Mearls: Abilities as the core?

[JamesonCourage]

I think a big problem is people saying "I dislike Y edition because of these reasons" and then people defending the "attacked" edition. I can defend any edition until I'm blue in the face, but if the guy I'm talking to will still feel that way at the end of the conversation, than it's not going to change anything.

I can say I dislike a certain game because it reminds me of X, or I feel Y when I'm playing it, or I don't think it's Z based on my time playing it. Other people can disagree with me all day, but it won't negate my experiences.

For example, some people dislike 3e because of the "wizards > fighters" thing, and others never run across it, or if they do, it doesn't ruin their fun. Other people, however, can say that they dislike 4e because it "feels like a board game" or something similar, and others don't feel that way at all, since it doesn't remind them of a board game in the slightest.

However, try to convince either one of them that their experiences are wrong and you'll hit a brick wall. They aren't going to say, "you know what? You're right, that's not how I feel at all!" It just won't happen.

People have preferences. If someone states their reasoning (I feel this way; I think the game is this; it's like that to me; etc.), and people defend it (your preferred edition has the same problems; I don't feel that way at all when I play it; I don't see how you can think that, as I've never experienced it; etc.), nobody gets any closer to convincing anyone of anything.

The case against any edition? It's got stuff people don't like, based on their preferences. Your mileage may have varied.

As always, play what you like

 

[Stormonu]

Late to the party, and this may have already been said...

I'm not fond of having the game mechanics run directly off skills - it places far too much value on having high ability scores. I prefer skills and such to have an equal starting point, raised by investing points into it and abilities having a small influence on the total.

However, if the game were to go in the direction of being based off ability, I definitely want the ability to modify the total for certain actions. If you're going to start characters off with, say, their Strength being used for swim, I want the ability to invest points into that check to make myself better-than-most or perhaps to represent shoring up an otherwise weak ability ("The guy's a shrimp, but I've seen him outswim sharks!"). And not just +1/2 level. Call it a feat, power, skill points or whatever, I want ways to personalize my character's abilities. Yeah, that adds complexity, but I want options, dammit.

 

[Greg K]

However, try to convince either one of them that their experiences are wrong and you'll hit a brick wall. They aren't going to say, "you know what? You're right, that's not how I feel at all!" It just won't happen.

People have preferences. If someone states their reasoning (I feel this way; I think the game is this; it's like that to me; etc.), and people defend it (your preferred edition has the same problems; I don't feel that way at all when I play it; I don't see how you can think that, as I've never experienced it; etc.), nobody gets any closer to convincing anyone of anything.

Exactly. There are things that I, really, like about 4e. Some of them are ideas that I had wanted implemented back during 3e. There are things that I dislike about 3e- especially, when it comes to most WOTC supplements. However, in the end, it comes down to which issues I feel can most easily fixed with house rules (including both 3pp and official options) and which has the areas that feel more difficult to house rules and leave the deal breakers both as a DM and a player.

I accept that some people feel differently about aspects of 3e either from experiences or just personal preference. If someone says that something is not addressed or covered in 3e, I will point them to the information including an official rules option/variant if it exists. If they ask about third party coverage, I will direct them to that too. If they claim it is for power gamers, I will point them to all of the passages stating the DM is in control of the rules and options used at their table and official variants rules that they can implement to help rein it in.

If they state that that they don't like 3e, because wizards>fighter, that they don't feel comfortable telling their players no to options (or implementing specific fixes are too much work for them), NPC generation takes too long based on their experience, or any other reason based on preference, I will accept it as we all have preferences. They just should not present it as a universal truth (which is only an issue with a couple of posters), because many people don't encounter the problems (although for NPC generation, I might point out not worrying about being exact unless they are planning to publish).

 

[pemerton]

I can say I dislike a certain game because it reminds me of X, or I feel Y when I'm playing it, or I don't think it's Z based on my time playing it. Other people can disagree with me all day, but it won't negate my experiences.

For example, some people dislike 3e because of the "wizards > fighters" thing, and others never run across it, or if they do, it doesn't ruin their fun. Other people, however, can say that they dislike 4e because it "feels like a board game" or something similar, and others don't feel that way at all, since it doesn't remind them of a board game in the slightest.

