D&D 3E/3.5 Thoughts of a 3E/4E powergamer on starting to play 5E

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[happyhermit]

...

The 'grid' is just a way of simplifying the tracking of range/area/movement/positioning, which 5e and 3e both did in feet (as did 2e, IIRC, while earlier eds used scale 'inches'). They're really identical as far as that goes. 3.5 made a point of recommending the grid, and 5e of 'defaulting' to TotM, but neither handles either grid or TotM or measured scale distance, for that matter, any better or worse (and they only handle the grid slightly differently).
...

3e seems rather distant to me at the moment, but there are a few things that from my perspective made it less friendly to TotM. I don't recall the rules for determining spell effects and such without minis in 3e, but the ones in 5e work (not that I use them typically). Range increments in 3e, as opposed to close/long ranges in 5e. The way Aoos were handled and the part they played in the game. Plus just the more general problem where a lot of overhead and math makes maintaining a mental picture more difficult for GM and players.

Granted, the differences were smaller than when comparing to 4e, which I have dealt with more recently, but 5e is more friendly to it than 3e IMO.

As a side note, IME actual real world distances are MUCH more useful than things like "squares" for non-grid play, at least with those I have played with. I much prefer the systems go abstract entirely or use real world measurements that can then be abstracted as necessary. In 4e we found ourselves making constant either mental or physical calculations to try to imagine anything. A 1yard or 1m grid size is much better, because then you can just replace the words entirely, but feet are what we measure things with everyday.

5e is by no means perfect for theater of the mind, and other systems are more focused on it, but it works pretty well IME.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't recall the rules for determining spell effects and such without minis in 3e

Same as every other edition, the spell had a range & area effect, the caster placed the area, if you were in the area effect, you were affected. Only difference is one of units. In 1e the range would have been in inches (at a scale of 1:10' or 1:10yds, depending) and the AE in 1:10' inches or spelled out in feet, both possibly using some formula. In 2e C&T and 3e feet with an assumed 5' = 1" scale, in 4e squares at a 1" = 5' scale. And, in 2e & 5e it's feet with no assumed scale (IIRC). While not assuming a scale may make using a grid /slightly/ harder (you need to pick a scale) it's not like 2e worked poorly with the 1e scale, and 5e has a module that uses the C&T/3e/4e scale. FWIW.

As a side note, IME actual real world distances are MUCH more useful than things like "squares" for non-grid play, at least with those I have played with.

I found it easier to handle 3D combats 'TotM' with less granular units, like cubes, rather than RL units, which always tempted me to use greater precision...

I much prefer the systems go abstract entirely or use real world measurements that can then be abstracted as necessary.

Abstract works so much better for TotM, IMHO.

5e is by no means perfect for theater of the mind, and other systems are more focused on it, but it works pretty well IME.

It's certainly workable enough for me. I just find it no more so than any other edition of D&D.

Even within our niche, there are a variety of interests. And, for that matter, a variety of dislikes. Sure, I suppose most (not all - trying to avoid the fallacy) of us can be united under a generic nerd culture banner, but still.

Not just generic nerds but the tiny minority of nerds who are fans of D&D. And that's all 5e was trying to bring together: "everyone whose ever loved D&D."

If you don't like 5e, don't feel included under it's big tent, then, clearly, you were just leading D&D on....
;P

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Manbearcat]

By the way, somebody compared 4e to Dungeon World but I really struggle with that comparison.

Dungeon World has even fewer specific abilities than 5e. Almost everything you do (or try to do) falls under a very general/broad skill, like "Defy Danger" or "Spout Lore", and every character can use any of them. The DM then has nearly unlimited authority to interpret the dice results.

I only vaguely recall the post you mention, but it may have been in reference to how constrained the DM is with regard to the rules. Dungeon World GMs are very constrained by D&D standards. The rules in the GM section of the Dungeon World specifically say how the agenda, principles, moves, fronts, etc. are a prescription for how they are to run the game rather than tips or guidelines on how best to play. A common perception is that D&D 4e DMs are constrained in a similar fashion and, while I find this to be true in practice (even when I run D&D 4e), it's not true by the rules.

Of posters on this board, I think the one who has the most to say about similarities between GMing 4e and GMing DW is @Manbearcat.

On the player/PC build side, I would point to class/character abilities that are designed to deliver thematic/archetypical outcomes rather than model ingame causal processes. (In 5e terms, stuff like (say) action surge or second wind but more of it, with greater width and depth.)

On the GM side, I would point to the whole orientation towards framing "entry points" rather than outcomes, and "playing to see what happens".

