This book has 17 authors and there are 17 new D&D adventures in this book. So it's easy to see that each adventure was probably written by a different author. That really fits the theme that each of these adventures are like books in the Candlekeep Library that sort of transport you (figuratively and literally) into these settings of mystery and intrigue. It's certainly interesting. As a player in a group that prefers creating homebrew worlds and settings, I don't think this will do much for me. However, I can certainly see why some people are excited for this.
Also that Alt cover is sweet!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Why would the DM need to invent new mechanics? I run mysteries all the time. I’m running one as the current campaign. For one thing, they should never be allowed to just keep rolling Investigation until they find something, mystery campaign or not. That’s just DMing 101.
I am personally a fan of using 4e style skill challenges for group clue gathering. If they can give me a plausible explanation for how Athletics might help them find a clue, and they’re proficient in Athletics, I say rock on. (Actually what I say is “You can certainly try.” 😉) I set a DC, they make the check, no new mechanics required. Sometimes I run them as each success gets a clue until they get them all or fail 3 checks as a group. Sometimes I run it so that each clue gatherer can make a single check, the base DC gets them a base clue and the higher they roll the more clue they get. But degrees of success and failure are nothing new in 5e, I’m just borrowing what already exists and using it in a new “off-label” application. But hey, it’s me, if something isn’t at least a little “off-label” it wouldn’t be my style.* But no matter what, even if they fail the DM should be thinking of ways to let them “fail forward.”
But ultimately, to make a mystery really work, it cannot be something that simply challenges the characters. This is an area where the players themselves must come together and consider the clues and figure out what is going on. The challenge to the characters is finding the clues (and surviving). The challenge to the players is actually solving the mystery. No roll can do that, so no mechanics required.
Kinda like how you say that skill checks are done backwards, same principle. If the characters’ skills are solving the mystery, you’re doing it backwards. Make sense?
*(Except MM, for some reason I’m the only person I know of who plays that RAW. 🤷♂️)
Think I mistyped it earlier, but Relics and Rarities is a good example of how investigative gaming can work. Mysteries are just really another form of exploration, but instead of terrain you're usually charting out relationships to determine a why. You could run one that was skill check driven, but usually the paths to resolution tend to be multiple at the outset (set a wide net) and at each step the players figure out what they're characters know and then determine their next move. I think this format and genre is particularly useful for DM inspiration as a contrast with the campaign adventures. I mean it models not so much a campaign length build up of character power to overcome something; but rather is about exploring wonder, something that could use some more attention as a way to play to D&D. Mysteries tend to be a "closer" space in terms of genre (ranging among claustrophic to hard boiled to the cozies genre). Could be fun.
i was wondering the same thing...huge names in that pub including Ed Greenwood and MT Black. I can only imagine WotC had at least one eye on that pub at some point during the production of the new book...otherwise it'd be kind of a slap in the face to both of them if the new book conflicts significantly with that one (let alone potential lore conflicts with a lore creator) . The Companion isn't official, but its as official as unofficial gets (...imo...). I feel like maybe its like what we saw with Eberron where a pdf came out ahead of a full book (although that pdf was official where this one is unofficial). I like the little glowglobes.
I watched a few YouTube reviews of Companion. I think Ed Greenwood didn't contribute anything "new" but rather his prior writing was sort of consolidated. MT Black I think just contributed the "Directors Cut of DiA" which I didn't think worked really well (and the good elements aside from one were put elsewhere in the published Avernus). It sounds like a map will be in it, and I'd be surprised if that map isn't a print reproduction of the map in the Companion. Mentioned some monsters and items,
I could picture the death egg being a device in a mystery.
And monsters like the book worms etc. Then there's all that time-based magic stuff which doesn't exactly make sense in the book, but maybe could be devices in mysteries?
FYI the whole text of the Companion is available as preview prepurchase on DMsGuild. I didn't drop the $15 for it because it was too uneven, but if what I liked makes it into the adventure book, I'd be more inclined to pick it up because of that and get some adventure material more in line with the setting.
