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

[Neonchameleon]

Nothing, really. The difference is in how the book speaks to the DM. The 4e DMG gives much more constraint to the DM in its language, so it discourages the DM from stepping out of the boundaries and creating a new rule or altering rules. Other DMGs encourage it.

Take page 42 of the DMG. It's very clear on informing the DM on how to rule improvised actions. You use the table for damage, rather than coming up with something. You give +2/-2, rather than, up to +2/-2 or "We suggest +2/-2, but it's up to you." It's very constraining on the DM. The DM has to fight the PG 42 rules in order to go outside of them, rather than being empowered to do so.

Indeed. Take page 42 - and then compare it to 5e where it's basically "Advantage or quits". On its own that would be the same guidance. But Page 42 (a) declares +2/-2 to be an explicit guideline, meaning that other tools can be used, (b) doesn't have the hard-cap on one case of advantage, and (c) then gives other options. Even by your own standards 4e is more empowering here.

There is no "has to fight the rules on page 42". Page 42 is explicitly presented as DM tools. Having a hammer to hand doesn't make it any harder for me to search through my toolshed to find the mallet even if it does mean I'm more likely to reach for the hammer.

 

[Maxperson]

Indeed. Take page 42 - and then compare it to 5e where it's basically "Advantage or quits". On its own that would be the same guidance. But Page 42 (a) declares +2/-2 to be an explicit guideline, meaning that other tools can be used, (b) doesn't have the hard-cap on one case of advantage, and (c) then gives other options. Even by your own standards 4e is more empowering here.

There is no "has to fight the rules on page 42". Page 42 is explicitly presented as DM tools. Having a hammer to hand doesn't make it any harder for me to search through my toolshed to find the mallet even if it does mean I'm more likely to reach for the hammer.

5e's philosophy is rulings over rules. The entire nature of 5e is empowering the DM to ignore, change or add any rule he likes, whenever he likes. Sorry, but no, 4e is not more empowering than that.

 

[Charlaquin]

We’re going around in circles. 4e supports its DMs with robust systems and tools, and gives them permission to use them or not to use them. 5e supports its DMs by giving them a very simple, intuitive framework and otherwise staying out of their way. If you want to call one of these “empowering” and one of them not, that’s your call, but whatever you call it, they both support their DMs in different ways, and people are likely to prefer one or the other.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Cool story, but practice and repetition still enable those guys to do that to those particular walls. PCs aren't going to be able to do that on random walls and such that they encounter, just as those guys wouldn't. Climb them sure. Climb them at those speeds, no.

At 1st heroic tier, when they are matched with people able to use Spider Climb, Levitate and Fly, I can see trained PCs going up that wall, slowly but steadily, checking handholds as they go etc.

At a tier where they need to be equal in general capabilities to people who can teleport across continents, transform into dragons, and stop time, I'm not going to have a problem with a martial character climbing a wall that fast.

 

[Umbran]

We’re going around in circles. 4e supports its DMs with robust systems and tools, and gives them permission to use them or not to use them. 5e supports its DMs by giving them a very simple, intuitive framework and otherwise staying out of their way.

Yep. And now, folks should ask themselves a question, for their own minds...

What is the purpose and benefit of arguing over a game that's been out of print for five years?

There are discussions of older games which help us gain understanding of game design and philosophy. Then, there are other arguments that are about tribalism and being right, and these latter are not constructive. Ask yourself, in your heart of hearts, which this really is for you.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Nothing, really. The difference is in how the book speaks to the DM. The 4e DMG gives much more constraint to the DM in its language, so it discourages the DM from stepping out of the boundaries and creating a new rule or altering rules. Other DMGs encourage it.

Take page 42 of the DMG. It's very clear on informing the DM on how to rule improvised actions. You use the table for damage, rather than coming up with something. You give +2/-2, rather than, up to +2/-2 or "We suggest +2/-2, but it's up to you." It's very constraining on the DM. The DM has to fight the PG 42 rules in order to go outside of them, rather than being empowered to do so.

Max, that is a rather weak presentation.

Very few people take such an explicit stance on the rules that advice for the GM that says "you give a +2 or -2 bonus to the action" is going to be carved into steel upon the high mountains. It is very easy to understand that that is simply the baseline, the starting point, for adjudicating quickly.

