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

[Chaltab]

(We did! )

I don't believe it! No man, woman, or child can play 4th Edition that fast! It's just not possible!

---

I like character building. I don't like extreme Char-Op. To me, there are opportunities to be creative both building and playing a character. (It helps that my characters tend to be a bit insane), but that creativity is more important than having the highest possible mechanical advantage. I'm not saying that Schwalb didn't experience the sort of thing he's talking about, but it's complete poppycock to say this is an inherent factor in 3E and 4E rules and DDN magically somehow fixes it.

 

[Agamon]

snip

Dude, I don't know who posted the stuff you quoted me as writing, but it wasn't me. I hope you'll fix that. Thanks.

 

[Shadeydm]

The only serious problem 4E has is Feats.

So apparently its ok for some people in this thread to represent opinion as fact.

I would say among its serious issues is poor handling of skills and out of combat play, never ending battles, gridlock, and dependence on the character builder to name a few.

Cue the usual suspects and their crusade to prove other people's opinions wrong

 

[Neonchameleon]

So apparently its ok for some people in this thread to represent opinion as fact.

Text without context is a pretext. I was talking about for the purpose of character creation. Where well over a thousand feats are a problem and the rest is fine.

I would say among its serious issues is poor handling of skills

This is arguably true - it simply has the best handling of skills of any version of D&D there has ever been. I'll accept that this is still a pretty low bar.

and out of combat play

Again, compared to what? 4E is, I'll accept, no Fate.

 

[Mistwell]

Clearly your mileage may vary from mine. While you see juvenile bickering and pixel-bitching, I see players actually interacting with the description the GM gives for the room and the environment. I've seen a number of cases, in a 3e+ world, of players saying they're taking 20 searching the room without any indication that they're really thinking about what the room is like. The searching rules (spot, search, perception, whatever) may make it easy to use a PC's own abilities (which will differ from the player's) and help a goal-oriented/kill and loot style of play flow efficiently, but it's very easy to fall back to a game that doesn't involve rich interaction with the environment. And, for those of us who prefer a bit more of that interaction, having the easy dice roll there can be a shamefully lazy temptation.

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. Require the players to be more specific about their searching so they do pay attention and interact with the environment. They'll probably feel a lot more proud about things they figure out on their own rather than what they find by die roll (I know I do). Then call on the dice rolls for determining how successful their specific efforts were and then be flexible with those. I will even auto-success searches if the player actually mentions searching in a way that should find my hidden goodies (such as explictly searching under the mattress where I've hidden a pouch of pearls but rolling a terrible result).

I agree. For my group, exploration really is a huge component of what we do when we play D&D, and talking about how the PCs interact with specific things in the environment is a huge part of that exploration.

Everyone remembers that opening scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark, right? Where he raids the ancient temple for the golden statue, going through a series of traps and challenges to do it, only to escape within a second of his life?

I sometimes think some groups would resolve that series of events with a few die rolls, and that would be it.

Which, to me, takes away so much from what D&D is to me. Exploring the environment, thinking to examine the ray of sunlight to see if there is a trip wire, testing the moss-covered tile to see if it is a trap, that's fun D&D exploration! It's not about rolling the d20 to search for traps "in the room", it's about listening to the DMs description of what you see, noting things that seem worth exploring, and then actually describing your exploration and getting a reward for your keen thinking by finding the trap or hidden compartment or secret door or disguised creature or camouflaged treasure or whatever.

That stuff, for my group, is often more fun than combat. And we're all over 40 in my group, for what that is worth.

 

[pemerton]

Does The Game reward creative thinking? Do the rules favour creative thinking over optimization? The answer to that is "no".

Party Optimization still primarily rewards mathematicians. And, to a lesser extent, the Tactician.

<snip>

It requires cleverness, but isn't the same as a clever plan or thinking out of the box.

You didn't answer my question. Why is casting Infravision on the thief so s/he can scout "clever" or "creative", but using Come and Get It to bunch up the enemies so the wizard can Thunderwave them over the cliff not?

Why is using Rock to Mud to drop the cavern roof on a dragon "creative", but using the power of an idol of the Summer Queen to dispel a black dragon's darkness not?

Why is staying back and using archery against D&Dnext hobgoblins "clever", but using Parthian archery against hobgoblin infantry in a 4e game not?

In one of the first 4e sessions I ran, the player of a paladin spoke a prayer to the Raven Queen to get combat advantage against a Wight (and I was able to resolve this before [MENTION=64825]wrecan[/MENTION] had written an article on the website suggesting guidelines for doing so). Why is that "creative" in an old school game but "inside the box" for 4e?

