...

or more likely they will try to do that, and still not test the higher levels so effectively you will have 3-4 playable levels.

not to mention the problems with treating a bug (only having 8 levels of 20 being playable) as a feature...

[Lokiare]

Wrong.

Yet again an assertion with no proof. I don't think you are convincing anybody, least of all me.


No it doesn't. You have yet to introduce any evidence that significant advancement is a key element of the game that people are enjoying. That they play the game in order to see their characters gain numerical advancements over their previous characters as much or more than any other reason. You have yet to even provide any evidence (like a survey or study) that suggests significant advancement is anywhere in the top set of reason people play D&D. Until you do, you are interpreting minimal data in a way that is neither more nor less valid than any other interpretation that fits the data you do have.

Here is an explanation of how big numbers work with the brain: http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/big-numbers-bork-brain-fight.html

Due to the way our brain guesstimates big numbers and their differences, people generally prefer big gaps when its in their favor.

http://www.dnaindia.com/lifestyle/report-adults-use-baby-skills-while-counting-numbers-1955905

People instinctively group numbers by their proportion to each other. Which in smaller numbers you can't really do. This means instinctively people like numbers that are above 5, because its easy to match proportions.

http://www.appfreak.net/secrets-behind-the-clash-of-clans-monetization/

This article is about a $4 million dollar a day game. People make micro purchases of 'gems'. They have a preference for packs with bigger numbers, even though the price is almost identical to smaller numbers of gems.

"Packs with bigger numbers like 2500, 6500 or 14000 gems are much more appealing and ‘worthy’ than let’s say 250, 650 or 1400 gems."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21780935

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21494046

These studies shows that a major motivator for playing games is 'achievement' which in part is measured by a character advancing (when applied to D&D).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21342012

This study shows that player enjoyment is tied to their effectiveness, which in D&D is tied to bigger numbers over time to see more effectiveness. For instance a player would see an increase in their effectiveness if they fought the same monster at levels 1, 5, and 10. They would see their effectiveness go up much more in 4E and 3.5E than they would in 5E.

I could go on and on and on, but I think everyone gets the point. People overall enjoy bigger numbers.


That isn't what I said, and it isn't what you said either. You're shifting the goal posts here. You claimed:

"Really? Because both 3E and 4E have [significant advancement], and if people didn't like [significant advancement] that much they wouldn't play either game."

By your argument, if people don't like [feature] then they will not play a game with [feature]. What I said was that D&D 4e was not the first TTRPG that had better class balance or skills, and therefore by your argument, nobody should have been playing any D&D editions before 4e once those other TTRPGs came out.

What post is that from? I don't remember using brackets to convey a point in a long time. If you are paraphrasing, its possible you didn't understand my argument. Some features may keep people from playing if they are present, such as imbalance for people that enjoyed the balance of 4E and homogeneity in class features for those that didn't like 4E.

You don't seem to understand why D&D itself is popular. Its not because its a better game than other games. Its because of the number of people that play it. Its the same principle as why MMO's are popular. Most MMO's are almost identical clones of each other, yet some of these MMO's are more popular than others. The reason for this is the number of people that will try an MMO is tied to the number of people already playing it. Basically its a popularity contest that has nothing to do with the contents. It has to do with momentum. For awhile D&D was the only game out there and thus had quite a few players. After competition came out, it was still the most well known game, and thus attracted more players. This continues to be the case. This also explains why Pathfinder can outsell an edition of D&D, because its literally D&D made by a better company.


If you are now changing your argument to "People assign importance to different aspects of the game and as long as a game has enough things which they rank highly in importance, they will overlook the other failings of that game", then I agree with you. Of course that's been my argument all along, but it would be nice for you to finally acknowledge it.

I never said different. However there are certain features that override this and will cause people to not play the game at all. For instance 4E has many of the features of previous editions, however it also has a lot of balance and homogenous class features, both things that some players of 3.5E found to outweigh the benefits of the game. My prediction with 5E is that players coming from each previous edition will find something in the game that they can't stand and will cause them to not play it.


The assertion is that WotC doesn't know how to do math. Therefore evidence that WotC has plenty of people who do math and plenty of games which get math "right" is evidence against the assertion.

I assumed that you would know what I was talking about when i said 'WotC' in relation to D&D. Instead you are trying to make some kind of syntactical argument. I should have known better. Let me clarify: When I say 'WotC doesn't know how to do math'. I mean the department that deals with D&D and not the department that deals with anything else like MtG.


People know why they like the things they like, you just have to be able to interpret what they say into usable data. You don't need people to read up on how "fun" works or the psychology behind it to get an idea of what things they want and what things they don't want from asking them why they enjoy things. What do you think the initial guys who came up with the "types of fun" did?

What, you mean other than get degrees in psychology and game development? They analyzed things at a much deeper level than the common player of D&D, that's for sure. For instance when I ask people why they don't like 4E, their response is usually 'it was too much like WoW', or some other equally vague statement with no substance. I have to chase their answers down to see if they dislike the art in the books, the mythic feel of the game, or if they disliked the homogenized class mechanics. People literally don't know how to express their like and dislike of games.


So I take it you completely skipped all the free text fields in the surveys? And I take it you're assuming too that they are only reading the survey questions and have no other form of input on the game?

You are assuming Mearls sat down and read 100,000 x 8 = 800,000 for each packet. I find that highly unlikely. If they have any other form of input on the game its likely to be biased and not statistically meaningful. I'm sure their 100 internal play testers have opinions, I have my doubts about whether they reflect the market at large.


It's possible, but unlikely. We even acknowledge this unlikeliness when we refer to the "internet echo chamber" and "forum only problems" (like trained rabbit speed walking). We also know that 3.x and Pathfinder continue to be popular despite their "math problems" as well as the OSR resurgence in recent years (a big enough thing to get WotC to take notice). Then there's also the fact that we know the majority of D&D players are players not DMs and we have the ongoing and continued popularity of games with weak math but strong other components (like WoD). So yes, it's possible that we -- the few (sub 200,000) D&D fans who populate these forums, who know that there's a D&D playtest going on, and who engage in internet combat to determine to the 10th of a percentage point how likely it is that conan the barbarian will lose to tiny tim but still beat a dragon 10 times his size in a wrestling match -- we might be the majority. But I'm willing to be we're not.

Its completely up in the air. Its entirely possible that people like previous editions because of how WotC treated customers during those years and didn't like how they were treated during the 4E era. There could be thousands of different reasons why people stuck to older editions, the economy being one off the top of my head, until we see some statistics on the subject it could go either way. Claiming we are an echo chamber means nothing unless you can back it up with facts and science.


Good to know that all D&D before 4e was meaningless and not fun.

Good to know you can twist anything into a strawman, but let me refute your argument anyway. Other games have mechanics, and math. Therefore by your reasoning no edition of D&D was fun and they were all meaningless. Logical fail.

Take 3.5E, allow the fighter to deal +1000 damage per hit, give them 10 attacks per round (not requiring a full round action). Allow them to move between attacks, and give them a +50 to their attack roll, then give them a +20 bonus to all saves and AC. Then play that game and come back and try to explain to me how its exactly like the original 3.5E and how 'parts' of it were more fun.

Rogue "We should sneak past the guard."

Fighter "Nah, I can take anything on this planet in two rounds, that includes deities and the tarrasque, why would I bother to sneak past some guards?"


One of these sentences is not like the other. Hint, it's not the first two.

Also, this would pretty much be a summation of my argument. That the math can be imperfect and flawed at the expense of more improvements in other parts of the game and it can still be a good game. So once again, thank you for making my argument for me.

And what does that have to do with anything? The parts that are fun because they are independent of the game and are brought by the players and can be applied to a game of monopoly should invalidate good math? Sure, if that's your argument, have fun with it. Here's the deal though. You can just throw the game away and go play make believe and not even have to pay for D&D. See I just saved you money.


