D&D 3E/3.5 5E solve me this: 3Es and 4Es biggest problem

[nightwalker450]

I will make 3 short points.

3) As a 4e DM and player, I have yet to see any power, class or race combo that is truly broken once errata and common sense are applied. In fact when I DM 4e, I don't even want to know what powers my players picked. I'd rather they just surprise me in combat with some cool combo. I love that about 4e.

I agree with this point. When expertise feats first appeared, we were disallowing them. When they became interesting and combined with effects based on weapon, then we brought them in, and decided to allow anything. It makes for some interesting combats when you don't necessarily know every single trick your allies (or your players) can do.

Examples:
An illusionist that has gone multiple sessions and never used a daily, when in a rough combat pulls both dailies out at the same time, and suddenly has half the enemies repeatedly falling into an illusionary pit.

Party is getting terribly beat up, multiple members are in need of healing. Hunter multi-classed cleric is able to heal 4 members in one turn (without an action point).

Half-Orc Slayer (multi-monk) is late getting to a combat (we split the party ), but jumps nearly 15 feet in the air to grab hold of a flying demon then unloads every damage boosting power into a single swing. (We knew he could hit hard... but that was ridiculous)

-- We don't police character sheets, the closest we do is when a player wants to rule-bend in order to fit their concept. Then the current GM will help them in doing so and keeping it balanced... Such as our Half-Orc slayer, was unarmed (or improvised weapons), but rules-wise he wielded a quarterstaff and used their feats.

 

[Dausuul]

The guy you're quoting doesn't seem insightful to me at all; instead, he appears to be generalizing his personal experience to everybody's. I certainly remember debates over whether to play BECMI or 2E, and I remember having to specifically institute a rule that you can't use a spell or ability if you don't bring the physical book to the table.

 

[WheresMyD20]

No, the meaning of the word "will".

I think Rechan's claim was about the future, not the past. Hence his use of future tense.

But there already is one book D&D... and unless the Rules Cyclopedia ceases to exist, there will be one book D&D in the future.

The statement:
"D&D will never be a one-book only, never-errata'd/updated game. Never."
claims that it will never exist. (never = not ever ... implying past, present, and future)

If you only mean new versions, you need to say:
"New versions of D&D will never be a one-book only, never-errata'd/updated game. Never."

 

[Windjammer]

The guy you're quoting doesn't seem insightful to me at all; instead, he appears to be generalizing his personal experience to everybody's.

It doesn't surprise me that his generalizations do not mirror everyone's - whose experiences do?

Even if you disagree with his generalizations, or my own examples of player/DM-dischord, there remains the bit I bolded at the end of my OP, which is really the heart of his contention as much as mine.

Whether you design a game from the players' end or the DM's side will make a huge difference. One year of Legends & Lore has shown me that WotC seems either incapable or unwilling to alter that design focus. We have not had one hint that 5E will come with better adventures, better rules from a GM's perspective, or better allocation and distribution of content between GMs and players. Not one. We had articles about player rules this, player rules that, customize me this, customize me that, ad infinitum et nauseam.

Designing the game from the DM's end doesn't seem to be a focus or design goal for 5E. And that is somewhat worrying, I find. 4E is a wonderful game, I plan to play it for many, many years to come, but another player-centric game is not going to make me look at 5E. Been there, done that. Grapple simplified, skill resolution speeded up? Sorry, that was 4E's promise. This time, the hurdles are a bit steeper.

And to answer a great many responses, most of them insightful, I wanted to clarify that I don't see the things raised in the OP as unsurmountable obstacles. Like you I firmly believe in the power of human communication and common sense - and, as a prerquisite to either, a careful selection as to who you play with.

Here's the catch. I play with friends, and most of the time with adults. Our issue is this (and sorry if I repeat myself): my players view the D&D experience through a piece of software which does not contextualize rules elements. It simply doesn't. It references sources, not uses, not campaign aptitude. As a result, it's - apparently - the GM's duty to go through dozens of items and talk to players individuallly about each of them.

And that's a colossal waste of time. Here's some real data to back it up: I started sharing my campaign concept last Saturday evening with 1 of my 3 players (he's the one most knowledgable about the published setting), and then sent round a list of what's legit and what's not. Where I'm sitting, it's Wednesday evening. In the time since we have exchanged 73 emails about individual rules item. Some of these emails were longer than my OP.

This is a colossal waste of my time, and that of my players. We could have spent this time talking about NPC organizations, about campaign-related stuff. Instead we spend 73 emails discussing on who's getting a +1 to hit from which source, feat, power.

And that's supposedly a rewarding experience?

That's the super convenient time-saving software which WotC sells us to kick off campaigns? Really?

