D&D 5E Blog Post by Robert J. Schwalb

[Klaus]

[MENTION=607]Klaus[/MENTION] and others:

I think it's one thing to say "I enjoyed 2nd ed AD&D more than 3E or 4e." Even to say "And that's because I found the 2nd ed play more creative." But the post says:

Clever play now occurs in isolation. The player earns the greatest reward not from having a good idea at the table or thinking to look behind the wardrobe and finding a magic item, but from the discovery of a winning combination of mechanics . . . The prize for being the best player goes not to the creative mind, the cunning tactician, the burgeoning actor, but to the best mathematician.​

That is not just talking about personal preferences and experiences. It's talking about other people, and generating implications about their roleplaying. It's not surprising that people who think it's an unfair description of their roleplaying are going to post comments - particularly when the remark comes from a prominent and respected designer.

And not a single comma in that paragraph is wrong. I love 4e dearly, but there is no denying that "smart play" has been moving more and more towards finding the right combination of powers, as to take down any monster that might come along. That is the whole point of the CharOp Class Guides (with the powers rating from golden to red), the notion of "suboptimal" builds and all the "you should take this power, because later you can take that other power and together they form Voltron!" This is not exclusive to 4e, 3e had these as well, but instead of powers they were a combination of level-dipping in 4 classes and PrClasses, with a sprinkle of this or that feat.

Note, he doesn't criticize that situation one bit, just states it as a matter of fact. And he later on points out that there is no right or wrong way to play, because what is more important than the system is what happens *at the table*.

Rob mentions that he was part of the design team to "fly the 4e flag". And you can see bits and pieces of 4e here and there in 5e. But when he says he started sloughing off his 3e and 4e assumptions, he doesn't seem to state that it was intentional on his part, but that it was a consequence of looking deeply into the history of the game.

 

[Shadeydm]

And not a single comma in that paragraph is wrong. I love 4e dearly, but there is no denying that "smart play" has been moving more and more towards finding the right combination of powers, as to take down any monster that might come along. That is the whole point of the CharOp Class Guides (with the powers rating from golden to red), the notion of "suboptimal" builds and all the "you should take this power, because later you can take that other power and together they form Voltron!" This is not exclusive to 4e, 3e had these as well, but instead of powers they were a combination of level-dipping in 4 classes and PrClasses, with a sprinkle of this or that feat.

Note, he doesn't criticize that situation one bit, just states it as a matter of fact. And he later on points out that there is no right or wrong way to play, because what is more important than the system is what happens *at the table*.

Rob mentions that he was part of the design team to "fly the 4e flag". And you can see bits and pieces of 4e here and there in 5e. But when he says he started sloughing off his 3e and 4e assumptions, he doesn't seem to state that it was intentional on his part, but that it was a consequence of looking deeply into the history of the game.

I couldn't agree more, very well said. As always there will be people out there searching and scanning for any tidbit that can be used to claim aggrieved status, same as it ever was around these parts. You really had me laughing out loud with the Voltron bit, it really hit the nail on the head in fun and humorous way. Kudos!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And not a single comma in that paragraph is wrong. I love 4e dearly, but there is no denying that "smart play" has been moving more and more towards finding the right combination of powers, as to take down any monster that might come along. That is the whole point of the CharOp Class Guides (with the powers rating from golden to red), the notion of "suboptimal" builds and all the "you should take this power, because later you can take that other power and together they form Voltron!" This is not exclusive to 4e, 3e had these as well, but instead of powers they were a combination of level-dipping in 4 classes and PrClasses, with a sprinkle of this or that feat.

Note, he doesn't criticize that situation one bit, just states it as a matter of fact. And he later on points out that there is no right or wrong way to play, because what is more important than the system is what happens *at the table*.

Absolutely you can deny it, and it is wrong. Let's look again:

Clever play now occurs in isolation. The player earns the greatest reward not from having a good idea at the table or thinking to look behind the wardrobe and finding a magic item, but from the discovery of a winning combination of mechanics . . . The prize for being the best player goes not to the creative mind, the cunning tactician, the burgeoning actor, but to the best mathematician.

Isolation is wrong - you've described how people have to work together in 4E. Good ideas at the table don't earn "the greatest reward" is straight-up wrong. You can't even deny that. Best maths wins? No, that's complete rubbish.

So really no, he is not right, he is wildly overstating something in a very sneering way. Those aren't "facts" he's spouting, Klaus, as you wrongly claim. They're opinions. Please don't confuse the two.

 

[Jester David]

I don't understand your reply at all.

