Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[pemerton]

To some extent this is true of everything in life. That doesn't mean that I want to buy products that just tell me to "use my own judgement" - I had got that far before I ever made a purchase.

And thus do we get the starting point of Joseph Raz's theory of authority!

The rules provide information to all parties - especially the players - concerning when those "conflicted" actions will arise, how those actions will be resolved and, thus, the advisability and likely outcome of any actions the player may decide to have their character take. "Realism" and "gameplay" are possible side-effects, but neither is actually either neccessary or automatic.

I don't think [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] is going to be accepting the Vincent Baker theory of RPG mechanics any time soon!

But I think if D&Dnext is going to be able to unify, then the designers do have to keep Baker's analysis in mind. One obstacle seems to be that, for many of those who do see the mechanics as primarily "descriptions of what happens" in the fiction, it affronts their experience of immersion to see the mechanics discussed in a metagame sense at all.

Hence the apparent intention to hide monster roles in a technical appendix, so we can read the Monster Manual itself and imagine that we're reading a bestiary composed by some ingame scholar.

 

[Balesir]

One quote for me in a sea of replies to Lanefan.

Sorry - that was mostly happenstance. Because I am in the UK I tend to be posting "out of phase" with the majority (US) posters; as a result I come to a thread with a whole shedload of replies since my last viewing. I read through the entire thread, marking the posts I have a reaction to as "multiquotes" - in this case I marked some of Lanefan's and one of yours...

I don't know if you did, but I feel like you're replying to my quote out of context. I was commenting on why I like "Rule 0" in a rule-heavy game -it allows the GM to say "I've overriding the rules for this reason" while still leaving the players very empowered, since they still have very clear rules in other areas (and lots of other areas, preferably).

I picked out your post because it seemed to me that you, too, were using "Rule 0" to mean established houserules rather than disregarding rules on the fly and making up new ones. I understand from this post that you think that's not the case, but I'm still not entirely convinced because your players, it seems, expect and accept the changes as "natural"? If so, then I wonder if there is some set of "meta-rules" that are understood, expected and accepted by the whole group concerning how various things work in the game world? If so, then I would still class those "rules" as houserules; distributing them in written form is not the only way of "publishing" them.

To me, this has nothing to do with "houserules" being set up beforehand (especially since it extends to an in-play decision by the GM to change the rules, if it lines up with "common sense" [as determined by the group's social contract], which I also mentioned).

Here is where I get the idea of the "meta-rules" I referred to - I would be interested to see where this "common sense" originates. "Common sense" doesn't seem to me to be a particularly "social contract" thing - more of a common understanding of what the rules are, even if they are not written down.

I want to point out that I didn't say this. I said that abuse of Rule 0 is also accompanied by GMs who also railroad you or have problem GMPCs in the game.

OK, noted; you are claiming correlation only. I am saying that what, at least, looks like GMPC overempowerment and railroaded plots stems directly from on-the-fly use of "Rule 0" and/or the use of ambiguous rules (i.e. rules designed specifically to require on-the-fly rules creation/assumption).

So, you agreement with my preference for clear rules, as I stated in the post that you quoted? To be fair, maybe you missed the context of my conversation with Hussar; I do state it more explicitly in my previous post to Hussar that he then questioned:

Yes, I do agree with your preference for clear, unambiguous rules and no, I did not miss the content of your exchange with Hussar. I do still think that tis preference flies against on-the-fly rules changes that the players don't expect - and, if they do expect them within the context of that preference, then I think it's worth exploring how and why that happens.

I'm all for clear, codified, rules-heavy systems that the players can rely on. I just like Rule 0 for my group; the post goes on to say "It's just a different style of play, though. It's a terrible step for some groups; it's a good step for mine. Just a play style thing."

What I suspect, here, is what I have seen many times with D&D groups; that the game world in fact runs by a set of rules that are only tangentially related to the game system as written in the rulebook, which are understood through long acquaintance by all in the gaming group and that represent a set of established preferences for that group. I may be wrong in my suspicion - please feel free to say so - but it's a phenomenon I have seen around and I get a sense that it's the case, here.