And. I will go ahead and tie this back to a design philosophy. In a game like Dungeons and Dragons, which has had a strong tradition of homebrewing from the very beginning of its existence. How much do we really need to state "you can choose to change these rules"?

Because, I don't think I would see 4e as disempowering simply because it did not tell the DM, "you can change any rule in this book, these are simply guidelines" because I feel like it is understood that that is how DnD works.

 

[Umbran]

And. I will go ahead and tie this back to a design philosophy. In a game like Dungeons and Dragons, which has had a strong tradition of homebrewing from the very beginning of its existence. How much do we really need to state "you can choose to change these rules"?

That depends - how many people picking up the rules are aware of the tradition?

If you are picking up a new game, because you were an active player of a prior edition, then you've probably been exposed to the idea. If you are a new player, picking it up for the first time and reading the rules as your only guide, the tradition is unknown to you, and so the text will dominate your initial approach to the game.

 

[FrogReaver]

It was how we played it and how it was run under multiple DMs. It may have been a mistake but it was not a misrepresentation of how we (including a half dozen other LFR DMs) understood it to work. I'm not about to try to hunt down whether using a magical dagger changed anything, but with the wording of how all magical weapons returned instantaneously it may well have.

I believe the magical weapon requirement was the important factor. I think you played it right and probably just didn't ever have someone use the power without a magic weapon.

 

[FrogReaver]

And. I will go ahead and tie this back to a design philosophy. In a game like Dungeons and Dragons, which has had a strong tradition of homebrewing from the very beginning of its existence. How much do we really need to state "you can choose to change these rules"?

Homebrewing isn't what anyone's discussing. You tend to inject tangential concepts into the discussion as if they were they main point. Makes it difficult to have a meaningful discussion.

What is being said by "you can change these rules" isn't about homebrew. It's about not having to follow RAW to the letter in every case - and doing that isn't necessarily homebrew. Games like 3.5e and 4e had the mindset of doing most everything by RAW in my experience. 5e lifted that expectation and it was directly related to how 3.5e and 4e games tended to be ran.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That depends - how many people picking up the rules are aware of the tradition?

If you are picking up a new game, because you were an active player of a prior edition, then you've probably been exposed to the idea. If you are a new player, picking it up for the first time and reading the rules as your only guide, the tradition is unknown to you, and so the text will dominate your initial approach to the game.

That is a fair point.

For me, I guess that is what the role of the community is for. Maybe it is because I've grown up in this internet age, but I think if I was joining into a game in the 4th edition of that game, then after a few months of running it by the book, I might start looking to see if there is more. And the community would naturally lead back to the idea that the rules are there as guidelines, not set in stone.

While phrasing, like Maxperson suggested, can help with that. I don't think it is necessary and that its lack is disempowering.

Homebrewing isn't what anyone's discussing. You tend to inject tangential concepts into the discussion as if they were they main point. Makes it difficult to have a meaningful discussion.

What is being said by "you can change these rules" isn't about homebrew. It's about not having to follow RAW to the letter in every case - and doing that isn't necessarily homebrew. Games like 3.5e and 4e had the mindset of doing most everything by RAW in my experience. 5e lifted that expectation and it was directly related to how 3.5e and 4e games tended to be ran.

How am I injecting a tangential concept here?

Maxperson said:

Nothing, really. The difference is in how the book speaks to the DM. The 4e DMG gives much more constraint to the DM in its language, so it discourages the DM from stepping out of the boundaries and creating a new rule or altering rules. Other DMGs encourage it.

Take page 42 of the DMG. It's very clear on informing the DM on how to rule improvised actions. You use the table for damage, rather than coming up with something. You give +2/-2, rather than, up to +2/-2 or "We suggest +2/-2, but it's up to you." It's very constraining on the DM. The DM has to fight the PG 42 rules in order to go outside of them, rather than being empowered to do so.

I was responding to him, and he very clearly feels that 4e's choice in language and syntax disempowered the DM by saying "this is what you do" instead of "we suggest this is what you do"

I disagree, because homebrewing and changing the rules is such an integral part of the DnD DNA, I think it is unfair to say that an edition disempowers the DM by not explicitly stating you can change the rules of the game. It is understood, especially by people coming from previous versions of the game, that of course all of these rules are suggestions and you are free to change them.

In fact, many posters on this thread have said that 4e empowers them because the math is so visible, that making those sort of changes that Max feels is disallowed by the 4e rulebooks, was far easier to do and understand the impact of.