D&D 4E More reflections on 4e and 5e.

There's also trying to reach the point where you can appeal to both brand new players and experienced players. I've never had anyone have trouble grasping THAC0 OR at-wills when introducing them to a system, a once over and maybe one reminder and they were good-to-go.

One of the biggest things I notice in 4E though is that players have a tendency to "hoard"/"save" their Daily Powers until they become more comfortable with the system, but I think that's more to do with previous editions where you only get to do something once then you're done carrying over.

Kamikaze Midget said:

Ah, yes, because all things one reads have identical levels of complexity so clearly if one can read and remember the alphabet, one can also read and remember astrophysics textbooks and that's why we have a lot of seven year old astrophysicists out there, because all text has identical complexity and once you can read and remember, you're capable of reading and remembering ANYTHING.

Click to expand...

If one wants to engage in discussions or research in astrophysics, the person should take the time to actually read up on astrophysics and remember it. The same applies to D&D. Read what you should read (your class at the level at which you're playing it, at the minimum) and actually remember it.

And it's amusing that my suggestion that maybe they read their characters or (heaven forbid) remember things they've already learned immediately gets turned into "Well, a seven-year-old can't learn astrophysics." These aren't children trying to learn an advanced science. These are college students trying to learn a game that many of its detractors call "dumbed down." I don't think my expectations that people RTFM when playing a game is out of line.

By the same token, I've seen people freeze up using a 4th level 3e FIGHTER. What boggles my mind is how someone could sit down at any game, I don't care what kind of game it is, and expect to play without learning how. Even as simple of a game as most card games have a number of rules that you have to learn. That's part and parcel to playing any game. Now, when someone stumps down a thousand pages of books and says, "Hey, this is the game we're going to play", my first thought is not going to be, "Oh, well, I'll just learn as I go".

mlund said:

See Neonchameleon[/MENTION]'s post on the previous page regarding chunking in decision making. The Essentials structure is significantly superior UI/UX design not only because it allows for a lower floor of complexity when someone wants that but also because it compartmentalizes the aspects of more complex sequences better.

Click to expand...

This seems to be an argument that most spell casters, in most fantasy RPG systems - and especially in non-4e versions of D&D - are poorly designed, because they require a lot of complex decision-making.

I stand by my comment - there is nothing about playing a martial PC, as opposed to a spellcaster, that makes complex decision-making especially inapt or poor design.

I've got no objection to people wanting and playing simpler PCs - be they martial or magical - but that is orthogonal to what I said and am reiterating in this post.

B.T. said:

The problem with 4e's powers is primarily their presentation.

<snip>

there is no real distinction between magical abilities and martial abilities.

Click to expand...

It's a strange but apparently well-established conceit of fantasy RPG design that even though both missile weapons and many spells have ranges, these can't be visually represented in the same way; and even though weapons and many spells do damage, these can't be visualy represented in the same way.

I don't really get the conceit, but I don't dispute that it is there. That 4e disregarded the conceit is yet another way in which it resembles non-mainstream games like (say) HeroWars/Quest or Maelstrom Storytelling, which use free descriptors, common formatting and don't strongly emphasise the distinction between magic and the mundane in the mechanics of action resolution.

To me, the distinction between an arrow shot from a bow and a Melf's Acid Arrow shot magically from the hand of the caster isn't the formatting of their representation in the rules. Nor is it that with a weapon the attack rolls the die (to hit roll) whereas with a spell the target rolls the die (saving throw - although some spells, like Melf's Acid Arrow, establish ad hoc exceptions to this D&D custom). It is what they correspond to in the fiction. In 4e this is conveyed via keywords, and martial and magical powers have very different keywords. The most basic difference is that [weapon] powers require an appropriate weapon to be used, whereas [implement] powers can be used without any equipment at all. That on its own establishes a fairly significant difference between the martial and the magical, doesn't it?

Hussar said:

What boggles my mind is how someone could sit down at any game, I don't care what kind of game it is, and expect to play without learning how.

Click to expand...

My guess is that for some players, there is an expectation (perhaps based on how the game was presented to them) that it is just "make believe with rules", and that they can concentrate on the make believe part while someone else (typically the GM) handles the rules side.

This approach won't work for any game that expects the players to engage the fiction via the mechanics. Formally, then, it won't work for any RPG! But in practice there is an approach to RPGing - in D&D, I would say it was especially prevalent in some 2nd ed AD&D play - that regards the mechanics as secondary, or as simply an aid to visualisation/immersion, with the real resolution work happening in the fiction as mediated through the GM's judgement. The canonical form of words for signalling that one is playing in this style is "We had a great session: we didn't even roll the dice once!"

I'm personally not a big fan of that approach, because of the degree of GM force in resolution that it presupposes and relies upon.

EDIT: Consider the "prone" condition. In 3E, this soaks a move action to get rid of a severe debuff, and triggers an OA as a result. In 4e, this soaks a move action to get rid of a modest debuff. In D&Dnext, this soaks 5' of move (out of a typical 30') to get rid of a modest debuff.

So the tactical significance of knocking a foe prone is quite different in each system - it is most punishing in 3E (except that it doesn't establish sneak attack vulnerability) and least punishing in D&Dnext.