Or, they might take a system that works for 1-8 playable levels and then slow the progression down and add in some width instead of depth so that such a system is stretched into 20 levels. You might try to take the kind of game that's encompassed in those 1-8 levels and try to turn it into a complete game that is comfortable and familiar to your fans and gives them the sorts of things they want. Kind of like D&D Next ...

That's nothing like 5E. In 5E casters begin to get more powerful around level 8 or so to the point that dealing damage doesn't have an affect on the outcome of encounters. Then, like in previous editions, classes that are built around dealing damage become meaningless. They also don't add any width in for anyone other than casters and even then its not half the depth of other games (like 4e). They slow the progression down to the point that you can't even tell you are advancing or getting better, which to a lot of people sucks the fun out of the game as I demonstrated above with the links to studies on the subject. "Gives them the sorts of things they want" is too ambiguous a statement to have any meaning in this context. Does it give them a new car? Does it give them a bowl of chips? meaningless.

I can do this all day if you want...

[1337 b4k4]

Yet again an assertion with no proof. I don't think you are convincing anybody, least of all me.

Like I said, I'm not interested in rehashing the discussion. Interested parties are free to look up the old conversation on their own time. Your interpretation is wrong.




Here is an explanation of how big numbers work with the brain: http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/big-numbers-bork-brain-fight.html

Due to the way our brain guesstimates big numbers and their differences, people generally prefer big gaps when its in their favor.

http://www.dnaindia.com/lifestyle/report-adults-use-baby-skills-while-counting-numbers-1955905

People instinctively group numbers by their proportion to each other. Which in smaller numbers you can't really do. This means instinctively people like numbers that are above 5, because its easy to match proportions.

http://www.appfreak.net/secrets-behind-the-clash-of-clans-monetization/

This article is about a $4 million dollar a day game. People make micro purchases of 'gems'. They have a preference for packs with bigger numbers, even though the price is almost identical to smaller numbers of gems.

"Packs with bigger numbers like 2500, 6500 or 14000 gems are much more appealing and ‘worthy’ than let’s say 250, 650 or 1400 gems."


Your first set of links mostly is evidence that humans are bad at math in general. Your links support a claim that we prefer bigger numbers, and we're bad at relative comparisons as the numbers get bigger. That is to say, D&D Next could multiply all the values by 10, such that your ability scores go from 100 to 200, and your modifiers go from 10 to 50 and even though there's no substantial difference in actual numerical advancement, people might prefer it. This is called numbers bloat and is a well documented phenomena (see pinball machine scores for another example). None of this substantiates the claim the people actually enjoy numerical advancement over other aspects of the game. In fact, by extrapolating from the second and third articles, if WotC sufficiently inflated the numbers, they could actually present a worse advancement regimen than Next currently has and people (you included) would view it more favorably.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21780935

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21494046

These studies shows that a major motivator for playing games is 'achievement' which in part is measured by a character advancing (when applied to D&D).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21342012

This study shows that player enjoyment is tied to their effectiveness, which in D&D is tied to bigger numbers over time to see more effectiveness. For instance a player would see an increase in their effectiveness if they fought the same monster at levels 1, 5, and 10. They would see their effectiveness go up much more in 4E and 3.5E than they would in 5E.


These links I can't read without paying and therefore can not confirm nor deny your interpretation. I do note that the last time you started interpreting papers, you made some fairly substantial leaps and alterations that were not supported by the original paper. You will therefore have to excuse me if I don't believe that the quoted papers tied "achievement" and "effectiveness" to "bigger numbers in D&D". In fact, I reject outright that "achievement" should be thought of only in growth advancement of a character. Go tell anyone who's ever played (and beaten) a Super Mario Bros game that they didn't experience any achievement because numerically their character is exactly the same at level 8 as they were at level 1.



I could go on and on and on, but I think everyone gets the point. People overall enjoy bigger numbers.


Which is not the same as advancement.



What post is that from? I don't remember using brackets to convey a point in a long time. If you are paraphrasing, its possible you didn't understand my argument.


The post history is there for you to read, including the sentences you quoted when you responded. If your argument was misinterpreted it was because you failed to express your argument.


You don't seem to understand why D&D itself is popular. Its not because its a better game than other games. Its because of the number of people that play it. Its the same principle as why MMO's are popular. Most MMO's are almost identical clones of each other, yet some of these MMO's are more popular than others. The reason for this is the number of people that will try an MMO is tied to the number of people already playing it. Basically its a popularity contest that has nothing to do with the contents. It has to do with momentum. For awhile D&D was the only game out there and thus had quite a few players. After competition came out, it was still the most well known game, and thus attracted more players. This continues to be the case.

I am fairly certain you challenged this very same assertion from me not more than a few posts ago. Yep you did, I've found it right here:



In your analysis you make more assumptions than I do. You assume that people playing what their friends play is more numerous than people playing what they want to play.

So do D&D players play because their friends are playing or because they want to play D&D?



I assumed that you would know what I was talking about when i said 'WotC' in relation to D&D. Instead you are trying to make some kind of syntactical argument. I should have known better. Let me clarify: When I say 'WotC doesn't know how to do math'. I mean the department that deals with D&D and not the department that deals with anything else like MtG.


If you mean one thing and say something else, it isn't your opponent's fault that they assumed you meant what you said and not what you didn't say. I expect others to read and respond to what I say, and not to interpret what I say into something else. I extend the same courtesy to those I debate with. It isn't syntax or semantics, it's just common courtesy.



For instance when I ask people why they don't like 4E, their response is usually 'it was too much like WoW', or some other equally vague statement with no substance. I have to chase their answers down to see if they dislike the art in the books, the mythic feel of the game, or if they disliked the homogenized class mechanics. People literally don't know how to express their like and dislike of games.

Not knowing how to express is different from not knowing what they like and dislike. Believe me, I work in software development for business applications, I know all about people not knowing how to express what they want. The trick is, any good designer or developer knows how to ask questions and how to turn these vague and less than ideal expressions into useful data.



You are assuming Mearls sat down and read 100,000 x 8 = 800,000 for each packet. I find that highly unlikely. If they have any other form of input on the game its likely to be biased and not statistically meaningful. I'm sure their 100 internal play testers have opinions, I have my doubts about whether they reflect the market at large.

Nope, I didn't assume that. Thanks for playing.



Good to know you can twist anything into a strawman, but let me refute your argument anyway. Other games have mechanics, and math. Therefore by your reasoning no edition of D&D was fun and they were all meaningless. Logical fail.

Go ahead and find any statement from me which states that games with mechanics and math are not fun or are meaningless. Go ahead, I'll wait. Seriously, there's a search box right up there, find one and quote it. You're the one that says without proper math, everything else is meaningless.



Take 3.5E, allow the fighter to deal +1000 damage per hit, give them 10 attacks per round (not requiring a full round action). Allow them to move between attacks, and give them a +50 to their attack roll, then give them a +20 bonus to all saves and AC. Then play that game and come back and try to explain to me how its exactly like the original 3.5E and how 'parts' of it were more fun.

Rogue "We should sneak past the guard."

Fighter "Nah, I can take anything on this planet in two rounds, that includes deities and the tarrasque, why would I bother to sneak past some guards?"


I don't even know what you're attempting to argue here. That if you change the math you change the feel of the game? Sure, that's a no brainer. But I guarantee I can change the feel of the game while leaving the math alone as well.



And what does that have to do with anything? The parts that are fun because they are independent of the game and are brought by the players and can be applied to a game of monopoly should invalidate good math? Sure, if that's your argument, have fun with it. Here's the deal though. You can just throw the game away and go play make believe and not even have to pay for D&D. See I just saved you money.

So to be clear, your argument is that any fun that you have in a game that isn't directly derived from the mathematical parts of the game are not actually from there game and therefore have nothing to do with the game? That the only "type" of fun that is derived from RPGs and therefore the only reason to play or buy a TTRPG is your personal definition of "challenge" fun?



I can do this all day if you want...

Yeah, but I can't. Frankly this is getting boring for me, and if it's boring for me, I'm sure it's stupendously boring for the rest of the people slogging their way through this thread. I'm done. At this point we're going around in circles. You continue your crusade of convincing everyone that without "proper math" the fun they're having with their games is meaningless. I'm going to get back to actually having fun, with those "improper math" games.

