D&DNext: Playtest Review

[CapnTthePirateG]

4e PHB is fucking boring, that's what it means.

[Lago PARANOIA]

There isn't any alternative if you want to minimize MTPin while also minimizing word count. You either standardize your rules or lean on exceptions and natural language and continue to release 300k word monsters.

[Korwin]

There isn't any alternative if you want to minimize MTPin while also minimizing word count. You either standardize your rules or lean on exceptions and natural language and continue to release 300k word monsters.

Bullshit.

Edit:
At least the PHP4 should be an example of how you dont want to do it.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Okay, give me a counter-example or even a theoretical example that:

1.) Has an extensive mix-and-match ability system. You know, like the Tome of Battle or 3E D&D Player's Handbook or Exalted.
2.) Does not overly rely on Magic Tea Party to adjucate effects nor makes things all cRPG/MMORPG style like 4E D&D.
3.) Does not have word bloat.
4.) Does not rely on keywords to standardize effects.

[hogarth]

There isn't any alternative if you want to minimize MTPin while also minimizing word count.

There are plenty of alternatives. For instance, I could take the 3E PHB and chop out half of the spells in the spells section; that would cut out 50 pages and wouldn't increase MTP.

Of course, "wizards and clerics should have zillions of core spells to choose from" may be a sacred cow, but that's a far cry from saying there's no alternative.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I will concede that, yes, if you don't want people to have very many selectable abilities, then yes, you can also cut down on word bloat while not standardizing your abilities.

[Wrathzog]

Oh come on, we all know that people don't actually use more than a handful of spells at each level. You could cut out the fat and lose absolutely nothing.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Oh come on, we all know that people don't actually use more than a handful of spells at each level. You could cut out the fat and lose absolutely nothing.

THAT particular problem -- people and groups only using a minority of powers or effects actually in the catalog -- is a multifacted beast in of itself. Solving word bloat in that fashion would be like solving your King Kong problem by gating in Mecha-Godzilla to kill it.

[hyzmarca]

Okay, give me a counter-example or even a theoretical example that:

1.) Has an extensive mix-and-match ability system. You know, like the Tome of Battle or 3E D&D Player's Handbook or Exalted.
2.) Does not overly rely on Magic Tea Party to adjucate effects nor makes things all cRPG/MMORPG style like 4E D&D.
3.) Does not have word bloat.
4.) Does not rely on keywords to standardize effects.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean about relying on keywords to standardize effects, so my example system might violate that one.

But the simplest way to do it is to break abilities down into their basic components and make power creation mix-and-match. (point buy system, probably). It would require some effort to balance it, but you can get rid of a lot of word bloat simply because you don't need five different entries for progressively better versions of the same power. And a properly designed scaling system could go all the way up to global-universe wide effects without mincing words or relying on magical teaparty.

Just for example, you've got each ability has eight components that are bought separately, power, level, max number of targets, max range, max area of effect, and max duration, target restrictions, and saving throws.

You'd have to list the effects of different levels for each power, but otherwise a huge cunch of the stat block is unnecessary. And you can cut to listing down to something manageable.

For example your mind control powers might be listed like this.

Mind Control
1 Target thinks that you are a friend
2 Target trusts you absolutely and will believe everything you say.
3 Target cannot disobey you.
4 Your will replaces the target's. He is your puppet and cannot perform any action without your command. You see and experience everything that the target does and the target automatically knows what you wish him to do.

This short writup replaces a fuckton of spells. Depending exactly how you build it, it can replace Charm Monster, Charm Person, Mass Charm Monster/Person, and a whole lot more. It can scale up to a global hive-mind spell where everyone on the planet obeys your every whim, assume that you're willing to pay the cost for it.

The only problem is balancing the cost. It's difficult with a level based system and exponentially harder with a mix-and-match point buy system.

[echoVanguard]

Solving word bloat in that fashion would be like solving your King Kong problem by gating in Mecha-Godzilla to kill it.

