That was the idea of 4e. State and deliver a clear vision. Provide a solid, functional core. Test it to make sure it works as intended. Fix it when it doesn't. Outside the intended areas of focus, give clear and effective advice and examples and get out of the way.
I'm not usually one to make arguments of this kind, but...if the influential and vocal minority responded so badly before, what would make that change now?
I still don’t understand how people could be so opposed to 4e’s clear and transparent. They were all ‘Augh! Get this competent game design out of my GAME!”
From my experience, magic in dnd lacks that spark, because there is no cost to the character to achieve the desired results (spell slots are not a risk or a cost, they are a managed resource).
In shadowrun and other games, mages can choose to burn more energy on a spell at the risk of overloading or passing out. As a player in these games, I witnessed SR mage players get very excited when they are assessing the risk of burning out. Its a trade off for more power, something dnd doesn't do well.
Dnd mages in 5e get their spells without any hindrances to direct power (spell components don't count, because I have never ever seen them tracked or mentioned in a game in person). If mages had more risk to casting spells (or any risk at all really), they would likely be more excited when they see the results of their efforts.
Risk brings excitement, instant gratification leaves players feeling something is lacking.
And in Shadowrun, doing anything
fun (using magic or hacking stuff etc) usually means somebody can detect you and find you, it's kinda a pain sometimes.
I still wish WotC were more upfront on their design goals for 5e, but I suppose it's all there between the lines.
Apparently we can't have nice things in DnD, like talks of game design goals. Again, I don't get this attitude, especially from DMs who are ALREADY 'backstage'! It's like a puppeteer who complains about seeing the strings on the puppet he himself is manipulating?! Ridiculous.
In Ad&d, a Wizard could cast Fireball at 5th level, but only after getting 20,000xp and surviving with d4 Hit Dice (usually in a party of 5+), AND finding a fireball out in the wild (which usually means getting it dropped on you first).
In 5e, that same Wizard gets to 5th level after 6,500xp with d6 HD (usually in a party maxing 4 players), and PICKS 2 spells each level, so is guaranteed to get what they want.
A wizard who focuses on abjuration spells and is a powerhouse with those, but weak with other magic makes a great story. Most of the wizards I see pull their spells from the most recent “10 most overpowered spells” video.
The biggest issue with the Wizard I think is that ease of getting spells. We're told the Wizard spends a lot of time over dusty tome and doing research... but in practice, two spells of their choices just appear in their book with every level. The fluff never matters in play, it never feels like learning magic is difficult, so I think that also reduces how special it should feel.
I don't think it's that. IMO, it's that a lot of DMs aren't great on selling people on this kind of idea.
If you are essentially leading with, "Check out my new campaign, now with 100% more tedium!" many players are going to be (understandably) turned off.
Now compare that with something like a West Marches campaign, which often come packaged with similar "tedious" options, but in a much more attractive box. I've seen lots of interest on the internet for West Marches campaigns, despite it being fundamentally based on an old-school sandbox model of play, because it's been sold well to players. First by Ben Robbins (even though he wasn't trying to sell anything, his articles captivate the imagination) and later by others like Matt Colville (who've also done a great job selling the idea).
IMO, if you want to sell players on this, the best thing to do is to fire their excitement and imagination on the idea. For example, you might regale them with stories from a previous campaign. If you can't get them excited about the idea, I think you either need to reexamine your pitch, or accept that this group isn't the right fit for that style of campaign.
So, this reminds me of the DS game Final Fantasy Four Heroes of Light. The game is a deliberate throw back and sells itself on that. One of the most notable mechanic is that each character can only carry 15 items. This includes your armor, head gear, weapon, potions, etc., but also your spell books! Each spell in the game requires you to carry a book to cast it, meaning they take up one of the slot in your bag, so juggling between your bag and your reserve is important, especially early in the game where you go through various sections with 2 of the 4 PCs before they come together. I knew about it before going in and really enjoyed the game, but it’s also important to note that the limits were not tedious. Switching equipment was as easy as getting to a town where you had basically magic chests that would hold all the rest of your gear. You also had to get used to selling off your old gear to make room for new one.
Also note that the spells didn’t use any sort of MP system, instead the whole game was based around an Action Point system where you could spend a turn defending to earn more and eventually perform stronger skills (from your class) or spells. You could cast Firaga all day long, but it took 3 or 4 of your maximum 4 AP so waiting until you got enough for it would take a while.
I highly recommend the game to fans of JRPG. It’s really pretty too.
Here is the ultimate irony though... the 4E mantra of "skip to the good stuff" was skipping the roleplay event with the town guard to get to the combat encounter inside the gates. The 5E mantra of "skip to the good stuff" is skipping unnecessary combat encounters to get to the roleplaying event where your characters can actually engage with the narrative of what is happening in the world.
It's amazing to me how much the raison d'etre of the two games just swapped so completely.
Huh?! I don’t think that’s a fair way to prevent it. 4e’s concept of ‘skipping to the good stuff’ was to cut random encounters and pointless fights who only shave ressources. Every 4e fight should be a set piece in an interesting location, otherwise it’s pointless.
I agree that the 4E game itself did not forsake roleplaying completely, and that it was an unfair take to suggest that it did. (Although many of the initial Dungeon mag adventures of 4E didn't do themselves any favors when the adventure consisted just of three combat encounters right in a row with a MacGuffin to grab at the end.)
As for the latter, oh, absolutely. Several of the adventures for 4e were absolutely terrible. Particularly the first two major ones. So terrible I would genuinely be willing to believe they were made intentionally bad if I didn't know better. Diehard fans will be the first to tell you that Pyramid of Shadows and...whatever the other first adventure module was, are some of the worst adventures ever written for D&D in general.
Keep on the Shadowfell? I HATED Thunderspire Labyrinth. The whole map was filled with 5 feet corridor that were NOT conductive to 4e style combats it resulted in super boring static encounter where your back liner would never be in danger ever and your front liner would fight to get some kind of swing at the meagre encounters in there. It was just a pain in the butt. Empty rooms after empty room with nothing to discover… and 4e adventures were infamously stingy on magical items despite their necessity for the math to function.
One source, that DEFCON1's example is pretty much drawn from, is the 4e DMG - page 105.
So... not really a press release for that one.
Huuuh... that's totally not what DECON1 said! They say 'encounter', they mean a combat encounter or maybe a skill challenge, not roleplaying! What the book is saying is that fighting two random guards is not a challenge and not worth doing. If the guards aren't going to be an issue it's not worth going into details... unless the PC want to speak with them for something. That's just misreading of the tip.
