D&D (2024) 4e design in 5.5e ?

[Snarf Zagyg]

Rather, looking to gather thoughts on how mechanics from 4e played out at the table (e.g. did they feel "disassociated"), and what should be brought forward into 5.5.

A not-very-brief history, prior to getting to the answer (as I tend to do):

A. At GenCon in August 2007, WoTC botched the rollout of 4e, causing many in the audience to (incorrectly) believe that a computer was required to play the game. This was the start of misconceptions about this edition that the powers that be never really addressed.

B. June 6, 2008- the release of 4e. Do you know what else happened between the announcement of the product and the release? The Great Recession. Not the best time to release a new product (especially when you were hoping for sweet recurring subscriber revenue).

C. It was hoped that 4e would have a MMO licensing, computer game, and more. But the timeframe was not favorable. Moreover, we can forget how ambitious this was for the time; the idea of "always on" internet was still novel, and services such as ROll20, twitch, and so on weren't around yet. Heck, the original (very slow!) iPhone had just been released. Yes, the D&D audience was more tech-savvy than regular consumers, but the rosy projections did not match the reality.

D. Building on (C), there exist players who view D&D as a mostly tech-free time. A respite from screens and technology. Sure, they might be luddites, and they might be a very small part of the market now, but they exist. Which also goes back to B, and there botched rollout- computers weren't required, but they chose to emphasize it.

E. Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln? Yeah, sure, the announcement was botched, and the timing was horrible, but they also had terrible, terrible luck! The 4e designers acknowledged that the final push was rushed by directives from the top, which caused them to make the classes too "samey" and left further differentiation on the cutting-room floor. So many parts that could go wrong, did go wrong- key parts of the computer component that was supposed to be rolled out were entrusted to a developer, and that person was unstable and it ended in a horrific tragedy (and also meant no product). The projections for the product, which were too optimistic, combined with the lack of immediate success, resulted in Hasbro immediately slashing funding. But the time Essentials was rolled out in 2010, 4e was already dead internally and they were debating what to do.

F. Within the 4e community, there has been some debate about whether Essentials was a necessary correction that would have appealed to the mass market, or a betrayal of the essential ethos of 4e.

G. Going back to (B), the concept of subscription services and "Everything is Core" (repeated releases of core books each year) is an idea that was, at best, ahead of its time- we are all about subscriptions now, but it wasn't that common then. At that time, it came off as more of a cash grab, especially given the economy.

H. The design team was too insular and wasn't aware that the reception wouldn't be great, and therefore didn't do enough to "sell" the product. When they had 3PP come and playtest 4e, Jason Buhlman of Paizo saw what was going on and that provided them the confidence to continue on with Pathfinder.

I. One more thing- while the internet wasn't "always on" enough for the ambitions of some aspects of 4e, this was the first edition launch that had the majority of D&D players (I assume, I don't have stats for this) have easy access to some form of the internet, which enabled extreme and intense opinions to both form, spread, and become much more noticeable and toxic.

J. Finally, this history has to be measured in terms of what is a "flagship" product; when D&D sneezes, every other product in the TTRPG field gets a cold. It's not enough for a D&D product to be "good" or "better" than other editions, it's not sufficient that it has great design. It has to be broadly and widely popular. That is the raison d'être for D&D. People can, and do, argue endlessly about what makes D&D better or worse or good or not, but in terms of a product, D&D must always be #1. Starbucks coffee might not taste the best, but they have to careful changing it ... if you know what I mean.


Now, why write this history? Certainly not to rubbish 4e. I think it's an interesting, but essentially unanswerable, question as to whether or not it would have succeeded if the stars had not been aligned against it. But the key factor when looking at what aspects from 4e should go into 5.5e is this-

What is broadly popular?

Not what do you think is good. Not what do you think is fun. Not even what you might think is good design. But what is broadly popular. WoTC does regular surveys now - it's not for their health. And it can be frustrating given that it often seems like the most interesting options they are thinking about (various Mystic, for example) end up in the dustbin because some significant minority of people don't like them. But ... that's what they do. That's how they want to keep the game broadly popular.

I think that most of the 4e innovations in terms of gameplay that are not already in the game will not be put in. Why? For the same reason that people who want the game harder (you know, deadly traps, level drain, more death) won't get their way either. We will just see continued refinement of the concepts that are already there. D&D will continue to be a broadly popular game that isn't fully satisfying to many "hardcore" TTRPGers, who will instead get their fix from games that can afford to appeal to more niche audiences.

The one evolution I do see occurring over time is (and this might borrow from 4e, or from other sources) is more allowance, in the core rules or optional rules, as we are already seeing, for more of a non-violent game and/or for a game that provides more .... support for the type of game that is appealing to stream.

Again, IMO, etc.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In 4e your character was executing a power with mechanics that just so happend to have some fluff attached and a name.

But they’re still describing what their character does, because the mechanics are what the character does. I can’t imagine a scenario where “I use my daily” is the whole of the statement, because the game can’t move forward from that. The actual mechanics of the power have to be described.

The name of the power is irrelevant except as a shorthand for frequently used powers. “I attack with my sword using an encounter power. If I hit, he takes xyz damage and falls prone, and one of my allies, let’s say Dorn, can move 2 squares.” Describes what happens in the fiction just as much as “Sacred Flame on the bigger orc, XYZ damage on a failed save.”

