D&D General Maybe I was ALWAYs playing 4e... even in 2e

[GMforPowergamers]

Have you ever thought about how you play/run D&D? Have you ever considered what each edition you played did to make your version of D&D? I guess this is me reflecting on that.

So in another thread someone spelled out what I think of as the basics of D&D

These conversations are never going to get anywhere until we can all agree on the following:

* HP are not meat.

* Position is not a fixed thing in combat

* Attack rolls are not singular instantiations of a single attack

* Same goes for AC and Defenses and anything of the like. They're all constructs.

now 4e has things that A LOT of people dislike and some even say are "NOT D&D"

I am going to go out on a limb and say that if in 1996 I opened a new book and found a warlord that could 2/encounter heal a target, and that could grant other allies attacks and give bonuses and could 100% see me wanting to play one that day. (Now I am imagining a brown soft cover 'complete warlord' like I had complete psionic and complete barbarian)

if back then 1996 or so someone came up with a nonweapon prof that (us oldies know those as pre feats) gave the ability to deal damage on a miss to my ranger, I would have loved it.

fast forward to September 2006 (my birthday... I remember getting it for my birthday) and the Bo9S not only was a welcome sight... but it might have saved 3.5 for me. For a few years we used that book in almost every campaign. (we also used PHB2, and complete book classes)

infact when 4e was announced our (my group) greatest hope was wizard and cleric would be broken up and fighter would look more like a Warblade... and we never would have dreamed of what we got. and to this day I think of 4e as the best edition of D&D (with 2e and 5e both really close together for 2nd and 3rd) with BIEMI being 4th...

so as I have thought about this, I realized my style has ALWAYS been a mix of 4e and end stage 5e (social skills, encounters that have ways to win without fighting, warriors being as important as casters) and as such I don't think 4e tought me to play... I think that 4e was built 4me... or people like me.


Now my group splintered at 4th and kinda came back together for 5th then splintered 2 more times... and now we are all unsure of what 5.5/6/anniversary edition will bring. I wish it would take 4e and work in some 5e and bring it even MORE in line with my group... but I also realize that will not work for everyone.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Well, yeah!

Of course you’ll end up running the game you want.

…because system doesn’t ma….

Um, nevermind.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well, yeah!

Of course you’ll end up running the game you want.

yeah... the same way that I see people play VAMPIRE as a combat game (it was not meant for that) and seen people run CoC like D&D (hunting down and killing great old ones)

…because system doesn’t ma….

Um, nevermind.

system DOES matter... just not as much as what we bring

 

[overgeeked]

I think "HP are not meat" is the biggest sticking point for a lot of people. Reason being: if HP are not meat, then why do you die when they run out? Since you die when you run out of HP, clearly they're meat...or at least meat adjacent.

 

[Krachek]

Of all previous edition I think that 4ed offer the more to inspire the next revision.
listening to Crawford explaining the new monster format, I see that they want to make monsters more like 4ed, with efficient information and feature to use in combat.
So you can have hope to have an edition more close to 4ed.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think "HP are not meat" is the biggest sticking point for a lot of people. Reason being: if HP are not meat, then why do you die when they run out? Since you die when you run out of HP, clearly they're meat...or at least meat adjacent.

but for that to be true... how does a 100hp fighter take a 50hp bite from a tarrasque, get swallowed and take 40hp acid/crushing damage cutting himself out and still have 10hp... but act as if nothing happened (still can move, and fight, and perfore all skills at 100% effectiveness) this wasn't a new problem...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Of all previous edition I think that 4ed offer the more to inspire the next revision.
listening to Crawford explaining the new monster format, I see that they want to make monsters more like 4ed, with efficient information and feature to use in combat.
So you can have hope to have an edition more close to 4ed.

I loved that.... monster role and subtype made encounter design SOOO much easier than 3e or 5e.

 

[overgeeked]

but for that to be true... how does a 100hp fighter take a 50hp bite from a tarrasque, get swallowed and take 40hp acid/crushing damage cutting himself out and still have 10hp... but act as if nothing happened (still can move, and fight, and perfore all skills at 100% effectiveness) this wasn't a new problem...

The game isn’t designed to handle that level of detail. It is an abstraction, not a simulator. But PCs still die or are dying at zero HP. Monsters almost always die at zero HP. Again, if it’s not meat, you wouldn’t be dead when you run out.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

clearly they're meat...or at least meat adjacent.

A description you never want to hear from your waiter, I might add.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The game isn’t designed to handle that level of detail. It is an abstraction, not a simulator. But PCs still die or are dying at zero HP. Monsters almost always die at zero HP. Again, if it’s not meat, you wouldn’t be dead when you run out.

all this means is 1pt of damage has to be meat... and even then it can be maybe deadly...

if I get stabbed (in real life) it is bad... and I will almost for sure pass out. Will I die? that depends on where I am stabbed and how quickly help can get to me... we use death saves to simulate this.