D&D 5E D&D compared to Bespoke Genre TTRPGs

[AbdulAlhazred]

Its difficult for me to parse how these statements above exist in concert.

If you're not trying to interpret a game's engine as "rules as physics (rules that govern the physical interactions of the shared imagined space)", how does the above make sense?

In 4e, a GM/player isn’t concerned about world collisions/interactions/physics that are irrelevant to the thematic story embedded in 4e; a Points of Light, World on Fire, Diablo meets Greek myth, where mythical heroes must overcome mythical challenges and take sides in mythical conflicts.

You're framing scenes that provoke and resolve those conflicts. That is the story of 4e; who the Character Themes, Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies, Quests and conflict resolution create the trajectory of play and decide the outputs of the collisions of those themed conflicts.

You don't care whether Ancient Red Dragons are better or worse at weaving or crafting or picking pockets than the heroes. Because that stuff never sees table time/scene-time and is wholly irrelevant to play/the story of 4e!

Conversely, it seems to me that what your quoted post above is saying is exactly "I expect game engines to be rules as physics that govern my orientation toward and interaction with the content of the shared imagined space (even the stuff that is never onscreen)."

There's a sentiment/theory that all the trivial stuff about the Ancient Red Dragon matters, because that is all fodder for, basically, CAW! So, the fact (at least asserted by the post you responded to) that 4e cannot handle an Ancient Red Dragon forging a document to trick the PCs into an ambush is a big problem. That is if it cannot handle it straight up by applying the stat block and the skill rules and assuming that the dragon needs to make checks at DCs in the same fashion as a PC would.

And you know what I will say next, this is all a reflection of the basic core assumption being made by all 'process game' adherents, which is the core game assumptions that were established by Gary in 1973 in Greyhawk where he was an opponent and a referee and everything was a wargame like test of skill. It was logical, it made sense. The dragon was equivalent to a PC because they were all 'pogs' in a game where the DM was simply playing his side to give the players a challenge. The rules have to produce cognizable results in this model too, because there isn't any resolution framework beyond simple checks (of some sort). So, for the players to reason about the game and their odds, they must be able to think "well, how possible is it, fictionally, for the dragon to forge this document." and then the actual mechanics have to deliver a similar range of results!

None of this is relevant to the type of 4e you and I will run where the rules reference informing the fiction and a dragon and a PC are entirely different things. I simply imagine this would be cool for a dragon to do, and set a DC for the PCs to see through it, based on appropriate DCs for their level. I might integrate it into an SC, but either way I don't need mechanics for Dragons forging documents. Though I am not sure why it was stated that such don't exist or are unworkable. 4e retains enough of previous edition baggage that it DOES put skill bonuses into stat blocks. I guess maybe the complaint was they are too low? Perhaps. If so, you can always assume some training/magic/power which improves the outcome, or that the Dragon has a forger on staff (some otherwise irrelevant hireling probably).

 

[Neonchameleon]

FWIW, I highly enjoy GURPS, so... Though, I would agree that it was a mistake on the part of 3.x because 3.x was trying to emulate what GURPS was doing while also adhering to the tenets of a d20 system and D&D style linear levels; the two design goals generally conflict.

There's a good reason I've more GURPS books than books for any other system. A bad idea done well is normally better than a good idea done badly.

Also, I think you're likely focusing on the wrong part. It's not that I expected 4E to be "real" in terms of the real world; I simply expected it to be "real" in the context of the story it was telling. Edit: ...or more accurately, at least attempt to be real in the context of the story the game was trying to tell me.

If it is established in the story that some demon or dragon is a terror to behold and the scourge of the world, it's a bit strange when that same creature struggles to perform tasks which are trivial to the PCs. The lore of the game didn't match up with what happened when the game was brought to the table.

I'm curious what you found dragons couldn't do - other than that they often lost to PCs. The MV dragons were pretty terrifying.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I disagree: using the math as a physics engine - if done halfway right - leads to a far less artificial-feeling world IMO, because that underlying physics engine helps keep things consistent within the setting.

Well yes. If you assume a good GM on one side and a bad one on the other you get the side with the good GM doing better.

Using the math as a user interface makes the characters more engaging and easy to get into the heads of, and the game easier to pick up and play while being more versatile.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There's a very big factor missing from your analysis in part 2: in 4e the monsters also mechanically "shrink" as the PCs advance in level, unlike any other edition where they don't; and this makes both the perceived and actual increase much greater, relative to the setting.

