Dungeons and Dragons Next is being designed as a “rules light” game (similar to 3e) but with rules modules that can make it a “rules heavy” game. I’ve been doing more and more research on game design, and though I consider Ryan Dancey to be the most negative force in TTRPG history, here was something he said in 2005…
In my experience, most "rules lite" game systems simply substitute written rules for ad hoc rules made on the spot as necessary by GMs.
There are two big problems with that shift:
1) The GM has to be really good. Good enough to be an on the fly game designer. I'd call that person "extremely rare" and wouldn't try to base a business around their existence.
2) Game experience is not portable. What you learn with one GM may be exactly the opposite of how the rules are applied when you switch GMs. This creates network inefficiencies. Network inefficencies are bad.
I observed (2-way mirror) several groups who were given "rules lite" RPG systems as a part of an effort to understand how they were used and if the "liteness" was actually delivering any utility value. Using a stopwatch, we found that consistently zero time was saved in character creation, or adjudicating disputes. In fact, in some games, disputes lasted substantially longer because the GM could not just point to a written rule in a book and call the argument closed.
My opinion is that most people think "rules lite" games are simpler and better because they desperately want them to be, not because they are.
First, I think I do agree that with “most” DM’s a rules light game is no better than a rules heavy game and in fact rules heavy games are much more easy for a new DM to master (for the reasons given above) but for that guy who is good enough to be an “extremely rare on the fly designer” for them, a rules lite system is much more beneficial (at least in my experience)
That said a few questions…
1) What benefits do you see in a rules lite or rules heavy system? (Do you agree or disagree with Dancey?)
2) Do you plan on using the optional rules modules when you run (to create a more complex game, or a game more similar to 4e) or will you use “the standard” rules? And why?
3) Do you believe that the optional rules modules have been given enough play testing time so far? IE would you request that rules modules receive as much play testing as the standard rules or none at all?
Basic D&D was rules light.
Any game that DMs or PCs must refer to a manual during game play is rules heavy.
A game that requires very little reference to game rules is rule light.
I think you can have an excellent rules light game if rules are very intuitive and comprehensive and not ad hoc rulings by the DM.
3e was rules light? I would argue against that. When compared to 4e, maybe, but compared to other systems it had a lot of rules and crunch.
Actually, 4e was more rules light when you consider the unified mechanics. You don't need to learn a bunch of subsystems or anything. No edition of D&D since AD&D came out is anything I would consider "rules lite", though.
Current packet seems intermediate to me. It's definately rules lite compared to 3e or 4e, but still a bit crunchy.
Which is fine. I expect crunchy from D&D. It's the taste of the crunchy bits that I currently have a problem with. :P
In 4e we never have to look at a core rule book. If you stripped away "powers" from 4e, 4e would actually have a much more simple core than 5e.
Which is why I am sad that the designers arent using a single streamlined simplification from 4e and instead are opting to make rules as clunky and awkward as possible...
How can anyone think 3e was rules light. You had each individual spell was 1/4 - 2 pages of rules. Then combine the fact that spellcasting and melee attacks worked on wildly different rule systems, and the sheer number of rules required for basic combat options (3e charge, grapple, unarmed attack rules, opportunity attacks, etc). I don't think we ever played a game of 3e where someone didn't need to look something up every 5 minutes because there were too many fidly rules to memorize them all.
In 4e we never have to look at a core rule book. If you stripped away "powers" from 4e, 4e would actually have a much more simple core than 5e.
Which is why I am sad that the designers arent using a single streamlined simplification from 4e and instead are opting to make rules as clunky and awkward as possible...
Same. I would have preferred to see them use what they did with Gamma World as a baseline. It worked extremely well and is close to what I would consider "rules light".
How can anyone think 3e was rules light. You had each individual spell was 1/4 - 2 pages of rules. Then combine the fact that spellcasting and melee attacks worked on wildly different rule systems, and the sheer number of rules required for basic combat options (3e charge, grapple, unarmed attack rules, opportunity attacks, etc). I don't think we ever played a game of 3e where someone didn't need to look something up every 5 minutes because there were too many fidly rules to memorize them all.
In 4e we never have to look at a core rule book. If you stripped away "powers" from 4e, 4e would actually have a much more simple core than 5e.
Which is why I am sad that the designers arent using a single streamlined simplification from 4e and instead are opting to make rules as clunky and awkward as possible...
Same. I would have preferred to see them use what they did with Gamma World as a baseline. It worked extremely well and is close to what I would consider "rules light".
I do hope that someday someone makes a rules light 4.5e based off the new Gamma World core. I could see a fast simple system based off that really working.
How can anyone think 3e was rules light. You had each individual spell was 1/4 - 2 pages of rules. Then combine the fact that spellcasting and melee attacks worked on wildly different rule systems, and the sheer number of rules required for basic combat options (3e charge, grapple, unarmed attack rules, opportunity attacks, etc). I don't think we ever played a game of 3e where someone didn't need to look something up every 5 minutes because there were too many fidly rules to memorize them all.
In 4e we never have to look at a core rule book. If you stripped away "powers" from 4e, 4e would actually have a much more simple core than 5e.
Which is why I am sad that the designers arent using a single streamlined simplification from 4e and instead are opting to make rules as clunky and awkward as possible...
Same. I would have preferred to see them use what they did with Gamma World as a baseline. It worked extremely well and is close to what I would consider "rules light".
I do hope that someday someone makes a rules light 4.5e based off the new Gamma World core. I could see a fast simple system based off that really working.
I'm thinking someone will make a 4e clone using the 13th Age OGL at some point.
Gamma World just seemed like the logical choice for DDN. It is the 4e foundation, but it is extremely stripped down. They would have an elegant core system that is already very modular, and it is very simple to pick up and learn. You could literally put anything on top of that system and make a good D&D game out of it. Instead of this hodge podge mess of subsystems and gimmicks that we have right now.
They're trying to reinvent the wheel, and it is completely unnecessary. If not Gamma World, SWSE was another good place to start.
Instead of benefits, it is easier to describe the flaws. Rules light requires GMs to have improvised system mastery or a VERY tight player synchronization. Rules Heavy game require the designers to have system mastery in order to gain player synchronization.
A game like Savage Worlds is rules light enough that I can both play and run a game without ever needing to look at a rulebook. I find this very freeing as it allows me to focus on RP and the story, instead of getting bogged down in minutia.
This is what drew me to 4e compared to 3e. The 4e core is very rules light. Somewhere along the way though power design became too complicated. 4e PCs began to have too many moving parts and while the system resolution was simple, the PCs started growing too complicated.
5e looked like it was heading the right direction by focusing on "rules light" play, but they began codifying too many conditions already. PCs have already become quite complicated, and the rules are far from streamlined or elegant at this point. I think the 5e rules could look better with some nice polish, but we will have to see where the design goes.
Personally I consider a game rules light when the players don't have to refer to anything other than their sheets for resolution.
I agree witht he caveat that the character sheet has to be less than a few pages. Only Basic (and maybe Expert) D&D (and OD&D) ever met that criteria. I could even take a wizard and cut and paste the spell descriptions for his spellbook onto a single sheet of paper.
I suspect that D&D Next's Basic rules will also be rules light. I don't expect the Standard Rules will be, though.
Thank you Orzel for getting it back on track...
I think thats what Dancey was saying when he said...
2) Game experience is not portable. What you learn with one GM may be exactly the opposite of how the rules are applied when you switch GMs. This creates network inefficiencies. Network inefficencies are bad.
In a rules heavy game, every aspect of interaction and action are controlled, not only this but the rules in which those actions are controled are extremely detailed and specific not demanding of any explanation or interpetation. That also makes the rules/game extremely limiting, there is no room for improv, a set of wings of flying works exactly as described and no other way.
Personally think those network inefficiencies are just fine, they allow a good DM to be good and a bad DM to be bad, and your expirences will vary accordingly.
A system that allows one to do both is best, which is why I love the idea of rules modules, what I'm concerned about is the fact that it seems they are aiming for the sky as to what they claim they will accomplish and they are shooting very low with the mutability of the packets as we've seen so far.
(facepalm) I didnt want this to be a "which edition was really more complex?" edition war, there is no doubt that the playtest packet is less complex than the entirety of 4e right?
I think 5e has the potential to be less complicated, but currently is about the same or even more.
Compare the PHB 1 4e wizard to the 5e wizard for example.
In 4e the wizard had 5 spells to keep track of (2 at-will, 1 encounter, and 1 daily spells that could be switched out for a second on a daily basis). The wizard also had 4 trained skills, 1 feat, and 4 defenses (AC/F/R/W).
In 5e the wizard has almost twice as many spells to keep track of (3+ at-will spells, 3 daily spells that can be chosen from a wide range spells prepared, and a signiture spell). The wizard then has 5 trained skills, 1 feat, and 7 defenses. Add to this the fact that his spells do not follow a unified mechanic such as roll an attack vs a target's defense, and that the 5e wizard must keep track of Save DCs, and magic attack bonus separately, I would say the first level 5e wizard is maybe 3 to 4x as complicated as the 4e wizard. Considering also that spells are more wordy in complicated in 5e than in 4e, I'm not really sure if 5e will be a less complicated game overall, at least not for spellcasters.
