D&D 5E You can't necessarily go back

[S'mon]

That's interesting, because I had the opposite experience. The encounter building tools in 4E were so great that I spent maybe an hour preparing for an adventure's worth of combats, and the combats tended to be more dynamic and interactive than encounters I do in other games.

Older editions of D&D, by contrast, had me spending an hour or so per combat, which added up to a dozen or so hours per adventure, just selecting and statting up the bad guys. The difference is night and day. I far and away prefer 4E for the ease of prep, the ease of throwing together an encounter ad hoc, and the ease of creating custom baddies and custom situations to challenge my group.

I suspect the difference is largely one of playstyle; I tend to tailor encounters to challenge both my players and characters. Others prefer a more freeform system of random or mostly random encounters, where some battles may be a walk in the park where others are extremely difficult. To each his own, and where 4E had fewer tools for the sandbox style, it was an evolutionary leap for the tailored challenge style.

I suppose this is where I add the obligatory hope that the 5E designers will note what each previous edition did best and give us a game that does everything they all did, but better.

Play what you like, of course!

Hi - yes, creating encounters in 4e is quite easy and good fun. It was not hard in pre-3e though; it became too hard in 3e because all monsters were statted like PCs, so they were too complicated to create or modify using the RAW. NPCs also were very complex - I shudder when I look at the lone example of a statted NPC in my Pathfinder core book.

I find 4e works well for a game with 1-2 big encounters a night, where you know in advance what those encounters will be. Other editions work better for exploration and sandboxing.

Eg my Monday 4e game we had 1 large fight in 2.5 hours of play, the 8th level PCs defeated Koptila the undead Ogre King and destroyed the Necro-energy Monolith, then initiated a coup against the Bandit King of Llorkh.
In the Pathfinder Beginner Box game the previous Wednesday, in 2.5 hours the 2nd-4th level PCs, after a uncomfortable night in the home of a strange old woman they could tell was not human, went to Castle Caldwell to clear it, and ploughed through around 15 assorted encounters with various monsters and NPCs.

 

[Someone]

I miss rulebooks that are interesting to read. Something with spells like this:

Mordenkainen's apprentice's brother in law's spherical apocalypse of fiery destruction:

By invoking this powerful dweomer the conjurer creates a small ball of shining fire, the exact size of a pea only slightly bigger. Then, with a maniacal laughter and callous enjoyment he throws it at a maximum distance of 40 feet and ten cubits, no more no less. Upon reaching the designated distance or premature impact with an object of sufficient solidity, the shining bead detonates with terrifying roar, creating enough flames to fill a spherical volume with a radius equal to the length a tortoise would traverse in the time it takes a tortoise to travel 20 feet. The flames damage the goblins, the blacksmiths, the tree sloths, the shoes, the porpoises, the rocks, the sheets of parchment, the doors, the giants, the swords, the vials of potion, the clouds, the tables, the socks, the dark elves, the door to door salesmen, the pears, the mice, the dust, the feelings of hope, the pulleys, the structural elements such as beams, the bunnies, the tomatoes, the warlocks, the calendars, the gazebos, the nail clippings, the artifacts, the rats, the atheists, the pink things, the people who have used 'Bob' as a false name, the con men, the albinos, the door hinges, the scorpions, the tickets, the computers, the mugs, the pantaloons, the dust mites, the opposition, the stairs, the trolls, the signatures, the mages laughing maniacally, the parrots, the coconuts, the dirt, the oversized t-shirts, the kickstarter ads, the saints, the skeletons, the closets, the wands, the zombies, the maladjusted, the curious, the lamps, the halfling restaurant leftovers, the people who wear hats, the baskets, the dwarfs, the theater critics, the swordmasters, the evil henchmen with six fingers in his right hand, the spellbooks, the books that do not contain spells, the glaives, the guisarmes, the spears, the glaive guisarmes, the partisans, the halberds, the bohemian ear spoons, the bardiches, the spetums, the military forks, the lochaber axes, the naginata, the yari, the voulges, the polearms, the beholders, the cantankerous, the rulers, the robes, the crystal balls, the bards, the treasure, the traffic signs, the poultry and the stand up comedians in the volume, along with any other thing that can be damaged by magical fire. Those affected cry in anguish and agony and futilely roll on the floor, suffering untold pain as their flesh is consumed. The damage dealt is the topmost number shown in five hexaedrons with their sides numbered to this effect; alternatively, it can be only one of those geometric shapes thrown five times, of any combination thereof. Those who, graced by the gods, succeed on a saving throw, take half damage and the others must deduct the stochastically generated number in full from their hit points total.

