Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[I'm A Banana]

Where I just see it as part of the job, and more efficient than having to check a rule for every little thing....In my case they wouldn't be able to get on with it, I'd have my nose stuck in a book looking the rule up.

I find I can (a) export a lot of that braintrust to the players ("You tell me how much the book says you climb with that check of 21."), and (b) feel a lot better about making stuff up when I don't have to do it all the time, if it's taking too long to look up. I am empowered to make a ruling that is grounded in something, rather than a more arbitrary gut feeling.

Charts and tables I don't mind - I can nail 'em up on the back of my DM screen and they're right in front of me when I need 'em. But something like climbing rules I'd get fed up with looking up after the first ten times, start doing it by memory instead (and thus get it wrong), and end up in effect winging it anyway. So I might as well just wing it from the start and have done with it.

I think there's a middle ground. Rules for stuff like jumping in 3e and 4e are WAY TOO DETAILED for my usual purposes IMO. But having NOTHING means my whims are everything, and I really don't care that much whether your jump was 5 feet or 6 feet and whether or not you could move 10 feet first. I can lean on a rule when I don't want to make a ruling, and I can make a ruling when I don't care to bugger with the rule.

Thing is, you might not realize it at the time but you're probably changing them every time to suit the particular situation (slipperiness of wall, lighting conditions, whether stealth is required, structural integrity, etc.); it's not much more work if any to just wing it.

Applying a +5 or -5 or whatever is a lot different, and a lot easier, then whole-cloth coming up with a DC out of the aether based on my own personal biases.

Ha, but there's the trick! Nothing says the players ever have to know whether you're winging it or not...roll some dice and make it look good, and you're set

To me, that feels like a lot of work. And also unfair. The players are working just as hard to have a good time as I am, I feel removing the element of actual luck, chance, and character skill from the game, in exchange for whatever I make up isn't a fun way to play for me.

Like I indicated above, that's not to say I don't feel there's no value in DM Fiat. Just that I personally don't like to use it to solve every little problem, and I don't feel like the game should MAKE ME do it. It should certainly let you, and encourage you, but it shouldn't assume that you want to.

 

[Bedrockgames]

"How do I jump across this pit?" is not something I want to get fifteen different answers to. That's a fairly standard action that is perfectly predictable in a D&D game. Every table should give you the same answer, IMO. Exactly the same way that every table will give you the same answer when you ask, "What do I have to roll to hit this AC?" (Presuming, of course, you only ask tables that play the same edition )

But, rules absent is poor game design when we're talking about adjudicating actions that are perfectly reasonable and quite likely will occur several times, if not per session, then certainly per adventure.

But we are talking about actions that a large part of the player base doesn't want adjudicated by mechanics. Social mechanics for example are one of those things that people are divided over. So I wouldn't say its bad design to not include them in a system. In a game like D&D which has to appeal to large groups of people, they should at least have optional rules for stuff like diplomacy. Personally I much prefer the lighter touch of previous editions with reaction rolls. They even had a non weapon proficiency for etiquette, but that was about knowing what to say in social situations (it wasn't intended to replace role play or be rolled to determine how well you spoke and behaved).

I am also not convinced that it is bad design to allow for inconsistent applicationsof the rules. You might not like it, but many players find it a liberating and flexible approach. Most of the time "shoddy design" is just a more forceful variation of "i don't like it". Mostly whether a mechanicis good or bad is entirely subjective. Now if the mechanic completely fails to meet design goals or the math is broken, sure maybe its bad design. But even then there are design goals (make combat take less than ten minutes, balance class powers, etc) and marketing/sales goals (i.e. Unite the player base).

 

[Harlock]

Are you implying people with BPD are bad role players or GMs? Why would you say that? This is far from the truth, we actually have players and GMs with BPD on here, and I had, in the past several in my groups and never once had an issue.

Please avoid cheap swipes at a handicapped part of the player base, please. You have no idea how much hurt such silly offhand comments can cause. This goes for every sort of disorder, of course.

Thanks.

I believe you know what I was implying and chose to take offense anyway. It was hyperbole and there was no intent to harm. Expect a PM.

 

[Hussar]

In my case they wouldn't be able to get on with it, I'd have my nose stuck in a book looking the rule up.

Charts and tables I don't mind - I can nail 'em up on the back of my DM screen and they're right in front of me when I need 'em. But something like climbing rules I'd get fed up with looking up after the first ten times, start doing it by memory instead (and thus get it wrong), and end up in effect winging it anyway. So I might as well just wing it from the start and have done with it.

