D&D 5E [L&L] Campaigns in D&D Next

[ccooke]

It's a pretty hollow platitude though. It describes nothing. I for one think that in 4e the action flows and the rules serve the gaming group, rather than the other way around. But there are people (you included if I remember correctly) who would strongly disagree with this. The real lesson to learn is that one size doesn't fit all when it comes to RPGs, rather than making some appeal at edition warriors.

(Trying very hard not to be edition warring here; let me know if I haven't been successful, please)

I think the only real big issues with 4e are that it was - while a great game and very successful in being what it wants to be - not suitable for a notable proportion of the existing D&D market when it was released.

By "Not suitable", I mean that the mechanics and dynamic in play are very different to any previous edition. Some people love them, but some people do not. WotC's error here was in misjudging their market, expecting that most people would either like the new system or not mind the changes. This is a significant error, and if the system itself hadn't been as sound as it is the whole situation could have been much worse for them.

I've been GMing two 4e campaigns since 2008. One is a regular game with five players, none of whom had played any tabletop D&D before. The other is an irregular give-the-other-GM-a-break game with a very experienced group that plays 3.0 the rest of the time, and has done since around 2002. I've never actually played 4e myself, even though I've run it for about six years now

Both of those games are going to convert to 5th edition this year for different reasons. Partly it's because I find 5e easier to GM than 4e, but mostly it's because the new edition serves the two groups (specifically) better than 4th. About half of the experienced group of 3e players are of the "4e isn't enough like D&D to me" persuasion. Not enough to stop playing, because they've apparently been enjoying the game I've made for them, but enough that they suggested converting after I ran a few playtest sessions up there and mentioned I found it nicer.

I think one, maybe two people in the other group would be absolutely fine with 4e in any form - they both spend more time working out mechanics than the rest. However, that group also has a barbarian who has issues choosing which rage to take. She vastly prefers the conversion of her character into 5e we created to test the process, because it's much simpler and easier to work with while preserving all the things she likes.

I think it would help a lot if we played more often - 2013 has been pretty difficult for several of us, and we only get together once a month at best. However, the last session we had multiple bits where everything was brought to a halt because one player or another couldn't find something on their (up to) 10 page character sheets.

None of the above is a serious issue with 4th edition, but it *is* an issue with 4th edition not serving the two groups I play with, in the specific circumstances that we play. Other groups will be very different. To be honest, I'd absolutely love giving 4e a try in a regular game. But as it stands right now, I'm much more likely to get a 5e game. None of my 3.0e group ever talked about running anything in 4e, but after the last session I ran up there both of the other two GMs were considering it (and one of them was considering moving a 3.0e game to it).

TL;DR:
4th edition was great, but anecdotally I can see that it may not be as widely suitable to the D&D market as a whole as 5e or previous editions. Which is sad for 4e, but doesn't detract from it I think.
So to actually make a conclusion, finally: I can see what Sage Genesis means, but I *do* think that 5e is better at serving a wider proportion of the D&D market than 4e was. We'll see in a few months if that's actually true, of course...

 

[Sage Genesis]

(Trying very hard not to be edition warring here; let me know if I haven't been successful, please)

(snipped for brevity)

TL;DR:
4th edition was great, but anecdotally I can see that it may not be as widely suitable to the D&D market as a whole as 5e or previous editions. Which is sad for 4e, but doesn't detract from it I think.
So to actually make a conclusion, finally: I can see what Sage Genesis means, but I *do* think that 5e is better at serving a wider proportion of the D&D market than 4e was. We'll see in a few months if that's actually true, of course...

I don't think you're edition warring, I think you've made a polite and well-balanced post.

I also agree with you that Next might be more suitable for a larger proportion of players than 4e was. (And also agree that we'll have to wait and see when the game is out for real.) If anything, I wish the L&L article had been as thoughtful as you were. Because the statement, "D&D works best when the action flows and the rules serve the gaming group, rather than the other way around", is a platitude. Everybody agrees on what it says, but few people would agree on what it means. It's scoring cheap points by taking a sideswipe strongly implied against 4e while saying nothing of substance.

