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

[prabe]

I think the unified structure played a lot into the perception of samey-ness. But whenever I’ve said as much, people have claimed that no, the unified structure wasn’t the problem for them, it was the powers themselves. Obviously different people found it samey for different reasons, but it is interesting to me that whenever I try to make a case for a particular aspect of 4e having been quite varied, it seems not to be the main thing the person I’m making the case to found too samey about the game.

Must feel kinda like Whack-a-Mole. At least in my case, I'm operating in complete ignorance of the game.

 

[Oofta]

I think the unified structure played a lot into the perception of samey-ness. But whenever I’ve said as much, people have claimed that no, the unified structure wasn’t the problem for them, it was the powers themselves. Obviously different people found it samey for different reasons, but it is interesting to me that whenever I try to make a case for a particular aspect of 4e having been quite varied, it seems not to be the main thing the person I’m making the case to found too samey about the game.

Well, it's not like there's a secret "this is why you should not like 4E" handbook. Or is there ...

 

[Charlaquin]

Must feel kinda like Whack-a-Mole. At least in my case, I'm operating in complete ignorance of the game.

A bit, yeah. To be clear though, I don’t think people are being disingenuous about it. Different people liked and disliked the game for different reasons.

 

[Minigiant]

.

Could they have done better than "hard" AEDU for everyone if they'd been allowed to delay 4e when they went back to basics 10 months in and had only fourteen left to finish the whole thing? Probably. I think I did in my retroclone (AEDU is still a thing, but the Archivist Wizard is almost all D, while fighters can be largely but not entirely A if they choose).

I think they needed that extra year.

---


Personally, I feel sameyness in every edition of D&D. No designer of D&D really tried to separate every "power source" and "sub power source" and make them it's own thing.

This is how you have the 15 types of D&D. Each "source" and "subsource" done different ways in different editions and settings. 5e is closes with base combat, base skills, spells, manuevers, ki, rage, sorcery points, and rage all as sub-power sources.

 

[Manbearcat]

Different implementations work for different games. I wouldn't expect MTG to feel much like D&D any more than I'd expect my bicycle to feel much like my car.

The variable of game doesn't seem relevant to me. What we're trying to control for is (a) game with decision-points featuring resource management + synergy + multivariate obstacles working in concert to overcome, (b) a significantly unified mechanical framework with (c) the only differences being the feel of playing the built decks and the way those built decks emerge as they interface with (a).

IMO, its literally the perfect Rorschach Test. It should uncover whatever manifestation of neurological diversity is happening here between folks that feel 4e is samey vs those that don't.

 

[Oofta]

The variable of game doesn't seem relevant to me. What we're trying to control for is (a) game with decision-points featuring resource management + synergy + multivariate obstacles to overcome, (b) a significantly unified mechanical framework with (c) the only differences being the feel of playing the built decks and the way those built decks emerge as they interface with (a).

IMO, its literally the perfect Rorschach Test. It should uncover whatever manifestation of neurological diversity is happening here between folks that feel 4e is samey vs those that don't.

The fact that all classes in 4E combat felt like a card game (to me) was one of the issues I had with it. If you don't understand why what made classes feel generic I'm afraid I can't help you.

It's often that way with feelings and perceptions, one that I'm not sure has a clean answer.

 

[Manbearcat]

The fact that all classes in 4E combat felt like a card game (to me) was one of the issues I had with it. If you don't understand why what made classes feel generic I'm afraid I can't help you.

It's often that way with feelings and perceptions, one that I'm not sure has a clean answer.

Well, here we don't disagree, but feeling like a card game is not the same thing as saying something is "samey."

I've said many times that 4e D&D reminds me of some kind of combination of MtG meets an indie TTRPG with a specific structure like Mouse Guard. I've also said in the past that I don't think its a coincidence as (a) Heinsoo loved indie games and (b) Magic team members at WotC apparently had some input on the game's design.

Many of my players who are familiar with MtG have stated that playing their character feels like playing a magic deck (both the decision-point inputs and outputs and the thematic diversity), except they've used it as an extremely positive descriptor.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't feel the force of this at all.

When playing a RPG it's always open to the table to do whatever they want. Game rules don't exercise any sort of coercive power.

In 1e-2e and somewhat in 5e, this is correct: you can try anything and if there's not a rule for it the DM is empowered* to make one up. In 3e-4e it isn't; the philosophy there was that the rules were the limits and if there wasn't a rule for it, you couldn't try it.

* - see what I did there? It becomes relevant in a moment...

Being empowered

, in the context of a RPG, means having the tools and techniques to produce the desired experience.

Gaaah! You're making the same mistake as [I forget who, upthread] and equating empowerment with support. They are not the same!

Sure, 4e gives its DMs lots of support; and good on it for doing so - but it doesn't give 'em any power to go with it, when compared to 1e-2e-5e.

Personally, when I look at 5e I don't feel terribly empowered because, for me, it seems to offer no answer to the crucial question how to enforce the 6-8 encounter "adventuring day"? other than use GM force to maintain the correlation between the pacing of encounters, the passage of ingame time, and the taking by the PCs of rests. There are other features also that don't appeal to me - I have a default preference for situation-oriented rather than scenario-oriented RPGing - but the point I've just mentioned is the main one for me.

You ain't gonna like this, but GM Force is power; and a system that allows or even encourages it is thus by definition more empowering than one which doesn't. Rulings-not-rules is power, ditto.

And I happily frame it as a lack of empowerment - as in, the game doesn't provide a capacity that I regard as crucial for RPGing, namely, that the system itself operates to ensure it's own smooth functioning without the need for injections of GM force from outside. (Of course it's far from the only RPG to have this problem - but I don't play those ones either!)

A system that smoothly runs itself may or may not be empowering to its GMs, depending on what that system does while running smoothly.

 

[FrogReaver]

@Oofta and @FrogReaver and anyone else who felt 4e characters were same due to some aspect of unified mechanical structure.

I’m curious. Have you guys played Magic the Gathering?

Yes

If so, what do you feel about the deck archetypes/themes and the unified mechanical structure? Does it feel “samey” to you in the same way that 4e does? If not, why?

No. But I must caution you - the unified mechanical structure in MTG isn't as samey as 4e's. It not like they said to everyone, you get 1 creature, 1 instant, 1 enchatment, 1 artifact, and you get 1 mana per turn, etc. It's not like they said all your creatures must be 2/2's that do some small additional effect. All your instants must do 2 damage with a small additional effect, etc.

There's alot more variability in MTG cards and decks than there is in 4e powers. IMO.

There's also different resource rates, different creature rates, different instant rates, different enchantment rates, different needed land rates, along with very different creatures, very different instants, very different enchantments, etc.

 

[Manbearcat]

In 1e-2e and somewhat in 5e, this is correct: you can try anything and if there's not a rule for it the DM is empowered* to make one up. In 3e-4e it isn't; the philosophy there was that the rules were the limits and if there wasn't a rule for it, you couldn't try it.

Lanefan, you've been enough of these conversations to know that this is just abjectly not true for 4e.

Lets you and I do an experiment.

Give me a good faith declaration in 4e D&D by (let's say) a Fighter of Paragon Tier and I'll tell you exactly how its resolved at the table. Assuming its good faith (eg not "I shoot an arrow to the moon") and not against the rules (trying to use a Ritual without the appropriate Trained Skill; Arcana, Nature, Religion), the answer is pretty much always going to be "yes" or "roll the dice (and here is what you roll)."

So give me an example of a good faith action declaration by a Paragon Tier Fighter that you think the system can't handle, please.