Dear Mike & Monte

Upper_Krust · Jan 8, 2012

Howdy Ahnehnois!

Ahnehnois said:
The general problem with tiers is that they create a form of self-justification that causes rules bloat. In 3e and prior editions, characters simply got more powerful as they leveled. It was clear that there were distinctions between "tiers" but these were implicit and roughly defined. I don't see the need to draw lines between low, mid, and high-level play. The levels themselves do that well enough.

The specific problem is what the tiers are. Starting level 1 as "heroic" actually removes the feel of low-level play as it exists in most of D&D.

I fail to see how tiers create rules bloat? Can you give me an example?

"Epic" was never included in the core rules before 4e.

It was in OD&D, in effect the Master Boxed Set.

In short, tiers take a great deal away from the game, and I'm not sure what they add.

Clarity for one. Identity for another.

Upper_Krust · Jan 8, 2012

Howdy Greg K!

Greg K said:
really? Low level campaigns should not be able to be set in such regions? Humans cultures exist in those regions in our world. There is no reason not to support campaigns that take place in those regions or visit such regions at levels 1-10 (in the latter case, maybe, some of the PCs hail from such regions and there is a need to go there or there is some other reason to adventure there).

I'm not saying there couldn't be overlap, but the crux of the matter is this.

There is only so much space within books to detail the game. Detailing one environment also encompasses the enemies that populate that environment. What you seem to be saying is that not only must every region, plane and habitat be detailed from day one, but that all these places should be accessible from Level 1. Its just insanity.

You cannot detail and populate every environment from day one. Therefore it makes sense to divide the areas and monsters based on how hostile they are.

I'd rather have 10 areas detailed and well populated than 30 areas badly detailed and underpopulated.

Its like putting the Balor in the Monster Vault. Yes it was a well designed monster but its utterly useless for the purposes of anyone running an epic campaign. What are they meant to do with one monster, have the PCs fight Balors in every encounter!? :-S

Having to pick up a supplement with rules supporting levels 11+ which I would probably never use (not a fan of any edition above 10-12- especially, 4e with paragon paths and epic destinies being required) just to get environmental rules would ensure I never pick up such a game.

Those (campaign) portions of a particular boxed set could also be sold seperately.

The same goes for a boxed set to get the other planes like the Feywild.

See above. There's no reason why the campaign material from the Red, Green and Blue boxes could not be compiled and released in a neutral non-tier specific format.

BUT if the game wants to attract the casual gamer it needs to have at the forefront self-contained boxed sets that contain everything you need to start play. Instead of forcing a casual gamer to have to buy a bewildering laundry list of books, maps, dice, character sheets, tokens/miniatures. The game needs to have that immediacy provided by the boxed set approach.

steenan · Jan 8, 2012

El Mahdi said:
Dear Mike & Monte.
Please do not design a game that hardwires into it any specific play style or default campaign assumption. Please keep in mind that this game needs to appeal to a broad base. Go for a more basic chasis that includes a base with nods to all play styles. Then provide instruction and advice on how to gear the game towards specific play styles and varying complexity levels...without shading said advice with judgements about what's fun or unfun.

Dear Mike & Monte.

If you want me to buy and play your game, give it sharp focus and make it work really well within the playstyle it is designed for. Let me know, clearly, how you expect the game to be played so that I may fully enjoy its strengths. Don't waste your time and my money on things that don't help the game be good in what it does.
There are too many good RPGs I may buy for $15 or less to even consider a game that sacrifices quality and ease of use for "inclusiveness". Decide what you want to offer and follow this decision. If your game lacks focus, it will be worse than some other game in every important area - and I'd rather play this other game.

I'm afraid you won't be able to satisfy everybody, whatever you do...

Upper_Krust · Jan 8, 2012

Hey there!

El Mahdi said:
So, my 5th level Paladin from a previous edition with an animated stone horse must have been an anomaly...

Maybe he was just the exception, not the rule though.

They are not saying you couldn't have a stone horse, just that most people don't (at that level).

So much for hometown boy saves the world... So much for the everyman hero who's in the right place at the right time...

Yes I loved that bit in Lord of the Rings where Frodo decapitated the Balrog...oh wait, thats right, it was the high-level immortal (?) Gandalf who actually took that monster on.

"Not to worry guys. If we meet a dragon, it will be level appropriate. Don't worry about determining if we should fight or run away, any Dragon we meet, we can handle."

