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

[Salamandyr]

I don't want to get too cynical. It's pretty apparent that the playtests have affected the tenor of the game. They have been really trying hard to get rid of skills, but players don't want to let them go, and now it sounds like they're back (of course a big reason for that is that the math on non combat actions don't work out right without some kind of bonus in addition to the attribute bonus--and I think skills are a bad way to fix that; they're just the traditional way). The fighter has gotten a lot more involved since the early iterations, mainly due to player feedback. It now looks like fighters will have some kind of decision point to make every round. Again, I actually think they're going about it the wrong way; I prefer broad and flexible combat options that fighters naturally excel at, not fighter specific abilities. But people like their crunchy bits in the character creation chapter.

Reaping strike, which I made a pretty impassioned case was realistic, has gone away (I don't actually mind).

And humans have gotten nerfed at least once, and I'll bet that by the launch of the books, they're all encompassing attribut bonii will be gone. Whether they'll be worth playing, or 2nd or 3rd choice for everything (and thus never played) remains to be seen.

 

[Trickster Spirit]

They have been really trying hard to get rid of skills, but players don't want to let them go, and now it sounds like they're back (of course a big reason for that is that the math on non combat actions don't work out right without some kind of bonus in addition to the attribute bonus--and I think skills are a bad way to fix that; they're just the traditional way).

Have they really been trying to get rid of skills, though? They've been trying to ensure a skill system is entirely optional, the same as feats, but they've never said anything to give me the impression they haven't wanted skills to be available in the game.

 

[MarkB]

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.

No, not really. It doesn't hurt to include some shortcuts for quick character generation, but if I'm making a character for anything more than a one-off game, what I value is having the options to build the concept I've envisioned. If that means it takes more time, that's not a major problem for me.

And for NPCs and monsters, again, some simple options are good, but not if they result in a bunch of generic opponents with predictable abilities. Yes, make it easy to build mooks, but when I want to fashion a uniquely challenging villain or monster, give me the tools with which to do so.

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 classes should be good at things within their area of expertise - if they aren't, what's the point in using a class-based character system? Meaningless statement is meaningless.

Players don't experience balance on a larger, adventure-based or campaign-based scale. What they remember is the session they basically had to sit out because their character couldn't contribute, or the awesome campaign-defining climactic moment of triumph during which their character was just standing around. Yes, balance things on the larger scale, but don't neglect the smaller scale in the process.

You want rules that make it easy to build adventures and encounters. You want to think about the story or your setting's details, rather than fiddle with math.

The trick lies in balancing "easy" with "varied" and "flavourful". I want a system that adapts to the adventure I want to build, not the other way around.

You value flexibility in rules. You prefer an ability or a rule that's easy to adapt or that leaves space for creative applications, rather than rigidly defined abilities.

I tend to prefer rules that let me know where I stand. In my experience, players who know how to be persuasive with DMs love flexible rules because of all the wonderful ways in which they can bend and fold them to suit their needs.

You aren't edition warriors. You want the game to support a variety play styles in equal measure. You're not attached to any specific ways of doing things as long as the game works.

And the game works, for me, so long as it is doing things in ways that I like, and supporting the play styles that I like. Circular argument is circular.

 

[Cadence]

That's because they're Barnum Statements.

I was going to post that I didn't think the second sentence after each bullet was that Barnummy, and how we are supposed to bring "truths" about previous editions into interpreting things (3e has more complicated NPC construction, 4e has every class with power gaining in parallel, etc...). But now I'm trying to come up with particular examples of how that applies to each statement and can't do it... I think you're right.

The early "This phase of the playtest was all about nailing the feel of D&D" sure seems to be setting us up for it. It had me thinking "races, classes, mechanics, and campaign world that fit with everything that ran from B/X through 3.5 and not 4." and it colored how I read everything that came after.

Nothing in this one changes my view toward 5e though. Just like any other game I haven't done before, I'll play it if someone in our group wants to DM it, makes it sound interesting, and lends us their book for the first session or two to see if we like it before shelling out $$$. It's missing the bullet point I need to get me to DM it - an OGL-type-thing. I'm done making up fantasy campaign materials for games with a use-by-date and (many) restrictions on sharing them.

 

[Salamandyr]

I've been saying this for a long time; I hope it's not edition warr-y; it's not intended that way. It's kind of meant as a response to the general feel that WOTC is pulling a mulligan with 5e and trying to avoid the "mistakes" of 4e.

4th edition is a great game. What I'm not entirely convinced of is that it's a great roleplaying game. It always felt, to me, like a replacement more for 3rd editions Miniatures Battles game than it was for the roleplaying game itself. It's emphasis on encounters based skirmish battles is fun, in and of itself. That some players bring actual roleplaying to the table always felt like gravy. But I've sat in on some very fun 4e games where no one even tried to roleplay, any more than they would over Magic: The Gathering. No other edition of D&D could you do that (maybe 0ed, with a really good DM). Correction: you could, but it wouldn't be fun. 4e is fun. 1-3 were only fun to the extent they acted as a facilitator to roleplay.

With that in mind, I think WOTC should keep on making 4e. They should release it as "The Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Battles Game" with tiles, minis, and pogs, and sell expansion books expanding classes and powers.

At the same time, they release "The Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Roleplaying Game" which can be similar to what they're trying to do with 5e.

