Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[Bedrockgames]

but I think you are wrong about your own preferences.

I think this here says more than any rebuttal I could make. If you can't accept that I am being honest about my own opinion, and if you insist on twisting it, there can be no discussion.

But just to be very clear. I do have fun when the game imposes some limits on what I can do and where I can shine. For me not being the star of combat, but gaining spotlight for stuff like tripping traps or stealing the duke's ledger make the game fun for me. If my character always has something to do no matter what, I sincerely find that dull. Its also fun when my character is the star of a specific combat ( say a character that is very good against undead or something) but not so much in certain others. It makes the big moments count more.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don´t want to read 31 oages if text right now...

@op
A good list, and as a 4e player (and now next paytester) overall I don´t share many of your concerns. As it is a very early playtest document, I give the benefit of doubt, that most things you describe will be either fixed or put into realation when the next iteration of rules appear.

As you noticed, the playtest has some elements, that have specific mechanics that are only used on some places. Just looks as if they really put in somr things that should be controversial. Some things, that should be provokative in some way:

MM as at-will, radiant lance, healing word, a very simple fighter, the guardian ability, nigt vision for rogues, alarm as a ritual...

So our objective was finding things, that don´t feel like D&D, and you found them. So good, that you made the list, but be a bit more optimistic.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think they're intending to support 1e with new stuff, just harvest some cash with collectors'-item reprints.

Yeah, but I can dream, can't I?

Fan of 4e that I am, I'm not seeing it either. AD&D would seem to deliver on the promise of the heroic warrior utterly dependent on his Vorpal Sword to have any chance of decapitating a dragon. And no edition does the 'lone hero' well, for that matter.

0e-1e in fact intentionally tried to do the lone hero - there was a series of "solo" adventure modules put out (IMO they weren't very good, but at least the attempt was there); I don't know of anything similar being tried since.

There's two points here. One, the simple existence of DC's in the first place puts 3e and 4e in the same camp - AD&D didn't have DC's at all - any non-weapon proficiency check was based solely on the character's applicable stat.

Often-times with an unofficial modifier being applied by way of a situational bonus or penalty to the check, either by the adventure module or the DM; this is kind of the predecessor to the DC mechanic.

That said, the beauty of roll-under is that it does not (much) scale with level - it's a fine example of pre-flattened math. That said, all those buffs and stat enhancers kinda wrecked it for 3e; with 5e hard-capping stats at 20 roll-under becomes viable again.

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

I am sorry hussar but I am still not convinced.

Ok, how about this one.

2e player sits down to a 3e table, completely cold (as in no pre-knowledge of 3e) and is given a rogue character. He enters a dungeon and finds a locked door. The DM says, "Give me an open locks check, DC 15". How does that 2e player even know what to roll? D20? D100? D6? What does he add? After all, skills never worked like that in 2e - NWP's were roll under and thief abilities were percentile, roll under. How does he even know what a DC is?

Sit a 3e player down at a 4e table with the same situation. The 3e player not only instantly understands what is required, but can find the appropriate modifiers on his character sheet and roll the result. Or, he could even ask to Take 10 and open the door, presuming his base bonus was high enough.

The door is opened and combat starts. The DM says, "Roll for initiative". The 2e player is again, totally lost - not only does he use the wrong dice, but, he has no idea what modifiers to use - no weapon speeds, dex modifiers work the wrong way. The 3e player rolls his initiative, adds his init mod and keeps going and is not going to try to reroll initiative after the first round. Note the 1e player here is completely out to sea because he's rolling for a side and rolling a d6.

The rogue wins initiative and attacks the creature. 2e player rolls his d20 and adds his mod (it's listed beside the weapon). Note, he doesn't add in sneak attack damage because those rules are completely different. 3e player is probably a bit taken aback by having a handful of attack cards, but, since every card is written in exactly the same format as a 3e attack, it's pretty self explanatory. Now, he'd have to learn that there is no flat-footed rules, so, that would be different, but, sneak attack largely works the same as it did in 3e. He needs combat advantage, which is a concept pulled straight from 3e.

