Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[Pickles JG]

Where I see the ambiguity as in fact an encouragement to creativity. If a spell description clearly states "casting this spell gives effect x no matter what" then nobody is ever going to think about casting it to try and get effect y. And while this makes it simpler for all involved, it also makes it a whole lot duller.
Creativity and social apt-ness are not linked.

And the DM can always say "no". What's more important - vitally important - is that the DM be consistent, that if something is allowed to work a certain way one time then it can work that way any other time the same circumstances arise.

I tend to feel the opposite. Creativity leads to players finding one powerful use for their spell then consistent application of a ruling leads to them spamming the heck out of it. If creating water in people's lungs is so effective then why bother with fireballs et al?

The social aptness comes from more assertive players bullying cajoling & wheedling DMs into letting them use their clever but horribly disproportionate spell uses. They are no more likely to have good ideas but they are more likely to get them utilised. "

OTOH pernickity rules lawyering can undermine more "rule of rule" based systems if they are not well drafted & is more likely to encourage that sort of play.

& FWIW I am running WFRP with all the PCS as wizards with "this is your school of magic you can attempt to cast any spells you can think of that fit the flavour" but the players are not embracing it as much as I hoped & I am not bound by precedent - WFRP magic is kind of chaotic anyway.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

It also can become a game balance issue, with skilled and assertive players dominating the game, while less skilled and more passive players fade into the background.

 

[billd91]

It also can become a game balance issue, with skilled and assertive players dominating the game, while less skilled and more passive players fade into the background.

I don't think this changes much with the rules set.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I don't think this changes much with the rules set.

No, but it seems some people want this game to be some sort of childproof/round-edges action.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I don't think this changes much with the rules set.

Actually it changes a lot. Passive and less skilled/creative players contribute a lot more to the game when given clear, specific and poweful abilities. The less ambiguous the system, the better they can contribute.

 

[billd91]

Actually it changes a lot. Passive and less skilled/creative players contribute a lot more to the game when given clear, specific and poweful abilities. The less ambiguous the system, the better they can contribute.

Frankly, that hasn't been my experience at all. Passive and less skilled players are simply passive and less skilled with clear, specific, and powerful abilities.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Actually it changes a lot. Passive and less skilled/creative players contribute a lot more to the game when given clear, specific and poweful abilities. The less ambiguous the system, the better they can contribute.

Or the more skilled players can benefit when they have more explicit rules. Min-maxing is much harder when abilities are general and open-ended

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Frankly, that hasn't been my experience at all. Passive and less skilled players are simply passive and less skilled with clear, specific, and powerful abilities.

I'm not saying it equalizes things, but the level of contribution is comparably higher when things are defined than when things are ambiguous.

 

[Hussar]

Or the more skilled players can benefit when they have more explicit rules. Min-maxing is much harder when abilities are general and open-ended

That is just wrong.

General and open ended rules are where skilled players have a field day. After all, if the rule is open ended, then it becomes a case of how well can the skilled player convince the DM that his interpretation is valid. So, you have people using Create Water to make things explode, Major Creation to create white phosphorous fireballs capable of burning through metal, and a million and one other rules abuses.

Explicit rules means that skilled players can no longer do that. That's why 3e closed so many of those holes that existed in AD&D spells and abilities. And why 4e went even further down that road.

Sure, open ended might encourage creativity, but, IME, it encourages rules lawyering and endless table arguments about interpretations. There's a reason I don't play AD&D anymore and that, right there, is the big one.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I terms of min/maxing, i think that is a lot easier to do in a system like 3E than AD&D. The difference between the two systems in that respect is night and day.

In terms of rewarding skilled players and good choices, i dont have an issue with that in any system. I do think the baseline power disparity needs to be contained (not as much a in 4e but also not on the other end of the spectrum like 3E). I do think you want to reward creativity, and this why I find some of the rules of 3E and 4E restrictive. If players can figure out a cool use for a spell, that adds to my experience of the game. Definitely more a fan of the open ended approach because it pits the dial for that stuff in the hands of the GM.