What irritates me slightly about many of the posts from those who don't play 4e ( as opposed to those who do play 4e, but identify various flaws in the system - of which I am one) is the tendency to say things like "4e is too much a boardgame" or "4e is more a combat skirmish game than an RPG" or "The roleplaying that 4e supports is only a pale shadow of what 3E can support" or things of that sort.

I see many criticisms of 3E get posted. But I don't see very many saying that those who play 3E are not roleplaying, or are having to fight against the system to play a game that is not shallow. It is the repeated tendency to suggest just these things of 4e, and either expressly or by implication of those that play it, that irritates me. (About once a month we will see the pits of this, when someone tries to shed light on 4e by discussing how you can take on a role playing Monopoly or chess, but that doesn't make those into RPGs.)

TL;DR - 3E players don't repeatedly find themselves being told that their game is not a RPG, and hence (by implication at least) that they are not roleplaying. 4e players do. On a board dedicated to roleplaying games, that is irritating (to me at least).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, hmmm, much has been said. Clearly there is interest in many quarters in some changes from 4e. Some people seem to perceive an excessive level of complexity or at least option bloat, some people would rather have no skill system at all, others of us seem to like something along the lines of the current skill system, and others want long lists of narrow skills back (or some point in between perhaps). What else?

I mean I think it is interesting to consider various subsystems on their own, but ultimately a game is a whole and the parts definitely need to come together in a way that feels cohesive. It seems to me that real decisions can only arise from systematic comparative play experiences. I'm struck by the statement made a while back by someone, was it Mearls?, that they were playing through every previous edition of the game. Ahhh, it must be nice to be able to pay gamers to play with you and tinker! lol.

Personally I feel like 4e was aimed at the right mark. I think a few characteristics emerged from the system that put it a little off that mark, and to some degree the presentation of the game seemed to miss a bit, but I suspect 4e had to happen and there's no way back now. When and if a 5e does appear it will be quite interesting to see, 4e perfected could be a very hard game to ever top in this genre.

 

[CuRoi]

TL;DR - 3E players don't repeatedly find themselves being told that their game is not a RPG, and hence (by implication at least) that they are not roleplaying. 4e players do. On a board dedicated to roleplaying games, that is irritating (to me at least).

Perhaps you haven't been to the right boards or talked to the right people. I can probably find LOTS of people that will say 3e isn't RPing. Anyway, people are too sensitive about it so it becomes the sort of religion/politics thing. Believe what you want because no one can challenge what you believe whether 4e or 3e is "your game". I'm of the opinion both systems are flawed for my play style. It's why I started drafting my own version months ago.

And yes, the rough draft I have so far uses Abilities as "core" to the system. Dropping saving throws, spell DCs, Armor Class, in favor of an ability attack/defense scheme.

www.eyrurpg.com

(Still chumming the waters...I'm terrible at fishing I suppose cause no one is biting.)

 

[JamesonCourage]

What irritates me slightly about many of the posts from those who don't play 4e ( as opposed to those who do play 4e, but identify various flaws in the system - of which I am one) is the tendency to say things like "4e is too much a boardgame" or "4e is more a combat skirmish game than an RPG" or "The roleplaying that 4e supports is only a pale shadow of what 3E can support" or things of that sort.

I hear many things about 3e, too, though. I rarely hear insults against 2e or other previous editions. I think this is due to the community split during the 3e -> 4e transitional period.

But I've heard how 3e is a horrible game that makes certain things worthless to play. Fighters are garbage that nobody can meaningfully play, but wizards are so good that you can't role play them without breaking the game. Etc.

This is about what mileage people have gotten out of the games, and their preferences. Trying to negate how some people feel -such as my example swipes against 3e- isn't going to work, because that's how it played out at their table.

I see many criticisms of 3E get posted. But I don't see very many saying that those who play 3E are not roleplaying, or are having to fight against the system to play a game that is not shallow. It is the repeated tendency to suggest just these things of 4e, and either expressly or by implication of those that play it, that irritates me. (About once a month we will see the pits of this, when someone tries to shed light on 4e by discussing how you can take on a role playing Monopoly or chess, but that doesn't make those into RPGs.)

I think this has to do with role play support outside of combat, as well as the focus on miniatures. To my knowledge, there wasn't an edition yet that mandated the use of miniatures. I know I played 3e for a little over 5 years without ever using them. I'm not sure I could do that in 4e with forced movement involved.

