D&D 4E Where was 4e headed before it was canned?

[Parmandur]

I played a lot of AD&D in the 90s, and saw a lot more being played - among friends, at clubs, at conventions. Very little of it - almost none - looked like Moldvay Basic/Cook and Marsh Expert. That is to say, almost no one was playing skilled-play dungeon crawls or hex-crawls. They were playing scenario/"quest"-oriented games of the sort that seem (to me) to be typical in accounts of 5e play.

Well, that seems typical of what I've heard of a lot of Basic play, too, beyond what the rules suggested, what people actually did. And continue to do.

 

[Garthanos]

Yet you can try, and sometimes that will save the day.

Point being defined things like these create implied limits on improvisation they are not really that completely open. My highlander spin off would modify any class with a disarm ability and not just make improvised ones have a higher success chance.

 

[pemerton]

System is ultimately unimportant in comparison to the people played with, but rules can get in the more or less, or be more or less elegant. The 5E rules allow for quick and elegant action resolution, without getting in the way.

<snip>

I'm not saying it is by any means wrong to prefer the 4E style, but I do find the ad hoc approach easier to improvise in play (which was the original point of the digression).

What's good for the goose surely is good for the gander. @Campbell has posted upthread that his enjoyment of 5e is curtailed by the fact that it's ad hoc approach means that the GM is the utlimate determiner of outcomes. I don't see why he is not entitled to his preference just as you are entitled to yours. Why is his prererence to be labelled as "dismissive"?

When it comes to elegance, the most elegant RPG of those I'm playing at the moment is Prince Valiant. The fact that few posters on these boards, and few RPGers more generally, seem to know much about it doesn't change the fact that - for me - it is an important consideration in my assessments of elegance.

And to the extent that the 5e elegance is set a DC, make a check - well as I've already posted that's no different from 4e, and so I don't feel the particular pull of that mode of elegance at all.

 

[Garthanos]

The implications were that those training from an early age could likely manage similar things with a somewhat heavier bow than he could do. He did test against some chain armor and had enough penetration to be useful in a war context but I am not sure I would want to hunt with that snap shot technique.

 

[Parmandur]

The implications were that those training from an early age could likely manage similar things with a somewhat heavier bow than he could do. He did test against some chain armor and had enough penetration to be useful in a war context but I am not sure I would want to hunt with that snap shot technique.

Fair enough: my point is, the higher level Fighters are entering preternatural territory with what they can do regularly, without overextension.

 

[pemerton]

Basically I dispute that there is more diversity in play of adventure gaming games than the character exploration games I tend to prefer. I reject the claim that Apocalypse World is more focused and narrow than Dungeons and Dragons.

<snip>

The thing about this argument is that it implies there is no value in games like Apocalypse World. It makes the claim that Dungeons and Dragons can easily provide the same play experience without a disciplined approach to running the game, impacting rules that showcase how broken these characters are, or unity of purpose at the table. I know this is false because I tried to do this for years before I found Apocalypse World.

I don't hav a strong view about diversity of play as such. I don't think it's a very well-defined notion eg because I'm not sure what the categories are and how to measure the differences between them.

But it is clear to me that there are play experiences that cannot be replicated using a 5e-style system. The starting point for explaining this is the fact that 5e is a very heavy, rigid system in its combat rules but inclines very close to GM-decides for non-combat (eg no system for finality of non-combat resolution). Related to this, it combines a collection of very tightly-defined resource management systems (hit points, rationed character abilities and in particular spells, gear) with resource-free resolution for many characters in many circumstances. This gives the GM a very determinative role in relation to setting the mechanics and hence determining outcomes.

The fact that many people enjoy these features of 5e doesn't change the fact that they are features that affect the play experience, opening up some but closing off others.

 

[Parmandur]

Point being defined things like these create implied limits on improvisation they are not really that completely open. My highlander spin off would modify any class with a disarm ability and not just make improvised ones have a higher success chance.

Which WotC makes every effort to disabuse whenever anyone approaches questions that way: see Jeremy Crawford's Sage Advice.

 

[Garthanos]

Fair enough: my point is, the higher level Fighters are entering preternatural territory with what they can do regularly, without overextension.

I find not reacting to and stopping only 1 enemy in passing to be well very mundane not mythic at all. AND they are over extending using that action surge

 

[Parmandur]

What's good for the goose surely is good for the gander. @Campbell has posted upthread that his enjoyment of 5e is curtailed by the fact that it's ad hoc approach means that the GM is the utlimate determiner of outcomes. I don't see why he is not entitled to his preference just as you are entitled to yours. Why is his prererence to be labelled as "dismissive"?

When it comes to elegance, the most elegant RPG of those I'm playing at the moment is Prince Valiant. The fact that few posters on these boards, and few RPGers more generally, seem to know much about it doesn't change the fact that - for me - it is an important consideration in my assessments of elegance.

And to the extent that the 5e elegance is set a DC, make a check - well as I've already posted that's no different from 4e, and so I don't feel the particular pull of that mode of elegance at all.

I gave that post by @Campbell a thumbs up, because it is fair.

The point is that the 5E system is the 4E system, with smoother and more transparent math and fewer limitations by forced rules, leaving room for free rulings on play. The original contention was that 4E encouraged improvised play more because of the restrictions, which is counter to observation of 5E in play.

 

[Parmandur]

I find not reacting to and stopping only 1 enemy in passing to be well very mundane not mythic at all. AND they are over extending using that action surge

Without using an Action Surge, still firing 40 arrows a minute.