Quote from: Razor 007;1117558I have a strong hunch that I won't buy into D&D 6E.  I'm definitely not buying into Pathfinder 2E.  So, the question is; what is the plan?

Well, I skipped 3E, 3.5E, 4E and 5E, so when 6E eventually comes out, I'll probably skip that one too as I keep playing O/AD&D and some flavorful clones (like AS&SH).

Quote from: VisionStorm;1118031Mechanically speaking, there are better systems out there than D&D, and many of the things I think helped streamline D&D for the masses since 3e are things that were already present in other systems years for decades.

Pre-3e D&D's roll mechanics were a bloated mess, with a different type of roll for just about every type of thing...Then 3e came in an streamlined everything under a common core mechanic--BRILLIANT, except that almost every single other RPG already used a common core mechanic...

One thing I think has helped 5e in particular is...[making] everything a skill...that works the same way...Except that, AGAIN, most other games had already handled all actions and defenses as skills for decades. But D&D needed its classes...

So a lot of the mechanics that have made D&D better and more accessible have been things that were already perfected in other games...

Hmm. A lot here I disagree with, but it's subjective stuff (what is "better" and such). I don't think a unified roll mechanism is necessarily better. Can be simpler to understand, but not necessarily better in game terms. I also don't agree that making everything skill-based is necessarily better. Different approach, certainly, but one that has pros and cons.

Don't get me wrong, I do like skill-based RPGs. I enjoy RQ/BRP, for example. However, I'm not a fan of skill systems grafted onto D&D's class/level approach, and I'm not a fan of unified die rolls for the sake of unified dice rolls. To me, D&D is best in its earlier forms, before too much of that stuff crept in. That's why I went back to original D&D and 1e AD&D rather than staying on the edition train. As you note, if I want to play a skill-based RPG, or one with unified dice mechanism, there are other systems that do that well, without any of "uneasy marriage" of class/level and skill-based design that comes from trying to wed the two approaches while keeping D&D's traditions/history.

The Far Away Land RPG

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1118041Hmm. A lot here I disagree with, but it's subjective stuff (what is "better" and such). I don't think a unified roll mechanism is necessarily better. Can be simpler to understand, but not necessarily better in game terms. I also don't agree that making everything skill-based is necessarily better. Different approach, certainly, but one that has pros and cons.

Don't get me wrong, I do like skill-based RPGs. I enjoy RQ/BRP, for example. However, I'm not a fan of skill systems grafted onto D&D's class/level approach, and I'm not a fan of unified die rolls for the sake of unified dice rolls. To me, D&D is best in its earlier forms, before too much of that stuff crept in. That's why I went back to original D&D and 1e AD&D rather than staying on the edition train. As you note, if I want to play a skill-based RPG, or one with unified dice mechanism, there are other systems that do that well, without any of "uneasy marriage" of class/level and skill-based design that comes from trying to wed the two approaches while keeping D&D's traditions/history.

You're not really giving me much to go on beyond you "disagree", other than maybe pointing out that these are different approaches with different pros and cons, which I mostly agree (though, I still consider consolidated skill rolls to be mechanically superior to class & level with inconsistent roll mechanics). Or that the word "better" is subjective, which is also mostly true (though, I am using "better" to mean "more efficient", which is more objective).

What exactly is gained by making your chance to break a door (for example) some arbitrary figure derived from your Strength score that doesn't even take into account the material strength of the door vs simply assigning a difficulty value based on the door's strength and just using the same mechanic you'd use for any other Strength check? Or using a completely different yet equally arbitrary percentage value (also based on your Strength without taking into account object material strength) to bend bars or lift gates? Or an even more different 1 in 1d6 mechanic that doesn't take into account ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to check if you heard enemies approach?

If anything it's this type of distinct roll mechanics that are different for the sake of being different. Granted, I understand that a lot of these mechanics are probably distinct because a lot of these concepts didn't exist originally and slowly made their way into the game as they became a factor during gameplay. Want to break down a door? Well... how about roll under X on a d20? Want to know if you spotted an ambush? Um...roll 1 on a d6! Etc. It wasn't till later on that people figured out that character and opponent ability, as well as circumstantial factors, should factor in when making these types of tests and more standardized mechanics were developed (mostly in other systems).