Of course though, as GM this obviously doesn't mean you can't introduce a high level dragon. But according to the rules, you shouldn't... (there's that should assumption again...)

The more civilised an area, on average the less threatening the monsters are you'll run into. The more hostile the environment, the more dangerous the creatures.

If you run into a dragon in the nearby hills next to the town, then chances are it will be young enough to have not brought much attention to itself.

"Whoa there Rogue! It may look like a juvenile Dragon, but trust me, it isn't. How do I know you ask? Well, we are Paragon aren't we? Duh!"

Actually by detailing the same monsters using different ranks (and thus different levels adjusted to keep the same XP value) you could encounter dragons of the same ages at different points of the game.

"What?!? I'm a Superhero??? Hmmm. I don't feel like a Superhero. I'm still living in this crappy room at the Rotgut Pub. Oh well. I guess it's become a Superhero or just call it quits. There's no room for more mundane high-level heroes in this world..."

Thats what happens when you don't make the tiers distinct enough. Paragon tier characters should be involved in running Castles and Temples, Epic Tier characters involved in running countries.

Please do not design a game that hardwires into it any specific play style or default campaign assumption. Please keep in mind that this game needs to appeal to a broad base. Go for a more basic chasis that includes a base with nods to all play styles. Then provide instruction and advice on how to gear the game towards specific play styles and varying complexity levels...without shading said advice with judgements about what's fun or unfun.

Please, make Inclusiveness your watchword.

...In other words make sure 5th Edition is a 5000 page book, every rule, every location, every option and every play style must be detailed from day one.

Aberzanzorax · Jan 8, 2012

EDIT: Meh, I musta been feeling oversensitive.

Nothing to see here.

El Mahdi · Jan 8, 2012

Incenjucar said:
They pulled 4E PDFs. So.

They pulled all pdf's. Not just 4E.

Incenjucar said:
They have pre-1st level rules now.

Closing the barn door after the horses have fled. It was hardwired into the game in a manner that makes this style extremely difficult to impossible. People contemplating whether to switch to 4E read the core books when they came out, realized they couldn't play their type of game with it, and moved on.

It's a lot easier to sell a new game at the start, than try to sell it later after minds have been made up. If the core rules had been inclusive for all play styles, from the start, they likely wouldn't have lost so many after the initial release.

Incenjucar said:
Obsidian Steed is a level 5 magic item.

And as above, also not in the initial core rules (PHB1, DMG1, MM1). Contributing to the same result as above...

Incenjucar said:
The rules explicitly state that you do not have to choose a paragon path or an epic destiny.

PHB: When you reach 11th level, you choose
a path of specialization, a course that defines who you
are within a certain narrow range of criteria...

Not in the initial core rules...

It doesn't say "may"...it doesn't say "you have the choice"...it says "you choose"...

A defacto, hard-wired campaign style.

The only thing that's expressed as "optional" (actually uses the word "optional"), is concerning Destiny Quests.

It may say that in subsequent books, or on DDI. But again, that's an example of closing the barn door after the horses have left. They lost people with the core books. Those that had already left were never going to see subsequent books or DDI changes, and would likely be hard sell to bring back anyways (as explained above).

Incenjucar said:
Mundane high-level hero? How does that even work?

Not everyone plays where high-level characters are automatically "Paragons" and "Shining Examples". Some play where high-level characters can appear like that, but it's a choice, not a defacto assumption. The initial core rules don't even present the possibility of such play.

So, as for an example of how that works: I'm a 21 year veteran of the USAF, with 5 years in Combat Search & Rescue, 5 years an AF Special Operations, and a veteran of 5 wars. If I were to "stat" myself out, I think a level somewhere over 10th wouldn't be unimaginable. But I can guarentee, when I walk around or enter an establishment, people don't automatically say: "Wow! A Paragon!" Quite honestly, they don't know me from any other person. And I'm not anywhere in the same league as SOF Operators. You could walk by a Navy SEAL on the street, and never even know it.

Many people like to play where high-level characters are automatically recognized as something very special. And that's cool.

Others don't. And that's also cool.

A system that hard-wires one play-style into the system, and won't even acknowledge the other. That's a mistake.

But again, as I've said earlier, I am not 4E bashing. There are pieces of 4E I think are genius, and I use them as houserules in my own games. This is however, a thread for feedback to Mike & Monte about feedback on going forward into a new edition. I am doing so in hopes that the mistakes of the past do not get replicated in their current endeavor.

