Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Best forget about 5E then.

Manchu wrote:Best forget about 5E then.

Well, D&D has always been the exception. I wonder how they'll take it. /shrug

The most frustrating thing about my former group was their inability to do anything about roleplaying other than D&D.

Manchu wrote:The most frustrating thing about my former group was their inability to do anything about roleplaying other than D&D.

They just could never get into other systems? Was it a learning other systems thing or an interest in the settings or just a 'we play D&D' thing?

We've tried a couple other systems, but always come back to D&D. I also find that they don't invest a lot of time in research. The character builder site is both a godsend for this and a horrible enabler.

pretre wrote:Was it a (1) learning other systems thing or (2) lack of an interest in the other settings or (3) just a 'we play D&D' thing?

It was a matter of 1 + 2 = 3, unfortunately. In their minds, 3.5 did everything that they wanted even when it didn't. (Although the internet gave them some interesting arguments against 4E that they obviously hadn't thought about too deeply -- "trying to be a MMO" and that kind of garbage.) From that experience, I've learned to rate gaming groups on their willingness to sample various systems.

Ugh. Get a new gaming group?

I've been in mine for a million years and it moved cross country with me, so I'm pretty satisfied.

Yeah, as it happened I moved away from them. And I haven't really had a gaming group since, unless you count internet gaming and one-on-one stuff. But it hasn't bothered me. I don't want to end up in that same stagnating situation again. That group recently asked me to participate in a PbP game with them -- and yes, they bizarrely want to use 3.5 rules even for a PbP game -- and I declined.

5E, to the extent that they will even bother with it, is going to shock the gak out of them.

Balance wrote:There's been some comments (not from WotC directly) that D&DNext is supposed to be a return to imagination making things interesting in fihgts, not powers and such.

[ ]

See, I see that "answer" as a complete cop-out. There is nothing in any game existing that prevents players from using their imagination to get a result and make things intersting. It puts the onus on certain character groups while other (almost universally more powerful groups) have a plethora of abilities laid out for them that supercede just about anything the "thinker" could reasonably come up with. The library of magic spells, for instance, will almost always be superior to whatever strange maneuvar the poor non-caster can dream up and hope to get away with. It also puts those groups at the complete mercy of the DM; while this is true to some degree for all players, those whose actions are nearly always forced to be interpreted (versus those whose actions are explicitly spelled out in the rules) are subject to a bit more scrutiny as the DM has to decide how to handle it, versus something spelled out in black and white.

There is nothing in 4e that prevents a character from thinking creatively to solve a problem, attack a foe or achieve just about anything else. In combat, 4e had a ruleset for dealing with creative actions, even going so far as to have general guidelines for DMs who might need a bit of help. This was on TOP of non-caster characters have options beyond "Basic Attack" and was available to all characters, regardless of class.

[/ ]

Yeah, our 4E group has a fair amount of out of the box solutions in games. It is all about the players.

No, system matters. There are rules that encourage plot development as opposed to filling out the character sheet. I don't know if 5E has any such rules but you can definitely find them among other interpretive games. (A free-to-download example is Lady Blackbird.) Fourth edition, for all of its many excellent points, did not do this.

Did not do what, exactly? Have rules for encouraing plot development? Because 4e included reward systems for both skill challenges (as opposed to combat challenges) and for "quest completion" so to speak.

"Kill monster" is not a plot goal. "Avoid trap" is not a plot goal. Please see the keys described in Lady Blackbird for what I mean.

And understand that I am not saying 4E was a bad game or that roleplaying was impossible with 4E. You could RP with that game just like you could RP checkers or Monopoly.

Manchu wrote:"Kill monster" is not a plot goal. "Avoid trap" is not a plot goal. Please see the keys described in Lady Blackbird for what I mean.

And understand that I am not saying 4E was a bad game or that roleplaying was impossible with 4E. You could RP with that game just like you could RP checkers or Monopoly.