In 4e we never have to look at a core rule book. If you stripped away "powers" from 4e, 4e would actually have a much more simple core than 5e.
If you strip away powers from 4E, what do you have left?
1) What benefits do you see in a rules lite or rules heavy system? (Do you agree or disagree with Dancey?)
I'm curious what rules-light games he was playing. Some of his points are understandable, but I think it's more difficult to make a good rules-light game, and more work to make a rules heavy one. A good rules-light game will have enough mechanical complexity to support roleplaying, while enough simplicity that a handful of rules will easily cover a broad variety of different situations. That is a difficult balance to strike, although I can agree that it can be made up for (as most problems with an RPG can be) with DM skill and experience. As far as rules arguments, I can't see rules-light being just as long as rules-heavy. The GM says you roll this to figure things out, how do you argue with a rules-light game? In a heavy game, you can always go back and say "but the rules say..." (not that this is a good argument, but I've seen players try it).
2) Do you plan on using the optional rules modules when you run (to create a more complex game, or a game more similar to 4e) or will you use “the standard” rules? And why?
If the modules are well designed, the D&DN I run (if I do at all) will look startlingly similar to 13th Age. That is, closer to 4e than anything else, but without the big glaring faults of 4e.
3) Do you believe that the optional rules modules have been given enough play testing time so far? IE would you request that rules modules receive as much play testing as the standard rules or none at all?
Honestly, as much as I say that with rules modules, the bulk of the complaints on this forum are empty talk that will be solved, I honestly expect WotC to bungle the advanced rules modules. Releasing them late, without a lot of support, with a lot of problems, and without fully testing them will let them make more money, at the direct cost of consumer enjoyment. I don't think any of the advanced rules modules have been tested so far; WotC is still trying to figure out core (and if it takes them this long to figure out core, how long will it take them to make a good analogy for the systems in 3e? 4e?).
In 4e we never have to look at a core rule book. If you stripped away "powers" from 4e, 4e would actually have a much more simple core than 5e.
If you strip away powers from 4E, what do you have left?
The 4e based Gamma World. An extremly simple system with a highly flexible core.
1) What benefits do you see in a rules lite or rules heavy system? (Do you agree or disagree with Dancey?)
2) Do you plan on using the optional rules modules when you run (to create a more complex game, or a game more similar to 4e) or will you use “the standard” rules? And why?3) Do you believe that the optional rules modules have been given enough play testing time so far? IE would you request that rules modules receive as much play testing as the standard rules or none at all?
Rules-heavy systems do offer a more standardized experience, which is good for players but restrictive for DMs. If I like the system, as a DM, then I would appreciate how the extra rules help to get all of the players on the same page.
I expect everyone will use some optional modules (at least, anyone with a little experience, once they understand what those modules do). I'll probably use some of the more complex, rules-fiddly modules (like swapping out advantage for a number of small +1 or +2 bonuses), just because my player base is more used to Pathfinder and I value consistency over ease of gameplay.
I honestly don't think it's as important to test the optional modules. I mean, they'll need some testing to find the big problems, but anyone who is comfortable with implementing an optional module should be more than comfortable with making small changes to that module to fix minor flaws, and they can always update the module at a later point if it gets really out of hand. Not that I would advocate using that as an excuse for poor design, of course.
(facepalm) I didnt want this to be a "which edition was really more complex?" edition war, there is no doubt that the playtest packet is less complex than the entirety of 4e right?
Not really. Actually in its current form it is more complex than 4e (considering PHB1 and DMG1) even if it has less pages. But the current playtest is not representative of the Basic game, so we'll have to see about how that will shape up.
I think thats what Dancey was saying when he said...
2) Game experience is not portable. What you learn with one GM may be exactly the opposite of how the rules are applied when you switch GMs. This creates network inefficiencies. Network inefficencies are bad.
In a rules heavy game, every aspect of interaction and action are controlled, not only this but the rules in which those actions are controled are extremely detailed and specific not demanding of any explanation or interpetation. That also makes the rules/game extremely limiting, there is no room for improv, a set of wings of flying works exactly as described and no other way.
Personally think those network inefficiencies are just fine, they allow a good DM to be good and a bad DM to be bad, and your expirences will vary accordingly.
I agree with you. The great thing about TT RPG is that the experience can be very different according to the people involved. Sometimes it won't work, but other times you get to see and discover the game from a very differnt perspective, which is enriching.
A system that allows one to do both is best, which is why I love the idea of rules modules, what I'm concerned about is the fact that it seems they are aiming for the sky as to what they claim they will accomplish and they are shooting very low with the mutability of the packets as we've seen so far.
Yeah. To be honest it looks like they are making this up as they go along. I don't see a grand design for a modular system emerging so far. If they can get Basic and Standard in a functional state by the end, with few options in Advanced it will be an accomplishment already.
Blacksheep- unfortunately I think you may be entirely right in your prediction of how WotC will handle rules modules, and that is going to be my main reason for supporting or not supporting 5th.
Saelorn- you see pathfinder as consistant? Interesting, I have almost the opposite view of PF.
About untested advanced rules modules... that worries me a lot, because I expect that the advanced rules will be much more complex than the core rules which means they would need even more playtesting to be sound IE not poor design.
My first PC in 4E Gamma World was a giant pyrokinetic cockroach who wielded a 2x4 with a rusty nail in it (2-handed heavy melee weapon), a brick (heavy thrown weapon) and his light armor was an XXL-sized t-shirt with metal bottle caps sewn all over it. He also owned an old pickup truck with no gas in it at all. He kept it in perfect condition, but never got to drive it as he never found any gas. The amount of creative control the game gives the players is great, and truly fosters a wonderful RP experience.
Saelorn- you see pathfinder as consistant? Interesting, I have almost the opposite view of PF.
I just mean that "prone is a -4 penalty to AC, increasing the chance to be hit by an objective 20% " is more consistent than "prone grants advantage to the attack, increasing the chance to be hit by an amount between 5% and 25% depending on the original chance to hit"; it's a lot of fiddly rules (too many, to be honest), but each one is very precise and consistent within its individual implementation.
I suppose "advantage is +3, always" would also be consistent, but it's not precise enough for me to differentiate between a small bonus and a large one.
In my experience, most "rules lite" game systems simply substitute written rules for ad hoc rules made on the spot as necessary by GMs.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">There are two big problems with that shift:
1) The GM has to be really good. Good enough to be an on the fly game designer. I'd call that person "extremely rare" and wouldn't try to base a business around their existence.
2) Game experience is not portable. What you learn with one GM may be exactly the opposite of how the rules are applied when you switch GMs. This creates network inefficiencies. Network inefficencies are bad.
I disagree with both of these statements.
Number 1 is not at all true, because making calls during a game does not require nearly the same level of work or skill as designing an entire game. Especially if the system is robust enough to handle most situations through a simple mechanic (such as the Check/Save mechanic from Next). Game systems will never be able to have rules for everything, which means the basic premise here is already lacking. In any RPG, the DM will need to make decisions on the fly.
In fact, rules heavy systems will often harm the game. First, they make the role of DM very imposing, as it requires so much system mastery. There is the sense that you need to have everything memorized, and that results in many people never trying it out. This is a shame, because DMing should be easy and open to all. It shouldn't be an exclusive club. Second, having to look up rules in the middle of a game really slows things down and distracts from the action. And the fact that the system is rules heavy makes it much more likely there will be an actual rule for any given situation. Since most people don't like making something up when there is a rule for it, it means the group will feel pressure to look it up on the spot. And even if they don't look it up you are just back to where you would be in a rules light system.
As for Number 2, this has been true for the entire history of D&D (and applies to any RPG). The game itself has always been designed around the idea that you make it your own. Every group plays differently, uses different houserules and options, applies or uses rules differently (or not at all), etc. D&D is not a game like Scrabble, in which the goal is to have a game that is the same at every table (and I bet even games like Scrabble are played slightly different between groups). An RPG can work in that way (for example, things like Living Forgotten Realms, where there are set rules that govern game play across all tables), but that isn't the base goal. And because most gamers understand this, it doesn't cause a problem. For example, my DM once restricted us to playing as Elves, Half-elves, Eladrin, Drow, or Tieflings. Later, when another friend DMed, I was not at all confused when he didn't use that restriction. The default assumption with D&D is that each game is different; that is a strength, not a weakness.
In 4e we never have to look at a core rule book. If you stripped away "powers" from 4e, 4e would actually have a much more simple core than 5e.
If you strip away powers from 4E, what do you have left?
You'd have a very simple core defined by unified mechanics instead of multiple subsystems. Skills, defenses, page 42, durations, etc.... it is far more simple than what we have now. Unified mechanics means less memorization of rules and far less system mastery.
You can play the game with nothing but the core rules and page 42.
The DDN wizard is more complicated than the 4e wizard, and the DDN fighter is more complicated than the Slayer and Knight. AoE's are much harder to adjudicate. There are no consistent rules for advantage/disadvantage... really... I don't see how DDN is simple here in comparison. In some ways, the lack of a mat can make things more complicated, as well. Especially when it comes to large scale fights. 13th Age manages to handle mapless play far better by going to the zone based combat system.
