Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[Ahnehnois]

That is just wrong.

Assuming your DM is completely passive, you are correct correct.

Assuming your DM immediately bans anything that seems unreasonable, and possibly more, this is not correct. Open-ended rules let DMs do more, and balance is a DM's job. Interpreting the vague aspects of character abilities more generously for newbies/shy people/less skilled players is one common way of creating balance.

Explicit rules means that skilled players can no longer do that.

Explicit rules give you a target. They encourage system mastery and powergaming (which are a mixed bag of course). The more explicit the rules, the more clearly right or wrong choices are, and the more explicitly better some characters are than others.

That's why 3e closed so many of those holes that existed in AD&D spells and abilities.

That's why some people didn't like it.

Sure, open ended might encourage creativity, but, IME, it encourages rules lawyering and endless table arguments about interpretations.

And to bring it back around, this is probably true to a modest extent. However, good DMs and players discourage those things to the point of exclusion, removing the problem. You can't (and shouldn't try to) legislate away an individual's freedom to behave badly. Such individuals (rules lawyers, compulsive arguers) simply need to 1. build a mutually trusting relationship with the DM, 2. shut up, or 3. leave. Regardless of what rules you use, this will never change. So, to the point, player disposition always outweighs rules, and DMing is a leadership position that requires many non-D&D skills.

Also, encouraging creativity isn't some trivial side effect. The entire point of this game is creativity; it's about making stuff up.

 

[Blackbrrd]

IMO 4e spells were much simpler across the board. Because of attack rolls replacing initial saves, much of the work is given to the caster player rather than the DM, but I think that's better work distribution, and it feels more satisfying to me (subjective I know).

Spell descriptions in previous editions tended to be much bigger, as each spell was a self-contained set of rules. There were many disparate mechanics in spells, with increasing standardisation of effects through the editions.

But the major bonus of 4e spells from my perspective is that they are clear and unambiguous, whereas many spells from previous editions were ambiguous, and dependent on DM fiat for exactly how they functioned. I found this ambiguity highly annoying and avoided ambiguous spells unless I knew how a particular DM ruled on them beforehand.

The advantage of ambiguous spell descriptions is that players and DMs can try and twist them to their advantage in multiple ways. I don't like that sort of play, and don't see it as creative personally - I prefer a single clear understanding of the spell or mechanic, with no ambiguity or wiggle room. It makes for a more coherent game setting, which doesn't shift and distort due to the pleadings of the more socially apt.

I don't disagree with you here, the spell descriptions in 4e are easier to follow than those in 3.x and earlier. My point was that 4e powers adds much more states/conditions than spells from previous editions. There is a lot more book-keeping, which increases the complexity a lot.

On the other hand, I am (as a DM) way faster at rolling saving throws than my players are at rolling attacks, it takes maybe 20% of the time? Part of the reason being that I calculate the target number and just say who got affected, instead of the player calculating every roll and telling me them one by one and who the targets where. The 4e fireball is waaaay slower than the 3e fireball in my game.

Personally, I play with a very small set of DMs and haven't had any problems with DM ruling on spells. They are most often in the minority and I know which might be problematic. Any game I play in does have house rules anyway, so no difference there between 3.x and 4e.

 

[Blackbrrd]

[MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] and this post: Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition - Page 80 - EN World: Your Daily RPG Magazine

Some very good points there Ahnehnois. I think and an opener system will often feel more real than a more explicit system. It does make it necessary for both the DM and players to communicate better with each other though. I have played games with a DM that made up stupid rules on the go and it was very unsatisfying. With a DM that just rolls with it, it's awesome.

One of the funniest moment for one of my characters was when I persuaded, bluffed and initimidated a bunch of orcs to just leave the cave complex instead of fighting us, leaving their dark master for us to take care of. It was deeply a deeply satisfying experience, but not something that was really covered in the rules. An open system with guidelines to handle such situations are to me much more interesting than a system where I have a 4e like power that does the same thing.

 

[Balesir]

IMO 4e spells were much simpler across the board. Because of attack rolls replacing initial saves, much of the work is given to the caster player rather than the DM, but I think that's better work distribution, and it feels more satisfying to me (subjective I know).

Spell descriptions in previous editions tended to be much bigger, as each spell was a self-contained set of rules. There were many disparate mechanics in spells, with increasing standardisation of effects through the editions.

But the major bonus of 4e spells from my perspective is that they are clear and unambiguous, whereas many spells from previous editions were ambiguous, and dependent on DM fiat for exactly how they functioned. I found this ambiguity highly annoying and avoided ambiguous spells unless I knew how a particular DM ruled on them beforehand.

