Blog post on the feel of D&D (marmell, reynolds et all)

[VannATLC]

The big question with such freeform stunts have always been: What happens when they get close to the defined stunts, who may be restricted in some way: require purchase, have limits on usage, etc. Do you suddenly prohibit that particular freeform stunt because it duplicates something you otherwise have to pay for? In the above example, the table kick is awfully close to doing a Trip, which you (A) have to buy as a power, and (B) is limited to once per encounter.

And what happens when new splatbooks come out with new Powers? Will those further restrict the freeform stunts availabe to you?

I would disagree that it is close to the defined stunt.

It has a similiar mechanical affect, this is true.. But it is heavily situational, required emplacement of creatures in a certain way, and depends on the presence of the table.
And, to be honest, I would have this as mini skill-challenge.. 2 successes, 1 failure.
I'm not sure how carrying capacity would play out, but only a very strong person could kick a table *up* with two other characters on it, hard enough to dislodge them.
I'd have what I call a strength *burst* check, and then then an attack agaist reflex for the the people on the table to stay upright.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The big question with such freeform stunts have always been: What happens when they get close to the defined stunts, who may be restricted in some way: require purchase, have limits on usage, etc. Do you suddenly prohibit that particular freeform stunt because it duplicates something you otherwise have to pay for? In the above example, the table kick is awfully close to doing a Trip, which you (A) have to buy as a power, and (B) is limited to once per encounter.

And what happens when new splatbooks come out with new Powers? Will those further restrict the freeform stunts availabe to you?

It was definitely something that 3E seemed to be in risk off. I am not sure if 4E will be better in that regard. But here is my "guess":
Powers will always have a significant advantage over improvised maneuvers. They either deal damage plus the maneuver effect, or they take only a minor action or something like that.
At the same time, while powers are still "superior" for the most part, you don't suffer any penalties on your checks and rolls for your maneuver, and you don't provoke Opportunity Attacks (at least generally. I guess "throwing salt" might be a ranged attack, and might do it for that reason alone, but not just because you're performing a "stunt"). This means in those situations where the maneuver looks like a good idea since it's effect is useful, you have at least a fair probability of pulling it off.

So, if the Martial Sourcebook will contain a "throw salt into face"-power, it will only require a minor action and blind the foe until the beginning of your next turn, and usable once per encounter. After your minor attack, you can still run away or strike your opponent while he can't see, and on his turn, he has great trouble striking you since he's still fighting off the salt in his eyes.
If you want to do the same without the power, you take an attack action and get the same benefit. Since it's an attack, it considerably lacks its effectiveness, and instead of using it to beat your opponent up while he's blinded, you probably just run away and hide behind your friendly neighborhood defender...

3E didn't really have the mechanical "granularity" to pull this off, at least not until Swift Action where introduced, and Bo9S offered "encounter"-based powers. Touch Attacks, AC and Saves also didn't scale proportionally, making it harder to create a fair, unifying mechanic (or guideline) for improved maneuvers or stunts. The BOIM might tried its best in that regard, but the attack penalty and attack of opportunity parts often make it feel to risky (I get attacked and have a low chance of actually succeeding? I guess full attack it is, then...)

 

[billd91]

If true, it would make most people's first experiance of D&D actually play like D&D's supposed to play. How can this not be a Good Thing?

This leads to the question of whether that actually is how D&D is supposed to play.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This leads to the question of whether that actually is how D&D is supposed to play.

I suppose so. You have all the tid-bits. Per day, per encounter, at will powers, hit points and buffs. Fundamentally, the rules don't change that much, though Rituals remain a unknown factor.
The surroundings will change. You won't keep fighting hordes of Kobolds and a single Black Dragon for long.

 

[Wolfspider]

If true, it would make most people's first experiance of D&D actually play like D&D's supposed to play. How can this not be a Good Thing?

Why not give players and DMs the option of starting characters out at a lower level if they want a more gritty experience or starting characters out at 3rd or 4th level if they want something more powerful?

How can providing options not be a Good Thing?

 

[Ximenes088]

Because it's implied that WotC's marketing research says that most players want more heroic 1st level PCs. Therefore, they engineer the game to make the minority playstyle the one that takes house-ruling, rather than forcing hypothetical new game buyers to manipulate rules they don't yet understand to get an experience they haven't yet had.

Besides, those who know they want a gritty game can halve their hit points, nix daily powers, cut encounter powers in half, call it "0th level", double XP required for advancement, and have a gritty game. It's much easier for a grognard to do this than a new player to make a 3rd level PC.

 

[Crosswind]

Wolf - You, and to a greater extent, Lizard, have espoused the following viewpoint in a lot of threads. Correct me if I get it wrong:

"The more options the rules explicitly enumerate for me, the player, the better. I always have the choice to ignore subsets of the rules and not employ them, but if I want to use them, they are there."

I, too, as a player, like options. But it is a bit short-sighted to think that there is no drawback to having extra options. The truth is, the more options you include, the less balanced your system will be, because each option adds margin for error.

Given this, you can take one of two philosophies: You can attempt to build a system that has explicit rules for all eventualities (3.5), and is broken on many of them. Or you can create a system that is fundamentally sound/unbroken on a limited set of actions, and then provide a DM with tools to adjudicate other actions (4.0). The idea with the latter is that a player can't make the "BUT THE RULES SAY I CAN DO THIS!" argument on any action that is truly imbalanced.