Nevertheless, I believe that there is a type of player who is really not interested in those differences, and who decides whether or not to devote action resolution resources to knocking a foe prone on quite a different basis. (Roughly, the "colour".)

The same sort of player, presumably, doesn't worry too much about learning the minutiae of his/her PC sheet.

And before we deride such a player too much, let's consider that James Wyatt is perhaps such a player. As per his latest Wandering Monster column, he says that


In fact, though, using their Rage trait will actually lower an orc's damage output unless the target's AC is ridiculously low (less than 11, or less than 15 if the orc would have advantage but for Raging) or unless the orc is already suffering disadvantage (maths on this thread, posts 32 and on).

So Wyatt seems to be in the "colour over mechanics" camp too!

The Little Raven said:

If one wants to engage in discussions or research in astrophysics, the person should take the time to actually read up on astrophysics and remember it. The same applies to D&D. Read what you should read (your class at the level at which you're playing it, at the minimum) and actually remember it.

Click to expand...

You seem to think that the goal is "To Play D&D," and so a bit of education in pursuit of that goal is no big deal. But that's not the case. "Play D&D" isn't the goal for people who aren't already into D&D. For them, the goal is to have fun with some friends. D&D is a different way to do that. Given that most people can have fun with some friends without anything aiding it, D&D must come up against that in the cost-benefit analysis of their time. "What do I have to do to to play this game of imaginary gumdrop elves?"

Generally speaking, the higher that barrier to entry, the less likely you're going to get people signing up, given that there's plenty of other stuff they can do with their time that is also fun and also requires ZERO preparation.

The Little Raven said:

And it's amusing that my suggestion that maybe they read their characters or (heaven forbid) remember things they've already learned immediately gets turned into "Well, a seven-year-old can't learn astrophysics." These aren't children trying to learn an advanced science. These are college students trying to learn a game that many of its detractors call "dumbed down." I don't think my expectations that people RTFM when playing a game is out of line.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but if you've gotta read an F'n manual to have fun with friends, that's more work than most people are going to put into it. Most people can have fun with their friends without involving a 600-word intermediary sheet of paper about a magical gumdrop elf. The challenge D&D faces is showing them that it's WORTH doing that. The shorter and more direct that intermediary, the better off that proposition looks.

As a pre-selected audience of big D&D nerds, its easy for us to see the value in that. We already KNOW what we're going to get out of it, and we've spent a lot more time than that on it. As a Random Person, it's not nearly so clear. They look at a wall of meaningless text, and quickly determine that it'd be easier to do any number of things instead, and probably just as fun. So it's not worth their while to read or understand.

It's not stupidity. It's that the cost/benefit analysis fails. Too much effort to get something I got for free when I was 5, no thanks.

pemerton said:

<snip>

I don't really get the conceit, but I don't dispute that it is there. That 4e disregarded the conceit is yet another way in which it resembles non-mainstream games like (say) HeroWars/Quest or Maelstrom Storytelling, which use free descriptors, common formatting and don't strongly emphasise the distinction between magic and the mundane in the mechanics of action resolution.

To me, the distinction between an arrow shot from a bow and a Melf's Acid Arrow shot magically from the hand of the caster isn't the formatting of their representation in the rules. Nor is it that with a weapon the attack rolls the die (to hit roll) whereas with a spell the target rolls the die (saving throw - although some spells, like Melf's Acid Arrow, establish ad hoc exceptions to this D&D custom). It is what they correspond to in the fiction. In 4e this is conveyed via keywords, and martial and magical powers have very different keywords. The most basic difference is that [weapon] powers require an appropriate weapon to be used, whereas [implement] powers can be used without any equipment at all. That on its own establishes a fairly significant difference between the martial and the magical, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Yes, but;

Manbearcat said:

I agree. Its not egregious at all. It logically follows from the mental framework and its accompanying expectations.

When I say "overcome their preconceived mental framework" I merely mean having an expectation of process-simulation, of linear coupling of cause and effect from any mechanical resolution tool and its corresponding mapping to fiction (lest world physics internal consistency be compromised) and therefore any deviation from that paradigm becomes inherently "jarring" or "dissonant" (with respect to immersion - there's a thousand and one "dissociated mechanics" threads and posts). It pretty much demands actor-stance exclusively and the marriage of PC perspective with player perspective. It is a mental framework. Because the nuance of the situation does not create an inherent, objective "jarring" or "dissonant" response...but rather it stems from the mental framework that presupposes it and therefore has that subjective expectation of certain things (while being more accepting of other things).

Click to expand...

The same thing applies here. I've mused about it multiple times (specifically citing members of my extended gaming groups' cognitively dissonant reactions to 4e powers format). A spell is not its format. Neither is a weapon attack. But to some (many?) ardent D&Ders, it seems that the written format of the mechanical resolution (external to the fiction of course) is apparently some conduit from their eyes to their brain to the actualization of the fiction. I have never possessed this mental framework so it is a complete disconnect for me (and you...and others).

