Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[AbdulAlhazred]

There were a lot of "4e doesn't have enough fluff" complaints flying around prior to Essentials, so that makes sense.

Meh. Those complaints never really stand up to examination though. I'm sure you recall the famous thread over on the 4e GD forum a while back (since I see you post over there a bunch) where one of us actually challenged someone that made this claim to come up with an objective assessment. It turned out 4e actually has MORE fluff by almost any measure you could name than any of the previous editions, oddly enough.

I think, like many complaints about 4e, there's some underlying dissatisfaction that someone will have. Then they talk about it, and try to articulate it, and it is very hard to do that. I don't doubt that people making that complaint are expressing some way in which they felt that there was a lack of 'color' in some sense. The 4e presentation wasn't communicating to them a vision that engaged their imagination in some way. The problem is it seems like WotC's analysis of those observations was very superficial, given that the response was just to add even more redundant flavor text on top of what was already a hefty helping, objectively.

My reaction to what they've done so far with DDN is largely similar. There hasn't really been a deep analysis, or if there was it was done by the wrong people with the wrong skill set or something. I fear that the 'answers' they're coming up with are still the wrong answers, and they haven't, perhaps, even really asked the right questions.

 

[Tuft]

.

The best proof of this is that it is so common to hear objections along the lines of "But what if the PCs do something that logically should bring the challenge to an end before achieving the requisite number of successes?" If the mechanics and techniques were properly explained, this question wouldn't arise (just as no one asks "But what if a PC does something that logically should kill an NPC even though the NPC hasn't been dropped to zero hp?").

What if the opponent(s) get pushed into a trapdoor, off a cliff, or into hot lava long before they reach zero HP? Would that not cut the expected rounds of combat short?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Huh, and here I thought people liked the Essentials formatting. I mean people other than me, because I really didn't. I know, the wall of powers in 4E is off-putting, but having every class feature described on a two-page thread was awesome.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

What if the opponent(s) get pushed into a trapdoor, off a cliff, or into hot lava long before they reach zero HP? Would that not cut the expected rounds of combat short?

Each of those results in some amount of HP damage, yes?

 

[Nagol]

Each of those results in some amount of HP damage, yes?

Not necessarily; the opponents could simply be removed from the field of battle and have no way to return.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Not necessarily; the opponents could simply be removed from the field of battle and have no way to return.

In which case, the guy isn't dead, then, is he?

EDIT: Recall, the original point was:

But what if a PC does something that logically should kill an NPC even though the NPC hasn't been dropped to zero hp?

So if the opponent is off-scene, thanks to being dropped off a cliff or into a hole or some lava, but he isn't at 0hp, then he's not dead.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Unfortunately though it IS the straightforwardness that is the attraction Jameson. That is exactly the whole beautiful point at the core of what 4e is, that everything is laid right there on the table in full view of everyone to be seen. Without trying to be negative in any way about DDN the issue is if it can't DO that, if it has to be somehow an obfuscated mess then it doesn't please me.

Right, and this is good to voice, but... I guess I'm missing how this contradicts the post of mine that you quoted. Can you elaborate for me?

There are plenty of things that can be done to make a game that is BETTER in the ways that 4e is better than previous editions, but if you have to sacrifice the things that actually make it a better game at the very basic core level, then no amount of tacking on modules afterwards short of effectively rewriting the whole game, is going to make up for that.

This just depends on your (generic "your") definition or view of what "better" is in an RPG.

As for the rest of your post, like I said, now is the time to express what you want, but it really isn't the time to condemn the game, yet. Express great concern, or even doubt, sure. As always, play what you like

 

[Nagol]

In which case, the guy isn't dead, then, is he?

EDIT: Recall, the original point was:



So if the opponent is off-scene, thanks to being dropped off a cliff or into a hole or some lava, but he isn't at 0hp, then he's not dead.

Agreed. But the original context was

But what if the PCs do something that logically should bring the challenge to an end before achieving the requisite number of successes?"

Pemerton simply presented a seemingly similar combat equivalent.

The analogy isn't perfect since the PCs may do something to defeat the opponents (and bring the challenge to an end) even if their opponents' hp aren't reduced to zero; heck even calling for surrender can accomplish this.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But the hit point issue is one of "end the skill challenge in a success," where "success" is being linked to "killing an opponent."

Yes, it's a bit of a strained metaphor because a dead opponent isn't necessarily the only victorious end-state (surrender also works*), but you don't get to dead without going through the HP buffer.** Just in that fashion, you don't get to a victorious end-state in a skill challenge until you go through the success buffer.

If the skill challenge being undertaken is a negotiation, the players can decide at any point to toss over the table, out blades, and extract their demands at swordpoint. I'd hardly count that as a victory in the skill challenge, though! It's, in fact, a failure in the skill challenge, which the part now has to react to. Similarly, players can exit a combat challenge early with a failure by surrendering***.

* But, given that HP represent morale, among other things, and that players may declare an opponent to not actually be dead upon striking the blow that takes the target to 0HP, narrating a "killing blow" as "the enemy surrenders" looks acceptable to me.

** Or using a Save-or-Die - but I don't really care for those for various reasons, so we'll leave them aside.

*** Hah, hah, HAH! No, really, I heard it happened, like, once.

 

[pemerton]

Not to actually want to pick any kind of fight or anything at all, but out of pure curiousity... I hear this a lot, yet year after year I wait for someone to actually present one of these brilliant alternatives in a form that would be usable in 4e and I'm still waiting!

<snip>

IMHO what the SC mechanics were intended to do was walk a sort of fine line where instead of trying to codify some sort of abstractions they tried to create a framework that would both not interfere with the simple logical cause/effect flow of action and reaction to a given situation, but still give you some definable quantitative measure to use as a framework. I am not suggesting it succeeded brilliantly, but again I'd love to see someone propose something that sits in that space and does it in a measurably better way.

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not saying Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest ect are better than skill challenges (personally, I think the different systems here have different strenths and weaknesses - I think in some ways skill challenges are actually superior to DUel of Wits, for example). What I'm saying is that these systems are all very similar as mechanics, but that those other games have much better text explaining how to use the mechanic.

For more on this, and what I think is missing from the advice and rules text for skill challenges, check out the "WHy I like skill challenges" thread. I think you'll see we're probably much more on the same page than you've inferred here.