 

[Neonchameleon]

IME the big problem with 4e is not that it is more polished than OD&D, but that it lacks OD&D's content generation tools, especially random tables - encounter tables, treasure tables, et al. Without these there is no 'default play mode' where PCs decide to do whatever and an unprepared GM can simply roll dice and generate content for a night's play. IMO it was the content generation tools that were OD&D's biggest innovation. This thought struck me recently as I have been using the Pathfinder Beginner Box in Gygax's Eastmark, and having all those tables to hand means I need never fear not knowing what to do next. Whereas with 4e I always worry about being unprepared, I have no way to easily generate new material at-table.

There is this. My most consulted rulebook for 4e (after the monster manuals) is, of all things, Vornheim. Or possibly the very generic random treasure tables in the back of the RC. On the other hand, when it comes to content resolution, 4e is IMO second to none. I can cope with literally anything my players (mostly J_) have come up with to throw at me without batting an eyelid - when I'd probably be gibbering with some of the dafter plans in another system.

But content creation can be easily added in as part of the worldbook. I think I want a Monster Vault:Nentir Vale 2. This time with camps, patrols, contacts, and a wandering monster table. (This despite the fact I think MV:NV is one of the best monster manuals ever written).

This seems like yet another attempt to compare game design principles with technology.

Games are designed toward a certain play experience. Some designs deliver better expected play experiences than others. Regardless of age, or complexity, any game has the potential to be the one that a particular group of players feels delivers the best experience for them.

What does that mean?

It means that there have been no objective improvements to rpg design in almost 40 years. There are great old games and great new games, it depends on what one is looking for.

I most emphatically disagree. There is no great old game that can do what e.g. Dread, Fiasco, or Dogs in the Vineyard can. Even 4e absolutely can not be matched by older games. The play experiences that are being designed towards have expanded. And so have the play experiences being supported.

Even when it comes to trad RPGs I don't know anything that matches Burning Wheel's Lifepath and Relationship tools. Technology which is built on in part Traveller's careers. And WFRP's career progression system.

This isn't to say that designers have got smarter. But when he set out Gygax didn't know what he was doing. He had to make it all up using a hacked tabletop wargame engine. And in some ways did a superb job (and communicated it very badly in other places). But like anyone trying to do new things, he made a lot of mistakes. Modern designers have the advantage of seeing those mistakes rather than finding them themselves. And can also take inspiration from MMOs which are better playtested than any tabletop wargame in history.

I find 4e works well for a game with 1-2 big encounters a night, where you know in advance what those encounters will be. Other editions work better for exploration and sandboxing.

You don't have to stat it in advance, but yes I've been known to design the map while drawing it, and pull monsters out of the manuals while talking. Combat is slow - but it's also big and cinematic. (One reason I don't run dungeoncrawls in 4e).

 

[Iosue]

Hi - yes, creating encounters in 4e is quite easy and good fun. It was not hard in pre-3e though; it became too hard in 3e because all monsters were statted like PCs, so they were too complicated to create or modify using the RAW. NPCs also were very complex - I shudder when I look at the lone example of a statted NPC in my Pathfinder core book.

Indeed, this was a case where 4e...*shudder*...went back to editions-past in design.

Playing both BECMI and 4e, I see where sometimes the old ways have their advantages. Not that they are necessarily better -- they just have different advantages. For example, D&D and AD&D had hit charts. These worked okay, but some folks said, "Tables? What a pain in the ass!" and came up with THAC0. All right! Now, no need for tables - just one number on your sheet, a roll, and some math. But then some folks said, "Subtraction? What a pain in the ass!" and they reversed AC and came up with BAB. Awesome! Now you just have a number, a roll, and then add the two. Simple! But now we have escalating bonuses, and the numbers start getting out of hand. Adding, say, 14 (your attack bonus) and 17, while not especially difficult, suddenly doesn't seem that much easier than the subtraction of THAC0. Heck, a 26th level Knight is going to have around a +30 attack bonus even without any situational modifiers, making the d20 almost an afterthought. And in my experience, high or low, the DM often needs the player to do the math before they know the result of the role. So now in 5e we have bounded accuracy to avoid that kind of number inflation.

And then, I look at BECMI, and it seems so simple and easy. Here's a chart. It's going to have a number between 2 and 20 on it. Player rolls, DM checks the chart, and that's it. Virtually all the math, save for the odd small bonus here or there, has already been done by the designers.

Again, not saying it's inherently better, or that 5e should go back to tables. Just saying the old stuff has its advantages, too. Sometimes you can go back, and sometimes its a good idea.

 

[S'mon]

You don't have to stat it in advance, but yes I've been known to design the map while drawing it, and pull monsters out of the manuals while talking.