[captpike]

Yeah, but I can't. Frankly this is getting boring for me, and if it's boring for me, I'm sure it's stupendously boring for the rest of the people slogging their way through this thread. I'm done. At this point we're going around in circles. You continue your crusade of convincing everyone that without "proper math" the fun they're having with their games is meaningless. I'm going to get back to actually having fun, with those "improper math" games.

the point is that everything that happens outside of the math is not part of the game, its stuff you add it to (aka roleplaying) so its not relevant to the playtest.

the math is what needs to be right, if it is not then the game will not work regardless of anything else.

not to mention that if the math works (which admittedly would require a level and intelligence and competence that the 5e team has yet to show) then everyone is happy, the people who want the math to work and the (misguided) people who don't think it matters.

[1337 b4k4]

the point is that everything that happens outside of the math is not part of the game, its stuff you add it to (aka roleplaying) so its not relevant to the playtest.

It is if your playtest is about figuring out the intangibles that your players are bringing to the game and expecting out of the game and what they want the game to support (or not support). Again, we're assuming the playtest was about playtesting the math. I'm not convinced that's so.

To use the example WotC highlighted early on, no amount of math tweaking and perfection would have told them that players expected clerics to turn undead.



not to mention that if the math works (which admittedly would require a level and intelligence and competence that the 5e team has yet to show) then everyone is happy, the people who want the math to work and the (misguided) people who don't think it matters.

We have evidence this isn't the case. 4e got the math right, and it works, and it works fantastically. And people weren't happy. We can go back and forth over whether or not the exodus of players was 4e's math, giving fighters nice things, familiarity with 3x, lousy treatment of fans by WotC, or all of the above and more. But it's very clear that a common vocal complaint about 4e was how it felt. But I don't think I ever heard someone complain that 4e's math was "broken" (aside from the small oddities like the scaling damage by level thing)

[captpike]

We have evidence this isn't the case. 4e got the math right, and it works, and it works fantastically. And people weren't happy. We can go back and forth over whether or not the exodus of players was 4e's math, giving fighters nice things, familiarity with 3x, lousy treatment of fans by WotC, or all of the above and more. But it's very clear that a common vocal complaint about 4e was how it felt. But I don't think I ever heard someone complain that 4e's math was "broken" (aside from the small oddities like the scaling damage by level thing)

a very large number of people did not like 4e because it was not 3.75, and anything short of making it 3.75 would not have made them happy. even with the those people 4e was at least as successful as 3.x

good math may not by itself be enough to make the game good, but any good game needs good math. there is no reason (and given that the previous version did get it right) no excuse for them not to get the math right.
they have all the tools they need, all they have to do is pick them up and use them, instead they are picking up the old and rotten tools and using them, even after being told and shown that its a bad idea.

EDIT:
while there are no doubt some people who want the fighter to be worthless, and want to see the rogue be invalidated by a few spells they are much much smaller then the number of people who want to see every class be playable, and the number that would just stop playing after their class being shown up by one or two spells from the wizard.

there comes a point when you have to accept that some people are not in your target audience, this group is one of those.

[1337 b4k4]

a very large number of people did not like 4e because it was not 3.75, and anything short of making it 3.75 would not have made them happy. even with the those people 4e was at least as successful as 3.x

So like I said, people find things other than math to be important to their game. Incidentally, if the best you can say about an edition of a game with significantly improved math is "it was at least as popular as the edition before it with the broken math" then you're not doing a very good job supporting the assertion that good math (as opposed to "good enough") is a necessary and vital component for a good game.



good math may not by itself be enough to make the game good, but any good game needs good math.


So the conclusion we can draw from this is either that no edition of D&D prior to 4e was a good game, or every edition of D&D prior to 4e had good math.

Alternatively, we can go with my theory that math is not the primary driver of a good TTRPG, that it is merely one component in a complex mishmash of factors.



while there are no doubt some people who want the fighter to be worthless, and want to see the rogue be invalidated by a few spells they are much much smaller then the number of people who want to see every class be playable, and the number that would just stop playing after their class being shown up by one or two spells from the wizard.

Aaaaaand we're done here. Not every person who disliked 4e simply wants "WIZARDS ROOL AND FIGHTORS DROOOL!!! LOLZ!!", and your dismissal of your opponents as such does a disservice to the discussion.



there comes a point when you have to accept that some people are not in your target audience

While I agree with this statement in general, what if WotC has decided math geeks aren't in their target audience? What if they've determined that the number of people who don't necessarily care about the math as long as it's "good enough" are a bigger, better and more profitable audience?

[captpike]

So the conclusion we can draw from this is either that no edition of D&D prior to 4e was a good game, or every edition of D&D prior to 4e had good math.
honestly no they were not, they were imbalanced, tried to RP for you, among other bad practices.

the reason they go away with it is first because it was new and we did not know better. then because it was the only/biggest on the market.

games have evolved long past what D&D was, even 3e is an anachronism in many ways.



Alternatively, we can go with my theory that math is not the primary driver of a good TTRPG, that it is merely one component in a complex mishmash of factors.

the biggest reason to try and get the math right is because you only get one chance. once the game is out either the math is good or it fails. you can fix small problems (like in 4e) afterward but if it fails utterly (like 5e looks like it will) then you cant do anything unless you want to rewrite half your PHB and republish it. invaliding everything you made for the game.





Aaaaaand we're done here. Not every person who disliked 4e simply wants "WIZARDS ROOL AND FIGHTORS DROOOL!!! LOLZ!!", and your dismissal of your opponents as such does a disservice to the discussion.


that was not at all my point. my point is that those people are the only ones who have a reason to oppose good math.

unless you want some classes to suck and be useless, and others to be overpowered then you should want good math.
there literally is no good reason whatsoever to not want good math.
the math is what makes the game work. it hurts EVERYTHING

if they do what they did in 3e and make rogues and fighters not scale (and that looks to be the case) one problem that will be caused is the RP of both, if you get past the point where they are useful they have a large disconnect on where they RP and what they are.

you cant say your a party of 5 anymore (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard, sorcerer) to an NPC because realistically your fighter and rogue cant help.
what RP reason are they even in the party? why give henchmen equal shares of treasure and loot? they certainly cant be considered equals, they can hardly hold their own without help better spent elsewhere







While I agree with this statement in general, what if WotC has decided math geeks aren't in their target audience? What if they've determined that the number of people who don't necessarily care about the math as long as it's "good enough" are a bigger, better and more profitable audience?

the point that has been made again and again is that "math geeks" are NOT the reason that the math should be good, the math should be good because otherwise the game will not work and it will hurt everything about it. even those who profess to not care about math will notice (even if they cant put a finger to it).

when your trying to play a stealthy assassin and realize you are not stealthy nor deadly, then you might not think "the math is screwed up" but that is what is happening.

or you could play a wizard, pick good spells and realize that your making the other members of the party worthless just by being there.

[1337 b4k4]

honestly no they were not

30+ years of gaming history beg to differ with you on that assessment.



, they were imbalanced, tried to RP for you, among other bad practices.
the reason they go away with it is first because it was new and we did not know better. then because it was the only/biggest on the market.
games have evolved long past what D&D was, even 3e is an anachronism in many ways.

And yet, we have the OSR. We have people continuing to play 3e, and we have people who continue to play older RPGs that all have bad math. It's almost like there are things other than math that matter. And before you say it, the OSR is not mere nostalgia for people. It can't be because there are a considerable number of people who play and enjoy OSR games that started with higher editions of D&D. Heck the first edition of D&D I ever played was 4e, before that I played GURPS and a handful of other non D&D systems.




that was not at all my point. my point is that those people are the only ones who have a reason to oppose good math.


It's a good thing then that no one is opposed to good math.



the point that has been made again and again is that "math geeks" are NOT the reason that the math should be good, the math should be good because otherwise the game will not work and it will hurt everything about it. even those who profess to not care about math will notice (even if they cant put a finger to it).

