D&D 5E L&L 8/19/13: The Final Countdown

[Sage Genesis]

Partially I agree.

Partially I feel that the "findings" remind me of those lines from horoscopes that everyone thinks applies to them. They're statements deliberately phrased to ensure most everyone agrees with them on the surface. No one's really saying "I want adventures to be difficult and time-consuming to build" - they're arguing about how much time is "time-consuming".

That's because they're Barnum Statements. I encourage everybody to read up on the Forer effect. This is not only helpful to discuss this article but also in life in general.

I can see what you're saying, but I think that you might be able to find actual preference buried in there.

(snip).

It sounds like you bought directly into the Barnum statements. That's not an attack or flaw on your part, it's the most common and natural response in the world.

You have extrapolated certain meanings from short sentences that just happen to line up with your personal preferences. And so the statements sound good to you. However, it's also possible to extrapolate different meanings from them. Like, statements that directly support 4e as written on launch day.

For example: "You like simplicity. You want to jump into the game quickly, create characters, monsters, NPCs, and adventures with a minimum of fuss, and get down to the business of playing D&D"

Well, I happen to think 4e is very simple. All effects are neatly presented in a power block format that convey the most information in the least amount of text, rather than having to divine the hidden meaning from several paragraphs of prose. Encounters are created with a dirt-simple budget of points and new monsters have most of their stats based on level and role, so I won't need to calculate the exact attack bonus based on creature type, HD, size, ability scores, feats, etc like in 3e. In 4e I can very quickly and easily sit down to play. So yes, this statement applies to 4e!

"You like that every class has the potential to contribute in most situations, but you're OK with some classes being better at certain things if that fits the class's image. You see balance on a larger, adventure-based or campaign-based scale."

Well of course! That's why the Rogue has double the amount of trained skills when compared to a Fighter. That's why Wizards get free rituals (as well as better non-combat utility powers). All three of them can contribute in most situations, but in most skill challenges it won't be the Fighter that shines as brightly as the other two. Yep, this one also applies to 4e!

I'm not going to go over the other statements because I'm pressed for time but trust me when I say I can make the entire article read like a glowing support of 4e's approach. You might think to yourself that I'm twisting the meaning of the statements here, but that's the trick of Barnum statements: there was never any meaning. Whatever you think the article says is what you put there.

 

[Li Shenron]

"You see balance on a larger scale" means that encounter-based design a la 4e wasn't a great approach. Every class doesn't need to contribute equally in every single encounter, and HP and abilities can be depleted over the course of an adventure, not just within one encounter. While we don't want binary situations ("Thieves should avoid combat entirely!"), we do want situations where the character might be at a disadvantage ("Thieves are not going to shine in combat.")

Nice post! This is definitely what also caught my eye, and as you say, there's actual preference there... I am surprised to read that WotC found this preference (which is also my preference) to be somewhat prevalent, because when talking about this on forums, I usually get a little bit hostile responses, so I kind of assumed I was in a minority. I don't think WotC is going to actively make classes more unbalanced towards a certain pillar because of this finding, but they aren't stressing over making "everybody shines the same all the time" either.

 

[VinylTap]

Some of you guys take Mike's posts a little too far. This isn't a conspiracy... its just a roleplaying game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, I happen to think 4e is very simple.

In comparison to 3e, you've probably got a case. In comparison to 2e, or 1e, or OD&D, or BEMCI...well, look at the decision points for making a first level character. "You like simplicity," in part, means "You don't need a lot of decision points."

That's why the Rogue has double the amount of trained skills when compared to a Fighter. That's why Wizards get free rituals (as well as better non-combat utility powers). All three of them can contribute in most situations, but in most skill challenges it won't be the Fighter that shines as brightly as the other two. Yep, this one also applies to 4e!

So, what class is the one that sucks at combat in 4e? What do they get instead?

I'm not going to go over the other statements because I'm pressed for time but trust me when I say I can make the entire article read like a glowing support of 4e's approach. You might think to yourself that I'm twisting the meaning of the statements here, but that's the trick of Barnum statements: there was never any meaning. Whatever you think the article says is what you put there.

I dunno that it's as Barnum as all that. It's fair to say that 4e didn't strive for complexity and homogeneity, but if you look at the options for a 1st-level character and look at the powers system as it was applied across classes, you can see that simplicity and difference weren't exactly intrinsic goals for the system (or, presumably, they would have been executed on better).

 

[Ratskinner]

That's because they're Barnum Statements. I encourage everybody to read up on the Forer effect. This is not only helpful to discuss this article but also in life in general.

It sounds like you bought directly into the Barnum statements. That's not an attack or flaw on your part, it's the most common and natural response in the world.

I agree that the statements aren't exactly specific (how could they be), but I don't think that they quite achieve the level you're talking about. While the first sentences of each point probably come close, the supporting sentences add a little more weight to them. As KM mentioned in his post, these actually do indicate different directions in design choices. Despite your marginally fanciful portrayal of 4e and its design choices/goals, its rather obvious how it would have been a failure wrt to some of these desires. Of course, 3e would also be lacking, as would most of the previous editions. (All in their own peculiar ways, of course.)

