Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[AbdulAlhazred]

This really isn't true at all. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that this shouldn't be true, even for games that are explicitly framed this way.

The game isn't defined by the DM's vision, it is defined by the vision of everyone playing. A game that deliberately monopolizes that vision in the hands of a single player is, well, pretty warped. It is just an attempt to force problematic power dynamics into a social game that flat out doesn't need them. D&D doesn't need an all-powerful DM, and all-powerful DMs cause more problems than they solve.

I'd be much happier with an alternative Rule Zero. "The DM is always right and can change anything on a whim" is kinda a bad rule... A Rule Zero that game the mandate of making the game fun to everyone involved, instead of just the DM, would work better.

I think both of your viewpoints are extremes. When you have a real visionary DM then players may come to that game to experience that DM's vision. Such a DM will be setting the fundamental tone, content, and direction of that game. They will probably do so with a good dose of input and feedback from players, but it may be heavily filtered through the DM's sensibilities.

A different type of game could be on the other extreme, almost entirely collaborative with the DM only exercising some nominal adjudication function or even just taking care of keeping track of monsters and whatnot.

The VAST majority of games fall somewhere in between. DMs exercise some authority, create a lot of the content, and have a significant influence on the direction and tone, but the players have significant inputs as well. I think a general wide-appeal RPG like D&D has to pretty much aim to work well in the middle ground. Most fairly traditional RPGs will work OK at the extremes too as long as the people at the table understand what they're doing. Obviously some of the more 'modern' RPGs are more specialized to a particular style of play, but also clearly D&D isn't trying to be that sort of game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think lots of people have lots of different opinions on what works, but for me I tend to see it this way:

The GM functions as the setting provider and engine, but within that the players should have total freedom to play their characters. For me this works great because I want a line to exist between my character and the setting. The fun for me stems from exploring the setting and interacting with it and its inhabitants. I just find having control of things traditionally reserved for the GM disrupts my sense of being there in the setting (i would probably find it just as jarring if an MMO gave me power to shape the setting as well). World building is great, one of my favorite parts of the hobby, but for me it works best in the hands of the GM.

Is this the only way to do things? Of course not, but I do think blurring this distinction in a game like D&D (where you have a substantial number of players who adhere to this kind of approach) takes a way a big part of the fun for many. That doesn't mean options for this sort of stuff can't be included. I just think they ought to be careful how they approach it in the core.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Good stuff. This is like my possession/mind reading example. Skill challenges - DCs plus the success/failure structure - give the framework for creativity without brokenness or endless arguments.

Right, and I think this is where a lot of the fundamental discord comes from between 4e-liking DMs and pre-4e-liking DMs. 4e seems to be built around having precise descriptions of what specific character 'powers' do, coupled with a strong general framework. You're expected to build OUT from the mechanics in the books, guided by story considerations etc. Previous editions simply had no real strong general framework that was well developed, instead individual character 'powers' would suggest narrative themes that the player could try to build on. Some people apparently find one approach more conducive to their fun than the other.

Sadly it is difficult to see how you can design a single game that fits both of these models. They CAN overlap to some extent, but I'm leery of the results, as games that are transitional between the two, like 3.x, seem like they don't entirely satisfy either camp.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The game isn't defined by the DM's vision, it is defined by the vision of everyone playing. A game that deliberately monopolizes that vision in the hands of a single player is, well, pretty warped. It is just an attempt to force problematic power dynamics into a social game that flat out doesn't need them. D&D doesn't need an all-powerful DM, and all-powerful DMs cause more problems than they solve.

.

I don't see it as an attempt to force problematic power dynamics on a social activity. Some of us just thinks the ga e run better when the Gm has control over certain things.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think lots of people have lots of different opinions on what works, but for me I tend to see it this way:

The GM functions as the setting provider and engine, but within that the players should have total freedom to play their characters. For me this works great because I want a line to exist between my character and the setting. The fun for me stems from exploring the setting and interacting with it and its inhabitants. I just find having control of things traditionally reserved for the GM disrupts my sense of being there in the setting (i would probably find it just as jarring if an MMO gave me power to shape the setting as well). World building is great, one of my favorite parts of the hobby, but for me it works best in the hands of the GM.

Is this the only way to do things? Of course not, but I do think blurring this distinction in a game like D&D (where you have a substantial number of players who adhere to this kind of approach) takes a way a big part of the fun for many. That doesn't mean options for this sort of stuff can't be included. I just think they ought to be careful how they approach it in the core.

Yeah, I pretty much feel the same way. As a player I want to explore and interact with the world, not so much create it (though it can be fun to add in things that relate to your character now and then). The character/world distinction is a good way to put that.

Likewise as DM I like to arrange potential plots and directions, but it is really up to the players to develop the direction of the story. In some groups the players and the DM will get together and talk about that sort of thing, and in others it just 'happens' (or fails to happen).

 

[Lanefan]

I bet if we posted the question "what is a fun mechanic and what is unfun mechanic?" here we would get lots of contradictory responses. And my guess is that the more controvertial mechanics would be very closely split 60-40 or even 50-50. If half the audience thinks healing surges are fun and half don't, that is a tough spot (because it may also mean that the pro-healing surge players feel having no heaing surges is unfun). If half the crowd loves vancian and half hates it, same think. Just look at the debates over how fighters should function and what makes them fun in play.

