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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You've stated this argument over and over again... and I still don't get it. Unless you expected to slay dragons from 1st level onward (which is not what is promised in the foreword)... EVERY edition of D&D made good on this promise... characters just had to be a high enough level to face dragons. This argument just doesn't make sense.

You don't get the difference between a character taking on the noble goal of slaying a dragon tyrant and a mercenary character trying to haul as much treasure as he can out of a dungeon, or did you not read pemerton's previous posts on this topic closely enough?

In 4E, you get quest XP for story achievements*.
In earlier editions of D&D, you get XP for gold pieces you collect*.

Metagame mechanics in 4E support and encourage to setting story goals for the character and the party and working to achieve them.
Metagame mechanics in AD&D support and encourage finding ways to earn gold pieces.

*Common among both is that you get XP for killing/defeating monsters (which I omitted there). So both encourage achieving your goal with violence, though 3E and 4E also note that "defeat" doesn't require killing, but can also be a negotiation or trcikery/stealth. So basically 3E and 4E suggest that your goal is to interact with NPCs in some way to achieve your goals, violence being a viable option, but not the only one.
(Though 3E leaves out the XP for GP mechanic, so it mostly supports interacting with adversaries/obstacles, without exactly guiding what the fictional purpose of the interaction could be.)

 

[Emerikol]

You don't get the difference between a character taking on the noble goal of slaying a dragon tyrant and a mercenary character trying to haul as much treasure as he can out of a dungeon, or did you not read pemerton's previous posts on this topic closely enough?

In 4E, you get quest XP for story achievements*.
In earlier editions of D&D, you get XP for gold pieces you collect*.

Metagame mechanics in 4E support and encourage to setting story goals for the character and the party and working to achieve them.
Metagame mechanics in AD&D support and encourage finding ways to earn gold pieces.

*Common among both is that you get XP for killing/defeating monsters (which I omitted there). So both encourage achieving your goal with violence, though 3E and 4E also note that "defeat" doesn't require killing, but can also be a negotiation or trcikery/stealth. So basically 3E and 4E suggest that your goal is to interact with NPCs in some way to achieve your goals, violence being a viable option, but not the only one.
(Though 3E leaves out the XP for GP mechanic, so it mostly supports interacting with adversaries/obstacles, without exactly guiding what the fictional purpose of the interaction could be.)

In 1e anyway, the monster xp was so trivial as to almost not be worth bothering with. Essentially gold was the xp engine of earlier editions. And while totally nonsensical from a realism perspective it did mostly incentivize the correct behavior in the group. Just killing everything without thought wasn't always the right choice. Going around an enemy was often the right choice.

In 3e, it was all about the monsters. Leave no critter alive. I thought this was a big improvement at the time because it was more realistic. You get better by doing what you do against enemies. But I did see the downside that it incentived unrealistic behavior by the characters.

Sidenote concerning a previous post:
4e magic items were trash. If you take away the pluses they weren't worth having. In earlier editions (1e thru 3e) magic items were wondrous and exciting. In 3e they were way to easy to make at least for me though.

 

[Imaro]

You don't get the difference between a character taking on the noble goal of slaying a dragon tyrant and a mercenary character trying to haul as much treasure as he can out of a dungeon, or did you not read pemerton's previous posts on this topic closely enough?

In 4E, you get quest XP for story achievements*.
In earlier editions of D&D, you get XP for gold pieces you collect*.

Metagame mechanics in 4E support and encourage to setting story goals for the character and the party and working to achieve them.
Metagame mechanics in AD&D support and encourage finding ways to earn gold pieces.

*Common among both is that you get XP for killing/defeating monsters (which I omitted there). So both encourage achieving your goal with violence, though 3E and 4E also note that "defeat" doesn't require killing, but can also be a negotiation or trcikery/stealth. So basically 3E and 4E suggest that your goal is to interact with NPCs in some way to achieve your goals, violence being a viable option, but not the only one.
(Though 3E leaves out the XP for GP mechanic, so it mostly supports interacting with adversaries/obstacles, without exactly guiding what the fictional purpose of the interaction could be.)

But pemerton is talking about slaying the Dragon Tyrant, which is what the foreword is about as well... so I'm not sure what all your talk of different types of resolution or even quest xp has to do with the point. The other point is that if the rules are followed the Dragon Tyrant should have approrpiate treasure, so the XP reward for slaying him + treasure is greater than just stealing the treasure. In other words, in what edition is the slaying of the dragon not rewarded???

