Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[Nagol]

You can't use a skill challenge in this situation. Apart from anything else, in the situation you're describing there are players on both sides of the conflict - whereas a skill challenge does not have room for mechanically active opposition. (You can run a skill challenge where the players/PCs are trying to achieve different things - the DMG2 gives an example of how to do this - but the opposition has to be mediated via NPCs upon whom the PCs operate directly.)

The difference is that the NPC doesn't get to make rolls - skill challenges are player-rolled skill checks against fixed DCs - and the NPC's behaviour, backstory etc can be metagamed in order to support the skill challenge resolution.

But even in a system that does, mechanically, permit player-vs-player - eg the Duel of Wits in BW - the losing player isn't forced to change his/her PC's mind. S/he just has to find some way to attack the outcome of the Duel in a collateral fashion (direct reopening of the debate being forbidden by the rules). In the context of BW, I see this as a particular application of Let it Ride.

Whereas the mental and social combat rules in Strands of Fate do require the affected characters (PC or otherwise) to alter their outlook. Potentially all characters can be affected as much as physical combat can affect all characters as well.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I am in agreement with [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] on this one.

When a PC convinces an NPC in the fiction, something else is happening at the table. The GM is not actually convinced by the player - it's all just pretending, isn't it?

Is the GM judging the apparent sincerity or profundity of some rhetoric? Or is something else going on? Are there certain "key words" that must be uttered by the player, for example?

I think whether you consider it "pretending" or the GM just being "convinced" neither of those are systems as people understand the term in RPGs. System in gaming implies mechanics and an involved procedure of somekind (generally with a random element) not going by feeling alone. Uless the Gm has laid out a clear procedure before hand (i.e. If the player uses x,y, or z key terms the npc responds by doing N, if the player respnds with a,b, or c key terms the npc responds by doing M) there isn't much of a system if all he is asking himself is "how would this npc respond to what was just said". This effort to morph freeform RP into a "system" is frankly one of the semantic tricks that just seems like an effort to advance an agenda.

 

[LostSoul]

My question for you would be... do you use more elaborate social mechanics beyond reaction rolls and morale checks? Do you feel you need to? If you don't go much beyond those (plus maybe diplomacy, bluff, intimidation skills), you're using a relatively light set of mechanics - much lighter than combat, for example.

Yep. I use social skill challenges that build off of the reaction roll - the reaction roll determines the number of successes needed (called "NPC Obstinacy"), if the reaction is unknown. The player "role-plays" his PC, taking action in the game world; if that action triggers an internal conflict within the NPC, I call for a check. The check resolves that internal conflict, giving a range of results (total failure - partial failure - partial success - total success). If the PC's action triggers no internal conflict, there's no need for a check.

(I'm not 100% sold on my system - there's a "seduction" technique embedded into the mechanics: you can make minor requests, which tend to grant more bonuses on your checks, and following up on previous actions grants a bonus to future checks; then, when you've got the NPC right where you want them, you make your "move" on the final check to overcome their obstinacy. Maybe that's what I want to say about human interaction, I don't know.)

The skill challenge/NPC obstinacy mechanic leads to unexpected results in the form of compromise. edit: Because the NPC is stubborn, there's often a back-and-forth exchange that leads to some compromise, even if the PC can't fail the check. XP awards provide value in the game system to "diplomatizing" NPCs; the (generally speaking) lack of loot provides tension between that choice and combat. (The colour of the challenge - what the PCs says, what the NPC does in response - provides value to choices in its own way, but that's too complicated for me to really understand.)

This system is slightly less complex than my combat system: in combat you have HP, like NPC Obstinacy, but the amount of damage done is variable, based on the PC's action. Though there are morale checks in combat... Otherwise it's the same; I originally called it "skill combat" for this reason.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This suggests that the system is a form of GM fiat. What you describe seems much like the process a fiction author might go through in deciding how a character s/he is writing reacts in some situation.

I think it is more akin to how a player makes decisions about his own character. Some players really try to get into their character's head and see things from the character'spoint of view. Some people just act like themselves, other metagame. Its a big range. Same with GMs. Some try to see things from the NPCs view, some try to have npcs react in a way that is "best" for the adventures, others essentially play themselves. What is actually going is probably quite complex and could certainly be dissected. But I can say as both a GM and writer if you give into the process the characters do feel like they take on a life of their own. People can deconstruct this all they want. But I know I have experienced this and it is what I would call immersion. If it isn't for others fine.

 

[Harlock]

This suggests that the system is a form of GM fiat. What you describe seems much like the process a fiction author might go through in deciding how a character s/he is writing reacts in some situation.