However, there is a huge difference between intuitive rules and complex rules. That is what should be looked at.
2) I like to house-rule, so I hope plethora optional modules are available so at least I can put an official stamp on most of my house rules. I generally house rule what the community agrees is bad, so there better be a lot of optional modules guided by community input.
3) There really aren't many optional modules now. The resting rules are the only ones that springs to mind, and they are pretty "meh." None of them seem too well thought out. I would prefer to see some testing, enough to state the pros and cons of any optional module right there next to the rule itself. Let the DMs in on a little of that game design.
(facepalm) I didnt want this to be a "which edition was really more complex?" edition war, there is no doubt that the playtest packet is less complex than the entirety of 4e right?
I think 5e has the potential to be less complicated, but currently is about the same or even more.
Compare the PHB 1 4e wizard to the 5e wizard for example.
In 4e the wizard had 5 spells to keep track of (2 at-will, 1 encounter, and 1 daily spells that could be switched out for a second on a daily basis). The wizard also had 4 trained skills, 1 feat, and 4 defenses (AC/F/R/W).
In 5e the wizard has almost twice as many spells to keep track of (3+ at-will spells, 3 daily spells that can be chosen from a wide range spells prepared, and a signiture spell). The wizard then has 5 trained skills, 1 feat, and 7 defenses. Add to this the fact that his spells do not follow a unified mechanic such as roll an attack vs a target's defense, and that the 5e wizard must keep track of Save DCs, and magic attack bonus separately, I would say the first level 5e wizard is maybe 3 to 4x as complicated as the 4e wizard. Considering also that spells are more wordy in complicated in 5e than in 4e, I'm not really sure if 5e will be a less complicated game overall, at least not for spellcasters.
i cant believe this, how do you function in life if you cant keep track of things? i have played a wizard in all the earlier versions of dnd and never have i had trouble keeping track of my spells because:
1. im not a mess, im organized
2. i can read, i know what the spells in my book do
3. i write down what i take that day so i know my options.
4. spells are "wordy" i guess that also explains why we as a country are dropping in ranking for reading, science, math ect
I hate feats, game was much better without them.
In my experience, most "rules lite" game systems simply substitute written rules for ad hoc rules made on the spot as necessary by GMs.
There are two big problems with that shift:
1) The GM has to be really good. Good enough to be an on the fly game designer. I'd call that person "extremely rare" and wouldn't try to base a business around their existence.
2) Game experience is not portable. What you learn with one GM may be exactly the opposite of how the rules are applied when you switch GMs. This creates network inefficiencies. Network inefficencies are bad.
I observed (2-way mirror) several groups who were given "rules lite" RPG systems as a part of an effort to understand how they were used and if the "liteness" was actually delivering any utility value. Using a stopwatch, we found that consistently zero time was saved in character creation, or adjudicating disputes. In fact, in some games, disputes lasted substantially longer because the GM could not just point to a written rule in a book and call the argument closed.
My opinion is that most people think "rules lite" games are simpler and better because they desperately want them to be, not because they are.
Has to be really good, enough to be an on-the-fly game designer? Not if the system is designed to aid in ad-hoc rulings, like D&D 4E's p.42, or 13th Age. (5E does have half the necessary aid for ad-hoc rulings with its unified DC table... but due to the lack of rules regarding improvised damage, it's still not complete).
Character creation in any system, rules-lite or rules-heavy, isn't so much dependent on the nature of the system, but a combination of available options and the relative ease at which to process the character creation steps. A rules-lite system where you have 3 stats that you place 2 points in (and virtually nothing else) will certainly be faster than a rules-heavy system where you have 6 stats that you roll 4d6 drop lowest + choose between predetermined character packages (be it builds, classes, or both), but if both systems have six stats and both rules-lite and rules-heavy systems have tons of options available, then yeah there's no real difference in terms of creation speed.
Faster rules adjudication requires intra-group trust and a good memory, regardless of amount of rules.
1) What benefits do you see in a rules lite or rules heavy system? (Do you agree or disagree with Dancey?)2) Do you plan on using the optional rules modules when you run (to create a more complex game, or a game more similar to 4e) or will you use “the standard” rules? And why?
3) Do you believe that the optional rules modules have been given enough play testing time so far? IE would you request that rules modules receive as much play testing as the standard rules or none at all?
1) Before I answer the question, I'd like to point out that the important aspects of a system would be its Mechanics (rules), Dynamics (the way the rules interact with each other), and Aesthetics (the emotions that are evoked by the dynamics). Regardless if the system is rules-heavy or rules-lite, if the rules aren't clear and the intended dynamics aren't well-portrayed, you will always have rules/rulings/scenario arguments.
I love both D&D 4E and 13th Age even though the former is rules-heavy and the latter is rules-lite, not only because of the relative balance found in combat, but because I consider both systems to have streamlined and easy to understand rules; indeed, I often read and hear that 4E's very easy to DM, which is also the experience I have with the system.
To answer the question...
- Rules-heavy systems have the advantage of reliability and consistency; for instance, because by the rules Magic Missile always hits unless a counter-rule states otherwise, it *always* hits.
- Rules-lite systems don't inherently have any advantages but if you design the system appropriately, it does allow for greater freedom of expression; the simplest comparison would be comparing 3E's super-detailed skills to 4E's more abstract skills and 5E's fairly flexible skills, and compare those with FATE's Aspects and 13th Age's Backgrounds
2) I personally prefer running enough of 5E to support my DMing style... and no, it's not a play style that involves larger amounts of complexity per se, but more of giving players a greater amount of depth relative to the complexity of their character. If 5E Basic will be sufficient, then I'd go for 5E Basic, but if I need to go Standard or Advanced, then so be it.
Just to let you know, personally I'd prefer players to have even just 3 abilities that have infinite uses, compared to having a thousand abilities (be it ability scores, skills, feats, powers, spells or the like) that have a severely limited application. It's part of the reason why I consider the 5E Barbarian to be a superior class to the 5E Fighter, even if combat utility-wise the 5E Fighter is superior... and why I kinda wish the Men & Magic Fighting Man wasn't one-upped by the Greyhawk Thief.
3) I prefer all material to be thoroughly playtested and taken into consideration. This is because the lack of playtesting can and often does result in either subpar or overpowered material, both resulting in material that (especially in this time and age) would be be shot down and poor sales can be expected. In 4E's history, the most infamous example would be Heroes of Shadow.
honestly feats piss me off, I wanna slap whoever came up with the idea for GURPS, that was one of the big factors that made me turn against 4th ed, when my fighter wanted to do something that was already a rogue feat. Each feat allows a character to break in some way a rule in the core, each character can have a number of them, take a large party add up all the feats, and you got a pile of rulebreaks that most need to be remembered or read and re-read every time their used.
I hate feats, game was much better without them.
It's a problem of design, not concept. As far as I can tell, feats and skills used to be one and the same in 2E (see: Non-Weapon Proficiencies), and considering that that system was technically tacked onto 2E, it's not really surprising that through the years it was not really well-integrated into D&D. But if the feat system was integrated in the design of the system, in a way that prevents it from overlapping from other game elements, then it could work.
It's kinda the reason why I dislike how 5E (and to some degree even 4E) executes feats, yet at the same time I welcome how 13th Age executes feats.
Regarding feats... I dont see why you need them, if you have classes the abilities of the class should be specific enough without having feats. If you have too many classes and the classes are overlapping so much that the class abilities have to be called feats and available to almost everyone then whats the point of having classes in the first place? just get rid of it all and make it a point buy system.
Feats and skills are there to express things that class doesn't express very well. Of course class can express everything feats and skills express, but there's an emersion problem with class-based solutions to this because there are somethings people consider everyone able to do (for better or worse). In that situation, you have a few choices: 1) give all the classes that ability, 2) don't address it and just let it happen through player deliberation, 3) create a set of options that exist outside class to express those abilities, 4) deny anyone but those with the class the ability to do these "universal" things.
Option 1 is cumbersome because it means you're constantly repeating yourself a lot in the class descriptions or you're referencing the same page of stuff over and over again. It's redundant.
Option 2 isn't great because people will inevitably ask why it wasn't addressed. This leads to friction in the community.
Option 3 isn't great because it creates a system that is proscriptive about what a character can and can't do by placing value on "universal" options.
Option 4 isn't great because it leads to the need for large numbers of classes to account for every little thing.
So no matter what happens, you lose. For my money, option 2 is the best one because it lets me pick a solution that works best for me and mine. I like feats too (option 3) and I like the efforts being made to keep them from becoming too proscriptive. I also like the interesting interactions they're creating (primarily through specialty) in play.
What I'd really love to see is option 2 with option 3 presented as a variant strategy that's subservient to whatever overarching system option 2 relies on.
You can break down D&D characters into 3 main mechanical components: passive features (always on), active features (limited use, but predictable), and skills (contested outcome). Feats are usually of the first two, or give you an additional skill. I've not really understood why combat hasn't been folded into the skill system, but I digress.