Okay, but that is saying that 4E was bad for roleplay. Comparing it to non-roleplaying games is doing exactly that. What did 3/2/1e have for Roleplay that 4E did not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As well, the listed Quests for Xp in the 4E book are well beyond 'kill monster' and 'avoid trap'. They have 'convince the jarl to join in the cause' and 'investigate the town of X's problem with Y'. In fact, the example skill challenge in the book is a negotiation with a jarl or lord.

None of them did it; it's a concern that has been addressed entirely outside of D&D. This is a point I often bring up to the haters of 4E. Whatever edition they cherish did nothing at all more than 4E with regard to mechanically encouraging plot.

Manchu wrote:None of them did it; it's a concern that has been addressed entirely outside of D&D. This is a point I often bring up to the haters of 4E. Whatever edition they cherish did nothing at all more than 4E with regard to mechanically encouraging plot.

Aha, I misunderstood then, my bad. I took your singling out of 4E to mean that others had.

pretre wrote:In fact, the example skill challenge in the book is a negotiation with a jarl or lord.

The example is sort of beside the point. Where on your character sheet is there a description of your hopes and goals, among which you will find "negotiate with jarl to achieve X"? This is the kind of thing games like Lady Blackbird explicitly do. No edition of D&D does this at all inherently and plot is something that always happens "adjacent to" the rules.

Manchu wrote:

pretre wrote:In fact, the example skill challenge in the book is a negotiation with a jarl or lord.

The example is sort of beside the point. Where on your character sheet is there a description of your hopes and goals, among which you will find "negotiate with jarl to achieve X"? This is the kind of thing games like Lady Blackbird explicitly do. No edition of D&D does this at all inherently and plot is something that always happens "adjacent to" the rules.

Looking at Lady Blackbird, it just looks like Demeanors and Natures from White Wolf.

The Key of the Traveler
You love exploring new places and meeting new people. Hit your
key when you share an interesting detail about a person, place, or
thing or when you go somewhere exciting and new.
Buyoff: Pass up the opportunity to see something new.

Granted, I am skimming...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I really like the GM instructions for this system. Just keep asking questions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When you’re the GM, don’t try to plan what will happen. Instead, ask
questions—lots and lots and make them pointed toward the things
you’re interested in.

Also ask questions like:
“Does anything break when you do this crazy maneuver?”
“The fire probably spreads out of control doesn’t it?”
“That sounds like a bold plan. What’s the first step?”
“Do the two of you end up somewhere quiet together? Does something
happen between you?”
“Do you know anything about the Crimson Sky rebels? What are they
like? Is it normal for them to be this far into the Empire?”

It's pretty good for a free one-off. A nice distraction for when D&D gets a little stale.

Ahtman wrote:

Chrysis wrote:Also, Clerics function differently from Wizards. They have 2 Spell Slots per day, not Prepared Spells. They use Spell Slots to cast Prepared Spells in the same way other RPGs use Magic Points or the like. Specifically 1 Level 1 Spell Slot allows you to cast 1 of your level 1 Prepared Spells. So Clerics don't have to specify in advance exactly what they will be casting during the day, they prepare a collection of spells that they will then choose from on the fly.

If you could find where it specifically states that in the playtest rules it would be appreciated. We can't assuming everything is exactly the same as some of the previous editions because there are differences, such as casting Radiant Lance at-will. I read the rules when they released them but the DM had them printed out in front of him and we didn't see where it went over that, just like it didn't quite explain how a +1 Dex Dwarf had a +4 to hit with a Crossbow or why there were no opportunity attacks either. Not that it had some game breaking impact or kept us from having a good time.

As you say, things change between editions. So throw out everything you know about Spell Slots and Preparation and read only what's written on the Clerics sheet.

Divine Magic:
You can cast a number of spells per day as indicated on the table (Spell Slots per Day per Spell Level)

Spell Preparation:
After each long rest you prepare the following spells.

Casting A Spell:
You can cast one of your prepared spells using a spell slot of its level or higher. After you cast the spell, you lose the use of that slot until after you prepare spells again.

