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

[pemerton]

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

Interesting post.

I've read 13A but not played it. It has good features which would make sense in 4e - damage by class/build rather than gear (the minutiae of gear tracking is a legacy feature of 4e that doesn't fit well with the general tone of the game); backgrounds and skill training rolled together; fewer levels.

It lacks robust non-combat conflict resolution.

"One unique thing" I don't find to be as powerful an idea as is sometimes suggested - how many people are playing RPGs in which the PCs are not unique in various respects? I think the approach to this in Tweet's earlier game Over the Edge is more impressive.

 

[pemerton]

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.

My point is that preferences in fantasy stories are not correlated to preferences in rules system.

You say "When I play D&D I want to play Fafhrd, The Gray Mouser, Conan, Aragorn or Gimli. I want to envision scenes and have capabilities that were represented in that fiction." So do I. That's why I'm not that interested in 5e or AD&D - they won't enable me to envision scenes and have capabilities that were represented in that fiction.

If I want a game that feels like Conan or LotR and uses a version of D&D, I would look to 4e, Heroic Tier, with appropriate tweaks as I mentioned beflore.

 

[Oofta]

My point is that preferences in fantasy stories are not correlated to preferences in rules system.

You say "When I play D&D I want to play Fafhrd, The Gray Mouser, Conan, Aragorn or Gimli. I want to envision scenes and have capabilities that were represented in that fiction." So do I. That's why I'm not that interested in 5e or AD&D - they won't enable me to envision scenes and have capabilities that were represented in that fiction.

If I want a game that feels like Conan or LotR and uses a version of D&D, I would look to 4e, Heroic Tier, with appropriate tweaks as I mentioned beflore.

I was just explaining what I want in mundane fighter or rogue types. Obviously D&D has pretty much always had more magic than those stories.

Beyond that it's just personal preference. I didn't like how 4E presented martial classes.

I'm done arguing with you.

 

[Lanefan]

You say "When I play D&D I want to play Fafhrd, The Gray Mouser, Conan, Aragorn or Gimli.

And to add to the fun, there's people like me who want to play those characters along their zero-to-hero path of becoming what they're presented as in those stories, and then stop playing them once they get there because hey, I've already seen that in those stories.

0e or B/X or maybe 1e do this best; in that a character really doesn't start out with much going for it and then slowly builds up as it goes along. 4e would be the hardest, as a 1st-level character in 4e is already a long way from "zero".

 

[Eric V]

Interesting post.

I've read 13A but not played it. It has good features which would make sense in 4e - damage by class/build rather than gear (the minutiae of gear tracking is a legacy feature of 4e that doesn't fit well with the general tone of the game); backgrounds and skill training rolled together; fewer levels.

It lacks robust non-combat conflict resolution.

"One unique thing" I don't find to be as powerful an idea as is sometimes suggested - how many people are playing RPGs in which the PCs are not unique in various respects? I think the approach to this in Tweet's earlier game Over the Edge is more impressive.

It's definitely more freeform in its non-combat resolution, but the use of Icon Relationship Dice in this are really allow the game to shine and give player agency in a way I haven't seen in any other system. Having said that, I am definitely working on a skill challenge adjacent system to use in it.

Have you read the Adventures in Middle Earth for 5e? I love it; it's the only way I'll play or DM 5e again. I agree completely that 5e as is is not at all appropriate for Middle Earth (way, WAY too much magic, unless you're doing the Silmarillion or something), but Cubicle 7 has done, IMO, a great job at bringing the setting to life under a familiar game system. If you haven't checked it out, I really recommend it.

 

[Eric V]

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

I was in the latter group until our 13A game got going; now I am comfortably in the former.

There's no grid-based combat, so some of the charm is lost, but it's close enough.

 

[Garthanos]

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).

I think Fate might be my go to for that... unless i wanted homogenous levelled characters.

Edit Oh you did specify a version of D&D

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

If I want a game that feels like Conan or LotR and uses a version of D&D, I would look to 4e, Heroic Tier, with appropriate tweaks as I mentioned beflore.

I was just explaining what I want in mundane fighter or rogue types. Obviously D&D has pretty much always had more magic than those stories.

Are there any really iconic stories or characters that represent spellcasters that you might want to emulate, in the same vein as those stories you both talk about represent martial characters?
(Not counting actual D&D-based novels.)

 

[Garthanos]

Are there any really iconic stories or characters that represent spellcasters that you might want to emulate, in the same vein as those stories you both talk about represent martial characters?
(Not counting actual D&D-based novels.)

Just wizards?.... the Earthsea Trilogy has nice magic.
Though I am thinking that is still an Ars Magica or the Mage the Ascension

 

[pemerton]

Are there any really iconic stories or characters that represent spellcasters that you might want to emulate, in the same vein as those stories you both talk about represent martial characters?

Gandalf is a PC in the LotR game I linked to. I was optimistic in my PC building that I'd resolved the balance issue - it turned out a little differently in play (Gandalf's player didn't hold back, with the result that the Doom Pool grew more quickly than it otherwise would have) but not a disaster.

I've never tried to play a Ged-inspired character but have GMed a game where a player did - Rolemaster, built as a mystic (shapechanging, summoning mists, etc). RM has its limits, but again not a disaster.

I would love to play Dr Strange in a MHRP game, but I don't know that I'll ever have that opportunity.