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

[Minigiant]

With 5E they do things here and there that bug me (long bows being dex based only is one)

A little aside
In my game I added a special bowdraw property for bows.

Creatures with a Str lower than 13 have disadvantage to attack with a heavy bowdraw weapon. A light one requires Str 7. The elfbow is the old base longbow. The longbow is the 1d10 version with bowdraw.

Where you draw the line on what makes sense for you is going to vary. With 5E they do things here and there that bug me (long bows being dex based only is one) but it's a minor speed bump here and there. It's not a giant hill of cognitive dissonance I have to climb over every encounte

One thing people forget is how many different experiences of fantasy that D&D fans come from now. Especially since D&D was originally and still kinda is light on explanation of how and why and what genre it is in other to give DMs more freedom. So the mindscapes of D&D really varies around the community. Especially now when a serious and successful effort to break out of being niche is in progress.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think that this is new?

D&D doesn't have to break out of being "niche." I understand the way you are using it, but in terms of the RPG market in general, D&D has always been the proverbial 800lb gorilla.

So while there might be a difference in types of D&D players now (thankfully, more diversity) and the influences might have changed, there was a great diversity of influences on early D&D

Yeah.
D&D was always diverse early on it its fantasy, sci fi, superhero and adventure genre. But times have changed. Every decade has different influences and priorities.

D&D may have started with 5 genre influences with 2-3 decade based subgenres each. Today we are 3 decades past that and starting a new one. So we are literally in a version of D&D with DOUBLE the influences and more fans to tie themselves to it.

 

[Manbearcat]

I can tell you why, in my case - it's no secret.

(1) 5e does nothing for me that 4e does not do better.

(2) 5e has no robust non-combat conflict resolution framework, which is pretty much a deal-breaker for me in my RPGing. (I've often posted that Classic Traveller has a similar weakness in its on-world exploration rules. It's not a coincidence that since I discovered this - via the process of actual play - that our game has featured no more on-world exploration.)

(3) The asymmetric resource suites in 5e mean that maintaining mechanical balance of effectiveness across the PCs depends upon multiple encounters per "adventuring day" - 6 to 8, or at least the prospect thereof. That makes the "adventuring day" rather than the immediate encounter/situation the basic unit of play. These days that's another deal-breaker for me.

This is true for me as well. 2 and 3 combined are definitely the biggest ones (the conflict-charged scene not being the exclusive locus of play), but there are others. Lack of GM constraint broadly and lack of focus on a very specific type of GMing overhead (creating thematic complications, obstacles and situation re-framing as the conflict-charged scene evolves and ends, and advocating as hard as they can for "team monster"). That intersects with the game not being overwhelmingly player-facing. Relative dearth of forced movement/mobility/terrain interaction/stunting/thematic and tactical monster capability/team monster synergy. Lack of Minion, Swarm, and extremely robust Defender capabilities makes it difficult to reproduce certain archetypal conflicts like an "escort quest" (eg you're protecting a little girl you found floating on a raft from a Kraken's tentacles and then ultimately the beast itself).

Like I say a lot on here, its the holistic experience of the sum of its parts. Individual pieces of a game mean very little in a vaccuum. Its how they emerge to create an integrated experience at the table. Not even Strike(!), the most kindred game I've seen to 4e can reproduce the 4e experience (but it does a Mouse Guard/4e hack awesomely!...so basically play Star Wars with).

If I want a dungeon crawl experience, I'll either run Torchbearer or Moldvay Basic (which, in turn, are hugely different from one another).

If I want a tightly integrated (characters, crew, setting, antagonism, decision-points leading to integrated change in all the prior) fantasy sandbox, I'll run Blades.

5e can't do 4e, but it can do both of those things (just not as well as those 3 games).

What 5e does far, far better than all of these games above is the "Metaplot-heavy, GM as lead storyteller, flying by the seat of their pants (ignoring/altering rules/results as required), entertaining players as characters move through an adventure path."

Interestingly, its basically an inversion of that continuum above:

4e is absolutely awful at that last one directly above, its actually pretty solid at the Sandbox (but you have to know what you're doing and the hexes should be player-facing in level) but nowhere near as good as Blades, its actually ok as a Dungeon Crawler (but you have to know what you're doing...using the Disease Track as Torchbearer's equivalent of Light and "The Grind"; condition accruement) but nowhere near as good as Torchbearer or Moldvay. Obviously, its unparalleled at being 4e.

---

So, if I was recommending D&Dish game archetypes for newcomers I would say:

* Play 4e for high-octane, Action-Adventure, scene-based play with mythical tropes.

* Play Torchbearer or Moldvay Basic for Dungeon Crawls (whether you want gritty realism or a cartoon).