Why would the DM need to invent new mechanics? (SNIP)
I am personally a fan of using 4e style skill challenges for group clue gathering.
Using 4e skill challenges is literally inventing new mechanics, since 5e doesn't have skill challenges anywhere in its RAW pages. Yes, I know that James wrote about them here on DDB, but there is nothing in the printed primary sources (PHB, DMG, MM, XGE, Tasha) to cover skill challenges. So you ask why a DM would need to invent new mechanics to run a mystery in 5e, but you admit you co-opt an old mechanic that doesn't exist in 5e... This is an admission that 5e is inadequate to handle mysteries -- which is exactly what Yurei said.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Why would the DM need to invent new mechanics? (SNIP)
I am personally a fan of using 4e style skill challenges for group clue gathering.
Using 4e skill challenges is literally inventing new mechanics, since 5e doesn't have skill challenges anywhere in its RAW pages. Yes, I know that James wrote about them here on DDB, but there is nothing in the printed primary sources (PHB, DMG, MM, XGE, Tasha) to cover skill challenges. So you ask why a DM would need to invent new mechanics to run a mystery in 5e, but you admit you co-opt an old mechanic that doesn't exist in 5e... This is an admission that 5e is inadequate to handle mysteries -- which is exactly what Yurei said.
Well, I guess technically correct. But supplementing D&D mechanics with other D&D mechanics is hardly “inventing” new mechanics. I didn’t “invent” skill challenges, I just borrowed them from D&D. If I can take something created by someone else and use it whole then I can’t claim to have “invented” anything. And it’s not like I’m borrowing mechanics from Shadowrun or World of Darkness here, it’s still all D&D. So, while yes, I am using a rule from outside of 5e to supplement 5e, I am also by no means “inventing” mechanics new to D&D.
Well, I guess technically correct. But supplementing D&D mechanics with other D&D mechanics is hardly “inventing” new mechanics. I didn’t “invent” skill challenges, I just borrowed them from D&D.
You will, however, have to invent rules to make them work with 5e, because the 4e skill challenge rules used the rules for 4e task difficulty, which 5e lacks an equivalent to.
Well, I guess technically correct. But supplementing D&D mechanics with other D&D mechanics is hardly “inventing” new mechanics. I didn’t “invent” skill challenges, I just borrowed them from D&D.
But the fact that you had to borrow from an edition something that no longer exists in 5e, because 5e neither has that rule nor something adequate to replace that rule, means that 5e does not have sufficient RAW to encompass what you need to do. You're using non-5e rules to run your game because 5e doesn't do what you need it to do. Whether you invented the rules or someone else did, whether they came from D&D or another system like Champions, Ironsworn, or Savage Worlds, doesn't really matter. You still felt the need to graft a non-5e system onto your game to make it work.
Which proves the point that Yurei was making -- that 5e is inadequate to do the sorts of things you are doing (which is why you needed to borrow skill challenges from 4e).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
A collection of 5e mystery shorts would be potentially enticing if the base D&D 5e ruleset wasn't absolutely god-****ing-awful at dealing with Mystery games. "Roll Investigation until you find the next clue in the sequence" is not a mystery game, it's Yahtzee with weird trappings. Most players are not prepared to play any sort of actual mystery game, most DMs are not prepared to run one, and D&D 5e is not even in the slightest prepared to enable one.
Disappointing yawn. Highly skippable book, unless they do something utterly gobsmack fantastic that probably has no business being in the book to start with.
Makes me wonder if they'll try to add in some 5e adapted rules from the gumshoe system. When I first started playing D&D a few years ago, I was looking at other tabletop systems. Bought the rule book for one called Timewatch. Never got to play it with anyone. Still have the book floating around somewhere. Not sure if gumshoe is open-source or anything D&D could legally incorporate. But if they were going to add skills or items to aid in a mystery-based game, I could see them at least taking inspiration from there.