El Mahdi · Jan 8, 2012

Hello.

Upper_Krust said:
They are not saying you couldn't have a stone horse, just that most people don't (at that level).

You move around on foot or on a relatively
mundane mount such as a horse...

Nope. Not seeing it. If it said "Most likely, you move around on foot or on a relatively mundane mount...", or "The norm for characters of this level is..."

But they didn't. they said exactly what the quote says. You are free to interpret it anyway you want though. Just as everybody does. But whether you feel my interpretation of that quote is wrong, I was far from alone. And I'm certain it cost WotC customers. If they want to avoid losing customers in this manner with the next edition, this is a mindset and mistake that should probably be avoided.

Upper_Krust said:
If you run into a dragon in the nearby hills next to the town, then chances are it will be young enough to have not brought much attention to itself.

The chances are it's young... On this I agree. But that's not how it's presented.

Upper_Krust said:
Thats what happens when you don't make the tiers distinct enough. Paragon tier characters should be involved in running Castles and Temples, Epic Tier characters involved in running countries.

There's that should again. Not everyone plays this way. The last thing many people want is a character that has to be in charge of a castle.

Upper_Krust said:
...In other words make sure 5th Edition is a 5000 page book, every rule, every location, every option and every play style must be detailed from day one.

I can certainly understand why you might think that, but it's not what I'm saying.

By inclusiveness I don't mean that every playstyle need be described in extensive detail. I mean that inclusiveness needs to be the philosophy in mind when writing the game.

The language of 4E shows that the writers had very specific game style and campaign styles in mind whe they wrote it. And those styles were hardwired into the system.

Simply changing ones mindset and avoiding words like "should", "avoid", "skip", "unfun", etc., can make all the difference. It's the difference between exclusivity and inclusiveness. It doesn't require a 5000 page book, just as previous edition books didn't require 5000 pages for this. (Though I'm not saying previous editions were perfect in this regard either. I feel it's a mistake in thinking and presentation regardless of the edition.)

I also think the DMG can give a basic overview of the different types of play styles (Simulationist, Gamist, Narrativist) without also being overly verbose. It can describe them. Talk about how to identify your preference. And then talk about how to apply them to game play. And it won't require a 5000 page book.

Thanks for reading.

El Mahdi · Jan 8, 2012

P.S.

Dear Mike & Monte,

Please continue DDI support for 4E even when 5E is released. It would be a shame to ditch all the work that was done developing the 4E data base. I understand that release of new 4E material won't happen, though occasional inclusion of fan submitted material in Dungeon or Dragon would be greatly appreciated. But please do not just scrap the 4E character/monster/encounter builders, the compendium, and the VTT support just because of 5E. It would be a shame to repeat the mistakes of the 3E to 4E transition.

Sincerely,
Mark "El Mahdi" Armstrong

Upper_Krust · Jan 9, 2012

El Mahdi said:
Hello.

Howdy!

Nope. Not seeing it. If it said "Most likely, you move around on foot or on a relatively mundane mount...", or "The norm for characters of this level is..."

But they didn't. they said exactly what the quote says. You are free to interpret it anyway you want though. Just as everybody does. But whether you feel my interpretation of that quote is wrong, I was far from alone. And I'm certain it cost WotC customers. If they want to avoid losing customers in this manner with the next edition, this is a mindset and mistake that should probably be avoided.

I think you are placing too much importance on what is basically a summary.

The chances are it's young... On this I agree. But that's not how it's presented.

Nothing that couldn't be solved by a few random encounter tables.

There's that should again. Not everyone plays this way. The last thing many people want is a character that has to be in charge of a castle.

With great power comes great responsibility.

I'd wager that many people don't play that way in the higher levels because it simply isn't supported by the rules. What that means is that Paragon and Epic gaming is just more dungeoneering...only with more math.

I can certainly understand why you might think that, but it's not what I'm saying.

By inclusiveness I don't mean that every playstyle need be described in extensive detail. I mean that inclusiveness needs to be the philosophy in mind when writing the game.

The language of 4E shows that the writers had very specific game style and campaign styles in mind whe they wrote it. And those styles were hardwired into the system.

Paralleling low fantasy/sword & sorcery, mid fantasy/tolkeinesque and high fantasy/epic archetypes.

