Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[Bedrockgames]

From a game-design point of view, they are. When you write a rule that says "you can do such and such with DM approval" what you're really saying as a designer is "I couldn't be bothered to get this rule right, so your DM will fix it for you." From the point of view of the DM, they're a pain, because they mean more work for the same payoff. From a player's PoV, they mean you better /really/ trust your DM, so be as selective as you can about whom you play with.

None of that's good.

While some will see it that way, this isn't what is going on at all. People have different sensibilities about which portions of the game require mechanics and which require human judgment. They also have different preferences in terms of rules light/medium/heavy. As a player and GM i prefer more lightweight systems with key areas put into the GM's hands. I know I am not alone. Clearly there is demand for some "with GM approval" in games so it isn't always bad, nor is it a sign the designer couldn't be bothered. Now, it isn't for everyone but a lot of folks do like this style system.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm not sure what you mean by comprehensive system. I'd call it more of a foundational assumption or axiom. This is a game. Yes, it's about the players.

You said:

The current direction of 5e, based on what we've seen, is to have incomplete, barely functional rules, and let the DM fill in the blanks and fix them. It puts a huge burden on the DM and robs the players of the ability to define their characters, arrange dramatic moments for them that add to the developing story.

These are things 4e did very well, using systems that 5e could easily have built upon or adapted.

I'm commenting on those "systems" that you mentioned. From what I know of 4e and skill checks, I wouldn't say that 5e has a comprehensive system to draw off of (from 4e). Combat is given more "player agency" in that Martial Guy can now reliably push someone better than he could before, but that doesn't translate well to social or exploration.

Absolutely. All the classes in all the pillars deserve the same treatment 4e gave them combat.

True, but my point was that (to my knowledge) 4e doesn't have a good system for it to draw from, which it seemed like you stated it did ("These are things 4e did very well, using systems that 5e could easily have built upon or adapted"). That's why I asked about it's skill system or "player agency" powers outside of combat.

But, I do agree that there needs to be a reliable, comprehensive system for characters outside of combat. I doesn't need to be for every class, but I'd prefer that to be the default assumption (with rules on how you can change that if you're like to). My personal preference, of course. As always, play what you like

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Talking only of good DMs and bad DMs excludes the middle of average DMs, who I think are in the majority. And "good" rules can help reduce the workload of DMs and the number of small-scale decisions they need to make, freeing them to focus on the bigger picture, and offer reasonable and viable options to players as opposed to trap options, or options where the flavour text doesnt match what the mechanics actually do.

I find increased reliance on DM fiat increases the stress and workload of refereeing significantly. I certainly felt this increased decision stress in the recent playtest.


Secondly, its a communication issue. Referees and players can have genuine misunderstandings and disagreements as to how things work in the real world or the game world, without either party being a "bad DM" or a "bad player". A solid set of rules can improve communication and reduce misunderstandings, and provide a system of arbitration in the case of disagreements that helps illuminate or solve the problem and provides more information to help the DM make a decision.

This is a big part of it for me, too. Namely, I want player agency on some things so that I can focus on other things that are:

• Important to us for the DM to retain control of stylistically
• Not really possible for the players to handle well
• Have some attention left to notice miscommunication

Imagine a D&D system where, for example, the weapon listing is completely messed up. A player wants to use a mace, but that doesn't work when you planned to use orcs. So every time the players want to pick up or switch weapons, they have to get permission. I think most of us think that D&D can do better than that--not least of all because it always has.

Now maybe when it comes to characters generated at high levels, the weapon system trying to do too much with magic items is counter productive. That's a fair characterization of some of the bad side effects of 3E/4E high level magic items. It's probably better to let the DM say, "No, you can't have a vorpal sword at the start of the campaign." But even then, you'd still like the players to have some idea of what will work and what will not.

In my mind, the ideal sub system handles about 80% of the common cases. If it does that, it will also manage to encompass at least a few of the uncommon cases. Then DM fiat handles the rest--including nearly all the rare edge cases.

I would like to see D&D do a better job of handling "cues," though. In our games, we tend to do a lot of "delegated agency"--where the DM hands off, temporarily, DM responsibility to a player, or a player hands something to the DM, or even one player hands to another player. This is also basically social contract stuff that has evolved in our group, that isn't directly supported by any system I have ever seen (though Burning Wheel's use of linked tests across players can come close at times). When we are really hopping, this happens at the "speed of talk"--zipping across and around the table. It would probably be mainly advice, but I've never even seen it discussed. I find that in this environment, a lot of player/DM agency conflicts simply vanish.