It's a bit of a tangent, but I think that this is the cause of quite a bit of resistance to changing editions. What causes the real angst with the edition change is not the actual rule changes, but the fact that the underlying "meta-system" is difficult to adapt the new system to - and the resistance to changing the meta-system is very high indeed (in fact, in some cases, I get the impression that the very notion of changing the meta-system is beyond even cursory consideration).

So, you can disagree with me if you'd like, but I'm not sure why you are.

Well, to begin with, I didn't think I was disagreeing with you! Now, however, it seems as if I am - but maybe that just covers another layer on which we agree but aren't expressing our thoughts in quite the same language?

You seem to be trying to argue with me over something I'm not trying to say. I'm not advocating "ambiguous" rules; I'm advocating the opposite of it, with a "GM override" button. Obviously, as I said, this is good for some groups, and not for others.

Well, de facto, the group - not even just the GM - always has an "override button", since even the famed "WotC ninjas" aren't real (are they?? )...

The interesting (and key) question, to me, though, is "why override?" If it's purely GM aesthetics, I see issues. If it's some underlying "meta-system" understood by the gaming group, I see less problems, but maybe some profit to be found by analysing what that "meta-system" actually is, since that is the system the group is actually playing by.

Even when already playing what you like, knowing what you like can be a good thing...

Fireball isn't the best example, as my original point amounted to "use real-world physics except when dealing with magic", and a fireball is magic.

OK, so clear, unambiguous rules are needed for magic, at least. Which leads to the next issue - what, exactly, is "non-magical" in a magical world?

What's needed is some sort of brief description of how magic might fit in with the rest of known physics. I long ago dreamed up the idea that magic is in effect a fifth force (along with gravity and three others I forget now) which a few people have learned how to shape and manipulate into effects that wreak merry hell on the usual laws of the other four forces. Many creatures - in fact, all non-mundane ones - rely on this fifth force in order to exist.

All of this I regard as non-system "colour" and, as such, this is a bit of a tangent, to be honest, but...

Assuming that we postulate a universe where a fifth, "magical" force exists in addition to gravity, electro-magnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces (which I assume was what you were referring to) - a "magical" quint-essence, as it were - then I find it hard to believe that this fifth force will be absent from a whole swathe of objects and processes in the postulated universe. The established "real world" forces interact with each other in a myriad ways and in almost every conceivable process; I would expect the "fifth force" to do likewise. In other words, if there really is a fifth, "magical" force then the whole world will be "magical".

By the time the houserules reach a book-full the last thing I want to do is abandon all that work and start over learning and tweaking a whole new system. Instead, I'll just keep on kitbashing the system I've already built as defined by said book-full of houserules.

Yeah, once you have go to that point you are essentially using a new and different ruleset anyway! I understand how folk ended up there in the early days, since there were so few starting points - you had to choose one, and if it really didn't suit you you just had to start "kitbashing" it. Nowadays, though, I think it's well worth looking around for a "best fit" starting position before starting to build that houserule edifice!

I also assume, somewhat, here that folk want different things out of different campaigns. I know I do, but I also know that it's not universal to do so. If you want the same game each time, it makes perfect sense to use the same rules every time.

Rarely if ever will I make a significant change during a campaign unless it involves only things that have not yet come up in play. For example, in my current campaign I can still mess around with high-level MU spells as 98% of them haven't been seen in play yet. But I wouldn't want to tweak the low-level ones until my next campaign.
Adding something minor that wasn't there before at all (e.g. new monster, new spell, new magic item) is almost irrelevant for these purposes. Ditto for removing something, particularly if it's never been seen in play in that campaign.

OK, this confirms that what you are describing is what I would call "houseruling" as opposed to full "Rule 0", where the rules are just guidelines that the GM can modify at whim. As I said, I think houserules should be approached with care, because messing up a well balanced system is easy, but they are a legitimate way to get exactly the rules you want.

That said, nothing bugs me more in published modules than supposedly-intelligent foes who don't use resources available to them e.g. the Fighter carrying around a potion of haste who doesn't drink it once things start going badly for her...

Sure - but that's different from them "happening" to have only stuff they can use.

As a complete aside, 4e modules have, on occasion, handled this well. The powers of the item in question are included in the statblock of the creature in the encounter; this means that it's crystal clear to the GM that the creature may use that power in the encounter, and then, at the end of the encounter, the party get the item as it is listed in the creatures "items carried" section.

