Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[Balesir]

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.

The problem for others is that this isn't an illusion. If my monsters weren't designed by the same rules as their characters, they'd know it, and they'd call B.S. on it. And they'd be right. What is the point playing two different games at once, one for the DM and one for the players?

Um, what sort of definition of "illusion" are you using, here??

The thing is (and you may need to sit down to read this), that fantasy world that everything has to relate to? It's not real. It's imaginary.

The world where players are sitting around with game elements that are either balanced and productive of equity and excitement (or not)? That's real.

The stuff you are saying "isn't an illusion" actually is - it must be, because it relates to a set of "things" that are not actually real. That is why CJ is saying it's all "illusion". It's not bigotry or dismissive of a particular style; it's just true.

Now, you might like the illusion. That is not at all bad - we are playing a Fantasy Roleplaying Game, here, so some degree of "let's pretend" is not only useful, but mandatory. The illusion is necessary (and should ideally be engaging and attractive).

So, if you want to argue that the rules should be based on the illusion, rather than on the real world situation, that is actually a viable position. But, claiming that an imaginary world is anything other than an illusion really isn't.

 

[pemerton]

I think if you take a liberal view about what Moldvay's Foreward says, you could apply it to B/X D&D

<snip>

That said, I don't think that really flies, because there's no mention of the dragon's hoard!

Good post, and I think you're right that Moldvay D&D is tantalisingly close (there's the interesting discussion of scenario designs in the GM's section, for example). But at certain points - like its treasure rules - it pulls away again.

 

[Imaro]

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.

I guess this would depend on one's definition of "heroic fantasy". IMO, the rules do a fairly good job of creating a game of the type of heroic fantasy found in sword and sorcery tales. But even looking at something more "high fantasy" such as The Hobbit... Bilbo and the Dwarves are pretty much amoral treasure hunters, who explore wilderness and dungeons while slaying and or fleeing from dangerous creatures that are for the most part unrelated to Smaug

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.

But there are rules for where and how one can gain a magic sword and the stats for dragons... this seems a little specific and more centered on campaign setting creation as opposed to the actual rules. I know for a fact there were published adventures with hermits who had treasure... not sure about an official "dragon tyrant" though.

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.)

Exactly which D&D are you speaking to?

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.)

Perhaps you should define exactly what you mean by "heroic fantasy". In some/many/most heroic fantasy dungeon or wilderness journeying, and loot are a big part of the stories.

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.

That's just it though... there are a ton of heroic fantasy stories where the protagonists are little more than mercenaries, especially during the time in which D&D came to prominince. Elric, Conan, Bilbo, Fafhrd, Gray Mouser and so on are all mercenaries who adventure for loot... I mean even Arthur's quest for the Holy Grail can arguably be described as being about loot.

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.

Again, please define "heroic" because I'm sorry but I don't get what a "default storyline of heroic conflict" is... the stories I've read are so varied and different I find this kind of artificial when you try to apply some type of default to all heroic fantasy... and in fact I am beginning to suspect that you are moreso speaking to a very narrow band of heroic fantasy when talking about this supposed default.

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.

Hmmm, intersting. I find that 4e core in turn doesn't support PC's coming into rulership (which many heroic stories support), or the leading of armies, or even the hireing of henchmen. Again this seems more centered on your own preferences of heroic fantasy than anything objective. If that's the case I get it because everyone wants the game to support their specifc playstyle... but I get the impression you're trying to make objective statements here.

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.)

How doesn't the selection of one's race, class, alignment, etc. not embed PC's in circumstances of heroic conflict. Yet again this seems more based in campaign/setting than in the rules. I'll grant you quest rewards support a different type of story... but then 4e (as well as 2e and 3e) removed the XP for gold rules and thus IMO traded one type of heroic story for another to support with xp. Well at least in the last sentence you've stated clearly that this is in fact about a specific type of heroic fiction you prefer. I can accept that, I just wonder if this is the type of heroic fiction the majority of D&D players were or are interested in recreating.

