Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[Bluenose]

So 5e should not allow a believable representation of a fantasy world, but actually model D&D itself?

Naaaaaa...

Which version of D&D should it model? Because honestly, it's never been good at modeling fantasy worlds.

 

[Harlock]

You make choices for your character, but in the end, his fate is a matter of random chance.

Like combat? Like walking down the street in real life? That's sort of why those dice and crayon are in the box, so to speak.

 

[TwoSix]

Like combat? Like walking down the street in real life? That's sort of why those dice and crayon are in the box, so to speak.

That's an interesting point of divergence between 4e and earlier editions, actually.

One of the side effects of lengthening combat (as 4e does), is that the random effect of the dice is lessened, as more and more dice rolls will trend closer to the mean. If the effect of the dice is lessened, it places greater weight on the overall sum of well-made tactical choices.

It also probably helps explain the dual experiences of 4e combat. The positive experience is "We thought we were dead, and it was really close, but we pulled it out in the end." The negative experience is "The monsters weren't that challenging, and we slowly ground them down, but it took an hour." A lot of those tendencies might be explained with an initial good or bad set of die rolls, and the rest of the combat keeps to the general trendline of "solid choices + slightly stronger PCs = victory."

 

[TwoSix]

Perfect balance is impossible to achieve without making everyone identical (like sides are in Chess). Near perfect balance takes years of constant tweaking to achieve (like the balance in Starcraft). (What I call) Acceptable balance is pretty much how 3E looks below level 6.

I'd say E6 is actually a good balance level, for my taste. Although with bounded accuracy, Next does have some similarities to E6...

 

[P1NBACK]

You make choices for your character, but in the end, his fate is a matter of random chance.

The whole point of old school play is to mitigate those chances of random death by smart play in the first place....

 

[Tony Vargas]

The whole point of old school play is to mitigate those chances of random death by smart play in the first place....

The thing that started this little digression was the popularity of the Deck of Many Things. Mitigating it's randomness by 'smart play' would consist of not using it. That would not exactly explain it's popularity...

 

[Ahnehnois]

The thing that started this little digression was the popularity of the Deck of Many Things. Mitigating it's randomness by 'smart play' would consist of not using it. That would not exactly explain it's popularity...

I think that's kind of the point, though. Were the DoMT not tempting, if players didn't get to see its potential effects, then it would not be so hard to exercise restraint. It is those tough decisions that make the game work as a game.

 

[Hussar]

I think that's kind of the point, though. Were the DoMT not tempting, if players didn't get to see its potential effects, then it would not be so hard to exercise restraint. It is those tough decisions that make the game work as a game.

But would that actually be fun?

Here's this fantastic magic item. You can win incredible things or you can die. It's a total crap shoot.

If the right answer is, "I put it down and never look at it again", that's a bit of a let down isn't it? It might be the right answer, but, it's about as memorable as watching paint dry. Somehow I don't think I've ever heard a gaming story where they just didn't play with a Deck.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Somehow I don't think I've ever heard a gaming story where they just didn't play with a Deck.

With several independent PCs, the odds are that some will and some won't. The last time I used one, I think two didn't and one did. IME, most but not nearly all PCs avoid the DoMT, which represents how most but not all players are risk-averse in general.

But would that actually be fun?

Here's this fantastic magic item. You can win incredible things or you can die. It's a total crap shoot.

If the right answer is, "I put it down and never look at it again", that's a bit of a let down isn't it? It might be the right answer, but, it's about as memorable as watching paint dry.

Really? Forgoing or forsaking a great but risky magical power is kind of a fantasy trope. Isn't that the whole point of LotR? That you have this great magic ring but can't do anything with it and have to get rid of it? What's memorable is not the item itself, but what that item brings out of the characters.

 

[Lanefan]

With several independent PCs, the odds are that some will and some won't. The last time I used one, I think two didn't and one did. IME, most but not nearly all PCs avoid the DoMT, which represents how most but not all players are risk-averse in general.

Last time I saw a Deck in my game I think 4 of 6 party members drew from it; the other two peered out from behind a hedge. (after which one of the PCs stole it from the party, left the party, took it to town, and sold it...)

Last time I saw one as a player the party was 9 or 10 strong and either everyone drew or only one did not, I forget which.

Lanefan