Minor 5th Edition Updates for Monday, 16 January, 2012

Vyvyan Basterd · Jan 17, 2012

Jhaelen said:
Firstly, it seems to be a given that as the DM I will have to know the game rules at every level of complexity to deal with the variously complex pcs.

I don't know most of the content related to PCs when I run 4E. I trust my players to play fairly and when something doesn't seem right to me or a player doesn't quite get what one of their powers does in game, then I step in and read and rule on a particular power.

Jhaelen said:
I mean, say, I'm telling a player to make a Perception check. So the player tells me: "Sorry, dude, my character doesn't have any skills."

How do the monsters work? What rules do _they_ use? "The orc shaman cast a spell at you and gets a 21 vs. your Reflex defense. Does that hit?"
Player: "Well, I only have an AC. Do you want me to save vs. spells instead?!"

I think many people are grounded too tightly into the details. I don't believe they are trying to capture the rules of each edition, instead they are trying to capture the spirit and style of each edition. I believe playtesting feedback will determine whether we end up with Saves or Defenses, but we won't see both in the core (there may be optional or conversion rules that speak to that matter). IMO, those saves won't be "vs. Spells" or "vs. Petrification." We'll either see Fort/Ref/Will Saves or Defenses, or a more general Attribute Save or Defense. Those who are hoping to "save vs. petrification" would probably have to add it as an option to their game at best.

Erdrick Dragin said:
No one else wondering how the game material is going to be produced? Will it be for all 4 editions, because that's the only way this will work.

I'm not trying to single you out Erdrick, but I have seen too many absolutes thrown about in the last week that I fear for the entirety of our hobby. I'm not saying I have the answers. I'm not saying that WotC can achieve what they're trying to achieve. But I'm willing to see what they've come up with. I assume it has to be something relatively novel in approach. Even Monte calls it "crazy." I don't understand the vocal minority negativity in the past week, really. WotC is the only one that stands to lose in this endeavor. I'll amend that. Current 4E players have probably the largest concern in this matter outside WotC. I'm a DDi DM and loss of that coupled with my lack of physical books could cause me an issue if I don't like the new iteration.

thzero · Jan 17, 2012

But that is another problem in its own right. Essentially what you are talking about is another set of rules that has nothing to really do with any of the previous sets. From reading Monte, et al. I haven't got the feeling that this is the direction they are headed in. I'm not sure it'd be a good move, because there has been enough backlash over incompatible versions of the game.

That being said, I would say that the "spirit and style" would be far easier to reconcile into one edition as opposed to trying to reconcile all the rules.

As far as the DDi, I was not impressed by it at all. But as far as the books go, you always have eBay, Amazon used books, etc. that you can find them pretty cheap if need be. I've bought a lot of 4e and 3e stuff that way.

Jhaelen said:
I think many people are grounded too tightly into the details. I don't believe they are trying to capture the rules of each edition, instead they are trying to capture the spirit and style of each edition. I believe playtesting feedback will determine whether we end up with Saves or Defenses, but we won't see both in the core (there may be optional or conversion rules that speak to that matter). IMO, those saves won't be "vs. Spells" or "vs. Petrification." We'll either see Fort/Ref/Will Saves or Defenses, or a more general Attribute Save or Defense. Those who are hoping to "save vs. petrification" would probably have to add it as an option to their game at best.

I think the "negativity" comes from more of a 'oh we've been here before' syndrome than anything else. There was a general excitement over 3e, because it'd been like 9 years or so since 2e had come out. WotC was new to D&D, etc. so while there were concerns I seem to recall a general upbeat, hey I'm looking forward to this attitude. Then came 3.5; sure it fixed a few things, nerfed others, and a lot of people felt it was a money grab. And the other foot, so to speak, dropped with 4e which was distinct departure from 3e. You could add in confusion based on WotC trying to shift gears a bit with the Essentials line and sorta mudding the 4e waters too.

Agamon · Jan 17, 2012

Jhaelen said:
If that was actually the case, why would anyone _ever_ want to play a complex guy?

This is insane!

Some people like to have options sitting in front of them in concrete, well-explained form. Some people see that as fiddly, or even limiting if the game implies that the options set in front of you are your only ones.

The complex guy has limitless options, too. But it can be tough to think outside the box when you have so many options sitting there right in front of you.

o/AD&D, DMs had to come up with ways to facilitate outside thinking. 3e quantified the rules so much, the default GMing style seemed to become, "if there's no rule for it, you can't do it." 4e allowed outside thinking, but IME, players had trouble looking past the numerous powers to other options.

