Next D&D Book Announced January 12th 2021 and Releasing March 16th 2021

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

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. 

Quote from cosplaywrite >>

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

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.    

Quote from cosplaywrite >>

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

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.

Quote from BioWizard >>

 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.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

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:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/dungeons-dragons-new-adventure-book-brings-fresh-voic-1846037449

Well, it looks like the book's going to have stats for a Ghost Dragon that lives in Candlekeep. 

Damn, that's cool. 

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

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.

Quote from IamSposta >>

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

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.

 The way people used skill challenges was "You can use any skill that you can convince the DM is appropriate to the challenge".

The way skill challenges were actually written was "The DM comes up with a list of appropriate skills that are favored for the challenge, the number of times each skill can be used, and the total which can be achieved with that skill; anything that doesn't fit within those limits is still possible, but modified difficulty, and reusing the same skill has additional penalties".

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

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.

 I didn’t actually play 4e either, but I got some handy inspiration from the inter web and said to myself “self, that looks pretty swell, I’ma steal it.” (I always call myself “self” when I make these decisions so I know I’m serious.) Also, I do have several editions of D&D rolling around in my head. So, I can’t be entirely sure I haven’t mixed up some stuff, but here are the three main ways I do group skill challenges. Someone smarter than me can point to whichever one is closest to 4e, if any.

1. One main person tries to do the thing, but the DC is ridiculously high, like 25+. Other people are also helping them, so each of them makes a skill check and their total successes reduce the DC of the actual attempt. The more successful the others were, the lower the DC gets, the more likely the actual check is to succeed.
   (This one works like a group variation of the way the help action works, only without advantage or disadvantage. That is because it’s from an edition that predates that mechanic. I believe this is similar to the way Matt Mercer does Resurrection Attempts, or has at some point.)
   So this would be an example of how I would let a group of PCs all work together to uncover a single clue, or break down a door together, or whatever single goal all together, but specifically when they are all contributing the same way. Like all Athletics for example, or all Investigation.
2. Basically, everyone can use any skill in which they are proficient, as long as they can explain how it fits, and it isn’t 🐎💩, I’ll take it. Then I set a DC in my head based on what they describe as their action, they roll an ability check just like normal. Each player can only use each skill once, when the group has accumulated 3 failed skill checks, the challenge is over and they can make no further attempts.
   (This one is similar to/the same way Matt Colville did the chase/escape scene for the Chain of Ackeron if I recall correctly.)
   So this is a way to let every PC get to utilize any and all skills the players chose for their PCs. It puts them the most in the driver’s seat. Some challenges, like “clue finding” will obviously favor some skills more, but other challenges, like chases/escapes will use other skills more. When applied in various circumstances, all skills will eventually become useful and therefore every PC will eventually get to shine in these. This is a technique I employ when everyone is working together in various different ways to accrue a series of smaller success that all build towards the same goal. Like finding multiple clues in a library, or overcoming various obstacles in a chase in different ways to all succeed as a group.
3. Each player participating in the challenge can make a single attempt. The base DC is 10-15 depending on the thing. A basic pass/fail automatically gains a certain degree of success, higher rolls grant even more success towards the communal goal. Once everyone has rolled, the challenge is over and they can make no further attempts. 
   (This method is adapted from other 5e mechanics that utilize degrees of success.)
   This technique is very useful for when a few PCs are each making a similar attempt, and I want everyone to succeed to some degree so everyone can contribute, but those who roll well can contribute more. Everyone gets to participate, but good rolls are also rewarded. These can be done with either all PCs using the same Skill like in the first method, or using different skills like in the second method.

My point is, even if you have never seen Matt Colville, I know you have seen CritRole, and so that means you have been exposed to at least 2/3 of these methods. I’m not saying it isn’t a flaw with 5e, just that there are ways to offset the shortcomings of 5e with a minimal amount of work invested by the DM. And if it helps your campaign, use the methods I just listed. And if anyone has any other ways to fix it, I’m open to consider them. And if none of my three are quite like in 4e, then I stand corrected. 

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

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.

 The way people used skill challenges was "You can use any skill that you can convince the DM is appropriate to the challenge".

The way skill challenges were actually written was "The DM comes up with a list of appropriate skills that are favored for the challenge, the number of times each skill can be used, and the total which can be achieved with that skill; anything that doesn't fit within those limits is still possible, but modified difficulty, and reusing the same skill has additional penalties".

 Yeah, I totally do it the easy way. It works, it takes a minimum of work invested by me. I can bust that out on the fly if I need to on those occasions we all find ourselves in when we’re straight winging it but don’t want them to know that. Plus, it puts agency in the hands of the players. I heard they like that sorta thing.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>Counterpoint: if the DM has to invent absolutely everything about how to run the Mystery Game, from the plot, setting, and mystery itself to all of the extra mechanics and gameplay systems needed to make it work, and gets absolutely no help whatsoever from the game devs or the books to do so...

