D&D 4E Presentation vs design... vs philosophy

[Manbearcat]

Full disclosure: I haven't read the thread so I'm not commenting on the trajectory that its taken or any specific comments except for this one which has always bothered me (which was also an Edition War refrain in the 4e era):

'If everyone is special then no-one is."

I've never understood how this is anything more than basically a D&D genome epithet.

One of the fundamental spokes in the wheel of D&D play, as a Class-based system with inherent niche/role, is..."everyone is special!"

Even if you (somehow) disagree with this, tons of other games (TTRPGs from Torchbearer to Leverage to Apocalypse World and team-based sports like American Football and Baseball) have niche/role "everyone is special" built into their paradigm. And (I guess despite itself) everyone is, indeed, actually special.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Now you're taking things personally.

Don't.

I reserve the right to believe Paizo should have made other design decisions without that in any way intended as a slight to you.

I'm entirely confused by your statement being attached to the section you quoted.

I'm not saying that you are slighting me. In fact, the entire point of the section you quoted was discussing why it might be a good design decision to make it incredibly hard to make poor characters.

Because as much as you might want "your build choices to matter" there are other people out there who would be very comforted to know "you can't actually mess this up"

That has nothing to do with your opinion of Paizo and their decisions, except perhaps that you seem completely shocked that they are taking the route they are. You seem to think they are taking no design points that have any value.

No.

It means that if it isn't possible to create an unspecial character, it isn't possible to create a special character.

Again, what you are quoting and what you are saying seem disconnected to me. That section you quote is about what the line means in the movie.

But, I would say, that your line of thinking here does seem to betray the idea that we were discussing.

If it is not possible to mess up, then it isn't possible to do well. But, as much as you might enjoy the challenge of doing a well-designed character who is special, other people are going to get frustrated and upset about making a character who sucks.

Why can't it be a smaller curve? Why can't it be that most characters, even if generated completely randomly will be of average strength, and then those well-designed characters are just a little above them? Why does it have to be that there are bad options that you should never take? What does that add for the new person looking to try out this game they are uncertain of?

That's fairly disingenuous. While some campaigns might break up at 10th or below for other reasons, if a group really wants to play to high levels, the majority of the campaigns will reach 16th-20th level. I know, because while occasionally my campaigns die early, the vast majority make it because we are all on board to play the game to those levels.

If you are going to play with complete strangers, rather than friends, this sort of thing will happen more often. Strangers don't have nearly as much investment in things.

Max, you are wrong. Straight up, no point in denying it. Saying "if people just cared enough they'd play to higher levels" is dismissive and flat out wrong.

Groups get in fights.
People leave the area
People get new jobs
People get new relationships
People get new children
DMs get burnt out
Heck, sometimes they decide to stop a campaign and try a new one because they got a new idea.

This isn't a matter of "you can do it if you care enough." Life is complicated, and dismissing the fact that not all players get to choose when their campaigns and groups break apart, is rude and demeaning of yourself.

Sure, some groups can do it. Your group does it. But not everyone lives the same life with the same opportunities.

 

[Fanaelialae]

A

That's not the question I was discussing.

What is terribly surprising is why a game released in 2019 would want to share the same genetics as 4E.

4e was designed in response to 3.5.

PF2 was designed in response to PF (which, itself, was more or less also 3.5).

Hence, 4e and PF2 sprang from pretty much the same roots. At the end of their lifespans, the designers of each were probably responding to the same issues. The same things that they wished they could change about the games they'd been working on for a decade. What I'm basically trying to say is that, if you think about it, it's not really all that surprising that they ended up with similarities.

But... but... they didn't make their own thing* - they chased after the WotC of 2008!
*) remember, talking core philosophy here, as discussed in the OP

What I've been trying to explain is that I don't think that they chased after WotC 2008 at all. It's simply a case of convergent design, which might look that way to some.

To turn this into an analogy, let's assume you and I both leave from proximate locations and drive east. It's hardly inconceivable that our desitations might be proximate as well, or that my trip takes me past your destination. If you left just before me it might seem to you (or to a third party observing the trip) that I was following you. However, that would not actually being the case. We were simply heading in the same direction.

When you get down to it, the design philosophy of both games (4e and PF2) is solid. Some people might take exception with the implementation of those goals, but that's not the same thing as the goal itself.

