D&D 5E Blog Post by Robert J. Schwalb

[Umbran]

Just because one person likes one thing and dislikes something else, that shouldn't mean they need to expect attacks from the entitled dregs of the Internet.

No. They should expect attacks from the dregs of the internet because this is the internet. Social graces are at a bit of a premium unless rigorously enforced.

You, Matt, are new here. But this is hardly a new issue. EN World moderators have been fighting for general civility... since the beginnings of the boards! It has been a really serious issue since the 3e/4e edition wars starting back in 2007. There's a whole list of what I call "Dichotomy wars" that have the same basic dynamic - 3e vs 4e. New school vs old school. Forgist vs anyone else...

People get jumped on all the time. Rarely, if ever, does anyone turn to their friend and say, "Dude, I don't like Damage On a Miss either, but *that* was uncalled for!" Folks are generally very selective when they speak up about poor manners - they only complain about them when they are the target. It is really, really easy to speak up against poor treatment when you think you, or someone you agree with, is the victim. It is harder to be fair, and also speak up against it when your side is the one perpetrating the nastiness.

And until folks are interested in being even-handed about it, I don't think you'll see much change. It does no good to only point out when the other side is being naughty. You have to be willing to point out when your own side does it too.

 

[Jester David]

Maybe we have different criteria for what counts as clever thinking. I can't speak for 3E, which I've not played very much, but I find 4e does reward clever thinking. In skill challenges, players need to find clever ways to bring their skills to bear upon the fictional situation. In a combat, players need to find clever ways to synergise the PCs' range of abilities.

Also, the relative universality of the resolution mechanics (via skill challenges and p 42) means that there is no pressure on the GM to block clever ideas because there is no mechanical way to give effect to them.

The later is not clever thinking, that's group optimization, a very similar beast to character optimization. It rewards math and system mastery just the same as CharOp. (It's actually a good example of what Schwab was complaining about.)

The skill challenges are a fair point however, and a decent example of some creative thinking on the game. I could make some other disparaging statements regarding 4e skills, but that seems needless, so I'll exercise restraint.
Still, skill challenges, while innovative, are a pretty small part of the game and all the mechanics for those rest on the side of the DM. The players never see skill challenges even mentioned IIRC. But a DM who plays up skill challenges and makes them integral to their game mights have a more creative campaign.

 

[Raith5]

I do see your point. However, I felt the above extract referred more to modern game systems than to players. Sure, many of us just throw out or house-rule over the parts that encourage math over roleplay, but the fact remains many modern systems have included more and more rules that - intentionally or not - provide a greater reward for the player that generated their character sheet to fit a mathematical model rather than making choices around a fictional concept. You see a criticism of players here, while I only see a criticism of systems.

Unfortunately, I think the context of online edition wars places the distinction between systems vs players on uncertain ground. Personally I found the article interesting even if I did not agree with it and thought that it was rubbing against a fairly fundamental part of modern D&D.

But I must say, I am definitely not a math person and while I like 3e and 4e the best of all the editions (for a variety of reasons) I often find the math corresponds with common sense and narrative sense. There are times when maths and system knowledge is a pain (I find levelling up in 4th ed a bit of chore because of the huge number of damn options) but I still get enjoyment from making choices between different powers/attacks etc in play. So I think the central problem is that maths/ heavy mechanical knowledge type of gaming can be used profitably by people not overally enamoured by that style.

On a side note I have found it interesting in this thread that folk are referring to 3e and 4e in same category. Maybe RJS has found a new way to unify the editions!

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

I found this very interesting (and I very much agree with him):

Thank you very much for re-posting Shwalb's blog post. It was a breath of fresh air and is the first commentary by anyone working on 5E that's got me excited about it since Monte Cook was (briefly) attached.

Reading Schwalb's commentary felt like a review of my own gaming experiences. From starting out with 1E to playing endlessly at friend's houses to feeling like I personally drank enough Mountain Dew to fill an Olympic sized swimming pool, it all synced up.

Now I didn't really hit my stride as a DM until 3E, so I got to see first hand what that system could be made to do when one or more smart players broke it down. While my experiences weren't campaign enders, I can readily imagine that being the case for other DMs with less understanding players. (Mine were the kind that saw where things could go wrong and then throttled back so they wouldn't wreck the game).

Schwalb's meta-view of the game is spot on. He sees the strengths and weaknesses of each edition, notes what he likes and he doesn't like, but instead of stopping there he goes on to talk about what others seem to enjoy about the game.

That last is why I find the edition war claim leveled against him to be so utterly wrong.

It seems to me that anyone who's that hair trigger ready to complain clearly isn't inclined to try and comprehend what is is they're reading before they comment on it.

Instead they appear to be looking for an excuse to be offended so they have a chance to fight (so many people tilting at windmills it's a wonder Don Quixote hasn't shown up to join the fray), not for opportunities to read and digest an informed perspective--especially one that differs from their own.

Here's to Sancho, err, Schwalb, for having the wisdom to see things as they really are, and for having the courage to talk about it out in the open.

