D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[SirAntoine]

I strongly disagree. If the world conditions itself on the party, that's not a sandbox.

If the party goes down to level X of the dungeon (or equivalent), they're going to find level X monsters there. They won't suddenly become level II monsters just because it's a second-level party. The PCs choose their own level of risk/reward.

I'm pretty sure Mr. Gygax would have said no, but sandbox may be a modern term and it can depart from his advice.

 

[Imaro]

In a sandbox game, players are expected to be more proactive on all three pillars. Retreating from combat is more tolerated; declining a quest is okay; NOT pushing the big red button marked "don't push" is acceptable; and if you do any of these things, you accept the consequences, whatever they may be.

In non-sandbox play the DM takes more responsibility for what happens to the party, on all three pillars.

I can definitely see that.

 

[Imaro]

Even in a sandbox the DM has a lot of responsibility. Encounters should be kept down to within a certain level range.

I disagree with this... it is on the players to judge what encounters they can handle and which ones they cannot.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm pretty sure Mr. Gygax would have said no, but sandbox may be a modern term and it can depart from his advice.

I have no reason to think that Gygax was running sandbox games. My impression, which could be wrong, is that he wouldn't have let you onto level X without beating level IX first. That's compatible with sandbox play but not a requirement.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

When did I say "4e is a bad game"? When did I say "4e is a low quality game"?

Well let's see...

Also, you inject words like "alien" in where "not nearly as good as other games on the market" is a much better fit.

(emphasis mine) How is that not saying that 4e is not a good game?

I have repeated over and over that 4E is an AWESOME game at delivering a specific playing style and experience. I have stated that it does not do a good job of delivering the experience a lot of other people want, and that a lot of other people experienced in older editions. But I love Pathfinder, and I would have no argument against someone who said Pathfinder fails at delivering a fun game for them. It is not pejorative when someone else says they don't like Pathfinder. It is not pejorative when someone says they don't like 4E. (For the record, I've said that 4E is ok, but would be lower than 10th on my preferred list. There are just much better options on the market. Since I don't play 5 different games, the real difference is insignificant.)

See, here's the thing. I can name probably five overall fantasy game systems that aren't D&D or essentially the exact same mechanics recapitulated (DW, WoD, Exalted, 13A, and...Warhammer) Add PF in, even though it's still basically 3e at its core, and that's six. Throw in maybe LL and S&W for the old school love. If 4e is so not-good-enough that it wouldn't even be in your top 10, is it any wonder that I think you think it's not good, since you apparently think it's worse than two games I don't even know about?

And as for your apparent repeated statements of the awesomeness of 4e for its style? I haven't seen you say that once during my participation in this thread. If you said it prior to my reading, I would have no idea. I have not, prior to this post, seen anything which suggested at the time that you had all that many positive thoughts about 4e.

Bottom line, you are completely misrepresenting what I have said. In common 4e fan tradition, you take anything that is critical and translate it in your mind to personal attacks and being mean.

No, I'm not. I welcome criticism of 4e: its combat can be ponderous, its presentation was all wrong, it didn't think enough about balancing non-combat resources until far too late, and it occasionally didn't go far enough in slaying sacred cows (low-skill Fighters, for example). I don't welcome people saying it's a boardgame when it isn't, and I don't welcome people saying it is, and I quote, "not nearly as good as other games on the market."

 

[Imaro]

This was what I felt was one of the weaknesses of 4e, being bound by the powers of your class for your attacks so that, without multiclassing and picking up powers from the ranger, the fighter was always limited to melee attacks with his class powers.

I think that on top of the fact that multi-classing was pretty anemic with just the corebooks and thus made it a hard choice to try and be versatile by jumping through inconvenient hoops as opposed to just sticking with what your class did best (your 4e role). This I think may have also added to the perception that classes were pretty much straight jackets. I mean IMO it kinda sucked that in order to get a power from another class you had to take a multi-class feat (no power gained), then spend another feat and trade one of your own class powers (2 feats + a power)... to get one power from another class. After the first one it was still a feat +power to get one power...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

No, I'm not. I welcome criticism of 4e: its combat can be ponderous, its presentation was all wrong, it didn't think enough about balancing non-combat resources until far too late, and it occasionally didn't go far enough in slaying sacred cows (low-skill Fighters, for example). I don't welcome people saying it's a boardgame when it isn't, and I don't welcome people saying it is, and I quote, "not nearly as good as other games on the market."

I don't welcome endless 4E apologetics on a 5E thread in a 5E forum.

 

[Imaro]

and I don't welcome people saying it is, and I quote, "not nearly as good as other games on the market."

Wait so now people can't say they think there are better games than 4e... because that's exactly what that statement is saying. Here's a few other fantasy rpg's that aren't in your list just to help expand your posibilities...

Dragon Age
Earthdawn
Runequest
A Song of Ice and Fire
Shadows of Esteren
Shadow, Sword and Spell
Legends of Anglerre
Reign
The One Ring
Beasts and Barbarians
Stormbringer
Barbarians of Lemuria
Jaws of the Six Serpents

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Wait so now people can't say they think there are better games than 4e... because that's exactly what that statement is saying. Here's a few other fantasy rpg's that aren't in your list just to help expand your posibilities...

Dragon Age
Earthdawn
Runequest
A Song of Ice and Fire
Shadows of Esteren
Shadow, Sword and Spell
Legends of Anglerre
Reign
The One Ring
Beasts and Barbarians
Stormbringer
Barbarians of Lemuria
Jaws of the Six Serpents

There is a world of difference between saying "I like other games better" or even "There are other games designed to give experiences I like better," and saying a game is "not nearly as good as other games on the market." The first clearly indicates it's an opinion, and says nothing negative about anything. The second makes no judgments about any games at all, only about experiences. Only the third statement actually calls anything not good, and only the third statement describes the quality of the game itself, not the taste of the speaker or the experiences the speaker seeks.

However, @emdw45 is correct. My discussion of 4e is well and truly off-topic, now, so I will stop. I apologize for derailing the thread.

 

[LostSoul]

I disagree with this... it is on the players to judge what encounters they can handle and which ones they cannot.

I personally take it a little further. I think the players need a way to judge the risk of potential encounters before they encounter them. Similar to the general paradigm of deeper dungeon levels = more risk, I believe that the players need some kind of information like that in other environments (wilderness and urban). There are, of course, a number of ways to achieve this result.

I tie risk to terrain type; this has its drawbacks (you'll never randomly encounter a randomly-generated red dragon overflying the plains; red dragons placed on the map before play are a different matter) but it's quick and easy to DM and does the job. One thing that I've never been quite sure about is that I give mountains and swamps the highest amount of risk. They're also the most difficult terrain to travel through. I'd like it if plains were the most dangerous, so that you have to make a choice between danger and speed of travel. But plains don't seem "scary" to me in the way that swamps and mountains do. (I guess rivers and mountain passes are a way to deal with this.)