Had 3e used a single class model (the fighter), all the other class features could have been feats. I'd prefer a distinction between "major" and "minor" feats, and have every level gain a minor feat, but a major feat every 2-3 levels. Minor feats are the ones with limited use or situational, with major feats being always on or usable frequently.
A rules light game has very few rules, but they are abstracted and able to cover almost any situation.
A rules incomplete has detailed rules for some things but doesn't attempt to address other areas, leaving those situations up to the DM or Player's whim.
D&D has never really been rules light.
The original rules were very rules incomplete - they didn't even attempt to tell you how to handle most situations outside of the few things they did cover. The rule they did have were also lighter than the later editions - but the lack of an overall system meant it really was not a 'rules light system'.
And it is this rules -incompleteness that Dancy is really referring to. A rules-light system uses a few rules to cover every situation rather than (as in 0D&D) a few rules to cover a few things - and no rules to cover anything else.
AD&D added more and more subsystems to cover some of the gaps in the 0D&D rules - but the very notion of adding unique subsystems for each new rule is the exact opposite of what a rule light system does. AD&D was not rules light.
3.x made the first step towards what could have been a rules light system - the consolidation of the mechanics into the d20 roll. But it also loaded the game with numerous 'exceptions' - special rules which changed what one player could do and otherwise 'broke the general rules' (i.e. feats and class features). It also was not a rules light game - although a rules light game could have been made from its core. It was, of course, also far more rules-complete as it covered more and more possibilities within the game with rules.
4E embraced the 'exception based design' philolsophy even further; As played it was the most rule heavy game out there. As with 3.x, a rules-light game could have been made from its core - you just had to strip out all of the powers and feats, leaving people with their basic attacks and a few at-will attacks. It was also the most rules-complete game to date, with the rules so formalized for most circumstances that some players started to feel as if their opportunity for improvisation outside of the rules was being stifled.
5E, like the last two, is built upon a core that could be rules light - but then it is loaded down with spells and feats - with bits of exception based design - that 'weigh down' the rules so that they are not light. But it is still rules-lighter than 4E and 3.x. On the other hand - it is also unfinished so it is hard to say how rules-heavy it will end up being. It is also the first edition where the designers have discussed releasing a version of the rules which are intentionally lacking many of those features - a rules-lighter version.
And even the basic (rules-lightest) game of 5E will most likely be more rules-complete than the AD&D and 0D&D games. For example - it attempts to convert most actions into an ability check is an attempt to provide one rules to cover a large number of different situations. If they were to take out the spells and feats and add in a 'page 42' to replace them they would be getting far closer to a rules-light system.
But I don't think that is what most D&D players want. Players want their characters to be special snowflakes and (so it appears) would rather sacrifice flexibility in play for the ability to customize their character (old school: anyone can try to knock someone prone; new school: I want a feat to let me knock somone prone. old school: anyone can dual wield; new school: I want a feat to let me dual wield. old school: anyone can try to stick a shield out and block an attack on an ally; new school: I want a feat to let me block an attack on an ally).
The feat approach does reduce arguments about what works and what doesn't, and it does give you consistency among tables (as Dancy noted). But an actual attempt to create a rules light system - for example through the use of page 42 and an ability check stunt system - could solve that but D&D has never tried to be a rules light system and thus despite the existence of the elements necessary for such a system buried here or there in the rules has never done that.
If you want rules light D&D - toss out the feats, toss out the skills, toss out the spells. Add in a version of 'page 42' and some ability score stunt information. Replace the feats with the ability score stunts (you want to block the attack - make a dex check to see if you get your shield in place fast enough, etc.). Replace the spells with some basic attack forms (acid, fire, etc.) and some rules about shape and range - and use page 42 to determine how much damage you do based on your level and whether you are attacking one target or many. You want to do something beyond damage - add in some 'abillity score stunting' to see whether it worked (you want to freeze the ground in front of them to make them trip - go ahead and try...)
It could be done.
But it also means that you would lose what some people seem to think is one of the 'most important' parts of modern D&D - blocks of text on their character sheet intended to show how their character is different from the character next to them. That very ability to build a customized character is what keeps D&D from ever being a rules light game.
Carl
A rules light game has very few rules, but they are abstracted and able to cover almost any situation.
Carl
Pesonaly i think if you go rules light you might want to go guidence heavy.
Giving lots of examples of these few abstracted rules can cover many situations.
So when a situation arives you can look trough these exapmples to find somthing simular.
This might also profice the consistency between gaming tables, somthing people who prefer rules hevy are afraid will be lost in a rules lignt system as difrences from one Dm to the next might be very big.
That is why consistent rule interaction and expectations trumps the amount of rules. Or more important adherence to the prinicple whenever you add something to the game.
because the great thing about tabletop games is that it's possible to do things like shieldboarding, swinging from a chandelier, bringing down a building by taking out or weakening supports, using the Grease spell to go ice skating using neither ice nor skates, setting fire to random things to see what happens, breaking through walls for whatever reason; basically anything that would require the DM to improvise and adapt to the player's unpredictable actions.
i prefer games that dont require looking at the rulebook whenever i want to do something like this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DvBE7Vt7Vgbecause the great thing about tabletop games is that it's possible to do things like shieldboarding, swinging from a chandelier, bringing down a building by taking out or weakening supports, using the Grease spell to go ice skating using neither ice nor skates, setting fire to random things to see what happens, breaking through walls for whatever reason; basically anything that would require the DM to improvise and adapt to the player's unpredictable actions.
... which could be made manifest by any number of means within a system, written or not, rules heavy or not.
But I tend to lean toward the "less is more" sort of approach and lean heavily on improvised actions that use broadly applicable mechanics over a system that uses many smaller moving parts to achieve the same end.
damn good post chaosfang, even if I totally disagree with 4th and 13th ages approach to balance, in my opinion that being that any class can be great at anything, if your going to have classes (IE know your role) I want there to be strict and specific differences between them in more than flavor and fluff.
Personally I prefer that any character can be great at anything, but yeah in 4E the difference between a Wizard and a Sorcerer wasn't that the Wizard cast higher level spells sooner and the Sorcerer cast spells more frequently, it was that the Sorcerer was designed with "striker" in mind and the Wizard was designed with "controller" in mind (even though later feats and game element synchronization gave the Wizard enough firepower to be more striker-y than the Sorcerer). 13th Age took the difference between the Wizard and Sorcerer even further, with the Sorcerer having less spells but having the ability to double the damage of all spells, while the Wizard had far more utility and flexibility with his spells, due to his extensive cantrips, superior number of spells (including a "utility spell slot", which is basically a daily-type cantrip), and inherent ability to cast spells as rituals; there's actually a complaint about how Sorcerers are inferior to Wizards, but considering how Wizards could never tap into Sorcerer abilities while Sorcerers could tap into Wizard abilities plus he could dish out a monstrous amount of damage, personally I think it's a fair enough trade.
Regarding feats... I dont see why you need them, if you have classes the abilities of the class should be specific enough without having feats. If you have too many classes and the classes are overlapping so much that the class abilities have to be called feats and available to almost everyone then whats the point of having classes in the first place? just get rid of it all and make it a point buy system.
Feats and skills are there to express things that class doesn't express very well. Of course class can express everything feats and skills express, but there's an emersion problem with class-based solutions to this because there are somethings people consider everyone able to do (for better or worse).
This is the classic explanation on the existence of feats and skills, and I actually agree on Baalmoth: why aren't classes expressing things very well in the first place?
The way I see it, it's because through the years the devs haven't been sure of how to go about things themselves; D&D is the first TRPG after all.
The only solution to the whole "why have classes?" and "why have feats?" dilemma is to properly define what all the game elements are supposed to represent, not so much in terms of fluff -- which is mutable, especially on tables where the DM is lenient (even though I do recall Gary Gygax being very much against refluffing due to how changes in fluff alter in-world perceptions) -- but in mechanics first and foremost. It's all the more why I like how 4E altered the whole setup where almost every class was basically either a bunch of feats or a bunch of spell slots (usually both, in varying degrees), and actually started out with Fighters being defined as frontal melee team defense specialists, and Rangers being defined as multi-attacker specialist.
Of course, the issue with the 4E approach was that people disliked how you ended up with (semi-)duplicative powers (see: Dual Strike pre-Errata vs. Twin Strike), and how the system was very inflexible (see: Fighter class Archer). 13th Age solved this issue in a very simple way, without having to compromise class identity: run your character with the DM, and he could likely allow you to take a class feature from a different class than the one you picked. That way, you don't end up with duplicate abilities (since there's no real harm in swapping powers or class features), and classes would have a much clearer reason for their existence while allowing players whose character concepts can't exactly fit in one class the freedom to make the character(s) they like.
If classes are supposed to be representing archetypes, perhaps the difficulty 5E has in representing those archetypes lies in the scope of the representation and the methodology used to express those representations. After all, there are so many different types of "warrior" that overlaps with how D&D represents barbarians and rangers, so maybe there has to be baseline mechanical and thematic distinctions first, before we can actually make those classes.
As for feats, given how they're also called "specializations" in 5E, why shouldn't they be designed as specializations within classes? Because as it stands, I can easily strip away classes in D&D 5E and use feats to play a classless D&D 5E... which is weird because I thought classes were a core concept in D&D.
