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

[AbdulAlhazred]

Heh. Seriously, though, we went into that distinction, above, and gaming the DM like that is a very real & effective form of power gaming, but it's not what I was getting at in referencing 'system masters.'

Real system masters want a system that is well-defined, but they also want one that has lots of very complicated and obtuse mechanisms in it. There's no point in being the master of a system that can be fully grasped a 6 year old. This is why 3.x is so stupidly full of power gaming options. The rules are incredibly obtuse and convolved and include masses of options that can be juxtaposed in infinite combinations to cause rules breakage/bendage.

4e is a LOT more nailed down, because it lacks the obtuseness of 3.x and while there are a LOT of options you have many fewer ways to combine them all, and those ways are restricted through limiting gateways like the hybrid and MC systems. Even so there's still a good bit of mastery there, but it tends to be a lot more clear how you would accomplish specific things. Even casual players can achieve pretty good results if they put modest efforts into it.

5e, I agree, isn't really a mastery type of game, its a DM playing game. The rules are vague, AND very open-ended in terms of what any given game element does. For instance my Wizard is a dwarf transmuter and has Stone Shape. He's also got masonry and carpentry as part of his background (he's tool proficient in both areas). So I feel pretty sure I can lean on the DM in terms of what sorts of things I can make Stone Shape do. Its not that the spell is really loose in definition, but if you start thinking about what happens when an expert in stone masonry suddenly reshapes even a smallish part of a bridge, tower, wall, etc, well the effects can be quite outsized! Given that neither myself, the DM, or any of the other players happen to be a civil engineer, mason, etc (and we certainly aren't dwarves!) exactly what can and can't be accomplished is undoubtedly a matter of what I can convince the DM makes sense! I'm sure there are limits to that, but I'm equally sure that it will get interesting...

 

[Manbearcat]

I look at it at a deeper level than tactical subtleties. Its a sophisticated indie game with some very cool scene framing tools, transition techniques, etc. But nobody seems to know that, especially Mike Mearls, who seems to have believed he was in charge of a dungeon crawl game.

Converters how?

As a GM I am not a converter in the slightest. 5e massively disempowers me compared to DMing 4e. It gives me a lot of makework in needing to vet what the players do. It almost unforgivably gives me an administrative faff in terms of cross-referencing monsters to spells (and it's ridiculously spellcaster heavy). To run 4e literally all the mechanical reference material I need is the MM3 on a Business Card and the Skill Challenge DCs on the other side; everything else is part of the world. Now that's DM empowerment - shifting the work off my shoulders (literally in the case of rulebooks I'd carry to sessions) and allowing me to let the players run while I can focus on everything else.

Yes and yes. I'll just drop in some snippets of a post I did on another thread that are applicable here:

Simply put, at this point in my GMing tenure, I'm entirely of the position that offloading unwanted overhead onto system (if it cannot be removed entirely...which it often can) and players is extremely desirable. It (a) keeps me fresh and focused on the key areas where my mental acuity and skill need to be at their best and has consistently shown the lovely knock-on effects of (b) assisting in transparency (therefore trust and/or removal of player insecurity), (c) facilitating maximal player agency, (d) which in turn facilitates player buy-in and engagement in setting, situation, and the emergent story.

These things pretty much universally coincide with my latitude being constrained and the machinery of play procedures being transparent.

Constrained GM latitude to improve table trust and contract the infectious nature of cognitive bias? Check

Unwanted overhead offloaded onto system? Check

Transparent play procedures maximizing player agency and minimizing haggling/table handling time? Check

Robust resolution mechanics and encounter building tools to achieve predicted (GM-side), climactic results? Check

Streamlined, transparent, outcome-based chassis minimizing points of reference? Check

Ummm. 4e sounds like a little slice of GM empowerment heaven to me!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Completely different concept of 'Empowerment.'

 

[Neonchameleon]

Completely different concept of 'Empowerment.'