So in other words, it's an awesome solution? Just kidding!

Hogarth is totally correct, however - most people read rulebooks in chunks, not in a single sitting. Any given section of the rules should be readable by itself, with minimal references to other sections.

Regarding Frank's assertion about minimum text size, it's important to distinguish Rules from Content. For example, the 3e PHB + DMG contained all the core content of 3rd edition - specifically, the rules for:

- Attributes
- Experience and Leveling
- Skill, Feat, and spell Rules
- Combat Rules & Adjudication
- Environmental Rules & Adjudication
- Functional rules of the magic system
- Equipment Rules

The PHB and DMG also included Content, however, in the form of:

- Races
- Base Classes
- Equpiment Lists
- Spell and Feat Lists
- Prestige Classes
- Magic Items
- Environment/Enounter/Item Tables

If you sum all the rules specifically, excising clarification and examples, the word count is almost certainly under 100k. Unfortunately, the 3e formatting convention lumps clarification and examples into the main text, making it hard to identify what is rules and what is guidance. This is why I advocate placing those sorts of information in sidebars (as was done in later print runs).

echo

[Chamomile]

Isn't the whole point of Mecha-Godzilla that he was an answer to movie Japan's recurring giant monster problem that could be directly controlled by the government so that they didn't have to rely on "friendly" giant monsters who only destroyed half of Tokyo every time a kaiju menace showed up?

[nockermensch]

From my experience, the 4E PHB is by far the worst PHB to pick up and browse through compared to any previous edition, and the keywords aren't helping the readability.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

I mean, a newbie who picks up the basic rulebook and flips to a random page should be enticed into reading that whole page. Then the next page. And then the next page.

If you flip to a random page in the 4E PHB in the Powers or Magic Item sections, it's like reading stereo instructions because the ratio of jargon to natural language is too high. It doesn't suck you in at all.

You never noticed this?

So, is 4E writing "preaching to the choir" in a sense? As in: helpful to people who already "got" what a RPG is, but's not attractive to people new to the hobby.

What about the flip-side? Once you're already into RPGs, wouldn't you prefer your crunch in an easy to browse, manual-like way?

[hogarth]

If you flip to a random page in the 4E PHB in the Powers or Magic Item sections, it's like reading stereo instructions because the ratio of jargon to natural language is too high. It doesn't suck you in at all.

You never noticed this?

So, is 4E writing "preaching to the choir" in a sense? As in: helpful to people who already "got" what a RPG is, but's not attractive to people new to the hobby.

I'm struggling to find a sense in which I would describe 4E's writing style as "helpful". I suppose that removing most of the prose from power descriptions makes the book weigh less and thus saves some wear and tear on my back when I'm carrying it to a game.

What about the flip-side? Once you're already into RPGs, wouldn't you prefer your crunch in an easy to browse, manual-like way?

I've mentioned it elsewhere, but I liked the 1E AD&D DMG's appendix that summarized the monsters from the Monster Manual in a compact table form, with one monster per row.

So maybe you could have full spell descriptions in your PHB and then have a separate product that's designed for quick lookups. (I actually don't find looking up a power description in 4E to be any faster than looking up a spell description in 3E.) Of course, an electronic, searchable, hyperlinked version is probably ten times more useful anyways.

[Sashi]

I think the answer is something like the 3E paradigm where classes are written in semi-natural language with pointers to the giant feat, spell, and skill lists.

The trick is that you carve up the lists in some way other than by class. Or by having only 3-4 "classes" and having all other alternates be builds of those overclasses (so Ninja, Thief, and Thug are all "Rogues" and Theurge, Wu-Jen, and Sorcerer are all "Wizards") so that you can qualify for a "fighter" feat as a Paladin, Samurai, or Barbarian.

This helps keep power duplication to a minimum (so that you don't have the 4E thing where there are five copies of the "slide them one square shift one square" power) and generally avoid the 3E problem where Clerics outstrip everything because every splatbook just keeps appending power to the Cleric spell list.