Whereas I would say that if your rules are so complicated that they actually NEED charts, you've probably failed in the first place. The mechanics should be simple and intuitive enough that you don't need to look them up. This is why I love things like Savage World's Rule of 4 where any result over four is a success. There, done. I don't have to look up anything. Modifiers are broad enough that fudge factor works at the outset.

I think one of the problems is that we try to make mechanics too finely grained when they really don't need to be.

 

[Hussar]

But we are talking about actions that a large part of the player base doesn't want adjudicated by mechanics. Social mechanics for example are one of those things that people are divided over. So I wouldn't say its bad design to not include them in a system. In a game like D&D which has to appeal to large groups of people, they should at least have optional rules for stuff like diplomacy. Personally I much prefer the lighter touch of previous editions with reaction rolls. They even had a non weapon proficiency for etiquette, but that was about knowing what to say in social situations (it wasn't intended to replace role play or be rolled to determine how well you spoke and behaved).

The problem is, what does etiquette actually do? If it has no actual effect in the game, and resolves nothing, why is it even there? I roll my etiquette check and succeed. Ok, I know which fork to use at dinner. Does this actually have any impact on the game beyond whatever DM fiat decides?

Why not actually have social mechanics that DM's can deviate from? Sure, you prefer a lighter touch. No problem. Don't use the mechanics. Like I said, it should be made absolutely crystal clear that you do not have to use the mechanics presented.

I am also not convinced that it is bad design to allow for inconsistent applicationsof the rules. You might not like it, but many players find it a liberating and flexible approach. Most of the time "shoddy design" is just a more forceful variation of "i don't like it". Mostly whether a mechanicis good or bad is entirely subjective. Now if the mechanic completely fails to meet design goals or the math is broken, sure maybe its bad design. But even then there are design goals (make combat take less than ten minutes, balance class powers, etc) and marketing/sales goals (i.e. Unite the player base).

How can it be considered good design for mechanics to be so complicated and counter-intuitive that you cannot actually apply those rules without spending considerable amounts of time reading and rereading those rules every time they're going to be used. I gave three examples - 1e Initiative rules (arcane, byzantine and so complicated that even Gary Gygax didn't use them), 3e grapple rules (another system so overcomplex that it remained a sticking point throughout TWO iterations of 3e, and still caused problems at large numbers of tables) and the 4e incorporeal undead + weakness (a problem resolved in later MM's).

That you can change a rule does not make a given rule good design. A well designed mechanic shouldn't need to be changed, even unintentionally. A well designed mechanic should be intuitive and easily understood. Isn't that pretty much what well designed means?

"Oh, well, sure the rules say that, but we always ignored those rules and did this" is condemnation of any given rule, not praise. If you ignored that rule, it's because that rule was poorly designed. That or you are deliberately changing baselines (which is perfectly fine). But, ignoring or changing a rule because the rule was so borked to begin with that virtually no one could play by the rules means that that rule needed to back to the workshop.

 

[keterys]

There's always a give and take on "trying to make things more realistic". Often so you can believe the world more easily, and stay immersed.

Fairly often it's about making sure things get harder or easier depending on any number of 'important' factors. So maybe for climbing you pay attention to how many free limbs, encumbrance, type of armor, whether you have rope and other climbing gear, etc.

But, being less specific can also make things more realistic, and it can _certainly_ make it easier to stay immersed. The less math I have to do to accomplish anything, the better.

So I'm okay if we don't track modifiers for some things, and we don't worry about, for example:
* Whether there's a slight amount of fungi making things a little slippery
* Whether my climbing gear has been well maintained or has some rust
* Whether the sun is coming in at an angle to make it hard to see upwards at certain points
* If the person in front of me is dislodging minor amounts of grit
Etc. Etc.

I'm _really_ okay with the DM going 'That's an easy climb' or 'Sure, but due to the recent weather and sheer face it's a hard climb', and then gives me an appropriate bonus, or sets an appropriate DC. The Next current treatment seems good there. If they start giving out +1s for wearing the right shoes, having "claw gloves", specialty with "rugged slopes" or whatever? Less so.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The problem is, what does etiquette actually do? If it has no actual effect in the game, and resolves nothing, why is it even there? I roll my etiquette check and succeed. Ok, I know which fork to use at dinner. Does this actually have any impact on the game beyond whatever DM fiat decides?

It certainly has am impact and it is quite clever because it means the character has the knowledge to act without making a fool of himself, but it doesn't interefere with or replace the role play (and for lots of AD&D players that is important). So the player can say "i make an etiquette roll to see if I know how to address the king and behave in his presence" if the player makes it the gm might say "you know to address him as your lordship and that bowing is expected before speaking". Tis does have an impact on the game.