4e stays around; it just emphasizes the things it seems best designed to emphasize, and we can have a game for us more "traditional" minded gamers as well.

 

[the Jester]

I've been saying this for a long time; I hope it's not edition warr-y; it's not intended that way. It's kind of meant as a response to the general feel that WOTC is pulling a mulligan with 5e and trying to avoid the "mistakes" of 4e.

4th edition is a great game. What I'm not entirely convinced of is that it's a great roleplaying game. It always felt, to me, like a replacement more for 3rd editions Miniatures Battles game than it was for the roleplaying game itself. It's emphasis on encounters based skirmish battles is fun, in and of itself. That some players bring actual roleplaying to the table always felt like gravy. But I've sat in on some very fun 4e games where no one even tried to roleplay, any more than they would over Magic: The Gathering. No other edition of D&D could you do that (maybe 0ed, with a really good DM). Correction: you could, but it wouldn't be fun. 4e is fun. 1-3 were only fun to the extent they acted as a facilitator to roleplay.

With that in mind, I think WOTC should keep on making 4e. They should release it as "The Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Battles Game" with tiles, minis, and pogs, and sell expansion books expanding classes and powers.

At the same time, they release "The Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Roleplaying Game" which can be similar to what they're trying to do with 5e.

4e stays around; it just emphasizes the things it seems best designed to emphasize, and we can have a game for us more "traditional" minded gamers as well.

You don't think some, perhaps many, 4e fans would find that offensive?

You're basically telling them that they're not playing an rpg when they play 4e. That's pretty easily interpreted as you calling badwrongfun, even if you don't mean it that way.

 

[Salamandyr]

You don't think some, perhaps many, 4e fans would find that offensive?

You're basically telling them that they're not playing an rpg when they play 4e. That's pretty easily interpreted as you calling badwrongfun, even if you don't mean it that way.

I do recognize that it could be interpreted that way, which is why I included a caveat at the beginning of my piece. But the fact that someone can misconstrue something (and what you stated is a misconstruction) is not a reason to withhold honest opinion.

Please re-read what I wrote, I did not say that you could not roleplay with 4e, what I said was, it's not great for roleplaying. Big difference. And part of the problem was something I find otherwise very complimentary...it's the only edition of D&D where roleplaying is not necessary to have fun, because the mechanics are fun. And that fun gets in the way of another kind of fun. This might not be the case for every one, but it appears to be the case for enough people that "4e doesn't feel like a roleplaying game." is a pretty common statement. I disagree; it does feel like a roleplaying game, it just feels like a better tactical skirmish game.

My idea for calling it the "Fantasy Battles" game wasn't to take away anything from what 4e is; I bet people out there roleplayed the 3rd edition miniatures, and they'd have every facility to keep roleplaying in 4e; it's to provide a way for 4e to continue to exist, because it's a great game with a lot of dedicated players who deserve to have a great game, alongside a game that looks and plays more like traditional D&D, which also has a pretty dedicated group of fans.

 

[keterys]

I actually found it easier to RP with 4e, because my PC was less constrained. I could reflavor every power, I could declare my background without having to figure out my skill points or whether I'd need to contradict myself to get the prereqs for my intended prestige class, etc.

There are definitely people who play it as a type of board game, though. Some of those same people played every game as a type of board game, mind you, but I'll agree that 4e served them better as a standalone game than some other games. I never understood the attempt to make combat monsters in White Wolf, for example.

 

[Salamandyr]

Have they really been trying to get rid of skills, though? They've been trying to ensure a skill system is entirely optional, the same as feats, but they've never said anything to give me the impression they haven't wanted skills to be available in the game.

While they've always had skills, they keep insisting that they aren't skills as we are used to thinking about them. In other words...they aren't 3rd edition skills.

I would love to do away with 3e style skills, for about a half dozen different reasons. Unfortunately +0 to +5 is not enough of a differentiator between "average, nothing special one way or the other" and "OMG best in the world", and the only way to make it so stat checks work without something like 3e's skills, or a proficiency system to provide another modifier, is to create a different resolution mechanic for noncombat stat checks and combat checks.

For instance, the easiest thing would be to make the bonus for a strength check equal to your strength score minus ten, so an 18 strength would add 8 to his d20 roll. Much greater variance between Pee Wee Herman and Arnold Scharzenegger, but then each stat would have two different bonuses.

Or they could steal the B/X's & 2e's roll your stat or lower.

Or they could "roll 3d6" and add your stat bonus. The bell curve would cause larger bonuses to have greater weight on chance of success than it first appears.

But all this requires getting away from the "D20" system, which they will never do.

 

[am181d]

Please re-read what I wrote, I did not say that you could not roleplay with 4e, what I said was, it's not great for roleplaying. Big difference. And part of the problem was something I find otherwise very complimentary...it's the only edition of D&D where roleplaying is not necessary to have fun, because the mechanics are fun. And that fun gets in the way of another kind of fun. This might not be the case for every one, but it appears to be the case for enough people that "4e doesn't feel like a roleplaying game." is a pretty common statement. I disagree; it does feel like a roleplaying game, it just feels like a better tactical skirmish game.

That doesn't make sense. "Can use the combat mechanics without roleplaying" does not equal "Not as good for roleplaying."