Again 30+ years of TTRPG history suggests you're wrong about this.

[captpike]

30+ years of gaming history beg to differ with you on that assessment.
30 years and no logic apparently.

if you have reasons say them, saying "I have played for X years, you have not therefor I am right" is not a reason.



And yet, we have the OSR. We have people continuing to play 3e, and we have people who continue to play older RPGs that all have bad math. It's almost like there are things other than math that matter. And before you say it, the OSR is not mere nostalgia for people. It can't be because there are a considerable number of people who play and enjoy OSR games that started with higher editions of D&D. Heck the first edition of D&D I ever played was 4e, before that I played GURPS and a handful of other non D&D systems.


there are people who like bad games, does not mean they are not bad games, nor that WOTC should actively try to make 5e bad because some people somewhere like bad games.

not to mention that one of the biggest reasons OSR is big is because its cheap to make. the hard part of making a game is testing you hardly need to test when you don't care about balance and just copying what someone else did.

[1337 b4k4]

there are people who like bad games, does not mean they are not bad games, nor that WOTC should actively try to make 5e bad because some people somewhere like bad games.

Alternatively, the history of the RPG industry and the number of people who like, purchase and continue to play these older games, even when they have access to and the money to purchase "better" games suggests that these games aren't objectively bad games. I mean you're seriously arguing that D&D grew to be such a massively successful franchise and has spawned hundreds of imitators and continued to be the gold standard in the gaming industry for years by selling bad games.

Thought experiment: If D&D can do that by selling "bad" games, and when they sold a "good" game it was only "at least as successful" as the previous edition was at the end of its life, why would they spend the money and resources required to make a "good" game. If they sell equally well, the "bad" game is infinitely easier to produce.



not to mention that one of the biggest reasons OSR is big is because its cheap to make. the hard part of making a game is testing you hardly need to test when you don't care about balance and just copying what someone else did.

Ah yes, the classic dismissal of those "other gamers" because they just don't care enough. They're not "true" designers or game makers. It's like the TTRPG cry of "fake girl geek". But even if it were true, why are people downloading and playing the games? If they're "bad" games why would people play them when there are "good" games to be played?

Thought experiment: Perhaps your personal preferences in games are not as objective as you think. Can you name "good games" which you don't like and wouldn't play?

[captpike]

Alternatively, the history of the RPG industry and the number of people who like, purchase and continue to play these older games, even when they have access to and the money to purchase "better" games suggests that these games aren't objectively bad games. I mean you're seriously arguing that D&D grew to be such a massively successful franchise and has spawned hundreds of imitators and continued to be the gold standard in the gaming industry for years by selling bad games.

Thought experiment: If D&D can do that by selling "bad" games, and when they sold a "good" game it was only "at least as successful" as the previous edition was at the end of its life, why would they spend the money and resources required to make a "good" game. If they sell equally well, the "bad" game is infinitely easier to produce.

you seam to be confusing "popular" with "good" they are in fact not related except in that many good things are popular. the reverse is not true. there are many good things that are not popular and many bad things that are.
most TV shows are objectively terrible and without any creative thought does not mean they are not profitable.

again when your offering the only game in the market (early D&D) it does not matter if your game is bad (no one even knew how to make a good one at that point), and being popular was a big appeal to D&D, it made it easier to find people to play. the internet hurt that, you don't have to play the biggest game to find any game.

there are many reasons 4e did not outside 3e by as large as margin as it should have (were profit solely dictated by how good the product is) the biggest one being competition, for the first time they had real competition both from big name companies and from the internet.



Ah yes, the classic dismissal of those "other gamers" because they just don't care enough. They're not "true" designers or game makers. It's like the TTRPG cry of "fake girl geek". But even if it were true, why are people downloading and playing the games? If they're "bad" games why would people play them when there are "good" games to be played?

they very may well care, but not about balance because OSR games don't have it. they certainly are welcome to have fun with them but I am under no illusions about those games.

all I said was that the less you care about balance the less you need to test, the less you need to spend. same goes for trying to make something new vs copying someone else (OSR and alot of d20 stuff).

I am not insulting anyone (unless the truth insults you, in which case you deserve to be insulted) I am stating facts.

I am having a discussion that means when I state a fact you can A) say the fact is wrong and explain why B) say why the fact not relevant C) admit I am right.
insulting me does not help.






Thought experiment: Perhaps your personal preferences in games are not as objective as you think. Can you name "good games" which you don't like and wouldn't play?
any CCG, no mater how well made I cant get past the business model they use.

while I have not played it I don't really want to play numeria there are several things that bug me in it.

[1337 b4k4]

you seam to be confusing "popular" with "good" they are in fact not related except in that many good things are popular. the reverse is not true. there are many good things that are not popular and many bad things that are.
most TV shows are objectively terrible and without any creative thought does not mean they are not profitable.


Problem is that "good" is by definition a subjective term. A something could be "objectively" good by one particular standard, but something can not be universally objectively "good". Given that TV shows have 2 main purposes, to entertain and to make money. Popular shows are therefor objectively "good" by that standard. The show may be objectively "bad" by a standard of intellectual depth or by a standard of plot development, but I assure you that TV shows which are objectively "good" by those standards but fail to make money or entertain will be "bad" shows and will also be unpopular.



again when your offering the only game in the market (early D&D) it does not matter if your game is bad (no one even knew how to make a good one at that point), and being popular was a big appeal to D&D, it made it easier to find people to play. the internet hurt that, you don't have to play the biggest game to find any game.

D&D was the "only game in the market" for one year. By 1975, Tunnels and Trolls, Empire of the Petal Throne and Boot Hill had been published, the later two being published by TSR themselves. Metamorphisis Alpha published in 1976 (again a TSR product). Traveller and Chivalry & Sorcery appeared by 1977, RuneQuest and Gammaworld (TSR) in 1978, and Roll Master by 1980. Following that the 80's produced a glut of games including the mathematically solid GURPS. If D&D was objectively bad, surely at least one of these games would have supplanted it.

And if the (admittedly anecdotal) stories of people who were in the TTRPG scene during those days are any indication, people we playing all sorts of different games all the time and there was a lot of cross pollination. So it's hardly like D&D was this monolith and it was impossible to find other games.



there are many reasons 4e did not outside 3e by as large as margin as it should have (were profit solely dictated by how good the product is) the biggest one being competition, for the first time they had real competition both from big name companies and from the internet.


I do not think you and I are using the same definition of "for the first time".

[Knaight]

Alternatively, the history of the RPG industry and the number of people who like, purchase and continue to play these older games, even when they have access to and the money to purchase "better" games suggests that these games aren't objectively bad games. I mean you're seriously arguing that D&D grew to be such a massively successful franchise and has spawned hundreds of imitators and continued to be the gold standard in the gaming industry for years by selling bad games.

There are two very, very big things being ignored here. The first here is simple brand recognition - D&D is a known and recognized brand, and that brings in new people. It's likely to be the first RPG known for most people. This also means that by learning D&D, they now have gained the ability to play RPGs at all, at the cost of reading a few hundred pages - which is substantial, by game rules standards. Meanwhile any other RPG involves reading however much it is (which, for the other well known ones is usually a few hundred pages) for the chance of better mechanics. D&D doesn't need to be the better game to come out ahead here.

Then there are network effects. Again, D&D is the biggest RPG, simply because it was the first. As such, it's the easiest RPG to get other people to play with. This is a gigantic advantage. The perfectly designed RPG that nobody will play with you is worth very little to most gamers. D&D doesn't need to be better to pull out ahead here as well.

[Sartharina]

I saw the proportionality argument pop up... and I remember just how bad that is for D&D 3.5. It's why the math is broken, and why +1s are dismissed, even though the effect on the RNG of a +1 vs +2 is identical to the difference between +24 and +25. It results in characters at high levels having discrepencies in ability the mind can't process, such as AC 40 vs. AC 30. or +45 to attack vs. +50 to attack because of 3/4ths BAB.