Additionally, 2e had non-combat proficiencies, and 3e had narrow skills. I'm kind of hazy on other tools previous editions had, but I'm under the impression that as the game progressed, non-combat tools had historically increased in depth (I may be wrong on this, though). If that's the case, then people may have felt that 4e was a big step backwards in this department. And, seeing as how people were used to non-combat support, I can understand them seeing the lack of several obvious tools (Craft and Profession spring to mind) coupled with the focus on the board, and come to the conclusion that you have come to.

This isn't to say that they're objectively correct. However, I know that as someone who does not use miniatures, and someone who habitually uses skills like Crafts, Professions, or Performs, I was very turned off by the presentation of the game.

Then there's the step towards "gamist" play. I do admit D&D has always had it, but the fact that it was embraced as strongly as it was might support the feeling that those who play the game are indeed playing something like a board game. If I have rules that seem to dictate how things are in a board game that are purely for the game play's benefit, I don't mind if it doesn't address the "fluff" of the game. On the other hand, when this is introduced into an RPG, I can understand people making that connection.

When compared to 3e, few of these are significant issues. So, I'd submit the possibility that while some people had RP problems with 3e, more people had RP problems with 4e, and thus the split, and the higher number of claims of such a hard time dealing with 4e.

It's not malicious, inherently, to state how you feel. The community has different reactions to different editions, as prominently shown by the reception of 3e compared to 4e. Yes, 3e had its detractors, but not to the degree that 4e did, and I believe that is in part because of the reasons outlined above. To some, those changes "make it more like a board game, and less like a role playing game."

And you know what? They're not wrong to feel that way. You're not wrong to disagree with them. Both of you are wrong the moment you try to negate that feeling.

TL;DR - 3E players don't repeatedly find themselves being told that their game is not a RPG, and hence (by implication at least) that they are not roleplaying. 4e players do. On a board dedicated to roleplaying games, that is irritating (to me at least).

I understand the irritation, but, again, I don't think it's malicious. There are definitely malicious 3e warriors, don't get me wrong. But I see more malicious posting from the other side. I see more "your argument doesn't matter" and "your feelings don't matter" and "your opinion isn't correct" and "your view of what makes an enjoyable game is objectively wrong" coming from 4e posters than from 3e posters. I see that in this thread, and in other threads.

The fact that "Nineball" is back isn't helping that view any, though. He is by no means alone, though. Just as there are certain posters in support of 3e who state "4e is not D&D" with objective certainty and are wrong, so too are the 4e supporters who try to negate the feelings and opinions of those who dislike their favored edition.

Like I said, I do get that you're frustrated by people saying "4e isn't a RPG" since it's demonstrably false. That attack on it is about as valid as saying "3e is for powergamers" to me. I mean, some people might experience either one, but that doesn't make it true for everyone, and absolute statements that draw from purely personal experience with such subjective material should be avoided, in my opinion.

And, like I said in the quote you responded to, it comes down to preference. Your mileage has varied. It really is that simple.

As always, play what you like

 

[SteveC]

There's your problem.

You don't understand the issues because you are confusing your own personal opinions and experiences with the preferences and experiences of the market as a whole.

If only people would take this advice to heart, there would be so many fewer arguments on message boards.

I'd say it especially applies to games people don't actually play.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It is always "4e is bad."

Well, the wonder of the internet is, you don't have to participate in such discussions.

Discussions will always include some segment of "I think this thing is bad." We've just had over a decade of talking about the flaws in 3e (from scry-buff-teleport to shoddy grapple rules), and we've only had about 3 years of talking about 4e's problems (long combats, balance obsession, rejection of previous story material), so there's a lot more about 4e to talk about.

And, of course, there are more subjective and relative problems. Some folks really didn't like the fighter/spellcaster balance split in previous editions, but individual campaigns could handle them just fine pretty often, on a practical basis, so there's many that never encountered the problem.

But if you don't like hearing it, you don't have to hear it.

 

[JamesonCourage]

If someone is telling me that the edition of D&D that I play isn't D&D, they are wrong.

*Sympathetic pat* It is wrong. But don't worry, Cirno, you have 4e, and you can be happy playing it, and they'll never convince you not to enjoy it. That goes both ways, though.

As always, play what you like