Is it time for 5E?

[pemerton]

When the creators say themselves that they have changed the focus to combat encounters, there's not much room for debate.

But they didn't say this, at least that I recall. They did say things about how they intended to change the way combat played, and to change the way monsters intended primarily as combat fodder would be statted up (I'm thinking of stuff from Dave Noonan and Andy Collins). They also talked about being influenced by indie games, but wanting to be broader in focus than those games (I'm thinking of stuff from Rob Heinsoo).

After all, they did introduce a new non-combat mechanical subsystem.

4E feels very narrow, and because all the changes shifted towards combat. Is there any new feature of 4E that actually pushed focus away from combat? I know of none. Not the skills challenges, for sure.

See, I don't agree with this at all. Skill chalenges do push focus away from combat, both as written and as played (at least at my table!).

4E has the narrowest skills acquisition and development of any edition since the OD&D. Even Basic DnD went further--not in skill mechanics, but in breadth.

See, I don't find this to be true either. With its training, feat and multi-class rules it's actually quite broad, I find, in its approach to skill acquisition and how that fits into character building.

As for the range of skills - my comparitor is really Rolemaster rather than earlier editions of AD&D. It's different, but (given the way skill challenges work) not radically narrower. The number of RM PCs, for example, whose crafting skill was a major focus of play as opposed to a means, via some die rolls, to an end (namely, crafted goods) was pretty small in my experience. And 4e still permits crafting to take place (via rituals and feats), even though it is never going to be a focus of play.

And read all those 80s adventure modules. About half exploring and half combat. 4E? Combat, combat, combat, combat, and a skill challenge. This tells us what the makers are focusing on.

The modules are mostly bad, I agree. But they don't even reflect the system as written, let alone what I know from experience it can do.

It seems to me that width of focus is a factor in different editions. It is a factor between various incarnations of TSR-D&D as well......unless you'd also like to claim that there is no difference in the width of focus between Holmes Basic and 2e? I know I'd not make that claim!

In addition, it is difficult to extract a single bit without taking the overall tone into account. The tone of later 4e products might be different, but the early release (first three core) definitely had a different width of focus than (some) previous editions -- and the designers made no secret about it. They made clear statements about what D&D was, and was not, and the design followed those statements.

I think that earlier editions have had different focuses. I'm not sure which way you're going with the comparison of Basic to 2nd ed. Is the thought that 2nd ed has a more open-ended focus? If so, I'm not sure I agree - I think it liked to present itself in that way, but in my experience it didn't deliver.

If you were saying the opposite - that 2nd ed is narrower than Basic - then maybe I agree with that, but would be interested to hear more.

I think that 4e does have a certain focus - on encounters (or, to use Forge lingo, situations) as first and foremost, and exploration as secondary. That said, it has a robust mechanical system to support exploration - different from AD&D, no doubt, but (in my view) robust nevertheless. It also has the tool - namely, the skill challenge - to turn many examples of what in previous editions would have been explorations into situations. This is a different type of play experience, but I don't know that I would call it a narrowing of focus.

As for changes of tone in later products, this has been mooted by some, but (other than Essentials, which sometimes has a tone I'm not a big fan of) I haven't noticed it. To give one example - The Plane Above raises Heroquesting as an option (to avoid treading on Gloranthan toes they call it something else - "journeying into deep myth", from memory). This is a type of adventure that combines exploration (of gameworld history and mythology), situation (that history and mythology being a launching pad for PC involvement), meaningful choices for players (how do you want to rewrite the history, mythology and therefore the truth of this gameworld?) and epic adventure into one single and (in my view) compelling package. I don't see it as narrow at all. And in my view this is just the sort of adventure that is incipient in 4e's originally published design, when you combine the idea of epic destinies as presented in the PHB (and to a lesser extent the DMG) with the stuff on the gameworld presented in the DMG (and to a lesser extent the PHB).

So I tend to see where the game has gone as building on what was first presented, rather than departing from it.

But I know others see it differently. Back in 2008 (? or thereabouts) Celebrim suggested that I and others were reading the 4e rulebooks (or at least previews thereof - it may have been a preview of the skill challenge rules on the WotC website) wishfully. Was he right? I'm obviously not the best person to judge that question!

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think that earlier editions have had different focuses. I'm not sure which way you're going with the comparison of Basic to 2nd ed.