There's also some "unfun" mechanics that are necessary for the game to function:

- character death, or the severe threat thereof
- loss of character wealth, possessions, and-or reputation (or threat of)
- dice rolling for anything on nights when the dice just are not going your way
- limits on what each individual character can do, said limits being set by its level and class

And then each group will find their own mechanics that aren't much fun but have to be done. Ours, for example, is treasury division. Sorting out the treasury* after any adventure of substance is usually good for a whole session of bookkeeping plus a bunch of emails and homework in between. We've tried faster-and-looser division methods in the past but every time it seems one or two PCs benefit greatly and the rest get screwed; so we always end up reverting to dividing it evenly down to the last c.p.

* - includes actual treasury division, item evaluation and field-testing, item claiming, level-up training, shopping in town, commissioning items, spell research, etc. etc.

I'm sure there's people out there who just love doing this accounting-type stuff...but I'm not one of 'em.

Lan-"so just give me all of it"-efan

 

[The Little Raven]

I also skipped it. I assume the numbers didn't change, since p42 did not receive an errata to the damage expression table.

Something that WotC never pointed out (but should have): the monster damage expression tables (which were updated in the errata) were identical to the page 42 damage expression tables, so you can just use the updated version for page 42.

Otherwise, yeah, the DM's Kit had the updated numbers.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think the best approach is for designers to ask what is fun for most of our audience. ...
I bet if we posted the question "what is a fun mechanic and what is unfun mechanic?" here we would get lots of contradictory responses. And my guess is that the more controvertial mechanics would be very closely split 60-40 or even 50-50. If half the audience thinks healing surges are fun and half don't, that is a tough spot (because it may also mean that the pro-healing surge players feel having no heaing surges is unfun). If half the crowd loves vancian and half hates it, same think. Just look at the debates over how fighters should function and what makes them fun in play.

Sounds like that makes asking what is fun for the majority a pretty bad approach for a designer, rather than the best. (Though, as you point out, for a niche game with a small, unified, loyal audience it should work fine.) Even if you have a 10% strong dissenting opinion (as in the infamous gnome example), it could cause problems.

A better approach might be to include anything that's reasonably popular - with at least the gnome's semi-hypothetical 10% support, for instance - but include it in a way that is balanced and doesn't preclude anything else. That gets more into a rule-of-thumb for including concepts (gnome, a small, mischievous fey humanoid) than for mechanics (small characters cannot wield two-handed weapons), though.

For mechanics, I think, the 'best' approach is to make mechanics that work, it's the side of the designers' job that's more engineer than artist.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There's also some "unfun" mechanics that are necessary for the game to function:

- character death, or the severe threat thereof

There's nothing un-fun about a dramatically-appropriate character death. Not every character's story arc requires he retire to quasi-god-hood after some arbitrarily high level. Heroic deaths feature prominently in the genre.

- loss of character wealth, possessions, and-or reputation (or threat of)

In the absence of D&D's traditionally-extreme equipment-dependence that wouldn't be so bad, and could make for a good story or interesting challenge. It's like the 15mwd, in that, it's an un-fun phenomenon that emerges as a consequence of a mechanic, rather than simply an un-fun mechanic.

- dice rolling for anything on nights when the dice just are not going your way
- limits on what each individual character can do, said limits being set by its level and class

Nod. The last, in particular, is necessary of the classes are to be at all balanced. Few things are as un-fun as an overpowered character rendering the rest of the party moot.

 

[Ahnehnois]

What's wrong with round ones?!

The point is to say that people with square pegs get a square hole and people with round pegs get a round hole; i.e. people get a game that fits them.

I think both of your viewpoints are extremes. When you have a real visionary DM then players may come to that game to experience that DM's vision. Such a DM will be setting the fundamental tone, content, and direction of that game. They will probably do so with a good dose of input and feedback from players, but it may be heavily filtered through the DM's sensibilities.

A different type of game could be on the other extreme, almost entirely collaborative with the DM only exercising some nominal adjudication function or even just taking care of keeping track of monsters and whatnot.

The VAST majority of games fall somewhere in between. DMs exercise some authority, create a lot of the content, and have a significant influence on the direction and tone, but the players have significant inputs as well. I think a general wide-appeal RPG like D&D has to pretty much aim to work well in the middle ground. Most fairly traditional RPGs will work OK at the extremes too as long as the people at the table understand what they're doing. Obviously some of the more 'modern' RPGs are more specialized to a particular style of play, but also clearly D&D isn't trying to be that sort of game.

I think lots of people have lots of different opinions on what works, but for me I tend to see it this way:

The GM functions as the setting provider and engine, but within that the players should have total freedom to play their characters. For me this works great because I want a line to exist between my character and the setting. The fun for me stems from exploring the setting and interacting with it and its inhabitants. I just find having control of things traditionally reserved for the GM disrupts my sense of being there in the setting (i would probably find it just as jarring if an MMO gave me power to shape the setting as well). World building is great, one of my favorite parts of the hobby, but for me it works best in the hands of the GM.

Is this the only way to do things? Of course not, but I do think blurring this distinction in a game like D&D (where you have a substantial number of players who adhere to this kind of approach) takes a way a big part of the fun for many. That doesn't mean options for this sort of stuff can't be included. I just think they ought to be careful how they approach it in the core.

The point here is that in none of those examples do you (players or DMs) use the rules at the expense of your own judgment.

This conversation seems like two sides have decided to talk at cross purposes, explaining why their view is better because "it's more Fun this way." Fun is subjective. I just don't see either side convincing the other that "this Fun is better than your Fun." As always, play what you like

Well the twist is that I'm saying that I'm my saying that my views are better for my own game than the rpg designers', and the others are also better for their games than the designers'. Whereas some have posted that rpg players are essentially incompetent to play rpgs and should simply read a book and do exactly what is in it without using their own judgment.

My philosophy in this regard could be worded as "play what you like" (not what the books like).