Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[thecasualoblivion]

To give an example of 4E creativity:

I've been playing Knights and Fighters with the lv2 Utility power Glowering Threat. Its a minor action that imposes a -5 penalty to attack rolls against targets other than you to enemies within 2 squares(10ft) at the time of the power's use until the end of your next turn. Basic Defender crowd control, basically. I almost immediately came up with the idea to combine this power with a charge, using it on nearby enemies and then running away to where I'm controlling other enemies, having the effect of making the enemies either be crippled for a turn or follow me. In another case, we were battling a Beholder which as a free action used an eye ray attack on nearby PCs at the start of their turn. I realized that even though crowd control is kind of pointless against a solo, the particular nature of Glowering Threat could ruin that particular ability of the Beholder for a turn, and it did.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

[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.

I don't know of any power in 4e that would do that in and of itself. You as a player still have to consider that as a solution to your problem and come up with a way to make it happen.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

To give an example of 4E creativity:

I've been playing Knights and Fighters with the lv2 Utility power Glowering Threat. Its a minor action that imposes a -5 penalty to attack rolls against targets other than you to enemies within 2 squares(10ft) at the time of the power's use until the end of your next turn. Basic Defender crowd control, basically. I almost immediately came up with the idea to combine this power with a charge, using it on nearby enemies and then running away to where I'm controlling other enemies, having the effect of making the enemies either be crippled for a turn or follow me. In another case, we were battling a Beholder which as a free action used an eye ray attack on nearby PCs at the start of their turn. I realized that even though crowd control is kind of pointless against a solo, the particular nature of Glowering Threat could ruin that particular ability of the Beholder for a turn, and it did.

My favorite example is the wizard in my first game. There was a dungeon that had ventilation shafts all through it and they were infested with germlaine that would constantly harass the party. So she used her Stinking Cloud spell and concocted a ritual (using a skill challenge) to make it into a cloud that would flow down into the shafts below the floor and wipe out the germlaine. This for me is 4e in a nutshell, powerful flexible generalized mechanics that the players can build solutions out of. For the stuff they do all the time, it gives you a totally solid baseline, and you can still do all the crazy stuff. It took the player and I exactly 2 minutes to negotiate that and another 2 minutes to resolve it all.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Chalk me up as another vote for creativity as using defined elements in odd but appropriate combinations, rather than lobbying to twist elements into an "I win" card. Or rather, I'd call that "imagination" instead of "creativity." However, whatever it is called, I'd rather have it than the lobbying.

 

[Jester David]

My favorite example is the wizard in my first game. There was a dungeon that had ventilation shafts all through it and they were infested with germlaine that would constantly harass the party. So she used her Stinking Cloud spell and concocted a ritual (using a skill challenge) to make it into a cloud that would flow down into the shafts below the floor and wipe out the germlaine. This for me is 4e in a nutshell, powerful flexible generalized mechanics that the players can build solutions out of. For the stuff they do all the time, it gives you a totally solid baseline, and you can still do all the crazy stuff. It took the player and I exactly 2 minutes to negotiate that and another 2 minutes to resolve it all.

4e's okay at that. The solid math and simple mechanics make it easier to adjudicate, but it's not encouraged as much as it should be and there's very little advice.
The go-to response is "nuh-uh, look at page 42" which is good but wasn't really updated and revised. The damage expressions didn't change between the DMG and DMG2 (only the DCs), and I never saw that chart in Essentials. So it was never updated to reflect the monster math of MM3. Plus, the damage is low. Lower than an At-Will, which also have bonuses and secondary effects. And a skill check was suggested. You're always encouraged to use At-Wills, becomes improvising - by the rules - is nonoptimal.

As a DM I always found it tricky because there were so many powers that did so many things. If you could use Page 42 to deal damage and trip, what was the benefit of having a power that tripped?

Having Page 42 was nice. I would have loved that in earlier editions. But the game accidentally discouraged its use.

 

[TwinBahamut]

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.

This really isn't true at all. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that this shouldn't be true, even for games that are explicitly framed this way.

The game isn't defined by the DM's vision, it is defined by the vision of everyone playing. A game that deliberately monopolizes that vision in the hands of a single player is, well, pretty warped. It is just an attempt to force problematic power dynamics into a social game that flat out doesn't need them. D&D doesn't need an all-powerful DM, and all-powerful DMs cause more problems than they solve.

I'd be much happier with an alternative Rule Zero. "The DM is always right and can change anything on a whim" is kinda a bad rule... A Rule Zero that game the mandate of making the game fun to everyone involved, instead of just the DM, would work better.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'd be much happier with an alternative Rule Zero. "The DM is always right and can change anything on a whim" is kinda a bad rule... A Rule Zero that game the mandate of making the game fun to everyone involved, instead of just the DM, would work better.

Isn't that why the DM is changing things? Why else would he do so?

 

[TwinBahamut]

Isn't that why the DM is changing things? Why else would he do so?