How would you describe the empowerment then? I mean I could understand it if the alternative was GURPS. But there's no power a 5e DM has that a 4e one doesn't. I'm at a loss as to what's meant. The necessity to use the powers you have is empowerment?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

How would you describe the empowerment then? I mean I could understand it if the alternative was GURPS. But there's no power a 5e DM has that a 4e one doesn't. I'm at a loss as to what's meant. The necessity to use the powers you have is empowerment?

Yeah, I'm completely mystified by this kind of idea myself. What exactly is 5e 'empowering' me to do? Spend lots of time coming up with rulings for things that it somehow failed to nail down?

The THEORY is supposed to be, I guess, that somehow everyone wants to do it different, and if the book happens to actually be clear about something then you're verbotten from doing it any different, ever. Now, I am not actually one to think games should OVER prescribe, but in this sense 4e is both very complete AND very loose. You can run your SC any way you want, frame it any old way, etc. Same with other aspects of the game. It actually dictates LITTLE in the way of what things the characters MUST do or have to focus on, or how they should proceed (though its plethora of combat powers is certainly suggestive).

I never felt so free with say 2e, where I had to constantly be trying to out think the mind-bogglingly well-equipped wizard (and my players were VERY experienced and diabolical, trust me). On top of that constantly trying to decide which crazy add-on optional rule wasn't utterly game breaking.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

How would you describe the empowerment then? I mean I could understand it if the alternative was GURPS. But there's no power a 5e DM has that a 4e one doesn't. I'm at a loss as to what's meant. The necessity to use the powers you have is empowerment?

I'd like to know the answer on this as well. Perhaps it will help me understand what it is people could want, that isn't "explicitly support the DM putting on the viking hat and becoming autocratic." Because that's kind of the only place I can see for "DM Empowerment" to go, from 4e; the DM is already pretty free to do most anything they like, whether it be addition or limitation, so the only way to give even more "empowerment" is to go full-on imperiousness.

 

[MwaO]

I'd like to know the answer on this as well. Perhaps it will help me understand what it is people could want, that isn't "explicitly support the DM putting on the viking hat and becoming autocratic." Because that's kind of the only place I can see for "DM Empowerment" to go, from 4e; the DM is already pretty free to do most anything they like, whether it be addition or limitation, so the only way to give even more "empowerment" is to go full-on imperiousness.

There's advice in the DMG which advises not say no immediately, offering up wish lists to get players excited about their magic item choices, having rule 0 meeting to discuss what's on the table(literally), etc...

To someone reading quickly(aka obnoxious players), it probably could easily lead to a player saying, "But the DMG tells you to say yes and I get to pick what magic items you give me!"

On the 2nd part, I've had quite a few conversations where that seemed to be an issue. Even if the DMG is just saying, "Hey, there's a way to get your players excited by the magic items you hand out..."

 

[Manbearcat]

Completely different concept of 'Empowerment.'

How would you describe the empowerment then?

Yeah, I'm completely mystified by this kind of idea myself. What exactly is 5e 'empowering' me to do?

I'd like to know the answer on this as well.

Here is what Tony is getting at.

Imagine you're GMing AD&D 2e and you feel like the modern game has left you behind. How does 5e appeal to you?

1) Action resolution requires your absolute mediation. You vet every aspect of it from (a) is this a legit action declaration, (b) is there prospects for failure, (c) do I use genre, drama, causal logic to determine DC, (d) how discrete (temporal and spatial) do I want to make each action, (e) the nature of failure resolution is entirely GM discretion (outside of the vagaries of fun and interesting).

Lots and lots and lots of GM overhead! But lots and lots and lots of (a certain kind of) "empowerment!"

2) Related directly to 1 (and this utterly key and you all may have read my posts regarding this in the playtest and after release), the prospects for using GM Force, especially covertly, are right there on the table for me to deploy. Not only does the "natural language" text and the "rulings not rules" ethos support this, but the agenda for play (like AD&D 2e) tacitly condones suspension, abridgment, or (secret) manipulation of the action resolution mechanics if I feel it makes a better story.