Hmmmm, that wasn't my perception. I mean, yes, higher level monsters in earlier versions of the MM tended to be tactically insufficient in a good number of cases. This wasn't, IMHO, an intentional part of the design. In fact it was PARTLY a result of complaints by players that "the math is off!" because their high level PCs didn't get a full +1/level increase in attack bonus and some of their defenses fell behind somewhat. As a result WotC printed the heinous 'Taxpertise' feats which simply larded on an extra +1/+2/+3 to attack bonus. This, coupled with somewhat weak damage output and insufficient action economy at high levels made a lot of monsters into punching bags. There were also inevitably a few other minor chinks in the design, like Orbizard optimization was a bit out of control (you could build a total lockdown build that was guaranteed to win almost any fight as long as it got to go first, though it did require use of rare Daily resources, so it wasn't completely OP).

Note that there were a few monsters, like the Dracolich, which broke the action economy the OTHER way, lol. They were hated even more than things like the Purple Worm which were pretty much hapless against a decently optimized party. 4e had its issues, and they cropped up at Paragon/Epic mostly, but in terms of the basic design, it was merely details of execution of individual elements, coupled with a spineless attitude towards player demands for changes, that was a mild problem.

If you get out MM2 and drop Demogorgon into a 30th level capstone fight, you won't think he's 'too small' in any sense. The PCs are likely to win, but they will have to work for it some. Lolth is even nastier, as an MM3 design.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

At least a level 10 4e PC laughs at low level orcs.

And that is a preference thing, and also not necessarily true. In my 4e games, you couldn't laugh at orcs, because there was no such thing as a low level orc, there are just orcs.

I'd much rather have town's guards be able to hit giants without critting, and have the giant not care unless they get really thoroughly peppered with arrows, and thus have the town being able to drive off the giant and then hire the PCs because they know the giant will be back and boulders will be thrown from the relative safety of a hill and they'll be screwed.

Like...in both games, the commoners need the PCs because the PCs can actually fight the giant and hope to win. In 4e, the commoners can't even really drive the giant off except via narrative handwaving, and in 5e you can have the PCs be level 1 characters who help the town drive off the giant, even though they have no hope of beating the giant, yet. And it will come across in play that the PCs have become so much stronger and more capable that the giant they once drove off with the help of the town is now a creature they can just run up to and punch to death.

@doctorbadwolf

You are smuggling in your play priorities into an analysis of all RPGs. A game is much more than the sum of its mechanics. It's also how you are expected to utilize and engage with those mechanics. Blades in the Dark is a lot more than flashbacks, gathering information, scores, heat, etc. It's being a desperate scoundrel at the edge of their ropes, playing your character with integrity, and seeing where the winds take you.

In a Story Now game we are not meant to be telling stories. It's about experiencing the story in motion and seeing where it leads without expectation. It's leaping before you look (especially in Blades). Monsterhearts has rules for being attracted to someone you did not choose to be because that is what your character is experiencing. It wants you to emotionally engage with their situation, not choose their emotional state as an author would. Keep the story feral and all that jazz. This includes the GM by the way. We're all supposed to be fans of the PCs and curious about how things will turn up. Story Now.

There's no conch passing or improv going on. I mean we are improvising, but not in the sense of improv sensibilities.

It is possible to do this sort of thing without much support, but it's much harder. It is however impossible to do so while engaging in the sort of improv you are talking about.

I struggle to comprehend what on earth your idea of improv is, if experiencing rather than telling the story, inhabiting the character to emotionally engage with their situation, or being fans of the PCs and curious about how things will turn up, are...somehow...not improvisation.

What I feel like you aren't getting, in turn, is that not everyone experiences the intended play experiences as a result of those mechanics. Some of us cannot experience our character's emotional state if a game mechanic determines it for us, rather than our own impulsive experience of the moment. We can only react to that process and portray the prescribed emotional state. Which means, for some of us, Monsterhearts is very cool but ultimately shallow, and will take vastly more effort for us to experience the same heartache, joy, anger, hatred, despair, etc that we routinely experience when the inhabiting of the character is left non-prescribed.

What is important here is, what you describe in the first paragraph is something that happens in dnd, if the group wants it to.

I also particularly have a hard time taking seriously the way you word things leading to the implication, whether intentional or not, that DnD doesn't involve playing your character with integrity, or that this isn't a vital priority for huge swathes of the dnd playerbase.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

@AbdulAlhazred What are your thoughts on legendary actions and saves, compared to the Solo monsters of 4e?

I know for myself, legendary actions and saves, and lair actions, are some of the best design implementations since dnd was created. I just wish they existed on a better general encounter building framework.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@AbdulAlhazred What are your thoughts on legendary actions and saves, compared to the Solo monsters of 4e?

I know for myself, legendary actions and saves, and lair actions, are some of the best design implementations since dnd was created. I just wish they existed on a better general encounter building framework.