I didn't say "Basic"; I said "Holmes Basic". The Blue Box. It covers levels 1-3 and is extremely dungeon-centric, with a strong focus on exploring the underworld. (And also was my first edition, actually, waaayyyy back in '79!)

 

[Raven Crowking]

So I tend to see where the game has gone as building on what was first presented, rather than departing from it.

But I know others see it differently. Back in 2008 (? or thereabouts) Celebrim suggested that I and others were reading the 4e rulebooks (or at least previews thereof - it may have been a preview of the skill challenge rules on the WotC website) wishfully. Was he right? I'm obviously not the best person to judge that question!

I think that is wishful thinking. After all, the designer comments were not at all about building on what was first presented....quite the opposite, actually. I am fairly sure that making a game with the same label, but which departed from earlier material enough to escape the OGL, was an important consideration in the creation of 4e.

I would also be careful to differentiate what a good GM, with previous editions under her belt, will make of 4e, in comparison to what someone coming cold to the game will do.

As mentioned upthread, I started the game with Holmes Basic, which gives a very good idea of the direction that the game is intended to follow. The sample dungeon gives very specific ideas as to what an adventure area should include.

4e does the same, esp. if you add in the KotS. If KotS was intended as the 4e equivilent of KotB (which came packaged with Holmes Basic in some cases, and I do not believe the similar names are coincidental!), the difference in tone and focus ought to be obvious to anyone.

This isn't to say that 4e cannot be used to capture the same breadth of experience as any other editions (I enjoyed reading Piratecat's description of his recent skill challenge, for instance); it just means that the rules as presented (at least, in the first three core books) aren't going to do it with a novice GM at the helm.

This isn't to say that WotC hasn't learned from reactions to 4e's initial offerings, or that it hasn't added some depth since. The degree to which WotC has done so....well, I leave that to those who have continued to follow the game. All I can say is:

(1) Initial complaints about the depth of 4e were spot-on, and were brought up by the designers even before release as a feature,

(2) WotC has learned and increased depth to some degree at least. Again, I have no idea to what degree. And,

(3) Whatever depth has been added to the ruleset hasn't been translated very well by WotC into its modules.


RC

 

[Mallus]

This isn't to say that 4e cannot be used to capture the same breadth of experience as any other editions (I enjoyed reading Piratecat's description of his recent skill challenge, for instance); it just means that the rules as presented (at least, in the first three core books) aren't going to do it with a novice GM at the helm.

I can't speak authoritatively on what a novice DM would make of 4e... seeing as I'm not one, but I can --somewhat dimly-- recall my early experiences playing and running AD&D.

Let's just say these campaigns weren't exactly poster children for broad role-playing experiences. They were mainly published modules strung together, with little interstitial material, a whole lot of combat, and not too much else. Well, aside from group in-fighting over magic items .

I won't call these experiences definitive, but I doubt they were entirely uncommon, either. There's a reason D&D developed a reputation in some quarters as a shallow, hack-and-slash game.

Our D&D campaigns only gained depth when we moved away from module-dictated play, started writing our own settings, drawing greater influence from the fiction we read, as opposed to game supplements ie, when we adjusted the balance between fiction and game. For my old gaming group this was around the time I began running what turned out to be a long, involved campaign using 2e.

I don't doubt some novice DM's run 4e as little more than strings of combat encounters... because it's exactly what my friends and I did with AD&D. But neither do I doubt some novice 4e groups will move beyond that into deeper, richer campaigns which closer resemble the more fully realized, living worlds we --well, a segment of player base, at least-- tout as the ideal RPG experience.

For some the game's always been deep, and for others it's always been shallow (not that there's anything wrong with that!). The depth is in what we bring to the game, it's not located in the rule books.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The depth is in what we bring to the game, it's not located in the rule books.

If we accept that argument, it is equally true that Hannah the Happy Ever After Fairy

is as deep as Crime and Punishment.

After all, the depth is in what we bring to reading, it's not located in the books. Right?

(And this is an argument of kind, not degree.....I am not claiming that the actual split is this large. Merely that a split exists, and it is not all "For some the game's always been deep, and for others it's always been shallow"!)



RC

 

[Lanefan]

Let's just say these campaigns weren't exactly poster children for broad role-playing experiences. They were mainly published modules strung together, with little interstitial material, a whole lot of combat, and not too much else. Well, aside from group in-fighting over magic items .

Within this framework, if the players gave some character to their characters what more do you need? Sounds like a good campaign to me!

