4th to 5th Edition Converters - What has been your experience?

[MwaO]

In other words, the two characters are still working on different resource schedules. What you suggest doesn't HURT, but in the context of "revamping 5e to work like 4e" its not getting you much. Its obviously personal taste, but I like EVERYTHING pretty much about 4e better. I mean, there are some things that are fine in 5e, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't improve if they were more like what's in 4e! (at least for the purpose of playing 4e). I don't see ANY point where 5e advanced the art of 4e. A 5e-informed 4.5e could certainly gain, as I've said, but the small bits of 5e-isms I'd pull in wouldn't warrant basing it on 5e.

Well, I'd revamp Wizard too, to essentially be a Warlock build that exchanges Warlock spell list/invocations for a better spell list+Wizard school+and some daily slots that can be used for extra spells.

I don't think it helps me that much, but it makes it a lot easier to run a 1 encounter day in 5e without it being complete rocket tag.

 

[MwaO]

Whereas I for one think that if I actually need to put my foot down it's a sign I've lost control.

Oh, I totally agree. Just there's a lot of people who think if they're not being adversarial, they're not being good DMs.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not really talking about improv, as such. If I run 4E or PrimeTime Adventures or 13th Age (or, I expect, Dungeon World and other AWE games that I haven't got around to running, yet), I don't need to house rule or make judgements 'on the hoof' - the rules work just fine as they are. As GM I get to "just play" and see what happens.

OK.

I find a big issue with "judgement GMing" is that, once they figure out that there's more mileage in leading the GM to judge your DCs softly and in reading what the GM thinks is a "good idea" than there is in making bold character decisions, intelligent players focus their play there, rather than on the character decisions.

That is absolutely true, yes. The other end of the spectrum, a very consistent, functional system, lends itself to leverage from system mastery. It's not like there's a 'happy medium' in-between, either - a system that 'compromises' with mostly-OK mechanics and 'only when needed' DM intervention is just vulnerable to both forms of manipulation.

Not sure I'm communicating this well - it's a tough concept to put into words, I find.

I don't feel I'm quite following, either. Above I characterized both system mastery and gaming the DM as 'manipulation.' Are you just trying to say that you want a game where the players don't feel the need to use such manipulation, or one that's resistant or 'tamper evident' in that regard, or does a system need to preclude any sort of player-applied leverage?

 

[Balesir]

I don't feel I'm quite following, either. Above I characterized both system mastery and gaming the DM as 'manipulation.' Are you just trying to say that you want a game where the players don't feel the need to use such manipulation, or one that's resistant or 'tamper evident' in that regard, or does a system need to preclude any sort of player-applied leverage?

Player-applied leverage is inevitable and fine as far as it goes, but I prefer if it doesn't become the main focus of play. Especially for me as GM. Hence system mastery is preferable to GM manipulation, but it should prefereably provide only quite limited advantage (but not none). To get such a state it's important that the system is shared with the players in a full and transparent way, and that it be well balanced. With GM judgement based systems it is hard to have transparent sharing of the system (because it frequently only becomes firm at the moment it is invoked) and resistance to imbalance tends to be limited.

Other things are helpful as well, but these are the ones that are difficult to achieve with GM judgement call based systems.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Player-applied leverage is inevitable and fine as far as it goes, but I prefer if it doesn't become the main focus of play. Especially for me as GM. Hence system mastery is preferable to GM manipulation, but it should prefereably provide only quite limited advantage (but not none).

Sure. 'None' isn't a plausible goal, but a well-balanced system mutes the effects of mastery.

To get such a state it's important that the system is shared with the players in a full and transparent way, and that it be well balanced. With GM judgement based systems it is hard to have transparent sharing of the system (because it frequently only becomes firm at the moment it is invoked) and resistance to imbalance tends to be limited.

