D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

[Hussar]

Umm, I played original Core 3 4e up until my most recent campaign. It wasn't that bad. I like the plain jane core warlord. Maybe it's just me.

But, the point about WOTC not listening to their own advice is certainly valid. If you actually follow the scenario design advice in the DMG 1, 99% of grind issues go away.

Although, I will say, I HATE insubstantial creatures in 4e. I just really, really do. The biggest thing that bugs me is the rounding down. Just irritates the heck out of me.

 

[Argyle King]

There was a bit of 'you're doing it wrong' behind some of the early 'grind' complaints. Sure, the KotS fight with Kalarel was a grind. But, it was also a fight that broke the DMG guidelines, which come right out and say that an elite that many levels above the party can be problematic. Of course, that section of the DMG may well have been written /after/ KotS... The grindy fights in the first two modules were the result of using a 3e convention: make the bosses much higher level than the party. In 4e, instead of making a 'more powerful' monster much higher level, you just make it an elite or solo. By using overleveled elites instead of near-level solos, those combats were 'done wrong.'

By the same token, when I listened carefully to early 'grind' complaints what I heard was people using 3.5 tactics in them. In 3.5, the 'nova' was the winning strategy: hit first, hit as hard as you can, FTW. Translated to 4e that means throw a daily+AP+encounter combo in round 1. In low-level early-4e that gets you some bloodied and pissed off monsters and leaves you with nothing to do for the rest of the fight but spam at-wills. If you're more judicious with your dailies and encounters, the fight won't take any longer (it might even be a little shorter), but will be more interesting and feel less like a 'grind.'

So, yes, playing using tactics that leveraged the broken bits of 3.5 didn't work as well, because 4e was differently broken. Not really 'wrong' or punished, per se, just not over-rewarded.


But, no, I'm not about to defend some of the early gaffes, like the first set of Skill Challenge rules. OMG. They were fixed, but it was still quite an oversight.

For me, 'grind' happened when the outcome was obvious at the beginning of the encounter, but it still took a while to play out.

I'd go so far as to say 'grind' happens in skill challenges as well, and it's not only a combat issue for 4E. Looking at the supposedly fixed skill challenge rules in DMG 2, it's laughably easy to overcome most challenges. A few rolls in, and the group I'm usually a part of would realize that it was virtually impossible for us to fail. It became rolling just for the sake of rolling.

 

[Tony Vargas]

For me, 'grind' happened when the outcome was obvious at the beginning of the encounter, but it still took a while to play out.

Unless you tune your combat system to deliver TPKs or other player defeats a fairly large minority of the time, the outcome is rarely going to be in question.

Actually, player defeats - other than TPKs - and other 'reversals of fortune' so common in genre are something D&D has never handled well, if it's ever really tried to handle them, at all....

 

[Herschel]

Umm, I played original Core 3 4e up until my most recent campaign. It wasn't that bad. I like the plain jane core warlord. Maybe it's just me.

But, the point about WOTC not listening to their own advice is certainly valid. If you actually follow the scenario design advice in the DMG 1, 99% of grind issues go away.

Although, I will say, I HATE insubstantial creatures in 4e. I just really, really do. The biggest thing that bugs me is the rounding down. Just irritates the heck out of me.

Concealment and "insubstantial" in 3E was irritating as all get out too. "You hit, roll a d20 to see if you actually hit). That and crit confirming were two of my biggest hatreds.

I'd like a system that is more elegant and not irritating on that front. I used the 3E concealment rules for Blur in my 1E/2E hybrid game thinking it was a more "realistic" mechanic, but then realized how much I hated it. "+"4 to AC wasn't really very evocative either though.

 

[D'karr]

Concealment and "insubstantial" in 3E was irritating as all get out too. "You hit, roll a d20 to see if you actually hit). That and crit confirming were two of my biggest hatreds.

I'd like a system that is more elegant and not irritating on that front. I used the 3E concealment rules for Blur in my 1E/2E hybrid game thinking it was a more "realistic" mechanic, but then realized how much I hated it. "+"4 to AC wasn't really very evocative either though.

Roll 2 d20's take the lowest.






-

 

[Hussar]

Roll 2 d20's take the lowest.






