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

[slobo777]

Whereas, so far, D&Dnext doesn't tell me how the designers think it should be played. Though I can draw some inferences from their use of Caves of Chaos as an introductory module.

I think any such advice is going arrive late, if at all, in the playtest documents.

One stated design goal of 5E is to be inclusive of many different styles of play. At least phrased in terms of "styles" of editions. And most definitely 4E is very gamist compared to, say 2E. That means, to me, gamism/simulationism is one of the style axes WotC need to consider.

Whether the designers can live up to that (it's a hard one IMO), or whether they will even understand some of the angles that posters are viewing the game from is a different matter.

 

[pemerton]

4E is very gamist compared to, say 2E.

I'm not sure what you mean by "gamist" here. I agree that 4e has more metagame mechanics than 2nd ed AD&D, though the latter has its fair share of them (hit points, the initiative and action mechanics, saving throws, etc).

One stated design goal of 5E is to be inclusive of many different styles of play.

<snip>

Whether the designers can live up to that (it's a hard one IMO), or whether they will even understand some of the angles that posters are viewing the game from is a different matter.

Caves of Chaos seems fairly narrow, to me, in terms of the playstyles it supports. But some scenarios posted by playtesters on these boards give me a bit more hope.

My main concern, so far, is that - like 2nd ed AD&D - the game seems to rely fairly heavily on a lot of GM force at all points of resolution in order to work. Especially out of combat. One thing I like about 4e is that this is not true - the GM's role is clear, and important, but not an obstacle to player protagonism.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And most definitely 4E is very gamist compared to, say 2E. That means, to me, gamism/simulationism is one of the style axes WotC need to consider.

Whether the designers can live up to that (it's a hard one IMO), or whether they will even understand some of the angles that posters are viewing the game from is a different matter.

4e was also a lot less gamist than, say 1E or oD&D which were explicitely games about exploring and looting dungeons. It's also in my opinion much more narrativist than 3e, not to mention 1e - but for all that 4e has better narrativist tools than 2e, 2e talked about it at least as much. N is a necessary axis too.

(And anyone who thinks that AD&D embraced, in its rulebooks, some kind of pluralism about play agendas, clearly hasn't read them recently.)

Yup! Especially 1e. But D&D Next is meant to be explicitely pluralistic.

 

[Emerikol]

Now this is da troof.

4e's biggest, single biggest problem is with how it was marketed and written. And you can see that WOTC largely learned that lesson with 5e. So much more inclusive, yet the mechanical links to 4e and later era d20 development are right there. They're not hidden, but, very little attention is being drawn to them.

There are two types of people. Those who never tried or gave 4e a chance and those who tried it and rejected it. For the former the marketing may have helped a lot. And I think that group is not tiny. But I am in the latter so no amount of marketing long term would have saved it.

IOW, we're going to get a system that is very much a modern RPG, with all that that means (dissociated mechanics, more player authority at the table, broad general rules that can be applied nearly universally vs narrow, specific mechanics with a bazillion subsystems) but WOTC is being very, very careful to take baby steps this time and get everyone on board at each step before going the next step.

Not everything new or old is bad or good. I don't though think dissociated mechanics are anything more than a playstyle. Whether good or bad is up to the players and their preferences. Bad for me good for you (I'm assuming). I am concerned that they won't try hard enough to offer a non-dissociated option and thus I stay with the playtest.

When the 5e DMG finally comes out, it's going to be a lot like the 4e DMG, I think, in that it will be a guide on how to play the game, but, it will be written in such a way that very few people can pull little hills out of it to blow into mountains.

I agree that the best thing the DMG can do is teach DMs how to be good DMs. But they need to explain and explore all styles because a DM who has a particular playstyle will be most successful in that playstyle. Whatever that style is. So making pronouncements that this or that is good/bad is probably not the right approach if maximizing DMs is the goal. Dedicated DMs will drive the success of a game.

 

[Emerikol]

Here's my take on this issue.

The 4e rulebooks, like the 1st ed AD&D rulebooks, tell me how the designers think their game should be played. I can play it that way or not, as I choose, but if I play it differently and it doesn't play very well I can hardly blame the designer, can I!

