Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5965230" data-attributes="member: 6668292"><p>About what I thought so far.</p><p></p><p>As far as I can tell, the Crucial Advice power basically lets you make someone else reroll a skill they just failed with a bonus equal to their Wisdom modifier? That's a nice power, and definitely seems helpful outside of combat (though skills are still a weak point for "player agency" in 4e, from my view, as the DC and skill application is still basically all decided by the DM).</p><p></p><p>Generally speaking, this is why I like rules-heavy systems. I prefer the rules being open and displayed to most players, and their abilities reliable, so that they know what their chances are (if they know the system) and what risks they're taking (from no chance to sure thing). It's why I wrote this in my "Running a Game" chapter for my RPG under a section titled "Fairness":[sblock]So, the question is, why will some people easily accept a rule in the book, but not a decision made by GM fiat?</p><p></p><p>That's a good question, and I'll do my best to address it. Many people rely on the rules as a form of support, be it player or GM.</p><p></p><p>As a player, it lets me know what I can reliably do. If I know that attacking requires me to roll a base attack + Strength roll, and I need to hit their armor class, then I can plan around that. I can attempt to attain a higher Strength, or a higher base attack, or a masterwork weapon, or feats that boost my roll. It lets me know how I can craft my character to play out the way I want it to. For example, if I had in mind a character who is this huge brute that hits people with a giant axe, I probably envision a high Strength character, possibly with a high Constitution. Now, if I found out (through a house rule) that Dexterity is the attribute that covers whether or not I can hit someone, than my concept changes to include a high Dexterity, so I can make use of my giant axe. These written rules give players a strong starting point when determining the mechanical manifestation of the concept of their character. If their mechanical character does not match their conceptual character very much, than they often find themselves distanced from the character, losing that special connection, immersion, or whatever it is that makes that character special and spark in their mind.</p><p></p><p>For a GM, having the rules to draw on is incredibly comforting when you are learning. After you have played with the rules for a while, you can see the strengths and weaknesses of the system. Having rules in place allows you to cite them when a player disagrees, even if they think it is a bad rule. Of course, it is true that the more you know about something, the more you can break the rules you were taught at the beginning. So, with more experience, it's much easier to break these rules and have an enjoyable experience, but I think that's a fairly universal rule.</p><p></p><p>As a player, the rules are there for guidance, and as a source of reliable material. You cannot reliably use GM fiat, for even an amazing GM must come up with the mechanical roll for you to use on the fly. You cannot know what the rolling mechanic will be any more than he does. Take, for example, a maneuver to dodge and have two enemies swing at one another. If I wanted to do that, and the maneuver had no mechanics, than I could have no way of knowing that you'd rule it a certain way, for even you have not decided what the ruling is yet (as the situation is only now coming up). However, if it is a set mechanical maneuver, I know I can reliably use that mechanic, and I can temper a character concept by careful use of reliable rules.</p><p></p><p>As a GM, they are there as a source of incredible guidance, giving you example after example of how the system envisions Dexterity being used, attack rolls being used, Constitution checks being used. The rules help you see the spirit of the game. Rules help indicate the style of game the rules were created for.</p><p></p><p>When a GM begins to use his granted power to overrule a player, I personally do not immediately buck against it. I'll accept it. If it creates an inconsistent or displeasing game experience, I'll voice my concern, and I'll drop the game if it continues. I will not try to take away that right from the GM, as he has the right to run his game the way he wishes. As a player, I think I should look for someone a little more in line with what I enjoy. Since, really, it's all about enjoyment. And that's the crux of the matter, really. It's about mutual enjoyment, and it's about a consistent gaming world where reliable mechanics are incredibly useful. That's really it. I break or bend rules all the time, and I attempt to do so in a consistent way. Players are expecting consistency in the rules, and the more decisions they can make without direct GM input, the more in control of their own characters they feel.[/sblock]</p><p></p><p>I think this depends on how you run the game. If everything "levels" with you, then yes, the DCs are easier ("this is a Hard task, and we're level 17, so the DC is <em>X</em>"). However, what if you approach the game more like Neonchameleon (I think) does, where climbing a mundane tree might be a moderate task for level 1's (in his game)? Who decides what level a task is, and what difficulty for that level? The DM. This gives an awful lot of power to the DM, and players have to hope that he remains consistent in his rulings. They have to ask him "what's the DC to do this" if they want to have a good idea of their odds, and then the DM needs to make up what the DC is. This is close to the "Mother May I" style of game that many people feel undesirable (and something that pushes against "player agency").