Yeah, I think they are a more formalized version of some things that people did in 4e (both in some of the official stat blocks and less formally). So it is cool that they basically said "this is good, we will make it a regular part of the system, so then designers will know to always do it." I always thought that was an element that 4e brought to D&D design that was good. Like role and power source and monster role/type and the structure of powers kind of gives everyone a solid idea of how to design something.

So, in 3.x my perception is a LOT of things are basically 'duds', or at best stuff that has only very niche applicability. Like a lot of classes, even ones in the PHB, are drastically under-powered, and others over-powered. Same with monsters, a lot of them vary greatly from the CR you would expect, only work in certain situations, or are super deadly in certain situations or combinations. That rarely happens in 4e. It seems to happen fairly rarely in 5e either, and I think all of the various guidelines help. Though, as you observe, overall encounter design in 5e is tricky.

Honestly, every implementation of D&D gets a few things wrong too. 4e would give you a perfectly FUNCTIONAL encounter of level 5 if you put 5 fifth level standard orcs into it, and you could follow a template to say which specific mix of stat blocks to use, and it would play out mechanically. Put that encounter in a fairly mundane static location though, and don't supply any interesting plot elements, and 4e produces something that is OFTEN, maybe USUALLY dull as dust to play. I mean, it may be fun once, but the SECOND such room will have the players off to the kitchen for sure! This is easily solvable, but the books don't really tell you how (they hint, but they're far from pushing their point enough, and they are too mild in their advice).

So, 5e's encounters are not so much of a problem that way (well, they tend to play out a bit faster, or at least you can do stuff more often). OTOH the CR system gets a little wonky, and they seem to be less interested in tactical situations and thus mixes of monsters and clear roles for each monster.

Ah well, maybe 6e will be the God Edition!

 

[dave2008]

Now Dave, that's nonsense. I have clearly stated substantive observations about how things actually play and what the implications of the different rules are. Those aren't 'opinions'. They certainly aren't MERELY opinions. What 'facts' have you 'given' that are more substantive than that?

I stated the rules that are in the book. Those are facts. If you open the DMG, the rules are there. I do concede that "opinions" was perhaps not the best choice, but it may such a nice sentence. But the first sentence sentence in your response was:

"Yeah, but that's light years from what you get in other games."

So yes, that is your opinion.

 

[dave2008]

@AbdulAlhazred What are your thoughts on legendary actions and saves, compared to the Solo monsters of 4e?

I know for myself, legendary actions and saves, and lair actions, are some of the best design implementations since dnd was created. I just wish they existed on a better general encounter building framework.

Yes, Legendary monsters are better than 4e solo monsters. MM3 & Threats of the Nentir Value solos are close, but Legendary Mosnters are still better solos. Though the have the same problem as 4e solos, not enough damage.

 

[Lanefan]

Hmmmm, that wasn't my perception. I mean, yes, higher level monsters in earlier versions of the MM tended to be tactically insufficient in a good number of cases. This wasn't, IMHO, an intentional part of the design. In fact it was PARTLY a result of complaints by players that "the math is off!" because their high level PCs didn't get a full +1/level increase in attack bonus and some of their defenses fell behind somewhat. As a result WotC printed the heinous 'Taxpertise' feats which simply larded on an extra +1/+2/+3 to attack bonus. This, coupled with somewhat weak damage output and insufficient action economy at high levels made a lot of monsters into punching bags. There were also inevitably a few other minor chinks in the design, like Orbizard optimization was a bit out of control (you could build a total lockdown build that was guaranteed to win almost any fight as long as it got to go first, though it did require use of rare Daily resources, so it wasn't completely OP).

Note that there were a few monsters, like the Dracolich, which broke the action economy the OTHER way, lol. They were hated even more than things like the Purple Worm which were pretty much hapless against a decently optimized party. 4e had its issues, and they cropped up at Paragon/Epic mostly, but in terms of the basic design, it was merely details of execution of individual elements, coupled with a spineless attitude towards player demands for changes, that was a mild problem.

If you get out MM2 and drop Demogorgon into a 30th level capstone fight, you won't think he's 'too small' in any sense. The PCs are likely to win, but they will have to work for it some. Lolth is even nastier, as an MM3 design.

I think you missed what I meant by monsters "shrinking", so even if I get some terms wrong I'll try to explain.

As the PCs levelled up, a particular monster - say, an ogre - would correspondingly "shrink" from being a solo to an elite to a (ordinary?) to a minion.

And sure, there's some top-end stufflike the deity-level creatures you mention where the PCs never get powerful enough to prompt that shrinking process to begin. I'm referring to all the now-lesser monsters they've passed along the way, and how their "shrinking" helps steepen the power curve.