Simply changing ones mindset and avoiding words like "should", "avoid", "skip", "unfun", etc., can make all the difference. It's the difference between exclusivity and inclusiveness. It doesn't require a 5000 page book, just as previous edition books didn't require 5000 pages for this. (Though I'm not saying previous editions were perfect in this regard either. I feel it's a mistake in thinking and presentation regardless of the edition.)

Players Handbook 1-3 + Dungeon Masters Guide 1-2 + Monster Manual 1-3 + Demonomicon + Manual of the Planes + Elemental Chaos + Astral Plane + Shadowfell + Feywild + etc. + etc.

To make everything core would take 5000 pages.

I also think the DMG can give a basic overview of the different types of play styles (Simulationist, Gamist, Narrativist) without also being overly verbose. It can describe them. Talk about how to identify your preference. And then talk about how to apply them to game play. And it won't require a 5000 page book.

I'm not worried about basic overviews. I am talking about outlining enough information (on locations and creatures) in the initial books/boxed sets to actually warrant the inclusion and make those areas playable.

The near 1000 pages of the PHB + DMG + MM is TOO MUCH information for casual gamers and its too much expenditure (and even after that you still need dice, character sheets, maps, tokens/minis etc.).

Once we acknowledge that the boxed set approach is VASTLY superior for attracting new gamers you have to assess what information you want to get across. It doesn't make sense to have 5000 pages or even 1000 pages.

Incenjucar · Jan 9, 2012

El Mahdi said:
They pulled all pdf's. Not just 4E.

Exactly.

Closing the barn door after the horses have fled. It was hardwired into the game in a manner that makes this style extremely difficult to impossible. People contemplating whether to switch to 4E read the core books when they came out, realized they couldn't play their type of game with it, and moved on.

At level 1 you're still fighting kobolds, you just have more abilities to use against them than you would in previous editions. It's true that some people like to start out as commoners, but it's also true that a lot of people do not. It certainly would have been nice for them to put the optional rules in somewhere, earlier, though.

It's a lot easier to sell a new game at the start, than try to sell it later after minds have been made up. If the core rules had been inclusive for all play styles, from the start, they likely wouldn't have lost so many after the initial release.

No edition of any game can boast this.

And as above, also not in the initial core rules (PHB1, DMG1, MM1). Contributing to the same result as above...

A stone horse is a rather specific option, and your DM can easily say "Oh yeah and your horse is made of stone." They still don't have elemental classes, and won't when the elemental book is release, and THAT is a far, far bigger deal than a specific magic item.

Not in the initial core rules...

It doesn't say "may"...it doesn't say "you have the choice"...it says "you choose"...

A defacto, hard-wired campaign style.

The only thing that's expressed as "optional" (actually uses the word "optional"), is concerning Destiny Quests.

It may say that in subsequent books, or on DDI. But again, that's an example of closing the barn door after the horses have left. They lost people with the core books. Those that had already left were never going to see subsequent books or DDI changes, and would likely be hard sell to bring back anyways (as explained above).

You can choose to take paragon multiclassing instead. Epic destinies, on page 172 of the PHB, explicitly state that you don't have to take them, but you can grab one at any time after 21st and get all the powers retroactively.

Not everyone plays where high-level characters are automatically "Paragons" and "Shining Examples". Some play where high-level characters can appear like that, but it's a choice, not a defacto assumption. The initial core rules don't even present the possibility of such play.

It's the whole heroic fantasy thing. WotC isn't going to force you to play heroes, but they want to promote that. You can also play a bunch of self-declared paladins in V:TM.

So, as for an example of how that works: I'm a 21 year veteran of the USAF, with 5 years in Combat Search & Rescue, 5 years an AF Special Operations, and a veteran of 5 wars. If I were to "stat" myself out, I think a level somewhere over 10th wouldn't be unimaginable. But I can guarentee, when I walk around or enter an establishment, people don't automatically say: "Wow! A Paragon!" Quite honestly, they don't know me from any other person. And I'm not anywhere in the same league as SOF Operators. You could walk by a Navy SEAL on the street, and never even know it.

No human being who ever lived is at all comparable to a 10th level PC. A 10th level PC is 1/3 of the way to godhood.

Many people like to play where high-level characters are automatically recognized as something very special. And that's cool.

Others don't. And that's also cool.

A system that hard-wires one play-style into the system, and won't even acknowledge the other. That's a mistake.

If nobody knows of your exploits, your DM is unlikely to give you magical fame. 4E promotes things, but there's no mechanical effect of being paragon that forces behavior from NPCs.