D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

[AbdulAlhazred]

Not the same thing as optimization though. Your 3e fighter certainly is going to pick Power Attack over Skill Focus (Craft [Basketweaving]). He'll consistently pick it over Toughness, even, because Toughness sucks. But if he was "optimized", he wouldn't be a fighter, he'd be some kind of CoDzilla monstrosity summoning meat shields to do his fighting for him. Big difference.

Which (and honestly, not to throw stones) is EXACTLY why we have been playing 4e and before that 2e with very restricted options. It may be true that in 2e ultimately you'd want to play some caster at higher levels, but the fighter wasn't irrelevant at 6. Clearly even core 2e and 4e have optimizations it is IME much more palatable when the difference is fairly slight, as it is in those 2 games (and even more so in pre-2e editions).

Anyway, DDN will have a simple basic game where you probably can't optimize beyond "play an elf fighter/wizard" sort of things that you could do in 1e. I don't really have a huge problem with DDN balance otherwise, though I think it COULD tip pretty far in favor of casters in some variations. At least the designers for once have taken a page from 4e, so there's little to actively complain about in that dept.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I concede I talked about the extreme in impossible cliff and knowledge in all things, but for purposes of the discussion it does not really matter.

So genre appropriate means, any hard task the DM wants you to do? Why have the skill at all; just describe it as a success everytime? If the monk wanted Beowulf to climb a cliff, he could have just written it in because there were no rules to follow in mythology. Once we get to the game rules, it is not a simple matter of deciding a "writer could make him do it." There is no quantifier if scaling a cliff is genre appropriate or not. It is only genre appropriate if someone wants it to be, and it is just as easy for a DM to decide something is not genre appropriate as to say it is. 4e makes far too many assumptions about that. If the hero did not pack his climbing gear, his level should not be able to decide he climbs a cliff. If it does, don't have the skill system, leave the rules to combat.

The mage has Legend Lore but maybe he has not yet discovered the spell... Or didn't memorize it... or doesn't have it in his travelling spell book.

If 4e is going to assume all these tasks can be done because they are ambiguously "genre appropriate" (a misnomer) why have the skill system at all? Just assume the party has the resources because they are all cool heroes.

Of course that's what genre appropriate 'means', but that's the trivial aspect of it. The GM/players decide what genre they will employ, so appropriate is going to be what they select. In this respect 4e is quite useful as it has a pretty weak link between DCs and specific situations (there ARE some specifics in the rules, but they are quite easily ignored with no real problems). In fact "4e makes far too many assumptions about that" puzzles me. It makes VERY FEW assumptions about that, though overall probably not a lot less than other editions. What 4e does, CLEARLY is it puts the genre appropriate actions within the reach of most PCs at most times so they can carry them out in appropriate ways.

 

[Mournblade94]

NPCs/Monsters don't have brains, they are intrinsically extensions of the GM's will, thus any judgment being made as to how to proceed is by definition the judgment of the GM, and is at the very least the subject of the GM's biases and subservient to his/her goals.

It is the DM's job to not run the monster how he most WANTS then to be run but how they SHOULD be run. Anything else is Metagaming.

EDIT: Ugh as was said in the very next post

 

[Mournblade94]

Of course that's what genre appropriate 'means', but that's the trivial aspect of it. The GM/players decide what genre they will employ, so appropriate is going to be what they select. In this respect 4e is quite useful as it has a pretty weak link between DCs and specific situations (there ARE some specifics in the rules, but they are quite easily ignored with no real problems). In fact "4e makes far too many assumptions about that" puzzles me. It makes VERY FEW assumptions about that, though overall probably not a lot less than other editions. What 4e does, CLEARLY is it puts the genre appropriate actions within the reach of most PCs at most times so they can carry them out in appropriate ways.

I used the wrong words again. I did not mean to say 4e makes too many assumptions etc. What I meant to say was I do not agree with the basic assumption that 4e does make in that a high level dragon slayer will be able to accomplish radically different tasks with ease because he is a hero.

Where his heroic status aids him is the increased ability scores. I prefer the 3rd edition method of skill ranks being chosen to reflect the feats a hero can accomplish that he learned through his adventuring (the skill points a player assigns would be a reflection of the adventurers training).

