[D&D Next] Background Features as Opportunities for Roleplay

One of the most puzzling comments I have ever heard from people after they’ve read the D&D Next Playtest Packet materials is that Background Features do nothing except provide skill bonuses. It’s a strange sort of opinion to have, as the Backgrounds are perhaps one of the brightest spots of hope in D&D Next for me.

For those unfamiliar with them, Characters in D&D Next now have Backgrounds, which represent a character’s vocation beyond that of a simple Class. Instead of being just a Rogue, for instance, the pre-generated Halfing Rogue in the Playtest packet has the Commoner Background. Backgrounds list three skills that gain a +3 bonus, and bestow the character with a Background Feature, a perk of sorts that ties in with their vocation.

Some of these may be mechanical in nature, but the Background Features that I found most interesting were the ones that went out of their way to provide flavor. The Commoner background for example, assumes that the character has a trade of some sort that they are skilled at and can earn a living from. Furthermore, others of the same trade recognize the character’s skills and may be friendlier or more forthcoming with information.

This is the sort of thing that fires the imagination. I’m not looking for “Character gains a +2 bonus to Gather Information rolls when associating with NPCs with the same trade.” I’m looking for opportunities beyond rolling dice and static bonuses that can be used in a game. In some ways, it actually acknowledges that roleplaying has a place in D&D, as there aren’t any hard mechanics to back it up. Instead, the aforementioned Halfling can saunter into a guild of his trade, talk shop, win friends, and earn favors and gain crucial information regarding the quest without needing to roll anything.

It’s elegant, mature and displays that the writers are willing to trust gamers with being able to run a game beyond simple mechanics. Not everything needs to be boiled down to pure bonuses to die rolls to make a game.

[D&D Next] Playtest Materials First Impressions

Like many of us, I signed up for the D&D Next Open Playtest pretty much the day it was announced. So it was with great excitement (and no small amount of anxiety) that I downloaded the D&D Next playtest packet when it became available last night.

Over the past few years my experiences with D&D have been a sort of hit-and-miss thing. I appreciate the game for what it is, but the upper levels of complexity turn me off. Whenever discussions turn towards character optimization, my eyes glaze over and I sort of just sit there in slack-jawed silence until someone taps me on the shoulder to shake me out of the fugue state. This is regardless of either the 3rd or 4th edition.

I don’t consider myself to be adverse to complex rules, my love for Fantasy Craft and the HERO system demonstrate that it’s not the complexity of the system that bothers me.

That said, now that I’ve made my case on who I am and where I stand on the issue of what has come before, let’s weigh in on the present with the D&D Next Open Playtest.

—

I love it.

Seriously. The playtest rules are written in a remarkably accessible and informative style that fulfills it’s aim to present a playable game right off the bat.

The packet itself includes a Bestiary, several character sheets (2 Clerics, a Wizard, a Rogue and a Fighter), as well as a How To Play and DM Guideline documents, and finally an adventure module called Caves of Chaos.

Overall, the system is familiar to anyone who has ever played the last two editions of D&D. That said, the implementation of the rules is a surprisingly elegant one. Little mechanics like the Advantage / Disadvantage system is particularly neat in theory. Grids have become optional again. Monster Stats are presented well, with each monster having something neat for it both in terms of combat mechanics and even neat RP details. The focus on giving Themes and Backgrounds on characters that encourage roleplay possibilities in as little as a single paragraph is an enormous step in the right direction, and just looking at a character sheet is giving me neat ideas on what plot hooks can work for a character… and that’s definitely something I find impressive as a GM.

—

That said this is all very early stuff, and they’ve already set the expectation that the playtest document is probably going to be very different from the final product, which is a shame since I’m enjoying everything that’s in it so far.

Maybe one of these weekends I’ll be able to slip in a quick session using the Playtest packet with my group and give the group’s impressions of the rules in play.

[D&D Next] Looking Good So Far…

Today’s Legends & Lore Article by Monte Cook brings up some interesting possibilities with regards to what the next iteration of D&D will look like. While this is a lot of high-level talk that doesn’t really delve into the guts of what the system may be, what I’m seeing so far has me generally optimistic.