OK, so you do equalize it later.

I've seen situations like this where no later equalization took place. They got messy.

In principle there may be an equalisation, but the main priority is party optimisation. I regard this as an aspect of teamwork and a Good Thing. It certainly gets the players discussing party teamwork and "balance" in constructive, non-selfish ways.

One obstacle seems to be that, for many of those who do see the mechanics as primarily "descriptions of what happens" in the fiction, it affronts their experience of immersion to see the mechanics discussed in a metagame sense at all.

That's all very well, but the models of Vincent Baker et al still describe pretty accurately what is actually going on in the real world around an RPG table in this respect. Sticking one's fingers in one's ears, closing one's eyes and reciting purple prose loudly is not going to change that.

 

[pemerton]

That's all very well, but the models of Vincent Baker et al still describe pretty accurately what is actually going on in the real world around an RPG table in this respect. Sticking one's fingers in one's ears, closing one's eyes and reciting purple prose loudly is not going to change that.

Sure - I think you know that I agree with this.

But given that a big part of the audience seems to not want to hear it, WotC seem determined to produce rulebooks that pretend it's not the case.

Which is a pity from my point of view, because they're books I probably won't be interested in.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I read through the entire thread, marking the posts I have a reaction to as "multiquotes" - in this case I marked some of Lanefan's and one of yours...

Did you? I didn't even notice. No worries about it, though. I was mostly just commenting on it to comment on it; it's not a bad thing that I was buried in Lanefan's quotes (my quote is easy enough to find).

I picked out your post because it seemed to me that you, too, were using "Rule 0" to mean established houserules rather than disregarding rules on the fly and making up new ones. I understand from this post that you think that's not the case, but I'm still not entirely convinced because your players, it seems, expect and accept the changes as "natural"? If so, then I wonder if there is some set of "meta-rules" that are understood, expected and accepted by the whole group concerning how various things work in the game world? If so, then I would still class those "rules" as houserules; distributing them in written form is not the only way of "publishing" them.

If you mean that my players expect me to use Rule 0 from time to time in ways that none of us know or predicted, then yes, they do. If that's kind of like an "unpublished house rule", then cool, we're on the same page. (I usually refer to this sort of understanding as part of the social contract of my table.)

Here is where I get the idea of the "meta-rules" I referred to - I would be interested to see where this "common sense" originates. "Common sense" doesn't seem to me to be a particularly "social contract" thing - more of a common understanding of what the rules are, even if they are not written down.

Well, it's more of a "the rules don't give an explicit ruling on this" and then me adjudicating as best as I can, based on the common understanding of my group. I might rule at some point that the collapsing cavern might be avoided entirely if they beat the Reflex DC by enough, or that the giant slab following from above doesn't entitle them to a save at all. These aren't covered extensively in the rules (though they are covered), and my players accept the slight adjustments on the fly.

OK, noted; you are claiming correlation only. I am saying that what, at least, looks like GMPC overempowerment and railroaded plots stems directly from on-the-fly use of "Rule 0" and/or the use of ambiguous rules (i.e. rules designed specifically to require on-the-fly rules creation/assumption).

I think that this can be the case, but a GM can use a perfectly legal character without breaking any game rules; the same can be very true of railroad plots. He can just have a level 18 Cleric follow the party around, ordering them around, and he'd be using a GMPC and probably engaging in a railroad plot (again, with no use of Rule 0).

I was just saying that if one tends to abuse Rule 0, I expect them to be less than stellar in other ways, as well.

Yes, I do agree with your preference for clear, unambiguous rules and no, I did not miss the content of your exchange with Hussar. I do still think that tis preference flies against on-the-fly rules changes that the players don't expect - and, if they do expect them within the context of that preference, then I think it's worth exploring how and why that happens.

This is what I was trying to explain to Hussar (which I think he understood). While I like clear rules (to empower the player), the explicit use of Rule 0 can enhance the game for my group, even if my players don't expect it beforehand. Well, they expect me to use it, but none of us knows when or where it'll come up.

This is to help maintain a sense of immersion within the world, most often. It's to keep the mechanics from "breaking the game" by letting me break the rules; this is determined by "common sense" at my table (which will admittedly vary from table to table).