I've done that occasionally, eg I recall you met a random group of Troglodytes in Vault of Larin Karr, in what I think was a good low-EL fight. One problem I can have is that unless I plan in advance I rarely have the 4e monster books to hand that I want, I can't carry 5 monster tomes (MM 1-3, MV, MV:TTTNV) to the Meetup. I've taken to photocopying the monster pages I think I'll need. Having the right minis & flipmats can also be an issue, but one shared with other editions - I've been able to sandbox Labyrinth Lord and Pathfinder Beginner Box ok by including a smart selection of likely monsters in my minis box, based on past experience of what turns up frequently (goblins, orcs, bandits, and various animals are always a good bet, plus some undead, a couple lizardman types, an ogre, etc).

 

[S'mon]

Playing both BECMI and 4e, I see where sometimes the old ways have their advantages. Not that they are necessarily better -- they just have different advantages. For example, D&D and AD&D had hit charts. These worked okay, but some folks said, "Tables? What a pain in the ass!" and came up with THAC0. All right! Now, no need for tables - just one number on your sheet, a roll, and some math. But then some folks said, "Subtraction? What a pain in the ass!" and they reversed AC and came up with BAB. Awesome! Now you just have a number, a roll, and then add the two. Simple! But now we have escalating bonuses, and the numbers start getting out of hand. Adding, say, 14 (your attack bonus) and 17, while not especially difficult, suddenly doesn't seem that much easier than the subtraction of THAC0. Heck, a 26th level Knight is going to have around a +30 attack bonus even without any situational modifiers, making the d20 almost an afterthought. And in my experience, high or low, the DM often needs the player to do the math before they know the result of the role. So now in 5e we have bounded accuracy to avoid that kind of number inflation.

IME there is no benefit to roll + add vs TN compared to THAC0; either way there is a hit or miss target number you need to roll on the d20; and it's much better dramatically and mentally to know that number pre-roll. I've taken to asking players their to-hit bonus, deduct it from the AC, and tell them the target number they need to hit; same as with skill DCs. I'm doing the exact same sort of deduction arithmetic as with THAC0, only I'm deducting AB from ascending AC, not descending AC from THAC0.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I've done that occasionally, eg I recall you met a random group of Troglodytes in Vault of Larin Karr, in what I think was a good low-EL fight. One problem I can have is that unless I plan in advance I rarely have the 4e monster books to hand that I want, I can't carry 5 monster tomes (MM 1-3, MV, MV:TTTNV) to the Meetup. I've taken to photocopying the monster pages I think I'll need. Having the right minis & flipmats can also be an issue, but one shared with other editions - I've been able to sandbox Labyrinth Lord and Pathfinder Beginner Box ok by including a smart selection of likely monsters in my minis box, based on past experience of what turns up frequently (goblins, orcs, bandits, and various animals are always a good bet, plus some undead, a couple lizardman types, an ogre, etc).

Ah. I normally rely on the two monster vaults at meetup. At J's home group I have six (the Dark Sun Creature Catalogue is pretty good). And a wipe clean map rather than pregen maps.

IME there is no benefit to roll + add vs TN compared to THAC0; either way there is a hit or miss target number you need to roll on the d20; and it's much better dramatically and mentally to know that number pre-roll. I've taken to asking players their to-hit bonus, deduct it from the AC, and tell them the target number they need to hit; same as with skill DCs. I'm doing the exact same sort of deduction arithmetic as with THAC0, only I'm deducting AB from ascending AC, not descending AC from THAC0.

IME addition is almost always faster and simpler than subtraction. This is also known both from teaching children and from computers. You find it almost as easy because you are used to that subset of subtraction. And as for knowing pre-roll - I don't recall you announcing the target numbers?

 

[pemerton]

I can't carry 5 monster tomes (MM 1-3, MV, MV:TTTNV) to the Meetup.

When I GM a session, I take my MMs/MVs with me, plus one or two other books (Open Grave, Underdark etc) that I think I might want.

I preplan some encounters, but am happy to run things spontaneously using my MMs/MVs!

 

[Iosue]

IME addition is almost always faster and simpler than subtraction. This is also known both from teaching children and from computers. You find it almost as easy because you are used to that subset of subtraction.

In general, I think that holds. But the thing here is that once you get to mid-Heroic, you're adding two 2-digit numbers a lot of the time. With THAC0 you're either adding anyway (if negative AC) or simple subtracting a 1-digit number from a 2-digit number, or two 1-digit numbers. I think folks generally add 6+6 faster than subtract 12-6. I'm not sure if they add 17+17 faster than they subtract 17-5. It might very well be a wash.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In general, I think that holds. But the thing here is that once you get to mid-Heroic, you're adding two 2-digit numbers a lot of the time. With THAC0 you're either adding anyway (if negative AC) or simple subtracting a 1-digit number from a 2-digit number, or two 1-digit numbers. I think folks generally add 6+6 faster than subtract 12-6. I'm not sure if they add 17+17 faster than they subtract 17-5. It might very well be a wash.

Double negatives may be the same as positives in outcome, but they are slower to process. That said, the greater range and the added number of small bonusses does put the problem back in there. Still, one is functional complexity and the other isn't.