How is finding clever ways to synergise the PCs' range of abilities "group optimisation" in some way that contrasts (pejoratively) with clever thinking? How come in AD&D the wizard casting an infravision spell on the thief so the latter can scout ahead is "clever play", but in 4e the fighter using Come and Get It to bunch the enemies together so the wizard can Thunderwave them over the cliff is "group optimisation"?

Do you think clever thinking only counts as clever when it doesn't involve the players having their PCs interact?

Party Optimization still primarily rewards mathematicians. And, to a lesser extent, the Tactician. It's a skill that requires system mastery and knowing how to exploit the game. It requires cleverness, but isn't the same as a clever plan or thinking out of the box. Party Optimization is very, very much thinking inside the box provided.

Is it pejorative to say so? Only if you're only interested in optimization.
The problem, as posited by Schwab is that the most recent two editions overwhelmingly favour people who play "in the box". The rewards for optimizing in 3e were too good to ignore and were an "auto win" button and in 4e some level of optimization is assumed. Other play styles were sidelined and made a lesser focus.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The problem, as posited by Schwab is that the most recent two editions overwhelmingly favour people who play "in the box". The rewards for optimizing in 3e were too good to ignore and were an "auto win" button and in 4e some level of optimization is assumed. Other play styles were sidelined and made a lesser focus.

That's what you're positing. What Schwalb actually says is wildly more extreme, as shown in the absolutist language that Klaus quotes.

 

[Raith5]

Party Optimization still primarily rewards mathematicians. And, to a lesser extent, the Tactician. It's a skill that requires system mastery and knowing how to exploit the game. It requires cleverness, but isn't the same as a clever plan or thinking out of the box. Party Optimization is very, very much thinking inside the box provided.

Is it pejorative to say so? Only if you're only interested in optimization.
The problem, as posited by Schwab is that the most recent two editions overwhelmingly favour people who play "in the box". The rewards for optimizing in 3e were too good to ignore and were an "auto win" button and in 4e some level of optimization is assumed. Other play styles were sidelined and made a lesser focus.

I think your phrasing is much more nuanced than his. But I think there is a difference between party optimisation rewarding mathematicians and sensible party planning, teamwork and coordination having a mathematical reward. I mean, out of the box thinking was covered in the p 42 rulings section of the DMG - but I agree that much more needed to be made to it.

 

[Jester David]

That's what you're positing. What Schwalb actually says is wildly more extreme, as shown in the absolutist language that Klaus quotes.

Could his phrasing have been better? Yes.
Could he have been more delicate to avoid ruffling feathers? Yup.
Does that make him wrong? Not necessarily.

Does The Game reward creative thinking? Do the rules favour creative thinking over optimization? The answer to that is "no".
3e didn't discuss creativity but codified so much that formerly creative ideas became mechanical, and often there were heavy requirements (feats) to even attempt certain actions. There was less room for creative thought. 4e allowed for some creative thought but made this inherently mechanically inferiour to powers possessed by characters, so they were incentivized to always use The Game.
It's tricky to even play 4e non-optimized, as some amount of munchkining is assumed. The math assumes characters are stacking their to-hit stat and actively taking ability boosts to that stat, and taking complimentary feats and magic items while actively perusing your combat role. Being less effective hurts the entire party who is expected to synergize and all contribute equally to their role.

The counterpoint is DMs can reward creative thinking. However, this is essentially a house rule, which me makes this an e-fallacious argument.
The Oberoni or Rule 0 Fallacy states that the argument that the rules of a game aren't flawed because they can be ignored is logically unsound, because it supposes something isn't broken if it can be fixed. If the rule is not broken, it shouldn't need to be fixed.

Is this all a bad thing?
That's the catch... If you don't care about creativity and want a D&D that plays well and is balanced them no, this isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing. If you're an optimizer - or at least an optimizer sympathizer - then then the last two editions have been amaztastic.
But if you have a slightly different playstyle.... Well, that's a different situation.


However, playstyle aside you can look at the matter as a designer. Look at it objectively.
There is a rules element that is creating a barrier to entry and slowing down the start of play. Even if people like it, is it good? No. If it's keeping people from playing and scaring people away from the game it's a bad thing, even if some people like it. (And it's essentially polarizing the audience.)

How often have you spent the entire first session doing character creation? Should it take three or four hours to make a character.
Have you every helped a new player (let alone 2-5) create a character? Or level up their characters?
Yes, I can knock out a level 10 Pathfinder character in 30 minutes, but I've been playing some variant of 3rd edition for fifteen years.
The experience of being a new player overwhelmed by the game system is an experience forgotten by most of us.
(For a quick reminder go to http://eclipsephase.com/, download the core book, and make a character. See how long it takes you and how you feel about the experience. Them imagine you're about to start playing and can't until you finish and people are waiting on you.)