The issue though is that there are many things that are common to multiple classes, like fighting style. Any character that uses weapons can choose to use a 2 hander, dual wield, or use a single one hander. Some would also have the option to go sword and board but that's a little more restricted. But only a little.
So if I have rogues and fighters and barbarians and rangers and bards and monks ALL with the option to dual wield, use a 2 hander or use a single one hander then feats are handy because that's a way for all of those classes to make that decision without cluttering the class descriptions.
Even if there are no actual feats for those styles and the feat is just "dual wield" and nothing else, the fact that you're picking an option that is common to many classes makes it easy to express that thing in a way that transcends class.
You could just make it part of class, of course. Some games do that, but this is nice 'cause it means you can expand without necessarily ticking all the boxes and it opens up more options for characters because it's something that's not totally defined by their class only.
edit: there's a second reason to use something like feats: you don't think all characters should be able to do all of those things at once. Feats are finite and given at specific times under specific circumstances, which means you can make each character pick what it does in a more specific way. It both lends flexibility and takes it away.
The issue though is that there are many things that are common to multiple classes, like fighting style.
Who dictated this paradigm? Isn't the barbarian and monk already defined by their fighting style, the former being rage-induced and the later being an unarmed specialist who calls forth an oriental-esque source of power as part of his flavor?
Any character that uses weapons can choose to use a 2 hander, dual wield, or use a single one hander. Some would also have the option to go sword and board but that's a little more restricted. But only a little.
By whose definition should classes embody as many fighting styles as possible to the point where there is severe overlap, much like how 4E eventually ended up having (see: Ranger Two-Weapon Specialist, Fighter Tempest, and Barbarian Whirling Dervish)?
What I really don't see is, why should there be overlap and redundancy with the classes?
So if I have rogues and fighters and barbarians and rangers and bards and monks ALL with the option to dual wield, use a 2 hander or use a single one hander then feats are handy because that's a way for all of those classes to make that decision without cluttering the class descriptions.
Except in every edition -- even in 4E with its class-based specializations -- all classes could go dual wield, two-hander, one-hander, or even unarmed; heck, I've already pointed out before in a different thread that you could make a perfectly viable Archer Fighter in 4E, utilizing close burst abilities and powers that are not melee type whenever they're available.
It's in the optimization that makes the Archer Fighter considered subpar due to lack of mechanical support when going ranged, and what makes "reflavoring Rangers" the default reply to someone who wants to make a martial character who is good with the bow (something that 13th Age addressed in its own way, and obviously 5E has avoided almost entirely due to the lack of alternative class features to Parry).
Even if there are no actual feats for those styles and the feat is just "dual wield" and nothing else, the fact that you're picking an option that is common to many classes makes it easy to express that thing in a way that transcends class.
And that's the problem: you're combining a feature that ignores class (and is more appropriate for a classless system) and allow it to supercede classes. That's the main issue Baalmoth had with his 4E Fighter power being easily emulated by a Rogue feat, and which is why 3.x Fighters were looked upon as a blank build-your-class template class, especially considering how a significant number of class features were, in fact, feats.
You could just make it part of class, of course. Some games do that, but this is nice 'cause it means you can expand without necessarily ticking all the boxes and it opens up more options for characters because it's something that's not totally defined by their class only.
So you're alright with a classless system being able to supercede the options given to, and restricted from, you... for the sake of customizability? If that's the case, why not design the class system to accommodate a partially classless design? I mean you could easily place everything as feats, segregate feats that function to help define a class as "class features", feats that function to define the abilities granted by the class as "powers" (be it spells, maneuvers, tricks, techniques, or the like), and feats that enhance other feats as "specializations", then a simple statement, something to the tune of
"feel free to swap out a class feature or power from your class with that of another, so long as the DM is cool with it,"
That should allow you to expand your character without having to tick any boxes and opens a myriad of options for characters based on how they develop within a campaign.
Like I said, it's not so much the amount of rules, but how well those rules interact with each other and the emotions evoked by those interactions.
edit: there's a second reason to use something like feats: you don't think all characters should be able to do all of those things at once. Feats are finite and given at specific times under specific circumstances, which means you can make each character pick what it does in a more specific way. It both lends flexibility and takes it away.
Which is the same design space as
- class features
- spells/powers/ maneuvers
If classes are going to have spells/powers/maneuvers, then what would the function of feats be? If you look at metamagic feats they can certainly fall within the same design space as spells like Simulacrum, except that metamagic feats don't take up a spell slot (and instead customize the use of spell slots in general).
1) What benefits do you see in a rules lite or rules heavy system? (Do you agree or disagree with Dancey?)
I disagree that rules heavy is the way to go. The thing I dislike about rules heavy is that it has this mentality of ignoring common sense, and treating the rules as some kind of gospel, and is generally the result of an overeager designer thinking he's going to tell us the "one true way to play D&D."
Rules heavy systems also have the growing problem of more and more rules, which leads to a serious amount of bloat. Now you need rules that say a gelatinous cube can't be blinded, can't be tripped and can't be struck by critical hits. If you want it to be harder to push because it's heavy you need new rules for that to account for its weight or gelatinousness. All these things and more could be solved with a single "use common sense" guideline and a decent DM.
But with rules heavy there are pretty much never enough rules. It's a slippery slope and the end result is that flavor ends up getting cut to account for all those rules.
The other benefit is that if you never write a rule it can't be abused and broken. A good example is the falling object rules from 3E that could do absurd amounts of damage. In 2E, you didn't have any rule for how to generate them, so thus you couldn't abuse it. In many cases, writing a bad rule is worse than no rule at all.
2) Do you plan on using the optional rules modules when you run (to create a more complex game, or a game more similar to 4e) or will you use “the standard” rules? And why?
I honestly can't say too much here because I have no idea what the standard rules will be and what modules will be allowed. I generally will run something low magic and rules lite. There was a proposed module for removing combat healing from the game, which I will likely use.
3) Do you believe that the optional rules modules have been given enough play testing time so far? IE would you request that rules modules receive as much play testing as the standard rules or none at all?
Modules have hardly been tested at all and they definitely need to be introduced at some point so they can be properly playtested.
IMO the best approach is to have heavy rules there and then let DMs play with them and offer options for simplification NOT the other way around.
2) The reason for that is exemplified by the devs stating that Bounded Accuracy will be set as an immutable part of the core of 5e. This sort of streamlining removes a ton of posibilities moving forward. Something like skill dice, on the other hand, can easily be modified. When you create simplified interwoven systems it becomes very difficult to make small adjustments because the tolerances are already so tight. For example, you could use the advantage/disadvantage system for status effects in 3.5 pretty easily.... trying to do the reverse would be horrible because the impact on bounded accuracy would be too large (-2 in 3.5 translates to appx -8 in DDN). The simpler system has less ability to absorb changes because it uses higher tolerances.
Skills, on the other hand, as an independent system could be easily changed. But you will never have a game made up of only independent systems.
That said a few questions…1) What benefits do you see in a rules lite or rules heavy system? (Do you agree or disagree with Dancey?)
Personally speaking, I enjoy rules-heavy systems specifically because of the things Ryan posted above. Players know what to expect going into the game with that specific system. There are (generally speaking) no twists or bends where the rules are concerned so long as the DM sticks to them too. What this also allows is for those creative, good DMs (the rare ones Ryan is talking about) to look at the rules, change what they like or don't like and go with it. So long as he includes the players in these changes and it's a mutual agreement that they're OK for the most part.
2) Do you plan on using the optional rules modules when you run (to create a more complex game, or a game more similar to 4e) or will you use “the standard” rules? And why?
I'd plan on using ALL the optional rules or at least give them (the players) the option of using them or choosing between them and standard instead of just saying "No". I want to create the best game I can where the players are having the most fun. If everyone is miserable because I only allowed Vancian Spellcasting and a Healing-system that only worked if there was a Cleric in the group, then I'm doing it wrong. It doesn't matter if that system is "Standard" or whatever, the players fun is paramount or we do something else.
3) Do you believe that the optional rules modules have been given enough play testing time so far? IE would you request that rules modules receive as much play testing as the standard rules or none at all?
First question: No, not nearly enough. I've only seen a few optional rules and they're "meh, so-so" as far as I'm concerned. I don't even know if alternating rules modules is even being designed right now?
Second question: That depends on when they plan on releasing these optional rules. If it's designed to be released when the full game does then they need to start sharing this stuff pronto.
@chaosfang
Yup, it's all about customisability. But I still like my classes so I want there to be some boundaries. That's why I like feats to exist in the nul space that transcends class (such as weapon choice, casting specialty, exploration and social interaction, background and bloodline). I don't want them to just hand me some faceless form and say "tack your feats on, here's a preset list if you'd rather take those."
But one thing I don't like is this "class for everything" approach. I'd much rather achieve things through multiclassing a very broad set of classes.
@chaosfang
Yup, it's all about customisability. But I still like my classes so I want there to be some boundaries. That's why I like feats to exist in the nul space that transcends class (such as weapon choice, casting specialty, exploration and social interaction, background and bloodline). I don't want them to just hand me some faceless form and say "tack your feats on, here's a preset list if you'd rather take those."