 

[Halivar]

Partly it's because I find 5e easier to GM than 4e

Not questioning because I disagree (I have never DM'd 5E), but because I'm genuinely curious: in what ways are 5E easier to DM than 4E? Of all previously printed editions, 4E has the shortest prep time and fewest obstacles for a GM. I would like to know how 5E improved on that.

 

[Jester David]

It's a pretty hollow platitude though. It describes nothing. I for one think that in 4e the action flows and the rules serve the gaming group, rather than the other way around. But there are people (you included if I remember correctly) who would strongly disagree with this. The real lesson to learn is that one size doesn't fit all when it comes to RPGs, rather than making some appeal at edition warriors.

In both 3e and 4e the rules are there to be served. If your group likes all the rules then it's fine, but if your group doesn't you're screwed. Especially in 4e, which was much tighter and harder to extricate rules from.

I very much agree on the one-size-does-not-fit-all sentiment. WotC seems to know that too by the focus on modularity. So groups that want more rules can add more rules, making the rules serve them.

 

[Mercurius]

It's a pretty hollow platitude though. It describes nothing. I for one think that in 4e the action flows and the rules serve the gaming group, rather than the other way around. But there are people (you included if I remember correctly) who would strongly disagree with this. The real lesson to learn is that one size doesn't fit all when it comes to RPGs, rather than making some appeal at edition warriors.

Sigh. This just further supports the idea that you simply can't please everyone; when you hold up on olive branch, there's always going to be someone batting it away.

What Mearls said is not only relatively harmless, but quite embracing - and you still take issue with it. Every time he opens his mouth (or hits "publish" on his WotC blog) the words are examined minutely for traces of edition warring and/or signs that he is supporting or disagreeing with one's preferred style of play.

I'm honestly curious: Do you feel that Mearls is "making some appeal at edition warriors?" And secondarily, is one an edition warrior if one feels that 4e, by and large, was a game in which action ended up serving the rules, at least for many groups?

My view is this: as [MENTION=6695890]ccooke[/MENTION] implied, 4E was too specific in flavor and approach to reach the broad market that WotC hopes for in D&D; it doesn't mean it was/is a bad game or "not D&D," just that its umbrella wasn't broad enough to keep the entire, or most of, the family interested, so to speak. Part of the reason is that many felt that it was hard to get away from the action serving the rules, the battlemat pre-empting theater of mind.

In other words, I think Mearls is neither edition warring or castigating 4E. Actually, to the degree that 5E design is based upon a critique of 4E, it is also based upon a critique of 3E; they're trying to re-set the baseline to a simpler, but flexible, game that can include more play styles than either 3E or 4E could easily accommodate; in other words, they're following the view that you espoused in the quote above--that one size doesn't fit all--but by following a simple core + modular options approach, hopefully they'll be able to accommodate more sizes in 5E than they did in the last two or three editions, all of which ended up catering a bit too much to a specific style of game play.

 

[Mercurius]

Not questioning because I disagree (I have never DM'd 5E), but because I'm genuinely curious: in what ways are 5E easier to DM than 4E? Of all previously printed editions, 4E has the shortest prep time and fewest obstacles for a GM. I would like to know how 5E improved on that.

As I prepare to DM 5e, I'd like to know as well. One of the things I hope is ported over from 4e is the (relative) ease of prep. If anything I'm hoping they take it a step further - not just Monster Builder, but Encounter and Adventure Builders. They need to look at something like MasterPlan and say, "How can we do something like that but incorporate clear guidance and step-by-step advice on how to build encounters, adventures and campaigns?"

Its not that I can't do those things without step-by-step guidance, but sometimes its fun and nice to have clear stages to work through, rather than the haphazard approach that most DMs take. As far as I can tell, no DMG has every had clear step-by-step guidelines for designing encounters, adventures, or campaigns.

In both 3e and 4e the rules are there to be served. If your group likes all the rules then it's fine, but if your group doesn't you're screwed. Especially in 4e, which was much tighter and harder to extricate rules from.