 

[Harlock]

From a game-design point of view, they are.

Straw man. Even Monte Cook of Rolemaster disagrees with you.

When you write a rule that says "you can do such and such with DM approval" what you're really saying as a designer is "I couldn't be bothered to get this rule right, so your DM will fix it for you."

Not at all. A designer could be saying, "hey, the DM is the referee and if you cannot trust him to be fair that's not a game design problem, it's a personality problem."

From the point of view of the DM, they're a pain, because they mean more work for the same payoff.

Absolutely your opinion. Speaking from personal experience, I find more work in tedious columns of rules rather than a quick explanation of what someone is trying to do and quickly adjudicating the probability and letting the action move on. Please, don't pretend to speak for all DMs because you can't.

From a player's PoV, they mean you better /really/ trust your DM, so be as selective as you can about whom you play with.

Unless you are gaming with people with borderline personality disorders, chances are you can find a decent DM who isn't out to screw the players at every turn with relative ease. Your straw man is a bogey man to boot.

None of that's good.

And hardly any of it was a fact, either. I do understand from where you are coming and as I said before, it's easier to make a rules light(er) system and add complexity with modules, for just the type of game you are describing, than it is to build a rules heavy core and remove stuff and still keep it balanced. Adding to is always easier than taking away if you don't want to break a game. That would be good game design because you and I could play the same system and both be happy.

 

[Tony Vargas]

("These are things 4e did very well, using systems that 5e could easily have built upon or adapted"). That's why I asked about it's skill system or "player agency" powers outside of combat.

The same basic idea would work in other pillars, it'd be a matter of giving all classes access to abilities distinct to each pillar as part of their progression. For instance, utilities could go from minor combat helper powers to significant Exploration or Interaction powers.

Skill Challenges are also a good framework to build on. I'm not sure there's a big difference between giving level-based DCs, or giving task-based DCs, and then letting the DM pick level-appropriate ones, but either way could work. Either way - or any way - the DM has the latitude to decide how hard something might be. I agree that the latter case is both easier on the DM and more confidence-inspiring for the players, since it's above board. And, regardless, the DM can always change a DC for whatever reason.

But, I do agree that there needs to be a reliable, comprehensive system for characters outside of combat. I doesn't need to be for every class, but I'd prefer that to be the default assumption (with rules on how you can change that if you're like to).

Nod balancing classes within each pillar gives players the flexibility to play the character they want and DMs the flexibility to run the campaign they want. You don't have to feel like you 'can't' play a fighter in the intrigue game or the beguiler in the combat-heavy game, or that you have to put more fights into your intrigue game because some jerk decided he just had to play a fighter...

 

[pemerton]

What does any of this have to do with convincing 4e players to play 5e?

I think it is relevant to aspects of game design and game play that 4e might have emphasised over some other editions of D&D.

Well, the issue of 'player agency' is one that some of us 4e fans find important, which 4e provides well

Exactly.

I am curious what player agency means when used by 4e fans.

<snip>

My understanding is it has to do with my ability to interact with and affect the setting.

I don't think it's a secret that I see player agency in more-or-less Forge-y terms. I see it as the ability of the players to shape the content of the fiction, and particularly the plot.

I'm not extremely well acquainted with 4e, but when I brought this up earlier, I wasn't really shown how 4e did this to any real extent outside of combat (through dailies, etc.). But, maybe I missed something (entirely possible).

<snip>

as far as I know, the skill DCs in 4e are set by the DM (as is determining if a skill can be used in a skill challenge, generally). Doesn't this mean that outside of combat (where dailies and etc. are used), 4e still relies heavily on DM fiat

The DC have decent guidelines, so the burden on the DM is small.

Besides the DC guidelines, and the power system, there is also the emphasis on the scene/situation as the focus of play.

4e doesn't particularly have rules for player-introduced content outside the context of the PC's acting, but those aren't essential for player agency in the sense I'm interested in. Robust resolution methods are the most important, I think.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Straw man.

Not in any way shape or form. It's an analogy.

Shoddy design is shoddy design.

Not at all. A designer could be saying, "hey, the DM is the referee and if you cannot trust him to be fair that's not a game design problem, it's a personality problem."