[Username17]

A 4e power is a mound of gibberish with keywords repeated numerous times without rhyme or reason. Reading that is like picking up the pieces from an explosion in a Scrabble factory.

You do need a natural English description of what the fuck a spell or ability does. You also need a way to briefly and succinctly get key information about spells: targeting, costs, defenses, and immunity keywords. The 3e spell system works well enough, but it actually takes up too much space and has too much redundant information. Devoting several lines to telling me that something doesn't allow Spell resistance is just a waste of my fucking time.

Actually, the Shadowrun spell list works pretty good.

Analyze Truth (Active, Directional)
Type: M • Range: T • Duration: S • DV: (F ÷ 2)
The subject can tell whether a target’s statements are the truth. Half-truths or falsehoods the target believes to be true are not detected by this spell. The spell needs at least 1 net hit to determine validity. The spell does not work on written materials or through any sort of technological medium. The subject must hear a statement in person (with the target within range) to know whether it is true.

Two lines of heading and jargon, and then a plain English description of what the fuck happens when the spell is cast.

-Username17

[TheFlatline]

In a game where you're supposed to mimic real life to a plausible degree of acceptance you need fairly comprehensive rules. We don't need to stat out blue balls and BDSM (though that actually has happened before in D&D...), but we do need to have an answer for pretty much anything you commonly will *want* to do within the scope of the game. And in D&D, that's a *lot* of stuff you'll want to do.

How many scenarios does a game need to prepare for in advance? 70%? 80%? 100% is clearly fantasy, you can't foresee every single thing a party will want to do with the rules, and how often are you really going to need rules for swordfighting during freefall from orbit? Hell, how often will you need rules for orbital freefall at all?

Apparently you missed the word "commonly" in my quote.

As you asked, how common is a freefall swordfight really going to be? Not very, so the ruleset doesn't *need* to deal with that at a core level. Core rules need to cover *common* actions. Defaulting to MTP for opening the lock on a *door* is you'd agree a pretty fucking common event right? Wouldn't it be nice to have some rules on locked door DCs?

And even your D20 example reinforces what I was saying. Simple rule sets are *fine* if they're comprehensive. Take D20. Is it simpler to throw a D20, add some mods, and compare it to the AC than WoD's attack, dodge, damage, soak process. But that's *okay* because D20's attack process is *comprehensive* compared to WoD's, albeit "simplified". There's an attack & dodge rolled into the attack, and damage/soak rolled into the damage roll. And that's perfectly acceptable.

The basic "not in the book" modifier for 3.x? +-2. Jump on a table and have a height advantage? Give them a plus two. Get slimed by a ghost and feel especially icky when you attack? -2. If it's a massive, massive advantage/disadvantage, +-4. If the action results in something more tangible than that, you probably have a special rule concerning it.

I agree design is important, but let's face it, if your game design includes picking locks as a *core* ability for one of your character classes, the process for picking a DC for that needs to be a fuck of a lot better than "pick a number, any number you want MC".

[TheFlatline]

A 4e power is a mound of gibberish with keywords repeated numerous times without rhyme or reason. Reading that is like picking up the pieces from an explosion in a Scrabble factory.

You do need a natural English description of what the fuck a spell or ability does. You also need a way to briefly and succinctly get key information about spells: targeting, costs, defenses, and immunity keywords. The 3e spell system works well enough, but it actually takes up too much space and has too much redundant information. Devoting several lines to telling me that something doesn't allow Spell resistance is just a waste of my fucking time.

Actually, the Shadowrun spell list works pretty good.

Analyze Truth (Active, Directional)
Type: M • Range: T • Duration: S • DV: (F ÷ 2)
The subject can tell whether a target’s statements are the truth. Half-truths or falsehoods the target believes to be true are not detected by this spell. The spell needs at least 1 net hit to determine validity. The spell does not work on written materials or through any sort of technological medium. The subject must hear a statement in person (with the target within range) to know whether it is true.