IOW, play for the 3e character is almost the same between 3e and 4e. Mechanically, there's very few changes. Are they different? Sure. But, more different than the differences between 2e and 3e? Really?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

IOW, play for the 3e character is almost the same between 3e and 4e. Mechanically, there's very few changes. Are they different? Sure. But, more different than the differences between 2e and 3e? Really?

As you have explained, the primary differences between 3E and 4E are not the mechanical underpinnings. Rather, they are:

• The deliberate scaling back of magic and scaling up of martial abilities in attempt to deal with the CoDzilla issues, and other such problems that the 3E changes magnified compared to prior versions.
• A complete reversal on the illusionism that I've been talking about.

On that latter one, 3E went to great pains to preserve the illusion, going so far as in a few places as to write flavor text that was not in any way congruent with the mechanics. 4E did a complete 180 degree pivot, aggressively wiping out the illusion in favor of transparent mechanics. The mechanics themselves are a logical refinement of 3E.

I begin to suspect that part of the back and forth on this issue is competing definitions of "design". For me, it is something related to engineering or architecture, with artistic and even ornamentation stacked on top. I think that for others something like the 2E approach of "write some text to tell you what the author had in mind" is "design". 4E is not the polar opposite of 3E, but the polar opposite of 2E, with 3E somewhere in the middle. Or you can think of the textual shift from 1E to 2E as similar to the reverse shift from 3E to 4E--even though 1E and 2E mechanics are very close to the same thing.

When 3E radically changed the mechanics but went to such pains to preserve the textual shift that had happened from 1E to 2E, it created the illusion that it was a smaller change than it was, for some people. And the funny thing was, those of us who were about sick of the mechanical implementation flaws of AD&D (while still liking some of the AD&D broader design principles), had already dismissed 2E mechanics as all illusion, and thus didn't mind that 3E was such a change. A pretty neat trick that, convincing two different groups you've got their backs.

I also begin to understand the furor over the early 3E marketing push of "Back to the Dungeon". This was one of the few things that went against the illusion they were otherwise maintaining.

 

[pemerton]

Actually, 3e drew the curtain back. It said that what really matters about a monster is what it is relative to the reality of the world, not relative to one group of player characters. What really matters is how strong it is, how smart it is, how magical it is, not how balanced of an encounter it is.

A quick look at the online SRD tells me that a Great Wyrm Red Dragon has a +39 natural AC bonus. What does that mean, in the fiction? I think it's utterly transparent that that number has been assigned to the dragon simply for balance purposes (ie to put its AC at some number that is deemed appropriate for a CR 26 monster.

I used to think of monsters as being just challenges to the PCs, but now I use them as characters as part of a story, in part because of the 3.5 monster/character design rules. I can't imagine going back/having that taken away.

This is a red herring. I also use monsters and NPCs as story elements. But the story I'm interested in doesn't depend upon the mechanics telling me how much of a hobgoblin captain's attack bonus is raw, and how much skill (if that distinction even makes sense).

You mentioned sliding DC's. There's two points here. One, the simple existence of DC's in the first place puts 3e and 4e in the same camp - AD&D didn't have DC's at all - any non-weapon proficiency check was based solely on the character's applicable stat. Two, 3e did have sliding DC's based on PC level, although they didn't call them out explicitly. If you don't think so, I would point to pretty much every single module out there. Look at the DC's - they scale by the level that the module is meant for. AD&D again, didn't do this at all.

Hussar, of course you're right about how DCs are set, in modules and in the skill charts themselves - they're set with level appropriateness in mind. But the game rules present them as something else (this is CJ's illusionism point, as I understand it).

I think the fact that 4e makes this overt, and then builds a whole resolution engine on top of it that is flexible and transparent and therefore useable, makes a big difference. There is no need to push against the rules and the way they present themselves. And, as [MENTION=40398]Tequila Sunrise[/MENTION] said, you can drop several hoops out of the otherwise convoluted build rules.

