D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[Hriston]

I just have to ask, how can you have acquaintances without knowing them?

You keep saying the features rely on the PC knowing someone, as if that's a precondition that needs to be satisfied before their benefits can be received. That is not how the features are written. In some cases, a benefit of the feature is that you know someone. Receiving that benefit doesn't "rely" on you knowing someone. You just do.

Because some of the background features such as sailor explicitly state that it's someone you know. In other cases it's because you, or your family, is known.

And this is something you're reading back into the features that isn't there. There's no requirement, explicitly stated or otherwise, that you know or are known by someone.

 

[Hriston]

It was a simple question. Probably one I'll regret asking but still. That, and previously you had responded to a week+ old posting of mine.

I don't know what question you're talking about. If it's a problem for you that I respond to your posts when I get around to it (this one's from nine days ago), you can stop adding to the backlog of posts that posters have made in response to mine.

 

[Oofta]

You keep saying the features rely on the PC knowing someone, as if that's a precondition that needs to be satisfied before their benefits can be received. That is not how the features are written. In some cases, a benefit of the feature is that you know someone. Receiving that benefit doesn't "rely" on you knowing someone. You just do.


And this is something you're reading back into the features that isn't there. There's no requirement, explicitly stated or otherwise, that you know or are known by someone.

Is there anything new here? I don't know why you keep wanting to die on this hill, there's no new spin on this question. In many cases, the feature only works because of connections the PCs have or because of their reputation. Doesn't matter how often you ask that question, it's not going to change and I'm not going to bother copying/pasting the text yet again because you'll just ignore it. Again.

 

[Hriston]

how much more clear than ‘specifically, you know the local messengers’ does it have to be for you to agree / admit that it is relying on the character knowing a person…

Knowing the local messengers is a benefit of the feature that can be used to explain how you get messages to your contact. Nothing relies on it. Your messages can be delivered in other ways. It's just some fiction that's established by way of the feature.

 

[James Gasik]

so what are you saying here? '4e had great mechanics for keeping things running smoothly but people didn't like the explainations for why the mechanics were there'? (genuinely asking for clarification here)

Pretty much this. D&D, historically, likes to hide the nuts and bolts that make it really seem to be a game. Everything is viewed through a lens of verisimilitude. 4e came along and just brought everything out into the open. Gone was any "natural language", powers did exactly what they said they did, without much wiggle room for interpretation. Sure there was flavor text, but it didn't really mean anything- it was the wording of the powers themselves that mattered.

Very little thought was given to how powers work, see all the debates about "Come and Get It" where the Fighter just draws foes to them automagically, because that's what the designers thought Fighters of that level should be able to do, and didn't bother to explain the whys or the hows, or to include ways for victims to resist being taunted by what everyone presumed was a "non-magical" class when it really wasn't (the Martial power source being just that, a source of power one taps into- and that's not getting into some of the explicitly preternatural abilities one gets from Paragon and Epic tier sub-classes).

4e rubbed a lot of people the wrong way because it was mechanics first, verisimilitude second. Gone were the little bits of useless flavor like spell components, mystic words, or grounding anything into the setting- you can look at what happened to the Forgotten Realms and other older worlds when it they were forced to conform to mechanics not built for them.

I really enjoyed 4e, but it came out swinging, saying "I am the future of the hobby, you must submit", about as subtle as a punch in the nose. When I first saw it, I was completely turned off by things like reach weapons being made almost useless and strange 1/combat or 1/day maneuvers that did "2[W] damage and slowed the target until the end of their next turn." It wasn't until I actually played the game more that I realized how good it was, despite it's initial presentation.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

No they said at the time it outsold all previous editions

This was only true of initial sales. Which means that everyone wanted to like it, and gave it a shot, but ultimately a large percentage turned away after that, and sales dropped off.

I personally liked (and sold a lot of) 4e, but I can't deny that the above is what happened to it.

 

[Oofta]

Pretty much this. D&D, historically, likes to hide the nuts and bolts that make it really seem to be a game. Everything is viewed through a lens of verisimilitude. 4e came along and just brought everything out into the open. Gone was any "natural language", powers did exactly what they said they did, without much wiggle room for interpretation. Sure there was flavor text, but it didn't really mean anything- it was the wording of the powers themselves that mattered.

Very little thought was given to how powers work, see all the debates about "Come and Get It" where the Fighter just draws foes to them automagically, because that's what the designers thought Fighters of that level should be able to do, and didn't bother to explain the whys or the hows, or to include ways for victims to resist being taunted by what everyone presumed was a "non-magical" class when it really wasn't (the Martial power source being just that, a source of power one taps into- and that's not getting into some of the explicitly preternatural abilities one gets from Paragon and Epic tier sub-classes).

