Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, I missed this post in this thread earlier (I was heavily skimming due to lack of time). Interestingly, I had a conversation awhile ago in another thread about this exact same thing. This video mirrors my points almost exactly. The conversation continued in that thread with some participants saying:

1) 4e's dragons had too much mental overhead and table handling time

coupled with

2) Their distinct abilities (which were the origin of the alleged exacerbation of mental overhead and table handling time) not actually engendering...distinctiveness!

Adding an Inferno and Immolate analogue to 5e wouldn't render the Ancient Red more distinctive from the Ancient Blue...and it would just be too much cognitive workload? Errr? The conversation continued from there as I found that (and still do...not just because its empirically false but because its even theoretically hard to fathom someone taking a position). Read it at your discretion (I bailed after a few head-scratching responses).

What I find most fascinating about that exchange (and similar exchanges) is the utterly untenable position that 5e dragons are distinct while at the same time being on the "4e PC homogeneity" train. 5e dragons on the wing are NEARLY EXACTLY THE SAME AS EACH OTHER (LR 3/day, Multiattack, Bite, Claw, Tail, Breath Weapon, LAs of Detect/Tail/Wing) save for minor base stat fluctuation and the distinction of their elemental shtick (breath weapon type and immunity). A few of them have Burrow. *

But 4e PCs are homogeneous and lacking mechanical and archetypal distinction? Given that 4e PCs are PROFOUNDLY distinctive in play, right out of the box (from both a tactical depth perspective and the way their thematics manifest in the fiction in combat, SCs, and Quests), that is a nightmare of a position to try to intellectually defend. I'm so glad I don't have to try to maintain those two positions simultaneously.


* Now their Lair Actions are where the distinction and interesting nuance (tactical depth, archetype coming out in the fiction) manifests with 5e dragons. But managing Lair Actions somehow doesn't increase mental overhead to the point that the cognitive workload becomes too burdensome? But simply adding unique Legendary Actions or a Passive Aura would?

I think part of the confusion lies in differing perceptions of complexity. There are a significant group of people that find the whole idea of tactical depth, positioning, the significant numbers of different conditions with different durations, detailed action mechanics, etc. to be simply overwhelmingly complex. Thus they just bin everything that comes with 4e's combat system into an "its too complex" mental bin, and conversely everything in 5e's combat system into a "this is simple" bin, regardless of any objective measures of complexity or any reasoning about what might provide improved play or any kind of balance between complexity and quality of play.

This may not account for all cases where 5e clearly is more complex or rejects 4e-type simplifications, but it does provide an understanding of the basic place that its coming from. Obviously stuff like calling out spells in monster stat blocks is something else entirely, which I would chalk up to stubborn traditionalism and unwillingness to admit there's an argument for 4e simplicity at all.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think part of the confusion lies in differing perceptions of complexity. There are a significant group of people that find the whole idea of tactical depth, positioning, the significant numbers of different conditions with different durations, detailed action mechanics, etc. to be simply overwhelmingly complex. Thus they just bin everything that comes with 4e's combat system into an "its too complex" mental bin, and conversely everything in 5e's combat system into a "this is simple" bin, regardless of any objective measures of complexity or any reasoning about what might provide improved play or any kind of balance between complexity and quality of play.

This may not account for all cases where 5e clearly is more complex or rejects 4e-type simplifications, but it does provide an understanding of the basic place that its coming from. Obviously stuff like calling out spells in monster stat blocks is something else entirely, which I would chalk up to stubborn traditionalism and unwillingness to admit there's an argument for 4e simplicity at all.

This is good analysis, but I think there is another ingredient in the mix here as well. A few people ( [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] , [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] , [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] , [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] , and I believe yourself as well?) have very astutely pointed out that folks on these boards tend to substitute or conflate "familiar" with "rules lite" or non-complex. That conflation or substitution is obviously a product of, or at least heavily influenced by, perception bias.

People (naturally) orient themselves toward a subject and begin developing a mental framework and concomitant investment in that developing framework. As time marches on, that mental framework may churn, it may refine, but it will just as likely (or moreso) ossify. Cognitive biases are born. Most often they're born out of the need for processing efficiency/functional cognitive shorthand/intuition/common sense (all models are wrong, but some are useful). Unfortunately, coinciding with all of this comes a profound seduction...the need to legitimize your own cognitive biases and cement them as legitimate/orthodox/normative/canonical.

That is how "familiar" becomes non-complex or "rules lite", even though something like 5e is fundamentally extremely complex and "rules heavy" when a neutral 3rd party compares it to something like the Powered By the Apocalypse systems.

 

[chaochou]

People (naturally) orient themselves toward a subject and begin developing a mental framework and concomitant investment in that developing framework... Unfortunately, coinciding with all of this comes a profound seduction...the need to legitimize your own cognitive biases and cement them as legitimate/orthodox/normative/canonical.

Not been following this converstion (or many conversations here for a while) but since I got mentioned, and summoned, I'll chime in.

I don't think complexity was a problem with 4e. All editions are complex. D&D has a high rules overhead and an equally high conceptual overhead, translating complex rules sets in and out of fictional situations and filling in all the blanks where the rules are flawed, silent or ambiguous.

In my view 4e lost a lot of GMs because of its transparency. The strongest correlation I've seen is between people who like 4e and people who dislike GM fiat / force.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In my view 4e lost a lot of GMs because of its transparency. The strongest correlation I've seen is between people who like 4e and people who dislike GM fiat / force.

That and the Wizard Supremacists.