Whereas, so far, D&Dnext doesn't tell me how the designers think it should be played. Though I can draw some inferences from their use of Caves of Chaos as an introductory module.

(And anyone who thinks that AD&D embraced, in its rulebooks, some kind of pluralism about play agendas, clearly hasn't read them recently.)

Well to me 1e AD&D was so stripped down as a system that pretty much everything was improvised. Hit points could be interpreted dissociatively by you and not by me. I saw all the rules of the DMG as guidelines and suggestions. The culture at that time was never that every single rule had to be followed. The DM used the rules to run his game. The players didn't look over his shoulder. My complaint with this edition (and most of the early ones) is the lack of options. But the streamlined nature of the rules and DM empowerment I liked.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There are two types of people. Those who never tried or gave 4e a chance and those who tried it and rejected it.

I know you go to a lot of trouble to appear inclusive and reasonable in your posts, so I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that no one likes 4e, nor that those who accepted it aren't people.

Hussar's point, and your counterpoint, though, are cogent. WotC has been losing the goodwill it got as the 'savior' of D&D when it acquired the failing TSR. I'd say it started with the unexpected release of 3.5 so soon after 3.0 which was seen as a revenue grab. But it might even have been before that, almost from the moment said goodwill was acquired, there were those begrudging the CCG giant taking over the first RPG. The intro of 4e was badly bungled, not just in the sense of marketing to fans, but in the perhaps more critical mis-handling of 3pps. The GSL turned de-facto partners back into competitors, competitors able to keep using the most familiar mechanical elements of 3.x in their products. With that kind of 'two-pronged approach' it's amazing 4e met with any success at all.


Back to your other point: while those who rejected 4e may be divided among those who never tried it, tried it but never gave it a chance, or tried it but found it not to their taste, fans of 4e must be at least a bit more unified - while some may have approached it with enthusiasm and others (like myself) with skepticism, we all ended up judging it worthy.

Well to me 1e AD&D was so stripped down as a system that pretty much everything was improvised.

Mystifying. AD&D was part of a "two pronged approach," the other prong being BECMI, of course. AD&D was for the more 'serious' gamer who wanted lots of detailed rules - a complete game. While EGG acknowledged that a game couldn't have a rule for every possible eventuality and that the DM was free to add to/ignore/modify the system presented, he made a pretty fair stab at it, with rules for everything from the radius of torchlight, to how insane characters react to psionic blasts, to the aerial combat tactics of Nycadaemons, to random prostitute tables, to the percentage chance of a sage answering a question.

 

[Hussar]

I agree that the best thing the DMG can do is teach DMs how to be good DMs. But they need to explain and explore all styles because a DM who has a particular playstyle will be most successful in that playstyle. Whatever that style is. So making pronouncements that this or that is good/bad is probably not the right approach if maximizing DMs is the goal. Dedicated DMs will drive the success of a game.

This I largely agree with. I do think that the 4e DMG is, if not the best, at the very least, the second best (with the 1e DMG being the other one) DMG we've had. The 3e/3.5 DMG's were far too technical and lacked any real "voice". Criticisms of how it read like a stereo instruction manual were not that far off. Most of the advice on how to actually run a game were buried under mounds of very technical fiddly bits, primarily concerned with world building.

So, I do hope that the 5e DMG will go the same route as 1e or 4e with their DMing advice. But, I also hope that they go over the verbiage with a fine tooth comb a little harder this time, again, so that people will find less molehills to turn into mountains.

 

[Emerikol]

I know you go to a lot of trouble to appear inclusive and reasonable in your posts, so I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that no one likes 4e, nor that those who accepted it aren't people.

You are correct I was dividing those who disliked 4e into two camps. The triers and the non-triers. Obviously marketing matters if a person didn't even try the game. If they did try it and played it extensively then marketing probably had less of an impact (negatively anyway you might say it worked). I'm not sure how big either camp is. I'm definited in the tried camp. But some seem to think the other camp is big and maybe it is. I have no idea. I think some people may be more experienced in some ways than me and were able to see what they disliked because they were more self aware as to their tastes. I'm sure now I can see things I don't like far more easily than I could in 2008.