4e assumes (by the + 1 per level or half level can't remember) that through the hero's journey he just learned to be better. Suddenly even though my hero never set foot in a city he is much better at being streetwise. That doesn't make sense.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, okay. My point is that there is no such thing as a "balanced encounter" or an "appropriate challenge"; at least, not in mechanical terms. The people at the table decide that.

Well, I don't really disagree a whole lot with that, though I would say that 'balanced encounter' will get you a fairly good consensus. Its wider than what say 4e will give you as a formula for building them, some fall outside that formula, and people can argue about the balance point, it can vary from table to table, etc. Appropriate challenge is a more subjective term. Maybe so much so that it doesn't mean much at all. Even so we could say that some encounters are NOT appropriate given some wider context of the game in play.

As a DM, if you're trying to scare the PCs, you throw something tough at them. If you want a quick, fun, cathartic battle, you use something weaker. If you like the PCs, maybe you throw in a monster with a flaw that they can find. If you don't, you send a giant rust monster at them. There are any number of other factors that affect these kinds of choices.

Well, certainly.

Oh indeed. That paradigm is dreadful. The solution to this is to throw out CRs, standardize monstrous and nonmonstrous advancement completely, and let the DM decide what to do with creatures and the players decide how to react to them. The entire concept needs to die in a fire. Hey, has anyone seen a red dragon?

lol. I think 4e's XP value based system is simple and workable, for the most part. People may feel overly obliged to go by what it implicitly recommends though.

You do realize that's called metagaming, right? The basic conceit of a roleplaying game is that the players adopt the perspectives of the characters and act as the characters would; including the DM with NPCs.

Not that metagaming is impermissible; sometimes it can be a useful tool. But the basic question in this situation is what would the monster itself do.

Yeah, sure, its meta-gaming. I think my point is more that there are huge areas of meta-gaming that ALWAYS exist that are present before the encounter even happens. IMHO campaigns are pretty much largely meta-gaming. People do try to dress it up some, but its quite clearly present and even prevalent. IMHO games would implode almost immediately without it. The trick is to be able to suspend our belief in the contrived nature of the situation and enjoy it. Its quite true that some things can break that, but if there's a group out there where the fact that they mostly face encounters they have at least a chance of doing something interesting in besides dying is so disruptive that it kills their immersion, they're PROBABLY going to find it impossible to RPG at all.

 

[Dausuul]

As I see it, the DM should run monsters consistent with how they are presented in the fiction. But who writes the fiction? The DM, in consultation with the ruleset. So the dragon will eat PCs who wander into its lair, because hey, free dinner; but the dragon's depredations have left the region desolate, making it very obvious when you're approaching said lair. The DM could choose to write different fiction, but this is what happens to serve the needs of the campaign, so it's what gets written.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I used the wrong words again. I did not mean to say 4e makes too many assumptions etc. What I meant to say was I do not agree with the basic assumption that 4e does make in that a high level dragon slayer will be able to accomplish radically different tasks with ease because he is a hero.

Where his heroic status aids him is the increased ability scores. I prefer the 3rd edition method of skill ranks being chosen to reflect the feats a hero can accomplish that he learned through his adventuring (the skill points a player assigns would be a reflection of the adventurers training).

4e assumes (by the + 1 per level or half level can't remember) that through the hero's journey he just learned to be better. Suddenly even though my hero never set foot in a city he is much better at being streetwise. That doesn't make sense.

Again, I know this never sinks in, but the character isn't going to be able to accomplish any worthy task 'with ease'. Menial tasks, things that don't generally require epic level PCs to go through entire scenes? Sure. Even my wizard can find out who fences mundane goods in a strange town when he's epic, that's right! He's pretty close to being an exarch, if not one outright. He hobnobs with gods and their henchmen, some guy who fences stolen furniture is a footnote in a scene, at best. This is part of what helps to allow a system to achieve separation in play modes. High level 4e play is NOT LIKE low level play. In fact it is rather a different genre, and the escalation of skill check insures that this is mechanically reflected in the things that the game makes you roll for.

