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

[Hussar]

Lanefan and Emerikol - I could get behind that DMG. I think that a DMG, at least the opening one (and presumably there is space for later DMG's - I don't think that's a necessarily bad idea), needs to spend the vast majority of its time trying to teach people how to run a game in a manner that makes it as much fun for everyone at the table as possible.

Stuff like world building is important, yes, I agree, but, perhaps could be shunted into its own book as was mentioned. Stuff like how to deal with problems, how to deal with scheduling, how to deal with mundane, every day sort of things that happen any time you get a group of people into a hobby that is meant to happen fairly regularly is crucial in the first DMG.

I know a lot of it will be rehash for people who have been gaming for a while. I accept that. I even accept the idea that maybe I won't even really need the first DMG - it might not really be for me, mostly because it should be (IMO) chock a block full of stuff that I've already seen elsewhere.

But, what I don't think the new DMG can do is simply presume that everyone who sits down to play D&D knows how to run a game.

 

[pemerton]

Mystifying.

<snip>

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.

I agree with this.

 

[Tony Vargas]

nalyze 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 would be stunned if anyone thought any version of D&D rated a 9 or 10, unless the scale went up to 20 or something. If 1 is Spawn of Feshawn, and 10 is some hypothetical perfect FRPG, 4e might rate a 6, being something better than merely adequate at some levels of play and functional at all levels. Less if you include HotFL/FK and HoS.

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.

Oh, certainly. No telling how many they may be, but if WotC has an idea that they're a strong majority, it would give them a lot more latitude to cater those who hate 4e. And that's speculating about splinters within one splinter of the fractured fan-base. 5e's task is truely unenviable.

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 can't agree. The 'main game' included things like combat, which, alone, was a quite complex system compared to more modern games - 'modern' 3-4e D&D included. A glance at anything, from weapon tables to spell write-ups, to initiative rules, to saving throws in AD&D makes it obvious that the game has actually become simpler, in the domain of the 'main system,' in the WotC era. Not sure if that's a great thing or not, but it's evidently a thing.

OTOH, I'd agree that AD&D was often played in a streamlined manner, because DMs streamlined it, ignoring and changing rules at need. The zietgiest of the day was very accepting of such things. That changed sometime early in the run of 3e, though. I'm not convinced 5e can change it back by fiat nor by example, though it'd be a change in attitude I wouldn't find amiss.

 

[Argyle King]

I keep reading this and trying to come up with a way to express myself. I'm in a very odd position when it comes to 4E. I don't/didn't necessarily dislike the game, but there were times when I felt I was somewhat mislead about the kind of game it was.

On that note (and to stay on topic,) I would say that I found a lot of the 4E DMG advice to be generally useful for rpgs, but not necessarily useful for DMing 4th Edition. I know that sounds odd, but that was my experience. I felt as though the game expressed a style of play which didn't exactly match up with the style of play that the mechanical structure of the game seemed to support. That pretty much sums up a lot of the issues I have with the game.

Early on, I looked at the 4E preview books and thought, "this is going to be awesome." I cracked open the first few 4E books (having bought them blindly because of my faith in the brand at that time,) and thought "what the hell is this?" After settling down, I told myself that it was a new edition, and that there would probably be more things released later down the road which would bring the game back in the direction i wanted. IIRC, the designers had even said that was the case at the time. So, I patiently waited; bought a few more books, and what I was waiting for never came to fruition. Instead, the game moved in a direction which kept getting farther away from what I had expected. It didn't help that I was being told "ze game will remain ze same" the whole time I was waiting. I think the last 4E book I purchased was Manual of The Planes.

I've had a lot of fun with the game. I just never had a lot of motivation to spend money on it. I'm not entirely sure how to reconcile that in my mind, but that's how I feel. I wont lie; there most certainly were times when I was a hater toward the game. There were several times when I was extremely frustrated*. However, at the end of the day, I can say that I've had fun with it and have enjoyed it. I just wish a lot of things were done differently.