 

[Neonchameleon]

Party Optimization still primarily rewards mathematicians. And, to a lesser extent, the Tactician. It's a skill that requires system mastery and knowing how to exploit the game. It requires cleverness, but isn't the same as a clever plan or thinking out of the box. Party Optimization is very, very much thinking inside the box provided.

This makes Party Optimisation no different from every single other form of tactics that there is. All tactics require cleverness and using the environment, which is given shape by the game rules, to gain an advantage. And all of them reward mathematicians because being able to calculate the odds enables you to work out what's smart and what's a fast route to a Darwin Award.

Is it pejorative to say so? Only if you're only interested in optimization.
The problem, as posited by Schwab is that the most recent two editions overwhelmingly favour people who play "in the box".

Just like all the others. Ten foot pole play is every bit as much in the box thinking as Finding the Right Spell.

The rewards for optimizing in 3e were too good to ignore and were an "auto win" button and in 4e some level of optimization is assumed. Other play styles were sidelined and made a lesser focus.

"Some level of optimisation is assumed" - it's also assumed in AD&D. It's assumed that fighters wear good armour and carry swords, both because swords are the best weapons and because swords are the most common type of treasure. You can't build a stupid wizard in AD&D any more than anywhere else, and wizards with higher Int are more likely to learn spells.

"Some level of optimisation is assumed" means nothing more and nothing less than "The game has something approaching either realism or good tactics".

That's what you're positing. What Schwalb actually says is wildly more extreme, as shown in the absolutist language that Klaus quotes.

This.

 

[Jester David]

I think your phrasing is much more nuanced than his. But I think there is a difference between party optimisation rewarding mathematicians and sensible party planning, teamwork and coordination having a mathematical reward. I mean, out of the box thinking was covered in the p 42 rulings section of the DMG - but I agree that much more needed to be made to it.

I have the advantage of knowing my audience, so I can tailor my replies to be more nuanced.
I also have the advantage or time, having been discussing the matter for a number of days while his post was much more spur-of-the-moment.


Okay, some amount of party planning is just common sense. Having one of each role, having someone with each major skill, avoiding too much gear overlap, etc. Maybe some racial diversity.
But synergizing powers so that the druid imposes CA on their target allowing the rogue to gank while the warlord is ready to let the rogue try hitting against if he misses to maximize their damage... That's exactly the same skill set as optimizing a character.


Page 42 has its own set of problems. As I've said before, it was designed so it's damage would always be lower than the PC's, so they're encouraged to always use their own powers.
It's also really focused around combat, and doesn't discuss out-of-combat creativity.
And it ignores most conditions, only focusing on damage. There's no discussion on what conditions are appropriate. Can you improves a daze power? Does a dazing stunt do full damage, half damage, or no damage?


I've thought about creative solutions in D&D before. I even did some blogging on the topic of mixing creative power use with power cards. So I know it's doable in 4e... if your DM is on board.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Does The Game reward creative thinking? Do the rules favour creative thinking over optimization? The answer to that is "no".
3e didn't discuss creativity but codified so much that formerly creative ideas became mechanical, and often there were heavy requirements (feats) to even attempt certain actions. There was less room for creative thought. 4e allowed for some creative thought but made this inherently mechanically inferiour to powers possessed by characters, so they were incentivized to always use The Game.

This bears no resemblance to my experience of 4E.

It's tricky to even play 4e non-optimized, as some amount of munchkining is assumed.

And out come the ad hominems.

The math assumes characters are stacking their to-hit stat and actively taking ability boosts to that stat, and taking complimentary feats and magic items while actively perusing your combat role.

Creative thought is not the same as being a Darwin Award waiting to happen.

Being less effective hurts the entire party who is expected to synergize and all contribute equally to their role.

In short "If you are an incompetent, everyone else has to take up your slack" - as applies to any game where there is a meaningful team challenge. The way you describe it, creative thought appears to involve playing a Kender, a Fishmalk, or something else that actively hinders the party and expecting there to be no consequences.

What exactly do you mean by "Creative Thought" other than "An excuse to not carry your weight"? (Which is the opposite of what it means to me)

The counterpoint is DMs can reward creative thinking. However, this is essentially a house rule, which me makes this an e-fallacious argument.

In short there is no reward for creative thought in any edition of D&D except 4th. So what are you arguing?

How often have you spent the entire first session doing character creation?

Once. Ever. And that was because it was (a) a one hour session and (b) we hadn't seen each other in months.

Should it take three or four hours to make a character.

No. And I can create a brand new 4e character in a class I know nothing about in literally 5 minutes. And have it play effectively.

Have you every helped a new player (let alone 2-5) create a character? Or level up their characters?

Frequently. The only serious problem 4E has is Feats.