I'm not surprised that many DM's simply give up. The 'everything's core' philosophy explicitly told them so. But if you don't swallow that, then there must be a more effective way to handle these issues. And that starts with the attitude you communicate to players in your books and ends up with the design of your e-tools. Somewhere inbetween is an actual games engine, which you hope is designed with an enlightened understanding of the gaming table as a social environment in mind. That's my hope for 5E.

 

[KidSnide]

I think this goes to WotC's "Everything is Core" decision in 4e, which effectively eliminates the meaning of "core". (If everything is core, then what's the core?)

From the beginning, a character building tool should begin with a Campaign. The DM publishes the Campaign, deciding which rules elements are in the campaign. When the player creates a new character, he selects the campaign for that character and can only build out of the rules elements that the DM has allowed.

Of course, this should also provide the ability for DMs to add custom campaign content and a nice DM printout of all the PC's defenses and skills. But, as an initial matter, there needs to be a step where the DM decides what the campaign consists of.

It is obviously possible to create a character builder where all PCs have access to the same abilities. However, the idea that such a character builder would be appropriate for all (or even most) campaigns is fundamentally flawed.

-KS

 

[Glade Riven]

As DM/GM, I prefer to be asked. If you ask, there is a high likelyhood I'll say "yes." If you don't, there is an even greater likelyhood I'll say "no." Especially if you're pulling stuff from pirated PDFs of obscure books that you don't own.

I have had that happen. Even though I told the guy we're playing Pathfinder Core only. Three times. And he didn't even read the bloody rules right on what he was wanting to include.

Mostly it is a courtesy thing. Respect me as DM and I'll reward you with respect in kind.

 

[Kannik]

Trust - Players and DM need to trust each other to create a campaign that is fun for everyone.

Hear hear.

I have learned so much about Trust in my current stint as DM, especially well illustrated by a quote (paraphrased here) from one of the recent DM Experience columns on dndinsider: "We [the players] have trust [that the DM] will guide the game/adventure to a place that is awesome."

I take that to, at its root level, mean that the PC's trust the DM, and conversely the DM trusts the PCs, to guide the adventure through twists, turns, ups, downs, and even sideways, to a place that ultimately is satisfying to all. The adventure and the shared journey and creation is key, and we trust that we are indeed all on that same path.

It is a sacred trust, and it needs to be generated 100% by the players and the DM alike, not 50% and I'll see if you fulfill your side of the bargain (that I've not told you about, or what you're being judged on, or being scored by, or what I want -- this would be the communication part). When both sides are waiting for the other to 'prove their worthiness of trust' then there's 0% trust and 0% ownership on both sides.

With that trust, a DM can throw curveballs at the party and not be decried as unfair. If something doesn't go the way the PCs anticipated they can take it as a setback or as something consistent within the (campaign) world, not the DM just trying to thwart something.

With that trust a DM doesn't need to worry about an arms race. If a player brings something weird to the table, the DM doesn't need to brace for impact.

With that trust true communication can happen and anything that isn't working can be resolved. The players can express their uncertainty that the campaign is on the right track, the DM can express their concern for a PC's power level, and the communications can be received and something worked out.

It is not about who has the 'power' in the relationship, as some might put it... DM vs Player. It is about the interplay between the world (DM) and the protagonists (players) and the journeys they travel on.

peace,

Kannik

 

[foolish_mortals]

I think this goes to WotC's "Everything is Core" decision in 4e, which effectively eliminates the meaning of "core". (If everything is core, then what's the core?)

From the beginning, a character building tool should begin with a Campaign. The DM publishes the Campaign, deciding which rules elements are in the campaign. When the player creates a new character, he selects the campaign for that character and can only build out of the rules elements that the DM has allowed.

Of course, this should also provide the ability for DMs to add custom campaign content and a nice DM printout of all the PC's defenses and skills. But, as an initial matter, there needs to be a step where the DM decides what the campaign consists of.

It is obviously possible to create a character builder where all PCs have access to the same abilities. However, the idea that such a character builder would be appropriate for all (or even most) campaigns is fundamentally flawed.

-KS

I'm not sure what they meant by "Everything is Core". It almost seems like their say "You Have to Buy Everything to Play". Please tell me they didn't say that.

foolish_mortals

 

[nightwyrm]

I'm not sure what they meant by "Everything is Core". It almost seems like their say "You Have to Buy Everything to Play". Please tell me they didn't say that.

foolish_mortals

No. It's a way of saying that everything you buy would work with everything you've already bought. It's saying that you can play a Swordmage in non-FR or an Artificer in non-Eberron even though those two classes came out in those setting books.

 

[Incenjucar]

I'm not sure what they meant by "Everything is Core". It almost seems like their say "You Have to Buy Everything to Play". Please tell me they didn't say that.

foolish_mortals

If that was true we wouldn't be able to play the game until it was cancelled.