 

[pemerton]

On the flip side, I believe the conversation about player skill vs character skill is really about strategic planning and preparation vs correct deployment of powers and abilities.

I think that's part of it - in which case the "player skill vs character skill" is a bit of a misnomer.

I have GMed high planning/prep games in the past, but I have to say these days I prefer a game where the focus is on the actual action as it is unfolding, rather than preparing for the action which is to come.

In the old days monsters appeared organic to the setting and environment. PCs were never assured of a fair fight. Encounter balance was not even a concept.

<snip>

Killing wasn't rewarded nearly as much. Finding a way to steal the treasure was often better than killing your way to it.

The first claim is not true at all. Gygax and Moldvay both talk about encounter balance in their rulebooks, as well as rules for adjusting monster numbers to fit the dungeon level.

The second claim is true. It relates to the point I made upthread, contrasting exploration-oriented play with conflict-oriented play.

 

[pemerton]

I felt the above extract referred more to modern game systems than to players.

<snip>

many modern systems have included more and more rules that - intentionally or not - provide a greater reward for the player that generated their character sheet to fit a mathematical model rather than making choices around a fictional concept. You see a criticism of players here, while I only see a criticism of systems.

Well the first criticism follows from the second, doesn't it? If you argue that an RPG system sucks because it ruins RPGing, you can expect disagreement from those RPGers who think the system is a good one!

In my view the best RPG systems ensure that making choices around a fictional concept will result in a mathematically adequate character sheet. To date I have found 4e fairly robust in this respect, certainly compared to other fantasy RPG systems that I have used.

Schwalb's meta-view of the game is spot on. He sees the strengths and weaknesses of each edition, notes what he likes and he doesn't like, but instead of stopping there he goes on to talk about what others seem to enjoy about the game.

<snip>

It seems to me that anyone who's that hair trigger ready to complain clearly isn't inclined to try and comprehend what is is they're reading before they comment on it.

Instead they appear to be looking for an excuse to be offended so they have a chance to fight (so many people tilting at windmills it's a wonder Don Quixote hasn't shown up to join the fray), not for opportunities to read and digest an informed perspective--especially one that differs from their own.

I don't really follow.

Schwalb comments on how others play and enjoy the game. He does so in pejorative terms. Some of those people he's commented on don't agree with his (pejorative) characterisation of how they play the game. And you're surprised that they express that disagreement? I think most of them have comprehended him perfectly well. They just don't agree with his description of them. Perhaps they're self-deluded, but I'm not sure that either you or Schwalb is in a good position to know that.

maybe that's the view of the hobby from his position and from the feedback he's received over the years. And if that is the case, and I have no reason to think he is insincere, then that is a pretty depressing state of affairs.

I'm sure he's sincere. But I still take the view that if you're going to tell others that their approach to RPGing has spoiled the game, you have to be prepared to have at least some of them disagree with you. And not all that disagreement is going to be unreasonable, either!

I find 4e does reward clever thinking.

<snip>

In a combat, players need to find clever ways to synergise the PCs' range of abilities.

The later is not clever thinking, that's group optimization, a very similar beast to character optimization. It rewards math and system mastery just the same as CharOp.

I don't understand your reply at all.

How is finding clever ways to synergise the PCs' range of abilities "group optimisation" in some way that contrasts (pejoratively) with clever thinking? How come in AD&D the wizard casting an infravision spell on the thief so the latter can scout ahead is "clever play", but in 4e the fighter using Come and Get It to bunch the enemies together so the wizard can Thunderwave them over the cliff is "group optimisation"?

Do you think clever thinking only counts as clever when it doesn't involve the players having their PCs interact?

skill challenges, while innovative, are a pretty small part of the game

Another way of looking at is that they are all of the non-combat part of the game. Whether or not that is small I guess depends upon the group.

The players never see skill challenges even mentioned IIRC.

Except on PHB pp 179 and 259, which have detailed characterisations. Also peppered throughout the skill, ritual and (in later books) power descriptions.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Schwalb's meta-view of the game is spot on. He sees the strengths and weaknesses of each edition, notes what he likes and he doesn't like, but instead of stopping there he goes on to talk about what others seem to enjoy about the game.

That last is why I find the edition war claim leveled against him to be so utterly wrong.

On the precise contrary, it's why it's completely right. Because he makes incorrect, pejorative assertions about what others enjoy about the game. That's the entire problem. He's saying that 3/4E don't "reward clever ideas at the table" (which is gibberish) and repeatedly asserting that 3/4E are about pre-game optimization, and enjoyed by people primarily for that.

That's simply not true. Even of the people I know who do enjoy optimization to a greater or lesser degree, none of them find it the primary reason to play an RPG - it's just one thing they enjoy.

So his talking about them as if it was the sole thing they enjoyed is really solid edition-warring. It's inescapable. When you step beyond talking about things that work and things that don't about editions, and instead making blanket value-assertions about them and their players, you are pretty much always edition-warring.