I've played hundreds of hours of 4e. Quite a bit of my play experience is written up on actual play posts on this site. Telling me that, simply because of the system we were using, none of that play was clever or thinking outside the box is insulting. And I'm not sure who this "Tactician" is that you speak of so dismissively. S/he sounds like the "skilled player" whom Gygax lauds in his PHB and DMG. But in fact 4e doesn't reward only that player - because of its level-based rather than "objective" DCs it rewards Fate or MHRP-style gonzoism in play as well as traditional tactical play. I know because I've seen this - for instance, the tiefling paladin who has been set alight by his own ally, and charges among the hobgoblins threatening to set them on fire, the same character doing a "Gandalf" to follow Vecna down the side of a cliff and stab him with his sword, the sorcerer using Bedevelling Burst to upset the service of jellies at a formal dinner, thereby demonstrating how one might defeat a gelatinous cube in combat. These are all things that have happened in my game, that were clever and creative at the time, that remain so in retrospect, and frankly that couldn't have happened in any other version of D&D but that 4e - mostly because of its mechanical similarity to games like Fate and MHRP - allowd to happen.

And not a single comma in that paragraph is wrong. I love 4e dearly, but there is no denying that "smart play" has been moving more and more towards finding the right combination of powers, as to take down any monster that might come along. That is the whole point of the CharOp Class Guides

When you say "there is no denying", how am I expected to respond to that rhetorical move?

I mean, I deny it. I have players in my 4e group who have read the CharOp class guides and think that they're wrong - that they pay insufficient attention, for example, to the utility of an ability in actual play rather than in some theoretical mathematical situation. I have players who have chosen a power upon level up by looking through a few books during the session and settling on one that looks useful/interesting to them.

Furthermore, what is the quintessence of classic D&D play? Emphasised by Gygax himself in his PHB, as well as by other authors of the period? It is the MU (and to a slightly lesser extent the cleric) choosing the right spell load out - which is optimised-combo-PC-building, but once per ingame day rather than once per level, and so measured in ingame rather than metagame terms. Schwalb even notes as much in his article! Does anyone think there won't be "class guides" for D&Dnext, advising on which spells are better and which aren't? (Especially given that there are quite subtle parameters to work with, given spell scaling plus tightly rationed high level spells.)

It's tricky to even play 4e non-optimized, as some amount of munchkining is assumed. The math assumes characters are stacking their to-hit stat and actively taking ability boosts to that stat, and taking complimentary feats and magic items while actively perusing your combat role. Being less effective hurts the entire party who is expected to synergize and all contribute equally to their role.

How is D&Dnext going to be any different in this respect? It still has to hit and damage bonuses that are driven by a main stat. It still has stat-gains and feats. It still has magic items, and players can have desires for those items and have their PCs search the gameworld for them.

It's not as if, in AD&D, the fighters didn't load upon on magic weapons and armour while letting the MUs and clerics take the wands and staves!

As soon as someone says "that isn't my experience with X" I begin mentally checking out of the argument.

Fair enough. I guess I think my experiences with game systems (including both 4e and AD&D) are relevant to assessing the claim that 4e ruined the great roleplaying that was at the core of AD&D play. Didn't see it, didn't happen.

I wasn't actually that annoyed by Schwalb's post - it's no different from dozens of other things I've read along those lines over the past 5 or 6 years. It's the rush of people to defend him, and explain how there is actually no denying that 3E and 4e did wreck the heart and soul of D&D, that's surprising. As someone who has found 4e to be the first edition of D&D to really give full effect to the promise I was made by the Foreword to Moldvay Basic, why am I precluded from denying that it wrecked the game? I think it realised the game.

How often have you spent the entire first session doing character creation? Should it take three or four hours to make a character.

This is a completely different point. It can take a whole session to make characters for Classic Traveller. Fate Core expects making characters to take a whole session. So does Burning Wheel. Are these all games that have destroyed roleplaying in the interests of munchkinisation?

 

[Mistwell]

Well, his naivete is unfortunate. Welcome to the internet, Mr. Schwalb.

That looks very cynical to me. You just reinforced the universal justification for bad behavior on the internet. That somehow bad behavior by people, who are personally attacking Schwabb (in this very thread, repeatedly) is justified because "welcome to the Internet, it's free speech!".

I don't think, "welcome to the internet" is a good response to bad behavior. We're seeing a lot of people direct anger at Schwabb, rather than his arguments. We're seeing a lot of people strawman his arguments, and project their emotions onto him, and all sorts of nasty behavior that should not be justified by "welcome to the internet, where you should expect and tolerate bad behavior when you make an argument that bothers people".

 

[Jester David]

We always use it for everyone.

Why in god's holy name would I not use it? I'll be using the 5E equivalent as soon as it's available, if we run 5E.

Essentials mode provides a particularly streamlined experience.

