Your Thoughts?

[The1True]

Yeah, that sounds like work to me

 

[squeen]

Most new DM's jump into rule-modifications very quickly --- like almost immediately. It's partly because they don't take the time to fully learn the rules, but it's also partly because it appears that it is simply random cherry-picking of fantasy tropes, and they have their biases based on the fantasy literature their consumed in the past. This is why everyone who read Robin Hood invents an (unnecessary) archer class in session #3.

The RAW crowd are not against mods --- no system is perfect and creativity is golden --- they are just against ill-informed and useless mods (in abundance).

 

[Beoric]

I kind've liked segment-based initiative. It gave people a reason to choose lightning-fast weapons and spells that might otherwise be ridiculously underpowered. I couldn't find a way to port it into the otherwise elegant 3e action economy unfortunately.

If you really wanted to do it you could apply situational modifiers, including weapon speeds, to the initiative score, and allow interrupts for certain actions. For instance, you could rule that if a dude with a dagger tries to close with a guy using a spear, the spearman gets an opportunity attack on the guy with the dagger, changes his position in the initiative, and has to complete his turn then. And once the dagger user does close, he get bumped in the initiative order to be before the spearman.

For spells, since 1e spells are often more powerful, useful or risky than 4e, I've considered allowing old school spells, but having them go off after a delay. Say your initiative roll is 11, and you want to cast a fireball with a 3 segment delay. You cast it at your normal place in the initiative order, but it doesn't go off until initiative count 8 (or whatever delay you end up with after playtesting). If you move, are subject to forced movement or take damage in the intervening period, the spell is lost. If you get to initiative point 0, you are instead put at the top of the initiative order, with an initiative score one greater than whoever was at the top of the initiative to begin with (so if the character at the top of the initiative has a score of 22, you enter the top at 23).

I'm not sure how it would work out in practice; there would be an incentive for opposing players to delay their turn until, using our example, initiative point 10, forcing the caster to use something faster or delay his turn, so it is possible you would have dueling delays, but if you delay too long, you could basically lose your turn.

You could do a similar thing with overpowered items. Again, items are generally more powerful in 1e than 4e, so if I wanted to use a 1e potion, I might simulate the 1e delay in effect by delaying the effect in the initiative order (and this would be less likely to give you dueling delays.

And yes, it would be work, mostly to playtest and work out the bugs. Although, to DP's idea, instead of making up the numbers, you could just use the 1e weapon speed factors.

 

[The1True]

This is starting to sway me, I must admit. There's a 3e Combat Casting feat that no one takes because wtf would I want +5 to Cast Defencively if my Concentration has been maxed out and my Initiative rarely gets interupted. Forcing a caster to start casting early to get their spell off before the end of the round PLUS the added tension of the enemy seeing that you're casting something that takes a lot of work and are thereby motivated to keep you from finishing it is exciting. I remember keeping a Throwing Knife (d3) or Darts (d2?) handy for exactly these situations in 1e. Rock Paper Scissor.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

You do you. Our role as DM is to balance the game ourselves, insofar as the game is made more enjoyable from the result. If the result of absolute simulation is the desire of our players, then it is our mandate to balance for simulation; if the result is for simplicity and streamlined process, then it is to balance for efficiency. Above all else, it is to balance for the good of our group - the ones we most interact with - than it is for the good of the hobby. I think most "desingners" forget this, as they seem to design solely for the strangers at other tables than their own players (which is the business, but not the axiom). WotC alas cannot design for a lone group; they must, by mandate, design for all other groups, so their designs are often incongruous.

 

[Beoric]

You do you. Our role as DM is to balance the game ourselves, insofar as the game is made more enjoyable from the result. If the result of absolute simulation is the desire of our players, then it is our mandate to balance for simulation; if the result is for simplicity and streamlined process, then it is to balance for efficiency. Above all else, it is to balance for the good of our group - the ones we most interact with - than it is for the good of the hobby. I think most "desingners" forget this, as they seem to design solely for the strangers at other tables than their own players (which is the business, but not the axiom). WotC alas cannot design for a lone group; they must, by mandate, design for all other groups, so their designs are often incongruous.

Fine, but you are also designing for yourself. You are part of the group, and you don't want to run games that you don't enjoy running.

WotC's problem is they are marketing the game as something that it actually isn't all that well designed for. D&D isn't really well designed for the sort of "group storytelling" they are always pushing. The high degree of randomness supports a game where the story, such as there is one, emerges both from player choices, and from a random determination as to whether the players succeed or fail at the things they attempt. In order to have a storyline flow from either the DM or the players, that randomness has to be fudged, at which point you have to ask yourself, isn't there a game out there that has a better mechanic for that sort of thing?