That said, campaigns like that can certainly also have some depth if the DM puts it there. The question is whether the players will engage it.

The further question is whether the RAW of a given edition (or game system, for that matter) encourage the DM to add the depth or not, or even indicate that such might be required. In its own chaotic way, I'd say the 1e DMG does this as well as can be expected while the other DMGs - with that to build on - only kinda wave at it.

So, for 5e, please do more than just wave at it!

Lan-"wave warning"-efan

 

[korjik]

If we accept that argument, it is equally true that Hannah the Happy Ever After Fairy



is as deep as Crime and Punishment.



After all, the depth is in what we bring to reading, it's not located in the books. Right?

(And this is an argument of kind, not degree.....I am not claiming that the actual split is this large. Merely that a split exists, and it is not all "For some the game's always been deep, and for others it's always been shallow"!)



RC

I call BS. Reading is in no way, shape or form the same as game playing. This isnt comparing apples and oranges, this is comparing apples to gamma ray bursts.

 

[pemerton]

I think that is wishful thinking. After all, the designer comments were not at all about building on what was first presented....quite the opposite, actually. I am fairly sure that making a game with the same label, but which departed from earlier material enough to escape the OGL, was an important consideration in the creation of 4e.

I may have been unclear. I agree that 4e is a big departure from previous D&D. My point was that, to me, later 4e doesn't seem to be a big departure from the first 3 core of 4e (with the exception of Essentials, which is somewhat different in tone, I find).

I would also be careful to differentiate what a good GM, with previous editions under her belt, will make of 4e, in comparison to what someone coming cold to the game will do.

As mentioned upthread, I started the game with Holmes Basic, which gives a very good idea of the direction that the game is intended to follow. The sample dungeon gives very specific ideas as to what an adventure area should include.

I started with Moldvay Basic - I don't know quite how richer (if at all) it is than Holmes Basic. But I also had, very early on, two volumes of Best of White Dwarf, plus the Puffin Book "What is Dungeons and Dragons?" (I don't know if this came to North America, nor if you have Puffin Books - the junior imprint of Penguin -there). These were consistent with Moldvay Basic, but I think helped me see the potential that was there better than otherwise I might have.

If KotS was intended as the 4e equivilent of KotB (which came packaged with Holmes Basic in some cases, and I do not believe the similar names are coincidental!), the difference in tone and focus ought to be obvious to anyone.

Difference, I don't disupte. Different focus doesn't on its own entail narrower focus. I don't know KotS, so can't comment on it's inadequacies (if any) - but being a WotC module I assume it has some.

As I'm writing this, I'm recalling that my reading of the 4e DMG was heavily influenced by my earlier reading of Worlds and Monsters. I suspect that the latter does a better job of presenting the 4e gameworld and the range of play it supports than does the DMG. A much-underrated book, in my view, and (unlike Races and Classes) not at all a pay-to-preview. 4e would benefit from having more frankness of that sort in its rulebooks, explaining how different game elements were designed to be used.

Whatever depth has been added to the ruleset hasn't been translated very well by WotC into its modules.

Some of the adventure ideas and scenarios sketched in Underdark, The Plane Above, The Plane Below and Demonicon are really very compelling (in my view). Much better than what has been executed in the 4e modules I'm familiar with.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I call BS. Reading is in no way, shape or form the same as game playing. This isnt comparing apples and oranges, this is comparing apples to gamma ray bursts.

Excuse me, but the argument is that the contents of the pages are not important; what is important is the person using that content. If this is true, it is as true for novels as it is for gaming products. If it is not true, it is equally not true.

It should be obvious that I can get more out of Crime and Punishment than my 4-year-old daughter can, and equally clear that my 4-year-old daughter will enjoy the literary stylings of "Daisy Meadows" more than I will. There is a relationship between reader and value of reading.

But to pretend that the novels themselves (or the rules in a game) bring nothing to the equation......is pretending.

And that's not apples to gamma ray bursts, my friend. Although I will accept it if you wish to believe it is.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I started with Moldvay Basic - I don't know quite how richer (if at all) it is than Holmes Basic.

I love Holmes Basic, but there is no doubt in my mind that Moldvay Basic is far, far richer. Holmes Basic is, AFAICT, the true predecessor of the 4e Red Box. It existed merely to funnel potential players into a fuller game (in this case, AD&D 1e [and in my case, successfully]).


RC