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

[Tony Vargas]

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.

There are MM3 monsters that can bloody or even drop a PC with a successful enough attack. Even standard Lurkers can represent that level of danger, now.

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

Funny, I, too disagree with the 'story before mechanics' saw, but I also disagree with you about the fluff/crunch dichotomy. I think the game should worry about crunch. It's the stuff that can be balanced, and needn't be varied wildly from one DM or campaign to the next (can be, but doesn't /need/ to be) - a foundation. Good stories are built on that foundation. They don't need to look much like it, but having it keeps them from falling down.

Since grab didn't hinder my ability to fight back, choosing to attack rather than attempt to escape was the better option.

Not a choice you had to make, anyway, since escaping was a move action.

 

[Argyle King]

There are MM3 monsters that can bloody or even drop a PC with a successful enough attack. Even standard Lurkers can represent that level of danger, now.


Funny, I, too disagree with the 'story before mechanics' saw, but I also disagree with you about the fluff/crunch dichotomy. I think the game should worry about crunch. It's the stuff that can be balanced, and needn't be varied wildly from one DM or campaign to the next (can be, but doesn't /need/ to be) - a foundation. Good stories are built on that foundation. They don't need to look much like it, but having it keeps them from falling down.

Not a choice you had to make, anyway, since escaping was a move action.

True, but I could then use my move action to do other things.

As for mechanics... I feel that the mechanics should make an attempt to tell the same story that the fluff is telling.

MM3 math does help, but -as I said elsewhere-some of what the MM3 math did was to lower defenses for some creatures as well. Being that I had no issue killing them prior to that, lower defenses just made it easier. It did certainly help to up the damage of the monsters, but there were a lot of other areas that could have used work as well.

 

[Tony Vargas]

True, but I could then use my move action to do other things.

Such as? The prime use of a move action is to move, which you can't do while grabbed. Shifting is also out. If you got grabbed and knocked prone, you could stand up. You could trade it in for a minor, but melee types often have little need of minor actions... :shrug:

As for mechanics... I feel that the mechanics should make an attempt to tell the same story that the fluff is telling.

That requires developing the mechanics after you decide on the story - and every DM has a lot of stories in his head. Not practical.

M3 math does help, but -as I said elsewhere-some of what the MM3 math did was to lower defenses for some creatures as well.

Yep, helped with the 'grind' phenomenon vs Elites that was so blatant in the first to modules.

 

[Argyle King]

Such as? The prime use of a move action is to move, which you can't do while grabbed. Shifting is also out. If you got grabbed and knocked prone, you could stand up. You could trade it in for a minor, but melee types often have little need of minor actions... :shrug:

It's a minor action to perform most healing actions that leader classes have. ...no reason I can't trade my move for a minor.

If I were a ranger, there are plenty of minor action attacks to choose from; again, I can trade my move for a minor.

Also, grab doesn't prevent me from taking a move action. I just cannot move out of the square I am in. I could draw a potion; pull out some acid to shove into the mouth of the croc; etc; etc.

That requires developing the mechanics after you decide on the story - and every DM has a lot of stories in his head. Not practical.

I'm saying that both should be developed at the same time. Doing so is possible. IIRC, the whole idea behind Monte Cook's Ptolus was to build a world which made sense according to the 3rd Edition rules and how a 3rd Edition world worked according to the rules.

Yep, helped with the 'grind' phenomenon vs Elites that was so blatant in the first to modules.

A dead MM3 monster cannot use his extra damage to harm a PC. I'm not suggesting it didn't help;it did, but I think there were a lot of other areas of the game that were ignored. I feel that fixing those other areas would have done more to fix some of 4E's most prevalent problems.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's a minor action to perform most healing actions that leader classes have. ...no reason I can't trade my move for a minor.

Sorry, I thought the character in your example was a defender. Though, I suppose a Warden does have use for his minors, and a Paladin could heal or a Dwarf defender of any sort second wind with a minor. But, a /second/ minor would be valuable fairly infrequently, I'd think.

I'm saying that both should be developed at the same time. Doing so is possible. IIRC, the whole idea behind Monte Cook's Ptolus was to build a world which made sense according to the 3rd Edition rules and how a 3rd Edition world worked according to the rules.

Wouldn't that be an example of fitting the story to mechanics - the opposite of what you were talking about? Not that I haven't had fun doing that, myself...

But, anyway, even if you do simultaneously develop mechanics and story, you've just created mechanics that only work with one story. And that's just not a very handy set of mechanics.