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Those are not “at wills” and “daily’s,” they are just called spells. And those cards are not how the spells are formatted in the book. A player could, however, say “I cast a cantrip” or “I cast a spell” and read the effect, ignoring the fluff text. It would be a little more inconvenient for them to read around the fluff text, but it would have no more or less impact gameplay than it would to do the same in 4e. And again, if you had a player do this in 5e, and you found that to be a problem, you wouldn’t blame 5e for it.

Yeah I never read the fluff text of spells in 5e. I explain what the spell does, and then describe what my character is doing and what their magic looks like.

 

[darjr]

The name of the power is irrelevant except as a shorthand for frequently used powers. “I attack with my sword using an encounter power. If I hit, he takes xyz damage and falls prone, and one of my allies, let’s say Dorn, can move 2 squares.” Describes what happens in the fiction just as much as “Sacred Flame on the bigger orc, XYZ damage on a failed save.”

This is what would happen. Like chewing cardboard over and over and over and over. Chew chew chew chew. Zero flavor. Because in 4e the fluff really means nothing.

In 5e you at least say the name of the spell. And like others have stated the fluff is entwined with the rules because the fluff matters and is part of the rules.

 

[Aldarc]

This is what would happen. Like chewing cardboard over and over and over and over. Chew chew chew chew. Zero flavor. Because in 4e the fluff really means nothing.

You keep asserting this as if you have in any meaningful way established this as true. Several people in this thread have even demonstrated how your assertion is false.

In 5e you at least say the name of the spell. And like others have stated the fluff is entwined with the rules because the fluff matters and is part of the rules.

The names of abilities were always used in my 4e games.

 

[darjr]

Edit:

See my next post instead.

 

[darjr]

How about what from 4e is there in 5e that you really like and appreciate? In that way I hope to highlight how things from 4e have successfully been in 5e as a guide to future things. maybe this deserves it's own thread?

some of mine are.

Advantage. Something that was a bit player in 4e as a central design of 5e has been great in my book.

Resting, long and short and the recovery. I didn't like long rests at first, and still think short rests need tinkering. However I have come to embrace both of them as fairly amazing. I do think they are immersion breaking, or can be, but in a game with rules there are times where it just has to happen. And in 5e's case I think these work with minimal immersion breaking.

The idea of lowering monster HP and increasing their damage as a tactic to liven up play. This isn't an actual rule in 4e but a lesson learned and implemented by MM3. And I think in 5e it's still VERY useful in both designing encounters and on the fly during running them. I'm not sure I would have ever had it codefied so explicitly if it weren't for 4e's adoption of the idea by MM3.

Monster powers. I've missed those. I have my issues with them and love spells in monsters, but are they a great tool. edit: I guess this one isn't fully baked in yet. Ope.

Monster mobility. Move your monsters around. Take those OP's. 4e tought me that you should move your monsters. In 5e many DM's do not for fear of the OP's from players. I say commit to taking OP's on your monsters. Move them around.

I'll enter more as I think of them.

 

[Aldarc]

My own experiences don't count? The actual comment about how powers would be used doesn't count? The actual comment from those folks about how they'd have to "filter out" the fluff in 5e doesn't count?

Your experiences count when your are talking about your own experiences with the game. They don't when you are trying to assert those experiences as a universal truth about the game in a way that invalidates the experiences of others with the game. If you claim that the fluff doesn't matter in 4e based on your experiences, and I tell you that my own experiences with the game fluff in 4e runs contrary to yours, then what message are you sending about my experiences versus yours? It says that only your experience matters and that mine doesn't.

That fluff being mixed in 5e rules is a feature. A result of the response to the seperation of the two in 4e powers. A dawning that the weaving together of fluff and hard rules were a desired aspect of the rules.

I don't deny that it's a feature in 5e, but whether fluff is mixed in with mechanics or separate doesn't somehow magically negate the existence of the fluff.

You claim they refuted me, I disagree.

The basis and mode of your argumentation predominately amounted to making falsifiable assertions based on anecdotal evidence and saying "no it didn't" when people disagreed with your assertions. I can respect that you didn't find 4e to your liking, but not how you have argued that in this thread or the assertions you have made about the game.

Names were used in my games too. But less and less as combats dragged on. Also less and less as more and more powers came out and more of the good ones were similar. Also more as people would pick powers more and more merely for the mechanics and less and less for the fluff.

This definitely seems like special pleading when comparing 4e to 5e.

How about what from 4e is there in 5e that you really like and appreciate? In that way I hope to highlight how things from 4e have successfully been in 5e as a guide to future things. maybe this deserves it's own thread?

I don't know. There were a fair number of fantastic 4e innovations (e.g., attack rolls vs. Fort/Ref/Will defenses, healing surges, encounter building, monster design, power sources) that WotC threw out with the bath water in 4e without so much as thinking about whether or not it was actually problematic. It's difficult for me to be excited about how lazily and half-heartedly WotC adopted some things for 5e from 4e while seeing either what was abandoned or how much better they were executed in 4e.

 

[billd91]

I don't know. There were a fair number of fantastic 4e innovations (e.g., attack rolls vs. Fort/Ref/Will defenses, healing surges, encounter building, monster design, power sources) that WotC threw out with the bath water in 4e without so much as thinking about whether or not it was actually problematic. It's difficult for me to be excited about how lazily and half-heartedly WotC adopted some things for 5e from 4e while seeing either what was abandoned or how much better they were executed in 4e.

OR, they decided that some of those innovations were problematic, yet here you are accusing them of being lazy.

 

[Malmuria]

neither here nor there, but I personally do not like the word "surge." It sounds corny to me.