I guess I see some of the same differences that Imaro and BedrockGames see, but as strengths, not flaws.

while often found together and seemingly twined together, simulation and illusionism/immersion are conceptually separate things. "Rules as Physics" is a particular form of simulation that often is so twined, but I think it is obvious that you could have a "Rules as Physics" world that went out of its way to play up something besides the simulation of a "real" fantasy world.

<snip>

Likewise, you can have something like Burning Wheel, which is a traditional game going hardcore after a non-traditional purpose. BW is absolutely ruthless at removing all illusionism, in its quests to get you inside the head of a fantasy character--i.e. a peculiar form of immersion alongside a peculiar kind of emulation of a world.

I think a game like Rolemaster is a "rules as physics" game that doesn't (or, at least, needn't) have an illusionist goal (it can be played in an illusionist fashion, though, and you can go to the ICE forums and see plenty of people talking about the game in that way). You don't need to "pretend" that the story elements (like kobolds) have a certain character, and rely on GM fiat to achieve it - within certain limits, the mechanics in play will actually deliver the desired story. (I think 4e and BW are both better-designed games than Rolemastter in this respect, but RM is not too bad, particularly for a 30-year old game.)

 

[pemerton]

I'm not trying to answer for pemerton. I wanted to provide context to the discussion in case someone didn't have access to the text.

<snip>

I'm not sure what's promised here that only 4E delivers; we'll have to wait for pemerton to answer.

It relates to our exchage upthread (? or on another recent thread) about the relationship between wandering monsters, as a mechanic, and player goals/expectations for play.

The foreword seems to promise a game of heroic fantasy. But the mechanics of B/X - both on the player side and on the GM side - presuppose and produce a game of mostly amoral dungeon raiding and looting. Relevant mechanics on the player side include the XP rules (most XP come from treasure looted) and the non-combat mechanics, which include a reaction roll which clearly presupposes encounters with potential combatants (1 in 36 strangers are so hostile they initiate combat immediately, and another 1 in 4 are inclined that way) and mechanics for exploring a dungeon (heavy doors at which one might listen, or which one might struggle to open, plus traps and secret doors). On the GM side, the mechanics mostly concern stocking a dungeon with creatures, traps and treasure to be looted, and rules for wandering monsters.

There are no rules for encountering mysterious hermits who might give you dragon slaying swords. Nor rules for setting up scenarios involving dragon tyrants to be slain.

Fan of 4e that I am, I'm not seeing it either. AD&D would seem to deliver on the promise of the heroic warrior utterly dependent on his Vorpal Sword to have any chance of decapitating a dragon. And no edition does the 'lone hero' well, for that matter.

I agree that D&D doesn't do lone heroes - it's about group adventuring. (The main model I draw on for thinking about team heroics is actually the superhero team.)

But in my experience AD&D doesn't do heroics any better than Moldvay Basic. The mechanics are still primarily about dungeon or wilderness journeying, and taking loot to gain levels. (2nd ed AD&D has a different XP scheme, but the mechanics aren't much more developed.)

What exactly is the promise made above and how is it that 4e is the only system of D&D ever to deliver on that promise?

Are you saying that you couldn't kill dragons in other editions? Or is it the fact that 4e is the first edition that lets you kill a dragon at 1st level (though technically in 3.x a party could slay a wyrmling at first level)... Or am I totally missing the point?

Though now that I've read it, I'm even more confused... I can only echo Harlock and my previous question... what exactly is promissed here that only 4e delivers??

It's not particularly about killing dragons, in a single blow or otherwise. It's about a game that has mechanics that support a story about fantasy heroics rather than fantasy mercenaries.

In 4e, I'm thinking of the XP rules (which include XP for quests and skill challenges), skill challenges as a general action resolution mechanic for a range of non-combat activities, and story elements which are presented already embedded in a default storyline of heroic conflict.