With consolidated task resolution mechanics you can produce consistent results across the board while accounting for action difficulty, situational factors and character (including opponent) ability when making rolls. Granted, some rolls might not neatly fit into this mechanical scheme, but those are in the extreme minority and typically related to things that are completely unaffected by character ability, such as rolling for random encounters or loot, which can use their own separate roll mechanics. But the vast majority of things that characters (including enemies/NPCs) can do does neatly fit into this mechanical scheme of standardized task resolution.

Regarding classes vs skills, the issue with merging skill mechanics with classes is that skills can pretty much handle everything that characters can do, so once you have skills as a game concept classes become superfluous, outside of special benefits or abilities dealing with things beyond core skill function. So trying to use them both at once does tend to become clunky, but IMO inevitable because classes don't account for the whole gamma of actions and other game functionality that characters can engage on in a RPG, which is why skills (as a game concept) were eventually invented.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1118066You're not really giving me much to go on beyond you "disagree", other than maybe pointing out that these are different approaches with different pros and cons, which I mostly agree (though, I still consider consolidated skill rolls to be mechanically superior to class & level with inconsistent roll mechanics). Or that the word "better" is subjective, which is also mostly true...

Yep. I guess I'm not really in it to argue about it. It's a discussion that's been done many, many times before, and never really changes anyone's mind (mostly because of the subjective nature of preferences, and the variable nature of "what works best" when people start off with different goals/contexts).

I expect I'd keep running 5e D&D, with the occasional bit of 4e D&D maybe. But recently I've been getting excited over the prospect of running the Primeval Thule setting using the Mini Six RPG, so we'll see how that goes. I'm a bit burnt out on D&D and fancy more pulp-level gaming. Plus nostalgia for WEG d6 Star Wars!

X in D6 solves most of my problems in OD&D. I can easily extrapolate STR vs. Door or WIS vs. sneaky goblins or whatever, then break down the odds on D6. For instance, let's say 1-2 on D6 breaks down a stuck door. But this door isn't just stuck, it's barred shut. Hmm, that's bad. But both Fighters who are hitting the door have 16 STR. Hmm, that's good. But they want to do it quietly! Hmm, that's bad. But the cleric just noticed door has been smashed open before, and there might still be a weak spot. Hmm, that's good. AKA, I can easily go back and forth weighing modifiers, having advantages and disadvantages cancel each other and coming up with easy X in D6 solution.

Could I break the odds down "better" on D20 or D100? Sure, but I don't care about deep grain. A range of -3 to +3 on D6 is enough to simulate the odds so there is "realistic" variance, but quick and dirty enough so I can keep the game moving along.

And that's what really matters to me. Keeping the flow of the game moving to maximize immersion.

Quote from: Kersus;1118047The Far Away Land RPG

Never heard of it! What's it about?

Don't think a new edition of D&D would worry me. as many of my more 'serious' games are D100 based, like BRP (RuneQuest, Call of Cthulh) and Warhammer.
I also dabble in Fate Core, PDQ, HeroQuest, Barbarians of Lemuria, Modiphius Conan, as well as OpenD6 (WEG Star Wars).

I don't mind D20 at times, but D&D 5E is my third preference for when people specifically want to play in a D20 Fantasy games - I will tend to choose 13th Age and Sharp Swords & Sinister Spells first. I also don't mind Swords & Wizardry (with AAC), it does the trick for a simple game, and for me I find Class/Archetype games 'hum' better when they have a simple structure.

Happy to stick with one of these, although 5E is reasonable for a bit as well. Also might take a squizz at Lion & Dragon soon.
So if D&D 6E is about trimming things down further, I might consider it. But if it's about the same as 5E or more complex, then I doubt I'll pick it up.
Lots of stuff to keep me going.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1118070Yep. I guess I'm not really in it to argue about it. It's a discussion that's been done many, many times before, and never really changes anyone's mind (mostly because of the subjective nature of preferences, and the variable nature of "what works best" when people start off with different goals/contexts).