What I suspect, here, is what I have seen many times with D&D groups; that the game world in fact runs by a set of rules that are only tangentially related to the game system as written in the rulebook, which are understood through long acquaintance by all in the gaming group and that represent a set of established preferences for that group. I may be wrong in my suspicion - please feel free to say so - but it's a phenomenon I have seen around and I get a sense that it's the case, here.

Well, it might be harder for my group, since we run the RPG I created, and the rules match up extremely closely with want we want, by RAW, most of the time. It's the corner cases that I like to mess around with or break. For example, a while back I gave two successes in a skill challenge from somebody who rolled exceptionally well on their check at an important opening moment. This isn't covered in the mechanical rules (though it's talked about in the Running a Game chapter), but I'm also okay swapping skills in skill challenges with attribute checks or attack rolls, too (and I recently had an attack roll as part of a skill challenge).

Hmm... I feel like I haven't answered you. Let me know if I can be more specific.

It's a bit of a tangent, but I think that this is the cause of quite a bit of resistance to changing editions. What causes the real angst with the edition change is not the actual rule changes, but the fact that the underlying "meta-system" is difficult to adapt the new system to - and the resistance to changing the meta-system is very high indeed (in fact, in some cases, I get the impression that the very notion of changing the meta-system is beyond even cursory consideration).

This is probably true for many groups. Considering the rather extensive mechanical changes that my game went through*, I don't think this is particularly daunting to my group, though.

* Eventually fading from 3.5 D&D to my own RPG, which is point-buy, has its own unique magic system (51 pages) that combines skill checks and spell slots (or just uses skill checks), has a martial maneuver system that isn't based on any 3.5 book, has a skill system that is 54 pages (as compared to combat at 32 [which includes 5 pages on mass combat and 12 pages of martial maneuvers]) that is quite extensive with new skills/uses, etc.

Well, to begin with, I didn't think I was disagreeing with you! Now, however, it seems as if I am - but maybe that just covers another layer on which we agree but aren't expressing our thoughts in quite the same language?

That's funny, because now I feel like we're not disagreeing...

Well, de facto, the group - not even just the GM - always has an "override button", since even the famed "WotC ninjas" aren't real (are they?? )...

The interesting (and key) question, to me, though, is "why override?" If it's purely GM aesthetics, I see issues. If it's some underlying "meta-system" understood by the gaming group, I see less problems, but maybe some profit to be found by analysing what that "meta-system" actually is, since that is the system the group is actually playing by.

Even when already playing what you like, knowing what you like can be a good thing...

Like I said, the rules bend usually for immersion purposes, but I bend them other times, too, as I think it "makes sense" for me to do (giving two successes on a skill challenge, using an attack roll instead of a skill, etc.). I might actually change something with Rule 0 about once every 10 or so hours of playing. Something like "I rolled 'infection' against you twice that combat; rather than two infections, I'm going to give you checks against 1, but raise the DC."

Is it wholly necessary? Nope. And the game would basically be fine when played RAW. Am I ever going to play any system completely by the book? Maybe. My own RPG is about as close as I'm going to get, and even then, I'll use some GM discretion as it "makes sense" to me and my group, just to give us the play experience that we prefer.

Basically, I like the rules for the sake of the players (it strongly empowers them when they make decisions); I like Rule 0 because it can help bend the rules in corner cases, letting me keep the players immersed. Can the rules base provide that much information? Maybe. It'd be in a longer book that what I want, though, that's for sure (I shoot for around 320 pages, and that includes a Running a Game section). As always, play what you like

 

[Balesir]

Well, it might be harder for my group, since we run the RPG I created, and the rules match up extremely closely with want we want, by RAW, most of the time. It's the corner cases that I like to mess around with or break. For example, a while back I gave two successes in a skill challenge from somebody who rolled exceptionally well on their check at an important opening moment. This isn't covered in the mechanical rules (though it's talked about in the Running a Game chapter), but I'm also okay swapping skills in skill challenges with attribute checks or attack rolls, too (and I recently had an attack roll as part of a skill challenge).

Hmm... I feel like I haven't answered you. Let me know if I can be more specific.