Two lines of heading and jargon, and then a plain English description of what the fuck happens when the spell is cast.

-Username17

[sarcasm]

Yeah but Frank that doesn't make magic feel as INCREDIBLY AMAZINGLY AWESOME. Half of most D&D PHBs have been mage porn.

[/sarcasm]

"When you press a button, something AWESOME has to happen. Button- AWESOME."
-Some aspiring mage at Bioware

[Lago PARANOIA]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean about relying on keywords to standardize effects, so my example system might violate that one.

It does, in fact. Power creation systems rely on a ton of keywords and extensions and exceptions. In fact that's the only way that they can even hope to function.

But the simplest way to do it is to break abilities down into their basic components and make power creation mix-and-match. (point buy system, probably). It would require some effort to balance it, but you can get rid of a lot of word bloat simply because you don't need five different entries for progressively better versions of the same power. And a properly designed scaling system could go all the way up to global-universe wide effects without mincing words or relying on magical teaparty.

I'm not against Power Creation Systems, but I don't think that they're a good fit for most games.

Power Creation Systems work really well for certain Sci-Fi games and Superhero systems precisely because specificity hurts those games. Aberrant d20 sucks unless you specifically want to play an Aberrant game precisely because the powers are flavorful. You can play most DC or Marvel Comics superheroes in Champions or M&M but it straight-up doesn't work for Aberrant or Scion. You have to be concerned with weird shit like costume options.

But in Fantasy people seriously wank over to whether and how skeletons hold weapons or what they do when they're not being commanded by anyone. That's not really possible to replicate with a Minions power even though that's what you'd do in a Power Creation system. When people get told to refluff and voluntarily gimp their powers so that their Bear Animal Companion is actually a Skeleton and their Ranger is a Death Knight, that wasn't exactly the most popular solution. And that's understandable, because specific powers grab peoples' attention more than generic but customizable powers. Energy Wall will never be as cool as Wall of Ice or Blade Barrier even though it's a lot more versatile.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The 4E power standard sucks anus, for many reasons. I don't expect anyone to find it a good read, even people who like going through 4000-card decklists. Here are my problems with it even outside of the more prosaic problems like '4E D&D attack powers are 95% of the time damage + stock effect bullshit' or '4E D&D attack powers are not epic or even superheroic by any stretch of the imagination':

[*] Most of the powers are given non-intuitive or even downright bizarre names. I'm okay with powers having bizarre names, it works pretty well for Exalted, but if you're not going for bizarre then it needs to explain exactly what it does. Have you read a Fighter or Ranger power list? It's fucking sad. The best-named powers in 4th Edition either follow a strict naming standard (like the Warden's polymorph powers) or are grandfathered in.
[*] The pithy little description in italics for each power. They suck not only because they don't match the mechanics of the power and the scenario is overly specific, but because they're not punchy enough. Have you seen the feats for 3E Tome D&D? I know pretty much everyone on this board has at this point, but they're seriously like the best thing of that section. Their little blurbs are funny and brilliant. Whoever writes the next edition of D&D should seriously have a few comedians on staff who do nothing but punch up the powers. Seriously, the description for TWF -- effin' brilliant.
[*] The keyword system sucks anus. Powers are bogged down with useless keywords that don't tell me shit. What the fuck is a [Runic] keyword and why should I give a care? Someone please explain to me what [Arcane] does that [Shadow] doesn't? In fact, what's the difference between [Psychic] and [Psionic]? Yes, I know the answer to all of those questions, but my point is that it's just useless fucking word cruft that makes powers look ugly.
[*] THE KEYWORD SYSTEM SUCKS ANUS. They loaded powers in 4E to the gills with Keywords but this being 4E D&D, surprise surprise, Keywords don't do jack shit. Fire powers don't create any heat or light things on fire. Electric powers don't get all wonky in metal environs. Why the fuck do some 'make the enemy do something weird and against their will' powers have the [Charm] tag but others don't?