Having said that, I don't see the article as particularly profound or enlightening, either. I mean, if you commence a large public project with certain goals in mind, and then poll the people who come to participate, its hardly surprising that they have desires that line up fairly well with your project's stated goals. ::shrug::

What would really be interesting would be to see commentary from similar processes from each edition's design phase. I have come to suspect that with each edition is (at least in part) designed to respond to complaints about the previous edition(s). Naturally, as each edition runs through its life, people become more aware of its liabilities and want changes. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that that leads to an "ever upward" effect on the game, as we may revisit some "liabilities" from previous editions, but see them now as virtues. For example, we nowadays balk at the tendency in the WotC editions to have a rule for everything and to "lock down" play. However, I seem to recall that there was a great outcry against "bad DMing" and a great desire for "unified mechanics" as the d20 system was being created. Will we be here again in 10 years decrying how 5e re-invented the capricious DM? Will there be a desire for 7e to return to a "rule for everything" to protect players against such villainy? Will we be bemoaning how "open-ended and unpredictable" some of 5e's mechanics are?

 

[Sage Genesis]

In comparison to 3e, you've probably got a case. In comparison to 2e, or 1e, or OD&D, or BEMCI...well, look at the decision points for making a first level character. "You like simplicity," in part, means "You don't need a lot of decision points."

Again, that is the underlying meaning that you yourself as ascribing to the statement. The word "simple" can mean a lot of different things to different people. The whole "you don't need a lot of decision points" thing is not something Mike said, it's something you said. That's my point.

So, what class is the one that sucks at combat in 4e? What do they get instead?

I don't even know why you're asking this question. The statement was that every class should be able to contribute in most situations, so neither 4e nor Next would intentionally design a class that sucks at combat. That would be counter to the statement, whether's it's a Barnum statement or not.

I dunno that it's as Barnum as all that. It's fair to say that 4e didn't strive for complexity and homogeneity, but if you look at the options for a 1st-level character and look at the powers system as it was applied across classes, you can see that simplicity and difference weren't exactly intrinsic goals for the system (or, presumably, they would have been executed on better).

Again, you are using your own definition of "simple" right now. I can offer multiple different interpretations that would make either 4e, Next, both, or neither fit the statement.


I'm not trying to naysay you or spook people with conspiracy theories or anything, I just want to make it clear that people shouldn't be too quick to assume things about Next when reading such articles. There is probably nobody who would object to rules that "make it easy to build adventures", so most people read that and nod with a smile. Rules to make things easier. Of course that's a good thing! But... what is easy? How many numbers and charts does it take before things get fiddly with math? How do you know the rules work for your playstyle? If the process of making an adventure takes 30 minutes, is it easy? What about an hour? Or five hours? Or does the amount of time required to go through the process not factor into "easiness" at all? The statement means nothing. All I'm saying is that people should learn to recognize the statements for what they are and not to get too attached to an image of what they think the final product will be.

 

[Pickles JG]

I read the article & my reaction was I wish I had fed back more as that does not sound like what I want

1) I want depth & the simplest way of doing that (aka elegance) but simplicity is not an end.

2) It's OK if not everyone is equally capable in all circumstances but if what you are doing a lot is combat (ie D&D as she is mostly played) then everyone has to be passably balanced in combat & in any given out of combat situation then everyone has to be able to contribute a bit or you just take turns watching the specialist doing his thing. (& for combat balance not everyone has to contribute equally to each combat as long as their contribution over several fights is comparable.)

3) I do want easy encounter building, but it's not hard in any edition. It's secondary to easy encounter running with eg comprehensive simple stat blocks. Oh I guess making up high level characters in 3e is a pain so I do not want that.

4) I want the rules to tell me how to rule in most situations or why bother having them? Some of this comes from mostly playing OP for the last few years where table variation can be frustrating.

5) I want the rules to support my play style. If they also support other peoples then I don't really care. In fact it may be a bad thing as people may try to use the system to run games in a style I do not like. I am not married to any specific mechanics though.

It's odd as I really like the look of the newest playtest rules. The detail seems great with some absences that may be filled in (boring monsters).
I still have huge issues with some of the philosophical decisions principally the trying to be a bit realistic healing even though nothing about the game is realistic. Someone will still have to be the cleric despite this being mocked & despised for 30 years.

 

[Ratskinner]

I read the article & my reaction was I wish I had fed back more as that does not sound like what I want

I guess that Barnum statement thing just got blown up.

 

[Salamandyr]

It's fair to say that I'm a supporter of 5e. I want this game to succeed, but based on the bits of the article floated above. It sounds like they are telling us all the things they "found" were pretty much exactly the things they stated at the beginning 5e was supposed to do.

"Hey guys we did all this research and it turns out you guys want exactly what we were already planning to give you!"

That might be a bit cynical, and right now 5e is running as about equal to 2e as the second best iteration of D&D for me (B/X is best), so I'm not trying to impugn their efforts, just pointing out that sometimes the marketing speak is a little blatant.

 

[steeldragons]

That might be a bit cynical, and right now 5e is running as about equal to 2e as the second best iteration of D&D for me (B/X is best), so I'm not trying to impugn their efforts, just pointing out that sometimes the marketing speak is a little blatant.

Yeah. Sly and subtle WotC do not seem to be...or perhaps I'm just as cynical and sensitive to the PR-BS as you are and we're both mistaken. hahaha.