-

Funnily enough, the Advantage/Disadvantage dice don't bother me in the least. Mostly because it's not a 1/2 damage thing. I didn't really mind confirmation dice either. Then again, we always played that way, even before 3e made it official. Well, sort of. We gave you an extra attack at the same target - and a third if you rolled another crit and so on. Effectively the same thing.

Miss chances didn't bother me that much, although, again, it was problematic because people forgot about it. It wasn't something that came up all that often, so, when it did, there was a lot of fifteen minute later, "Aw crap, he should have rolled his miss chance" sort of moments.

It's more the 1/2 damage thing that bugs me. Just because it also adds extra hit points if you roll odd numbered damage.

 

[pemerton]

I HATE insubstantial creatures in 4e. I just really, really do. The biggest thing that bugs me is the rounding down. Just irritates the heck out of me.

My players aren't the biggest fans of insubstantial, but more in an "ingame" way than a "metagame" way. I even use insubtantial + weakened from time to time - round down that rounding down!

But it's certainly needs to be labelled "Handle with care."

Looking at the supposedly fixed skill challenge rules in DMG 2, it's laughably easy to overcome most challenges. A few rolls in, and the group I'm usually a part of would realize that it was virtually impossible for us to fail. It became rolling just for the sake of rolling.

You certainly had some bad experiences with the 4e maths!

But this post raises a different issue, about skill challenges, scene framing, and making and adjudicating skill checks. I've quoted this example from LostSoul before, but (for me, at least) it really captures the relationship between mechanics and fiction in skill challenge resolution:

I run a quick skill challenge as Kryx convinces the guards to turn against Sosruko.

This was interesting. Kryx had a massive modifier - +13. He was rolling against the Will Defence of the guards - 14. That means he could only fail on a 1 if he said something that gave him a penalty.

Pointless exercise in dice rolling? No, as it turns out. Having to go through a number of checks meant that the guards made some demands of their own - that Kryx would be their new sheriff, that they would still keep their jobs, and that Kryx would "deal" with the bandits. Kryx gave them his word (part of the reason he was able to get such a high modifier), and as a dragonborn and a paladin that's a big deal.​

 

[Argyle King]

Unless you tune your combat system to deliver TPKs or other player defeats a fairly large minority of the time, the outcome is rarely going to be in question.

Actually, player defeats - other than TPKs - and other 'reversals of fortune' so common in genre are something D&D has never handled well, if it's ever really tried to handle them, at all....

I suppose. It just seemed way more obvious than it should have. I remember the first time I faced a dragon in 4E. The DM rolled a crit, and I thought I was done for. After hearing the results, I looked down at my character sheet and realized that I could do more with some of my powers and a regular hit than the dragon could do when dealing max damage. Granted, that was pre-MM3; the math did get better in the later books of 4E, but not by much.

My players aren't the biggest fans of insubstantial, but more in an "ingame" way than a "metagame" way. I even use insubtantial + weakened from time to time - round down that rounding down!

But it's certainly needs to be labelled "Handle with care."

You certainly had some bad experiences with the 4e maths!

But this post raises a different issue, about skill challenges, scene framing, and making and adjudicating skill checks. I've quoted this example from LostSoul before, but (for me, at least) it really captures the relationship between mechanics and fiction in skill challenge resolution:

I think that's a pretty good example, but it still requires me to take the world around me seriously. Why would I bother with the demands of the guards when they are nowhere near my power level? As a player who enjoys story, I would probably play along, but -to some extent the choice doesn't really make sense. This is especially true if I'm not playing a character who is good or one who has some sort of altruistic code.


This conversation has made me think of some recent comments about 5E design. In particular, that story should come before mechanics. I think I disagree with that view. Personally, I feel that both fluff and crunch should be hand-in-hand. There shouldn't be a design where one is put together without mind toward the other. Then again, I'm also someone who believes fluff and crunch impact each other. That is actually an issue I have with 4E. To believe that the world is the way the fluff tells me it is, I have to ignore most of how the mechanics of the world actually work in play.