I also think it is a bit misleading to say that "a Dungeon World GM has almost unlimited authority to interpret the dice results". That doesn't convey how DW is meant to be run. (And saying the same thing about a 4e GM adjudicating a skill challenge would be similarly misleading.) The GM is expected to interpret the dice results having very close regard to the fictional positioning of the character, the broader fictional context, the player's stated intent for his/her PC, the thematic/genre context, etc, always pushing towards conflict and towards clear stakes that speak to the players' (and PCs') expressed concerns.

Another fantasy RPG that resembles DW in this sort of way (and hence whose GMing advice is very helpful for 4e!) is Burning Wheel. The key stricture that BW states for GMs is lifted straight from another Vincent Baker game, Dogs in the Vineyard, and is expressly labelled "Vincent's Admonition" (see eg BW Gold, p 72): say yes or roll the dice. Luke Crane glosses it in this way:

When there is conflict, roll the dice. There is no social agreement for the resolution of conflict in this game. Roll the dice and let the obstacle system guide the outcome. Success or failure doesn’t really matter. So long as the intent of the task is clearly stated, the story is going somewhere.​

That is good advice for 4e too, in my view. (Though 4e uses very different conventions for setting DCs/obstacles, which make it much less gritty than BW.)

I don't have a lot to add to this. Iserith and pemerton pretty much nailed it. I could post the present DW characters in the game I'm running and speak to their breadth of resources and ability to impress their will upon the shared fiction...but I think I'm actually going to post something pithy instead!

GM Instruction

GM Latitude

GM Overhead

When I'm evaluating a game I'm going to run, those are three areas that are very important to me. Those areas are where you will find major overlap in DW, 4e, MHRP, and BW. Significant overlap.

And that dovetails with this thread in general. My guess is that TCO isn't just talking about the intricacies and granularity of PC build and resolution mechanics when he is talking about longing for 4e. My guess is that a lot of players (and GMs) who prefer 4e over something else (such as 5e) is because of the three component parts of GMing above and how those affect play and the general table aesthetic (both tangibly and intangibly).

5e has some small GM Instruction overlap with those games (Fail Forward, Success With Complications, hooking into the Inspiration reward cycle), but there are a lot of central areas where it is much more open and neutral (by design).

However, with respect to GM Latitude and GM Overhead, a game like 5e is very different than games like 4e, DW, MHRP and BW. The affect on play, because of this, is not insignificant (for all participants).


...does that count as pithy?

 

[happyhermit]

Same as every other edition, the spell had a range & area effect, the caster placed the area, if you were in the area effect, you were affected. Only difference is one of units. ...

Sorry, what I was getting at is there are specific rules and charts in the DMG to handle various spell effects, and mobs and such when not using visual representations. They are not extensive to say the least, and I am not saying they are great, but they do work.

I found it easier to handle 3D combats 'TotM' with less granular units, like cubes, rather than RL units, which always tempted me to use greater precision...

Abstract works so much better for TotM, IMHO.

It's certainly workable enough for me. I just find it no more so than any other edition of D&D.
...

It may very well be a matter of different persons. When discussing this stuff online, I often get reminded of just how different the people playing are, not just their play-styles. I hear people say things like I have no idea how far x is, for instance and it catches me off-guard.

A large percentage of people I play with work outside all day doing things like farming, construction, forestry, etc and since they rely on it so much, are rather good at imagining and estimating distances. The rest of them are mostly engineer types or artists, who also have a good grasp on visualizing distances. The rest do seem to generally have a bit more trouble visualizing, which just means they tend to ask a few more questions.

For us, "squares" were completely useless in ToTM, as we all had to essentially convert to real units constantly in order to visualize anything. Not to mention visualizing effects all happening in cubes and square shapes.

I have run numerous 5e games with ToTM, and it works wonderfully. The only thing that I have noticed, having also played a few grid combats in 5e, is that certain things (for example, mobility) become less useful in a ToTM game. I've never seen it taken in ToTM, whereas it's a pretty decent feat for a grid game.

Feats like that are a part of why I found ToTM in 4e to be less than satisfying for all involved. Just as an example, there were sooo many forced movement powers that push/pull/slid things around. On a grid, that seemed pretty cool much of the time. ToTM it often led to the GM either having to "make it cool", keep track of things with absolute granularity so that they were essentially using a grid, or just let it pass as less than stellar.

5e does have a few things that fall into the same trap, but I have found it easier to make it work or "make it cool", partially because they happen to be much fewer and far between.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If you have a problem with "entitled DMs" (whatever that even means), why are you playing with them? I humbly recommend playing the way you like, with like-minded individuals.

I do There's just an extremely flagrant example of DM entitlement earlier on this thread.

I think the two sides of this coin are closer in actual play than either realize. The sticking point is the level of perceived support/exclusion from the system. People want the system itself to validate their preference and suppress what they don't like, instead of dealing with it at the table.