Something I like about D&D Next is that it doesn't let the numbers get so large that we start looking at proportion instead of absolute value while the resolution mechanic remains a fixed 1-20 range, which leads to people bringing characters not even on the same page in terms of ability.

[Kurald Galain]

I saw the proportionality argument pop up... and I remember just how bad that is for D&D 3.5. It's why the math is broken, and why +1s are dismissed, even though the effect on the RNG of a +1 vs +2 is identical to the difference between +24 and +25. It results in characters at high levels having discrepencies in ability the mind can't process, such as AC 40 vs. AC 30. or +45 to attack vs. +50 to attack because of 3/4ths BAB.

40 - 30 = 10. What on earth is so hard to process about that?

[Sartharina]

40 - 30 = 10. What on earth is so hard to process about that?

The difference between AC 40 and AC 30 is identical to the difference between AC 10(Naked Time!) and AC 20(Full Plate+Shield). But, once you get past AC 20 or so, people start going into proportionality mode - AC 40 is only 33% larger than AC 30, while AC 20 is 100% larger than AC 10. It's bigger at low levels - people tend to make a big deal of the difference in +0 to attack and +6 to attack at low levels, yet in 3.X ignore the difference between +22 to attack and +28 to attack because the proportionate difference is smaller. And don't get me started on the bull**** that saves have to go through in 3.5 because they have proportional progression.

In fact, things like Cross Class skills and fraction-based BAB and Saves reinforce trying to emphasize proportionality, while it's all confined to the same d20 resolution mechanic. This is why you end up with situations in late-game 3.5 where a Good Save is practically an auto-win (Except in Pathfinder, when it's a 50/50 chance of win), and a Bad Save is practically always an auto-fail (Sooner in Pathfinder, because things are tweaked around Good saves being 50/50), even though a proportional resolution system would have bad saves failing 50% more often than good saves.

[Kurald Galain]

The difference between AC 40 and AC 30 is identical to the difference between AC 10(Naked Time!) and AC 20(Full Plate+Shield). But, once you get past AC 20 or so, people start going into proportionality mode - AC 40 is only 33% larger than AC 30, while AC 20 is 100% larger than AC 10. It's bigger at low levels - people tend to make a big deal of the difference in +0 to attack and +6 to attack at low levels, yet in 3.X ignore the difference between +22 to attack and +28 to attack because the proportionate difference is smaller.

I have only rarely encountered this so I don't think it's nearly as common as you say (for example, common wisdom in 4E is that every character, even at high level when they already have big attack bonuses, must take every +1 feat they can find); aside from that I don't think that (a) this is a problem that needs to be solved, nor (b) that bounded acc actually helps against this.

[Sartharina]

I have only rarely encountered this so I don't think it's nearly as common as you say (for example, common wisdom in 4E is that every character, even at high level when they already have big attack bonuses, must take every +1 feat they can find); aside from that I don't think that (a) this is a problem that needs to be solved, nor (b) that bounded acc actually helps against this.
1. 4e doesn't have this problem because the understanding is baked into the math, and it doesn't have any variation of numeric bonuses away from "1/2 Level+variable static bonuses" (Whereas 3e has math with numbers based on half-level, third level, one-quarter level, three-quarters level, twice level, and full level, causing a serious discrepency in ability at high levels) - but as for "Common Wisdom" - It's mentioned so often because it's important, yet extremely counterintuitive for most players. It is NOT something that is inherently good. And even then, "Must take every +1" is also an overreaction to fight against the tendency to judge proportionally and let a few bonuses slide because they pale in comparison to the final number, to prevent people from ignoring the +1s and falling 'off the track" even though they CAN afford to sacrifice one or two points without a notable loss in performance.
2. It very much is a problem that needs to be solved because it renders the game nearly unplayable at high levels.
3. Bounded accuracy DOES help, because it keeps the numbers from ballooning to the point that people approach them proportionally.

[1337 b4k4]

There are two very, very big things being ignored here. The first here is simple brand recognition - D&D is a known and recognized brand, and that brings in new people. It's likely to be the first RPG known for most people. This also means that by learning D&D, they now have gained the ability to play RPGs at all, at the cost of reading a few hundred pages - which is substantial, by game rules standards. Meanwhile any other RPG involves reading however much it is (which, for the other well known ones is usually a few hundred pages) for the chance of better mechanics. D&D doesn't need to be the better game to come out ahead here.

Then there are network effects. Again, D&D is the biggest RPG, simply because it was the first. As such, it's the easiest RPG to get other people to play with. This is a gigantic advantage. The perfectly designed RPG that nobody will play with you is worth very little to most gamers. D&D doesn't need to be better to pull out ahead here as well.

I'm not ignoring those things. I'm saying those things aren't enough to sustain D&D the way it has been sustained. If D&D were an objectively bad game, when the hobby was starting and clones and imitators and other games were popping up left and right (see previous post discussing history) another game that was objectively better would have taken its place as the go to game for people since the only people playing were cross pollinating games and rules sets. Later on as the industry got bigger, if D&D were an objectively bad game, the major players would be playing something else and while D&D might still be bringing new people in, unless they were starting blind and never being brought into the hobby by other players, they would eventually be playing other games since that's what the experienced players were playing. Finally if D&D were an objectively bad game, no matter how much brand name recognition it had, people would play a game or two and then stop playing because they didn't like the game. Either experienced players would move on to other things, or the non-experienced players would write all of TTRPGs off and walk away. In either case, D&D doesn't maintain market dominance by being an objectively bad game.

If network effects and brand name recognition were enough to permanently sustain a brand, even in the face of objectively superior competitors and even when those competitors requires considerable amounts of effort to switch to, AOL would still be the dominant ISP, AIM would still be the preferred communications protocol, MySpace would still be the dominant social networking site, and Geocities would still be the dominant web host for people and the iPhone and iPod would never have been successful products.

[Sartharina]

Well, until another RPG is featured in a major blockbuster film, I doubt that they'll get anywhere near the brand recognition that D&D has. D&D is the game that's actually had an impact on our culture that still sustains it thirty years later.

[Kurald Galain]

Well, until another RPG is featured in a major blockbuster film, I doubt that they'll get anywhere near the brand recognition that D&D has. D&D is the game that's actually had an impact on our culture that still sustains it thirty years later.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Pathfinder_Poster.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder_(2007_film)) :smallamused:

[Sartharina]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Pathfinder_Poster.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder_(2007_film)) :smallamused:The blockbuster movie I'm referring to that made D&D enter the public conscience wasn't any of the terrible licensed D&D movies. Instead, the game was featured in a famous early 80's high-grossing, award-winning Steven Spielberg film.

[RedWarlock]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Pathfinder_Poster.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder_(2007_film)) :smallamused:

This thing has nothing to do with the other thing. :tongue:

[Lokiare]

This thing has nothing to do with the other thing. :tongue:

Doesn't matter. People saw the movie and then saw the Pathfinder game on sale on the web or on their local store shelves and picked it up, then realized it was 3.5E warmed over, and then bought it. It actually explains the games meteoric success.

[Talakeal]

About D&D math:

For basically everything except damage it is a binary pass fail system.

Furthermore, unless you are playing at a higher level of optimization than the basic game understands such as stacking custom magic items and multiple similar feats and class abilities, you will need somewhere between 1-20 to succeed on a level appropriate test.

This means that a +1 bonus will always mean the difference between success and failure 5% of the time, regardless of the players level or how high the DC / bonus of the test it.

And if you are attempting a task which you cannot fail (or cannot succeed) based on the d20 roll then the actual numbers are irrelevant.

[Sartharina]

About D&D math:

For basically everything except damage it is a binary pass fail system.

Furthermore, unless you are playing at a higher level of optimization than the basic game understands such as stacking custom magic items and multiple similar feats and class abilities, you will need somewhere between 1-20 to succeed on a level appropriate test.

This means that a +1 bonus will always mean the difference between success and failure 5% of the time, regardless of the players level or how high the DC / bonus of the test it.

And if you are attempting a task which you cannot fail (or cannot succeed) based on the d20 roll then the actual numbers are irrelevant.