4e rubbed a lot of people the wrong way because it was mechanics first, verisimilitude second. Gone were the little bits of useless flavor like spell components, mystic words, or grounding anything into the setting- you can look at what happened to the Forgotten Realms and other older worlds when it they were forced to conform to mechanics not built for them.

I really enjoyed 4e, but it came out swinging, saying "I am the future of the hobby, you must submit", about as subtle as a punch in the nose. When I first saw it, I was completely turned off by things like reach weapons being made almost useless and strange 1/combat or 1/day maneuvers that did "2[W] damage and slowed the target until the end of their next turn." It wasn't until I actually played the game more that I realized how good it was, despite it's initial presentation.

Come and get it was one of the things that ultimately turned me off of 4E. Add in too many conditions, interrupts, combat that at higher levels took hours (in my experience 2-3 times longer than 5E fights). Toss in the lack of versatility of how you could use your powers so if you were a wizard that had an awesome spell that could be useful multiple times in an encounter, too bad ... wait ... I was just going to explain my issue with come and get it.

So the power stated that you insulted creatures around you and pulled them in next to you so you could smack them around. More or less. Except there was no way to insult many of the creatures because you shared no language. There was simply no narrative way to justify this most of the time in-world, to me and the vast majority of people I played with, it just screamed "Game mechanic for the win!" Toss in powers where my PC had an aura of weapon damage from rain of steel and, well, there was simply no way to justify it other than magic and I don't care what the label they slapped on it was.

So yes, it ultimately rubbed me the wrong way because there was no way I could visualize what was going on as a fantasy action movie. It didn't feel like I was the protagonist in any novel I ever read, it felt like I was an avatar of a video game. There were other issues as well that I haven't mentioned but to me it felt like a completely different game than any other edition of D&D. That doesn't make it an inherently bad game if it's what you want, it just didn't provide the same experience I had enjoyed in older editions or the current one.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Pretty much this. D&D, historically, likes to hide the nuts and bolts that make it really seem to be a game. Everything is viewed through a lens of verisimilitude. 4e came along and just brought everything out into the open. Gone was any "natural language", powers did exactly what they said they did, without much wiggle room for interpretation. Sure there was flavor text, but it didn't really mean anything- it was the wording of the powers themselves that mattered.

Very little thought was given to how powers work, see all the debates about "Come and Get It" where the Fighter just draws foes to them automagically, because that's what the designers thought Fighters of that level should be able to do, and didn't bother to explain the whys or the hows, or to include ways for victims to resist being taunted by what everyone presumed was a "non-magical" class when it really wasn't (the Martial power source being just that, a source of power one taps into- and that's not getting into some of the explicitly preternatural abilities one gets from Paragon and Epic tier sub-classes).

4e rubbed a lot of people the wrong way because it was mechanics first, verisimilitude second. Gone were the little bits of useless flavor like spell components, mystic words, or grounding anything into the setting- you can look at what happened to the Forgotten Realms and other older worlds when it they were forced to conform to mechanics not built for them.

I really enjoyed 4e, but it came out swinging, saying "I am the future of the hobby, you must submit", about as subtle as a punch in the nose. When I first saw it, I was completely turned off by things like reach weapons being made almost useless and strange 1/combat or 1/day maneuvers that did "2[W] damage and slowed the target until the end of their next turn." It wasn't until I actually played the game more that I realized how good it was, despite it's initial presentation.

I think you helped clarify my experience with 4e. I bought the books. I wanted to like it. I liked the relative clarity…but it felt very beige. And when you said “flavor text” and “components” it all clicked.

I play tactical infantry games and can handle 4e. But I did not like the “feel” which is NOT saying it is a bad game. It just did not feel right.

I suspect folks looking to have a sense of wonder did not always find it in 4e even though it had by many accounts “good bones.”

I DO want the flavor text and the weird stuff that sets the mood…in D&D. Cut and dried and factual though is what I want in a wargame with clear line of sight rules, etc.

 

[soviet]

So the power stated that you insulted creatures around you and pulled them in next to you so you could smack them around. More or less. Except there was no way to insult many of the creatures because you shared no language. There was simply no narrative way to justify this most of the time in-world, to me and the vast majority of people I played with, it just screamed "Game mechanic for the win!" Toss in powers where my PC had an aura of weapon damage from rain of steel and, well, there was simply no way to justify it other than magic and I don't care what the label they slapped on it was.

I think this is often just a failure of imagination. I played a Fighter with Come and Get It throughout 4e. I used it against beasts, swordwraiths, and other enemies I couldn't converse with, and each time I had an apposite explanation.

 

[mamba]

In some cases, a benefit of the feature is that you know someone. Receiving that benefit doesn't "rely" on you knowing someone. You just do.

that is a distinction without a difference...