</p><p></p><p>We'll see how it goes, but while 4e had some "player agency" mechanics, it didn't have a comprehensive system (to my knowledge) that 5e could lift heavily from. While combat is a very strong component of D&D, I'd like to see the other "pillars" expanded upon, and something much stronger than what 4e had (or 3.X, 2e, 1e, etc.) put in its place. Just me, though. As always, play what you like <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JamesonCourage, post: 5965230, member: 6668292"] About what I thought so far. As far as I can tell, the Crucial Advice power basically lets you make someone else reroll a skill they just failed with a bonus equal to their Wisdom modifier? That's a nice power, and definitely seems helpful outside of combat (though skills are still a weak point for "player agency" in 4e, from my view, as the DC and skill application is still basically all decided by the DM). Generally speaking, this is why I like rules-heavy systems. I prefer the rules being open and displayed to most players, and their abilities reliable, so that they know what their chances are (if they know the system) and what risks they're taking (from no chance to sure thing). It's why I wrote this in my "Running a Game" chapter for my RPG under a section titled "Fairness":[sblock]So, the question is, why will some people easily accept a rule in the book, but not a decision made by GM fiat? That's a good question, and I'll do my best to address it. Many people rely on the rules as a form of support, be it player or GM. As a player, it lets me know what I can reliably do. If I know that attacking requires me to roll a base attack + Strength roll, and I need to hit their armor class, then I can plan around that. I can attempt to attain a higher Strength, or a higher base attack, or a masterwork weapon, or feats that boost my roll. It lets me know how I can craft my character to play out the way I want it to. For example, if I had in mind a character who is this huge brute that hits people with a giant axe, I probably envision a high Strength character, possibly with a high Constitution. Now, if I found out (through a house rule) that Dexterity is the attribute that covers whether or not I can hit someone, than my concept changes to include a high Dexterity, so I can make use of my giant axe. These written rules give players a strong starting point when determining the mechanical manifestation of the concept of their character. If their mechanical character does not match their conceptual character very much, than they often find themselves distanced from the character, losing that special connection, immersion, or whatever it is that makes that character special and spark in their mind. For a GM, having the rules to draw on is incredibly comforting when you are learning. After you have played with the rules for a while, you can see the strengths and weaknesses of the system. Having rules in place allows you to cite them when a player disagrees, even if they think it is a bad rule. Of course, it is true that the more you know about something, the more you can break the rules you were taught at the beginning. So, with more experience, it's much easier to break these rules and have an enjoyable experience, but I think that's a fairly universal rule. As a player, the rules are there for guidance, and as a source of reliable material. You cannot reliably use GM fiat, for even an amazing GM must come up with the mechanical roll for you to use on the fly. You cannot know what the rolling mechanic will be any more than he does. Take, for example, a maneuver to dodge and have two enemies swing at one another. If I wanted to do that, and the maneuver had no mechanics, than I could have no way of knowing that you'd rule it a certain way, for even you have not decided what the ruling is yet (as the situation is only now coming up). However, if it is a set mechanical maneuver, I know I can reliably use that mechanic, and I can temper a character concept by careful use of reliable rules. As a GM, they are there as a source of incredible guidance, giving you example after example of how the system envisions Dexterity being used, attack rolls being used, Constitution checks being used. The rules help you see the spirit of the game. Rules help indicate the style of game the rules were created for. When a GM begins to use his granted power to overrule a player, I personally do not immediately buck against it. I'll accept it. If it creates an inconsistent or displeasing game experience, I'll voice my concern, and I'll drop the game if it continues. I will not try to take away that right from the GM, as he has the right to run his game the way he wishes. As a player, I think I should look for someone a little more in line with what I enjoy. Since, really, it's all about enjoyment. And that's the crux of the matter, really. It's about mutual enjoyment, and it's about a consistent gaming world where reliable mechanics are incredibly useful. That's really it. I break or bend rules all the time, and I attempt to do so in a consistent way. Players are expecting consistency in the rules, and the more decisions they can make without direct GM input, the more in control of their own characters they feel.[/sblock] I think this depends on how you run the game. If everything "levels" with you, then yes, the DCs are easier ("this is a Hard task, and we're level 17, so the DC is [I]X[/I]"). However, what if you approach the game more like Neonchameleon (I think) does, where climbing a mundane tree might be a moderate task for level 1's (in his game)? Who decides what level a task is, and what difficulty for that level? The DM. This gives an awful lot of power to the DM, and players have to hope that he remains consistent in his rulings. They have to ask him "what's the DC to do this" if they want to have a good idea of their odds, and then the DM needs to make up what the DC is. This is close to the "Mother May I" style of game that many people feel undesirable (and something that pushes against "player agency"). We'll see how it goes, but while 4e had some "player agency" mechanics, it didn't have a comprehensive system (to my knowledge) that 5e could lift heavily from. While combat is a very strong component of D&D, I'd like to see the other "pillars" expanded upon, and something much stronger than what 4e had (or 3.X, 2e, 1e, etc.) put in its place. Just me, though. As always, play what you like :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
Top