D&D 5E Blog Post by Robert J. Schwalb
Psikerlord#
Explorer
you can have both quite easily if you aim for a rough balance, and keep out too much OP stuff. its a mistake to be too free with balance. but dont know where 5e will fall till the full rules release, inc DMG options.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
The problem with his comment, for me, and why I wouldn't XP it (despite agreeing with you on most things) is that he appears to be suggesting that prior to the 3E/4E, D&D didn't have rules where the PCs got to tell the DM what to do, that it was always "mother may I".
That's completely untrue, of course.
D&D absolutely DID have those rules. They were just strictly for people who could cast spells. Spells in every edition of D&D tell the DM what happens. Whilst he is able to interpret them or whatever, he actually has less leeway than, with, say, skill rules in 3E/4E.
This was something that had become thoroughly obvious to my group by the time 3E hit. It wasn't obvious in early 2E days, because, frankly, we didn't understand or think about "RPG mechanics" in depth. Exposure to tons of RPGs, and to different mechanical ideas, and commentaries on mechanics (serious or joke-y), however, made people think about the. Schwalb admits this with his "seeds" comment, but it wasn't just seeds, it was a thing.
It was notable, too, than when we started playing AD&D in '89, anyone might play a non-caster. By the time we stopped, in '00, everyone who understood mechanics at all, thought about them at all, in my group, was playing a caster. This wasn't because I was some horrible "loves to say no" DM, it was because they could tell which way the wind was blowing. They saw, from continual exposure to the game, that if you got to cast spells, you got to dictate what happened to a large extent, whether it was just choosing who to cast them on, or where to cast them, or what shape that Wall spell was, or what that Summoned monster was going to do, and so on.
Even in 3E, though, this continued. Spells were better than skills or the abilities of other classes, more absolute, more "this is what happens" (so long as saves were failed, and that was an easy thing to lean on in 3E).
Only in 4E did we finally see a kind of equality, where ALL the PCs got to say what happens some of the time, ALL of the PLAYERS got to say what happens some of the time. I don't by this stuff from Schwalb and Libramarian (or so I read it) about DMs being "on the run" or whatever. Going from from the mother in mother may I to more of a typical DM/Storyteller role in RPGs is not "going on the run". Further still, in 4E, I didn't go on the run, as a DM, I went on the attack. It was the first edition where I could unveil my full powers. In 1/2/3E, I could easily, even setting up "balanced" encounters, have been wiping out the PCs over and over. TPK 24/7, yo. But that was no fun. It was easy and boring and made everyone have a bad time.
In 4E, with it's balanced encounters, and the PCs ALL able to dictate what happened a lot of the time, I could suddenly go flat out, go tactical, try to win in a way which would have likely wiped the PCs out in earlier editions. That was huge fun for me. I see Librarmarian saying he had to "just watch all the time". That's completely untrue. It's not valid on any level. In 4E, you are not "watching all the time" any more than any other edition - and less than most, because, if you're using balanced encounters, you can actually be playing hard, playing rough, and having a great time in combat.
If you don't enjoy that kind of play, totally fair. Saying it's "just watching all the time"? Not fair or right.
Final bit of icing on the cake is Libramarian talking about how D&D is a "social game" and thus no-one should be engaging in "power fantasy escapism", but that's nonsensical in the context of what's being said, because in 1/2/3E, anyone playing a Mage and getting past about level 9, got to engage in "power fantasy escapism" pretty mucha ll the time, and I have no doubt that, even with their reductions in power, 5E casters will continue to be able to engage in "power fantasy escapism". I also fail to see how making the PCs work together to win combats, as they must in 4E, is anything less than social. I could totally see his argument for 3E, if he was pointing at the fact that an optimized 3E Wizard beyond a certain level could more or less substitute for the entire party, and thus didn't need to be social (this was also true in 2E, the Mage just had to be much higher level, say 16+, well-prepared, and have a lot of scrolls - I saw it in action numerous times in 2E, because we had a Mage (Transmuter, actually), played for half a decade, who got to like, 19th, and was played by a very canny, planning-oriented player), but 4E? You have to be kidding me.
So yeah, no to that.
Back on the article, and it is an interesting one, one thing really, really bugged me. Two things, actually:
Schwalb said:
Thinking to look behind the wardrobe. No. That was never fun past age 12, for me or anyone I knew. That sort of "OH BUT YOU DIDN'T SAY YOU LOOKED BEHIND THE WARDROBE WHEN YOU SAID YOU SEARCHED THE ROOM LOLZ!" play, where every single action and idea had to be specifically narrated, was never fun for me as a teenager or adult, as a player or DM. It just seemed stupid. Groups clearly thought it was too. For example, my main group developed two mantras they related. The first, when they were progressing down a corridor, detailed how they were progressing cautiously, carefully, quietly and whilst looking at everything (I forget the exact wording of either, now), because they didn't want any gotchas or the like. The second was for searching rooms (again, the exact words are gone, because thankfully I've not heard it for nearly fifteen years), and it basically detailed how, no seriously, they carefully and quietly-as-possible searched everything, and didn't press any buttons, pull any levers, or the like.