 

[Maxperson]

Max, you are wrong. Straight up, no point in denying it. Saying "if people just cared enough they'd play to higher levels" is dismissive and flat out wrong.

Groups get in fights.
People leave the area
People get new jobs
People get new relationships
People get new children
DMs get burnt out
Heck, sometimes they decide to stop a campaign and try a new one because they got a new idea.

This isn't a matter of "you can do it if you care enough." Life is complicated, and dismissing the fact that not all players get to choose when their campaigns and groups break apart, is rude and demeaning of yourself.

Sure, some groups can do it. Your group does it. But not everyone lives the same life with the same opportunities.

I've been in 5 different groups over the last 30+ years that have wanted to play high level. All of them have succeeded. One of them made it to epic levels(3e) twice. Not every time, but most of the time. I find it really hard to believe that I've somehow won the lottery and hit the 1 in 300 million chance by being 5 for 5 on this.

It's not as tough as you make it out to be if the group as a whole cares and invests in playing to high level.

 

[Charlaquin]

I've been in 5 different groups over the last 30+ years that have wanted to play high level. All of them have succeeded. One of them made it to epic levels(3e) twice. Not every time, but most of the time. I find it really hard to believe that I've somehow won the lottery and hit the 1 in 300 million chance by being 5 for 5 on this.

It's not as tough as you make it out to be if the group as a whole cares and invests in playing to high level.

DNDBeyond data would seem to suggest that, yes, you did luck out, statistically at least. Although, the demographics you tend to associate are probably a factor. Rather than “you hit the lottery” I’d suggest you tend to associate with people with far more ability to make and keep a long-term commitment to a campaign than the average D&D player today.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I've been in 5 different groups over the last 30+ years that have wanted to play high level. All of them have succeeded. One of them made it to epic levels(3e) twice. Not every time, but most of the time. I find it really hard to believe that I've somehow won the lottery and hit the 1 in 300 million chance by being 5 for 5 on this.

It's not as tough as you make it out to be if the group as a whole cares and invests in playing to high level.

The statistics say that you did luck out.

And saying "well, I succeeded so if you cared enough you would succeed too" is again, dismissive and rude.

But, if you refuse to believe that your life and the challenges you've faced are not universally true for all players of the game, then that reflects on you.

I've lost good friends to a myriad of causes that have caused groups to disintegrate. Implying that I simply did not care enough to keep those people together and playing the game... I sincerely do not have words for that.

I think I'm done with this conversation. If you lack the ability to understand this, then I'd rather not dredge up memories of the past and get in a foul mood. Enjoy your group, enjoy your games, and hopefully they will continue to last far into the future.

 

[Garthanos]

I’ve heard it said that pre-4e D&D was about ordinary people becoming heroes, while 4e is about heroes becoming gods.

That quote from all I have read of 3e utterly ignores that version of the game or plugs its ears and eyes about the power of high level casters

 

[Umbran]

I know, because while occasionally my campaigns die early, the vast majority make it because we are all on board to play the game to those levels.

Oh, goodness. "My games do this, so of course this holds for everyone," is not a strong position.

 

[tetrasodium]

Sure.

But then again, that's only one side of the coin.

The other side is "your build choices matter".

Making it possible to cripple a character can be viewed as a small price well worth paying.

I believe such people exist. I don't believe the market is significant compared to a crunchier take on 3E/5E.

Not only do I agree completely & feel like people pointing at high level class/archtype features beyond the span of a typical campaign as shown by both anecdote & more importantly ddb's statistical data as if meaningful to gameplay are being disingenuous, but the 5e stargate thing seems to be tackling both of those issues despite its very early beta state. From the looks of things there will be at least a somewhat meaty skeleton worth of structure to draw from without needing to rebuild everything in 5e from scratch as a tome of houserules.

 

[Garthanos]

Now dailies I agree - but I'm personally glad they went away from fighter dailies. More diversity.

I like all classes to have big climactic abilities whether they are daily explicitly or not in fact daily magic is kind of meh rituals feel more authentic and less artificial. (or even the cantrips though those are much rarer in the stories)

And I like real encounter abilities like Tricks that might even only ever work once against an intelligent foe or similar things. (that is all they usually need to work)