* Play Blades for Fantasy Sandboxing (and any of its hacks).

* Play 5e for GM as storyteller, fast and loose, Fantasy Adventure Path play.

 

[Lanefan]

My recollection is that, in 3E, one attack can throw up to 3 shurikens. Which means that a fighter with four attacks can throw up to 12 shurikens in a round. Does that mean that 3E shuriken throwers are supernatural?

No, it means the initiative rules are completely borked in the name of efficiency.

Each shurikin should ideally get its own initiative. Just like each attack in a multi-attack sequence should get its own initiative.

 

[Undrave]

No, it means the initiative rules are completely borked in the name of efficiency.

Each shurikin should ideally get its own initiative. Just like each attack in a multi-attack sequence should get its own initiative.

I'd rather be efficient...

 

[Charlaquin]

On the other hand, I have variously heard that either:

A. 5e is deeply indebted to 4e, or is just 4e with better presentation, etc.; OR ...

B. 5e is completely unlike 4e, and that 5e's designers broke their promise to be welcoming to people who loved all past editions.

Now, I lack the deep and intimate knowledge of 4e to make that call for myself. It does seem difficult for me to understand how both of these claims are consistently made! It is also somewhat hard for me to understand why, if (A) is accurate, there is such a large contingent of people on enworld that played 4e and do not play 5e.

Again, I'm not evaluating the claims, but they do seem to be in tension.

The short answer is, different people who liked 4e liked it for different reasons, and wanted to see different aspects of it evolved and different aspects revised or abandoned. That’s also why you get 4e fans who say 13th age is the spiritual successor to 4e that Pathfinder was to 3.5, and 4e fans who say “13th age is cool and all, but it is very much not a proper successor to 4e.”

Anecdotally, I’ve observed that the folks who see 13A as a worthy 4e successor tend to play it and 4e, while the folks who don’t tend to play 5e but complain the whole time about how WotC abandoned 4e’s best ideas. I happen to be in the latter group

 

[Lanefan]

I'd rather be efficient...

Fair enough, as long as one realizes that what looks to perhaps be supernatural is in this case merely an outcome of reality falling victim to said efficiency.

 

[pemerton]

I grew up reading fantasy stories.

So did I.

The fantasy stories that shape my basic sensibilities are LotR, Earthsea and REH Conan (as adapted by Marvel Comics in the 70s/80s, and in more recent decades the stories themselves). In film it has bee Excalibur, Ladyhawke, and in more recent decades Hero and Ashes of Time.

AD&D played straight out of the box has never evoked any of these storie for me, because magic and wizardry in AD&D doesn't resemble any of these stories, and nor does the basic dynamic of play. It's much too close to Advanced Squad Leader.

If I wanted to run a LotR game, the only version of D&D I would use would be 4e (confined to Heroic or perhaps low Paragon tier) with changes to the recovery rate, appropriate class restrictions, and dialling down the rituals (along the lines that the Dark Sun book suggests, but more). Although this is mostly hypothetical, given that in fact the LotR game I'mr running uses Cortex+ Heroic.

My reason for making this post is to push back against the suggestion that people who like 4e have some sort of aberrant or "anime" taste in fantasy. Because the only literart magic-user I am familiar with who is at all well-modelled by a mid-to-high level D&D wizard is Dr Strange. And Dr Strange's friends can hurl knives and shurikens at a rapid rate.

 

[Oofta]

So did I.

The fantasy stories that shape my basic sensibilities are LotR, Earthsea and REH Conan (as adapted by Marvel Comics in the 70s/80s, and in more recent decades the stories themselves). In film it has bee Excalibur, Ladyhawke, and in more recent decades Hero and Ashes of Time.

AD&D played straight out of the box has never evoked any of these storie for me, because magic and wizardry in AD&D doesn't resemble any of these stories, and nor does the basic dynamic of play. It's much too close to Advanced Squad Leader.

If I wanted to run a LotR game, the only version of D&D I would use would be 4e (confined to Heroic or perhaps low Paragon tier) with changes to the recovery rate, appropriate class restrictions, and dialling down the rituals (along the lines that the Dark Sun book suggests, but more). Although this is mostly hypothetical, given that in fact the LotR game I'mr running uses Cortex+ Heroic.

My reason for making this post is to push back against the suggestion that people who like 4e have some sort of aberrant or "anime" taste in fantasy. Because the only literart magic-user I am familiar with who is at all well-modelled by a mid-to-high level D&D wizard is Dr Strange. And Dr Strange's friends can hurl knives and shurikens at a rapid rate.

Did I say people that have a different preference than mine were "aberrant"? You have different preferences and like a different style of play than I do. Liking a different style and feel is neither good nor bad.