D&D General How would you redo 4e?

[Red Castle]

I haven’t played much of 4e so I do t have anything to say about mechanics, but ease down on the technical language to something more natural, change box formats to make it less boardgame-y/collectable trading card game-y, use more faux-medieval terms and be slightly less transparent about roles and whatnot, and you’d have a game I’d be willing to try.

I know all of these things shouldn’t be important and prevented me from seeing the essence of the game, but turns out they are important for me. Basically, 4e failed at the presentation step for me. It was a a bold new Curriculum Vitae format, and didn’t get called back for interview from me.

To each their own, and I respect your opinion. It's true that the presentation can be off-putting if you are looking for a language that is more immersive.

But for me it is the opposite, I love that the presentation is clear and easy to reference. In 4e, if you need to look for a rule quickly, it will be easy to find in the PHB, just look into the Contents table, go to the page and then read, odds are there will even be a rulebox for ease of reference. Now try doing that in 5e edition with let's say the skills, what you can actually do with all your skills. It's not even referenced in the Contents table, it's hidden under the ability score section.

And same goes for spells. Just take a look back to the previous fireball exemple a couple of pages ago. While the 3rd and 5e version has a presentation more immersive, the 4e version is much more easy to read and know what will happen. You don't have to look for all the information inserted in 2-3 paragraph of text. It saves a lot of time at the table to not have the spellcaster having to read all his spells all the time to tell you what happens. It seems obvious with common spell like fireball, but try it with some more obscure spells. To me, this time spent always reading back the spells break the flow of a game and is what for me what break the immersion.

I don't care how it looks like in the rulebook, what I care about is how it flow at the table and the time spent looking back in the rulebook to clarify a rule. While it's true that 4e has a language more gamey, I think it is more natural and immersive while actually playing, beause everything is more clear.

 

[Laurefindel]

Really playing into my idea that people didn't like that their role playing GAME reminded them it was a GAME by having competently written GAME rules...

Snarking aside, presentation is an important part of any game, and there are different types of game. True, one shouldn’t judge a book by its cover and yet, people spend a lot of time and money to get a cover attractive enough for people to read it in the first place.

4e’s attempt was a bold move toward a new presentation. It didn’t appeal to me. I know it didn’t appeal to quite a few people (even if they are not vocal in this thread) and I suspect it was part of 4e relative unpopularity.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

To each their own, and I respect your opinion. It's true that the presentation can be off-putting if you are looking for a language that is more immersive.

But for me it is the opposite, I love that the presentation is clear and easy to reference.

Yeah, it seems like there are multiple uses for rulebooks:

1) the (often initial or first few times) read of players rulebook that gives you inspiration for different kinds of characters you might want to play, a sense of the rules, etc. Once this read is done, it is often internalized and never read "cover to cover" again.

2) a reference manual to create characters and reference rules. -- ongoing use .

3) purely to read -- for various reasons the person will never play the game and just reads the book to gain ideas, make characters in their head, because they like to see new game mechanics, etc. (I often wonder if this is a pretty big audience? Not for D&D, but I am this person for many other systems.)

Game book designers are writing for all three purposes and some games emphasize one over the other. Sometimes on purpose, sometimes because it is hard to balance all three.

4e PHB defintely leaned 2 but I don't think completely ignored 1. It probably wasn't as good for 3 as you wouldn't get the ongoing benefit of the conciseness of powers, etc.

PF adventure paths actually lean 3 I think but of course are also played by many.

 

[Undrave]

Snarking aside, presentation is an important part of any game, and there are different types of game. True, one shouldn’t judge a book by its cover and yet, people spend a lot of time and money to get a cover attractive enough for people to read it in the first place.

4e’s attempt was a bold move toward a new presentation. It didn’t appeal to me. I know it didn’t appeal to quite a few people (even if they are not vocal in this thread) and I suspect it was part of 4e relative unpopularity.

As an avid board game player, I just can’t stand poorly worded vague rules. I also understand that in an RPG, not everything can be covered, and that’s fine, but what you DO cover should either be precise and clear or clearly state it needs the DM’s intervention. Rules shouldn't be trying to be immersive, it’s a rule book: not a physics treatise. Trying too hard to be immersive is, IMO, what probably lead to those delusions of the 'Rules as Simulation of the World'.

And it’s not like the 4e books didn’t have lore. I know there’s plenty of space taken by power blocks, but nobody’s asked you to read all of them, especially not in one go. I don’t think I’ve ever read every single power in a class in a PHB: I’d read the first few levels (usually up your first Utility power) before deciding if the class is interesting or not. The power block is both a good way to spot rules AND a good way to spot where you don’t have to read if you’re just looking for florid descriptions and lore dumps.

 

[Laurefindel]

As an avid board game player, I just can’t stand poorly worded vague rules. I also understand that in an RPG, not everything can be covered, and that’s fine, but what you DO cover should either be precise and clear or clearly state it needs the DM’s intervention. Rules shouldn't be trying to be immersive, it’s a rule book: not a physics treatise. Trying too hard to be immersive is, IMO, what probably lead to those delusions of the 'Rules as Simulation of the World'.

And it’s not like the 4e books didn’t have lore. I know there’s plenty of space taken by power blocks, but nobody’s asked you to read all of them, especially not in one go. I don’t think I’ve ever read every single power in a class in a PHB: I’d read the first few levels (usually up your first Utility power) before deciding if the class is interesting or not. The power block is both a good way to spot rules AND a good way to spot where you don’t have to read if you’re just looking for florid descriptions and lore dumps.

Yeah, I’m an avid board player too, and there’s no way you could play something like Twilight Imperium for example, without clear and concise rules. But when I’m playing D&D, I’m not playing a board game. Both games have rules, but the level of interpretation isn’t the same, and language, presentation, and format have different incidence on the appreciation of the game as a whole.

Clarity and concision of information in 4e isn’t being questioned. Presentation is, and language too. Similarly, I wouldn’t go back to 1e Gygaxian prose and presentation either.

That may not be important for you and I respect that, but I dont think you appreciate to what degree it is important to others.

 

[Undrave]

That may not be important for you and I respect that, but I dont think you appreciate to what degree it is important to others.

I'm aware. We heard about that a LOT when 4e came out.

Do note that 4e is where ‘Sonic damage’ became ‘Thunder damage’.

 

[Laurefindel]

I'm aware. We heard about that a LOT when 4e came out.

Do note that 4e is where ‘Sonic damage’ became ‘Thunder damage’.

A LOT that was said about 4e was undeserved, but I still have reservations about the presentation. But since I don’t know much about 4e content, I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Undrave]

A LOT that was said about 4e was undeserved, but I still have reservations about the presentation. But since I don’t know much about 4e content, I’ll leave it at that.

I wonder how much more positive the reception would have been if 4e had just kept the faux parchment background of 3e instead of clean white backgrounds?

 

[Pedantic]

I wonder how much more positive the reception would have been if 4e had just kept the faux parchment background of 3e instead of clean white backgrounds?

Concerns around actually communicating information aside, I think 3e had the most aesthetically pleasing layout of any edition, though I wouldn't say it had the best art pieces.

 

[Laurefindel]

I wonder how much more positive the reception would have been if 4e had just kept the faux parchment background of 3e instead of clean white backgrounds?

I’m willing to bet that the reception would have been a lot more positive, as ungrateful as it sounds.