Giving some players the options in front of them and others the ability to imagine their own is all this is about.

thzero · Jan 17, 2012

Agamon said:
3e quantified the rules so much, the default GMing style seemed to become, "if there's no rule for it, you can't do it."

Well IMO that is more an issue with the DM than with the game. We do out of box type stuff in both the game I've run and games I've been in under 3X and Pathfinder without any issue. Not sure that this is more or less of a problem in any edition (or other game system even).

I'm A Banana · Jan 17, 2012

Jhaelen said:
I mean, say, I'm telling a player to make a Perception check. So the player tells me: "Sorry, dude, my character doesn't have any skills."

How do the monsters work? What rules do _they_ use? "The orc shaman cast a spell at you and gets a 21 vs. your Reflex defense. Does that hit?"
Player: "Well, I only have an AC. Do you want me to save vs. spells instead?!"

I think what might happen is that the entirety/majority of this stuff goes onto the players' shoulders to handle.

The DM doesn't need to say "make a Perception check." The DM just needs to know that there's something there the party may not be aware of. The characters then each do actions, and the DM, say, flips a coin, or rolls >10 on 1d20, if any of the characters might have a chance to notice this.

Especially observant or perceptive characters might have to "activate" that ability, alerting the DM to the fact that maybe he should roll >8 on 1d20 instead.

Same thing with defenses: the DM says "The orc shaman casts his pernicious spell!", and the players say how they are defending it ("Reflex 18!" "Save vs. Spell 5!"), and the DM rules how well they've defended against it.

Taking the burden from the DM and placing it onto the player means that the each player needs to worry about their own character, and the DM doesn't have to worry about them at all, if he doesn't want to.

Vyvyan Basterd · Jan 17, 2012

NOTE: You mistakenly attributed my comments to Jhaelen.

thzero said:
But that is another problem in its own right. Essentially what you are talking about is another set of rules that has nothing to really do with any of the previous sets. From reading Monte, et al. I haven't got the feeling that this is the direction they are headed in. I'm not sure it'd be a good move, because there has been enough backlash over incompatible versions of the game.

I'm basing my thoughts on the comments that they intend to take "the best of all editions." The pieces of the rules will be familiar and the playtest will show what the majority prefers in the core. The new innovation will be something that allows quick and easy conversion between varying systems. Or maybe that conversion system will be the basis of the core.

thzero said:
As far as the DDi, I was not impressed by it at all. But as far as the books go, you always have eBay, Amazon used books, etc. that you can find them pretty cheap if need be. I've bought a lot of 4e and 3e stuff that way.

That's definately a possibility if things come to that. But I would miss the ease of DDi. I copy-paste monster stat blocks directly from the Compendium and save myself alot of time. It will depend upon my "gaming environment" if I ever need to cross that bridge.

thzero said:
I think the "negativity" comes from more of a 'oh we've been here before' syndrome than anything else.

I understand the negativity more than I do the absolutism. There are already plenty of people saying that they 'must do this', 'can't do that', or 'this will never work' before seeing anything. I think they have an extremely difficult task at hand and I see no way to accomplish the task they've set themselves, but I'll hear them out over the ideas they've come up with to reach this goal. I hope they aren't setting the sights with no game plan in mind, but even the tiny tidbits they've given us suggest they've at least begun the seed of an idea to accomplish what they are shooting for.

Agamon · Jan 17, 2012

thzero said:
Well IMO that is more an issue with the DM than with the game. We do out of box type stuff in both the game I've run and games I've been in under 3X and Pathfinder without any issue. Not sure that this is more or less of a problem in any edition (or other game system even).

That's my point. The restriction wasn't there, it was implied by a burgeoning mass of rules. Playing in LG, I played under dozens of DMs in 3e, and, like I say, it seemed the default style (not the only one, of course).

talok55 · Jan 17, 2012

Reynard said:
I don't think it can work. Even if you can manage to have the 1E players and 4E player happy mechanically, you can't run a game that is simultaneously a 1E style game and a 4E style game.

I see what you mean. One is an RPG. The other is a tactical minis wargame with a few RPG elements thrown in. They seem to be very incompatible.