So WotC's modules end up being structured, not just to provide a particular experience, but to provide a particular outcome. You end up with challenges that carry no real risks; either you can't fail, or it doesn't matter if you fail. Whereas every edition of D&D has failure baked into the mechanic. Nearly every roll in the game, other than damage, has a strict succeed/fail binary outcome. It is never going to be a good fit to design a module where you are activley trying to subvert the core mechanic of the game.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

So WotC's modules end up being structured, not just to provide a particular experience, but to provide a particular outcome. You end up with challenges that carry no real risks; either you can't fail, or it doesn't matter if you fail. Whereas every edition of D&D has failure baked into the mechanic. Nearly every roll in the game, other than damage, has a strict succeed/fail binary outcome.

Official WotC stuff is certainly guilty of violating sound design ethos, yes, but outcome-driven adventure design harkens back across any edition ('member tournament modules?). All dice rolls have binary pass/fail outcomes - that's what a roll is! That's how dice work. That's why we roll them to begin with - to offer a chance of either success or failure.

And while true that fail-state can be dictated by a (poor) DM, dice randomness combined with player-driven choice are still expected to be the default drivers of the game. So long as the DM is willing to kill their players (fail state for the party) the game remains with consequence, regardless of expected plot beads.

Fine, but you are also designing for yourself. You are part of the group, and you don't want to run games that you don't enjoy running.

I get a kick out of being a good DM to my players; if you need more fulfillment beyond that, I can't really help.

 

[Beoric]

Official WotC stuff is certainly guilty of violating sound design ethos, yes, but outcome-driven adventure design harkens back across any edition ('member tournament modules?).

Tournament modules are deliberately linear because the competition requires that all contestants face the same obstacles. BUT because it is a competition, failure is a real option. Players aren't insulated from the consequences of their actions, or the risks they take.

You are correct that Trad has been around from the very beginning. That does not mean the D&D mechanics are well suited to the playstyle.

All dice rolls have binary pass/fail outcomes - that's what a roll is! That's how dice work. That's why we roll them to begin with - to offer a chance of either success or failure.

There are diceless games out there. I haven't played them, but I know they exist. Dice are not a mandatory part of TTRPGs, they are just a mandatory part of every iteration of D&D.

And while true that fail-state can be dictated by a (poor) DM, dice randomness combined with player-driven choice are still expected to be the default drivers of the game. So long as the DM is willing to kill their players (fail state for the party) the game remains with consequence, regardless of expected plot beads.

Yes, as I said in the post you are responding to, that randomness is how D&D is designed. What I am suggesting is that WotC is promoting a playstyle where character death is NOT an expected part of play, and are designing their modules accordingly. I am saying that WotC is promoting a playstyle, and publishing modules, that take all the risk away from those die rolls.

Basically, you have written a post telling me I am wrong, and yet your supporting arguments are just telling me that D&D is designed exactly as I argued it is designed. And you haven't even tried to refute my assertion that WotC is designing modules to mitigate risk. So what are we even arguing about here?

I get a kick out of being a good DM to my players; if you need more fulfillment beyond that, I can't really help.

Dude, you have way too many strong opinions about what is and isn't good DMing, and what is and isn't good design, to try to pretend you don't DM in a way that is enjoyable to you. I've been reading your posts about DMing for years, I am not buying what you are selling here.

 

[The1True]

I think most "desingners" forget this, as they seem to design solely for the strangers at other tables than their own players

I mean, isn't that what we're all doing here? We all grew up dreaming of a job at TSR (turns out it's a pretty crappy job, by all accounts). But yeah, when we write an adventure, we're pretending we're in the big leagues, not pumping our point-form campaign notes out on DTRPG and telling people to wing it and do what feels right, surely?

Nearly every roll in the game, other than damage, has a strict succeed/fail binary outcome.

What I like about the later editions is there's DEGREES of success. You can reward lucky or min/maxed players who make high skill rolls with more than just a pass/fail.

And yeah, everybody's arguing past each other as usual. Fun!
I think we can all agree that the majority of professionally designed adventures put out since...since the dawn of the game basically have been pretty to look at and fun to read, but require varying degrees of surgery to actually work at the table. Moreso with more recent products if we're being honest with each other.

I guess maybe one of the things that rankles folkls is that adventure modules are turning into bigger and bigger (and more and more expensive) productions. No one's got any problems scrawling their personal notes inside a shitty old copy of Steading of the Etc. It's damn near impossible to buy a second-hand copy of an old TSR module that isn't defaced with annotations. But reworking one of these $80 monstrosities full of gorgeous colour art and glossy formatting knowing that you're torpedoing its resale value?

 

[Beoric]

I guess maybe one of the things that rankles folkls is that adventure modules are turning into bigger and bigger (and more and more expensive) productions. No one's got any problems scrawling their personal notes inside a shitty old copy of Steading of the Etc. It's damn near impossible to buy a second-hand copy of an old TSR module that isn't defaced with annotations. But reworking one of these $80 monstrosities full of gorgeous colour art and glossy formatting knowing that you're torpedoing its resale value?