I'm glad it's making people happy. Not what I'm looking for, as a new/revamped setting like DL, DS or Planescape would be better. For me it's trash but if one of my players doesn't add it, I will, just so it presents all options to my people.
A collection of 5e mystery shorts would be potentially enticing if the base D&D 5e ruleset wasn't absolutely god-****ing-awful at dealing with Mystery games. "Roll Investigation until you find the next clue in the sequence" is not a mystery game, it's Yahtzee with weird trappings. Most players are not prepared to play any sort of actual mystery game, most DMs are not prepared to run one, and D&D 5e is not even in the slightest prepared to enable one.
Disappointing yawn. Highly skippable book, unless they do something utterly gobsmack fantastic that probably has no business being in the book to start with.
Makes me wonder if they'll try to add in some 5e adapted rules from the gumshoe system. When I first started playing D&D a few years ago, I was looking at other tabletop systems. Bought the rule book for one called Timewatch. Never got to play it with anyone. Still have the book floating around somewhere. Not sure if gumshoe is open-source or anything D&D could legally incorporate. But if they were going to add skills or items to aid in a mystery-based game, I could see them at least taking inspiration from there.
Gumshoe is a great rules lite system, and it and some of its offshoot supporting systems for other genres can easily be plugged into a lot of TTRPGs whose inhouse mechanics need something up to the task. However I don't see WotC directly adapting it to 5e for this anymore than I see them layering new rules sets on adventures involving diplomacy and statecraft, or mechanics for horror be it gothic in Strahd or the hodgepodge in Frostmaiden. I'd also reckon if they were using Gumshoe, they'd mention it in their marketing (I want to say that's almost the only license requirement of using Gumshoe "this game is using GUMSHOE(tm)". Moreover from the marketing language one can infer this anthology isn't designed to be a campaign but one off adventures that can be inserted into campaigns which may or may not have a mystery focus.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
A collection of 5e mystery shorts would be potentially enticing if the base D&D 5e ruleset wasn't absolutely god-****ing-awful at dealing with Mystery games. "Roll Investigation until you find the next clue in the sequence" is not a mystery game, it's Yahtzee with weird trappings. Most players are not prepared to play any sort of actual mystery game, most DMs are not prepared to run one, and D&D 5e is not even in the slightest prepared to enable one.
Disappointing yawn. Highly skippable book, unless they do something utterly gobsmack fantastic that probably has no business being in the book to start with.
Makes me wonder if they'll try to add in some 5e adapted rules from the gumshoe system. When I first started playing D&D a few years ago, I was looking at other tabletop systems. Bought the rule book for one called Timewatch. Never got to play it with anyone. Still have the book floating around somewhere. Not sure if gumshoe is open-source or anything D&D could legally incorporate. But if they were going to add skills or items to aid in a mystery-based game, I could see them at least taking inspiration from there.
Personally, what I would do if I were trying to make it not be "roll investigation" all the dang time when they're hunting for things, I'd give additional background options that grant features that would expand the investigative options available. GoM gave new background options so why can't this one?
If anything, I'd foresee this book having some added backgrounds to enhance the RP of the inside adventures.
Well, I guess technically correct. But supplementing D&D mechanics with other D&D mechanics is hardly “inventing” new mechanics. I didn’t “invent” skill challenges, I just borrowed them from D&D.
But the fact that you had to borrow from an edition something that no longer exists in 5e, because 5e neither has that rule nor something adequate to replace that rule, means that 5e does not have sufficient RAW to encompass what you need to do. You're using non-5e rules to run your game because 5e doesn't do what you need it to do. Whether you invented the rules or someone else did, whether they came from D&D or another system like Champions, Ironsworn, or Savage Worlds, doesn't really matter. You still felt the need to graft a non-5e system onto your game to make it work.
Which proves the point that Yurei was making -- that 5e is inadequate to do the sorts of things you are doing (which is why you needed to borrow skill challenges from 4e).