 

[pemerton]

I am amazed to meet people who seem to be saying that they weren't happy with D&D until 4e. That says to me that you really never liked D&D. I mean if you disliked it for thirty years wow.

Are you responding to me in particular? I didn't say I disliked D&D. (I do dislike 3E. I don't dislike AD&D or B/X. Nor do I love them.) I said that 4e is, for me, the best system for a certain purpose. My favourite version of D&D prior to 4e was the original Oriental Adventures.

If you think that liking 4e, and finding it best, means that someone never really liked D&D, I think that is something of a projection of your own preferences onto others whose preferences are obviously quite difference from yours.

Also if just changing the numerical value of a saving throw counts as a major change to the way the game works then what can I say.

<snip>

The basic structure of the game though looks the same.

Saving throws in AD&D are a metagame mechanic, with the focus on results, not process. Saving throws in 3E are a process-simulation mechanic, with the focus on ingame causation (is the character dodging, toughing it out, or staring it down?), not result. This is the direct cause of the change in the fighter's saves, because fighter's get stuck with poor capacities (they're tough but neither agile nor particularly determined) instead of genre-appropriate results.

As to basic structure, I could equally say that 4e has the same basic structure as earlier editions - choose class and race, determine class abilities, in combat roll attacks with a d20 and damage with a funky polyhedron.

No vancian wizard exists.

<snip>

Martial healing baked into the game and hard to remove

Every edition of the game, including 4e, has Vancian wizards. So there inclusion will not be a shock. The details of the Vancian mechanic is where the action is (eg how many spells, chosen from how broad a list, with what degree of scaling).

And as in 4e, martial healing is likely to be located within the warlord class. Which, presumably, those who don't like can ignore.

 

[pemerton]

You've stated this argument over and over again... and I still don't get it. Unless you expected to slay dragons from 1st level onward (which is not what is promised in the foreword)... EVERY edition of D&D made good on this promise... characters just had to be a high enough level to face dragons. This argument just doesn't make sense.

Mustrum_Ridcully pretty much covers it here:

You don't get the difference between a character taking on the noble goal of slaying a dragon tyrant and a mercenary character trying to haul as much treasure as he can out of a dungeon

<snip>

Metagame mechanics in 4E support and encourage to setting story goals for the character and the party and working to achieve them.
Metagame mechanics in AD&D support and encourage finding ways to earn gold pieces.

Yes. I'd add to that is that 4e has a mechanic for the mysterious NPC giving the PC the dragon-slaying sword, as the Moldvay Foreword mentions (treasure parcels). Whereas B/X does not have any such mechanic, and AD&D actively discourages this sort of thing in the DMG text on placement of magical treasure.

Also, 4e does not have all the minutiae of classic D&D - detailed time tracking, for example, and the wandering monsters that accompany this - which detract from thematic and epic play and push the focus of play onto operational and other prosaic matters.

Essentially gold was the xp engine of earlier editions. And while totally nonsensical from a realism perspective it did mostly incentivize the correct behavior in the group.

If by "correct behaviour" you mean "looting", than sure. Not so much liberating the land from the dragon tyrant.

But pemerton is talking about slaying the Dragon Tyrant, which is what the foreword is about as well... so I'm not sure what all your talk of different types of resolution or even quest xp has to do with the point.

To quote myself, I am talking about "freeing the land of tyranny by slaying the dragon tyrant."

The XP issue is directly on point. It's about the sort of scenario design and metagame agenda that the game supports.

The other point is that if the rules are followed the Dragon Tyrant should have approrpiate treasure, so the XP reward for slaying him + treasure is greater than just stealing the treasure. In other words, in what edition is the slaying of the dragon not rewarded???

I'm not saying that you can't hack and drift B/X in a different direction. Oriental Adventures is a nice published example of this in 1st ed AD&D.

But 4e is a better system, because it doesn't mediate the importance of the quest via the treasure. It cuts to the chase.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

But pemerton is talking about slaying the Dragon Tyrant, which is what the foreword is about as well... so I'm not sure what all your talk of different types of resolution or even quest xp has to do with the point. The other point is that if the rules are followed the Dragon Tyrant should have approrpiate treasure, so the XP reward for slaying him + treasure is greater than just stealing the treasure. In other words, in what edition is the slaying of the dragon not rewarded???

