D&D 4E Presentation vs design... vs philosophy

FrogReaver said:

Telling people an opinion that think X is a terrible game - that X doesn't play like a D&D game - that's not treating anyone badly.

Click to expand...

So, this is the fundamental failure of empathy that generated the edition warring dynamic.

If someone says they love a thing, and you look them in the eye and tell them that thing is utter crap - you are treating that person badly. You are treating them as if your opinion of a game is more important than their feelings. To see that clearly, go find a 5 year old child who is happy about the drawing they did. Tell them that it looks like their cat threw up on the paper. Watch what happens. Adults have filters, a somewhat thicker skin, and some coping techniques, but the emotional core doesn't change.

Even further, if you tell them that the D&D game is not D&D*, you're closer to being the southern end of a northbound horse.

Humans are tribal animals. Being a gamer, being a fan of D&D dedicated enough to discuss it on the internet, is part of the player's identity. In saying, "Your game is not D&D" you are, by extension, saying that person isn't a D&D fan. You are rejecting their identity as a fellow fan. You are casting them into the out-group.

If you don't realize how it is hurtful to do that, the problem is not the game. The problem is that you are so committed to your opinion that you have failed to think about the other person in the discussion. It is common on the internet to forget that the person you are discussing matters with has feelings, but that doesn't make it okay.

If you do realize how that this hurtful (as many at the time did), and you do it anyway, you are being a schmuck.




The typical statement was *not, "X does not play like a D&D game". It was "X is not D&D." Softening it is revisionist history.

prabe said:

I never played 4E, or ran it, so I don't have that particular comparison in my experience.

Click to expand...

4e was pretty innovative design in some ways.

I've noticed that combats do tend to be a bit stagnant, and I'll agree that's a problem, and while it's possible to narrate damage roughly however you want, I'll agree it's unfair to insist on that.

Click to expand...

It's not about narrating damage. It's about forced movement. Imagine if roughly one ogre attack in two came with a bull rush attached and the PC's minature was actively moved backwards on the battle map from the force of the blow unless they hit a wall. This on its own makes ogres feel big and forceful beyond what you do with the description. Indeed actively moving the minatures on a map from the force of blows frequently does more than any description could.

There are guidelines in the DMG for homebrewing monsters. It'd be nice if that process was faster, and it'd be nice if there weren't monsters in the Monster Manual that clearly were tweaked away from those guidelines. I've had a fair amount of success just reskinning things, sometimes pretty much entirely, but some people have an aesthetic problem with that, and I won't argue about that.

Click to expand...

I'm an absolute fan of reskinning.

But as for the DMG homebrew rules, from memory (I don't have a DMG to hand) it's a 20(!) step process and one that apparently doesn't quite work or fit what WotC actually did.

Meanwhile the mechanical part of the 4e guidance fits on a business card



I think the difference is telling. (If you're wondering about your saving throws, 4e made them into defences. If you're wondering about the skirmisher/controller/soldier/brute/artillery/lurker, they are different approaches used by monsters; a soldier is someone with a high AC who's frequently a blocker, artillery is anyone with a bow or basic attack magic from a distance. Visualise your monster and then pick the role.

It's also at this point worth pointing out that 4e was released undercooked - and the reason it's "Monster Manual 3 on a business card" is that they realised that average damage 8+level/2 from the original Monster Manual wasn't enough at high level and pumped it to 8+level.

I've had the players in the campaigns do some off-the-wall [stuff], and I've never felt as though the system was fighting me as I figured out how to reflect those, mechanically. Simpler mechanics seem to me to allow for quicker/easier reskinning. (remember I don't have 4E as a reference here, and I'm not setting out to session-war).

Click to expand...

The mechanics aren't actually simpler in 5e than 4e. If anything I'd say the reverse (even if 4e has too many small bonuses in a way 5e doesn't)

I haven't noticed anything in 5E that prevented monsters (or anything else) being a problem to solve by some other way than reducing the hit points to zero. I've had the PCs work out some remarkably interesting tactics in the process of solving even some of the purer combat problems.

Click to expand...

When you have monsters with different roles (mixing brutes and artillery being standard) tactics become a whole lot more important. Artillery for the record generally does high damage at range and low in melee - get to them before they shoot you to pieces. You can do this in 5e but the game doesn't really encourage it.

I don't have Apocalypse World as a reference, either,

Click to expand...

I really recommend Apocalypse World - but it comes from a completely different part of RPGs than D&D. It's basically taking the rhythm of freeform games, a post-apocalyptic setting, and the most common result being success with consequences. Well worth knowing - but there is a reason I compared it to a quad bike with nitrous oxide earlier in the thread.

but I will say that 5E has persistently, from the moment I opened the books, worked the way I've expected it to, but more streamlined. There's a lot to be said for that, even if it means I'm working around things that 4E solved (or "solved"). Really and seriously, YMMV, and I'm not setting out so much to prove you wrong as to provide my own experiences as a counterpoint.

Click to expand...

I know You don't come off as someone who's disagreeing so much as someone who wasn't there and doesn't understand what I'm finding to be missing.

The problem with 4E was you needed to play it as a table with actual humans.

It worked great apart from that.