Well, it's possible you could, but I don't think you need to

From the generality of your post, it seems like the main goal is "immersion"; this generally maps to "congruence with the shared understanding of how the game world works" with established groups. It generally fits with the "underlying meta-system" idea, or, if it does not, it's characterised by dissent and frustrations within the group.

Having your own system will certainly make a difference. Players who have been with you during the development stages will have added insights into the "meta-system" of what was aimed at in development, as well.

Funnily enough, I'm going to a mini-Con this weekend for a game that works on a sort-of similar basis: Hârn. For sure, there is a game system document ("HârnMaster"), but for those of us long afficionadoes of Hârn there is an underlying meta-system formed by the, literally, millions of words that have been written about the world of Kèthîra - the "Hârnic canon".

The formation of such meta-systems is intriguing to me, and they seem well suited to "explore the dream" style (= GNS "simulationist") games. I have never found such games to work well in D&D, however, because as soon as we start "exploring" we seem to bump into things that really don't work out in this respect (the economy, the power structures of a society with "levelled" individuals, the drivers for specific types of "enterprise" due to the xp/level/treasure systems - just to begin with). I could probably manhandle the systems to a point where it would kinda-work, but when I can just use HârnMaster, RuneQuest, DragonQuest, GURPS or the like, I can never be bothered to do so.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Well, it's possible you could, but I don't think you need to

From the generality of your post, it seems like the main goal is "immersion"; this generally maps to "congruence with the shared understanding of how the game world works" with established groups. It generally fits with the "underlying meta-system" idea, or, if it does not, it's characterised by dissent and frustrations within the group.

Having your own system will certainly make a difference. Players who have been with you during the development stages will have added insights into the "meta-system" of what was aimed at in development, as well.

This all makes sense (and the players did all contribute to fleshing out the system, too, but they more playtested it [or experienced that development] than anything else).

Funnily enough, I'm going to a mini-Con this weekend for a game that works on a sort-of similar basis: Hârn. For sure, there is a game system document ("HârnMaster"), but for those of us long afficionadoes of Hârn there is an underlying meta-system formed by the, literally, millions of words that have been written about the world of Kèthîra - the "Hârnic canon".

The formation of such meta-systems is intriguing to me, and they seem well suited to "explore the dream" style (= GNS "simulationist") games. I have never found such games to work well in D&D, however, because as soon as we start "exploring" we seem to bump into things that really don't work out in this respect (the economy, the power structures of a society with "levelled" individuals, the drivers for specific types of "enterprise" due to the xp/level/treasure systems - just to begin with). I could probably manhandle the systems to a point where it would kinda-work, but when I can just use HârnMaster, RuneQuest, DragonQuest, GURPS or the like, I can never be bothered to do so.

Hmmm. My RPG system has levels, but I tried taking this into account when making the game. I rewrote the crafting/economic system (which is obviously very abstract and rudimentary in nature).

I also tried mapping things like skill bonuses directly into the fiction (the "average settled adult" is hit die 4; a "professionally skilled" attack at hit die 4 is +7; the average settled adult warrior gets +7 to attack; if you get +3 to attack, you're this much worse than the average settled adult warrior; etc.).

Experience is tied to danger and story, so the more people experience, the more they advance. Again, it's abstract.

To me, abstract does not mean "not realistic" or the like. It means "not nuanced" or something similar. Obviously, real life is nuanced, so the more nuance you can get, the more "realistic" the game might appear. But, I'm okay with abstraction. And, I think it can work well enough in a game like D&D (or my RPG), as long as people are into that type of thing. Which is, really, the crux of the whole thing, isn't it? Because, as always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Get a Ransuer (or one of several other pole-arms, like a Glaive-Guisarme, IIRC) and roll to hit his AC.

Heh, I think that's just proving my point isn't it? If the player has concrete rules, he can make informed choices. Granted, you did change the situation, but, it does show what I meant. Lacking specific rules, the player is basically feeling his way in the dark.

And the problem I have with simply letting the DM decide is that, IME, what happens is the DM becomes so risk-adverse that the default answer is always "no". After all, you cannot have balance issues if you never let the players do anything outside of the rules. So, either the DM simply says no to all or most ideas or sets the difficulty so high that the risk/reward becomes too bad.