A dead MM3 monster cannot use his extra damage to harm a PC. I'm not suggesting it didn't help;it did, but I think there were a lot of other areas of the game that were ignored. I feel that fixing those other areas would have done more to fix some of 4E's most prevalent problems.

The problem we were talking about was 'the grind.' It's one of the closest thing it has to a 'prevalent problem' that actually impacted the play experience. MM3 addressed the problem by making monsters do more damage, and lowered over-high defenses for some, giving them action-preservation and the like, instead. So, are you trying to say that higher damage figures didn't address 'the grind,' because lower defenses also dropped the monsters /faster/? Because, if there are monsters putting the 'outcome of the encounter' back in doubt by being able to drop a PC in a round or two, and PCs are able to hit formerly-grindy monsters often enough to bring them down faster, that would seem to me to point to the grind problem having been solved.

And, I think we've mentioned Skill Challenges, which were broken at release to a degree that, well, should be familiar to all us long-time D&Ders.

I'm not sure what else you might be getting at - it better not be 'dissociative mechanics' or any other such nonsense. The other problems 4e has had have been fairly minor - feat taxes and trap feats, for instance - or downright obscure...

 

[pemerton]

I, too disagree with the 'story before mechanics' saw, but I also disagree with you about the fluff/crunch dichotomy. I think the game should worry about crunch. It's the stuff that can be balanced, and needn't be varied wildly from one DM or campaign to the next (can be, but doesn't /need/ to be) - a foundation. Good stories are built on that foundation.

I feel that the mechanics should make an attempt to tell the same story that the fluff is telling.

On this I'm with Johnny3D3D, even though our actual preferred mechanics may be a little different.

The example that Johnny3D3D has given over many posts and threads is damage vs objects: the mechanics make them too easy to destroy, relative to the way the fiction presents them. (I personally haven't experienced this, because my players tend to stick to genre conventions rather than explore the attacks vs objects rules - which, from Johnny's experience, sounds like a good thing!)

Slightly different examples I have often posted about are the way mechanics can tell a story - give the player of the paladin Valiant Strike (+1 to hit per adjacent foe) and suddenly the player has a reason to have his/her PC charge into the middle of the fray - and therefore become valiant.

Hobgoblins' phalanx ability, and goblins' goblin tactics ability in combination with their tendency to benefit from combat advantage help tell a story via mechanics too: everything else being equal, a group of hobgoblins will form a phalanx to enhance their defences, whereas goblins will shift to flank to enhance their attacks.

And a power like the Chained Cambion's psychic chains is a more complex example that I posted about here.

 

[Grabuto138]

Knights Move, Low Slash etc. are certainly options but you have to admit that they are corner cases.

Eberron was a good attempt at creating a world based on the assumption that D&D magic worked as written. But what if I do not want to play Eberron or Ptolus? D&D, from its initial incarnation, assumed the DM and the party would be heavily involved in world building. I would go so far as to say that a rule set predicated on a specific milieu is antithetic to D&D's core philosophy.

 

[Argyle King]

Sorry, I thought the character in your example was a defender. Though, I suppose a Warden does have use for his minors, and a Paladin could heal or a Dwarf defender of any sort second wind with a minor. But, a /second/ minor would be valuable fairly infrequently, I'd think.

Wouldn't that be an example of fitting the story to mechanics - the opposite of what you were talking about? Not that I haven't had fun doing that, myself...

But, anyway, even if you do simultaneously develop mechanics and story, you've just created mechanics that only work with one story. And that's just not a very handy set of mechanics.

The problem we were talking about was 'the grind.' It's one of the closest thing it has to a 'prevalent problem' that actually impacted the play experience. MM3 addressed the problem by making monsters do more damage, and lowered over-high defenses for some, giving them action-preservation and the like, instead. So, are you trying to say that higher damage figures didn't address 'the grind,' because lower defenses also dropped the monsters /faster/? Because, if there are monsters putting the 'outcome of the encounter' back in doubt by being able to drop a PC in a round or two, and PCs are able to hit formerly-grindy monsters often enough to bring them down faster, that would seem to me to point to the grind problem having been solved.

And, I think we've mentioned Skill Challenges, which were broken at release to a degree that, well, should be familiar to all us long-time D&Ders.

I'm not sure what else you might be getting at - it better not be 'dissociative mechanics' or any other such nonsense. The other problems 4e has had have been fairly minor - feat taxes and trap feats, for instance - or downright obscure...

In short, I suppose I am saying that I found two problems with 4E. 1) It was grindy; 2) I very rarely took the opposition seriously. The new math helped with #1 , but -in some cases-made #2 even worse than it already was. Looking to the DMG 2's Skill Challenge numbers, the new math in that area of the game made #2 far worse while also increasing the grind I felt during many skill challenges.

