D&D 5E The Door, Player Expectations, and why 5e can't unify the fanbase.

[Argyle King]

In short:

How the party approaches an obstacle should depend upon what makes sense at the time and/or what makes sense give the party's resources and what is around them.

While I enjoy 4E, I somewhat dislike the method which 4E took to make higher level challenges feel more epic. "It's not just a door! It's a door made of frozen fire which plays evil show tunes when you turn the handle!" That sort of thing is cool when it's unique and adds something to the game and/or the game world. Just throwing it in there because that's the game system's arbitrary way of making a higher level feel like a higher level isn't exactly my cup of tea.

Likewise, while I enjoy 3rd Edition, I feel as though too many things are a function of level rather than a function of in-game play and what feels natural given the situation. It's especially noticeable in 3rd because of how sharp the power curve between levels can be. At times, the difference of one or two levels could completely kill a story arc because those one or two levels completely changed the dynamic of how the game worked -not because of what was going on in the game and in the game world, but because of how the system dictated that levels be illustrated with the game mechanics.

I'd much prefer an approach which has a better sense of emergent gameplay and makes more of an effort to connect me to what's going on inside the game world rather than putting so much weight on level escalation and what characters of a particular level "should" be doing.

 

[Harlock]

The basis of your argument seems to be that there are two kinds of D&D players: players who like 3e, and players who like 4e. Aside from being a false dichotomy (as evinced by the OSR and others), that's a very poisonous way of thinking.

That sort of "editionism" is the real problem. It's a way of thinking that divides people into groups, and sets them as enemies against each other. While some gamers' tastes perfectly parallel their chosen edition, most don't:Instead of thinking in terms of editions, think in terms of playstyles.

I think that quote from Mr. Mearls is actually quite enlightening. But, may I posit that perhaps some editions were so versatile that more varied playstyles were much more easily accommodated than perhaps some people give them credit for? Or, perhaps even more startling is the chance that some players never experienced the system "as intended" due to DM fiat, for better or worse? Heaven knows I've flat ignored rules that I knew my group would find tedious while emphasizing and house-ruling rules that would benefit my group and its playstyle.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I think that quote from Mr. Mearls is actually quite enlightening. But, may I posit that perhaps some editions were so versatile that more varied playstyles were much more easily accommodated than perhaps some people give them credit for? Or, perhaps even more startling is the chance that some players never experienced the system "as intended" due to DM fiat, for better or worse? Heaven knows I've flat ignored rules that I knew my group would find tedious while emphasizing and house-ruling rules that would benefit my group and its playstyle.

Absolutely. In those cases, their positive experience don't come from the system's default playstyle, but from the fact that the system is loose enough that they can change it to fit their playstyle. The important thing is embracing everyone's playstyle preferences ("favored edition" has nothing to do with it).

 

[Raith5]

Let me try again.

The wall is a metaphor for any challenge that would be a challenge at low level but is completely obviated by high levels. These include walls, doors, melee-only monsters, finding bad guys,etc.

Aside from the observation that all editions had different levels of in world power for pcs, I agree. But i am not sure if this is the most important sticking point. It seems that the pacing structure of 4th - in particular the aedu power structure / healing surges etc are more baked in problems which are harder to obviate. It creates the hit dice 'situation' in DDN which seemed to annoy 4 th Ed folk for not going far enough and annoy others for existing at all.


I also expect problems on the question as to whether DDN stretches 20 or 30 levels, whether combat and utility powers should be siloed, etc


It seems to me that the problems you note can to a significant degree be addressed by optional modules but core mechanics seem even more problematic.

 

[Harlock]

Absolutely. In those cases, their positive experience don't come from the system's default playstyle, but from the fact that the system is loose enough that they can change it to fit their playstyle. The important thing is embracing everyone's playstyle preferences ("favored edition" has nothing to do with it).

Exactly. So, not having the quote from Mr. Mearls in context, I hope he was saying they weren't using a particular edition's popularity (sales, name recognition, media coverage, what have you) as a metric of what Next should and should not be.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Exactly. So, not having the quote from Mr. Mearls in context, I hope he was saying they weren't using a particular edition's popularity (sales, name recognition, media coverage, what have you) as a metric of what Next should and should not be.

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (D&D Podcast)

The question starts at 5:37.

 

[Stormonu]

This is all the same reason why some people play E6, or like me, don't play D&D past 10th level. We don't want the crazy abilities in our game; we want a game that is heroic, but "gritty".

And I don't think any one single D&D game will ever be able to handle every style of play, let alone edition.

 

[pemerton]

the 4e paradigm is that no matter what level you are, there will always be a wall or a door or a melee monster or bin Laden's cave that will be an actual challenge you can fail at.

<snip>

In 4e, you will never reach the point where you can tell an entire set of challenges to go away.

I still don't know where you are getting this from. There is no page in the PHB or DMG for 4e that says epic level PCs must break through doors, or climb walls.

But if they do break through doors, they'll probably be the gates of Hell. If they do climb walls, they'll probably be the Pillars of Creation (in The Plane Below). And I don't see how that's a problem, or in any way genre breaking. Likewise melee combat: Thor and Hercules fought plenty of melee combats.

I guess I don't really get your notion of "entire set of challenges" - if that is specified in genre terms, than 4e tells an entire set of challenges to go away - hobgoblins won't trouble epic PCs, for example - but if you are defining this functionally, then I don't see why it should be the case. Why shouldn't the gates of Hell be hard for even demigods to make their way through?

 

[Doug McCrae]

Wouldn't a way to satisfy both camps be, as you alluded, for low level characters to mostly be mundane but for all high level characters to mostly be magical? So the climbing and melee-ing game is available at, say, levels 1-10, while the flying, phasing and burrowing action takes place at level 11+. Just make sure the thief and fighter become magical at high level, which they kind of always were anyway due to hit points and magic items, and you're set.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Meanwhile, the 4e paradigm is that no matter what level you are, there will always be a wall or a door or a melee monster or bin Laden's cave that will be an actual challenge you can fail at.

Ofc, because it has magic resistance. Or because Osama has a Periapt of Proof Against Scrying. Or because your spells don't work there, as in Gary Gygax's WG6 Isle of the Ape, or EX1/EX2 Dungeonland/The Land Beyond the Magic Mirror.

D&D has always struggled to cope with high level magic, and often the solution is simply variations on "That doesn't work here".

This solution allows the thief and fighter to remain mundane, btw.