 

[Ahnehnois]

lol. I think 4e's XP value based system is simple and workable, for the most part. People may feel overly obliged to go by what it implicitly recommends though.

Well, there's that and then there's the real problem: beginners who don't know any better. I never used the encounter building guidelines; even as a teenage beginner I avoided them without understanding why (at least not to the degree I do today). However, now that I have some experience and do understand why, I shudder to think of how it would have gone if I had. I doubt I'd still be playing rpgs today.

And that's really my issue with a lot of these debates. It's true that I can keep playing and enjoying my game regardless of what 5e is or 4e was in print, but I don't want bad ideas to kill the hobby as a whole. After all, I might need more players someday.

I think my point is more that there are huge areas of meta-gaming that ALWAYS exist that are present before the encounter even happens. IMHO campaigns are pretty much largely meta-gaming.

Okay, that's interesting.

People do try to dress it up some, but its quite clearly present and even prevalent. IMHO games would implode almost immediately without it. The trick is to be able to suspend our belief in the contrived nature of the situation and enjoy it. Its quite true that some things can break that, but if there's a group out there where the fact that they mostly face encounters they have at least a chance of doing something interesting in besides dying is so disruptive that it kills their immersion, they're PROBABLY going to find it impossible to RPG at all.

I don't disagree with this, at least not completely. To compare to storytelling on screen, there are a very few people who do truly believe and act as if they are the character, the Daniel Day Lewis types. However, most actors, and almost all other people involved with the process are not completely in character and are effectively "metagaming". I suspect D&D is the same way; a few acting savants and a lot of us who either have other predilections or simply lack that level of roleplaying ability. I know (that despite having a few theater classes under my belt, a psychology background, and being a passable performer in several different persuasions and a skilled liar) I am definitely the latter.

So are we generally metagaming to some extent when we roleplay our characters? Yeah. I guess I do agree with that. Are we suspending disbelief on that count so we can enjoy the story within the game (as we do when consuming any fiction, really)? Probably.

Where I think differently is on when and for what reason to use metagame thinking. For example, I'm metagaming when I add in an NPC specifically to talk to and engage a PC who seems to have been neglected; I'm trying to engage the player as well as the character. I'm metagaming when I speed up or forgo an encounter because we're running out of time in the real world. I'm metagaming when I design an NPC's equipment considering what will happen if and when the PCs get it (which is not likely part of the NPC's thinking process when he buys equipment). But, to go back to the original point, I stop short of this:

NPCs/Monsters don't have brains, they are intrinsically extensions of the GM's will, thus any judgment being made as to how to proceed is by definition the judgment of the GM, and is at the very least the subject of the GM's biases and subservient to his/her goals.

I really do try not to do that. And with D&D, dice come in handy. I try to adopt the perspective of the character, but I also frequently roll behind the scenes to determine what an NPC will do (such that his behavior is not solely an extension of my will). Is there still an element of deception in playing an NPC? Yes. Is my will still behind them? Yes. But I don't (to bring this long post around) think that I do, or should do, metagaming to adjust the difficulty of challenges to match the players aptitude at overcoming them, and it is, while likely embedded in some of my decisions, a philosophy that I actively try to avoid.

 

[timASW]

Can't ignore mods ...

LOL, not my intention, but still LOL

 

[pemerton]

The basic conceit of a roleplaying game is that the players adopt the perspectives of the characters and act as the characters would; including the DM with NPCs.

That may be your preferred approach - it is not the "basic conceit", though. For instance, this is not the sort of play that Gygax advocates in his AD&D rulebooks.

It's not an absolute, but wouldn't they be making a lot fewer choices than players of other rpgs? Isn't the "balance" that 4e supposedly provides explicitly antithetical to those kinds of choices?

No and no.

Many more of these choices than in Runequest, for instance, which has far fewer point of decision-making in its action resolution.

And the "balance" of 4e is not antithetical to choices, nor intended to be. It's about balancing player resources. Players make choices on how to use these resources. (No one thinks that, if every brother or sister is given $1000 and told to go out into the world and make their fortune, no choices will be required - whole childhood parables are built around this scenario!)