I disagree that developing the mechanics and fluff hand-in-hand are only good for one story. You have mechanics designed for one story. However, when designing a "modular" game, I believe it is better to start with mechanics that make sense for the core game and then provide ways to build upon that later. I believe that works better than trying to create a modular game where the mechanics don't really correspond to the core story you are trying to tell, and then you try to patch that later with a variety of different methods which may or may not work and may or may not work to different degrees. I've been lead to believe that because I'm familiar with this: GURPS Dungeon Fantasy
and find that it works exceptionally well. I know plenty have a dislike of the system, but I found that -for me- it is an excellent example of how to have a D&D style game and tropes while retaining modularity.

I do not expect anywhere near that amount of modularity with D&D 5th Edition. I understand that to "feel like D&D" there need to be certain things set in stone. However, I still feel as though there are places outside of the d20 family that WoTC should look (and maybe they do) to see how to make their game more 'modular' -at least in the manner that I understand the word to mean a certain thing.

You had mentioned fitting mechanics to a story. Maybe you're right, but that should be what modularity means, right? An earlier complaint I had was that I felt I too often had to bend my vision to the will of 4E instead of vice versa (which I would have preferred.) When playing a particular system, I understand that certain quirks and ideals which are built into a system are something which are going to play a part in the feel of my game. However, I believe that the system -especially a modular one- should give me the ability to fit the mechanics and my vision together and make sense of them while hindering somebody else's ability to do the same as little as possible.

When it comes to 4E, I did not very often feel it was built in a way -mechanically- to allow for the styles of stories other people wanted to tell while not getting in the way of the ones I wanted to tell. That is to say I feel it probably works great for some of the things Pem wants it to do (according to his posts) and others, but it didn't help me create my own vision. More importantly, I felt 4E's mechanics didn't tell 4E's story very well either.

That last sentence brings what I'm trying to say somewhat back together and saves it from my rambling. Mechanics and fluff should -in my opinion- be built with each other in mind. I fully believe that a certain style of mechanics are capable of telling a certain story -even independently from any fluff at all. Likewise, I believe certain styles of fluff tend to suit certain mechanical structures better than others. This is similar to why (imo) we also see differences between how a story plays out in a movie versus in a book. Medium matters, and I believe different mechanics in rpgs can be seen as somewhat analogous to different mediums for telling a story. Using a medium which is ill suited for a style of story or trying to shoehorn a script into a medium which it is ill suited for are both -in my view- equally bad. I feel that, for the most effective entertainment experience, it is best to design your game with both aspects in mind and develop them together.

edit: To summarize, I felt 4E's design was like trying to have Michael Bay direct a shadow puppet presentation of Bambi; using a green screen to CGI in the shadow puppets. There were a lot of sound parts which were excellent in isolation, but they did not complement each other well once fitted together. If you hand me a story telling game and then I find that it doesn't do a very good job of telling my story, I might be inclined to feel I simply chose the wrong product. If you hand me a story telling game and then I find that it doesn't do a very good job of telling the story you advertise that should go with it, I see that as being a problem with the product.

 

[Grabuto138]

In short, I suppose I am saying that I found two problems with 4E. 1) It was grindy; 2) I very rarely took the opposition seriously. The new math helped with [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] , but -in some cases-made [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=2]#2 [/URL] even worse than it already was. Looking to the DMG 2's Skill Challenge numbers, the new math in that area of the game made [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=2]#2 [/URL] far worse while also increasing the grind I felt during many skill challenges.

I disagree that developing the mechanics and fluff hand-in-hand are only good for one story. You have mechanics designed for one story. However, when designing a "modular" game, I believe it is better to start with mechanics that make sense for the core game and then provide ways to build upon that later. I believe that works better than trying to create a modular game where the mechanics don't really correspond to the core story you are trying to tell, and then you try to patch that later with a variety of different methods which may or may not work and may or may not work to different degrees. I've been lead to believe that because I'm familiar with this: GURPS Dungeon Fantasy
and find that it works exceptionally well. I know plenty have a dislike of the system, but I found that -for me- it is an excellent example of how to have a D&D style game and tropes while retaining modularity.

I do not expect anywhere near that amount of modularity with D&D 5th Edition. I understand that to "feel like D&D" there need to be certain things set in stone. However, I still feel as though there are placed outside of the d20 family that WoTC should look (and maybe they do) to see how to make their game more 'modular' -at least in the manner that I understand the word to mean a certain thing.