Notice how the only thing tying Spell Slots and Prepared Spells together is the Casting A Spell section? That section also specifies that when you cast a spell you lose the Slot that you used, but it doesn't say you lose the Prepared Spell. You regain your expended Spell Slots when you Prepare Spells, but nothing links specific Prepared Spells to Spell Slots until you actually cast.

Contrast that with the Wizards sheet. Their Spell Preparation section limits their number of Prepared Spells to the the number of Spells they have per day. Their Casting Section expends Prepared Spells rather than Spell Slots.
What you end up with is two similar but distinct mechanisms for casting spells. Clerics use a form of Spontaneous Casting, while Wizards use the exact same system as previous editions. Both get the addition of "At-Will" spells.

EDIT: Can't help on the weapon stats however. Everyone has discrepancies in their +Attack ratings of their weapons and spells compared to what the given rules say they should have. Given the Warrior's Greataxe stats don't match the equipment list at all, I wouldn't put much stock in the exact numbers being right.

I read all that but it also said you had 3 spells prepared for the day when you can only have 2 so we weren't sure if that was just the known or if it was the 2 plus a bonus spell based on diety, or some other option because, as you pointed out, the playtest materials aren't exactly without discrepancies.

Right. Given that both Clerics use the same wording, while the Wizard uses a different wording that happens to match previous editions it's fairly safe to assume that the Clerics are actually intended to be mechanically different from the Wizard. So the Level 1 Clerics prepare 3 spells because they know 3 spells, even though they can only cast twice in a day. The Wizard, on the other hand, can only prepare as many spells as he can cast and can only use each prepared spell once.

Chrysis wrote:Clerics are actually intended to be mechanically different from the Wizard.

Which is probably why we didn't play them like a Wizard, and the issue raised wasn't asking if a cleric is a wizard. We played it the way it was intended, just felt it was a bit obtuse in the presentation on the character sheet. Looking at what I wrote I realize it wasn't quite as clear about that point. It was the only element that was (somewhat) debated in what [WotC] were trying to get across. Didn't really have any issues regarding the other characters, but it was also an impromptu game as we were originally supposed to play something else but someone had an emergency and was unable to show so we did this last minute. The majority of the players hadn't seen the Playtex materials and I had only really skimmed them.

Ah, I see. The problem wasn't recognising that they used different mechanics it was wondering if they were supposed to be using the same mechanics. I got the impression that the issue was trying to apply Wizard mechanics to Clerics rather than wondering if you should apply Wizard mechanics to Clerics.

I can certainly see how it would be easy to get a bit confused about how intentional the differences are, and it could be clearer.

EDIT: Digging through some of their Legends and Lore blog posts, at least some of the differences can be attributed to things they just haven't mentioned in the playtest docs. Specifically they say that the Dwarven Cleric uses a 1d10 Warhammer instead of a 1d8 as a racial bonus that they're playing with, so it's likely that the Fighter getting bonuses to his attacks is something similar. Possibly a class feature that isn't alluded to anywhere.

Manchu wrote:

pretre wrote:In fact, the example skill challenge in the book is a negotiation with a jarl or lord.

The example is sort of beside the point. Where on your character sheet is there a description of your hopes and goals, among which you will find "negotiate with jarl to achieve X"? This is the kind of thing games like Lady Blackbird explicitly do. No edition of D&D does this at all inherently and plot is something that always happens "adjacent to" the rules.

This is an interesting distinction, as those are more character goals than "story" goals. Your character's hopes and goals may have nothing whatsoever to do with the story that the DM/GM/Storyteller has come up with, although from other posts it sounds like the game is more player driven than DM/GM/storyteller driven. To say that D&D doesn't have these things inherently is true, but when they become inherent to the game I'd argue that they do, in fact, become part of the rules instead of separate.

Edit: The 4e and Essentials character sheets both have various sections for RP centric things, like character background, personality traits, description, etc.