Back to your other point: while those who rejected 4e may be divided among those who never tried it, tried it but never gave it a chance, or tried it but found it not to their taste, fans of 4e must be at least a bit more unified - while some may have approached it with enthusiasm and others (like myself) with skepticism, we all ended up judging it worthy.

It would be interesting to analyze 4e players. I'm not as certain as you that all of those playing it think it is a 10 or even a 9. I think there are definitely some that think it is the stuff. No question. But I also think like every edition there are people that just go with the flow. They play D&D whatever edition is current. They will play 5e too.

Mystifying. AD&D was part of a "two pronged approach," the other prong being BECMI, of course. AD&D was for the more 'serious' gamer who wanted lots of detailed rules - a complete game. While EGG acknowledged that a game couldn't have a rule for every possible eventuality and that the DM was free to add to/ignore/modify the system presented, he made a pretty fair stab at it, with rules for everything from the radius of torchlight, to how insane characters react to psionic blasts, to the aerial combat tactics of Nycadaemons, to random prostitute tables, to the percentage chance of a sage answering a question.

Yeah I loved all the "world" flavor stuff but you surely agree that day to day most of those rules didn't crop up. The main game system was pretty simple if not streamlined. I think a book with nothing but those sorts of things answered would be great. Not sure it complicates the game if it exists or not.

Also I always judge a game by it's original three books, what is considered core until 4e. I never used any of the players options in 2e. So I don't judge 2e by those options. I also don't judge 3e by the book of nine swords. I consider any book past the first as optional. All my players knew that everything outside the core 3 had to be DM approved. No feat, no spell, no skill was automatically in if it came from another book. So this philosophy does color my view of the editions to some degree.

 

[Emerikol]

This I largely agree with. I do think that the 4e DMG is, if not the best, at the very least, the second best (with the 1e DMG being the other one) DMG we've had. The 3e/3.5 DMG's were far too technical and lacked any real "voice". Criticisms of how it read like a stereo instruction manual were not that far off. Most of the advice on how to actually run a game were buried under mounds of very technical fiddly bits, primarily concerned with world building.

There are things I'd pull from all DMGs but I agree that the 3e DMG was unremarkable. From what I've heard the 4e DMG2 was better than the 4e DMG. I don't own that book but I've been tempted to get it just for the DM advice. I too liked the 1e DMG.

My goal for a DMG would include these things...
1. Figure out your playstyle (more indepth than ever done before)
2. Adventure building.
3. World building (this is such a big subject that I'd be fine with a full book devoted to it and it just cursorily mentioned here.)
4. Campaign development. This is story arcs, sandbox, etc...
5. Examples. Lots of tables for rolling things up. (Not monsters put those in the monster manuals.)

 

[Lanefan]

Also I always judge a game by it's original three books, what is considered core until 4e. I never used any of the players options in 2e. So I don't judge 2e by those options. I also don't judge 3e by the book of nine swords. I consider any book past the first as optional.

Same here as a base, though my opinion of an edition is also flavoured by a rough idea of how much of the subsequent non-core stuff I end up buying/liking/etc.

My goal for a DMG would include these things...
1. Figure out your playstyle (more indepth than ever done before)
2. Adventure building.
3. World building (this is such a big subject that I'd be fine with a full book devoted to it and it just cursorily mentioned here.)
4. Campaign development. This is story arcs, sandbox, etc...
5. Examples. Lots of tables for rolling things up. (Not monsters put those in the monster manuals.)

I'm not sure how they could do your #1 suggestion here other than presenting a few playstyle examples - say, the same scenario approached in several different ways - and suggesting each DM and-or group then just play and let their own style develop as it will.

Your #4 needs expanding into:
4a. Campaign development (as already noted)
4b. Campaign management. This is timekeeping, record-keeping, logging, how to handle multi-level parties or parties with an odd combination of classes (e.g. all Thieves) or parties that are much larger or smaller than normal, player and-or character turnover during the campaign, multiple concurrent parties operating in the same game world, etc., etc.

The 1e DMG at least waved at just about all of 4b. I'm not sure any others have since.

Lan-"I would love to be able to write the chapter that represents 4b above"-efan