That's understandable. And what works best can depend a lot on preferences, what you're looking for in the game and what sort of basic constraints you're working with.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1118121X in D6 solves most of my problems in OD&D. I can easily extrapolate STR vs. Door or WIS vs. sneaky goblins or whatever, then break down the odds on D6. For instance, let's say 1-2 on D6 breaks down a stuck door. But this door isn't just stuck, it's barred shut. Hmm, that's bad. But both Fighters who are hitting the door have 16 STR. Hmm, that's good. But they want to do it quietly! Hmm, that's bad. But the cleric just noticed door has been smashed open before, and there might still be a weak spot. Hmm, that's good. AKA, I can easily go back and forth weighing modifiers, having advantages and disadvantages cancel each other and coming up with easy X in D6 solution.

Could I break the odds down "better" on D20 or D100? Sure, but I don't care about deep grain. A range of -3 to +3 on D6 is enough to simulate the odds so there is "realistic" variance, but quick and dirty enough so I can keep the game moving along.

And that's what really matters to me. Keeping the flow of the game moving to maximize immersion.

Eyeballing difficulty numbers on a d20+Mod mechanic is really easy: Average is 10; 15 for Challenging tasks; 20 for really Tough.

If 5 point increments seem too much for the task go by 2 point increments instead, but if you just wanna keep the game moving 10-15-20 should be enough. And you don't have guestimate how much you want character ability scores to affect the roll, the roll mechanic accounts for it directly. You just say:

• Average/Default 10
• Challenging 15
• Tough 20

You don't even need to eyeball how tough it is to detect the sneaky goblin, just roll WIS (Listen*) vs DEX (Stealth*), and maybe add +4 or -4 (or so) modifier to the character's roll if circumstances favor or are against them.

*if skills are used.

Certainly WotC is going to release something in 2024 to celebrate D&D's 50th birthday. What will it be if not 6e?

Quote from: thedungeondelver;11176331e AD&D, always.

Correct answer.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1118066You're not really giving me much to go on beyond you "disagree", other than maybe pointing out that these are different approaches with different pros and cons, which I mostly agree (though, I still consider consolidated skill rolls to be mechanically superior to class & level with inconsistent roll mechanics). Or that the word "better" is subjective, which is also mostly true (though, I am using "better" to mean "more efficient", which is more objective).

What exactly is gained by making your chance to break a door (for example) some arbitrary figure derived from your Strength score that doesn't even take into account the material strength of the door vs simply assigning a difficulty value based on the door's strength and just using the same mechanic you'd use for any other Strength check? Or using a completely different yet equally arbitrary percentage value (also based on your Strength without taking into account object material strength) to bend bars or lift gates? Or an even more different 1 in 1d6 mechanic that doesn't take into account ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to check if you heard enemies approach?

If anything it's this type of distinct roll mechanics that are different for the sake of being different. Granted, I understand that a lot of these mechanics are probably distinct because a lot of these concepts didn't exist originally and slowly made their way into the game as they became a factor during gameplay. Want to break down a door? Well... how about roll under X on a d20? Want to know if you spotted an ambush? Um...roll 1 on a d6! Etc. It wasn't till later on that people figured out that character and opponent ability, as well as circumstantial factors, should factor in when making these types of tests and more standardized mechanics were developed (mostly in other systems).

With consolidated task resolution mechanics you can produce consistent results across the board while accounting for action difficulty, situational factors and character (including opponent) ability when making rolls. Granted, some rolls might not neatly fit into this mechanical scheme, but those are in the extreme minority and typically related to things that are completely unaffected by character ability, such as rolling for random encounters or loot, which can use their own separate roll mechanics. But the vast majority of things that characters (including enemies/NPCs) can do does neatly fit into this mechanical scheme of standardized task resolution.

Regarding classes vs skills, the issue with merging skill mechanics with classes is that skills can pretty much handle everything that characters can do, so once you have skills as a game concept classes become superfluous, outside of special benefits or abilities dealing with things beyond core skill function. So trying to use them both at once does tend to become clunky, but IMO inevitable because classes don't account for the whole gamma of actions and other game functionality that characters can engage on in a RPG, which is why skills (as a game concept) were eventually invented.