The high point of DM entitlement was in the 90s with the so-called Storyteller System being the intellectual leader of the RPG market and 2e following its lead. A GM is not an &@#% Storyteller! The story emerges from the actions of the PCs - and both The Forge and the nailing everything down of 3.0 were attempts to correct this. (The post-Forge games being IMO vastly preferable as an approach).

I don't have a lot to add to this. Iserith and pemerton pretty much nailed it. I could post the present DW characters in the game I'm running and speak to their breadth of resources and ability to impress their will upon the shared fiction...but I think I'm actually going to post something pithy instead!

GM Instruction

GM Latitude

GM Overhead

An intersting way of breaking tings down, thanks

 

[Tony Vargas]

It may very well be a matter of different persons. When discussing this stuff online, I often get reminded of just how different the people playing are, not just their play-styles.

It depends on what you're used to visualizing, and how you're used to thinking about things.

If find visualizing how a 5x5x5 cube on a grid intersects with the spaces of creatures on that grid (and in the implied 3D grid above it), with cube and spaces all 'snapping to' the grid easier than visualizing a 15' 90-degree cone interesting with potential targets of different sizes, orientations, and elevations that can be in any position relative to eachother, the (possibly irregular) surface, and the origin of the cone. I may be unusual in that. :shrug:

OTOH, it's easier than either of those if the effect in question simply 'attacks 1d3 Close enemies,' as in 13A.

On a grid, that seemed pretty cool much of the time. ToTM it often led to the GM either having to "make it cool", keep track of things with absolute granularity so that they were essentially using a grid, or just let it pass as less than stellar.

Nod. TotM, without anything to facilitate it, simply can't handle the range of things that you might be able to do with some visual aids. It's a limitation of the style, just as needing a play surface is a limitation of using tokens of some sort, or losing granularity is a limitation of using a grid to simplify the use of a scale with a play surface.

 

[Ancalagon]

This thread is growing quickly, so I'll answer this one before I forget

I feel you've somewhat missed my point. It relates back to the discussion with [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] about player agency. I'm also not sure how you are both denying making value judgements and saying that decisions make less sense. That looks like a (negative or pejorative) value judgement to me. (And [MENTION=23]Ancalagon[/MENTION] said that the issue of retreating is a "bad gaming" problem. In agreeing with that, you seem to be sharing in the (negative, pejorative) value judgement.)

I have a value that metagaming is bad. It's hard to avoid, but it's bad. Are you saying that metagaming is *good*?

To apply this to retreating: if I, in playing my character, don't actually know what my chances of retreat are, and have good reason to think that if I retreat I will be hunted down, but do know, roughly, what my chances of success in battle are, and furthermore I know that battle is not certain death, then it is rational for me to battle. In other words, one consequence of having relative certainty around the combat rules, yet relative obscurity around retreating, is that fighting battles becomes a part of most rational character's motivations.

I'm sorry but I don't follow at all. If you are worried about being hunted down by enemy X, then you should be even more worried to be in enemy X's killzone. If you back off and now the ambushers elect to follow you - you're *better off*! You went from fighting on the enemy's chosen battle ground to some patch of land which favors the enemy less (or not at all). Heck if you manage to retreat quickly enough you might be able to ambush the pursuers and gain the upper hand.

In 5e, you could allow a player to spend Inspiration to escape without needing to make a check; we might add that players without inspiration canhave their PCs come along for the ride provided they're in the minority rather than the majority, but they are automatically reduced to zero hp as they flee, and have to be dragged out by their comrades.

Why would you want to do that? Play it out! It's a fight. It' not the heroic "we shall prevail!!!" narrative that some people have said is baked into 4e (I don't have the 4e experience to know if this is accurate or not), but it's a valid encounter.

 

[pemerton]

Use one of your attacks (or help from a buddy) to knock an enemy prone, and the rest of your attacks to attack him at advantage. Then retreat 30'. He gets exactly one opportunity attack on you, at disadvantage for being prone, while you just got a full attack sequence at advantage, minus whatever it took to push him prone, on him. You're doubling or tripling your efficiency in this combat (depending on how high your Athletics skill is and how many buddies you've got), compared to just flailing away with your attack rolls every round.

I don't know enough about real-world hand-to-hand combat to know if this is a common and/or well-regarded tactic.

But it doesn't resonate with my personal sense of D&D genre, which is a mix of LotR, REH Conan, the 70s and 80s Marvel Conan comics, the film Excalibur, and a few other bits-and-pieces.

I've got nothing against the mechanical elements of the tactic: perform an action that grants advantage and then improves your action economy as against your opponent. Within the mechanical framework of D&D, that is one good way of establishing a high degree of combat superiority.

For me, it's the fiction that seems wonky, relative to (my personal sense of) genre.

Can you do the same thing with some sort of dazing rather than proning attack?