How is that not "D&D handling Mystery poorly"?  The fact that an exceptionally talented DM can do mysteries anyways is not praise of the game, it's praise of that specific DM.  Furthermore, the game itself is designed in such a way as to prevent or discourage players from engaging with a mystery properly.  Most players will default to throwing dice at the problem until it goes away, or casting "Locate Answer" however they have to.  Very little investigation, i.e. examination of the mystery and deductive logic and reasoning concerning what one's search says about it, happens in a typical mystery game.

The DM needs to think differently about building the game, the players need to think differently about playing the game, and in both cases the DMG/PHB actively teach both the DM and the players to do it wrongly/poorly/badly.  Primarily because 5e is very little save a combat engine that had some extraneous trappings of noncombat fluffery bolted onto it after the fact, and Wizards bloody well knows that's exactly what they did.

 I don’t understand you.  You want “Mystery Mechanics” described to you?  Skill checks exist.  Roleplaying exists.  Puzzles exist. *Mystery* exists. 

This just reads like someone who wants someone to do all the DM development for them.  This is an open ended roleplaying game that purposefully leaves the design of scenarios to the limits of the DM imagination. Mechanics for *any* mystery literally would add zero to any game - what do you want, some magic mystery flow chart that tells you how to design mysteries?  A series of dice rolls that randomly generate mysteries?  This line of thinking like you can’t invent your mechanics to fit your campaign is just plain wrong - it’s completely up to the DM how to handle mystery. 

Run a game like “werewolf”, or “murder mystery evenings”, or just watch a movie and implement elements of that mystery.  This constant griping about a game system that literally promotes homebrew and is only limited by your imagination doesn’t seem warranted at all.  

Quote from IamSposta >>

My point is, even if you have never seen Matt Colville, I know you have seen CritRole, and so that means you have been exposed to at least 2/3 of these methods. I’m not saying it isn’t a flaw with 5e, just that there are ways to offset the shortcomings of 5e with a minimal amount of work invested by the DM. And if it helps your campaign, use the methods I just listed. And if anyone has any other ways to fix it, I’m open to consider them. And if none of my three are quite like in 4e, then I stand corrected. 

 
Honestly, you can modify it any way you want - and those ideas can be modified and re-modified over and over.  Honestly, I depend less on passing a specific skill check and combining plot points with NPCs and finding items that each provide portions of the clue for the PCs.  Higher rolls maybe speed up the investigation, but the beauty of mystery is peeling back the layers one by one organically, not requiring a series of positive checks to figure out.

But whatever floats your boat - you could run a mystery one of a hundred different ways, limited only by imagination. 

Quote from Third_Sundering >>

Well, it looks like the book's going to have stats for a Ghost Dragon that lives in Candlekeep. 

Damn, that's cool. 

That's something that's probably ported from DMsGuild Candlekeep Companion (which you can read in its entirety in full preview mode).

 It's one of the neat things in the MT Black Avernus "director's cut" adventure that didn't find a place elsewhere in the DiA hardback adventure.  Not sure whether it's part of established Candlekeep lore or something Black invented.  But it definitely sounds like their reproducing some if not all of the Candlekeep Companion content.

Quote from Brewksy >>

This constant griping about a game system that literally promotes homebrew and is only limited by your imagination doesn’t seem warranted at all.  

 I think that's part of Yurei's point.  5e promotes homebrew.  5e doesn't promote homebrew well.  It promotes a handful of variant rules and a few (fairly unhelpful) guidelines on homebrewing monsters and character options, and that's pretty much it.  Even in later books, DM support ranges from okay to piss-poor.

I'm fortunate enough to have come from 4e (limited though my experience is) so I have a *little* experience on what other editions can bring to the table, and I happen to like just about anything DM'd by the esteemed Mark "Sherlock" Hulmes, but even then my time for live-plays and podcasts is limited so there's only so much I can learn from other DM's examples.  For DM's who've had exposure to neither...good luck to them, 'cause they're gonna need it...

I agree that the current written rules for 5e are pretty sparse when it comes to mystery type adventures (and I also think skill challenges are a nice tool for them).

But perhaps a published book containing 17 mysteries might also contain some rules or guidelines to fill that gap? At the very least, it will provide some examples to steal from.

I don't generally buy adventure content but this book really intrigues me.

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

Quote from Third_Sundering >>

Well, it looks like the book's going to have stats for a Ghost Dragon that lives in Candlekeep. 

Damn, that's cool. 

  

That's something that's probably ported from DMsGuild Candlekeep Companion (which you can read in its entirety in full preview mode).

 Technically the ghost dragon lives under Candlekeep as a guardian against subterranean intrusions.

 It's one of the neat things in the MT Black Avernus "director's cut" adventure that didn't find a place elsewhere in the DiA hardback adventure.  Not sure whether it's part of established Candlekeep lore or something Black invented.  But it definitely sounds like their reproducing some if not all of the Candlekeep Companion content.

 I'm not sure how much they'd include from a previously existing 3rd part supplement (I'd hope not much at all), but I have read that they are including more talent from creators on the DM's Guild, including my personal favorite Mark Hulmes, so I am intrigued to see how that goes.

@scatterbraind:  I certainly hope so.  Other titles have had additional information/guidelines included with them, so it'd be fantastic if they did that here (and especially if they draw on outside talent.  Have I mentioned I'm a fan of Mark "Sherlock" Hulmes?)