Its curious. You see this same thing happen in all manner of games due to varying mental frameworks relative to the way the rules impose themselves upon the fiction/competition/board/etc. For instance, basketball rules are clear and explicit. However, if you go to various basketball courts in the states the expectation of various aspects of the interpretation of these rules will vary dramatically due to entrenched micro-cultural precedent. If you take your expectation of your home court basketball rules/etiquette (and their corresponding court/game dynamics) to a court where some of these interpretations (and their corresponding court/game dynamics) are diametrically opposed, expect much ado, hand-wringing, raging and all other manner of alpha-male to alpha-male activity. This allergic reaction is all due to rules/etiquette expectations and the implication that those rules/etiquette expectations have on the resultant on-court/game dynamics. But its still just basketball. A hand-check (or any excessive defensive contact used to gain a competitive advantage on the offensive player) is still a hand-check. A ball off the knee (or lower) of a moving defender is still a play stoppage (and offense retains possession). A travel is still a travel. Backcourt is still backcourt. Etc, etc. But people will lose their mind over these things due to the mental framework established by their entrenched cultural precedent.

Kamikaze Midget said:

Most people can have fun with their friends without involving a 600-word intermediary sheet of paper

<snip>

They look at a wall of meaningless text, and quickly determine that it'd be easier to do any number of things instead, and probably just as fun. So it's not worth their while to read or understand.

Click to expand...

This may be true, but has nothing to do with at-will powers vs basic attacks.

The solution to this problem is in character sheet design: the sheet for the newbie player of the rogue should not have an melee basic attacks on it. It should have Sly Flourish indicated as the default attack - and if this results in Sly Flourish being used for the occasional OA taken by a rogue, so what? The game is hardly going to break because of that!

I have many complaints about 4E. However, difficulty in learning the game is most certainly not one of them. I found the layout of (most) powers to be very well done. They say exactly what they do. Furthermore, I'd say that (imo) they barely require skill at reading comprehension. To me, they seem to be written like a very simple math equation.

dice roll + number + number
Oh, and it also does this neat effect

Maybe it's just me, but I actually found the Essentials books harder to read than the early 4E books. I always felt as though it took me a really long time to find the information I needed in Essentials. I could glance at a 4E power and have a pretty good understanding of what it did.


That being said, I do think there is a little bit of confusion caused because of the difference in how the 4E world works compared to how a new player might think it works. I remember trying to teach a guy the game, and he also had a really hard time understanding why he did not use strength with his rogue. He understood how the powers worked; it simply seemed strange to him that he had no use for strength if he wanted to hit someone hard. There is sometimes a lack of meaningful meaning defined (or not defined as it were) by some of D&D's (especially 4th's) numbers.

What exactly does it mean for a high level skeleton to have a boatload of charisma? Does he have a personality we'll be dying for?


I agree with what others have said about reading as well. I'm a pretty easy going GM when I run a game. I'm willing to help, and I also understand that some people just really don't care about the rules too much. Still, I do expect someone to at least have a basic understanding of what is going on. Also, if someone is going to make extensive use of grappling or turning undead or some other rule which doesn't come up often, I simply ask them to either a) know the rule OR b) know where to find the relevant information so that we can quickly look it up if need be.

The second thing I mentioned there is important. I don't expect people to memorize everything. However, I feel you should at least know where and/or how to find something if you expect to need it. The front typically has a table of contents; the back typically has an index, and both are there to help you find the information. That's assuming you're even using a hard copy and don't have a digital file which has book marks and/or search capability.

Failing that? Write things down. You'd be amazed at how much help a cheap pack of index cards from the local dollar store and a cheap pen or pencil can help. It's also a heck of a lot cheaper than the official D&D power cards. There is also some margin space on the character sheet. If I have trouble remembering something (D&D 3rd Edition's rules for turning undead never sunk in for me,) I'll make a note for myself on my character sheet to help me remember. Sometimes I'll write a little. Sometimes I'll write a lot. Sometimes I might just write down a page number so I know where to find something. It doesn't take a lot of effort.

Johnny3D3D said:

That being said, I do think there is a little bit of confusion caused because of the difference in how the 4E world works compared to how a new player might think it works. I remember trying to teach a guy the game, and he also had a really hard time understanding why he did not use strength with his rogue. He understood how the powers worked; it simply seemed strange to him that he had no use for strength if he wanted to hit someone hard. There is sometimes a lack of meaningful meaning defined (or not defined as it were) by some of D&D's (especially 4th's) numbers.

What exactly does it mean for a high level skeleton to have a boatload of charisma? Does he have a personality we'll be dying for?

Click to expand...

4E's siloing of prime stats for classes, which sets up synergies for mult-classing and race choices, annoys me.

It works, but seems to cut out a lot of options based on combination (which are then replaced by a lot of options, period - e.g. a "smart fighter" could be represented by Tactical Warlord etc etc). Also, I feel that often the prime stat chosen is an awkward "best fit" to the class concept.

In 4E there was a drive in race design, to have any race/any class work out well. I really appreciated that.

I'd really like 5E to have "any class, any stats" work out better than 4E - well, more realistically "any class, any secondary stats". Having them all be important defensively is a step in the right direction IMO.