Which almost works in principal, but when the numbers are shifted by 10 or 20 points, people start losing sight of that and start thinking in terms of proportion, and mentally try treating the difference between +24 and +28 as the same as the difference between +6 and +7, which causes serious problems in terms of how the game's math feels in play.

[Stubbazubba]

Which almost works in principal, but when the numbers are shifted by 10 or 20 points, people start losing sight of that and start thinking in terms of proportion, and mentally try treating the difference between +24 and +28 as the same as the difference between +6 and +7, which causes serious problems in terms of how the game's math feels in play.

This seems like a player error, not a system one. The fact that BAB and saves are on proportional progression tracks is a problem, but people thinking about it wrong is just that.

Even if bounded accuracy actually addressed this adequately, it brings along with it so many other issues that I am absolutely confident that fixing BAB/saves is both easier and more effective.

[Sartharina]

This seems like a player error, not a system one. The fact that BAB and saves are on proportional progression tracks is a problem, but people thinking about it wrong is just that.It doesn't matter if it's a player error or not if the system's designed to work in a way incompatible with human thinking. Your options are to either change the underlying math to work with human psychology, or find a way to chemically 'rewire' everyone's brains on a fundamental level to handle the math system the game uses to make it work and feel right.

[Lokiare]

It doesn't matter if it's a player error or not if the system's designed to work in a way incompatible with human thinking. Your options are to either change the underlying math to work with human psychology, or find a way to chemically 'rewire' everyone's brains on a fundamental level to handle the math system the game uses to make it work and feel right.

I think option 2 needs to be done anyway for other reasons, so why not fix the math in peoples brains while we're at it, or we could encourage people to quit consuming fluoride and increase their IQ by 7 points. (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/harvard-study-published-national-institute-health-journal-finds-fluoride-lowers-childrens-intelligence-7-iq-points.html)

[Stubbazubba]

It doesn't matter if it's a player error or not if the system's designed to work in a way incompatible with human thinking. Your options are to either change the underlying math to work with human psychology, or find a way to chemically 'rewire' everyone's brains on a fundamental level to handle the math system the game uses to make it work and feel right.

I don't think whether it's "incompatible with human thinking" is a decided issue yet. They have proportional BAB/save tracks that indicate that you should think about it that way. Take those away and human thinking might catch up. Of course those of us raised on 3.5 may just have to muscle through the transition, but that's OK.

But again, bounded accuracy "solves" this problem by contorting the entire game to "fix" a questionable psychological problem. A lot has been sacrificed to the bounded accuracy god, and so far I don't see any miraculous new gameplay experiences flowing from it.

[Gamgee]

This thread has sold me on next. I'm really looking forward to it. First time I can say that about any dnd/pathfinder game in ages.

[Knaight]

If network effects and brand name recognition were enough to permanently sustain a brand, even in the face of objectively superior competitors and even when those competitors requires considerable amounts of effort to switch to, AOL would still be the dominant ISP, AIM would still be the preferred communications protocol, MySpace would still be the dominant social networking site, and Geocities would still be the dominant web host for people and the iPhone and iPod would never have been successful products.

I'd note that all of these are easier to switch out of - it takes one person moving for them it doesn't involve a 1000 pages of technical writing, etc. Moreover, while they aren't enough to permanently sustain a brand, they certainly have kept them around. AOL lasted far longer than it's quality really supported, MySpace stuck around for years despite comparable options (with Facebook now doing the exact same thing), so on and so forth. Those examples are also all from the electronics industry, which is particularly fast moving. D&D's been dominant for about 40 years, which is really not that long for non-electronic industries. Plus, there are cases where network effects did trump everything else. Take VHS vs. Beta formats for video. Beta was smaller, held more information, and was just generally a better format, but VHS was more widely used, which meant that there were more VHS players, more movies on VHS, etc. So, it killed Beta. It did get supplanted later, but that involved an actual technological shift.

Moreover, there's a perception bias here - shifts in dominant brands are highly noticeable. There's something new which can be seen which is large enough to displace the previous one, and thus get observed. Things that died in obscurity are much less noticeable, and unlikely to get counted.

[da_chicken]

About D&D math:

For basically everything except damage it is a binary pass fail system.

Furthermore, unless you are playing at a higher level of optimization than the basic game understands such as stacking custom magic items and multiple similar feats and class abilities, you will need somewhere between 1-20 to succeed on a level appropriate test.

This means that a +1 bonus will always mean the difference between success and failure 5% of the time, regardless of the players level or how high the DC / bonus of the test it.

And if you are attempting a task which you cannot fail (or cannot succeed) based on the d20 roll then the actual numbers are irrelevant.

I think the issue people have is that while the absolute probability of success on any one die roll increases by 5%, taken as an aggregate the expected number of successes increases. In other words, it's the difference between specific and relative.

If we're talking about something you need to roll a 19 on to succeed, well you only expect to succeed on 10 of every 100 attempts. If you get a +1 to that die roll, you're going to expect to succeed on 15 of every 100 attempts. While you've only increased your probability of success by 5%, you've increased the amount you expect to succeed by 50% relatively. Similarly, at the other end of the spectrum, if you need a 3 to succeed, you expect to succeed on 90 of every 100 attempts. If you get a +1 to that die roll, again you get +5% chance of success. However, your expected amount of success only increases by ~6% relatively. At the middle of the road, needing a 10 means you expect to succeed on 50 of every 100 attempts. With a +1, you succeed on 55. That's a 10% relative increase. Thus, while on a single die roll the benefits are static, looking at the larger picture a +1 bonus to an already overpowering bonus has far less impact on how often you're successful, even though, yes, your probability increase is fixed.

Now, this math is not wrong. If we go to calculate the damage output of a Fighter against a Golem with unlimited hp where he needs a 19 to hit in one case and an 18 in another, you will see a 50% increase in relative damage output. Similarly you will see ~6% on going from 3 to 2. You have to evaluate not just the rate of success (the raw probability of the die roll), but the relative change as well.

This is what makes it difficult to evaluate the value of a +1. I mean, is it intuitive that in a case of going from needing an 10 to hit to needing a 9 that your damage output actually increases by 10% relative to what it was, even though your hit probability has only increased by 5%?

[Kurald Galain]

Now, this math is not wrong. If we go to calculate the damage output of a Fighter against a Golem with unlimited hp where he needs a 19 to hit in one case and an 18 in another, you will see a 50% increase in relative damage output. Similarly you will see ~6% on going from 3 to 2. You have to evaluate not just the rate of success (the raw probability of the die roll), but the relative change as well.
Perhaps it's not technically "wrong", but this math obviously is misleading. It takes hypothetical examples at the extreme ends of the probability spectrum to conclude that one can't say anything meaningful about the value of a +1; that's not helpful at all. On the other hand, using absolute probabilities makes the answer clear as crystal, and actually allows you to compare different feats or abilities.

"How often will this feat help me" is a useful question. "In hypothetical circumstances, how much might this feat increase some arbitrarily chosen number" is not.

[Sartharina]

Perhaps it's not technically "wrong", but this math obviously is misleading. It takes hypothetical examples at the extreme ends of the probability spectrum to conclude that one can't say anything meaningful about the value of a +1; that's not helpful at all. On the other hand, using absolute probabilities makes the answer clear as crystal, and actually allows you to compare different feats or abilities.

"How often will this feat help me" is a useful question. "In hypothetical circumstances, how much might this feat increase some arbitrarily chosen number" is not.No, the math isn't misleading. It's accurate. Sure, he used the extremes to emphasize just how much the value of a +1 can change, but he also demonstrated the value of the middle as well. The value of a +1 varies based on your expected to-hit number without it, whether that's 1, 3, 5, 10, 12, 15, 17, or 20, or anything in between.

D&D Next seems to have set the threshold for success at 15, with variation from there based on specific circumstances. Other games do the same, such as Savage World's 4 on scaling dice.

It doesn't say that you can't determine the value of a +1. It means that the value of a +1 changes depending on how big your current modifier is vs. the target number the game expects you to hit.