The idea that 3/4E don't reward "having a good idea at the table" is abjectly false and edition-warring nonsense. I hope that's not what Schwalb implied, but it looks like it. I'm not even going to engage with it, beyond saying that, I've seen, in 4E, entire eight-hours sessions be focused on "good ideas at the table" (with very little dice-rolling or combat), and that 4E's combat rewards spontaneous good ideas more than any other edition (but does not reward pre-planning as much as any other).
Schwalb said:
Er, nope.
I've never known a time when a lot of people didn't enjoy making PCs. There are some who hate it in any edition, and some who love it in every edition.
I've enjoyed making PCs in pretty much every RPG ever. It's fun times, whether you're just making someone fun to play, or optimizing or whatever. Certainly for 25 years, so he's dead wrong about "the last 15".
ExploderWizard
Hero
Because of a perfectly lofty goal of wanting to provide more and more options the player base clamors for, D&D WOTC style became increasingly focused on what the characters CAN do in a strict mechanical sense to the point that what the characters WERE doing in world or setting sense began to be relegated into the background. Published products told this tale. Splatbooks with more and more options for characters were featured while many if not most of the adventures were lackluster or at times just kind of bad.
Mechanics help facilitate the game they are NOT the game. The world the characters explore and what the characters are doing in that world are far more interesting than the mechanics used to resolve how it gets done. The harsh splitting of fluff and crunch is detrimental to the fun of an immersive roleplaying game.
OMG!! War!!! Huh! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!!!
Declaration of war? Really? The guy came to realize what he enjoyed most about gaming and realized that it had nothing to do with the number of mechanical widgets available to play with. He shares these thoughts with the world and suddenly he is declaring war?
You sir, are hilarious.
BAZINGA! Trying to keep up with the Jones' on rules exploit rocket tag is a fools game.
There is no excuse for the personal insults, but he has been around long enough to know that implying that 3e and 4e lost the spirit of D&D will create some backlash.
Raith5
Adventurer
Very interesting quote. I like the bit where she/he says " I feel that at some point the purpose for the rules in D&D changed from “helping the DM put pressure on the players” to “helping the players put pressure on the DM”." I guess it reminds me of the thing I like about 3rd and especially 4th ed: rules and mechanics that as a player I can reliably use to influence the game. But also 4th ed upped the ante (and complexity, obviously) for all parties, with the types of powers that monsters that 4th ed put at the disposal of DMs in combat, and in other circumstances through skill challenges, etc.
Obryn
Hero
That's because the game's math informs adventures and directs the storytelling.
ExploderWizard
Hero
This is where the separation of fluff & crunch really did the game a disservice. The old way of searching involved interacting with the setting. As a player, the setting and what it contained were important game elements. Game play involved interacting with the game world through the description/inquiry/clarification feedback loop. Players tend to pay attention to setting details when they matter in the resolution of play.
The modern game that skips the "boring" stuff revolves almost exclusively with interacting with the mechanics. An endless repetition of " I search, I got a 22". It doesn't matter what is in the room, what or where something is. Heck, the room doesn't even NEED a description for that matter. Everything is tuned out that isn't relevant to the outcome of the mechanical interaction. The game world can be a 2 dimensional grease painting for all that it matters. Players could care less about what is in a room because the setting is divorced from the resolution of play.
That kind of rules structure rewards players who focus on building better mousetraps and concentrating on what their PC CAN do instead of what is happening in the game world. Players who don't really care about or engage with the setting (because it isn't required to win), eventually cause the GM to stop caring about the setting as well (why bother with setting detail if the players just ignore it?),and when the GM stops caring about the setting the whole game begins to come apart.
I suppose we have different tastes but endlessly droning " I search" and rolling a die (and metagaming by taking 20 if the result isn't high) is way more boring than poking and prodding a fictional environment.
Can you give an example of a 3E or 4E adventure challenge that doesn't involve either a combat or getting X or higher on a die roll?
The Hitcher
Explorer
So because one thing (let's call it "the Tool") informs a second thing (which we'll call "the Entire Point"), then we should care more about the Tool than the Entire Point? I don't see how that makes any sense.
Similar Threads