*I felt pretty negatively about the official WoTC response to the smudging problem some of the early books had. Supposedly, the reason for the smudging was acid in the fingers of players. That is something I can understand as someone who collects comics and takes care to put them in plastic for that reason.

However, it seemed strange to me that -supposedly- the same paper and ink and everything had been used for early 4E as what had been used in 3rd Edition. It seemed strange to me because I have some old 3rd Edition books which have literally been through a car wreck;they were left outside inside of my old vehicle for over a year. Yet, somehow, those books are still in what I would consider better condition than the original 4E DMG I bought. I had to take a pen and re-write the XP budget table because I had touched it with my thumb the first time i had used it, and most of the numbers started to rub off.

 

[Tony Vargas]

*I felt pretty negatively about the official WoTC response to the smudging problem some of the early books had. Supposedly, the reason for the smudging was acid in the fingers of players.

Heh. Just like WotC to blame the player. I noticed that the problem went away after a while. Maybe the ink just hadn't 'set' or something? I know nothing about the print process involved, but, when I look at my PH1, today, I see the smudges, but if I try to smudge the print next to them, nothing. Maybe their printer just did a rush job or something.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Heh. Just like WotC to blame the player. I noticed that the problem went away after a while. Maybe the ink just hadn't 'set' or something? I know nothing about the print process involved, but, when I look at my PH1, today, I see the smudges, but if I try to smudge the print next to them, nothing. Maybe their printer just did a rush job or something.

My original 1st printing 4th Ed PHB 1 has not one smudge, maybe there was a bad batch.

 

[pemerton]

I would be stunned if anyone thought any version of D&D rated a 9 or 10, unless the scale went up to 20 or something. If 1 is Spawn of Feshawn, and 10 is some hypothetical perfect FRPG, 4e might rate a 6, being something better than merely adequate at some levels of play and functional at all levels. Less if you include HotFL/FK and HoS.

I would happily give 4e a 7 or 8. It has flaws - some obvious, some subtle - but I also think it is a pretty strong game.

 

[underfoot007ct]

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.

You forgot the Third and Forth types;

Those who purchased 4e PHB only then to return it, (or give away as a gift) then falsely claiming they gave 4e a FAIR trail.

Those who only browsed the 4e books at the store, then decided they hate 4e without ever making ANY effort to try 4e.

 

[rounser]

Why is it such a sin to not even want to try 4E?

There are games that I know to be flawed that I'd still love to play. They look like fun, and draw you in with strong themes despite the flaws.

The converse is also true - probably what drove a lot of people to write off 4E without playing it is that what they saw did not draw them in, but rather promised frustration and annoyance with the directions chosen rather than fun.

And if you think existing D&D players were obliged to try it out of brand loyalty to D&D, then maybe 4E was such a departure from what people recognized or expected to be D&D that it was identification with D&D as they knew it that led them to ignore 4E.

 

[FireLance]

Why is it such a sin to not even want to try 4E?

Can't speak for anyone else, but to me, there is nothing wrong with not wanting to try 4E.

There is also nothing wrong with not liking 4E, whether or not you have tried it out.

I also have no problem with people saying that they don't like 4E. After all, taste is subjective.

The real issues that bug me are:

1. Misinformation - Either misrepresenting an aspect of 4E, or stating outright untruths about the game. Examples: "The DM has to give out whatever magic items the players ask for." "You get your encounter powers back at the start of the next encounter."

2. Derogation - Implying that people who like 4E are either inferior or misguided. Example: "4E is not D&D."

3. Misattribution - Blaming one aspect of the game for a problem actually caused by another. Example: Blaming healing surges when the problem is more with non-magical recovery of hit points.

The last probably isn't as serious as the first two, and actually more of a personal quirk. I'm just annoyed by fuzzy thinking (or what I perceive to be fuzzy thinking, anyway).