[da_chicken]

Perhaps it's not technically "wrong", but this math obviously is misleading. It takes hypothetical examples at the extreme ends of the probability spectrum to conclude that one can't say anything meaningful about the value of a +1; that's not helpful at all. On the other hand, using absolute probabilities makes the answer clear as crystal, and actually allows you to compare different feats or abilities.

I picked the extremes to illustrate the range of how the bonus changes relatively. That does not mean the method is an incorrect way to evaluate the situation. All you have to do is decide what expected DC or AC you're going to encounter (or what you expect to need to roll to succeed) and then evaluate from there. That the illustrations don't represent every possible situation isn't particularly relevant; illustrations aren't meant to do that.

Indeed, I would say that looking at how the change affects you absolutely is a more incorrect to evaluate an attack roll. We don't care about the outcome of a single die roll (which is all absolute probability tells us). We care about how much more effective we are in combat. The relative improvement is what determines the value of the +1, not the probability of a die roll. Thus it is most useful to compare relatively, i.e., where we end up with where we began.


"How often will this feat help me" is a useful question. "In hypothetical circumstances, how much might this feat increase some arbitrarily chosen number" is not.

I'm sorry, but probability is exactly a hypothetical circumstance. If you evaluate a +1 as a 5% increase in success (or 100% success in an additional 5% of rolls) you're precisely using a hypothetical circumstance in your evaluation.

All I have done is shift the focus from the absolute difference in probability of the die roll to the relative difference in probability. It's vital that you watch your terminology when doing so because I agree it can be misleading, but that doesn't make it wrong. Indeed, sticking with absolute probabilities can be equally misleading, since you can easily believe that a +1 makes your chance of success be 5% more on die rolls so you must be 5% better or succeed 5% more often, when that's not really the case at all.

[Kurald Galain]

Indeed, I would say that looking at how the change affects you absolutely is a more incorrect to evaluate an attack roll. We don't care about the outcome of a single die roll (which is all absolute probability tells us). We care about how much more effective we are in combat.
No, we really don't. That's because "combat effectivity" is not actually measured or defined anywhere.

It is important to realize that the question is not "does a +1 bonus help me" because of course it does. The question is, if there's a feat (or spell/power/item/whatever) that gives a +1, does it help me more than another feat I could be taking instead.

[Stubbazubba]

Indeed, I would say that looking at how the change affects you absolutely is a more incorrect to evaluate an attack roll. We don't care about the outcome of a single die roll (which is all absolute probability tells us). We care about how much more effective we are in combat. The relative improvement is what determines the value of the +1, not the probability of a die roll. Thus it is most useful to compare relatively, i.e., where we end up with where we began.

As a player? Sure, I can see that. But as a designer you don't deal in individual die rolls, you deal in aggregate impact across all characters and all tables. And for that, the 5% hypothetical is simply more useful.

[da_chicken]

No, we really don't. That's because "combat effectivity" is not actually measured or defined anywhere.

It is important to realize that the question is not "does a +1 bonus help me" because of course it does. The question is, if there's a feat (or spell/power/item/whatever) that gives a +1, does it help me more than another feat I could be taking instead.

Well, "help me more" isn't defined anywhere, either, is it? If you get to pick a standard and define it for yourself and determine the best method to evaluate to that standard with your characters, so do I with mine. Regardless of what standard you're using or what evaluation you're doing, you're still picking a standard and evaluating against it. If you want to use an absolute difference instead of a relative one, that's fine. That does not make different standards or different evaluations wrong. They may inform you in different ways, but that is the purpose of using a different standard or evaluation.

[da_chicken]

As a player? Sure, I can see that. But as a designer you don't deal in individual die rolls, you deal in aggregate impact across all characters and all tables. And for that, the 5% hypothetical is simply more useful.

Why? From a design standpoint, you need to look at both.

Sure, build your math in absolutes because that gives you a very good top-down overview, but players are going to think relatively and the impact a single +1 has is going to be felt relatively. The valuation is no less accurate, and it can help when comparing highly disparate effects like +1 attack vs +2 damage. If you're just looking at the math and not evaluating how a +1 will feel to the player, then you're going to design a game that's mathematically beautiful but feels like choices are irrelevant, or you'll see that players can't adequately evaluate. If a player can't make a choice and then see that, yes, this choice was correct and is doing something, then that game element is flawed. Players need to know that their choices matter or they will simply not learn your game and will move on since it will never be fun for them. That feedback is vital to teaching players system mastery.

Relative evaluation also helps you to see things that you might not otherwise. Say you have a feat that you want melee classes to take, but the effects mean that it feels much more impact on caster or ranged classes. Well, now it feels like the feat is out of place, or like the ranged and casters are able to be better than melee classes simply because they get a higher relative benefit from your feat.

[Knaight]

As a player? Sure, I can see that. But as a designer you don't deal in individual die rolls, you deal in aggregate impact across all characters and all tables. And for that, the 5% hypothetical is simply more useful.

Except for that isn't really the case, as the designer is likely building the game knowing what typical ranges look like. As a hypothetical, say we have 3 degrees of fighting capability. 1 succeeds on attacks on a 6+, one on a 10+, and one on a 14+, against the average monster they're going to be fighting before modifications. In that case, it's really easy to look at all three cases, and see how much of an increase +1 in attack is going to be.

[Talakeal]

I think the issue people have is that while the absolute probability of success on any one die roll increases by 5%, taken as an aggregate the expected number of successes increases. In other words, it's the difference between specific and relative.

If we're talking about something you need to roll a 19 on to succeed, well you only expect to succeed on 10 of every 100 attempts. If you get a +1 to that die roll, you're going to expect to succeed on 15 of every 100 attempts. While you've only increased your probability of success by 5%, you've increased the amount you expect to succeed by 50% relatively. Similarly, at the other end of the spectrum, if you need a 3 to succeed, you expect to succeed on 90 of every 100 attempts. If you get a +1 to that die roll, again you get +5% chance of success. However, your expected amount of success only increases by ~6% relatively. At the middle of the road, needing a 10 means you expect to succeed on 50 of every 100 attempts. With a +1, you succeed on 55. That's a 10% relative increase. Thus, while on a single die roll the benefits are static, looking at the larger picture a +1 bonus to an already overpowering bonus has far less impact on how often you're successful, even though, yes, your probability increase is fixed.

Now, this math is not wrong. If we go to calculate the damage output of a Fighter against a Golem with unlimited hp where he needs a 19 to hit in one case and an 18 in another, you will see a 50% increase in relative damage output. Similarly you will see ~6% on going from 3 to 2. You have to evaluate not just the rate of success (the raw probability of the die roll), but the relative change as well.

This is what makes it difficult to evaluate the value of a +1. I mean, is it intuitive that in a case of going from needing an 10 to hit to needing a 9 that your damage output actually increases by 10% relative to what it was, even though your hit probability has only increased by 5%?


I was NOT talking about the effectiveness of the +1 in comparison to the number needed on the die (I got into a very long debate on that back in 2012 and am not touching it again with a standard issue 10' pole).

I am well aware that a +1 when you need a 19 to succeed is far more valuable than a +1 when you need a 3 to succeed.

What I meant was that a +4 vs. a +5 modifier when the difficulty is 15 will have no more or less impact than a +104 vs. a +105 modifier when the difficulty is 115. Thus greater weapon focus is, from a purely mathematical standpoint, no worse at level 8 than regular specialization is at level 1, both give a +1 bonus to hit over the previous value and that +1 is equally valuable regardless of the BaB it is attached to, although due to the whole LFQW nature of the game the feat is still less relevant.

[Sartharina]

I was NOT talking about the effectiveness of the +1 in comparison to the number needed on the die (I got into a very long debate on that back in 2012 and am not touching it again with a standard issue 10' pole).

I am well aware that a +1 when you need a 19 to succeed is far more valuable than a +1 when you need a 3 to succeed.