 

[Fifth Element]

3e was a massive overhaul of the AD&D system. Very, very few mechanics managed to survive the transition and virtually none managed untouched. Going from 3e to 4e, most of the base mechanics are exactly the same. Stat meanings, D20 roll high, etc, etc. There are some obvious differences, of course - healing being a big example, but, even there, that's different from 3e to 2e. In 2e, you got Cure Light Wounds as a 1st level spell (1d8 HP) and Cure Serious at 4th. In 3e, you could convert all cleric spells to healing and it scaled by the level of the caster (with limits). Never mind the crafting rules changes.

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?

I have to say you've made some really good points in these posts. Previously, whenever I've seen the 4E-is-the-most-different-edition claims I've given them a pass, without putting too much thought into it, since it seemed at least a reasonable claim. But having though about it now, reading your arguments, I think you've absolutey right.

And the funny thing is, I surely would have realized it had I just thought about it. I can remember the first time I played 3E. I had been a longtime player of AD&D, but then didn't play anything for about a year. Then I rejoined my old group who had started playing 3E. There was a lot to learn.
We were starting at second level. I wanted to play a fighter/thief, so I figured I'd be a half-elf. What do you mean "you can be a human fighter/thief"? What do you mean "which class was I at first level"? What the heck is a skill rank and why do I have so many of them? What in the world is "flanking" and why is it so important to me?

Now, ultimately it made sense (ascending AC, the d20 mechanic, easy-to-understand multiclassing rules), but that didn't make them any less different. It took me a number of sessions to get everything down, especially in combat.

On the other hand, my wife's first game was 3.5. When we started playing 4E, I put together a brief summary of the changes that she needed to know, rather than her reading the whole book (which she would not have enjoyed). It took about 5 minutes to explain everything.

Starting as a 2e player, the first 3e book I owned (because it was a gift) was the Monster Manual. I didn't even see a PHB or DMG for months. I understood what AC, attack bonus, skills, and all that were intuitively. I also recall later playing the 2e/3e hybrid elements in BGII, which made perfect sense to me.

Weren't you at least curious as to why the more challenging monsters had higher ACs? Or why a skill had just a bonus next to it instead of some number you weer supposed to roll under?

And as I said above, something can make sense, even if it's very different from what you're used to.

As to the 3e-4e comparison, I do think comprehension of character abilities is easy enough, but I don't think that means that the games are fundamentally similar. They may both have an attack bonus, but how you get that bonus and what you do with it are both rather different.

You add your bonus (primarily gained through your level, your Strength bonus, and your magic weapon) it to your d20 roll and compare it to the target's AC to see if you hit. As opposed to having to compare it to your THACO to determine what AC you hit.

Ultimately I think the biggest similarity between 2E and 3E is the mechanics of spellcasting. But that's not enough, by itself (especially since it also changed a little), to cover the fact that almost everything else changed substantially.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Um, what sort of definition of "illusion" are you using, here??

The thing is (and you may need to sit down to read this), that fantasy world that everything has to relate to? It's not real. It's imaginary.

The world where players are sitting around with game elements that are either balanced and productive of equity and excitement (or not)? That's real.

The stuff you are saying "isn't an illusion" actually is - it must be, because it relates to a set of "things" that are not actually real. That is why CJ is saying it's all "illusion". It's not bigotry or dismissive of a particular style; it's just true.

Now, you might like the illusion. That is not at all bad - we are playing a Fantasy Roleplaying Game, here, so some degree of "let's pretend" is not only useful, but mandatory. The illusion is necessary (and should ideally be engaging and attractive).

So, if you want to argue that the rules should be based on the illusion, rather than on the real world situation, that is actually a viable position. But, claiming that an imaginary world is anything other than an illusion really isn't.

this strikes me as semantics. Bottom line we want imaginary world to make sense and be logical so we can believe in it. Just like people dont like plot holes in their movies (or overly convenient plot devices) lots of gamers dont want the setting to derive from the mechanics in an effort to achieve balance, challenge and parity first. I want a dragon to be powerful, breath fire, be tough to hurt, etc. That is the starting point, you build the mechanics from that. At least that is my preference.