You're missing the point. As it stands, Rule Zero gives the power to change the game solely to the DM. Preferably, it would give the power to change the game to everyone at the table, both DM and not.

As for your question... There are tons of reasons that the DM would change things for motivations other than making the game more fun for the players. Often, this is related to making the game more fun for the DM, regardless of how the players feel. Alternatively, it might be an expression of the DM's gaming philosophy or ideology, and may be entirely misguided and make things less fun for the DM and everyone else.

One problem with the existing Rule Zero is that it doesn't give anyone any room to question or challenge a DM fiat rule change. It doesn't say that the DM needs any reason to change a rule, so the DM is free to change a rule without good reason and the players are left without any option except to put up with it, leave, or kick the DM out. At the very least, a Rule Zero that cited particular reasons and goals that should be met for a DM to change a rule, or a method for players to resist a rule change, would be a significant improvement.

 

[Ahnehnois]

As it stands, Rule Zero gives the power to change the game solely to the DM. Preferably, it would give the power to change the game to everyone at the table, both DM and not.

You're missing the point. The defining aspect of rule zero is not that it gives power to the DM, but that it takes it away from the rulebooks (unlike in most games). Whether power is in the hands of one person at the table or several is a secondary, social contract issue.

Even so, D&D places one person in charge because having a good outcome now is better than debating things for a week. Like any leader, a good DM is responsive to others, but having one person with the final word is helpful in creating a cohesive and fast-moving game. A more cooperative game is possible, but that's not the D&D approach.

A one-person approach though, is not warped. It's the standard. How do you think Christopher Nolan/Peter Jackson/Guillermo del Toro/etc. would feel about having everyone on the set vote which shot to use, how many takes to do, changing the script, and so on? They listen to their staff, but they make the final call on everything, giving their movies cohesion and getting them done. A DM is more like a movie director than anything. Without a single director being in charge of everything unconditionally, there wouldn't be much in the way of movies.

As for your question... There are tons of reasons that the DM would change things for motivations other than making the game more fun for the players. Often, this is related to making the game more fun for the DM, regardless of how the players feel. Alternatively, it might be an expression of the DM's gaming philosophy or ideology, and may be entirely misguided and make things less fun for the DM and everyone else.

I read that if the DM is either not trying to make the game fun for everyone or if he is unable to do so due to incompetence, the game will suffer. No doubt. That's the DM's fault, not the system's.

Consider the following: why might Mike Meals/Monte Cook/fill in the blank design a rule that is not fun for your group? Is it more likely that a DM who is physically in the room, knows the participants, and is responsible for creating the story will make a bad decision, or is it more likely that some unseen writer trying to make money off of the masses will do so? DMs aren't perfect, but I'll take a DM ruling over the book any day. The rules are there to give everyone a shared language and suggest how things should work, but really, "rules" is a misnomer; they're more guidelines than actual rules.

One problem with the existing Rule Zero is that it doesn't give anyone any room to question or challenge a DM fiat rule change. It doesn't say that the DM needs any reason to change a rule, so the DM is free to change a rule without good reason and the players are left without any option except to put up with it, leave, or kick the DM out. At the very least, a Rule Zero that cited particular reasons and goals that should be met for a DM to change a rule, or a method for players to resist a rule change, would be a significant improvement.

Most DMGs suggest that DMs exercise that kind of discretion. Most groups do, too. But yes, if you don't like your DM, those are your options (assuming that "talk to your DM" was left out for some good reason). That's life.

***

Who's the guy with "Don't let rules replace good DMing skills" in his sig?

 

[Tony Vargas]

The go-to response is "nuh-uh, look at page 42" which is good but wasn't really updated and revised. The damage expressions didn't change between the DMG and DMG2 (only the DCs), and I never saw that chart in Essentials. So it was never updated to reflect the monster math of MM3.

MM3 math was for monsters, while p42 is for PC, so I wouldn't expect the damage expression table to change. Essentials placed that table in the DM Kit rather than the RC.

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.

Conditions from the 'Condition Summary' in the 3.0 DMG, p83: Ability Damaged, Ability Drained, Blinded, Blown Away, Checked, Confused, Cowering, Dazed, Dazzled, Dead, Deafened, Disabled, Dying, Energy Drained, Entangled, Exhausted, Fatigued, Flat-Footed, Grappled, Held, Helpless, Incapacitated, Incorporeal, Invisible, Knocked Down, Nauseated, Normal, Panicked, Paralyzed, Petrified, Pinned, Prone, Shaken, Stable, Staggered, Stunned, Turned, Unconscious. Total: 38

From the 4e RC, 'Conditions,' p229: Blinded, Dazed, Deafened, Dominated, Dying, Grabbed, Helpless, Immobilized, Marked, Petrified, Prone, Removed from Play, Restrained, Slowed, Stunned, Surprised, Unconscious, Weakened. Total: 18.