What I meant was that a +4 vs. a +5 modifier when the difficulty is 15 will have no more or less impact than a +104 vs. a +105 modifier when the difficulty is 115. Thus greater weapon focus is, from a purely mathematical standpoint, no worse at level 8 than regular specialization is at level 1, both give a +1 bonus to hit over the previous value and that +1 is equally valuable regardless of the BaB it is attached to, although due to the whole LFQW nature of the game the feat is still less relevant.However, in order for that to hold up, Attack Bonus and AC need to scale at a one-to-one basis on level. In D&D 4e, it does. In every other edition, they don't.

[Talakeal]

However, in order for that to hold up, Attack Bonus and AC need to scale at a one-to-one basis on level. In D&D 4e, it does. In every other edition, they don't.

And that is unfortunate.

I am not sure why they had such trouble keeping to the 4E curve without all the overly gamist baggage. I managed to do it in Heart of Darkness afaik and I can't imagine it would be harder in Core D&D. Of course eventually splat bloat would probably annihilate any semblance of constrained numbers. It will be very interesting to see just how badly they have failed to stick to their bounded accuracy a couple of years into the life of 5E.

[obryn]

I am not sure why they had such trouble keeping to the 4E curve without all the overly gamist baggage.
Because they were beholden to keep all of the D&Dish baggage, like +x weapons, dexterity modifying AC, etc. So you end up with kludges like the more-complex-than-it-needed-to-be Masterwork Armor.

[da_chicken]

Because they were beholden to keep all of the D&Dish baggage, like +x weapons, dexterity modifying AC, etc. So you end up with kludges like the more-complex-than-it-needed-to-be Masterwork Armor.

Also all the Expertise feats, because they planned to make combat harder as you progressed through the tiers and didn't realize this made players feel less effective as they progressed in levels. Expertise was a patch on that flaw that quickly became known as a "feat tax".

[Lokiare]

Also all the Expertise feats, because they planned to make combat harder as you progressed through the tiers and didn't realize this made players feel less effective as they progressed in levels. Expertise was a patch on that flaw that quickly became known as a "feat tax".

In my ideal game players would gain a +1/3 level to their attack rolls with their primary attack type (martial, magic, or divine) and a +1/4 or less to the other two. Then you would scale the monsters to match at level using a kind of mathematical system that traded out things like hp, AC, defenses/saves, and the ability to deal damage on a mathematically balanced exchange rate. So you might have Ethereal Wasps that are extremely difficult to hit with martial attacks (high AC), but have really low hp to make up for it. So you might be able to kill one with a single hit, but you might miss it 3 times in combat. Something like a stone golem might have a really low AC and saves, but have a metric ton of hp to make up for it. It might have some kind of special defenses instead of being a sack of hp. Something like resistance (half damage) to magic or even just resistance to everything. In that way if its mathematically balanced and we know how many hp equals one point of AC and how much resistance is generally worth, then we could easily do what they are talking about.

[Envyus]

In my ideal game players would gain a +1/3 level to their attack rolls with their primary attack type (martial, magic, or divine) and a +1/4 or less to the other two. Then you would scale the monsters to match at level using a kind of mathematical system that traded out things like hp, AC, defenses/saves, and the ability to deal damage on a mathematically balanced exchange rate. So you might have Ethereal Wasps that are extremely difficult to hit with martial attacks (high AC), but have really low hp to make up for it. So you might be able to kill one with a single hit, but you might miss it 3 times in combat. Something like a stone golem might have a really low AC and saves, but have a metric ton of hp to make up for it. It might have some kind of special defenses instead of being a sack of hp. Something like resistance (half damage) to magic or even just resistance to everything. In that way if its mathematically balanced and we know how many hp equals one point of AC and how much resistance is generally worth, then we could easily do what they are talking about.

You also would need a ton of **** to do this. It's far far too complicated.

[D-naras]

You also would need a ton of **** to do this. It's far far too complicated.

That seems like the opposite of complicated to me actually. If we define a middle ground for enemies of any given level, then it will be easy to come up with enemies on the fly. You can even fit this in the DM's screen. Just make 3 tables for easy (for groups with lower power level), normal and hard enemies for each level. Each table will list the AC, HP, to hit and damage bonus of the average monster and how each change will affect a monster. For example, a tough monster can have up to -50% AC for 200% hit poits and -25% attack bonus for +50% damage. You can also list how some special abilities change the challenge, like ranged attacks, special movement modes or access to aoe effects. Spell access is special and should be approached carefully, but for the base monster chassis this should work smoothly.

[Lokiare]

That seems like the opposite of complicated to me actually. If we define a middle ground for enemies of any given level, then it will be easy to come up with enemies on the fly. You can even fit this in the DM's screen. Just make 3 tables for easy (for groups with lower power level), normal and hard enemies for each level. Each table will list the AC, HP, to hit and damage bonus of the average monster and how each change will affect a monster. For example, a tough monster can have up to -50% AC for 200% hit poits and -25% attack bonus for +50% damage. You can also list how some special abilities change the challenge, like ranged attacks, special movement modes or access to aoe effects. Spell access is special and should be approached carefully, but for the base monster chassis this should work smoothly.

Exactly. The hard part would be done on the developers side and then you would just have either an equation for what equals what or a look up chart in the Monster Manual or DM Guide. There would be 'standard' numbers you could use if you were in a hurry, but if you wanted a unique creature that was slightly different you would have the tools to make it.

[da_chicken]

I think outlining the baselines by level is perfectly fine, but I don't think using them to construct monsters on the fly is desirable. Frankly, telling DMs that that is alright will simply serve to encourage cookie-cutter enemies. If you make it too modular, it also encourages pure gamist monster design, which I don't think is particularly healthy for the game since it can result in lazy design crutches and extreme metagaming. "Don't go into melee, his AC of Z indicates he's likely level Y, and they jump to from 1d10+5 to 2d6+7." "We need to have resistance to fire by level X because fireball 3/day is on this level's common ability tables." Obviously, to design the game the designers need to be aware of the math, but presenting raw mechanics may not produce exactly the kinds of results they want. And that's assuming they don't end up like 3.5's NPC tables, underpowered, slightly awkward to use (and very difficult on the fly), and only really something you use when building the adventure and not at the gaming table.

Granted, some people will use them correctly, but I'd wager those DMs would design monsters mostly correctly anyways. I think the game needs to present tools for DMs which will produce the best games for the most players.

[D-naras]

Pathfinder tried to normalise how monsters are designed. I don't know if they succeeded but here it is for all to see: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/monster-creation. It looks kinda wordy and hard to use though.

[tenbones]

... or not-so-ironically, one could pick up Fantasy Craft, which has already stripped d20 down and deconstructed it to be mathematically balanced and built it right back up.

I find a of the debate on the qualities of 3.x/PF vs. 4e slightly disingenuous. The math *is* bad aesthetically in play in all editions previous to 4e in my experience. Even Gygax himself said the game was never intended to go beyond 10th level - but people wanted more so they extrapolated outward.

It's funny that no one even thinks about how many of 3.x's artifacts of design stemmed from this notion they could reconcile that. Pathfinder had to inherit this DNA for "compatibility" reasons.

As for 4e... well there is a reason it's not in print anymore. Balance by clinging to the notions of mathematical symmetry of using a d20 can be done with better aesthetic results than 4e. Again I'd cite Fantasy Craft as proof of that - which supports the idea that "Good" doesn't always mean "Popular" and vice versa. Since most have never heard of Fantasy Craft and it actually does what many theorize needs to be fixed in 3.x/PF to make it "good" without "dumbing it down".

My view on 5e... It "sounds" interesting, but I'm wait and see. I have little faith in WotC.

[EvanWaters]

.
As for 4e... well there is a reason it's not in print anymore. Balance by clinging to the notions of mathematical symmetry of using a d20 can be done with better aesthetic results than 4e. Again I'd cite Fantasy Craft as proof of that - which supports the idea that "Good" doesn't always mean "Popular" and vice versa.

You seem to contradict yourself here. If Good doesn't always mean Popular, than 4e having the plug pulled on it surely says nothing about its quality.