You had mentioned fitting mechanics to a story. Maybe you're right, but that should be what modularity means, right? An earlier complaint I had was that I felt I too often had to bend my vision to the will of 4E instead of vice versa (which I would have preferred.) When playing a particular system, I understand that certain quirks and ideals which are built into a system are something which are going to play a part in the feel of my game. However, I believe that the system -especially a modular one- should give me the ability to fit the mechanics and my vision together and make sense of them while hindering somebody else's ability to do the same as little as possible.

When it comes to 4E, I did not very often feel it was built in a way -mechanically- to allow for the styles of stories other people wanted to tell while not getting in the way of the ones I wanted to tell. That is to say I feel it probably works great for some of the things Pem wants it to do (according to his posts) and others, but it didn't help me create my own vision. More importantly, I felt 4E's mechanics didn't tell 4E's story very well either.

That last sentence brings what I'm trying to say somewhat back together and saves it from my rambling. Mechanics and fluff should -in my opinion- be built with each other in mind. I fully believe that a certain style of mechanics are capable of telling a certain story -even independently from any fluff at all. Likewise, I believe certain styles of fluff tend to suit certain mechanical structures better than others. This is similar to why (imo) we also see differences between how a story plays out in a movie versus in a book. Medium matters, and I believe different mechanics in rpgs can be seen as somewhat analogous to different mediums for telling a story. Using a medium which is ill suited for a style of story or trying to shoehorn a script into a medium which it is ill suited for are both -in my view- equally bad. I feel that, for the most effective entertainment experience, it is best to design your game with both aspects in mind and develop them together.

edit: To summarize, I felt 4E's design was like trying to have Michael Bay direct a shadow puppet presentation of Bambi; using a green screen to CGI in the shadow puppets. There were a lot of sound parts which were excellent in isolation, but they did not complement each other well once fitted together. If you hand me a story telling game and then I find that it doesn't do a very good job of telling my story, I might be inclined to feel I simply chose the wrong product. If you hand me a story telling game and then I find that it doesn't do a very good job of telling the story you advertise that should go with it, I see that as being a problem with the product.

My current DM missed 3e and most of 2e. He has adjusted well to 4e, though he probably throws in more situational modifiers and ad hoc rulings than DMs weaned on 3e would be comfortable with. Some call it "mother may I." I am cool with it because he is a good DM. Grind is not a problem. With minor encounters he uses high damage/low defense brutes, lurkers and skirmishers for a quick and dirty encounter that burns party resources. The milestone fights are "go big or go home affairs - +4 and terrain - where character death is always a real possibility. He also uses minions well in secondary encounters to score some damage and then die quickly to drain resources but prevent grind.

I honestly don't understand what you are getting at with the mechanics/fluff thing. Should Forgotten Realms have different mechanics than Greyhawk? Your edit was even more confusing.

 

[Argyle King]

My current DM missed 3e and most of 2e. He has adjusted well to 4e, though he probably throws in more situational modifiers and ad hoc rulings than DMs weaned on 3e would be comfortable with. Some call it "mother may I." I am cool with it because he is a good DM. Grind is not a problem. With minor encounters he uses high damage/low defense brutes, lurkers and skirmishers for a quick and dirty encounter that burns party resources. The milestone fights are "go big or go home affairs - +4 and terrain - where character death is always a real possibility. He also uses minions well in secondary encounters to score some damage and then die quickly to drain resources but prevent grind.

I honestly don't understand what you are getting at with the mechanics/fluff thing. Should Forgotten Realms have different mechanics than Greyhawk? Your edit was even more confusing.

I'll answer your question with a question of my own: Why do you feel the 4E version of Dark Sun includes mechanics not found in other settings?

I'll then say that I do not feel Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms necessarily need different mechanics, but that is because they are generally somewhat similar in a lot of areas. Though, what I'm getting at is that the differences are the important things. If I were looking to get more of a sword & sorcery vibe from Greyhawk, I might choose a different way of portraying that than I would if I were to look to enhance the political intrigue and larger than life nature of Forgotten Realms. For what it's worth, I felt 4E was an excellent fit for some aspects of Forgotten Realms. I know I am in the vast minority, but I found the changes made to FR in 4E to be interesting.

Also, as I've said to others, I am glad the game works for you. In no way do I begrudge anyone for having fun. However, all the things you mentioned are things thrown at the group I'm typically a player in, and it still hasn't made much of a difference. Generally, in the case of minions, I'm surprised if they're still standing after the first round. Sometimes, getting rid of them doesn't even require an attack roll.