Some may say that I overgeneralise, but for me RPGs can be devided into two groups: those focused on story, plot, intrigues and actual role playing, and those which are filled with much more numbers and statistics, what basically means that fights are on the spot, but, certainly, all RPGs are the mixture of that all. Generally speaking, I prefer the first group from the aforementioned two and that is why I consider Call of Cthulhu my favourite RPG, in which numbers on a character sheet are rarely needed and I have run a lot of sessions when my players did not even touch their dice.
The reason why I am typing all of this is that I played my first session in D&D Next yesterday and I want to share my feelings and remarks about this system and say few words about the first step which everyone has to take before entering the magical world of role-playing games, namely, choosing a system.
Let us start with a small review of D&D Next. Since all my experience with this system was gained with the third edition, I cannot evaluate the new product of WotC without comparisons to this release. I had never asked myself a question 'what would I change or remove if I wanted to improve the third edition?', but after the first encounter with D&D Next I did and my list of changes and removals consists of everything what Wizards have done.
The major change is the introduction of the proficiency bonus, what basically replaces the attack bonus, skill points, basic saving throw bonuses and the weapons and armour trained/untrained status. The rule is simple: a character class (and a background) determines in which weapons, armours, saving throws and skills your character is proficient, and, when you use them, you add, apart from other pluses, the proficiency bonus (which value depends on the level of your character) to the test result; if you lack proficiency when, for example, you attack with certain weapon, you just simply rely only on your ability modifier. That makes the play and leveling extremely easy and more enjoyable.
When my players were gaining a level in third edition, the biggest problem for them was to spend skill points and choose a new feat. As I have already mentioned above, skill points were replaced by the proficiency bonus, what gets rid of ridiculous situations when I as a DM had to rise the difficulty level to infinity to create a proper challenge. As for the feats, they are optional: when leveling you can choose between rising your abilities or taking a feat (if your DM permits them in his or her campaign). They are also more significant and give you really cool features.
The last thing I want to mention are Advantages and Disadvantages. Some tests in D&D 3.0 got really terrible when you had to add all the pluses and minuses from countless sources. In fifth edition, when something makes your test easier, you get advantage, roll two D20 instead of one and choose the higher result. The same thing is when something makes the condition worse, but in this case you roll two dice and you have to accept the lower one. For example, the elven resistance to enchantment effects which in 3.0 gave you +2 to the corresponding saving throw, now is replaced by an advantage. Simple, is it not?
When I read forum threads about various systems, their bright and dark sides, when it comes to D&D, people tend to criticise the fact that the system is focused mainly on fights, the most extensive chapters in the rulebooks are about battles and the 'role-playing' and investigating skills are underestimated. That is definitely true and it is hard to argue with that, but I cannot understand this critique. It is like criticising a screwdriver because it is hard to hammer a nail with it. This system was designed to provide this type of entertainment and if you fancy a complex role playing or unsolved mysteries, you should probably choose a different system. I do not want to say that any critique is wrong, for all systems have a certain purpose and they can serve it or not, but criticising the purpose itself is somehow pointless.
The first glimpse of D&D Next
Let us start with a small review of D&D Next. Since all my experience with this system was gained with the third edition, I cannot evaluate the new product of WotC without comparisons to this release. I had never asked myself a question 'what would I change or remove if I wanted to improve the third edition?', but after the first encounter with D&D Next I did and my list of changes and removals consists of everything what Wizards have done.
The major change is the introduction of the proficiency bonus, what basically replaces the attack bonus, skill points, basic saving throw bonuses and the weapons and armour trained/untrained status. The rule is simple: a character class (and a background) determines in which weapons, armours, saving throws and skills your character is proficient, and, when you use them, you add, apart from other pluses, the proficiency bonus (which value depends on the level of your character) to the test result; if you lack proficiency when, for example, you attack with certain weapon, you just simply rely only on your ability modifier. That makes the play and leveling extremely easy and more enjoyable.
When my players were gaining a level in third edition, the biggest problem for them was to spend skill points and choose a new feat. As I have already mentioned above, skill points were replaced by the proficiency bonus, what gets rid of ridiculous situations when I as a DM had to rise the difficulty level to infinity to create a proper challenge. As for the feats, they are optional: when leveling you can choose between rising your abilities or taking a feat (if your DM permits them in his or her campaign). They are also more significant and give you really cool features.
The last thing I want to mention are Advantages and Disadvantages. Some tests in D&D 3.0 got really terrible when you had to add all the pluses and minuses from countless sources. In fifth edition, when something makes your test easier, you get advantage, roll two D20 instead of one and choose the higher result. The same thing is when something makes the condition worse, but in this case you roll two dice and you have to accept the lower one. For example, the elven resistance to enchantment effects which in 3.0 gave you +2 to the corresponding saving throw, now is replaced by an advantage. Simple, is it not?
Few words about criticising a system
When I read forum threads about various systems, their bright and dark sides, when it comes to D&D, people tend to criticise the fact that the system is focused mainly on fights, the most extensive chapters in the rulebooks are about battles and the 'role-playing' and investigating skills are underestimated. That is definitely true and it is hard to argue with that, but I cannot understand this critique. It is like criticising a screwdriver because it is hard to hammer a nail with it. This system was designed to provide this type of entertainment and if you fancy a complex role playing or unsolved mysteries, you should probably choose a different system. I do not want to say that any critique is wrong, for all systems have a certain purpose and they can serve it or not, but criticising the purpose itself is somehow pointless.
Choose your system
At first I was about to type here something like: 'before you start playing, choose a system that suits your needs.' That sounds like an advice from a rag and I am glad that I did not do that. First of all, it is rarely a case when someone starts playing RPGs on his own. I myself was introduced by a friend and the last thing I wanted to do during my first session was to dictate the rules. That is why I have two advices: one is for people who want to start playing, despite the fact that they probably are not here, and the second one is for people who want to introduce new players to RPGs.
If you have gathered a group of people and you want to start playing, in my opinion, the best thing you can do is to choose three or four different systems, and I am not talking about settings, like fantasy or SF. Some game mechanics are perfect for fights and others for solving complex crimes. If you get to know three or four different systems, you will have a choice.
If you are an experienced player or game master and you want to show someone what your hobby is about, you should make this guy aware that RPGs differ among themselves and each of them offers different emotions and experiences. Prepare for him several sessions, with several game masters, if possible. Do not assume that the thing you love the most, battles in D&D for example, is the best and everyone likes it - maybe this guy will feel better trying to survive in a haunted house playing Call of Cthulhu. To sum up: Give this new guy a choice!
No comments:
Post a Comment