I very much agree on the one-size-does-not-fit-all sentiment. WotC seems to know that too by the focus on modularity. So groups that want more rules can add more rules, making the rules serve them.

I'd XP you but I need to spread the love around. You basically said what I said, but in a clearer and more concise way.

 

[Sage Genesis]

In both 3e and 4e the rules are there to be served.

I disagree completely. And with that, I'm not sure if we'll be able to have a fruitful discussion about this particular subject.

Sigh. This just further supports the idea that you simply can't please everyone; when you hold up on olive branch, there's always going to be someone batting it away.

What Mearls said is not only relatively harmless, but quite embracing - and you still take issue with it. Every time he opens his mouth (or hits "publish" on his WotC blog) the words are examined minutely for traces of edition warring and/or signs that he is supporting or disagreeing with one's preferred style of play.

Oh we're playing it like that, are we? Alright:

Whenever he slaps me in the face, there's always going to be someone trying to convince me I should be thankful for the human contact. Every time he opens his mouth (or hits "publish" on his WotC blog) the words are plain as day but apologists pop out of the woodwork to defend him.

See how this kind of talk is not very helpful? It's really not conducive to a conversation by essentially saying "all your impressions are wrong and all my impressions are right". So let's both not do that anymore?

I'm honestly curious: Do you feel that Mearls is "making some appeal at edition warriors?" And secondarily, is one an edition warrior if one feels that 4e, by and large, was a game in which action ended up serving the rules, at least for many groups?

Respectively:
Yes.
No.

My view is this: as @ccooke implied, 4E was too specific in flavor and approach to reach the broad market that WotC hopes for in D&D; it doesn't mean it was/is a bad game or "not D&D," just that its umbrella wasn't broad enough to keep the entire, or most of, the family interested, so to speak. Part of the reason is that many felt that it was hard to get away from the action serving the rules, the battlemat pre-empting theater of mind.

In other words, I think Mearls is neither edition warring or castigating 4E. Actually, to the degree that 5E design is based upon a critique of 4E, it is also based upon a critique of 3E; they're trying to re-set the baseline to a simpler, but flexible, game that can include more play styles than either 3E or 4E could easily accommodate; in other words, they're following the view that you espoused in the quote above--that one size doesn't fit all--but by following a simple core + modular options approach, hopefully they'll be able to accommodate more sizes in 5E than they did in the last two or three editions, all of which ended up catering a bit too much to a specific style of game play.

I agree that 4e has a very specific flavor and probably didn't reach the broad market they hoped for. I disagree that this means that in 4e (or 3e for that matter) the players served the rules instead of the other way around. Just because some rules might not mesh with your playstyle doesn't mean you're serving them. And I even more strongly believe that this "modular" approach is only so much snake oil being peddled until I see some solid examples. Especially since apparently the game will launch this summer, they really ought to have something to show off by now. All I've seen so far is a little optional rule here and there, or the ability to houserule stuff. I'm glad we all agree that one size doesn't fit all, but the proposed solution leaves me very skeptical.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It's a pretty hollow platitude though. It describes nothing. I for one think that in 4e the action flows and the rules serve the gaming group, rather than the other way around. But there are people (you included if I remember correctly) who would strongly disagree with this. The real lesson to learn is that one size doesn't fit all when it comes to RPGs, rather than making some appeal at edition warriors.

What I take away from it is that perhaps those at WOTC are learning that being inclusive is better than being exclusive. You are correct that one size doesn't fit all and perhaps making a system more elastic to cover multiple styles via options is the way to go.

Options means those that want different things have a chance of getting what they want. I don't understand the distaste for options unless the game doesn't function if certain options are used. The optional rule model lets every group decide for themselves what is important in the game. If I don't care about tactical minutae then I can ignore those rules. If your group enjoys lots of character options then you can dial those up to 11. Its a potential win-win for groups of varying tastes. The success of this model does depend on the strength of the execution. The design has to really back up those good intentions and I won't be convinced it can be pulled off until I see it.

 

[Mercurius]

Whenever he slaps me in the face, there's always going to be someone trying to convince me I should be thankful for the human contact. Every time he opens his mouth (or hits "publish" on his WotC blog) the words are plain as day but apologists pop out of the woodwork to defend him.

