Is it time for 5E?

[delericho]

Excuse me, but the argument is that the contents of the pages are not important; what is important is the person using that content. If this is true, it is as true for novels as it is for gaming products. If it is not true, it is equally not true.

It should be obvious that I can get more out of Crime and Punishment than my 4-year-old daughter can, and equally clear that my 4-year-old daughter will enjoy the literary stylings of "Daisy Meadows" more than I will. There is a relationship between reader and value of reading.

But to pretend that the novels themselves (or the rules in a game) bring nothing to the equation......is pretending.

Sorry, RC, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this.

Novels are a passive form of entertainment. You read, you absorb, but you don't contribute to the story. It's there, complete and intact, for you as for anyone else.

By contrast, RPGs are an active form of entertainment. You and your group together tell the story, and it contains what you collectively put into it. Whatever depth it has (or lack thereof) is there because of you.

Now, I do agree that some games can facilitate some types of play more easily than others. And it is certainly true that if I wanted to tell a "deep and meaningful" story, then I certainly wouldn't use a rules-heavy system (like 4e, 3e or Pathfinder) for that purpose. But that doesn't mean it simply can't be done.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sorry, RC, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this.

Novels are a passive form of entertainment. You read, you absorb, but you don't contribute to the story. It's there, complete and intact, for you as for anyone else.

By contrast, RPGs are an active form of entertainment. You and your group together tell the story, and it contains what you collectively put into it. Whatever depth it has (or lack thereof) is there because of you.

Now, I do agree that some games can facilitate some types of play more easily than others. And it is certainly true that if I wanted to tell a "deep and meaningful" story, then I certainly wouldn't use a rules-heavy system (like 4e, 3e or Pathfinder) for that purpose. But that doesn't mean it simply can't be done.

I disagree that novels are a passive form of entertainment, although not that novels are more passive than rpgs..... Certainly, I disagree that the reader doesn't contribute anything to the story.

I have read LotR over 30 times, for instance, and my perspective at various points in my life has certainly added to what I got out of it each of those times. Things I had largely glossed over, previously, suddenly spoke to me very strongly. For instance, when Sam talks to Frodo about a father reading to his son (on the outskirts of Mordor), it meant little to me until I was a father reading LotR to my son. And then it brought tears to my eyes.

Likewise, it should be obvious that I can get more out of Crime and Punishment than my 4-year-old daughter can, and equally clear that my 4-year-old daughter will enjoy the literary stylings of "Daisy Meadows" more than I will.

Communication is not only the speaker, but the speaker filtered through the experience, understanding, and ideas of the listener. Likewise the writer and the reader.

The depth of Crime and Punishment exists due to the efforts of the writer, but it lies fallow until read by a reader who can actively extract that depth. If it were true that "You read, you absorb, but you don't contribute to the story. It's there, complete and intact, for you as for anyone else." then any reader would walk away from it with the same experience. I can tell you as a fact that this is not true. My experience reading the novel will differ from yours, and it will differ from my experience reading the same novel later in my life. And all these things will differ than my 11-year-old daugher, my 4-year-old daughter, or my 20-year-old son assaying the same material.

The depth of a game system exists due to the efforts of the writer, but it lies fallow until used by a player who can actively extract that depth. The game player may also partake of authorial duties, it is true, but it is still a valid analogy because the difference is in degree rather than kind.

If you "agree that some games can facilitate some types of play more easily than others", then perforce you must also accept that some of that depth is not due to the players, but due to the system. Otherwise, all games would facilitate the same degree of depth, with the same degree of ease.

System is not the only thing that matters. System may not even matter most. But to claim that system doesn't matter, that "The depth is in what we bring to the game, it's not located in the rule books", then we are guilty of failing to recognize that the depth is in the synthesis of what we bring to the game and what is in the rulebooks. The rulebooks are important.




RC

 

[pemerton]

I love Holmes Basic, but there is no doubt in my mind that Moldvay Basic is far, far richer. Holmes Basic is, AFAICT, the true predecessor of the 4e Red Box. It existed merely to funnel potential players into a fuller game

Thanks, and interesting - I've never heard this before.

 

[Lanefan]

Difference, I don't disupte. Different focus doesn't on its own entail narrower focus. I don't know KotS, so can't comment on it's inadequacies (if any) - but being a WotC module I assume it has some.

Ayup.

I converted it and ran it in 1e - it certainly has some good moments and makes for a reasonably decent dungeon crawl; but there's also some gaping truck-wide holes the DM has to fill, some of which are surprisingly hard to see until someone runs into one and you're suddenly flying by the seat of your pants.