EDIT - Before it was available, we used paper. How long did it take to make the first four PCs? Under 45 minutes. I know because we were working against the clock because my brother's wife wanted him to do something in four hours and we wanted to get the whole adventure done!

(We did! )

The Character Builder is not mandatory though, nor is it available to everyone requiring either Windows for the downloadable version or an internet connection for the online.
It's not the baseline as the vast majority of D&D players do not use it and should not be assumed.
The fact that the online tool is all but required is fairly telling...

 

[pemerton]

For my group, exploration really is a huge component of what we do when we play D&D, and talking about how the PCs interact with specific things in the environment is a huge part of that exploration.

<snip>

Exploring the environment, thinking to examine the ray of sunlight to see if there is a trip wire, testing the moss-covered tile to see if it is a trap, that's fun D&D exploration!

<snip>

That stuff, for my group, is often more fun than combat. And we're all over 40 in my group, for what that is worth.

This is a clear statement of your preferences for D&D play.

My conception of what it means to play D&D is heavily shaped by the Foreword to Moldvay Basic (my first exposure to the game). Which is not about exploration. It is about defeating the Dragon Tyrant using the magic sword received from a mysterious benefactor. This emphasises not exploration but conflict.

For me, the heart and soul of roleplaying games, including D&D, is conflict - the PCs find themselves engaged in it, and the aim of play is for the players to resolve it. Exploration is, for me, a means to that end.

For a game focused on conflict, a good resolution system is important. (And of course "good" is a variable here, because in different moods one wants a resolution system to do different things. But I don't think it's a variable that ranges so widely that nothing useful can be said.) So is a good PC build system, that at a minimum lets players build PCs that have a desired orientation towards the conflicts the game will throw up.

I have never had trouble finding D&D story material to use to engage in my preferred style of play. The Keep on the Borderlands is ripe with conflict (between the inhabitants of the Keep and the humanoids; between the good folk of the Keep and the evil priest; etc). The OA modules are ripe with conflict. The Slaver modules are ripe with conflict. The D-series modules are ripe with conflict (including conflicts between NPCs, such as the drow and the mindflayers in D2). Over the years I have used a variety of resolution systems to help me play this material, however: B/X, AD&D, Rolemaster, and most recently 4e.

Historically, D&D has included exploration as a central part of the game for many players, but exploration has never been the heart and soul of the game for all players. For me, 4e is an appealing system not in spite of its downplaying of exploration in favour of conflict resolution, but because it subordinates exploration to conflict resolution - that is what makes it a "modern" rather than an "old school" game.

If, for the past 15 years, people have been playing the wrong game - a form of D&D that doesn't suit what they are looking for from an RPG - then hopefully they will find what they want in D&Dnext. But not everyone who enjoys 4e has either got stuck in the wrong game by mistake, or has given up on roleplaying for the mathematics of optimisation.

 

[Mistwell]

This is a clear statement of your preferences for D&D play.

Yes thank you for restating the obvious.

For a game focused on conflict

It's not. As you just said, this is a clear statement of your preferences for D&D play. But it's not a universal preference, and D&D in general is not "a game focused on conflict". Instead, as stated by the 5e devs, it's a game with three focuses: interaction, exploration, and combat. Some people like to focus more on one aspect than the others, some like to re-cast them as conflict, but the game isn't "focused" on any one aspect, or spinning any of them as "conflict".

Historically, D&D has included exploration as a central part of the game for many players, but exploration has never been the heart and soul of the game for all players.

No one thing has ever been the heart and soul of the game for all players, and nobody has claimed otherwise in this thread,

For me, 4e is an appealing system not in spite of its downplaying of exploration in favour of conflict resolution, but because it subordinates exploration to conflict resolution - that is what makes it a "modern" rather than an "old school" game.

I don't think that's what makes something a modern game, personally, but that's beside the point. You agreed many people like exploration, at least as much as they like conflict. So, can you see why a game that downplays one in favor of the other, rather than instead giving tools to downplay it if you wish or not downplay it if you wish, might rub the exploration (non-conflict) people the wrong way?

f, for the past 15 years, people have been playing the wrong game - a form of D&D that doesn't suit what they are looking for from an RPG - then hopefully they will find what they want in D&Dnext. But not everyone who enjoys 4e has either got stuck in the wrong game by mistake, or has given up on roleplaying for the mathematics of optimisation.

I agree. But the assumption that Schwabb doesn't also agree comes purely from the strawman you and others have constructed here, by removing some context from his post which runs contrary to that, and by also focusing on just the portions that reinforce it. He says in the same post, "I do not believe there is a right way or a wrong way to play this game. I know a great many people love to tinker, to build, and create. They see the character sheet as a blank screen, eager for new code, a canvas craving the brush. And that’s cool. But for me, I don’t want that experience anymore. I crave lighter fare."