But one thing I don't like is this "class for everything" approach. I'd much rather achieve things through multiclassing a very broad set of classes.
Personally I like the following:
- the 7E Gamma World method of "here's your weapon type and what damage it deals, tell us what it is" way of doing things, and would prefer specific weapon details as a module
- casting specialty as a class feature (seriously, wizards do not have enough class features... heck, in the history of D&D wizards never really had class features outside of "I can cast spells")
- exploration and social interaction (including bloodline) restricted almost exclusively to background (and skills), with magic as a possible (limited) exception
Feats could cover anything from enhanced use of equipment (see: Reach Tricks feat), to specializing in certain methods of casting (see: just about every feat that modifies either spellcaster class features or spells themselves), to enhancing backgrounds.
And no, I'm not promoting a "class for everything" approach; in fact, I really like how 5E could support a campaign where classes are outright removed and players could focus on using JUST ability scores, traits and skills. Instead, I'd be promoting a "give class a reason to exist" approach, because as it stands you can make a pretty decent warrior or even a mage with just those four feats, since all that's missing would be... well, HP and equipment proficiency. So, aside from "because that's how D&D always worked", and "because the rules say so", what incentive do I have for having classes on my table?
EDIT: instead of "class for everything" like what just about every edition of D&D past Men & Magic did, why not "classes as feature packages", with refluffing to help cover concepts that can easily be reflavorings of certain classes?
And no, I'm not promoting a "class for everything" approach; in fact, I really like how 5E could support a campaign where classes are outright removed and players could focus on using JUST ability scores, traits and skills. Instead, I'd be promoting a "give class a reason to exist" approach, because as it stands you can make a pretty decent warrior or even a mage with just those four feats, since all that's missing would be... well, HP and equipment proficiency. So, aside from "because that's how D&D always worked", and "because the rules say so", what incentive do I have for having classes on my table?
EDIT: instead of "class for everything" like what just about every edition of D&D past Men & Magic did, why not "classes as feature packages", with refluffing to help cover concepts that can easily be reflavorings of certain classes?
what I said before: to provide boundaries between a caster, an expert and a warrior. The distinction between a divine caster and an arcane caster is pretty flimsy so that's there "'Cause that's D&D" but I forgive them that.
And that distinction is achieved by HP, magic access and equipment proficiency. That has a knock on effect that narrows down the number of feats and cross-class abilities the character has to choose from.
So the class provides focus. The problem with D&D is it's become very much a "class for everything" kind of game and feats/skills sorta seem weird next to that.
what I said before: to provide boundaries between a caster, an expert and a warrior. The distinction between a divine caster and an arcane caster is pretty flimsy so that's there "'Cause that's D&D" but I forgive them that.
And that distinction is achieved by HP, magic access and equipment proficiency. That has a knock on effect that narrows down the number of feats and cross-class abilities the character has to choose from.
So the class provides focus. The problem with D&D is it's become very much a "class for everything" kind of game and feats/skills sorta seem weird next to that.
Part of the issue stems from the fact that D&D was designed with only 3 classes in mind (see: Men and Magic); in fact, I think the only reason why the Thief had skills at all was because of the same assumption Gary Gygax had with magic, which was that those game elements were written with the intent of hindering, rather than enabling PCs.
[ He was the pioneer sure, and he had a lot of great ideas, but I wouldn't exactly say he was a better game developer than he was a storyteller... though I suppose his wargaming background helped him out on the game developing aspect... a bit. I think. ]
Here's what bothers me regarding what you consider as sufficient distinctions for classes:
- Distinction by HP. Doesn't CON weaken the distinction on HP, as a warrior that has 1d10+1 (2 ~ 11, or 6.5 average) HP versus a caster that has 1d4+4 (5 ~ 8, or 6.5 average) HP would have virtually no difference in the long run?
- Distinction by Equipment Proficiency. I think it was pointed out in a different thread that the ability to wield different equipment is negligible when most of those equipment aren't even available.
- Distinction by Access to Magic. Like you yourself said, wizard and cleric are virtually indistinguishable
I consider this criteria of distinction as horribly insufficient due to the apparent overlap and recurring redundancies that result from it -- seriously, if the only mechanical difference between a low level monk and a low level fighter is that the fighter has to pay for what the monk gets for free JUST to emulate the same fighting style, why can't I just reflavor the monk as a fighter?
You consider it horribly inadequate. I do not.
Though I think the sentimental need to have a class for everything instead of working with three or four broadly defined base classes and multiclassing them to achieve different things is causing problems (as I all ready said).
But really, this only reveals to me that this is a game based as much on sentiment as it is anything else. Which is totally fine, as long as you accept that people don't want to kill their darlings. The compromise I would like is to have the core four be essentially designed to a very different set of criteria than the subclasses and make all the other classes that are based on things related to the core four, make that plain, and then provide ways of multiclassing in and selecting feats to achieve sub classes if the group so chooses.
You consider it horribly inadequate. I do not.
Though I think the sentimental need to have a class for everything instead of working with three or four broadly defined base classes and multiclassing them to achieve different things is causing problems (as I all ready said).
But really, this only reveals to me that this is a game based as much on sentiment as it is anything else. Which is totally fine, as long as you accept that people don't want to kill their darlings. The compromise I would like is to have the core four be essentially designed to a very different set of criteria than the subclasses and make all the other classes that are based on things related to the core four, make that plain, and then provide ways of multiclassing in and selecting feats to achieve sub classes if the group so chooses.
I don't mind the four being basic classes, then other classes as builds, subclasses or prestige classes. But that still doesn't change much the issue on class differentiation; in fact, magic items blurred the differences between an 11 CON Fighter and an 18 CON Wizard even further, since a Ring of Invisibility gave you the same ability to become invisible as a casting of the spell Invisibility.
We need clear, delineating guidelines on the functions of each class, especially since it's highly unlikely that the devs will consider a return to 0E's Core Three** (before it became a Core Four). 4E did it with roles + power sources, people didn't like it even though "defender" was "MMO" for "meat shield", back stab had always been able to provide a damage spike so "striker" as DPS made perfect sense***, "leader" sounded way better than "healbot" (and represents how you could function in ways other than healing), and "controller"... well, that probably had a bit too much "MMO" in it, but considering how a bunch of controllers could quickly nuke a lot of encounters quickly (one way or another), I'd say it made good sense.
Otherwise, why bother with more than one class (classless) if a bit of CON, a few magic items, and a lot of imagination can easily render the need for more than one class all but useless?
** Interestingly, Monte Cook's Numenera follows this exact paradigm, which leads me to believe that Mike Mearls wanted the 3E-style class bloat, while Cook wanted to go back to the game's roots and stick to just 3 classes with all other classes being builds, subclasses or prestige classes. Likely not true, but why kill the fun out of speculating?
*** while some might say rogues functioned primarily as "skill monkeys", given how the Assassin was a Thief subclass, the Bard (which was a prestige class involving Magic User, Fighting Man and Thief) was even more of a "skill monkey" than a thief, and considering how you could define only so many classes using 2E's non-weapon proficiencies and 3E's skills (all the more with 4E's simplified skill list), doesn't really make sense to make a whole set of classes as "experts"
1) What benefits do you see in a rules lite or rules heavy system?
A 'rules lite' system is just a bad system that's bad because it's incomplete and leaves game design work to you, if you want it to work at all well. The only benefit to a badly designed, incomplete system is that it's easy to change, add to, or ignore, so you can use it as a jumping-off point to design your own system or get your group to try freestyle roleplaying even if they don't like the idea.
A 'rules heavy' system is just a bad system with very inellegant and inefficient rules. Where a decent game might cover grappling in a paragraph or formatted block of rules-speak, the rule-heavy game has 3 pages of rules and exceptions to rules, distinctions between grappling, westling and tackeling, two or three related tables, and some figured stats that are used only when grappling but aren't mentioned in either character generation or grappling, but in an appendix in a suplement otherwise unrelated to melee combat. If there's a benefit to rules heavy systems it's that they're usually so broken and aweful that tinkering with them can't make them any worse. Well, and they can be quite detailed and well-researched, making some of them useable as sourcebooks for other, better, systems.
Of course, when faced with a better system, a comitted fan of a terse, inadequate system might deride the superior one as "rules heavy" or the fan of a bloated inelegant system might call the other "OK ifyou must have it 'rules lite'..." ;)
2) Do you plan on using the optional rules modules when you run (to create a more complex game, or a game more similar to 4e) or will you use “the standard” rules? And why?
If I were to run 5e, I might as well go full-bore into the 'modularity' and re-build it into something decent. That's what I did with AD&D.
3) Do you believe that the optional rules modules have been given enough play testing time so far? IE would you request that rules modules receive as much play testing as the standard rules or none at all?
The 'modular' aspect has gotten 0 playtesting, so no. I know some of the rules we're testing are going to end up exiled to a module, and I shudder to think which ones those may be, but that's not the same thing as testing the modularity, itself. And, yes, it needs testing, tons of it.
Personally I consider a game rules light when the players don't have to refer to anything other than their sheets for resolution.