Another example which just sprang to mind is when I first faced a creature which had a grappling attack in 4E. Being new to the system, I thought 'crap' when I found myself in the jaws of a crocodile. However, I quickly realized that I took less damage while inside its mouth than I did from the initial attack. I was safer inside the mouth of a crocodile than I was outside of it. In addition, it could not attack my friends while I was in its mouth. It was a little jarring to me to think about that during the combat. Since grab didn't hinder my ability to fight back, choosing to attack rather than attempt to escape was the better option. Even if I tried to imagine the scene from an in-character viewpoint, there was no logic behind why I would want to escape if both myself and my adventuring companions were safer with me being chewed on.

 

[pemerton]

I think that's a pretty good example, but it still requires me to take the world around me seriously. Why would I bother with the demands of the guards when they are nowhere near my power level?

Agreed. The maths that underpins the resolution, and the various options open to the PC - including just fighting - have to make sense.

This conversation has made me think of some recent comments about 5E design. In particular, that story should come before mechanics. I think I disagree with that view. Personally, I feel that both fluff and crunch should be hand-in-hand. There shouldn't be a design where one is put together without mind toward the other.

Agreed again.

Then again, I'm also someone who believes fluff and crunch impact each other. That is actually an issue I have with 4E. To believe that the world is the way the fluff tells me it is, I have to ignore most of how the mechanics of the world actually work in play.

Another example which just sprang to mind is when I first faced a creature which had a grappling attack in 4E. Being new to the system, I thought 'crap' when I found myself in the jaws of a crocodile. However, I quickly realized that I took less damage while inside its mouth than I did from the initial attack. I was safer inside the mouth of a crocodile than I was outside of it. In addition, it could not attack my friends while I was in its mouth. It was a little jarring to me to think about that during the combat. Since grab didn't hinder my ability to fight back, choosing to attack rather than attempt to escape was the better option. Even if I tried to imagine the scene from an in-character viewpoint, there was no logic behind why I would want to escape if both myself and my adventuring companions were safer with me being chewed on.

Good example of bad design.

I haven't had the same experiences that you did with 4e - maybe me players don't build as mechanically effective PCs, and maybe the world I run as GM is more gonzo, thereby keeping the fiction more in accord with the mechanics (and MM3 damage helps here, too).

But given your experience, your response strikes me as entirely rational. The mechanics have to support the story. If the two come apart, then in my view no amount of GM patter and insistence that the players be true to the story can help.

 

[Argyle King]

Agreed. The maths that underpins the resolution, and the various options open to the PC - including just fighting - have to make sense.

Agreed again.

Good example of bad design.

I haven't had the same experiences that you did with 4e - maybe me players don't build as mechanically effective PCs, and maybe the world I run as GM is more gonzo, thereby keeping the fiction more in accord with the mechanics (and MM3 damage helps here, too).

But given your experience, your response strikes me as entirely rational. The mechanics have to support the story. If the two come apart, then in my view no amount of GM patter and insistence that the players be true to the story can help.

I do think running a more gonzo game helps. As I said elsewhere, the most fun I had running a 4E game was when I just decided to ignore the normal 4E fluff and went for something more off the wall. It was some sort of weird sci-fi I guess. I'm not entirely sure how I'd explain it.

The world I built had Battletoads style speeder bikes fueled with magic; blaster guns (which were refluffed wands,) trains, and various other things. I had a great time running the game, and the players seemed to highly enjoy it.

As I also said elsewhere, for me, part of the problem was that I felt the game was advertised to me one way, but then it played out in a way that I did not feel was consistent with how it was advertised. "Ze game will remain ze same" certainly didn't help with the misconceptions about how the game would be built. I looked at the preview books for 4E -especially Worlds & Monsters- and I loved what I saw. I was very excited. My play experience was a very quick and violent buzzkill. I credit 4E with helping to motivate me to try a non-D&D game.

Today, I am able to enjoy the system. I've gotten rid of a lot of very harsh feelings I had toward it. I did that by finding a game which did what I actually did want it to do. I realized that 4E was built with different ideals than the ideals I have. I learned to accept that, and I learned to accept that I should expect a certain style of game when 4E is involved. I think 4E is a very good game; I just don't always view it as a very good rpg. For me to have the depth and style that I want, the structure of the system gets in the way too much.

Again, this is something I've already said somewhere else, but... too often I felt like I had to bend my vision to the will of the system; not often enough did I feel as though I was able to bend the system to the will of my creative vision.