Just because it is imaginary doesn't mean it shouldn't make sense and follow somekind of internal consistency (and it is clear that is what the quoted poster was saying). For some this wont be important. For lots and lots of people, a setting we can believe in is vital to play...more important than making sure the game is perfectly balanced and challenging at each stage.

 

[braro]

this strikes me as semantics. Bottom line we want imaginary world to make sense and be logical so we can believe in it. Just like people dont like plot holes in their movies (or overly convenient plot devices) lots of gamers dont want the setting to derive from the mechanics in an effort to achieve balance, challenge and parity first. I want a dragon to be powerful, breath fire, be tough to hurt, etc. That is the starting point, you build the mechanics from that. At least that is my preference.

Just because it is imaginary doesn't mean it shouldn't make sense and follow somekind of internal consistency (and it is clear that is what the quoted poster was saying). For some this wont be important. For lots and lots of people, a setting we can believe in is vital to play...more important than making sure the game is perfectly balanced and challenging at each stage.

But aren't these DM aspects?

I mean, the DM is the one that builds the world.

In 3e I can have a bunch of commoners roving around acting like wolves for literally no reason.

In 4e I can have the same.

Or am I missing something?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Ok, how about this one.
.... 2e and 3e? Really?

still not convinced. Having played all the editions in question, I simply don't see it. There are some changes to specific mechanics, they definitely streamlined stuff and tried to make some of the core mechanics more intuitive in 3e. But the characters largely operated on the same principles. Fighters hit stuff, wizards drew from a large selection of spells. My own transition from 2e to 3e was quite seemless and the changes were understandable. i could see the progression of thought from thac0 to bab, and to bringing most rolls into the roll over on a d20 mechanic. Things were opened up a bit as well (for instance putting the thief skills into a general skill list that everyone had access to). But it very much felt like D&D. Go to 4e and suddenly every class is built around the same exact resource management scheme. The spell system is completely changed. Add in other major changes like the way healing works you have something different. These are massive changes. Much bigger than Bab, feats or ditching roll under initiative. The overal feel of the game to me, was very different from 3e. And I think this is to 4e's credit as the goal was to make something quite new. But the powers system alone sets 4e apart form all other editions in my mind.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But aren't these DM aspects?

I mean, the DM is the one that builds the world.

In 3e I can have a bunch of commoners roving around acting like wolves for literally no reason.

In 4e I can have the same.

Or am I missing something?

I am not sure I quite follow what you are saying but no to me this isn't what I want in a game. At the end of the day the designers make the majority of monsters I am going to use and I want the mechanics to be based on the flavor of the monster not some need to make it the ideal challeneg for an x level party. Its ac should derive from how it is envisioned in the text, so should its HP and all else. This is not a comment on 4e by the way. Nor is it an endorsement of the 3e approach. Just speaking generally about design.

 

[braro]

I am not sure I quite follow what you are saying but no to me this isn't what I want in a game. At the end of the day the designers make the majority of monsters I am going to use and I want the mechanics to be based on the flavor of the monster not some need to make it the ideal challeneg for an x level party. Its ac should derive from how it is envisioned in the text, so should its HP and all else. This is not a comment on 4e by the way. Nor is it an endorsement of the 3e approach. Just speaking generally about design.

Okay, right, but -

All Monsters are based on flavor.

All Monsters are based off of how they interact with the party (These guys rust your metal weapons and eat them!)

All Monsters have their stats based off of their perceived nature.

What is the difference in, say, 4e and 2e monster generation, from a DMs perspective?

 

[Bedrockgames]

On the subject of should opponents be structured in the same way as pcs: for NPCs i want the same system, for monsters I want a system (preferably one that shares many points with PCs (for example size impacting certains abilities) but one that is malleable enough to allow for exceptions (there will be cases where that -4 modifer to AC for size might not make sense for instance.

But i find it most important for NPCs. I want the tenth level necromancer villain to follow the same rules as the 10th level pc necromancer.

This is just preference. For me it definitely assists internal consistency.