I agree witht he caveat that the character sheet has to be less than a few pages. Only Basic (and maybe Expert) D&D (and OD&D) ever met that criteria. I could even take a wizard and cut and paste the spell descriptions for his spellbook onto a single sheet of paper.
I suspect that D&D Next's Basic rules will also be rules light. I don't expect the Standard Rules will be, though.
The essence of an entire character should fit on one card. The card can list powers (spells, maneuvers, etcetera) but their descriptions can be elsewhere if necessary to reference.
3e was rules light? I would argue against that. When compared to 4e, maybe, but compared to other systems it had a lot of rules and crunch.
3e was in no way "rules lite" - it had far more annoying fiddly bits than 4e and previous editions.
Throw in the fact that a lot of the rules/options available would be traps and the need for players to be masters of char-op and even more for gm's to be ultimate masters of char-op (since monsters were built the same as regular characters).
The abilities require clear, consistent, unambiguous, and mutually exclusive descriptions, so it is always clear which ability can work for a check.
Basically, every action is an improvisation. The player describes what the character does narratively, and if the outcome is uncertain, then the ability check determines whether it is successful.
3e was rules light? I would argue against that. When compared to 4e, maybe, but compared to other systems it had a lot of rules and crunch.
3e was in no way "rules lite" - it had far more annoying fiddly bits than 4e and previous editions.
Throw in the fact that a lot of the rules/options available would be traps and the need for players to be masters of char-op and even more for gm's to be ultimate masters of char-op (since monsters were built the same as regular characters).
Agreed. Wasn't it the running joke that you needed to be trained in the Breathing skill to actually breath in 3E?
Seriously though, I'd say 3E was far heavier in rules than any edition (4E included). Only when you count the individual powers as rules does 4E end up being more "rules heavy", even though I'd say that it'd be more "game element" heavy, considering how the conflict resolution methods was streamlined (e.g. one attack resolution, versus two attack resolutions), and how you had less conditions in 4E than in 3E.
Personally I consider a game rules light when the players don't have to refer to anything other than their sheets for resolution.
I agree witht he caveat that the character sheet has to be less than a few pages. Only Basic (and maybe Expert) D&D (and OD&D) ever met that criteria. I could even take a wizard and cut and paste the spell descriptions for his spellbook onto a single sheet of paper.
I suspect that D&D Next's Basic rules will also be rules light. I don't expect the Standard Rules will be, though.
The essence of an entire character should fit on one card. The card can list powers (spells, maneuvers, etcetera) but their descriptions can be elsewhere if necessary to reference.
Yeah, something like that could work.
Character Name, Race
Class, Level, Player Name
Background (Skill 1, Skill 2, Skill 3, Skill 4)
Race Features
Class Features
Back of card could then contain summary of power details, although honestly I think I'd prefer that less is more, and that all classes could have only a maximum of 8 powers at level 20, +5 at most if you include magic items (head, weapon, armor, shield/secondary weapon, accessory). Anything more could be at the second index card if any.
Personally, 3.x is one of the more complex systems of rule that I've ever encountered.
I don't mind the four being basic classes, then other classes as builds, subclasses or prestige classes. But that still doesn't change much the issue on class differentiation; in fact, magic items blurred the differences between an 11 CON Fighter and an 18 CON Wizard even further, since a Ring of Invisibility gave you the same ability to become invisible as a casting of the spell Invisibility.
I think the whole "magic items don't figure into the core design balance" line is partly to dodge this particular issue. But really, I can see a scenario where magic items blur boundaries but also create different ones 'cause the sorts of items a given class is after helps define a class.
We need clear, delineating guidelines on the functions of each class, especially since it's highly unlikely that the devs will consider a return to 0E's Core Three** (before it became a Core Four). 4E did it with roles + power sources, people didn't like it even though "defender" was "MMO" for "meat shield", back stab had always been able to provide a damage spike so "striker" as DPS made perfect sense***, "leader" sounded way better than "healbot" (and represents how you could function in ways other than healing), and "controller"... well, that probably had a bit too much "MMO" in it, but considering how a bunch of controllers could quickly nuke a lot of encounters quickly (one way or another), I'd say it made good sense.
Otherwise, why bother with more than one class (classless) if a bit of CON, a few magic items, and a lot of imagination can easily render the need for more than one class all but useless?
The primary reason for magic items enabling the abilities of a different class is to enable players to pick whatever class they actually want to play without regard for what the party needs. So if everyone wants to play warriors you've got a suite of items that allow them to do things that prewritten adventures expect a party to do. Obviously if you're doing your own adventure (planned or on the fly) then you don't need said items so much 'cause you know the party and you can tailor it to their needs.
So the point of classes is to enable the boundaries to be there and the point of magic items that blur the boundaries is to relieve the pressure on players to play classes "'cause someone has to". Maybe it leads to some irregularities but I think more good than bad comes of it.
** Interestingly, Monte Cook's Numenera follows this exact paradigm, which leads me to believe that Mike Mearls wanted the 3E-style class bloat, while Cook wanted to go back to the game's roots and stick to just 3 classes with all other classes being builds, subclasses or prestige classes. Likely not true, but why kill the fun out of speculating?
*** while some might say rogues functioned primarily as "skill monkeys", given how the Assassin was a Thief subclass, the Bard (which was a prestige class involving Magic User, Fighting Man and Thief) was even more of a "skill monkey" than a thief, and considering how you could define only so many classes using 2E's non-weapon proficiencies and 3E's skills (all the more with 4E's simplified skill list), doesn't really make sense to make a whole set of classes as "experts"
interesting. I'm not sure how much we can draw from it but at the end of the day it's all food for thought.
The primary reason for magic items enabling the abilities of a different class is to enable players to pick whatever class they actually want to play without regard for what the party needs. So if everyone wants to play warriors you've got a suite of items that allow them to do things that prewritten adventures expect a party to do. Obviously if you're doing your own adventure (planned or on the fly) then you don't need said items so much 'cause you know the party and you can tailor it to their needs.So the point of classes is to enable the boundaries to be there and the point of magic items that blur the boundaries is to relieve the pressure on players to play classes "'cause someone has to". Maybe it leads to some irregularities but I think more good than bad comes of it.
Still doesn't explain why feats should be blurring the boundaries, especially considering how magic items, by your definition, already blur them.
Still doesn't explain why feats should be blurring the boundaries, especially considering how magic items, by your definition, already blur them.
The only reason that I can think of is if you want a dabbler. Like a multiclassing lite sort of character that knows a little magic but really isn't a mage. Or a rogue that spent some time in the army but it didn't work out and he never made the cut, so he's got some figher-like stuff through feats.
I think the ultimate source of confusion is that feats are such a flexible tool that people try to give you feats for everything and all reasons to have them, but the fact that you only get so many over the course of levelling sort of stretches the system too much. It's probably a good idea to decide the exact role of feats in the game and then only make feats that do that thing. If folks want the other feats then it's possible to create a different progression and include them as a discrete list.
The only reason that I can think of is if you want a dabbler. Like a multiclassing lite sort of character that knows a little magic but really isn't a mage. Or a rogue that spent some time in the army but it didn't work out and he never made the cut, so he's got some figher-like stuff through feats.I think the ultimate source of confusion is that feats are such a flexible tool that people try to give you feats for everything and all reasons to have them, but the fact that you only get so many over the course of levelling sort of stretches the system too much. It's probably a good idea to decide the exact role of feats in the game and then only make feats that do that thing. If folks want the other feats then it's possible to create a different progression and include them as a discrete list.
A few issues though:
- that rogue that didn't make the cut? that sounds far more like a background than a set of feats
- the use of feats as "multiclassing lite" is the very line of thinking that you could see with D&D 4E's usage of feats for multiclassing, with each multiclassing feat expressing deeper integration into the second class, until you can paragon multiclass
- it didn't end well
Here's how I see it: feats are not clearly defined in any edition, beyond two things:
It's because of the overly broad scope of feats (which overlap with magic items, class features and powers/spells/maneuvers/etc.) that we end up with a very confusing array of stuff.
Now, if multiclassing is supposed to be 3E-style, and the system to be used is that multiclassing would involve an exclusive multiclassing table, then that means that the class dabbling is now covered by multiclassing... so what should feats do now?
- everyone has them
- everyone gets them at certain intervals
It's because of the overly broad scope of feats (which overlap with magic items, class features and powers/spells/maneuvers/etc.) that we end up with a very confusing array of stuff.
Now, if multiclassing is supposed to be 3E-style, and the system to be used is that multiclassing would involve an exclusive multiclassing table, then that means that the class dabbling is now covered by multiclassing... so what should feats do now?
I want to preface my reply by saying I get the vibe that we're pretty much agreeing on this point, but the discourse is interesting to me. Please don't think I'm being adversarial
A few issues though:
- that rogue that didn't make the cut? that sounds far more like a background than a set of feats
- the use of feats as "multiclassing lite" is the very line of thinking that you could see with D&D 4E's usage of feats for multiclassing, with each multiclassing feat expressing deeper integration into the second class, until you can paragon multiclass
- it didn't end well
It didn't end well because that was the only option given. If you could have taken different classes and then also have the multiclassing lite from feats I bet you the lite option would have been taken pretty favourably. As a substitute for multiclassing, no. As a way of expressing exposure to a class without actually taking the class, yes. And backgrounds do that too in an even lesser sense, which is also awesome. So I can have a dabbler who's got an arcane background, rogue feats and a fighter class. Or I can go the whole hog and have a career fighter, mage and rogue all at once with levels in each class.