The advantage of ambiguous spell descriptions is that players and DMs can try and twist them to their advantage in multiple ways. I don't like that sort of play, and don't see it as creative personally - I prefer a single clear understanding of the spell or mechanic, with no ambiguity or wiggle room. It makes for a more coherent game setting, which doesn't shift and distort due to the pleadings of the more socially apt.

I can't XP you, but "Amen!" to all of this!

Assuming your DM is completely passive, you are correct correct.

Assuming your DM immediately bans anything that seems unreasonable, and possibly more, this is not correct. Open-ended rules let DMs do more, and balance is a DM's job. Interpreting the vague aspects of character abilities more generously for newbies/shy people/less skilled players is one common way of creating balance.

Aaaand... here I disagree completely.

The DM bans things that seem "unreasonable" to whom? I can only assume this would be "unreasonable to the DM". So the game becomes "guess what the GM thinks is true or suck at whatever you try to do". I don't find this a good game, or even an engaging pastime.

Shy people don't need rules that don't tell them how the game world works "interpreted generously" - they need rules that actually tell them how the damn game actually works without extended discussions that they find self-exposing and uncomfortable. They (generally) prefer non-verbal communication channels - not no communication at all. The rules are a communication; they are supposed to share among all the players how the game (world) works. If "how the world works" is a secret held only by one individual until they (verbally) divulge it to the rest of the players, those that can second-guess what the 'one person' thinks or influence the 'one person's' decision making get an unbalanced advantage, however much the 'one person' might have bold intentions to the contrary.

Explicit rules give you a target. They encourage system mastery and powergaming (which are a mixed bag of course). The more explicit the rules, the more clearly right or wrong choices are, and the more explicitly better some characters are than others.

I want the players in my game to have explicit aims! I want them to be active and not passive! If that aim can be achieved by maximising the potential of their characters and the in-game situation through an understanding of unambiguous and clear rules - great! If it gets to be done by having similar views to me on what is "unreasonable" or by blagging me with a touch o'the blarney - not so great.

You can't (and shouldn't try to) legislate away an individual's freedom to behave badly. Such individuals (rules lawyers, compulsive arguers) simply need to 1. build a mutually trusting relationship with the DM, 2. shut up, or 3. leave. Regardless of what rules you use, this will never change. So, to the point, player disposition always outweighs rules, and DMing is a leadership position that requires many non-D&D skills.

My experience is that much "rules lawyering" arises because what the GM thinks is "unreasonable" (a) conflicts with what a player thinks is "reasonable" and/or (b) conflicts with the way a player has interpreted the (often ambiguous) rules. A lot can be done by recognising that neither the GM's nor the player's view of what is "unreasonable" is necessarily correct, for sure - but the whole issue can be best resolved by having rules that do not judge "right" or "wrong" but simply say "this is how this game-world works".

Can you have loosey-goosey rules to start with and rely on consistent rulings as play progresses? Sure; but a consistent ruling is nothing other than a rule. And if the players had been able to read and understand the rule in the first place, that is de facto better than having to find it out later at a potentially key moment, in my view.

Also, encouraging creativity isn't some trivial side effect. The entire point of this game is creativity; it's about making stuff up.

I agree - the game is about creativity.

Maybe it's because I was originally trained as an engineer, though, that I value creativity used within the "laws of physics" of the game world infinitely higher than the "creativity" involved in persuading someone that some trick/idea/stretching of the rules is "cool" enough to get to "I win" without passing "Go" but still collecting 200 g.p...

 

[Bedrockgames]

Assuming your DM is completely passive, you are correct correct.

Assuming your DM immediately bans anything that seems unreasonable, and possibly more, this is not correct. Open-ended rules let DMs do more, and balance is a DM's job. Interpreting the vague aspects of character abilities more generously for newbies/shy people/less skilled players is one common way of creating balance.

Explicit rules give you a target. They encourage system mastery and powergaming (which are a mixed bag of course). The more explicit the rules, the more clearly right or wrong choices are, and the more explicitly better some characters are than others.

That's why some people didn't like it.

And to bring it back around, this is probably true to a modest extent. However, good DMs and players discourage those things to the point of exclusion, removing the problem. You can't (and shouldn't try to) legislate away an individual's freedom to behave badly. Such individuals (rules lawyers, compulsive arguers) simply need to 1. build a mutually trusting relationship with the DM, 2. shut up, or 3. leave. Regardless of what rules you use, this will never change. So, to the point, player disposition always outweighs rules, and DMing is a leadership position that requires many non-D&D skills.

Also, encouraging creativity isn't some trivial side effect. The entire point of this game is creativity; it's about making stuff up.

This pretty much nails it for me

 

[Ahnehnois]

The DM bans things that seem "unreasonable" to whom? I can only assume this would be "unreasonable to the DM". So the game becomes "guess what the GM thinks is true or suck at whatever you try to do". I don't find this a good game, or even an engaging pastime.