It seems to me that anyone who's that hair trigger ready to complain clearly isn't inclined to try and comprehend what is is they're reading before they comment on it.

Instead they appear to be looking for an excuse to be offended so they have a chance to fight (so many people tilting at windmills it's a wonder Don Quixote hasn't shown up to join the fray), not for opportunities to read and digest an informed perspective--especially one that differs from their own.

Here's to Sancho, err, Schwalb, for having the wisdom to see things as they really are, and for having the courage to talk about it out in the open.

This is just untrue. People understand what Schwalb is saying perfectly well. That's extremely clear from this very thread. There's no significant confusion. What there is, is disagreement as to whether he's right.

To cast Schwalb and by extension, yourself, as Sancho Panza, and to make the blanket assertion that all who disagree are "Don Quixote" is really the height of hypocrisy, when you're talking about people not engaging with perspectives which disagree with their own. The very thing you are failing to engage with, and instead simply dismissing as tilting at windmills! Amazing.

It would be very hard to adopt a more hypocritical position than that.

EDIT - Quote fixed as pointed out! Sorry about that!

 

[TwoSix]

Bad quote there, RE. That was sanishiver, not MerricB.

 

[AstroCat]

Just a quick nod of agreement with the blog entry from me. I think 5e hits the sweet spot between mathematical mechanics and free flow creativity.

When playing D&D I personally do not enjoy ultra power gaming, "gaming" the system, exploiting, min/max extremism, etc... I think it kills the mood and feel of the game. Sure, I get why people do it, and I don't mean every character has to be "gimped" either, I just enjoy playing the game, and not gaming the game, if you know what I mean?

 

[Neonchameleon]

But it's not just disagreeing. It's dismissing his entire post because of a couple choice sentences. And I've seen more than one poster saying he shouldn't have written the blog, or that Mistwell shouldn't have posted it here. His intentions have been questions and his ability to design D&D5 has been called into doubt.

According to him in that very post "When I was brought onto the team, it was with the understanding that I would fly the 4th Edition flag" - and he spends most of the post saying that he did not do that. In short he didn't do the part of the design for 5E he was brought into the design team for. This is a matter of recorded fact in that very post.

Or, in other words, it would have been a better piece had he not said anything critical of 3e or 4e.

You mean it would have been a better post had he not made unjustified criticisms.

It doesn't matter if he's right. It doesn't matter if he's addressing an actual problem in the game. He cannot criticize the last two editions. That's taboo.

.

The game incentivizes you to prioritize your own powers. And it's been well documented that the power cards of 4e can focus some people's attention: by giving them a series of explicit choices people choose from them rather than considering other solutions.

And if people get focussed on what their characters are supposed to be good at and specialise in, how is this a bad thing?

Ideally, we can have both rich description and use the die roll. It's just a question of approaching the interaction of the two with the right emphasis and mix.

This.

Most of which has nothing to do with his overall point.

He wrote a 1500 word essay on the barrier of entry that is complex character creation and system mastery and everyone is fixated on the 300-odd words where he compares the most recent two editions with their predecessors and the forthcoming edition.
Everyone is looking at what is very literally 20% of his post where he says that the additive complexity that began with 3e might not have universally been a good idea.

OK. To take an analogy, if someone spent thirty minutes making punch and five minutes pooping in the punch bowl. And people are looking at and talking about the poop would you see that as odd?

He wrote a 1500 word essay of which 1200 words are bland Old School stuff, and 300 are incendiary and dismissive. People are focussing on the more intense part.

The latter group, though, don't treat the rules as an end in themselves, do they? Nor eschew play. They would play if they could.

The charop people you might be right about. I've always assumed that they like to play, and that the charop stuff is a sideline. Maybe I'm wrong - in which case the bit in my post about not knowing them is still true (I spend very little time on charop boards) but I might just be generalising wrongly from my own experience!

It varies. CharOp is a game in its own right.

It seems to me that "I want to just roll to search and skip to the next encounter" vs "I cleverly hid the clue and don't want the players just rolling and spoil my fun" is not a right-vs-wrong issue as it is a playstyle mismatch. The DM wanted to provide a clever puzzle for the adventurers to solve (or fail to) and the players aren't interested in that kind of game.

This.

@Klaus and others:

I think it's one thing to say "I enjoyed 2nd ed AD&D more than 3E or 4e." Even to say "And that's because I found the 2nd ed play more creative." But the post says:

Clever play now occurs in isolation. The player earns the greatest reward not from having a good idea at the table or thinking to look behind the wardrobe and finding a magic item, but from the discovery of a winning combination of mechanics . . . The prize for being the best player goes not to the creative mind, the cunning tactician, the burgeoning actor, but to the best mathematician.
​

That is not just talking about personal preferences and experiences. It's talking about other people, and generating implications about their roleplaying. It's not surprising that people who think it's an unfair description of their roleplaying are going to post comments - particularly when the remark comes from a prominent and respected designer.

Indeed. And especially when in the same post he says he was hired to represent one major part of that group - and then did not do so. Which explains quite a lot about Next.