 

[Manbearcat]

In my view 4e lost a lot of GMs because of its transparency. The strongest correlation I've seen is between people who like 4e and people who dislike GM fiat / force.

100 % absolutely (and you know I feel that way because we've talked about it at length )

5e runs hard the other direction (toward AD&D 2e) via (a) GM latitude/mandate runneth over, (b) text/procedure opacity, (c) heavy reliance on GM interpretation/adjudication and attendant spillover in action resolution, (d) metagame aversion, (e) and play agenda being informed solely by the overly broad "have fun" and "tell memorable stories" (intentionally without constraining/playstyle-defining micro-principles).

That is fertile ground for GM Force and Illusionism. Not a coincidence in the slightest. There is a hugely sizable portion of D&D GMs who cut their teeth on and then groomed the techniques of Force and Illusion. By their reckoning, its part and parcel to the trade of DMing Dungeons and Dragons. For them, transparency, codification, lack of needing to be heavily involved in action resolution, and player authority is anathema. And they were a large contingent that rebelled dramatically against 4e.

All that being said, I was musing about the cognitive-bias-wrought irony of folks actually calling 5e noncomplex or "rules lite", not 4e. While 4e is transparent, intuitive-with-minimal-effort, coherent, and elegant (leading it to be trivially run on virtually no prep and severely diminished GM mental overhead) no one could confuse it for non-complex or "rules lite!'

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not been following this converstion (or many conversations here for a while) but since I got mentioned, and summoned, I'll chime in.

I don't think complexity was a problem with 4e. All editions are complex. D&D has a high rules overhead and an equally high conceptual overhead, translating complex rules sets in and out of fictional situations and filling in all the blanks where the rules are flawed, silent or ambiguous.

In my view 4e lost a lot of GMs because of its transparency. The strongest correlation I've seen is between people who like 4e and people who dislike GM fiat / force.

I think you are onto something, there.

4e converted my good friend and fellow DM into a vastly less DM fiat oriented DM, because it showed him that the DM doesn't need to be a part time game designer to run a fun game.

 

[chaochou]

There is a hugely sizable portion of D&D GMs who cut their teeth on and then groomed the techniques of Force and Illusion. By their reckoning, its part and parcel to the trade of DMing Dungeons and Dragons.

Indeed... but let's be fair. That was the hobby for a long time, whether you played D&D or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Runequest or Call of Cthulhu, Twilight 2000 or Aftermath, Bushido or GURPS, Vampire or Shadowrun. So you can bring decades of experience to 4e and find it resisting your efforts to run the game the way you've always done it.

I notice that people who had success with 4e usually understood and enjoyed the principles in games like Burning Wheel, FATE, powered by the Apocalypse, Mouse Guard, etc. So the way to get the best out of 4e was to have tastes and experiences far beyond D&D, and far beyond any mass market title.

I think in hindsight the 4e books - certainly the early releases - do as poor a job as any in explaining or describing play. We all know skill challenges were a mess that required you to bring in knowledge from the indie scene to properly comprehend. And the great strength of the game - a dynamic combat system that stresses the interdependence of the PCs, creating teamwork and a real sense of 'party' - ended up being portrayed as a weakness (MMO, takes too long, roles are simplistic etc, blah).

Me, I'm happy 4e was released and exists. If I run a D&D game now its between 4e and very old school roguelike 1e (3d6 rolled in order, wizards roll randomly for starting spells etc) which has its own very different charm.

 

[cavalier973]

Me, I'm happy 4e was released and exists. If I run a D&D game now its between 4e and very old school roguelike 1e (3d6 rolled in order, wizards roll randomly for starting spells etc) which has its own very different charm.

I endorse this sentiment, with the exception that I would run either Moldvay B/X or BECMI.

Edit: Two of my sons have been playing B/X by themselves for some time, now. One is the DM and also runs a character. A marvelous system that is easy to understand and play.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Indeed... but let's be fair. That was the hobby for a long time, whether you played D&D or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Runequest or Call of Cthulhu, Twilight 2000 or Aftermath, Bushido or GURPS, Vampire or Shadowrun. So you can bring decades of experience to 4e and find it resisting your efforts to run the game the way you've always done it.

I notice that people who had success with 4e usually understood and enjoyed the principles in games like Burning Wheel, FATE, powered by the Apocalypse, Mouse Guard, etc. So the way to get the best out of 4e was to have tastes and experiences far beyond D&D, and far beyond any mass market title.

I think in hindsight the 4e books - certainly the early releases - do as poor a job as any in explaining or describing play. We all know skill challenges were a mess that required you to bring in knowledge from the indie scene to properly comprehend. And the great strength of the game - a dynamic combat system that stresses the interdependence of the PCs, creating teamwork and a real sense of 'party' - ended up being portrayed as a weakness (MMO, takes too long, roles are simplistic etc, blah).

Me, I'm happy 4e was released and exists. If I run a D&D game now its between 4e and very old school roguelike 1e (3d6 rolled in order, wizards roll randomly for starting spells etc) which has its own very different charm.

I think that explains some people, but not all or even most.

No one in my group was into indie games before 4e, and it all worked fine for us. It fit how some of us had always played, and things like skill challenges made immediate sense to us. Skill challenges didn't work as well in practice because they go the probabilities wonky, more or less, but they were easy to fudge into working right until the revisions came out and fixed them.

A lot of the problem 4e had, IMO, was presentation.

And some people see player empowerment as blasphemy.

 

[chaochou]

I think that explains some people, but not all or even most.

Well, to be fair I did say 'usually'

And some people see player empowerment as blasphemy.

Yes, for sure. I have most of them on block!