Lady Blackbird is scenario-driven. No one "makes up" a character. The characters already exist and people take on those roles. The roles are defined not so much by "how strong" or "how smart" a character is but rather what kind of goals the character has. The goals of characters necessarily relate to the story. A story is some narrative concerning agents pursuing their interests.

D&D players can learn at least this from Lady Blackbird: the story is not the prerogative of the DM or the PCs but rather all of the players (yes, remember that the DM is a player, too) at the table. Looking at the story as either DM- or PC-driven will lead to conflicts more often than not (DM fiat, spotlight hijacking, etc). Since no version of D&D has any mechanics that actually push story along, this is especially important for D&D players to remember.

Chrysis wrote:EDIT: Digging through some of their Legends and Lore blog posts, at least some of the differences can be attributed to things they just haven't mentioned in the playtest docs. Specifically they say that the Dwarven Cleric uses a 1d10 Warhammer instead of a 1d8 as a racial bonus that they're playing with, so it's likely that the Fighter getting bonuses to his attacks is something similar. Possibly a class feature that isn't alluded to anywhere.

I can see that. There is nothing saying on the Pelor Cleric what, if anything a Human gets, but they have 4 skill bonuses from background whereas all the others have 3, and the human has two orison/cantrips instead of one. Guessing humans are still getting a few extras at level 1 as their racial.

Manchu wrote:Lady Blackbird is scenario-driven. No one "makes up" a character. The characters already exist and people take on those roles. The roles are defined not so much by "how strong" or "how smart" a character is but rather what kind of goals the character has. The goals of characters necessarily relate to the story. A story is some narrative concerning agents pursuing their interests.

D&D players can learn at least this from Lady Blackbird: the story is not the prerogative of the DM or the PCs but rather all of the players (yes, remember that the DM is a player, too) at the table. Looking at the story as either DM- or PC-driven will lead to conflicts more often than not (DM fiat, spotlight hijacking, etc). Since no version of D&D has any mechanics that actually push story along, this is especially important for D&D players to remember.

An interesting system then. Sounds basically more like theatre than anything else, with an open ended story. I also wonder how you get these stories then. Are they all premade? Is the whole thing a "get a scenario and make it up as you go"? I'll have to give it a look sometime.

And I'm aware the DM is a player, I used to DM on a regular basis before it became too expensive to drive down to meet my group but I still remember how it goes. There is always the possibility of DM fiat and spotlight hijacking sure, but as I like to play heroic games that have my group in the spotlight anyway the second one is rarely an issue. I'm also not sure mechanics should be necessary for pushing a story along; isnt seeing the story unfold naturally a part of roleplaying in the first place?

streamdragon wrote:I'm also not sure mechanics should be necessary for pushing a story along; isnt seeing the story unfold naturally a part of rolelaying in the first place?

No, not necessarily. That is an expectation that people bring to RPGs. It's like getting into a car and assuming you will be able to drive it. But what if there is no gas in the tank? To extend the metaphor, you can look at a game like Lady Blackbird as "energy efficient" when it comes to moving plot along. D&D, by contrast, is very energy intensive.

Right, D&D puts the burden on the DM to move things along. It is like one of those Flintstone cars where only one guy is running.

Lady Blackbird, from what I can see, asks everyone to put foot to stone and start running.

Manchu wrote:

streamdragon wrote:I'm also not sure mechanics should be necessary for pushing a story along; isnt seeing the story unfold naturally a part of rolelaying in the first place?

No, not necessarily. That is an expectation that people bring to RPGs. It's like getting into a car and assuming you will be able to drive it. But what if there is no gas in the tank? To extend the metaphor, you can look at a game like Lady Blackbird as "energy efficient" when it comes to moving plot along. D&D, by contrast, is very energy intensive.

pretre wrote:Right, D&D puts the burden on the DM to move things along. It is like one of those Flintstone cars where only one guy is running.
Lady Blackbird, from what I can see, asks everyone to put foot to stone and start running.

Interesting. Might have to give it a look. Is it a particular setting, or is it a generic system?