D&D 4E 4e/5e hybrid...

Uller · Sep 28, 2012

JeffB said:
If 5E can give me a similar gaming experience then I'll be happy to throw some money WOTC's way when it arrives. I just have not been terribly fond of what I have seen so far..certain parts I dig, but more often than not I'm underwhelmed.

I suggest you give the second playtest packet a try. It plays very well I think. It feels like old D&D but with some of the more modern elements as well.

Uller · Sep 28, 2012

Tony Vargas said:
Smaller parties make for lightning-fast games in any edition, and not just proportionately, either. Half as many players, and you'll be done in a third or a quarter the time. My theory is that players lose focus when they wait too long for the action to get back around to them (waiting your turn in combat, or your opportunity to participate out of it), which requires reviews of what enemy or other element is which, and slows their decision-making process radically.

Yeah, that's all true. But my son and I often play with just the two of us with 2-3 PCs. Apples to apples, 5e is much faster and he loses focus less because he isn't overwhelmed with options....he says what he wants to do then we look to the rules to resolve it...not the other way around which is what 4e seems to encourage. My 'hybrid' won't necessarily fix that but it helps that the focus is more on at-wills and basic attacks with encounters and dailies kept more in the back pocket for when needed....at least that's my hope.

Tony Vargas · Oct 2, 2012

Uller said:
Tony Vargas said:

Smaller parties make for lightning-fast games in any edition. My theory is that players lose focus when they wait too long for the action to get back around to them (waiting your turn in combat, or your opportunity to participate out of it), which requires reviews of what enemy or other element is which, and slows their decision-making process radically.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's all true. But my son and I often play with just the two of us with 2-3 PCs.

More PCs doesn't really slow things down nearly as much as more players. Neither do 'more choices,' really. Cycle time and losing focus slow things down, and rules arguments can really grind things to a halt...

Apples to apples, 5e is much faster and he loses focus less because he isn't overwhelmed with options....he says what he wants to do then we look to the rules to resolve it...not the other way around which is what 4e seems to encourage.

IMX, having to go through rules looking for how things might be done, or resolve disputes about what might be possible or how an action or spell might be resolved, slow the game much more than choosing between 5 options instead of 3. As much as I find 'exception based design' unappealing as a game-design philosophy, it does make resolving a given action much more straightforward. That's why 4e seemed much quicker than 3e when my group first tried it. Though, another reason was, perhaps un-intuitively, that it /was/ new. A new game holds your interest more readily (assuming, of course, there's any interest to begin with), once it's familiar, it's less engaging even as it becomes easier, and you have that whole 'loss of focus' thing, again. "Familiarity breeds contempt," I guess.

the Jester · Oct 2, 2012

Quickleaf said:
[MENTION=413]Uller[/MENTION]
Those are fine changes you propose, however there are two factors that slow down 4e in a major way which this does not address: players choosing from an overwhelming array of options/mechanics (including out of turn actions), and using the combat grid.

IMHO without addressing these two factors- which, paradoxically, are some of 4e's strong points- you'll have trouble speeding up play significantly if you're using 4e as a backbone.

Quickleaf · Oct 3, 2012

the Jester said:
IMHO without addressing these two factors- which, paradoxically, are some of 4e's strong points- you'll have trouble speeding up play significantly if you're using 4e as a backbone.

I agree that powers and grid combat are among 4e's selling points. However I don't think the system streamlined them very well. Sure you have a unified save mechanic, but is that really faster than making an opposed check? You don't have durations in 1d6 rounds, instead it's a confusing array of until start or is that end of next turn...whose next turn?

I'm tempted to run a 4e essentials game, with heavy use of DMG page 42 favoring players' creative ideas, and a loose zone combat system (with or without minis). Coupled with all the stuff we've learned about monster/encounter design and speeding up play from the GM's side, I think that would make for a much faster game.

Tony Vargas · Oct 3, 2012

Quickleaf said:
Sure you have a unified save mechanic, but is that really faster than making an opposed check?

Faster, easier, and less contentious, yes.

Mattachine · Oct 3, 2012

Quickleaf said:
I agree that powers and grid combat are among 4e's selling points. However I don't think the system streamlined them very well. Sure you have a unified save mechanic, but is that really faster than making an opposed check? You don't have durations in 1d6 rounds, instead it's a confusing array of until start or is that end of next turn...whose next turn?

I'm tempted to run a 4e essentials game, with heavy use of DMG page 42 favoring players' creative ideas, and a loose zone combat system (with or without minis). Coupled with all the stuff we've learned about monster/encounter design and speeding up play from the GM's side, I think that would make for a much faster game.

Anytime there are fewer die rolls, the game is faster. Anytime fewer people are making decisions or making rolls, the game is faster.

Quickleaf · Oct 3, 2012

Tony Vargas said:
Faster, easier, and less contentious, yes.

Mattachine said:
Anytime there are fewer die rolls, the game is faster. Anytime fewer people are making decisions or making rolls, the game is faster.

Hmm, maybe I diluted my point.

My point is that the efforts WotC made (and individual GMs make) to streamline the game to fewer die rolls, to increase damage, minimizing modifiers, or any of the changes [MENTION=413]Uller[/MENTION] suggests or have been discussed at length on these forums...all of them yield a very very small increase in speed of play compared to the two big factors I identified above:

1. Overwhelming options for players to choose from in play
2. Use of the combat grid

My contention is that slow gameplay is built into the 4e rules, and that until one or both of those two factors are addressed, you'll be shaving off minutes with house rules/tweaks rather than hours.

DISCLAIMER: All my experience with 4e has been with a medium to large size gaming group (5-7 players).

Mattachine · Oct 4, 2012

I agree that options and grid make for much longer combats.
I stand by my point, as well.

Tony Vargas · Oct 4, 2012

Quickleaf said:
Hmm, maybe I diluted my point.

My point is that the efforts WotC made (and individual GMs make) to streamline the game to fewer die rolls, to increase damage, minimizing modifiers, or any of the changes [MENTION=413]Uller[/MENTION] suggests or have been discussed at length on these forums...all of them yield a very very small increase in speed of play compared to the two big factors I identified above:

1. Overwhelming options for players to choose from in play
2. Use of the combat grid

There are much more potent factors at work, some of them simply psychological. Perhaps the most telling, is whether you love or hate the game you're playing. If you love it, then 4 hours pass quickly, if you hate it, 5 minutes seems like an eternity.

My contention is that slow gameplay is built into the 4e rules, and that until one or both of those two factors are addressed, you'll be shaving off minutes with house rules/tweaks rather than hours.

Do you also believe that slow gameplay is built into the 3e rules?