It all boils down to some people like spending lots and lots of time on dozens and dozens of things that slow the game to an anemic crawl and others prefer a fast paced game. Some people enjoy flipping between endless tables and charts during the game and others do not enjoy that. Some people like to gut the game of all of its flavor and idiosyncrasies and others don't like bland, tasteless pap. You can have your allegedly superior mechanics while some of us get 3-5 times as much gaming done in the same length of time that does not involve bean counting.

Quote from: ElBorak;1118213It all boils down to some people like spending lots and lots of time on dozens and dozens of things that slow the game to an anemic crawl and others prefer a fast paced game. Some people enjoy flipping between endless tables and charts during the game and others do not enjoy that. Some people like to gut the game of all of its flavor and idiosyncrasies and others don't like bland, tasteless pap. You can have your allegedly superior mechanics while some of us get 3-5 times as much gaming done in the same length of time that does not involve bean counting.

How exactly does having consolidated task resolution mechanics that handle everything in the game devolve into bean counting while having a completely different and inconsistent mechanic for every single tiny thing in the game does the opposite?

I feel like the only thing 5E D&D has going for it is the large built in player base and product support(DnDBeyond, Fantasy Grounds, etc). If 6E was announce that'd pretty much kill any desire to continue on with 5E since it was going away, and I'd probably just jump over to Pathfinder 2E. It's out now, I doubt 6E D&D will innovate majorly over it, and it has a player base and solid product support(Hero Lab, Fantasy Grounds).

Also I'm fairly confident Paizo won't replace 2E anytime in the next decade or so.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1118231How exactly does having consolidated task resolution mechanics that handle everything in the game devolve into bean counting while having a completely different and inconsistent mechanic for every single tiny thing in the game does the opposite?

Because some people bottle the bath water and throw out the baby.

I've been working on a system for the past several years now and one of my core design principles was "question everything" and if it's not the best approach, change it to something that is.

There are definitely things in various editions of D&D that pass a "best practices" test (depending what you're testing for obviously). For example, Armor as a target number (vs. DR) with rolled damage (vs. basing it on a margin of success) is easily the most effective setup for fast-moving combat with minimal math (the operations are "addition then compare" and "addition, target then subtracts" where both rolls can be done at the same time).

DR and margins of success might be more realistic, but both add extra operations to the resolution that slow it down (DR turns damage into "addition, then subtraction, then subtraction again... margin of success turns addition and compare to addition then subtraction, possibly followed by addition or multiplication if the attack has a base value or damage multiplier). If you're writing a game about personal dueling then such detail might be needed. If you're writing a game where heroes are cleaving through a dozen mooks in multiple combats per session... it's probably just slowing things down.

Likewise, a lot of 4E clones keep the idea of saves as defenses (i.e. the guy casting fireball rolls to hit vs. the target's reflex defense; an approach I agree with because it makes resolution more consistent and thus easier to remember; the person taking the action always rolls is easy to remember), but then try to consolidate the number of defenses down because they think three or even two defenses will be more elegant (typically by trying to merge armor/reflex into a single value; sometimes merging part of reflex into armor and another into fortitude).

Except that, what I found in testing was that there was no meaningful increase in complexity from having four defenses because the only operation you're performing with them is a comparison to the attack roll.

In terms of best principles a lot of pre-WotC mechanics were just not best at all. Attacks were resolved one way, saves another way, non-weapon proficiencies still a third (and that just three using a d20), some others uses percentage, others used one or more d6s.

Knowing "if I want to do something with a chance of failure then I'm always going to roll a d20 and add something to it and the higher the result the better" is just flat out better design because it reduces the number of things players and GMs have to internalize without stopping to reference the rules document (by contrast, the individual modifiers needing to increase at a consistent rate is far less important because players/GMs are only dealing with the current number on the character sheet, not what it might have been last level or what it will be next level).

OD&D gets props for being first, but viewing its mechanics as best would be like considering the OS/360 (introduced in 1964) as the be all and end all of computer operating systems.