My point was that it took no “work” from me to fix it. As someone who actively enjoys writing new mechanics for things, I would have if I had had to. But I didn’t, it took almost zero work from me to implement. The only work I had to do was explain how a skill challenge works. That was it. That was all of the “work” I had to put into it. I didn’t actually “invent” anything.
I never claimed that 5e was particularly well suited to mysteries. I never said that 5e didn’t have holes in it. I never invalidated Yurei’s arguments against 5e and how they relate to mysteries or anything else. All I stated was:
An inquiry as to why they felt a need for new mechanics to be “invented.”
List examples of preexisting mechanics that I use that required no actual “invention” on my part. The mechanics I listed were borrowed from the last edition of D&D, as well as the current edition of D&D.
Admission that I freely adapt things that already work the way I want and just using them in a different way. Again, no work required, not inventing anything. I’m picking up something and plopping it down whole. It’s not requiring any additional work on my part. Like, I don’t even need to look stuff up, I just need to use something that already exists in a different way.
Think of it like food. I’m not cooking anything new. I’m not even taking leftovers and repurposing them. I’m just straight up serving leftovers. So I got last nights enchiladas (skill challenges), and I’m just serving them this morning for breakfast. And then I’m taking some frozen hash brown patties (degrees of success/failure) and serving them as a side. I literally just took some stuff out of the fridge, threw it in the toaster oven to reheat it, and plopped it down on the table. It took me 0 work as the DM.
Then I pointed out how a mystery must challenge the players as much as if not more than their characters. Combat challenges characters. Puzzles challenging players. Mysteries have to challenge both.
Then I related the example to a piece of advice* that Yurei regularly gives about skill checks in general, and drew a parallel between that and this in a way meant to hopefully create a state of mental concept 100% more valuable than any picture in terms of word conservation. *(Advice I happen to agree with wholeheartedly.)
And ultimately I finish with a little joke for anyone who has ever seen me comment on that topic as I really must be one of the few people on earth who actually rules on MM according to RAW. 🤷♂️
So, while I never actually made any claims against Yurei’s assessment of 5e, or how it particularly relates to mysteries, I did hope to point out through 1st hand anecdotal evidence how easy it could be for any DM to overcome some of those challenges for their own games. And how to do it without having to do any actual work Isn’t that the point of having experience: to share it with others so they can benefit from it too? You know, like that bearded guy on the interwebs does. You know, the guy who does the blahblah on the doobleydoo. Whatshisname...? 😉
Counterpoint, Sposta: I never played 4e, and do not have a single 4e book to my name. I have absolutely no idea how 4e implemented 'Skill Challenges', and would have to dig those rules out of the graveyard of games past. It's fantastic that you have those resources and can make use of them, but not everyone does.
I mean, I could pull the chase rules out of Savage Worlds and spend a few days adapting their essence to 5e to try and get usable pursuit-and-evasion rules in the game so parties actually stand a freaking chance of successfully fleeing a bad fight, but me doing so wouldn't mean 5e was perfectly fine because I used rules from another game to help patch a weakness in 5e. That just means I had the resources and requisite irritation level to do the work to patch 5e.
Same with mystery games. The fact that rules from another game (even if that game is an older edition of D&D) can make the issue better doesn't help people who don't have access to that game and its rules.
Counterpoint, Sposta: I never played 4e, and do not have a single 4e book to my name. I have absolutely no idea how 4e implemented 'Skill Challenges', and would have to dig those rules out of the graveyard of games past. It's fantastic that you have those resources and can make use of them, but not everyone does.
The other problem is that basically no-one (most likely including Sposta) actually used the 4e skill challenges as written. They were actually somewhat hard to use.