Either way it's insulting and condescending, and an excuse for shoddy design.

Speaking from personal experience, I find more work in tedious columns of rules rather than a quick explanation of what someone is trying to do and quickly adjudicating the probability and letting the action move on.

You may enjoy the extra work, you may be good at it, but you're still doing off the cuff design when you do that.

Truth is, I run that way, myself, frequently. I have a talent for it, and it's easier than learning the minutiae of a not-so-good game that I'd just have to heavily modify, anyway. It's also a great technique to fall back on when the rules fail you. But, it's what I'd have to consider an 'advanced' technique, it's not for everybody, and, taken to the extreme, it's freestyle RP, at which point you need few if any rules, anyway.

it's easier to make a rules light(er) system and add complexity with modules for just the type of game you are describing, than it is to build a rules heavy core and remove stuff and still keep it balanced.

I think what we're both casting about for here is an 'elegant' rule system. Not rules heavy, not incomplete, but spare and efficient and intuitive. It's a great ideal to strive for. The 5e playtest is definitely not there, nor even trying to get there, though. It's 'rules' light by excision of complexity, not be reducing the need for complexity.

Adding to is always easier than taking away if you don't want to break a game.

I think of it as breaking the game is always easier than fixing it. But, adding is not that easy, because it's both a creative and a design task. You have to dream up the stuff you're going to add, and balance it. Banning undesireable things - taking away what you don't want - can be quite easy, if the game is robust enough and modular enough.

And, that's a point, too, because a modular game is both a simple game (the core, with no modules) that you add to, and a complex game (using all modules) that you deduct from. To be really good in either case, it needs to be designed and balanced as the complete game, and the potential combinations of modules accounted for - a very substantial undertaking for the designers. I can't see doing it piecemeal (publish a simple system and add complexity to it after the fact) as a good alternative. But then, that's what playtesting is for.

 

[pemerton]

Even Monte Cook of Rolemaster disagrees with you.

Rolemaster is more like 3E than 4e in this respect. It relies heavily on the GM to set difficulties, and to determine when non-combat conflicts come to an end.

Unless you are gaming with people with borderline personality disorders, chances are you can find a decent DM who isn't out to screw the players at every turn with relative ease.

For me it's not about "screwing the players". It's about giving the players control over the content of the fiction.

 

[Hussar]

While some will see it that way, this isn't what is going on at all. People have different sensibilities about which portions of the game require mechanics and which require human judgment. They also have different preferences in terms of rules light/medium/heavy. As a player and GM i prefer more lightweight systems with key areas put into the GM's hands. I know I am not alone. Clearly there is demand for some "with GM approval" in games so it isn't always bad, nor is it a sign the designer couldn't be bothered. Now, it isn't for everyone but a lot of folks do like this style system.

Fair enough. But, you cannot play with mechanics you don't have. It's fairly easy, in a balanced system, to remove elements that you don't want to use. We do it all the time. How many groups do you think slavishly follow the diplomacy rules in 3e? IME, diplomacy gets used, sure, but, it's still heavily DM fiat and out and out free form that carries a lot of the interaction between PC's and NPC's.

So, even though the mechanics for determining things are there, DM's are fairly free to ignore them, presuming that the group is groovy with that. OTOH, if the DM doesn't want to free form a particular interaction, perhaps its a fairly minor thing that he wants to skip over quickly in order to get to something more interesting to the rest of the group, for example, dickering about the price of a crossbow, he can let the dice mechanics determine the result and move on.

In earlier editions, which lacked any sort of social mechanics, the DM is entirely free-forming all the time.

What needs to be absolutely clear from the outset is that mechanics are merely tools to an end. If you don't want to use them, you don't have to.

 

[Harlock]

Not in any way shape or form. It's an analogy.

Shoddy design is shoddy design..

We can stop there. The divide between us is really too great to continue the discussion. You have been proven wrong countless times in this thread alone, but refuse to see anything other than your way, which you claim is objective and demonstrably isn't. In the end, as I have stated time and again as I tried to veer the discussion back on topic after derailments by folks claiming any reliance on the GM to arbitrate is poor game design, hopefully 5e convinces 4e players to come aboard on its own merit. If, however, 4e players ignore facts, yell in frustration and demand their ball so they can go home, I doubt it happens.