As I'm writing this, I'm recalling that my reading of the 4e DMG was heavily influenced by my earlier reading of Worlds and Monsters. I suspect that the latter does a better job of presenting the 4e gameworld and the range of play it supports than does the DMG. A much-underrated book, in my view, and (unlike Races and Classes) not at all a pay-to-preview. 4e would benefit from having more frankness of that sort in its rulebooks, explaining how different game elements were designed to be used.

Worlds and Monsters is excellent - if nothing else, the art alone makes it worth picking up.

Which might say something in itself, that 4e's best publication came out before the system was even released...

Lan-"anyone ever figured out how you're supposed to close the planar gate in KotS?"-efan

 

[Thunderfoot]

5e, sure, why not. I bought the 4e core books and they have sat on my shelf ever since. It's not the system for me. It had some good ideas, and some not so good ones, but not enough I could make work for me. Whatever, I hold no ill will for WotC and have the utmost contempt for the edition wars. Even if 5e sucks hard, I'll still buy the core rules, if only so my other 4 (and a half ) editions have something to cuddle up to on the bookshelf.

As for my opinion, its in the works, yeah sure Essentials is the new big thing, but that gives me even more thought that yeah, it's coming. After GenCon last year when they dropped the 'red box' rules, it seemed the WotC folks were waaay too subdued considering they were touting a new product, felt the same way right before 4e dropped. Yeah, it's not scientific, no proof, but call it a gut feeling. If not an actual edition re-boot, SOMETHING big is coming that's got the gang all queasy.

 

[fumetti]

See, I don't find this to be true either. With its training, feat and multi-class rules it's actually quite broad, I find, in its approach to skill acquisition and how that fits into character building.

With other editions, a player did not have to choose between expanding his character's skill abiities and combat abilities. There were many more skill types and leveling up in skills was its own mechanic. 4E gives certain skills at first and then any further skills requires using a feat. Feats are generally a way to improve combat abilities. So using a feat to add a skill comes with the opportunity cost of adding a combat ability.

 

[pemerton]

Fumetti, that was the same in AD&D, where adding a non-weapon prof could be at the cost of adding a weapon prof (in Oriental Adventures, the two came from the same pool of points, and in D/WSG, weapon profs could be spent on non-weapon but not vice versa).

 

[UngainlyTitan]

With other editions, a player did not have to choose between expanding his character's skill abiities and combat abilities. There were many more skill types and leveling up in skills was its own mechanic. 4E gives certain skills at first and then any further skills requires using a feat. Feats are generally a way to improve combat abilities. So using a feat to add a skill comes with the opportunity cost of adding a combat ability.

The thing about 4e is, that unless you are real prenikity about hitting things then droping a feat on extra skills is not going to hose your character. It is not like 3e where there was a constant need to watch the BAB and saves. A +1,+2 is as much as you get and there are a lot of feats over 30 levels. A player can afford a couple of flavour feats per tier.

 

[fumetti]

Fumetti, that was the same in AD&D, where adding a non-weapon prof could be at the cost of adding a weapon prof (in Oriental Adventures, the two came from the same pool of points, and in D/WSG, weapon profs could be spent on non-weapon but not vice versa).

Unless my memory has failed, the two were independent of each other.

Weapon proficiency advancement was self-contained and automatic. You got x weap prof per x levels. Aside from that, players also got x non-weap proficiencies per x levels.

If a player chose, he could sacrifice a new weapon prof for a new on-weap prof (not the other way around), but they were not linked. A player was not forced a choice between the two.

 

[shadzar]

Unless my memory has failed, the two were independent of each other.

Weapon proficiency advancement was self-contained and automatic. You got x weap prof per x levels. Aside from that, players also got x non-weap proficiencies per x levels.

If a player chose, he could sacrifice a new weapon prof for a new on-weap prof (not the other way around), but they were not linked. A player was not forced a choice between the two.

Correct. Some times they were gained at the same levels, but each is independent.

Rath (a warrior), for example, gains one weapon proficiency slot at every level evenly divisible by 3. He gets one new slot at 3rd level, another at 6th, another at 9th, and so on. (Note that Rath also gains one nonweapon proficiency at 3rd, 6th, 9th, etc.)

There was really no rule written, that I can find or remember, about swapping slots, but most felt they had enough weapons, and groups everywhere sensed the failing of forcing a WP, so allowed people to use a WP for a NWP, if they didn't want more weapons.

Rarely was a NWP able to be turned into a WP, or even needed to be unless your wizard was just tired of using one proficient weapon until 6th level. Use of kits would help remove this problem by giving access to a different range of weapons. A favorite being from CBoE, War Wizard giving two bonus WPs (sword and bow).