Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

Knowing where you come from can be as important as knowing where you're going.
'Forward' doesn't always mean better either. WotC needs to pick a destination and move towards it. They have to define 'what' they are trying to do before they can make a game that is better at achieving that goal.

There is a lot of disagreement about if they've done that, but I personally believe they have. They aren't trying to make a better X edition. Their statements thus far tell me that they are trying to make a game that does 'DND' better. Aside from rolling polyhedral dice, I can't say that any mechanic is or is not DND. Powers aren't DND, but neither is Vancian. Concepts are, not mechanics. Feelings are, not rules.

WotC has stated that their goals are: To identify all the things that 'are DND' and make a game that supports that as best as possible. You can see this mindset in the articles on various classes. They aren't just trying to take an edition's cleric and make it work better, they're trying to see what was consistent about clerics throughout the last 40 years and focus on those elements.

pemerton said:

What I don't understand is this: if people think that "combat" is the opposite of "roleplaying", then why are they playing a game that, in its PC build rules and action resolution rules, makes combat the principal focus of conflict resolution?

Click to expand...

That's probably because you're looking at it entirely the wrong way. It isn't "Combat is the opposite of roleplaying", it's more like "Combat often taking 2 hours to resolve gets in the way of my roleplaying".

Patryn of Elvenshae said:

Criticism in the form of, "[Edition] is just playing a boardgame; it's not really roleplaying" is not.

Click to expand...

True, but at the same time, a lot of people here need to focus on the other parts of the post. Not just burst into flames the moment [Edition] is compared with [not roleplaying]. The part of HoolMarshes Dweller's statement that I feel is most important is "I don't find it to be". He's talking about his experience, not everyone else's. He's not actually saying 4E isn't a roleplaying game. He's saying that TO HIM, and ONLY TO HIM, it isn't. He wasn't speaking for anyone else at all. He also said "that's not to dismiss or be rude to 4e's greatest adherents".

Size of problem: .
Size of reaction: __________________________________________

In other words, please avoid taking things personally when the person speaking isn't talking about you. If you [anyone] find his [anyone else] statement to be painted with too broad a brush, wouldn't it be better to ask him to elaborate on why he feels that way, rather than saying he's a bad person for feeling that way?

Important lesson regarding forum discussion: We're dealing with with a text medium here. It's detrimental to read something negative into the way a sentence is written when it could also be read another way. In short, give people the benefit of the doubt and you'll find that you take offense much less often.

Guys, it's okay. 4e is totally just a tactical miniatures combat game. All of those hundreds of pages of text across DMGs, PHBs, Dragon articles, and splatbooks on crafting a character's history and origins, world-building, creating interweaving narrative threads, skill challenge adjudication, general ideas for common social encounters, and various other guidelines for how to roleplay are all just... er... printing errors.

Harlock said:

As for action resolution rules for diplomacy... can the DM not be trusted to judge through roleplay if the objective was met?

Click to expand...

Why not let the GM adjudicate combat the same way?

billd91 said:

Page 9 of the DM's Guidelines offers some pointers. Works for me. They're sketchy, but so are the rest of the play test materials.

Click to expand...

The combat rules are pretty detailed - they have precise and detailed DC rules (via the rules for AC) and precise victory condition rules (via the rules for hit points, damage, healing etc).

There is nothing analogous to this for social conflict.

Bedrockgames said:

Sometimes the shine moments in a game are that much better when they are contrasted with instances where your character is less effective. For me this produces a more enjoyable overall experience. Plus I like taking a breather to let someone else step up and take on some shine time.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of ways for a game's mechanics to make a PC less effective, which may or may not involve that PC's player being ineffective, or continuing to participate in the mechanical resolution of the game.

I think these different ways somewhat correlate with broader differences in play and design preferences.

pemerton said:

The combat rules are pretty detailed - they have precise and detailed DC rules (via the rules for AC) and precise victory condition rules (via the rules for hit points, damage, healing etc).

There is nothing analogous to this for social conflict.

Click to expand...

A lot of us, for a long time, have believed that there needn't be and probably really shouldn't be.

pemerton said:

There are a lot of ways for a game's mechanics to make a PC less effective, which may or may not involve that PC's player being ineffective, or continuing to participate in the mechanical resolution of the game.

I think these different ways somewhat correlate with broader differences in play and design preferences.

Click to expand...

Sure, but those are not for everyone. If someone likes that option I wont tell them they are wrong or lying. My point was I enjoy games where my character is good in some areas and terrible in others. Not for eveyone, but someone telling me I am wrong about my own preference kind of rubs me the wrong way (not you pemerton, another poster). I dont mind if I have less to do as a player in those moments.

Herschel said:

Just entirely uninformed IF (and only if) the following is truly how you feel:y.

Click to expand...

This isn't what we were debating. I was merely saying that I like games where my character has shinetime in one area but is pretty terrible in another. The poster wasn't saying I was wrong about one of the editions but that I was wrong about my preference (basically telling me I didn't enjoy games like that, because its apoarently impossible to have fun enhanced by limitations). We can certInly debate how effective classes are in various parts of 4E, but that isn't what I was accused of being wrong about.

pemerton said:

What I don't understand is this: if people think that "combat" is the opposite of "roleplaying"

Click to expand...

Can I ask who said that? Are you just inferring that off of "it's just a tactical minis game"? If so, I'd posit that those posts are saying that 4e offers little else outside of tactical minis combat (a really light skill system, for example).

Now, don't get me wrong: 4e isn't just a tactical minis game. It most certainly is a RPG. But, I don't think anyone here has claimed that "combat is the opposite of roleplaying", but has instead implied that 4e doesn't offer anything substantial outside of combat (which I disagree with, but that's my interpretation).

Obviously, they shouldn't be saying "it's not an RPG", but I certainly don't think they're saying "combat is the opposite of roleplaying." But, to be fair, that's just my inference, and it' no more valid than yours until they clear it up. As always, play what you like

Roleplaying is a very flexible term. I think when people distinguish betweem RP and combat what they really mean is social interaction versus combat. Rp can refer to the entirity of the game (assuming a role involving evrrything from talking to swinging a sword) but it can also refer to the "acting" portion of the game. I don't think this is generally meant as an insult or to deny that you are still playing role when fighting or tripping traps, it i just the product of having a word in common use whose meaning changes slightly depending on the context. you see this all the time at a typical table when people say "i like/hated last game, all we did was role play" about a session that was devoted mainly to social interaction between characters.

pemerton said:

Why not let the GM adjudicate combat the same way?

Click to expand...

In many ways people do trust the DM to adjudicate combat the same way.

"What's the DC to swing from the chandelier, kick the kobold, and land on that other side of the room?"

Just one example. Plus, most folks know how to roleplay a negotiation versus how to fence, etc. I don't need rules for every occasion, nor does my group. In this regard, modules that add additional rules for those that want them seems a really nice way to go.