Yeah, the fact that the 27 page 4e version of Steading compares unfavourably with the original 11 page (including maps) version, and that the 161 page Revenge of the Giants compares unfavourably with the 39 page Against the Giants, really tells me that they aren't good at this.

I also find the large, hardbound modules really impractical and difficult to use during play. If it's too much paper to bind with a couple of ordinary staples, so you can fold it back on itself at the page you want instead of keeping it open or having to use bookmarks, it's a much less user friendly UI.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

What I am suggesting is that WotC is promoting a playstyle where character death is NOT an expected part of play, and are designing their modules accordingly. I am saying that WotC is promoting a playstyle, and publishing modules, that take all the risk away from those die rolls.

Basically, you have written a post telling me I am wrong, and yet your supporting arguments are just telling me that D&D is designed exactly as I argued it is designed. And you haven't even tried to refute my assertion that WotC is designing modules to mitigate risk. So what are we even arguing about here?

I don't recall telling you that you were wrong. I just expanding on your point and drew it to a separate conclusion. Of course they're not promoting death as an expectation - why would they? Unless they're pushing Tomb of Horrors, the goal is generally not to "survive" anymore - WotC's approach is more about "exploration" now... they want you to actually see the stuff they put in. Death kind of hinders that. CR was invented to progress character survival through long-term play via balance. We all know this. Nobody is saying they aren't doing these things.

There are diceless games out there. I haven't played them, but I know they exist. Dice are not a mandatory part of TTRPGs, they are just a mandatory part of every iteration of D&D.

Why even bring up diceless games? We may schism on the line between new and old schools, OSR vs modern, trad vs. neotrad... but ain't nobody round these parts proposing a diceless system. That's literal storygame, a different beast.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

What I like about the later editions is there's DEGREES of success. You can reward lucky or min/maxed players who make high skill rolls with more than just a pass/fail.

Yes, arguably D&D is a game of luck mitigation (i.e. maximizing your chances and minimizing risk by being selective about the in-game conditions in which you roll) more than it is about luck. Old players call it "being tactical", new players tend to call it "being optimal".

I guess maybe one of the things that rankles folkls is that adventure modules are turning into bigger and bigger (and more and more expensive) productions.

I think a lot of people round here subscribe to the Brycian school of module worthiness, and modern publications seem to fare poorly by those metrics. Bigger and more expensive is a big faux-pas if it doesn't directly equate to a better adventure.

 

[The1True]

Bigger and more expensive is a big faux-pas

Yeah, I've noticed a lot of hate in the Comments section for works exceeding 40ish pages. I don't know if this is thriftiness, illiteracy, or people who's campaigns never last beyond three weeks? The argument that longer products are harder to drop into ongoing campaigns is invalid, since in a lot of cases, more pages means more cool stuff to canabalize.

Obviously, I've got skin in the game since Irradiated has balooned to 150 pgs, but also, because that's what I tend to buy. I like a long, hard, meaty adventure in my hands - a hrr hrr...

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Obviously, I've got skin in the game since Irradiated has balooned to 150 pgs, but also, because that's what I tend to buy. I like a long, hard, meaty adventure in my hands - a hrr hrr...

Agreed. I like to get a lot of material for my buck. That being said, I don't run many pre-written adventures anymore - I buy almost exclusively for reading. Like I dropped way too much on Maze of the Blue Medusa because I wanted to own it (it's got great reviews after all), but I don't think it's possible to run the thing, like at all, even with heavy modifications.

 

[Beoric]

A lot of the old Basic and 1e modules were around 40 pages, or a bit less, including maps. Grognards are just conditioned to see that as an appropriate length.

I like modules that size because the physical size works for how I use the modules. If it's too thick to bind with a single standard staple, so that I'm always working with a 8.5 x 11ish sized bundle that I can easily use with one hand, it's no good to me.

 

[grodog]

If you felt up to it, you could make a list of all the weapons and spells in the game (or just find one, really - those lists exist already) and then assign them all a "priority number" (maybe a priority number only for weapons, and just the spell level for spells). Lower priority goes first, with DEX score being the tie-breaker, or something along those lines. It would probably have to replace the initiative system entirely though.

At least, that's how I'd homebrew something like that.

IIRC, this article did just that: "Who Gets the First Swing?" by Ronald Hall in Dragon 71.

Allan.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

IIRC, this article did just that: "Who Gets the First Swing?" by Ronald Hall in Dragon 71.

Nice, I will be sure to check it out if I ever find myself in... *checks date* March of 1983...

Hmm... is 42 years ago really the latest anybody's written on this?