So, no one tries to jump on the table and swing across the room from the chandelier, because DM after DM makes the difficulty so high that the chance of success is so low that no reward for the action could be good enough.

 

[Shadeydm]

I almost think WotC is secretly hoping for a response like yours (which is pretty similar to my own), as if they want the player base to demand everything worth having of 4e back and show why it's needed for a well-balanced game.

This may be the best conspiracy theory ever! Lets call it pulling an Elway.

Elway as GM of the Denver Broncos tired of hearing the fans clamor for Tim Tebow as the starting quaterback gave them what they wanted confident that Tebow would be an epic fail at quaterback and he would bench him after a few games as a failed experiment/novelty. Instead Tebow took a team with a losing record and turned them into winners earning a playoff berth in the process. When Tebow started winning anytime they showed Elway sitting up in the owner's box he looked like he wated to vomit lol.

I will laugh my a** off if WotC is really just pulling an Elway that would be too funny!

 

[Lanefan]

OK, so clear, unambiguous rules are needed for magic, at least. Which leads to the next issue - what, exactly, is "non-magical" in a magical world?

Assuming that we postulate a universe where a fifth, "magical" force exists in addition to gravity, electro-magnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces (which I assume was what you were referring to) - a "magical" quint-essence, as it were - then I find it hard to believe that this fifth force will be absent from a whole swathe of objects and processes in the postulated universe. The established "real world" forces interact with each other in a myriad ways and in almost every conceivable process; I would expect the "fifth force" to do likewise. In other words, if there really is a fifth, "magical" force then the whole world will be "magical".

Unless the fifth force doesn't necessarily interact with everything, all the time.

An ordinary rock, for example, might happily go through its entire existence without ever interacting with magic. Ditto for a simple pine tree. But an Elf can't survive a day without it; a Dragon, not an hour.

(neat side effect: this also allows one, if desired, to slot our own real world into the game universe by simply saying that for whatever reason the force of magic never - or only very rarely - interacts with it)

I also assume, somewhat, here that folk want different things out of different campaigns. I know I do, but I also know that it's not universal to do so. If you want the same game each time, it makes perfect sense to use the same rules every time.

I don't necessarily want the exact same game each time but I do want them to be compatible as much as possible; such that if a character rolled up in campaign 1 somehow reaches the world on which campaign 4 is set it can - with a minimum of tweaking - fit right in. I've learned the easiest way to ensure a different game-play experience is to have at least some turnover of players between campaigns.

Re: magic items carried by monsters:

As a complete aside, 4e modules have, on occasion, handled this well. The powers of the item in question are included in the statblock of the creature in the encounter; this means that it's crystal clear to the GM that the creature may use that power in the encounter, and then, at the end of the encounter, the party get the item as it is listed in the creatures "items carried" section.

Then answer me this: in Keep on the Shadowfell, one of the Hobgoblins at or near the start of the second deck uses a staff in combat that does something like 4d6 electrical to whoever he can touch with it, once per round. This is an amazing item! So amazing that I had to limit its use to three times per day total, once my players got it.

Yet it's not listed in his possessions, nor in the treasure for the room, indicating in theory the party isn't supposed to get it even though they've just seen - and, most likely, felt - it used against them. Why?

Lan-"that 'shock staff' lasted a surprisingly long time in the party's hands"-efan

 

[pemerton]

in Keep on the Shadowfell, one of the Hobgoblins at or near the start of the second deck uses a staff in combat that does something like 4d6 electrical to whoever he can touch with it, once per round. This is an amazing item! So amazing that I had to limit its use to three times per day total, once my players got it.

Yet it's not listed in his possessions, nor in the treasure for the room, indicating in theory the party isn't supposed to get it even though they've just seen - and, most likely, felt - it used against them. Why?

Let's put to one side that "4d6" damage in 4e isn't an ingame quanity, it's a metagame quantity (ie it may just signal the hobgolbin is to play as a threatening to the PCs - more-or-less the opposite of when I've narrated elite or solo NPC wizards, with 100s of hp, as using magical wards and luck to resist damage).

Even if we take the 4d6 at some sort of face value, it doesn't follow that PCs who get teh staff can do that, anymore than the fighter who picks up the wizard's staff can make it launch a magic missile. The hobgoblin is using the staff as an implement to delivers its spell attack.