Options are good.
Here's how I see it: feats are not clearly defined in any edition, beyond two things:
- everyone has them
- everyone gets them at certain intervals
It's because of the overly broad scope of feats (which overlap with magic items, class features and powers/spells/maneuvers/etc.) that we end up with a very confusing array of stuff.
Now, if multiclassing is supposed to be 3E-style, and the system to be used is that multiclassing would involve an exclusive multiclassing table, then that means that the class dabbling is now covered by multiclassing... so what should feats do now?
Yeah the scope is broad. I don't mind that but it'd be nice if feats had a specific purpose in the design that kept the broad scope from going too crazy. Like I said earlier, one could easily give multiple feat progressions and carve the feats up and probably everyone would benefit... except it'd take that much longer to level up/make a character.
Major feats
- armor proficiency (all armors categories are mostly balanced now)
- basic weapons (includes basic finesse weapons, which can just be a weapon property)
- martial weapons (requires basic weapons, includes finesse weapons, which can just be a weapon property)
- +1 WAB/MAB progression
- +1 MDD/MDB progression
- +1 spell casting progression
- + 2 skill trainings
- Skill Mastery (requires x2 "+ 2 skill trainings" as prerequisite)
Minor Feats
- + 1 spells known
- + 1 maneuver
- + 1 rage power
- + 1 ki power
- + 1 skill training
Alternate between gaining a major or minor feat every level.
Note: I'm not sure I did the split correctly between major and minor feats. The main idea is to have feats in distinct categories for better balance.
I want to preface my reply by saying I get the vibe that we're pretty much agreeing on this point, but the discourse is interesting to me. Please don't think I'm being adversarial
No biggie I enjoy intellectual discourse, regardless if I and the other party I'm engaging with is in agreement or not.
It didn't end well because that was the only option given. If you could have taken different classes and then also have the multiclassing lite from feats I bet you the lite option would have been taken pretty favourably. As a substitute for multiclassing, no. As a way of expressing exposure to a class without actually taking the class, yes. And backgrounds do that too in an even lesser sense, which is also awesome. So I can have a dabbler who's got an arcane background, rogue feats and a fighter class. Or I can go the whole hog and have a career fighter, mage and rogue all at once with levels in each class.Options are good.
I suppose. Hybriding was supposed to emulate that -- which is why some consider 4E hybriding as "true" multiclassing (partly because it is reminiscent of the pre-4E "dual classing", and when combined with the 4E multiclassing + paragon path + epic destiny does, to a degree, emulate 3E-style multiclassing without going to the extremes (except maybe if you picked Bard as your primary class) -- but the fact that it appeared in PHB 3 rather than PHB 1 is kinda sad...
Yeah the scope is broad. I don't mind that but it'd be nice if feats had a specific purpose in the design that kept the broad scope from going too crazy. Like I said earlier, one could easily give multiple feat progressions and carve the feats up and probably everyone would benefit... except it'd take that much longer to level up/make a character.
I think the classic issue with all this falls under two things:
- options bloat
- design complexity vs. options depth
Like I said earlier, I personally prefer a few options that have infinite uses than a thousand options that have extremely limited uses. It's the very appeal of the pre-4E (and in some ways the 5E) Fighter/Fighting Man -- the ability to improvise like crazy** -- and it helps simplify character creation and development... although the downside would obviously be that without well-defined limits, options paralysis can be a real problem, which leads players to limit their options to what they would consider as the most optimal use of their abilities***. And from what I understand, it is this very appeal that modern games like Dungeon World as well as retro-clones like OSRIC seek to re-capture, by designing their system in a way where there's less directly written rules and greater appeal to "common sense", logic, and inter-group discussion.
For that to happen, the scope and limitation of the rules has to be well-defined.
I'm not really seeing how "multiple feat progressions" could work in defining and limiting the scope/coverage of feats. Care to explain?
Mithrus
I still think if we converted every class feature into feats (with prereqs as needed), then use a simple 3e-style fighter progression of just gaining feats, it would be a rediculously streamlined system, and still very managable. Gaining spell casting would be a feat, just like martial maneuvers, et al. Everyone starts out with 4 major feats and 2 minor feats, and would include things like:
Major feats
- armor proficiency (all armors categories are mostly balanced now)
- basic weapons (includes basic finesse weapons, which can just be a weapon property)
- martial weapons (requires basic weapons, includes finesse weapons, which can just be a weapon property)
- +1 WAB/MAB progression
- +1 MDD/MDB progression
- +1 spell casting progression
- + 2 skill trainings
- Skill Mastery (requires x2 "+ 2 skill trainings" as prerequisite)
Minor Feats
- + 1 spells known
- + 1 maneuver
- + 1 rage power
- + 1 ki power
- + 1 skill training
Alternate between gaining a major or minor feat every level.
Note: I'm not sure I did the split correctly between major and minor feats. The main idea is to have feats in distinct categories for better balance.
Hybriding was supposed to emulate that -- which is why some consider 4E hybriding as "true" multiclassing (partly because it is reminiscent of the pre-4E "dual classing", and when combined with the 4E multiclassing + paragon path + epic destiny does, to a degree, emulate 3E-style multiclassing without going to the extremes (except maybe if you picked Bard as your primary class) -- but the fact that it appeared in PHB 3 rather than PHB 1 is kinda sad...
Yeah hybrids were too little, too late for a lot of people. I really liked the system, though it was sorta cumbersome with all the extra tables. Still, I've fallen firmly on the side of more cumbersome if it means we've got more flexibility, which is exactly what hybrids in 4e are.
I think the classic issue with all this falls under two things:
- options bloat
- design complexity vs. options depth
Like I said earlier, I personally prefer a few options that have infinite uses than a thousand options that have extremely limited uses. It's the very appeal of the pre-4E (and in some ways the 5E) Fighter/Fighting Man -- the ability to improvise like crazy** -- and it helps simplify character creation and development... although the downside would obviously be that without well-defined limits, options paralysis can be a real problem, which leads players to limit their options to what they would consider as the most optimal use of their abilities***. And from what I understand, it is this very appeal that modern games like Dungeon World as well as retro-clones like OSRIC seek to re-capture, by designing their system in a way where there's less directly written rules and greater appeal to "common sense", logic, and inter-group discussion.
For that to happen, the scope and limitation of the rules has to be well-defined.
I'm not really seeing how "multiple feat progressions" could work in defining and limiting the scope/coverage of feats. Care to explain?
I'm just thinking of all the "flavour" feats in 3e, like heritage and aptitude feats, that were cool but not many used. You don't really need to use feats to do those things but if you wanted to you could basically break the 3e feat list into sections, combat and non-combat being the most broad, and then you'd get different types of feats at different intervals. So instead of getting 7 feats across 20 levels, you might get 5 combat feats and 5 background feats. Or something.
I seriously dislike the notion that if it's not on the list, it doesn't exist and it's a big issue with WOTC-era D&D. I suppose you get option paralysis on the other end of the scale but it's not something that I have happen in my 2e games enough to worry about, but the list-bound issue comes up all the time in my 3e games. Based on my own personal experience I think it's probably best to try to give a very broad list without dictating specifics.
Mage: The Ascention's magic system was awesome at this because it gave you nine categories you could be good at and ratings to determine the ceiling of what was possible, but then left you to figure out what you wanted to do. I could see a similar system being used for martial characters.
So class would become feat packages primarily, much like in various classless systems? -snip-
You could do something like either of these ideas and it'd be fine, and actually if you look closely at how nwn treats classes it's basically feat packages, but I like having the boundaries. My criticism of class as D&D uses them is that they're either not specific enough or not broad enough. I want a fighter to be a warrior and only a warrior with nothing else or I want a fighter to be a framework that provides decent baseline fighting stats and no magic access that I then add on abilities through feats or skills or whatever (and I prefer the latter). D&D's system often lands in really vague territory.
Though the 0E Fighting Man does seem to have advantage with Charisma checks (in addition to doing real well with STR/DEX/CON checks) when you consider how, by level 10, you can gain control over a fortress and automatically attract the service of other Fighting Men
heh. fortresses and followers.
This is the exact issue with the "I attack" Fighter/Fighting Man. Technically you could do improvisation checks like crazy, but optimally -- using just the game rules -- it is often better to just attack and kill/maim/disable the enemy then ask questions later, especially when you consider the number of checks normally needed to achieve the same result.
Hit points don't help with that either, but I like hit points 'cause they're simple. I handle improvised actions with no more than one extra roll, generally, 'cause I find that otherwise we just roll a bunch of dice and then we have to retrace what each roll means. By the time we've got to the end, we've forgotten what the first one was for and the whole thing becomes stupid. I will also often grant bonuses to rolls if players are improvising because I like that and it keeps them doing it.