So, io9 has a good interview with Perkins and three of the writers that gives you a better sense of the book, no mention of the necessity or lack of necessity in incorporating 4e inspired house rules:
Counterpoint, Sposta: I never played 4e, and do not have a single 4e book to my name. I have absolutely no idea how 4e implemented 'Skill Challenges', and would have to dig those rules out of the graveyard of games past. It's fantastic that you have those resources and can make use of them, but not everyone does.
The other problem is that basically no-one (most likely including Sposta) actually used the 4e skill challenges as written. They were actually somewhat hard to use.
Quite possibly. 🤷♂️ I didn’t actually play 4e, so I could be mistaken.
Well this one is on my wait for a coupon list. Don't hate it. Will probably get it but not quite worth full price for me
This book has 17 authors and there are 17 new D&D adventures in this book. So it's easy to see that each adventure was probably written by a different author. That really fits the theme that each of these adventures are like books in the Candlekeep Library that sort of transport you (figuratively and literally) into these settings of mystery and intrigue. It's certainly interesting. As a player in a group that prefers creating homebrew worlds and settings, I don't think this will do much for me. However, I can certainly see why some people are excited for this.
Also that Alt cover is sweet!
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
Yurei,
Why would the DM need to invent new mechanics? I run mysteries all the time. I’m running one as the current campaign. For one thing, they should never be allowed to just keep rolling Investigation until they find something, mystery campaign or not. That’s just DMing 101.
I am personally a fan of using 4e style skill challenges for group clue gathering. If they can give me a plausible explanation for how Athletics might help them find a clue, and they’re proficient in Athletics, I say rock on. (Actually what I say is “You can certainly try.” 😉) I set a DC, they make the check, no new mechanics required. Sometimes I run them as each success gets a clue until they get them all or fail 3 checks as a group. Sometimes I run it so that each clue gatherer can make a single check, the base DC gets them a base clue and the higher they roll the more clue they get. But degrees of success and failure are nothing new in 5e, I’m just borrowing what already exists and using it in a new “off-label” application. But hey, it’s me, if something isn’t at least a little “off-label” it wouldn’t be my style.* But no matter what, even if they fail the DM should be thinking of ways to let them “fail forward.”
But ultimately, to make a mystery really work, it cannot be something that simply challenges the characters. This is an area where the players themselves must come together and consider the clues and figure out what is going on. The challenge to the characters is finding the clues (and surviving). The challenge to the players is actually solving the mystery. No roll can do that, so no mechanics required.
Kinda like how you say that skill checks are done backwards, same principle. If the characters’ skills are solving the mystery, you’re doing it backwards. Make sense?
*(Except MM, for some reason I’m the only person I know of who plays that RAW. 🤷♂️)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I would expect that a mystery game would require more roleplaying rather than just trying to figure everything out via skill checks.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Think I mistyped it earlier, but Relics and Rarities is a good example of how investigative gaming can work. Mysteries are just really another form of exploration, but instead of terrain you're usually charting out relationships to determine a why. You could run one that was skill check driven, but usually the paths to resolution tend to be multiple at the outset (set a wide net) and at each step the players figure out what they're characters know and then determine their next move. I think this format and genre is particularly useful for DM inspiration as a contrast with the campaign adventures. I mean it models not so much a campaign length build up of character power to overcome something; but rather is about exploring wonder, something that could use some more attention as a way to play to D&D. Mysteries tend to be a "closer" space in terms of genre (ranging among claustrophic to hard boiled to the cozies genre). Could be fun.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I watched a few YouTube reviews of Companion. I think Ed Greenwood didn't contribute anything "new" but rather his prior writing was sort of consolidated. MT Black I think just contributed the "Directors Cut of DiA" which I didn't think worked really well (and the good elements aside from one were put elsewhere in the published Avernus). It sounds like a map will be in it, and I'd be surprised if that map isn't a print reproduction of the map in the Companion. Mentioned some monsters and items,
I could picture the death egg being a device in a mystery.
And monsters like the book worms etc. Then there's all that time-based magic stuff which doesn't exactly make sense in the book, but maybe could be devices in mysteries?