I think blaming 4E D&D's awful power standard -- and trust me, it was pretty bad -- on the fact that it was slightly more organized than 2E D&D is barking up the wrong tree.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Isn't the whole point of Mecha-Godzilla that he was an answer to movie Japan's recurring giant monster problem that could be directly controlled by the government so that they didn't have to rely on "friendly" giant monsters who only destroyed half of Tokyo every time a kaiju menace showed up?

1.) Uhhhh... the third movie he was in? Well, not only did Mechagodzilla not even really work that time (the movie ends on a downer), his other major three appearances had him as an out-and-out villain.

2.) More importantly, and amusingly in my opinion, your defense of the one time his appearance wasn't a total clusterfuck actually completes the analogy. Mechagodzilla creates massive amounts of destruction even when he's controllable and ostensibly on the good guy's side. A rampaging King Kong, while still a big problem, is nowhere near as destructive or unstoppable as any of the kaiju. Calling in Mechagodzilla is a disproportionate response which will cause greater damage than having King Kong go berserk even if King Kong gets taken down.

[Saxony]

The trend has been to longer and longer books, and it has been hurting the hobby. I've commented on it before. The core rules should be shorter than Moby Dick. I know people are more literate now than they were in 1851, but that's ridiculous. I don't just mean that the PHB should be shorter than Moby Dick, I mean the entire core rules should be shorter than Moby Dick. If you can't get the PHB and DMG together into less than 187,000 words, you aren't trying hard enough.

So radically rethinking things and cutting text way the fuck down and asking questions like "Is this necessary? Could we do with less?" are things that have to happen. But Mearls and company have proved time and time again that they can't make a functional, finished product to save their jobs - so I have no hope.

-Username17

I think that's most of the problem I have with "rules heavy" games. The DnD 3.5 PHB is unreadable. I think my central suggestion would be, "Having fun shouldn't require homework. If many actions need to be modeled, then model them simply, not each one as 10 step processes". Could that solve the problem people seem to have with rules light games?

All the combat maneuvers are so convoluted I can't be bothered to remember them to play my fantasy escapist game; especially considering I'm a full time student.... Studying a textbook to get away from studying a textbook doesn't really cut it. And I can't imagine anyone else sitting down to read the entire 3.5 PHB and also committing it to memory. I skimmed through it once and I've only been playing 3.5 DnD for something like 5 years now.

-
Sidepoint:
Also; not sucking could help me remember the combat maneuvers. None of the overrun/grapple/trip maneuvers work most of the time, and when they fail, they backfire. Just attacking is 20x better from an escapist fantasy viewpoint. If my hero misses an attack, well, that's just a miss, can't hit every time or it's boring. If my hero fails to grapple, now he's pinned and needs to be rescued. Or is knocked off his feet. Perhaps by the nameless orc who was a road bump for quick XP.

This backfiring business really needs to go away if combat will be anything other than "I attack versus AC."
-

[Neurosis]

A 4e power is a mound of gibberish with keywords repeated numerous times without rhyme or reason. Reading that is like picking up the pieces from an explosion in a Scrabble factory.

You do need a natural English description of what the fuck a spell or ability does. You also need a way to briefly and succinctly get key information about spells: targeting, costs, defenses, and immunity keywords. The 3e spell system works well enough, but it actually takes up too much space and has too much redundant information. Devoting several lines to telling me that something doesn't allow Spell resistance is just a waste of my fucking time.

Actually, the Shadowrun spell list works pretty good.

Analyze Truth (Active, Directional)
Type: M • Range: T • Duration: S • DV: (F ÷ 2)
The subject can tell whether a target’s statements are the truth. Half-truths or falsehoods the target believes to be true are not detected by this spell. The spell needs at least 1 net hit to determine validity. The spell does not work on written materials or through any sort of technological medium. The subject must hear a statement in person (with the target within range) to know whether it is true.