Why not actually have social mechanics that DM's can deviate from? Sure, you prefer a lighter touch. No problem. Don't use the mechanics. Like I said, it should be made absolutely crystal clear that you do not have to use the mechanics presented.

You could do this, or you could have it as a option. Depends on what kind of play you cater to with the core rules. I would rather it be an optional rule.

How can it be considered good design for mechanics to be so complicated and counter-intuitive that you cannot actually apply those rules without spending considerable amounts of time reading and rereading those rules every time they're going to be used. I gave three examples - 1e Initiative rules (arcane, byzantine and so complicated that even Gary Gygax didn't use them), 3e grapple rules (another system so overcomplex that it remained a sticking point throughout TWO iterations of 3e, and still caused problems at large numbers of tables) and the 4e incorporeal undead + weakness (a problem resolved in later MM's).

Not familiar enough with the first and third one. My games are 2E and 3E. The answer though is complicated and counter intuitive are not automatically bad if they achieve the result you want. Some people like complicated rules if they add something to play (realism, fun procedure, etc) others don't mind counter intuitive if it is a better option than a more intuitive approach (for example 2e's switching from roll over to roll under s counter intuitive but I find the actual rolls themselves and subsystems often work better for me than 3E's more intuitive d20 + modifier against a target number.

For grapple, that is not my favorite mechanic. I dont think D&D as ever really done wrestling or punching well. But i know people who did like grapple and saw it as a vast improvement over the wrestling and ko chart. If you are willing to pit the effort in to master the grapple rules, it works just fine. Personally i dont want to have to memorize a minigame just to pin someone down, but I wouldn't say its objectively bad design.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Maybe. We'd have to look at how they do it.

I think in Neonchameleon's case (and others... S'mon, maybe?), they look at the task ("climb a mundane tree"), gauge who should be able to do it ("level 1"), and then decide how easy or hard that should be ("moderate"). So, climbing a tree would be a moderate level 1 DC skill check.

This goes on to apply as necessary to any skill that doesn't have definitive rules already (like jump distance) for the rest of the campaign.

BW (as written, at least) uses "objective" (ie non-scaled) DCs and no "genre logic" adjudication. And emphasises player agency.

This makes sense to me. Reliable DCs allow players to reliably gauge their skill against the DC, and make informed decisions on whether or not they're able to shape the story reliably.

HeroQuest revised (as written, at least) uses scaled DCs and "genre logic" adjudication. And emphasises player agency.

I think that 4e, as written, is closer to HQ than BW in this particular respect, although there is a degree of incoherence in the presentation of the skill rules (in part related to the broader tension between 4e's two very different modes of conflict resolution - combat and skill challenges).

Can I ask how the skill system that is essentially decided by DM fiat emphasizes player agency more than, say, BW's approach? I'm curious as to your thoughts on it.

The D&Dnext playtest clearly uses "objective" DCs - and that's part of the implemenation of "bounded accuracy". I've got nothing against that per se, although I think for gonzo fantasy the 4e/HQ approach is probably superior - especially because (in my view, and for the reasons I gave in my other thread) it makes it easier to incorporate improvised use of the wacky powers and abilities that D&D PCs tend to have.

Well, I've got a couple thoughts on this. First, I do see where you're coming from, and see the appeal if that's a goal of yours. However, couldn't "objective" DCs still allow for gonzo play (something similar to how Mutants and Masterminds, a superhero RPG, gives you reliable abilities that are definitely more gonzo in nature)?

And, secondly, can't you have a good chart for "stunts" or "improvised actions" that use the "objective" DCs as a guideline for the rest of play?

But the playtest skill rules don't have anything else to support player agency within its action resolution framework (eg there is no Let it Ride, nothing analogous to BW's "intent and task", etc). That is something that I would like to see. And it's not just as simple as implementing it myself. For example, "intent and task" and Let it Ride both work most naturally within a framework of scene-based play. And supporting scene-based play can be helped or hindered by other features of the game, like its rules involving the passage of time (durations, healing, movement, wandering monster checks, etc). 4e gets most of this right, for my purposes at least.

Yes, and I know of your like of this sort of play. I was talking to Tony about the systems from 4e that 5e could draw on, and I don't believe that it has a strong non-combat system when it comes to giving players reliable control over shaping the story.

That is, in combat, we know exactly how far we can move, what powers we can reliably attempt (or perform, with damage+condition on a miss), how we can restore our health, how we stabilize if we're dying, etc. Everything is laid out reliably in front of us, and we know how the rules play out 95% of the time, and thus can plan around that knowledge to shape the story.

