Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[Imaro]

Some people may, but while you can choose not to exercise options you do have, you can't choose to exercise options you don't have.

Thanks, because this line made me remember the rules for SC in the first 3 corebooks... where you actually couldn't, in a SC per RaW, choose not to exercise an option...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Maybe because everyone in my group has at least tried their hand at DM'ing and thus were always allowed behind the "curtain"... I just don't think this is the issue, and I find it sa little suspect that only fans of 4e seem convinced this is where the problem lies. I don't know, this line of thinking just doesn't feel right to me, but I have no real evidence to disprove it... though in reverse I haven't seen any evidence (except conjecture about what others think) to strongly support it either... I mean in 3.x the rules for PC's and monsters were the same, how is that not being automatically privy to how things work?

The detailed monster construction rules were part of the illusion - the illusion this all models something in the "real" fantasy world.

4E said: "You know what, it doesn't matter if this monster has chitin armor or can wear full plate - a Level 15 Brute must have an AC of about 27 to be a reasonable Level 15 foe. We don't even tell you what its AC were if you could remove its armor.
The Kobold is Shifty - that doesn't mean he has some spell-like ability, class aility or some feat - he just can do it because he's a Kobold. There is no way for someone other than a Kobold to get this ability (barring DM fiat).

3E had elements that were a bit like that, for example saying that some creatures could have Breath Dragons - which was just a design decision that followed no construction rules in and on itself. But people tended to believe the illusion that these monsters "made sense" in the game world with their statistics. They didn't really, because if you looked really closely, there wasn't really an explanation for some natural armor values other than "it will need high natural armor since it doesn't wear normal armor but is CR 9".
The unfortunate side effect of this approach was that the illusion they were trying to uphold actually lead to their Challenge Rating system being lead ad absurdum - despite all those constructions rules, it couldn't tell you what CR or your new monster should be. 4E stripped away this simulative aspects and said what final numbers are required to make a decent monster of a certain level. But this clarity bothers some people - because it doesn't really explain how the numbers got there. In 3E, they could tell "ah, the armor comes from its natural armor". Of course, they missed that the natural armor value was not really following any meaningful guideline and couldn't tell what it meant. Or they didn't miss that little fact, but they still preferred knowing how these creature statistics are build together, even if some values are essentially random. They'd probably hope that the next edition would make even these random values go away and put a system behind it.

4E kinda hat the power to go there, since it actually made explicit assumptions about attack bonuses and defense values, and introduced that 1/2 level bonus, replacing Save and BAB progressions from 3E.
D&D NExt may also be able to go there, thanks to its Bounded Accuracy. And maybe we can have both - the clear goal-focused approach of 4E - "Level X monster must have AC this tall" and the more simulation-focused approach of 3E - "A monster with this equipment, size, strength and a bony exoskeleton has this AC, and would probably be appropriate for Level X".

 

[Bedrockgames]

Some people may, but while you can choose not to exercise options you do have, you can't choose to exercise options you don't have.

But the point is having that choice taken away, to limit what you can do, is for many of us part of the fun. Now one can choose to paint this very negatively (they dont like having options for example) but for me it creates more excitement when my charater is more limited in what he can do in certain situations. I can see how you might find it more enjoyable to take the other approach. All I am saying is there are a lot of people who honestly don't find that kind of design fun.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Maybe because everyone in my group has at least tried their hand at DM'ing and thus were always allowed behind the "curtain"... I just don't think this is the issue, and I find it sa little suspect that only fans of 4e seem convinced this is where the problem lies. I don't know, this line of thinking just doesn't feel right to me, but I have no real evidence to disprove it... though in reverse I haven't seen any evidence (except conjecture about what others think) to strongly support it either... I mean in 3.x the rules for PC's and monsters were the same, how is that not being automatically privy to how things work?

You're not asking me, but I want to reply because I've had conversations with gamers on this very forum who like 'the curtain.' For example, I've done a lot of monster building in both 3.x and 4e.

3.x monsters are built the same as 3.x PCs, sort of. Each monster type is a sort of "class," with a HD type, a BAB progression, saves and so forth. The very existence of these "classes" subtly suggests that they exist to maintain an in-game reality. The beauty of all these design hoops is that gamers -- both DMs and players -- who know about these "monster classes" tend to create their own curtains to rationalize them all on their own. "Dragons have a d12 HD because their bones are super-dense," for example. Not everyone is so specific in their rationalizations, but many of us tend to just assume there're good reasons for this stuff. Myself included. And that's the curtain that conceals the hard part of monster design -- and what most of us could really use guidelines for.