True. A clear/consistent/playable/balanced system can not just be played transparently, it works better when it's played 'above board' like that. A 'judgment' system works better when more resolution is taken behind the screen, with little or no transparency - you get the full benefits of the approach, and shield the player experience from some of the potential negatives, that way.

It sounds like you have a clear preference. I share that preference as a player, for the most part. As a DM, though, I like both approaches very much, and I do find I can pull some of the plusses of the judgment-based into the more consistent/balanced one. Strongly judgment based systems, like 5e, though, foster an acceptance of the style among players, since DM judgment ("rulings over rules") is used frequently and innocuously for basic resolution, and often to the players' advantage, there's less awareness of or resistance to it when used in other ways, as well. Conversely, when playing above-board, exercise of DM judgment stands out like a red flag, and players, even if they trust you and don't object (and they may well object anyway), may be leery of it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Really, I think if you're playing a highly transparent system, like 4e, then this FREES the DM to keep plenty of secrets and have lots of judgement, but in terms of what he wants to do with the plot and setting. Playing "I'm being obscure with the basic mechanics" is just picayune. I'd much rather have some genuine mysteries. I think this is like the stuff that was happening in Pemerton's game with the characters playing around with the Abyss and whatnot. Its ALL DM "figure out what I want to do" (which may be "figure out what the players want") and the rules are taking care of themselves. I mean its not like ANY set of RPG rules encompasses THAT much of what goes on, unless you play a very narrow game.

So the antidote to system mastery isn't lack of transparency, its 'FUD', and not in rules terms, but in narrative/plot/setting terms. Just make whatever goes next mostly story. This is why 4e's 'light touch' rules kick butt, they work everywhere but they don't tell you much about what to do.

 

[Raith5]

The main hurdle is the resource management system. 5e classes are just fundamentally stuck with a design where they perform at very different levels of performance depending on the number of encounters in a day. I don't know how to 'fix' that without basically retrofitting 4e classes. You could also retrofit 4e Healing Surges, but now you have to also retrofit at least a decent portion of 4e's tactical rules as well. You now have basically 4e, except you have the bizarre 5e thing where half the attacks have saves and half have attack rolls and weird stuff like that, so now you have to retrofit 4e's defenses and etc.

Honestly, its just easier to play 4e. There's not that much OF 5e that you want to keep! Its just fundamentally different. I do think that something closer to 5e's class architecture, in terms of how it parses up the design space and the way it incorporates heavy sub-classing, plus the much more granular feat setup, are nice. Building a bunch of classes based around that pattern, but using AEDU etc wouldn't be bad.

I should add that I would much prefer to play a streamlined version of 4e which has a background mechanic (which links PCs to the gameworld better than themes) and a few other things. But I see importing 4e elements into 5e as being much more likely that a revision of 4e, so my thoughts are pragmatic rather than ideal. My ideal game style fits somewhere between the the two games, but leans towards 4e.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Playing "I'm being obscure with the basic mechanics" is just picayune

Not even that. It's actively rewarding system mastery for the people who understand the system - while making proper testing harder. Obscure basic mechanics are a gift to hard core system masters who want to dominate the game.

 

[MwaO]

Not even that. It's actively rewarding system mastery for the people who understand the system - while making proper testing harder. Obscure basic mechanics are a gift to hard core system masters who want to dominate the game.

Yeah, especially in the context of just how freaking complex casters are in 5e. Until you blow your highest level spell slots, most caster 8s have somewhere on the order of about 12-15 at-will options.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I should add that I would much prefer to play a streamlined version of 4e which has a background mechanic (which links PCs to the gameworld better than themes) and a few other things. But I see importing 4e elements into 5e as being much more likely that a revision of 4e, so my thoughts are pragmatic rather than ideal. My ideal game style fits somewhere between the the two games, but leans towards 4e.

Yeah, well, I see NO inclination on the part of a Mike Mearls 4e-despising WotC to even acknowledge the existence of 4e, let alone incorporate anything substantial from it into 5e...

So, in essence, its all of a part.