Is there any compelling evidence that the game design for 3.5 ("Rules for everything!") is more "classic D&D" than the game design for 4.0 ("Rules for what we think is important")?

-Cross

 

[HyrumOWC]

I think it comes down to the old adage, "If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all."

As designers, one would hope they would want the new edition to succeed. While they may feel its too soon, etc, the fact is 4e is here, and the future of dnd goes with it. Its been awhile, but its important to remind people that until 3e came around, dnd as a business was dead. 3e resurrected it because it made profit. But dnd can just as easily die again if it does not continue to make profit.

So with that in mind, I think its important to be positive, to get people excited. If you see something in 4e you like, then say so. If you don't like it, then wait to see the full picture and see if it changes your mind.

Is that a biased view? Absolutely. But I would much rather be optimistic about the future of the game I love than to shoot down its future before we even see what that full future will entail. And for designers, people who make a living off of this game, I would say that goes double for them.

I'm sorry but I couldn't disagree with this more. I'm interested in playing a good RPG, not singing the praises of D&D. If I like it, I'll say so, if I don't, I won't. Just because I make money from the game and the industry doesn't mean I can't have an opinion.

Hyrum.

 

[seankreynolds]

Folks,

I'm not here to address salt in the eyes, or whether 3e is better than 4e, or whether we didn't have enough information to make an appropriate judgement on the limited 4e rules, or whether I'm qualified to make that judgement, or any of the other side topics that have popped up in this thread. And I'm just speaking for me, not JD or anyone else in our group.

I am here to comment on the "do they deserve to see the rules because they used to work for the company?" topic.

FYI, I asked to get on the playtest list in September.
JD asked around that time, too.
In November or December, they asked me if I would be interested in working on a 4e project. I don't them I didn't have time in my schedule but they should talk to JD, as he might.
It's now April, and neither of us has seen any playtest documents. We haven't seen anything that isn't already public info (like stuff from DDE).
Neither of us is on a blacklist; they asked me to write some 4e stuff, and JD is currently designing Star Wars stuff for them. Yet despite both of us asking to get an NDA so we can see the playtest materials and build an informed opinion (which, mind you, the NDA would keep us from expressing, good or bad), and being offered or actually doing work for the company, neither of us have actually seen the docs.

It's not a question of "deserving" to see the rules. Or sour grapes. Or an unreasonable preset bias against the new edition. I WANT to see 4E. I WANT to be able to play it and see how it all fits together. But yet again, just like with the extremely-delayed GSL for Early Adopter publishers, Wizards has dropped the ball somewhere, and because of that I am left with the same scant information that everyone else has. I could be gushing about the game right now, but instead I (and other 3E designer grognards) have, at best, a "meh" attitude toward it because they haven't given me enough information.

 

[Lizard]

Wolf - You, and to a greater extent, Lizard, have espoused the following viewpoint in a lot of threads. Correct me if I get it wrong:

"The more options the rules explicitly enumerate for me, the player, the better. I always have the choice to ignore subsets of the rules and not employ them, but if I want to use them, they are there."

Pretty accurate. I find it easier to ignore rules than to add them, and I like games with 'dials' or 'settings' so that a single ruleset can emulate more genres/styles of play.

Given this, you can take one of two philosophies: You can attempt to build a system that has explicit rules for all eventualities (3.5), and is broken on many of them. Or you can create a system that is fundamentally sound/unbroken on a limited set of actions, and then provide a DM with tools to adjudicate other actions (4.0). The idea with the latter is that a player can't make the "BUT THE RULES SAY I CAN DO THIS!" argument on any action that is truly imbalanced.

Or you have a system which breaks in actual play because the interactions of multiple systems produce more edge cases than the 'simple' rules accomodate. You also have the problem of "You can't do that, there's no rules for it!", which is a common response. (You also also have the problem, as some have noted, of having some actions be 'easier' because there's no explicit rules, even when they should be harder. If 'trip' is a per-encounter exploit available only to trained fighters, then "swinging on the chandelier and kicking the thug into the fireplace while yelling 'What ho!'" ought to be a high level daily power, at best -- but the 4e rules paradigm seems to make it an at-will 'roll vs reflex defense' which any shlub can attempt, simply because there's no explicit rule FOR it, if you follow me.)

In other words, complex stunts not covered by the rules become EASIER than simple actions which ARE covered -- and which are balanced properly.

Is there any compelling evidence that the game design for 3.5 ("Rules for everything!") is more "classic D&D" than the game design for 4.0 ("Rules for what we think is important")?

-Cross

Depends on what you mean by 'classic'. If you mean, in terms of rule structure, no. But I never liked the actual D&D *rules* until third edition. I liked the *feel* of D&D -- a huge world of ancient magic, countless races, characters who rose from being pathetic losers to god-slaying heroes, and a sense of scale and scope no other system really had. (I mean, come on -- the abyss had 666 *infinite* layers! There was a para-elemental plane of Ooze!)

Fourth edition feels bland, constrained, and mechanistic to me. It looks and feels like something designed by committee and controlled by marketing. To that extent, it reminds me of 2e -- a watered down, flavorless, version of the prior edition, stripping out mechanics, options, and soul. There are some good ideas here and there, but the thing as a whole grabs me not.