FYI the whole text of the Companion is available as preview prepurchase on DMsGuild. I didn't drop the $15 for it because it was too uneven, but if what I liked makes it into the adventure book, I'd be more inclined to pick it up because of that and get some adventure material more in line with the setting.
Dang it! Yes, it does. (E-mails game store re: pre-order).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Using 4e skill challenges is literally inventing new mechanics, since 5e doesn't have skill challenges anywhere in its RAW pages. Yes, I know that James wrote about them here on DDB, but there is nothing in the printed primary sources (PHB, DMG, MM, XGE, Tasha) to cover skill challenges. So you ask why a DM would need to invent new mechanics to run a mystery in 5e, but you admit you co-opt an old mechanic that doesn't exist in 5e... This is an admission that 5e is inadequate to handle mysteries -- which is exactly what Yurei said.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Well, I guess technically correct. But supplementing D&D mechanics with other D&D mechanics is hardly “inventing” new mechanics. I didn’t “invent” skill challenges, I just borrowed them from D&D. If I can take something created by someone else and use it whole then I can’t claim to have “invented” anything. And it’s not like I’m borrowing mechanics from Shadowrun or World of Darkness here, it’s still all D&D. So, while yes, I am using a rule from outside of 5e to supplement 5e, I am also by no means “inventing” mechanics new to D&D.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You will, however, have to invent rules to make them work with 5e, because the 4e skill challenge rules used the rules for 4e task difficulty, which 5e lacks an equivalent to.
But the fact that you had to borrow from an edition something that no longer exists in 5e, because 5e neither has that rule nor something adequate to replace that rule, means that 5e does not have sufficient RAW to encompass what you need to do. You're using non-5e rules to run your game because 5e doesn't do what you need it to do. Whether you invented the rules or someone else did, whether they came from D&D or another system like Champions, Ironsworn, or Savage Worlds, doesn't really matter. You still felt the need to graft a non-5e system onto your game to make it work.
Which proves the point that Yurei was making -- that 5e is inadequate to do the sorts of things you are doing (which is why you needed to borrow skill challenges from 4e).
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Makes me wonder if they'll try to add in some 5e adapted rules from the gumshoe system. When I first started playing D&D a few years ago, I was looking at other tabletop systems. Bought the rule book for one called Timewatch. Never got to play it with anyone. Still have the book floating around somewhere. Not sure if gumshoe is open-source or anything D&D could legally incorporate. But if they were going to add skills or items to aid in a mystery-based game, I could see them at least taking inspiration from there.
My Homebrew Backgrounds | Feats | Magic Items | Monsters | Races | Subclasses
I'm glad it's making people happy. Not what I'm looking for, as a new/revamped setting like DL, DS or Planescape would be better. For me it's trash but if one of my players doesn't add it, I will, just so it presents all options to my people.
Gumshoe is a great rules lite system, and it and some of its offshoot supporting systems for other genres can easily be plugged into a lot of TTRPGs whose inhouse mechanics need something up to the task. However I don't see WotC directly adapting it to 5e for this anymore than I see them layering new rules sets on adventures involving diplomacy and statecraft, or mechanics for horror be it gothic in Strahd or the hodgepodge in Frostmaiden. I'd also reckon if they were using Gumshoe, they'd mention it in their marketing (I want to say that's almost the only license requirement of using Gumshoe "this game is using GUMSHOE(tm)". Moreover from the marketing language one can infer this anthology isn't designed to be a campaign but one off adventures that can be inserted into campaigns which may or may not have a mystery focus.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Personally, what I would do if I were trying to make it not be "roll investigation" all the dang time when they're hunting for things, I'd give additional background options that grant features that would expand the investigative options available. GoM gave new background options so why can't this one?
If anything, I'd foresee this book having some added backgrounds to enhance the RP of the inside adventures.