This seemingly falls apart in the non-combat arena, where people are still asking "can I do this?" and "what's the DC?" While that's a fine style to have, it doesn't seem like it's giving the players great control over the story unless the DM gives his permission. From your other thread:

For example, a recent brief skill challenge I ran pertained to the reforging of a dwarven thrower artefact, Whelm, as a mordenkrad rather than a warhammer. At a certain point in the challenge, Whelm was thrumming with magical energy, and the dwarven artisans were having trouble physically taking hold of it with their toos. The player of the dwarven fighter-cleric overseeing the process asked if he could shove his hands into the furnace to hold the hammer steady long enough for the dwarven artisans to get a grip on it with their tongs. At heroic tier, I would have said "no". At mid-paragon tier, I happily said "yes" - and the Hard Endurance check was enough for the challenge to succeed, and Whelm to therefore be reforged as Overwhelm.

In this situation, the player is still saying "can I do this?" and you, as DM, get to say yes or no (this doesn't strike me as strong player agency). Then, you set the DC (again, he doesn't know what this will be until the DM decides, so this doesn't strike me as strong player agency either).

Again, I'm okay with this style of play. I can play in a rules-light game and enjoy myself. I see the upsides to having rules be light, and for the DM to make decisions like this. However, I don't think that that your example, above, is an especially good system for enabling strong player agency within the game. Nor do I think a rules-light approach is necessary to be able to frame scenes in an interesting way (much like it isn't necessary in combats, where players have the most reliable control of their characters' abilities).

My comment was that when it comes to enabling players to perform non-combat actions, I don't think 5e has a strong base to draw from in any edition of D&D, including 4e. I think 3.X might be the closest to my preferred style (in that it has the most "objective" DCs listed; this is not a comment on those DCs, the skill system getting out of hand and bonuses getting too high, incompetence because you didn't invest, spells bypassing things, etc.). Your preferred approach is different (more inspired by Burning Wheel), and that's fine.

Whatever path 5e takes, I just want players to have reliable abilities that they can use outside of combat that aren't strongly influenced from the beginning by the DM. Can DMs say "things are different [here, now, etc.]"? I would hope so. But, I want that solid, reliable base for players to be able to draw from, to give them that reliable control over the story. As always, play what you like

 

[Bedrockgames]

That you can change a rule does not make a given rule good design. A well designed mechanic shouldn't need to be changed, even unintentionally. A well designed mechanic should be intuitive and easily understood. Isn't that pretty much what well designed means?

"Oh, well, sure the rules say that, but we always ignored those rules and did this" is condemnation of any given rule, not praise. If you ignored that rule, it's because that rule was poorly designed. That or you are deliberately changing baselines (which is perfectly fine). But, ignoring or changing a rule because the rule was so borked to begin with that virtually no one could play by the rules means that that rule needed to back to the workshop.

I never said anything about changing a rule or ignoring it. I pretty much play games by the book.

And ignring a rule doesn't mean its bad or borked. It means you don't like it. You just suggested they include social mechnics in Next and that I should ignore it if it isn't my preference. Lets say they do and that I do ignore or change the rule. That doesn't make it ad, it just means Brendan doesn't like it.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

That you can change a rule does not make a given rule good design. A well designed mechanic shouldn't need to be changed, even unintentionally. A well designed mechanic should be intuitive and easily understood. Isn't that pretty much what well designed means?

This relates to that comment several weeks ago, I believe from Mearls, that a good rules should be one that if you need to look it up, makes sense as soon as you read it. It is a rule that you can honestly say, "I didn't know that before, but I'm not surprised that it is this way." That's not really good design, per se, but I think the intersection of good design with elegance--which implies a certain amount of engineering mixed with art. It's often at the boundaries of disciplines like this that we get things really good or definitely "off" somehow.

Strictly speaking (which I certainly don't always do), I wouldn't say something is "bad design" until one found a better design to replace it with. As soon as you find that better design, the other one is worse--and if worse "enough" was always "bad design"--whether we suspected it earlier or not. Of course, what most people mean by "bad design" (including me) is something like, "This things follows a pattern that I've seen before. The pattern has characteristic flaws. There is a better pattern to replace it."

So, for example, you can intuit from the pattern, if you've got related experience elsewhere, that "better AC goes down" while "better attack numbers go up" is "bad design." That's entirely true by pattern--but comes with the big caveat, often unstated, that we can have a way to make them consistent that will be, on the whole, better than having them go opposite. 3E's "better design" reinforces the pattern by finding that way.