D&D General 5e System Redesign through New Classes and Setting. A Thought Experiment.

[ECMO3]

I think your point about 4E hit the mark, but I also think it is telling in a way you might not have considered.

This entire idea rests on the premise that players would prefer a game where "I win" was not available. I think that basic premise is false.

As you noted 4E was extremely balanced and it was also for most players, not fun to play. Whether you think 5E needs more balance or not, it certainly is fun to play.

I don't think the "nova problem" is an actual problem at most tables, by saying that I don't mean that most tables don't experience this, rather I think most tables don't have an issue with it and I actually think on the other side of the coin there are tables that actually like this being there.

For those tables that do find it to be a problem, it is fixable with adventure design (which necessarily eliminates certain kinds of stories/play).

So the set of players you are left who need this are players who both find the ability to nova to be a problem and still insist on playing games with stories that are one/few fights a day with easy rests available. I think that is a very small set of players.

 

[Steampunkette]

I think your point about 4E hit the mark, but I also think it is telling in a way you might not have considered.

This entire idea rests on the premise that players would prefer a game where "I win" was not available. I think that basic premise is false.

No. It doesn't. This is your strawman to push over. But it isn't the position I've made clear, repeatedly, throughout this thread.

The entire idea rests on the premise that there is a fundamental flaw in the way the game was designed which resulted in an unexpected playstyle becoming dominant to the point of becoming exclusionary of other playstyles.

Whether that is 'Good' or 'Bad' isn't up to me. Whether people like it or not isn't something I've really entertained as a distinctly important question 'cause the answer to that is, and always must be, "Some do. Some don't."

As you noted 4E was extremely balanced and it was also for most players, not fun to play. Whether you think 5E needs more balance or not, it certainly is fun to play.

I would love to see the evidence backing up this statement. That 4e was not fun for "Most Players".

Most of the people playing 5e never played 4e. Or 3e. Or Pathfinder. Or any other edition of D&D or other TTRPG. So whether they'd find 4e fun is, at best, a nebulous guess.

I don't think the "nova problem" is an actual problem at most tables, by saying that I don't mean that most tables don't experience this, rather I think most tables don't have an issue with it and I actually think on the other side of the coin there are tables that actually like this being there.

Irrelevant to the thought experiment. Once more, you're diving into the subjective question of enjoyment, of which you can only assert your position without meaningful evidence of it.

The subjective question of whether the nova problem is something people like or dislike is irrelevant. The thought experiment is "How can we fix the problem?"

If your answer is "It doesn't need fixing" then you're not going to have much time in a thought experiment about how to fix it.

For those tables that do find it to be a problem, it is fixable with adventure design (which necessarily eliminates certain kinds of stories/play).

Hey! Finally! You actually addressed what the thread is about. By bringing up a point that has been repeatedly discussed across the body of the thread.

It's definitely an option to -avoid- the problem. But it doesn't -fix- the problem.

Roughly equivalent to finding that you have a hole in your wall and tossing up a painting over it. The hole is still there, but at least you don't have to look at it and the frame keeps most of the wind out.

So the set of players you are left who need this are players who both find the ability to nova to be a problem and still insist on playing games with stories that are one/few fights a day with easy rests available. I think that is a very small set of players.

Once more, a broad subjective statement apropos of your personal feelings spread across a massive quantity of people with no evidence to support the claim.

But, y'know. Maybe you're right. Maybe the vast majority of people would hate any attempt to find a solution to the mathematical foible that Mearls and his pals on the D&D Next team stumbled over, inadvertently. That's cool! Then they won't try to find a solution to it and will live on, happily!

But it's a question beyond the intention of this thread.