3) The game was intentionally removed from 4e's scene-based paradigm (from game engine/tech to play agenda and GMing techniques) and constructed around the serial exploration of the adventuring day. Further, very much like AD&D 2e, there isn't a default/unstrippable pacing mechanism at the core to dictate/escalate the adventuring day (the random encounter framework). That is key. Now its all you. Unless you want to make your own and offload it. But again, that is on you too.

4) The encounter building rules don't work with anything resembling precision. Therefore, the GM can manipulate all kinds of things on the fly and have that be much more opaque to their players (see 2).

5) Magic items detached from PC build and offloaded back to GM purview.

6) Finally (and I never experienced this but I guess it was "a thing" because there was all kinds of edition warring hand-ringing over it), the culture of "everything is core" got nuked. The GM must vet all content entering his/her game and reserves all rights to veto material.

---

I think that about sums it up? Not the kind of empowerment (latitude + overhead) I'm looking for. But its bringing back the AD&D 2e crowd in droves. * Which I said it would in the beginning/middle of the playtest when the nature of the surveys and the nature of the rules changes were coming out.

And I was called out for edition warring.

And then many of the same people who decried me for edition warring (along with tons of other AD&D2e playes who have returned) have been championing it as a modernized AD&D2e (which they love).

That is called irony.

* Which my guess is that bringing them back and unifying them with the 3.x/PF crowd was a tacit (if not utterly explicit behind the scenes) directive from the outset (and a smart one to be honest). I think that was the "big tent" that was in mind.

 

[Tony Vargas]

the DM is already pretty free to do most anything they like, whether it be addition or limitation, so the only way to give even more "empowerment" is to go full-on imperiousness.

At the risk of sounding pithy & flippant, I think you're conflating attitude with latitude...

The Empowered DM could become a metaphorical brutal dictator, just like an empowered player could become a metaphorical exploitive manipulator. You don't have to go there, you just can. It's a risk, I suppose, but not one without potential reward.

The necessity to use the powers you have is empowerment?

Yes, because it establishes the exercise of the DMs prerogatives as a necessary and continual aspect of play, rather than leaving it to extraordinary circumstances.

Here is what Tony is getting at.
1) Action resolution requires your absolute mediation.

Ding!

2) Related directly to 1 (and this utterly key and you all may have read my posts regarding this in the playtest and after release), the prospects for using GM Force, especially covertly, are right there on the table for me to deploy.

On the advice of counsel, I can neither confirm nor deny this point.

3) The game was intentionally constructed around the serial exploration of the adventuring day. Further, very much like AD&D 2e, there isn't a default/unstrippable pacing mechanism at the core to dictate/escalate the adventuring day (the random encounter framework).

I'm not sure about that second sentence. Anyway, unless I'm missing something something, yeah, that's a 2e-ism, but not particularly Empowerment related.

4) The encounter building rules don't work with anything resembling precision. Therefore, the GM can manipulate all kinds of things on the fly and have that be much more opaque to their players (see 2).

On the advice of counsel....

5) Magic items detached from PC build and offloaded back to GM purview.

Big-time. Yes.

6) Finally (and I never experienced this but I guess it was "a thing" because there was all kinds of edition warring hand-ringing over it), the culture of "everything is core" got nuked. The GM must vet all content entering his/her game and reserves all rights to veto material.

Hadn't even thought about that specific way of looking at it (it could just be another pendulum-swing, too), but, yeah, sure. The presentation of the game is such that players always have to ask before they know what the rules even /are/. That trains them to be more accepting of house rules.

 

[Balesir]

Big-time. Yes.

Except 4e had Artifacts, to cover just this "need". It seems that some GMs got stuck on the "magic item" term, though - just as some players found class names to be a sticking point.