Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[Bedrockgames]

Okay, right, but -

All Monsters are based on flavor.

All Monsters are based off of how they interact with the party (These guys rust your metal weapons and eat them!)

All Monsters have their stats based off of their perceived nature.

What is the difference in, say, 4e and 2e monster generation, from a DMs perspective?

I am not passing judgement on the 4E approach (as I said in my message). I do not know enough about how monsters work in that system. I was commenting on a general statement about design principles and what I think systems should do for believability.

 

[braro]

I am not passing judgement on the 4E approach (as I said in my message). I do not know enough about how monsters work in that system. I was commenting on a general statement about design principles and what I think systems should do for believability.

Right, but are there any actual examples of systems that create monsters without any kind of flavor?

 

[MoonSong]

In fact I think that "consistency" is the keyword here, I must confess that d&d previous to 3.x didn't truly felt right for me, but once it was released I felt in love with the system. Why can't humans cast spells in armor but a demihuman can? Why the level caps on demihumans? To me the change to 3.0 gave satisfactory answers to many in-world consistency issues of previous editions, and it enabled a basic framework that had that consistency built-in from the get go, and allowed lot's of customization without having to relly on DM fiat. But even before then creating some character concepts was extremely easy and the system was so simple DM's were more eagerly to allow weird things if they made sense, contributing to the in-world consistency. 4e did away with it, suddenly every first level PC was supertough and hyperfocussed on combat without any explanation, the world was no longer plausible by design, but rather relied on the DM to give the game world that consistency, and worse, the strict balance discouraged DM's from changing things too much.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Right, but are there any actual examples of systems that create monsters without any kind of flavor?

I wasn't talking about a complete absence of flavor. I was talking about the role i want to see flavor play in rpgs. There are systems that handle believability and flavor the way I like. I cant speak to the monsters but the 4e character powers definitely didn't work for me in terms of believability. And i wasn't happy with its treatment of flavor. But i am not here to edition war. I understand some people found it perfectly flavorful and believable. I am really much more interested in speaking about general principles in good faith going forward into next rather than rehashing old arguments about 3E and 4E (since these are rarely conducted in good faith here).

 

[braro]

I wasn't talking about a complete absence of flavor. I was talking about the role i want to see flavor play in rpgs. There are systems that handle believability and flavor the way I like. I cant speak to the monsters but the 4e character powers definitely didn't work for me in terms of believability. And i wasn't happy with its treatment of flavor. But i am not here to edition war. I understand some people found it perfectly flavorful and believable. I am really much more interested in speaking about general principles in good faith going forward into next rather than rehashing old arguments about 3E and 4E (since these are rarely conducted in good faith here).

I'm just having a hard time understanding your point, I guess. I haven't really seen any games at all where monsters or NPCs are made with any kind of conflict to their flavor; it seems like your concern is less about the presence and intention of flavor and more of how it is used by designers once it is established?

 

[Fifth Element]

There are some changes to specific mechanics, they definitely streamlined stuff and tried to make some of the core mechanics more intuitive in 3e. But the characters largely operated on the same principles. Fighters hit stuff, wizards drew from a large selection of spells.

I think that last part is a bit carefully-crafted. In 4E fighters still hit stuff, and wizards still have the largest selection of powers, due to their spellbook feature. You might not think that it's "large", but it's still the largest.

i could see the progression of thought from thac0 to bab, and to bringing most rolls into the roll over on a d20 mechanic. Things were opened up a bit as well (for instance putting the thief skills into a general skill list that everyone had access to).

Again, just because something is easy to understand does not mean it's not a significant change. A change with a good reason, perhaps, but still a change. Since the introduction of the thief class, only it had a skill list like this...but applying it to all characters is not a big change, to you. See comments below.

But it very much felt like D&D. Go to 4e and suddenly every class is built around the same exact resource management scheme.

If allowing everyone to have skills is not a big change, surely giving everyone the same resource-management scheme is also not so big?

Previously, the skills set the thief apart from the other classes. That was taken away in 3E. The per-day spells set the casters apart from the other classes (except, to some extent, the other classes that had per-day abilities, since we're talking resource management). That was taken away in 4E.

Moreover, 3E put every race on equal footing. Any race could be any class and go up to any level, which is of course very different from 2E. There was no such thing as a non-human paladin in 2E. They simply didn't exist. In 3E and 4E, they're all over the place. Move beyond thinking just about classes and you realize that this is an enormous change in its own right.

The spell system is completely changed.

It certainly didn't survive unscathed between 2E and 3E either. How many spontaneous-casting classes were there in 2E? The 4E change to spellcasters is bigger than 3E, but that's not the only factor to consider.

As for healing, 3E had a pretty big change there as well in the form of the Wand of Cure Light Wounds. So even though the spell system was pretty close, the item crafting system was entirely different and had a huge impact on play.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm just having a hard time understanding your point, I guess. I haven't really seen any games at all where monsters or NPCs are made with any kind of conflict to their flavor; it seems like your concern is less about the presence and intention of flavor and more of how it is used by designers once it is established?

No my concern was directly related to what another poster said about flavor being incidental. He seemed to be arguing two poibts (and I could have misunderstood but this is why i made the statement originally): flavor is essentially meaningless and all that matters is the mechanical challenge the monster brings to the table (i.e. He is a mental debuff rather than a vampire that feeds on brain fluid). I think its best to begin with flavor personally (i have designed games using both approaches and am never as satisgied with the result of a mechanics first approach). His other point seemed to dismiss the idea of underpinning monster design and the setting with a consistent system (ie large creatures get x bonuses to these abilities, undead immune to y, etc). While this isn't for everyone, for many it does create a more believable and internally consistent settinv and game. I do think it has to make room for exceptions to facilitate believability though.

 

[Fifth Element]

I wasn't talking about a complete absence of flavor. I was talking about the role i want to see flavor play in rpgs. There are systems that handle believability and flavor the way I like. I cant speak to the monsters but the 4e character powers definitely didn't work for me in terms of believability.

To me they work wonders for believability for monsters, since you can design a power to do whatever the monster should be able to do, mechanically. You don't need to shoehorn it into a limited set of options, or the alternative, which is give it a supernatural power which coincidentally has the exact same effect as a wizard spell.

I think its best to begin with flavor personally (i have designed games using both approaches and am never as satisgied with the result of a mechanics first approach).

This is what 4E allows you to do with monster powers. All of its powers can be tied to its flavour (since each monster can have completely unique powers), regardless of whether there's an appropriate wizard spell for that or not.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I am sorry fifth element but I am still not buying it. Clearly we disagree on how big or significant many of these changes were. By the way I am not saying there weren't big changes in 3e. But the changes in 4E were much more of an overhaul in my opinion.

 

[Fifth Element]

I am sorry fifth element but I am still not buying it. Clearly we disagree on how big or significant many of these changes were. By the way I am not saying there weren't big changes in 3e. But the changes in 4E were much more of an overhaul in my opinion.

I don't necessarily expect that you would change your opinion, I'm just trying to point out some inconsistencies in your arguments (some things you consider big changes but equivalent ones you brush off), perhaps not for your benefit but at least the audience's.