4e drew the curtain back, and drew attention to the hardest part of monster design: challenging the players and PCs. "Look," 4e says, "all those monster classes and strange little rules aren't about immersion or believability. They're really there to help you challenge your players without overwhelming them. And if we stop pretending that those design hoops are maintaining some important in-game physics, I can drop a few hoops and show you the ones that really matter." Hence for example the shift from CR, which is just sort of thrown onto a monster after the fact, to monster level, which is one of a 4e monster's most basic stats that other stats are based on.

Problem for some gamers is, calling out what's actually important in balanced monster design ruins the illusion that all those "monster classes" and quirky rules are important. Near the end of my 3.x days, I started writing monsters beginning with their CR, and then basing other stats on that. Hey, if PC stats are based on their level, basing monster stats on the equivalent should make it easier right? When I posted about my methods, some DMs expressed disbelief that I was basing my monsters on a purely metagame stat (CR). To them, hit dice are somehow more 'real.' Or more intrinsic, or something.

Anyway, yeah, I have been specifically told by detractors of 4e that drawing the curtain to reveal the nuts and bolts of the game is one of the things that 4e does wrong. Because seeing thru the illusion ruins the magic for them.

 

[Imaro]

[MENTION=710]Mustrum_Ridcully[/MENTION] and [MENTION=40398]Tequila Sunrise[/MENTION] ... Thanks for the explanation, I guess I wasn't groking exactly what was being talked about. Your explanations helped with that and I can totally see the point now... and even see where that could cause dissention between the camps.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The detailed monster construction rules were part of the illusion - the illusion this all models something in the "real" fantasy world.

I'm in complete agreement with both Mustrum and Tequila, but I want to point out that I messed up one thing: I said earlier that simulation was orthogonal to immersion and illusion, but it is not completely independent, as the above illustrates.

What I was driving at is that while often found together and seemingly twined together, simulation and illusionism/immersion are conceptually separate things. "Rules as Physics" is a particular form of simulation that often is so twined, but I think it is obvious that you could have a "Rules as Physics" world that went out of its way to play up something besides the simulation of a "real" fantasy world. I haven't played it, but my understanding of Tunnels and Trolls is that it could operate this way. Likewise, you can have something like Burning Wheel, which is a traditional game going hardcore after a non-traditional purpose. BW is absolutely ruthless at removing all illusionism, in its quests to get you inside the head of a fantasy character--i.e. a peculiar form of immersion alongside a peculiar kind of emulation of a world.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

More constructively to the larger effort, the way I'd try to modularize around this divide is to use a kind of "key phrase" in place of key words, as a point of indirection at the contentious spots.

For example, let's take the kobold. We'll assume the 5E simple stat block and text. So where do you go from here? Depends on what you want. What I would do, is the next thing down the listing is the key phrases. For kobold, he will something like "sneaky little troublemaker". He might have two or three such key phrases, some of them even mutually exclusive, such as "dragon worshipping spitfires" and "bloodthirsty cowards".

What does a phrase mean? What do you want it to mean? If you want mechanical realization of the phrase, you look up "sneaky little troublemaker" and pick out some appropriate abilities. If you want more details in text, you got look up "sneaky little troublemaker" under a more 2E-like ecological/motivation extension. If you want more "rules as physics" 3E style, you go look up "sneaky little troublemaker" under a skill/feat supplement. Or if you don't care about any of that, you can just glance at the Dex and Wis scores and roll with it.

Now, I've presented those as independent, but in a lot of cases they might be in the kobold listing right after the phrases. You might only see them pulled out where they are reused across several creatures, and thus only for the most popular, useful phrases. If your phrases for medusa pretty much apply only to her, leave them in the listing. If you have a special medusa variant later, you can simply refer back to the medusa.

And of course software could go a long way towards making that scheme a lot more useful than I've presented it here. The point is the acknowledgement of where the dispute lies in the monster design.

 

[Ahnehnois]

3.x monsters are built the same as 3.x PCs, sort of. Each monster type is a sort of "class," with a HD type, a BAB progression, saves and so forth. The very existence of these "classes" subtly suggests that they exist to maintain an in-game reality. The beauty of all these design hoops is that gamers -- both DMs and players -- who know about these "monster classes" tend to create their own curtains to rationalize them all on their own. "Dragons have a d12 HD because their bones are super-dense," for example. Not everyone is so specific in their rationalizations, but many of us tend to just assume there're good reasons for this stuff. Myself included.

Barbarians don't have d12 HD because they're dense; neither to dragons. But they do have it for a reason. Perhaps because of physical superiority, or perhaps because of luck/skill/will/etc.; this goes to the vagueness of hit poitns. But there is a reason, in both cases. The reason is not "because that's balanced" or because it fills a mechanical niche, but something relating to the in-game reality.