Mod Note: While you've a right to an opinion, "Game X is not an RPG," is a well-known inflammatory statement. We no longer have patience for edition warring - anyone wishing to continue in conversation should learn to speak their minds without resorting to things known to cheese folks off. You are talking to people - those people are more important than edition divides. ~Umbran

thzero · Jan 17, 2012

Agamon said:
That's my point. The restriction wasn't there, it was implied by a burgeoning mass of rules. Playing in LG, I played under dozens of DMs in 3e, and, like I say, it seemed the default style (not the only one, of course).

Well D&D has never been a rules-light game by any stretch of the imagination.

Vyvyan Basterd said:
NOTE: You mistakenly attributed my comments to Jhaelen.

Yeah, sorry.

Vyvyan Basterd said:
The pieces of the rules will be familiar and the playtest will show what the majority prefers in the core. The new innovation will be something that allows quick and easy conversion between varying systems. Or maybe that conversion system will be the basis of the core.

Unfortunately that's all plain marketing speak. If they are able to back that up, with a useable system that is playable, then my hat would be off to them.

Vyvyan Basterd said:
I understand the negativity more than I do the absolutism. There are already plenty of people saying that they 'must do this', 'can't do that', or 'this will never work' before seeing anything. I think they have an extremely difficult task at hand and I see no way to accomplish the task they've set themselves, but I'll hear them out over the ideas they've come up with to reach this goal. I hope they aren't setting the sights with no game plan in mind, but even the tiny tidbits they've given us suggest they've at least begun the seed of an idea to accomplish what they are shooting for.

I would tend to agree with you, but in this case I'll admit I'm more of a pessimist than an optimist. Honestly thought I do think they have a game plan, but they are also fighting a multi-front war (i.e. WotC brass, Hasbro brass, and gamers) so I think it will depend really on how well that planx survives contact with the enemy.

I definitively prefer 3X and Pathfinder over 4e (I really can't think of much from 1e/2e that hasn't been transitioned in some form or another), no doubt about it. 4e by itself seems to be a decent game, but its not really D&D for me, nor do I really see it as the "tactical mini wargame" that others opinion it to be. That being said there are some items in 4e that would be nice to see worked into a revamped "D&D.next" game, such as healing surges, and spellcasters having the ability to cast spells like a fighter swings an axe. But on the flip side there are things they "skimped", IMO, on in 4e that could use relooking at such as the skill system where it sorta makes non-combat RP a bit more problematic (although 3e could also use slimmed down skill list too, as other variants have done).

That being said, because of the GSL, as opposed to the OGL, it does seem like if the various editions game play aren't supported in vary close proximity to the current incarnations, that 4e players may seem to get the shaft. Obviously via OGL 3x continues on in a myriad of guises, most notably Pathfinder. But what happens to 4e, does it just end up yet-another-dead-gaming-system due to licensing constraints? While I'm not a fan of the system, I'd hate to see that happen.

So who knows, I'm interested enough in what they come up with to be posting about it, but I'm not necessarily holding my breath either.

catsclaw227 · Jan 17, 2012

talok55 said:
I see what you mean. One is an RPG. The other is a tactical minis wargame with a few RPG elements thrown in. They seem to be very incompatible.

This isn't very helpful to the topic and feels a lot like a Molotov Cocktail style lob into the discussion.

talok55's sig said:
4E as a game and a business is broken and needs to go away. Scott Rouse

And your sig, taken out of context like it is, doesn't help anything much. Scott clarified and edited his post to clarify what he meant. (And you know it, you participated in the thread.) Do you want to start another flaming edition war? Please.....

thzero said:
Well D&D has never been a rules-light game by any stretch of the imagination.

I agree with you, though when we played 1e/2e, there was a lot of implied DM fiat. Many tables played these editions in many different ways, leaving out some rule subsets (weapon speed, etc) and heavily house ruled versions of other ones (NWPs). As a result, two different home games may have looked quite different from a rules standpoint. There are other examples, but they're not important to the point that I think Agamon was making.

In 3e, with so many rules codified, it felt as though they took the "power" away from the DM and handed it to the players, insomuch as there were many "heated" threads about things like "why can the NPC monster could do X, but my PC can't", and "that's not RAW, so you can't do that". In 3e, tables shared a much more unified "rules" experience than 1e/2e and decision-making in the game seemed to slip out of the hands of the DM. "If it's not in the rules, you can't do it."

(Yes, this has just been my personal experience, I don't have statistical proof, etc.... But I am guessing that if someone smarter than me took an Bayesian style AI script to the forum boards, they could find results that supported my assertion.)