So you're saying that Mearls "slaps" you in the face with is words? That seems rather extreme. I'm curious: how has he slapped you in the face?

See how this kind of talk is not very helpful? It's really not conducive to a conversation by essentially saying "all your impressions are wrong and all my impressions are right". So let's both not do that anymore?

I'm not saying that your impressions are wrong, although it seems we differ, perhaps greatly, in how we interpret Mearls. But as with Mearls, considering that he did not literally slap you in the face, there's some degree of interpretation involved, which implies some degree of flexibility. Again, I'm not saying that your impressions are as much "wrong" as much as, perhaps, based upon certain assumptions which I don't necessarily agree with, which seem to imply that you take a lot of what he says on bad faith.

I suppose I'm asking you to be open to seeing otherwise, which I ask of myself as well. So often these "conversations" end up with two people espousing entrenched positions, becoming further entrenched due to perceived slight. It isn't about one trying to convince the other, but each of us taking what we can from a discussion and evolving and expanding our own perspective. That's my approach, at least.

Respectively:
Yes.
No.

So the main difference in our views is that you see Mearls as catering to (anti-4E?) edition warriors, and I do not. I fully realize that I could be wrong--and I certainly haven't read every L&L--but I just haven't seen it. What I see is him looking critically at previous editions of D&D, perhaps especially 4E as the most recent and divergent style from the traditional approach, with the intention of creating the best, and most embracing, possible version of D&D yet. Hopefully he's not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, though.

I agree that 4e has a very specific flavor and probably didn't reach the broad market they hoped for. I disagree that this means that in 4e (or 3e for that matter) the players served the rules instead of the other way around. Just because some rules might not mesh with your playstyle doesn't mean you're serving them.

It isn't about me or what I want, but looking at the larger community - what the general response and feeling is, which seems more towards the idea of 4E games serving the rules more often than they should. The weight of evidence, even if it is anecdotal, is that there wasn't as much meshing going on with 4E as there should have been.

There are lots of people that love 4E, lots that like it or are indifferent, and lots that dislike or even hate it. This is always going to be the case with any edition, but I think the point from a design perspective is to tip the scales more towards the "love-to-like" side of the spectrum than the "dislike-to-hate" side. In a thread a few weeks ago I was taking to task by a couple people for saying that 4E "failed" in this regard, but I do not mean to say that it failed as a game, as a fun version of D&D, but that it failed in that the scale was tipped too much towards collective dislike-to-hate. This has nothing to do with how good of a game 4E was (or wasn't), but how much it inspired and was embraced by the community as a whole. That might not matter to you or I in our respective gaming circles, but it does matter to Wizards of the Coast.

And I even more strongly believe that this "modular" approach is only so much snake oil being peddled until I see some solid examples. Especially since apparently the game will launch this summer, they really ought to have something to show off by now. All I've seen so far is a little optional rule here and there, or the ability to houserule stuff. I'm glad we all agree that one size doesn't fit all, but the proposed solution leaves me very skeptical.

OK, I hear that you want Mearls to "show you the money." But the problem is that if you have a strongly skeptical, even pessimistic attitude, going into it, you're likely to be setting yourself up for disappointment.

One thing that WotC won't be able to do is please everyone. But what I think they're trying to do is incorporate the "best of" various editions into 5E, perhaps with its own unique flavorings. Whether they succeed or not remains to be seen, but I think we can safely say that for some it will be viewed as a success, for others as a failure - but the question is how many, and to what degree, of either spectrum. I simply advocate for an "innocent until proven guilty" approach, which allows for some degree of openness. But if you're expecting a snake and a snake-like form appears before you, you're going to see a snake even if its actually a rope (to use an old Hindu analogy). My impression from our brief interaction here is that you are expecting a snake.

 

[Mistwell]

Respectively:
Yes.
No.

If you think the lead designer is an active edition warrior who doesn't like 4e (a game he also helped design by the way), why are you still posting to 5e threads, given it would likely mean you gave up on 5e a while ago?