“Imagine a game where the core essence of D&D has been distilled down to a very simple but entirely playable-in-its-right game. Now imagine that the game offered you modular, optional add-ons that allow you to create the character you want to play while letting the Dungeon Master create the game he or she wants to run. Like simple rules for your story-driven game? You’re good to go. Like tactical combats and complex encounters? You can have that too. Like ultra-customized character creation? It’s all there.”

This is the kind of thing that has me intrigued. The ability to pick my level of complexity when it comes to the rules for my D&D campaign is something I’ve been longing for ever since I’ve played 3.5 and even 4e. I think that the modular approach is a good idea, and if anything, it shows a certain amount of trust the designers have for their players. I’m fairly certain that I’ll stick to the lower end of the complexity scale for D&D and having that option is empowering. I don’t have to be intimidated by the sheer volume of rules, and a modular systems allows me to ignore large, well-defined chunks without fear of messing up game balance.

“This new approach comes out of a single idea. At its heart, D&D isn’t about rules. It’s about participating in an exciting fantasy adventure. The rules are just the means to enable that to happen. They’re not an end unto themselves. The reason most of us play is for the story that arises out of our games.”

This quote in particular has me happy because this is how I feel about a lot of my campaigns. Emergent stories are a big thing in my campaign, and I wholeheartedly encourage the development of such, and seeing some form of validation from the designer that this kind of fun is a major design point?  Definitely a big plus in my book. In some ways I’m reminded of how D&D and the older TSR stuff used to be presented.  There was a Basic rulebook that was simple to learn and easy to play, and an Advanced book with all the options that were available tied into the system.

“Second—and this sounds so crazy that you probably won’t believe it right now—we’re designing the game so that not every player has to choose from the same set of options. Again, imagine a game where one player has a simple character sheet that has just a few things noted on it, and the player next to him has all sorts of skills, feats, and special abilities. And yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced. Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn’t want or need. Or vice versa. It’s all up to you to decide.”

This is particularly intriguing.  I can sort of see it happening, but I’m still wondering how they’ll retain some measure of balance.  I don’t want to comment on this right now, but I will say that this is a lofty design objective in terms of rules and I’m hoping that they manage to pull it off.

[D&D Next] My Feedback

Having posted a plea for people to voice their feedback in a constructive manner, I feel somewhat compelled to put up my own feedback post on the topic.

First off, just a bit of background. I’ve not been a heavy D&D player, but I have had the opportunity to run and play 3.X and 4e.  My primary experience with running rpgs revolve around titles like Legend of the Five Rings and the World of Darkness. That said I’m also a fan of stronger crunch games like Fantasy Craft and the HERO System.

Now then, onto my feedback:

What D&D did well:

My best experiences in D&D 3.x come from interactions with fluff-heavy settings.  The Forgotten Realms and Ravenloft in particular were highlights in my experience.  The fact that PCs were not constrained along a series of limited choices was something that I enjoyed. Sub-optimal character builds existed,  yes, but I didn’t feel bad about playing such. My favorite character in 3.x was a Gnome Cleric of Waukeen who ended up as a cross between Jack Bauer and an Auditor.

I know that there’s a strong community in 3.x that enjoy optimization, and I’ll be willing to concede that the optimization “sub-game” is a feature and not a bug.  It exists in many other systems, not just D&D.

My 4e experiences weren’t bad either.  The writing of the DMG in particular was very good for a starting GM with good advice and strong support to help someone run his first game, while still having enough meat for more experienced GMs.

How D&D didn’t do well:

3.x and 4e were both victims of feature creep.  Feats, Racial Abilities and Class abilities just stacked up to the point where it was daunting for many people to play.  In fact, towards the tail end of their development circles, it was difficult to get new people to try the game since they felt that they couldn’t make a decent character unless they slogged through ALL the available expansions.

4e’s classes also felt rather rigid.  I understood the game design direction to limit choices to smaller, meaningful ones and I appreciated that.  However the smaller choices felt constraining.  I’m aware that this paragraph almost directly contradicts the prior one, and I feel that perhaps it might be a good idea to find some sort of balance that could be struck.