Read Emirikols post - in some editions of D&D the XP reward for slaying the dragon was minor compared to the reward for the treasure. Considering the dangers of engaging the Dragon directly, it can be more rewarding overall to find a way to acquire his treasure and avoid a direct conflict with the Dragon. Dead PCs don't earn GP or XP, after all. In 3e and 4e, the XP reward for defeating the Dragon is signicant, but only 4e has a built-in mechanic rewarding people for achieving quest goals that are similar in size than that of the mere defeating the Dragon.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In 1e anyway, the monster xp was so trivial as to almost not be worth bothering with. Essentially gold was the xp engine of earlier editions. And while totally nonsensical from a realism perspective it did mostly incentivize the correct behavior in the group. Just killing everything without thought wasn't always the right choice. Going around an enemy was often the right choice.

In 3e, it was all about the monsters. Leave no critter alive. I thought this was a big improvement at the time because it was more realistic. You get better by doing what you do against enemies. But I did see the downside that it incentived unrealistic behavior by the characters.

IIRC in 2e you gained XP on a class by class basis for performing as a stereotypical member of that class. Worst of all worlds.

Sidenote concerning a previous post:
4e magic items were trash. If you take away the pluses they weren't worth having. In earlier editions (1e thru 3e) magic items were wondrous and exciting. In 3e they were way to easy to make at least for me though.

A lot of 4e magic items are useful without the static bonusses. A number aren't. But are you seriously saying that the farbond spellblade fullblade (a fullblade you can throw and will return) is less interesting than the +1 flaming, shocking, freezing longsword? (Just picking one 3e sword design).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, I think most of the 4E magic items were pretty lame. The effects were often rather minor and not very evocative. Stuff like a throwable and returning Greatsword is pretty cool, though.

It would theoretically be possible to make 4E magic items much cooler if they were integrated more closely with the inherent character abilities. E.g. a Sword that gives you an Encounter Power you can use instead of one of your class encounter powers and is balanced against that power. Stuff like that could have made magic items much, much cooler.

If there would ever be a worthy successor of 4E, removing the +x items and allowing stuff like the above should probably be in it. Maybe 6E?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Well, I think most of the 4E magic items were pretty lame. The effects were often rather minor and not very evocative. Stuff like a throwable and returning Greatsword is pretty cool, though.

Agreed. But then I wouldn't have said that the magic items, and especially the weapons and armour in any other edition of D&D were that different. (Shield +2, +4 against arrows may sound cool but was in fact bookkeeping). The big problem was the presentation - the mini-spreadsheet each weapon, piece of armour, implement, and neck slot item brought with it made the eyes glaze over.

If there would ever be a worthy successor of 4E, removing the +x items and allowing stuff like the above should probably be in it. Maybe 6E?

There are several continuation 4es in the works. I'm looking at a pitch to companies like Cubicle 7 before actually writing one.

 

[Hussar]

In 1e anyway, the monster xp was so trivial as to almost not be worth bothering with. Essentially gold was the xp engine of earlier editions. And while totally nonsensical from a realism perspective it did mostly incentivize the correct behavior in the group. Just killing everything without thought wasn't always the right choice. Going around an enemy was often the right choice.

In 3e, it was all about the monsters. Leave no critter alive. I thought this was a big improvement at the time because it was more realistic. You get better by doing what you do against enemies. But I did see the downside that it incentived unrealistic behavior by the characters.

I've seen this one repeatedly stated and all I can say is that no one I ever played with played this way. Avoid encounters? Why? You were just giving away free xp. Those monsters have equipment that can be sold. They're carrying cash (those 2d6 gp's start adding up after a while). They've got weapons and armor, all of which are worth xp and gold.

Besides that, if you avoided an encounter, it would most often turn around and bite you on the ass because that encounter you avoided would just become reinforcements for the next encounter that you didn't avoid. Gank every encounter and you reduce wandering monsters as well - making it that much easier to further explore the dungeon.

Why on earth would anyone avoid encounters?

Sidenote concerning a previous post:
4e magic items were trash. If you take away the pluses they weren't worth having. In earlier editions (1e thru 3e) magic items were wondrous and exciting. In 3e they were way to easy to make at least for me though.

Um, I'm going to guess that you are going by PHB 1 only here. Because, once you get away from the first PHB, there's all sorts of nifty items. Heck, I just managed to complete a major character quest and landed myself this little goody:

Now, how is that trash and not worth having? Thing doesn't really have any pluses, but, it's something I've been working towards for the better part of a year of real time.