Neonchameleon said:

I'm lacking the improvised PC plan tools which means when my PCs come up with ridiculous plans out of nowhere 5e gives me nothing but the pass/fail skill checks, leaving things like the pacing all up to me. (@Garthanos just put this in the "figuring out what the bloody hell a skill check might accomplish" category). Actually I'm not missing this - I just bring in the 4e rules because they aren't there in 5e.

Click to expand...

Some tools are directly transportable with relatively little work however other elements are also missing which i do feel feed into those helping establish baseline expectations.

And I keep hearing oh work out all that stuff in session zero... sigh

Umbran said:

So, this is the fundamental failure of empathy that generated the edition warring dynamic.

If someone says they love a thing, and you look them in the eye and tell them that thing is utter crap - you are treating that person badly. You are treating them as if your opinion of a game is more important than their feelings. To see that clearly, go find a 5 year old child who is happy about the drawing they did. Tell them that it looks like their cat threw up on the paper. Watch what happens. Adults have filters, a somewhat thicker skin, and some coping techniques, but the emotional core doesn't change.

Click to expand...

If someone says they hate a thing and you look them in the eye and tell them that thing is absolutely amazing - are you treating that person badly? Are you treating them as if your opinion of a game is more important than their feelings?

Your dynamic fails because it doesn't work both ways - it only expects "empathy" from whatever side you already believe is in the wrong. IMO

Neonchameleon said:

And where I'm having problems understanding things here is twofold:

1. Being forced to be an engineer isn't empowering. It's making me do things that shouldn't be necessary for the result I want if that's what the game tells me it's good at doing. Note the word forced in there.
2. When I want to be an engineer and repair or replace parts in 4e I can and do do this. And there is (a) nothing that prevents me doing this and (b) a collection of benchmarks that makes it easier for me.

As someone currently running 5e I have no authority in that game I do not also have when running 4e. I enjoy engineering and hard-drifting games outside their normal box (4e makes a surprisingly good horror game and I've run it as a sandbox relatively successfully). But I'm only empowered to do something when doing that thing is optional. When I'm forced to do something it's automatically disempowering.

Click to expand...

My experience has been that 4e is not super friendly to that kind of engineer-style tinkering. You can do it, but you’ve got to break the existing system a bit first. If you’re totally comfortable doing so, that’s awesome. I was not when I DMed 4e. I would probably be much more comfortable with it now, if I went back to 4e, but it would still feel like more work to hack than 5e.

I don’t think 5e forces you to be an engineer. You can totally run it right out of the box if you want to. It’s a little barebones, but it’s functional. What’s empowering about it though is that it’s built for engineers. It’s not trying to create a consistent experience across tables, it’s giving you the tools to create an experience tailored for your own table. I’ll again point to the skill system, which in 5e is designed as a DM-facing action adjudication tool rather than as a player-facing user interface tool like it is in 4e.

Garthanos said:

Figure out what the bloody hell a skill check might accomplish compared to all the spells and class abilities in the game.

Click to expand...

Anything a human can be reasonably expected to accomplish by their own power.

CapnZapp said:

I didn't say it looks like 4e so you can say that is superficial and really doesn't play like 4e.

Read the OP. Engage with the actual argument.

Click to expand...

Your actual argument seems to be "How could Paizo make this obviously terrible and horrible mistake of copying 4e instead of making a clone of 5e"

You assume they are making a mistake
You assume you know what the mistake is
You assume the correct answer is to copy their competitor
You assume they never discussed that direction

Despite all that, I have repeatedly tried to show that the very premise that you are starting with, that Paizo is copying 4e, seems to be incorrect.

That is engaging with your argument, because it is addressing the very foundation of your argument. If PF2 is not copying 4e, then your entire argument falls apart, because your argument is founded on that idea.

FrogReaver said:

If someone says they hate a thing and you look them in the eye and tell them that thing is absolutely amazing - are you treating that person badly? Are you treating them as if your opinion of a game is more important than their feelings?

Your dynamic fails because it doesn't work both ways - it only expects "empathy" from whatever side you already believe is in the wrong. IMO

Click to expand...

I think where this falls down is in that in order for it to hold, it has to make the claim that hatred and enjoyment both deserve equal legitimacy as something to personally identify with, and therefore have others express empathy for, as it pertains to leisure activities.

I think if you asked most people "if someone were to make active hatred (meaning its expressed in the form of activism or protest) of a leisure activity a tangible part of their identity, (a) is that healthy and (b) is it worthy of deference"...my guess is most people would say "absolutely not" to both (a) and (b).

Now if you subbed "enjoyment" for "active hatred", my guess is people would overwhelmingly say "yes" to both (a) and (b).

Neonchameleon said:

In 5e I feel significantly less empowered than I am in 4e.

Click to expand...

Whereas I felt significantly less empowered DMing 4e than I do DMing 5e. And I say this as a diehard 4e supporter. 4e’s system was just too intricate and precise, it never felt like it was my game. It felt like it was a game that existed independently of me that needed someone to execute it. And that ended up being me most of the time because none of my other friends wanted to. But 5e feels like my game in a way I had never experienced before it. 4e gave me a very well-crafted recipe and told me I could change it if I wanted, but 5e taught me the fundamentals of cooking and encouraged me to experiment and create my own dishes.