4e drew the curtain back, and drew attention to the hardest part of monster design: challenging the players and PCs. "Look," 4e says, "all those monster classes and strange little rules aren't about immersion or believability. They're really there to help you challenge your players without overwhelming them. And

Actually, 3e drew the curtain back. It said that what really matters about a monster is what it is relative to the reality of the world, not relative to one group of player characters. What really matters is how strong it is, how smart it is, how magical it is, not how balanced of an encounter it is.

Problem for some gamers is, calling out what's actually important in balanced monster design ruins the illusion that all those "monster classes" and quirky rules are important.

The problem for others is that this isn't an illusion. If my monsters weren't designed by the same rules as their characters, they'd know it, and they'd call B.S. on it. And they'd be right. What is the point playing two different games at once, one for the DM and one for the players? If everyone's not playing by the same rules, what's the point of having rules at all? If the rules aren't there to describe reality and make the outcomes fait, why not play without them?

Near the end of my 3.x days, I started writing monsters beginning with their CR, and then basing other stats on that.

I stopped using CR because I realized that the challenge a monster posed to the PC was only peripherally relevant to how I was going to use it. And XP, for that matter. My encounters are not even close to balanced.

Anyway, yeah, I have been specifically told by detractors of 4e that drawing the curtain to reveal the nuts and bolts of the game is one of the things that 4e does wrong. Because seeing thru the illusion ruins the magic for them.

That's one perspective. Here's another:
The ambiguity and diversity of older editions' rules let people cultivate a variety of philosophies. 4e didn't reveal an approach to monster design that was always there, it picked one out of the many that were always there, and effectively excluded the others. For those that enjoyed this approach (i.e. monsters as cardboard cutouts designed to challenge PCs for less than a minute and then die), this is okay. For those who had a different idea, the response is: "What? This is all an rpg can be?"

It's sort of like watching The Matrix, getting a thrill as Neo shoots into the sky and an uncertain future, and then watching the sequels. Really, that's what they were thinking? The version of what happens next in my imagination (my illusion, if you will) was so much better. A world of possibilities becomes one really lame reality.

I used to think of monsters as being just challenges to the PCs, but now I use them as characters as part of a story, in part because of the 3.5 monster/character design rules. I can't imagine going back/having that taken away.

 

[Lwaxy]

Just a reminder, edition warring and downplaying the fun of other people's playstyles is a nono. This includes making claims about players of any edition.

The idea of this thread is to see if there are ideas how to make 5e to be more appealing to 4e players, not to dissect the other editions to a point where it all is out of focus. It is also not a good idea to blame the possible success or failure of 5e on the 4e players not happy with the possible outcome.

Thanks.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Thing is, much of TSR's old IP still stands up pretty well.

There's really not that much to it, D&D ripped a lot of stuff, and what it held onto was mostly public domain to begin with (like 'orcs'), it's actual IP consists of little more than made-up proper nouns and a few monsters. Pathfinder is a good example of how close you can get to ripping D&D without touching that IP. Mostly, I'd think, it's the name of the game and the associated mystique that's worth something. And bringing back a fad in the classic marketing cycle is just the way to tap that.

I'm not quite as cynical as you seem to be about the marketing aspect

It's hard for me to find anyone as cynical as I am. ;|

I think you read what I wrote in about the most negative light possible on this one...your perogative, I suppose; yet I was merely trying to be fair (for once!) to those who have only ever played 4e, and stand up for them.

Trying to be fair to a group you don't have much sympathy for can easily come off as condescending, I suppose. Plus, after the CaS/CaW thread, I guess I'm expecting condescension...

Re: the 5e changeover:
Now here I agree; my own preference would be to have all prior editions fully supported in their own right*, with perhaps a slower unification as time goes on (the simple act of writing adventures statted for all 4 editions at once would tend to gently introduce players of each edition to the others; ideas would be swiped, people would houserule, and the game might - just might - have slowly started to unify itself).

Now we're talking an ideal world. I could so get behind that, particularly the adventures or setting or other fluff-heavy supplements supporting all 4.

* - and for some odd reason they seem to be going this route as well, at least to a point, by reprinting - and thus, one must assume, intending to support - 1e and 3.5e. Much as I like that they're reprinting 1e, I think they should have gone one route (a unifying edition) or the other (reprint 'em all), but not do both.

I don't think they're intending to support 1e with new stuff, just harvest some cash with collectors'-item reprints. It's a quicker way to cash in on the retro-clone nostalgia trend than creating a new game or new material.

There I go being cynical again....

Well, since you're answering for pemerton now, What exactly is the promise made above and how is it that 4e is the only system of D&D ever to deliver on that promise?

Fan of 4e that I am, I'm not seeing it either. AD&D would seem to deliver on the promise of the heroic warrior utterly dependent on his Vorpal Sword to have any chance of decapitating a dragon. And no edition does the 'lone hero' well, for that matter.