4e also suffered from what I felt was a strange attempt to imply a setting while concealing that there was a setting.  Each of the powers were given some sort of fluff, but I felt that it was out of place since most of the cosmology and metaphysics were obscured.  3.x did better here in the sense that most spells and powers were generic, and the specific fluff came in only in the context of the setting books.

Monster Stat blocks in 3.x were painful to look at.  My eyes would glaze over from the sheer amount of data presented.  I was immensely grateful for how 4e presented usable and easily understood stat blocks.

Other Games to Look at:

Fantasy Craft is an excellent example of a complex game with neat options.  The Classes are broad enough to support multiple sorts of concepts to the point that the Scout class and the Soldier class could be an equivalent to the D&D Ranger.  There are still a lot of feats, and I’ve spent hours on making a character, but the fact that it’s been limited to a single corebook (and a handful of supplements) is a great help.

Pay particular attention to the sheer number of dials and switches in Fantasy Craft’s campaign design section.  Being able to scale for heroic or gritty games, and ways to tweak how magic works and other little things are all very helpful.

[D&D Next] Think Before You Rant, An Appeal For Constructive Feedback

D&D Next has been on the top of everyone’s mind in the RPG community as of late, and already the fires are burning hot.  Staunch advocates of any one of the four editions of the game have begun to air their opinions, a result of WotC’s declaration that they were willing to listen.

And in the midst of this situation are people like me.  I afford the D&D brand the respect it deserves.  It was the first popular rpg and it ushered in an entirely new hobby that I enjoy.  As such, I acknowledge that what is happening to D&D at this point is a Very Big Thing ™.

That said I think it’s time for us to all show that we’re willing to reciprocate the apparent goodwill that the WotC design team has extended by saying that they’re letting us take part in creating D&D’s 5th iteration.  They’ve taken the time to extend the olive branch, as it were, to make offerings of peace and compromise to a fanbase that feels betrayed.

It’s easy to talk smack about them, to point out that you know better, that they should have listened to you the first time.  But this isn’t the time for that.

Here’s our chance to actually step up and bring up issues to be considered and discussed.  They’ve literally given us a golden opportunity, one that can be made use of best by laying out your points in a clear, calm and well-considered manner.  This isn’t about blame or hurt or “I told you so.”

I’ve seen several excellent blogs take to the news and start digesting it.  Some are optimistic, and are clearly well on their way to taking apart their experiences and understanding of mechanics that were fun to them in an effort to give real feedback.  Others on the other hand, are too caught up in blaming people, hating other editions, and hating other games to actually be able to contribute.  Needless to say, we need more of the former than we do of the latter.

So, here’s what we need to do:

1. Think about your favorite iteration of D&D – At this point all editions are open for consideration.  Think about your games, and how they were good or bad.  What made you enjoy these games?  Was it a function of what the rules did, or the fact that there weren’t any rules to get in the way?  Try to list down those things that stood out and write a little bit as to why.
2. Think about the times when a D&D game sucked for you – When you were a GM, did you fall into despair at the realization that statting out the BBEG took you six hours?  When you were playing, did you ever feel pressured to sacrifice fun for the sake of optimization?  Did certain rules, like save-or-die rolls piss into your bowl of Cheerios?  Take note of those too, sometimes just because a rules mechanic is clever doesn’t mean it’s fun. Write those down as well.
3. Think about elements from other games that you enjoyed – Action points?  Traits? Merits and Flaws?  Stunt bonuses?  These are all awesome mechanics that deserve to be looked at.  Think about your favorite ones from other games. D&D may have been a pioneer, but now that it has so many other peers, there’s no point in it having to be completely different from all the rest.  There’s value in learning from what other people have done, so bring it up.
4. Make an effort to speak out – Post your findings on the community site (http://community.wizards.com/dndnext) or on your blog.  Email it to the design team. Do something that gets your opinion out there.

There’s little doubt that there’s a really poor signal-to-noise ratio right now with regards to D&D Next, but that doesn’t have to be the case.  If you love D&D, and you really want to do something for it, then make the effort to make yourself heard in a fashion that is respectful and considerate to people involved.  Check your hate and snark at the door and contribute positively to the discussion.  Who knows, they might just decide to implement your suggestion.