When you can be killed in a single blow, have a level permanantly drained or die from a single save... it tends to produce a different playstyle than if you know it generally takes 3-4 attacks to knock you unconscious (but not dead), permanent level drain doesn't exist and/or it takes numerous saves to kill you.

This is more of the stuff in Moldvay Basic, and classic D&D more generally, that makes it something other than a game of heroic fantasy.

Prior to 4e, the version of D&D that had come closest to supporting heroic fantasy was Oriental Adventures (the mid-80s original), which for some classes gave XP on a basis other than gold looted, and which - via its Honour and Ancestry rules - generated PCs already embedded in circumstances of heroic conflict, and which presented monsters that were also embedded in those same circumstances. (OA had flaws - its Honour mechanics are overly presciptive, for example, not unlike classic D&D alignment, and it is still saddled with the limitations of classic D&D action resolution - but it was the first D&D book to show me how to focus fantasy RPGing onto the heroic fantasy that I'm personally interested in.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's not particularly about killing dragons, in a single blow or otherwise. It's about a game that has mechanics that support a story about fantasy heroics rather than fantasy mercenaries.

Ah, OK, I see what you're getting at. Yes, D&D has always aimed for (or at least drawn inspiration from) heroic fantasy, and never quite hit the mark. Instead, it de-facto created it's own, not particularly heroic, sub-genre.

4e does, though it's bit on the cinematic edge of the genre. It could be improved with even greater flexibility - for instance, when it comes to adventure pacing (dictated by the use of 'dailies'), or healing (also scaled to days, and having no way to model lasting or impairing wounds) - to cover more of the genre more effectively (heck, including the self-defining classic D&D sub-genre).

 

[LostSoul]

It's not particularly about killing dragons, in a single blow or otherwise. It's about a game that has mechanics that support a story about fantasy heroics rather than fantasy mercenaries.

In 4e, I'm thinking of the XP rules (which include XP for quests and skill challenges), skill challenges as a general action resolution mechanic for a range of non-combat activities, and story elements which are presented already embedded in a default storyline of heroic conflict.

This is more of the stuff in Moldvay Basic, and classic D&D more generally, that makes it something other than a game of heroic fantasy.

I'd agree with that.

I think if you take a liberal view about what Moldvay's Foreward says, you could apply it to B/X D&D: a scenario (save the princess), a dungeon (dragon-tyrant's lair), a wandering monster (the dragon itself?), beneficial encounters (the Reaction Roll with the mysterious cleric coming up "Friendly"), magic items (the dragon-slaying vorpal sword). That said, I don't think that really flies, because there's no mention of the dragon's hoard!

"The countryside was freed and I could return as a hero. But before I did, I had to calculate how many coins I could carry. Should I take off my plate armour and don leathers to carry more? How many torches would I need? Would I encounter a monster wandering through the dragon-tyrant's lair? These questions plagued me while I loaded down the princess with loot."

(That sounds like fun to me.)

 

[slobo777]

Unchaining a group from the xp system goes a long way towards supporting more open-ended goals, including full-on heroic fantasy.

Many games of D&D I have been involved in, even with treasure and XP as per RAW, the group would willfully ignore mechanical rewards and get stuck into heroics regardless. That's more to do with the players' own style, and I'd agree less with the game though.

I quite liked the Honour/Glory/Wisdom system in Werewolf (the Apocalypse), although it was very prescriptive - suiting its own background nicely, but perhaps a bit too controlling for generic D&D. I've toyed with "pick your own 3" of these in my own designs - e.g. you could decide a character was driven by Law/Greed/Cunning, and have mechanical uses for spending points of these (and bigger benefits for "levelling up" in them). I'd be happily surprised to see such a thing as a D&D "module", but not holding my breath - it has no real precedent in any existing D&D, even though it might tie in nicely with the Themes sub-system. My biggest problem with it is having the DM (usually me) having to analyse play and sit in judgement of PC actions to award and remove points. So even though I'm drawn to the idea, my personal preference is to remove all mechanical reward systems and go freeform with character motivations.