Yes. Rule Zero is the foundational rule of rpgs. What the DM thinks is reasonable is what goes. If the DM thinks that playing by the book is reasonable, he can say so, but it's still his decision. The DM's vision always defines the game, not the rules. Always.

Hopefully the DM is open and honest enough that there isn't much of this guessing, but it is part of the game.

I want the players in my game to have explicit aims!

Sure, but not in metagame terms, I hope. A game that sets up a spiked chain trip fighter who is virtually unbeatable in melee encourages players to either cheese out or play "suboptimally". This is not good. Take that away, and the player's goal can simply be "I want to win X gladiator tournament" or "I want to be the best fighter I can", more meaningful and open-ended goals.

I agree - the game is about creativity.

Maybe it's because I was originally trained as an engineer, though, that I value creativity used within the "laws of physics" of the game world infinitely higher than the "creativity" involved in persuading someone that some trick/idea/stretching of the rules is "cool" enough to get to "I win" without passing "Go" but still collecting 200 g.p...

Some people don't like the laws of physics or the like encroaching on their fantasy rpg experience, and prefer a looser reality. So again, whatever the laws of the world are is the group's and fundamentally the DM's call. (Personally, I prefer a more physically accurate world than most).

It's also important to note that a lot of the rules-and particularly a lot-of the contentious ones-cover aspects of human behavior, which is not close-ended or completely comprehensible. I was trained in psychology and biology, where you have to accept that you know very little about the things you're studying. Certainly not enough to write rpg rules that strictly define the parameters of human choice (thus the CAGI and related debates).

My experience is that much "rules lawyering" arises because what the GM thinks is "unreasonable" (a) conflicts with what a player thinks is "reasonable" and/or (b) conflicts with the way a player has interpreted the (often ambiguous) rules. A lot can be done by recognising that neither the GM's nor the player's view of what is "unreasonable" is necessarily correct, for sure - but the whole issue can be best resolved by having rules that do not judge "right" or "wrong" but simply say "this is how this game-world works".

I find that a lot of rules lawyering happens when there is a clear rule and the DM goes against it. While that is the DM's prilevege, it's better to have some latitude built in.

If the DM and the player conflict, the DM should listen to the player, thoughtfully consider all possibilities, and make a decision. Ultimately, D&D is not a democracy. While a DM should be a benevolent dictator, his opinion is ultimately the only one that matters.

 

[chaochou]

Yes. Rule Zero is the foundational rule of rpgs. What the DM thinks is reasonable is what goes. If the DM thinks that playing by the book is reasonable, he can say so, but it's still his decision. The DM's vision always defines the game, not the rules. Always.

Oh, please. Not this again.

Rule Zero is a foundational rule of some rpgs - not all, not always. Fiasco, or Shab al-Hiri Roach, or Polaris, don't even have GMs. Stuff at the table requires concensus.

Same with Diaspora which says right there in the rules that rulings are made by the table - which means, as it says in the rules, that everyone has an equal say.

All of the game lies within the context of the table authority.
Diaspora, p3 (in the section Players Have The Power)


​

Authority can be distributed in many ways. So your statement is false, unless you mean to define RPGs as the subset of games in which it is true - in which case it is tautological, and therefore worthless for the purposes of discussion.

I'm rarely interested in running a game with a Rule Zero, and I find I have plenty to choose from.

 

[Ahnehnois]

[/INDENT]Authority can be distributed in many ways. So your statement is false, unless you mean to define RPGs as the subset of games in which it is true - in which case it is tautological, and therefore worthless for the purposes of discussion.

D&D definitionally has a DM. Some games may distribute the responsibility. In this case, the consensus or the like is effectively Rule Zero. None of them can require you to use the rules over your own judgement. That's the issue.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

That's my experience too. Something will be clever once, and then it is just basically another 'power', you can repeat it again and again. More than that, every single spell that's been around for any length of time is mined out hard.

I don't see where the use of 4e style powers is LESS creative either. Once you invent some tactics it comes down to pretty much the same thing either way, you combine them in various ways to apply to each situation. IME the 4e powers are starting points that you elaborate on, where the AD&D style spells are almost self-contained answers to problems. I've found that there's a bigger level of challenge and more variety when you pit your 4e party against different situations and see them build a solution.

I'd definitely want to be able to see that sort of play again. I think the whole notion that 4e style powers were somehow impeding creativity is just mistaken.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Totally agree. I have seen PLENTY of creativity in players in the last 4 years, more than I did in AD&D days, but a LOT less 'cheese' and far less spamming of the same tactic over and over. You DO know you can do a specific thing, reliably, and you can then build on that knowledge in interesting ways. AD&D tactics were WAY too 'flat', you did one thing and that decided the issue. It might well be a clever creative thing, but it was usually pretty obvious and replicable too.