For many of us, that is exactly what roleplaying games are with one distinction; it is a group authoring process rather than an individual one. We all are writing the same story from different points of view and with control over specific characters. Some of us do not mind GM Fiat at all and trust them to be fair arbiters and so Rule Zero is not a point of contention. This was one of the first shots in edition wars, in fact, and spawned the battle of roleplaying vs. rollplaying.

Again, neither side is wrong for wanting what they want. And once again, to bring this all back to the topic at hand: a streamlined core system to which can easily be added modules that increase complexity or add systems is a great goal for a new edition of the game! And, if 5th meets any 4th edition players' needs, it might be worthy to play the new system since it will, obviously, be the one supported by WotC. It's not up to us to convince anyone to try 5th. WotC will have to do that by what they make 5th edition into.

 

[Lanefan]

Same with GMs. Some try to see things from the NPCs view, some try to have npcs react in a way that is "best" for the adventures, ....

IME it's often some combination of these two, when trying to figure on the fly how an NPC will react to a given situation.

Skill challenges and-or opposed reaction rolls take NPC reactions and decisions out of the DMs hands - sometimes this is tolerable (at best), other times it just doesn't suit.

It's a playstyle thing too. Some groups want to blast through the talky bits with some dice rolls, others want to get immersed and play it out. The problem with both is the outcome can't be pre-determined, which can be a pain for all involved if the ongoing story depends on a particular reault.

Lanefan

 

[TrippyHippy]

This suggests that the system is a form of GM fiat. What you describe seems much like the process a fiction author might go through in deciding how a character s/he is writing reacts in some situation.

Welcome to the wonderfully wide world of the roleplaying game hobby.

 

[Obryn]

It's a playstyle thing too. Some groups want to blast through the talky bits with some dice rolls, others want to get immersed and play it out. The problem with both is the outcome can't be pre-determined, which can be a pain for all involved if the ongoing story depends on a particular reault.

Some groups like both at once. See: Burning Wheel.

I really don't love skill challenges for interaction in 4e, but even if used*, it's not blasting through dice rolls. It's the same amount of talking, but with dice added in - either upfront or behind the scenes.

-O


* And by this I mean, "used sensibly and not in the asinine way they're used in the original 4e DMG." The original published skill challenge system needs to die in a fire.

 

[Hussar]

My question for you would be... do you use more elaborate social mechanics beyond reaction rolls and morale checks? Do you feel you need to? If you don't go much beyond those (plus maybe diplomacy, bluff, intimidation skills), you're using a relatively light set of mechanics - much lighter than combat, for example.

Dunno about anyone else, but certainly a social interaction module would be something I'd LOVE to see. I don't think it will be part of the base rules though. Too complex and far too many people appear not to want it.

But, a module that is comparable in complexity to the combat system? Sign me up. THIS would make me buy 5e in a heart beat.

 

[Hussar]

Later thought. Rolling this back around to the OP for a second, I do think that this sidebar on social mechanics highlights exactly how you can attract the 4e crowd to 5e.

I don't think it's too controversial to say that 4e players don't have a big problem with rules complexity. 4e is not a rules light system at all. And, I think that most 4e players seem not to have a huge issue with allowing the mechanics to arbitrate events to a greater degree than we saw in earlier editions. 4e is pretty clear in most of its mechanics and there isn't as much wiggle room for DM adjudication as there was in, say, 1e. Again, I don't think this is controversial.

So, why not play to those predilictions? Not in the core obviously because that's just going to piss off too many people. But, I think the modules is where the 4e players are going to have an absolute field day. 4e is already largely built this way. Very simple core - all classes work the same, for example. Once you've played one class, you can pretty quickly learn any other class because the difference between classes isn't at the beginning, it's at the output end. I can see 5e appealing in the same way.

Imagine 4e with only 3 classes. That would be a very simple game, extremely easy to learn and probably fairly boring. That's what 5e core is going to look like to a 4e player. But, add in the modules and suddenly you can broaden in all sorts of directions, and get additional mechanics that aren't just ad hoc add ons like they typically were in earlier editions. The baseline will work and any variation from that baseline can be highlighted at the outset.

At the end of the day, my advice to 4e players would be to hold off a second. Right now, they're playtesting the baseline stuff that we take for granted because we've spent the past three or four years playing a system where the baseline stuff wasn't broken. Once they've hammered out that baseline, and convinced all the 3e and earlier players that this baseline was their idea in the first place (wink wink, nudge, nudge) then we'll see all the goodies that 4e players expect from a game.