Two lines of heading and jargon, and then a plain English description of what the fuck happens when the spell is cast.

-Username17

[sarcasm]

Yeah but Frank that doesn't make magic feel as INCREDIBLY AMAZINGLY AWESOME. Half of most D&D PHBs have been mage porn.

[/sarcasm]

"When you press a button, something AWESOME has to happen. Button- AWESOME."
-Some aspiring mage at Bioware

Do you have any idea how overpowered Magic is in Shadowrun?

[K]

The trend has been to longer and longer books, and it has been hurting the hobby. I've commented on it before. The core rules should be shorter than Moby Dick. I know people are more literate now than they were in 1851, but that's ridiculous. I don't just mean that the PHB should be shorter than Moby Dick, I mean the entire core rules should be shorter than Moby Dick. If you can't get the PHB and DMG together into less than 187,000 words, you aren't trying hard enough.

So radically rethinking things and cutting text way the fuck down and asking questions like "Is this necessary? Could we do with less?" are things that have to happen. But Mearls and company have proved time and time again that they can't make a functional, finished product to save their jobs - so I have no hope.

-Username17

I think that's most of the problem I have with "rules heavy" games. The DnD 3.5 PHB is unreadable. I think my central suggestion would be, "Having fun shouldn't require homework. If many actions need to be modeled, then model them simply, not each one as 10 step processes". Could that solve the problem people seem to have with rules light games?

All the combat maneuvers are so convoluted I can't be bothered to remember them to play my fantasy escapist game; especially considering I'm a full time student.... Studying a textbook to get away from studying a textbook doesn't really cut it. And I can't imagine anyone else sitting down to read the entire 3.5 PHB and also committing it to memory. I skimmed through it once and I've only been playing 3.5 DnD for something like 5 years now.

-
Sidepoint:
Also; not sucking could help me remember the combat maneuvers. None of the overrun/grapple/trip maneuvers work most of the time, and when they fail, they backfire. Just attacking is 20x better from an escapist fantasy viewpoint. If my hero misses an attack, well, that's just a miss, can't hit every time or it's boring. If my hero fails to grapple, now he's pinned and needs to be rescued. Or is knocked off his feet. Perhaps by the nameless orc who was a road bump for quick XP.

This backfiring business really needs to go away if combat will be anything other than "I attack versus AC."
-

I wouldn't go so far as to call the 3.5 PHB unreadable, but your other points are valid. Many 3.5 systems are overly complex for no reason and 90% of the spells could be cut or simplified without anyone missing anything, and that means that at least half the page count of the book could be cut without losing any actual rules.

That being said, I don't think anyone expects you to memorize all the rules. I'd go so far as to say that 9/10 players won't ever need more than a passing familiarity with the 40-50 pages of basic character creation rules and then actually need to know the five to ten pages of the combat section.

The rest can be looked up as needed, which is going to be infrequently. Knowing what spells like Temporal Stasis or Sepia Snake Sigil actually does won't even come up in 99/100 campaigns.

As for maneuvers working, I can say that I've long been a proponent of maneuvers that work better, but it has sadly been an idea that doesn't get traction. People would rather have a feat that gives a viable action in combat than just having people get viable actions in combat.

I mean, 4e goes one step further and locks down things like disarming to single classes. How is that good for a game?

[K]

Has anyone noticed that people on the WotC board seem to think that it's a great feature of the playtest that the rules allow the DM to let the players use MTP stunts in combat?

I find this very weird. They are acting like it's an actual feature and not a failure of the rules to have a coherent combat stunt system.

[GâtFromKI]

I will concede that, yes, if you don't want people to have very many selectable abilities, then yes, you can also cut down on word bloat while not standardizing your abilities.

Actually, you can divide by 3 or 4 the number of powers of D&D4 without removing any option.