My Homebrew Backgrounds | Feats | Magic Items | Monsters | Races | Subclasses
My point was that it took no “work” from me to fix it. As someone who actively enjoys writing new mechanics for things, I would have if I had had to. But I didn’t, it took almost zero work from me to implement. The only work I had to do was explain how a skill challenge works. That was it. That was all of the “work” I had to put into it. I didn’t actually “invent” anything.
I never claimed that 5e was particularly well suited to mysteries. I never said that 5e didn’t have holes in it. I never invalidated Yurei’s arguments against 5e and how they relate to mysteries or anything else. All I stated was:
An inquiry as to why they felt a need for new mechanics to be “invented.”
List examples of preexisting mechanics that I use that required no actual “invention” on my part. The mechanics I listed were borrowed from the last edition of D&D, as well as the current edition of D&D.
Admission that I freely adapt things that already work the way I want and just using them in a different way. Again, no work required, not inventing anything. I’m picking up something and plopping it down whole. It’s not requiring any additional work on my part. Like, I don’t even need to look stuff up, I just need to use something that already exists in a different way.
Think of it like food. I’m not cooking anything new. I’m not even taking leftovers and repurposing them. I’m just straight up serving leftovers. So I got last nights enchiladas (skill challenges), and I’m just serving them this morning for breakfast. And then I’m taking some frozen hash brown patties (degrees of success/failure) and serving them as a side. I literally just took some stuff out of the fridge, threw it in the toaster oven to reheat it, and plopped it down on the table. It took me 0 work as the DM.
Then I pointed out how a mystery must challenge the players as much as if not more than their characters. Combat challenges characters. Puzzles challenging players. Mysteries have to challenge both.
Then I related the example to a piece of advice* that Yurei regularly gives about skill checks in general, and drew a parallel between that and this in a way meant to hopefully create a state of mental concept 100% more valuable than any picture in terms of word conservation.
*(Advice I happen to agree with wholeheartedly.)
And ultimately I finish with a little joke for anyone who has ever seen me comment on that topic as I really must be one of the few people on earth who actually rules on MM according to RAW. 🤷♂️
So, while I never actually made any claims against Yurei’s assessment of 5e, or how it particularly relates to mysteries, I did hope to point out through 1st hand anecdotal evidence how easy it could be for any DM to overcome some of those challenges for their own games. And how to do it without having to do any actual work Isn’t that the point of having experience: to share it with others so they can benefit from it too? You know, like that bearded guy on the interwebs does. You know, the guy who does the blahblah on the doobleydoo. Whatshisname...? 😉
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Counterpoint, Sposta: I never played 4e, and do not have a single 4e book to my name. I have absolutely no idea how 4e implemented 'Skill Challenges', and would have to dig those rules out of the graveyard of games past. It's fantastic that you have those resources and can make use of them, but not everyone does.
I mean, I could pull the chase rules out of Savage Worlds and spend a few days adapting their essence to 5e to try and get usable pursuit-and-evasion rules in the game so parties actually stand a freaking chance of successfully fleeing a bad fight, but me doing so wouldn't mean 5e was perfectly fine because I used rules from another game to help patch a weakness in 5e. That just means I had the resources and requisite irritation level to do the work to patch 5e.
Same with mystery games. The fact that rules from another game (even if that game is an older edition of D&D) can make the issue better doesn't help people who don't have access to that game and its rules.
Please do not contact or message me.
The other problem is that basically no-one (most likely including Sposta) actually used the 4e skill challenges as written. They were actually somewhat hard to use.
So, io9 has a good interview with Perkins and three of the writers that gives you a better sense of the book, no mention of the necessity or lack of necessity in incorporating 4e inspired house rules:
https://io9.gizmodo.com/dungeons-dragons-new-adventure-book-brings-fresh-voic-1846037449
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Well, it looks like the book's going to have stats for a Ghost Dragon that lives in Candlekeep.
Damn, that's cool.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Quite possibly. 🤷♂️ I didn’t actually play 4e, so I could be mistaken.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting