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

[FrogReaver]

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.

Going straight to homebrewing when someone mentions altering rules is the issue. It's the typical D&D debate style tactic - box any rules modification or ruling you don't like into the box of homebrew to devalue the others position.

Max's post wasn't about homebrew.

Maybe more importantly - there are different types of empowerment. Talking about type X when everyone else is talking about type Y probably isn't very helpful.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Going straight to homebrewing when someone mentions altering rules is the issue. It's the typical D&D debate style tactic - box any rules modification or ruling you don't like into the box of homebrew to devalue the others position.

Max's post wasn't about homebrew.

Maybe more importantly - there are different types of empowerment. Talking about type X when everyone else is talking about type Y probably isn't very helpful.

Previously when discussing with Max (in a different thread) he stated that, in his position, even rules for explicitly published setting materials (such as the rules for Eberron Warforged) are homebrew. I am discussing things as close as I can to his terms, if you take umbrage with that, I apologize. Would there be a term you would rather me use for changing the rules in the book? I will try to balance your definitions and his as best I can.

And, what type of empowerment do you think he is discussing when he mentions that 4e's language hinders the ability for a DM to change the rules, other than the ability and express permission of the game to allow the DM to change the rules?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

So my first two words which you failed to bold were, "Not really." The reason for that is yes, changing the rules is part of the D&D DNA. However, that won't be known by new players. New players will just be reading the PHB of the edition they are starting with, and the 4e DMG is far more restrictive with language and instruction. So of all the editions, the 4e DMG is the least empowering to the DM, followed by 3e, which discouraged such things by trying to make rules for everything.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So my first two words which you failed to bold were, "Not really." The reason for that is yes, changing the rules is part of the D&D DNA. However, that won't be known by new players. New players will just be reading the PHB of the edition they are starting with, and the 4e DMG is far more restrictive with language and instruction. So of all the editions, the 4e DMG is the least empowering to the DM, followed by 3e, which discouraged such things by trying to make rules for everything.

And I agreed with that in regards to new players, but like I said in my response to Umbran up above, that is where I feel like the community comes into play.

New DMs are always going to feel more comfortable following the book, and only look to go beyond it when they are more comfortable. It is at that point that they may look to the community, and the idealogy of all of the rules being changeable is introduced back to them. I don't feel it is necessary for the book itself to explicitly lay it out, nor that the edition should be said to be disempowering for not explicitly laying it out

 

[Maxperson]

And I agreed with that in regards to new players, but like I said in my response to Umbran up above, that is where I feel like the community comes into play.

New DMs are always going to feel more comfortable following the book, and only look to go beyond it when they are more comfortable. It is at that point that they may look to the community, and the idealogy of all of the rules being changeable is introduced back to them. I don't feel it is necessary for the book itself to explicitly lay it out, nor that the edition should be said to be disempowering for not explicitly laying it out

Absolutely if you have a DM mentor or more than one, you will get all kinds of advice on how to run games, including to ignore/add/change rules if they get in the way.

That said, I think you are overestimating the community. Back on the WotC forums before they close, as well as on other forums, those in the know made the point over and over again that the number of players who come to these sorts of sites is a very small fraction of players. Most of them don't go online to discuss the game. They just pick up the rules and play.

When discussing whether or not an edition encourages or discourages rules changes, you need to primarily look at the books themselves and not go to community. Community is an extra that is great for those few that take advantage of it, but most do not.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Absolutely if you have a DM mentor or more than one, you will get all kinds of advice on how to run games, including to ignore/add/change rules if they get in the way.

That said, I think you are overestimating the community. Back on the WotC forums before they close, as well as on other forums, those in the know made the point over and over again that the number of players who come to these sorts of sites is a very small fraction of players. Most of them don't go online to discuss the game. They just pick up the rules and play.

When discussing whether or not an edition encourages or discourages rules changes, you need to primarily look at the books themselves and not go to community. Community is an extra that is great for those few that take advantage of it, but most do not.

But, we aren't talking about the number of players who go to websites. We are talking about DMs. And, we are not limited to websites. A DM can go and talk to the gamestore owner they bought the book from, a family member who DM'd 3.X, they can find groups at local venues.

Heck, even going to Twitter or Reddit, where I remember WoTC claiming many people did go, you encounter the DnD community and people who will generally tell you that the solution to this problem or the best way to accomplish X is to change the rules to fit what you want.

I am speaking of a much larger community than you seem to be envisioning, and I wonder if 4e sought to lean on that community when they wrote their books. After all, it is a rare DM who has zero contact or way to contact any other person who has played an older edition of DnD.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

5e's philosophy is to unite fans of various editions - which isn't the same thing at all. And when you need multiple 300 page rulebooks to run a system you are either not doing rulings not rules at all or doing rulings not rules wrong because that's a lot of pages of rules.

Also you talk about mentoring. The purpose of tools like page 42 (which explicitly is a simple guideline not a rule so it in no way constrains the DM) is to mentor people and provide them with good tools so they can develop. 5e meanwhile doesnt bother to provide this level of mentorship. Yes sometimes a DM can mentor. But at least one main purpose of the DMG is to mentor.

 

[Maxperson]

5e's philosophy is to unite fans of various editions - which isn't the same thing at all.

So your claim is that you are right and the game designers are wrong. Nice. The designers are the ones who put forth the rulings over rules mantra for 5e.

And when you need multiple 300 page rulebooks to run a system you are either not doing rulings not rules at all or doing rulings not rules wrong because that's a lot of pages of rules.

You don't. I just make a ruling rather than flipping open a rulebook to look up the rule all the time. The game flows much more smoothly and is more fun when you aren't hung up on getting the rule exactly right and disrupting the game in the process.

 

[Lanefan]

It's in the PHB, I think on p 271. Here's the earlier post - no need to discuss it further.

As written, that seems straightforward and obvious enough, meaning that the Blinding Barrage write-up is really just a typo.

Strange that they didn't errata it, though, in process of reviewing it to errata the damage.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So your claim is that you are right and the game designers are wrong. Nice. The designers are the ones who put forth the rulings over rules mantra for 5e.

My claim is that there are 960 pages of core rulebook, all of them large pages for 5e. If you are trying for "rulings not rules" and you end up with 960 pages of rules then something went badly wrong somewhere.

You don't. I just make a ruling rather than flipping open a rulebook to look up the rule all the time. The game flows much more smoothly and is more fun when you aren't hung up on getting the rule exactly right and disrupting the game in the process.

Of course not. And I find myself looking up rules more often in 5e than I did with the same amount of experience running 4e. Every time I need to look up a spell that's looking up a rule. Meanwhile if I want to create a monster 5e provides me with its 20 step process.