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

[JeDiWiker]

The pacing of 3.x was abysmal, and, in my experience, differed from 1e/2e quite a bit. The ability to go through a dungeon or raid a palace without taking a break to sleep is a major step forward.

Resource Management still exists in the game- every class has daily abilities, and per-encounter abilities present a different form of resource management within each encounter. I see no fundamental advantage that any previous edition has over 4e in these terms.

See, statements like this make me think you might have a misconception about my perspective. I am by no means arguing that 3.X is perfect. I agree that the pacing leaves a lot to be desired. I just feel that the mechanic they chose to correct the pacing issue feels more like a TCG than D&D--and that that is enough of a discordant note to count as a strike against the game in my book.

JD

 

[JeDiWiker]

TCGs and MMOs are two of the most popular types of games in decades. (Not sure about CMGs just yet.)

Why is it a bad thing that D&D is borrowing ideas, mechanics, and, yes, naming conventions from those types of games?

If the goal is to preserve the feel of D&D, then anything that reminds players of TCGs, MMOs, or CMGs while they're playing runs counter to the goal.

Here's an analogy: A few years back, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, and Carrie-Ann Moss were extraordinarily popular. Not everyone liked them, of course, but the majority of Americans were very aware of them.

Now, if Peter Jackson had cast them as Aragorn, Arwen, and Galadriel, would you have enjoyed Lord of the Rings as much? Sure, they might have done good jobs, but, until you saw the whole movie, you might have felt that Jackson had caved in to the popularity factor, casting "big names" instead of actors who wouldn't have reminded you of Fight Club, Tomb Raider, and The Matrix. (Hell, I still can't watch Hugo Weaving in that movie without occasionally thinking of Agent Smith ...)

So, while ideas, mechanics, and, naming conventions from other games may be brilliant bits of game design, when they appear in D&D, I'm reminded of those other games. (In fact, I recall using the expressions "tap" and "untap" during our demo game, and at one point saying "F4" and miming pressing a button on my keyboard when activating one of my character's "at will" powers.)

To me, that's not good.

JD

 

[Thyrwyn]

In our 4E-lite demo game, after every encounter, at least half of the party felt that they needed to take the 5-minute "coffee break" after each encounter in order to be effective in the next encounter.

Which is more likely, though:

1) After a hard fought skirmish, the adventurers lingered for a few minutes - cleaningthe blood from their blades and armor, replenishing their fluids, straightening their cloaks and recovering dropped packs and weapons. And,of course, tending to minor cuts and scrapes and searching the bodies of the fallen, or. . .

2) After the hard fought battle, the adventurers immediately fell back into order and continued on their way?

 

[billd91]

Hmm, I guess there's where we differ. You see it as a problem, and I see it as a feature. Mordenkainen's Lugubrious Lucubration is one of the most obtuse and cryptic terms I've ever read, in or out of D&D, and I absolutely adore it. Same with every name on the list I made. I like names with some flavor. Tide of Iron may not be descriptive, but I'll take it over the bland "shifting attack" any day.

I used to work as a tech writer and I DM most of the time. So my perspective on the rules is that they should be written for clarity and ease of use. I'd prefer it if they saved the flowery language and purple prose for the fluff and keep it out of the crunch. There are plenty of special terms and coined words in the rules that I'm expected to know, keep flowery powers to a minimum and make my job easier.

I realize there have been some fancy sounding power names floated about but looking at the 1st level pregens most of their power names are quite prosaic.

Besides, can't you just get out a pencil and scratch out "Super Eagle Talon Windchime" and write in 'Stab the Guy' if that floats your boat?

And most of their names should be and remain prosaic, for clarity's sake. But why should it be the burden of the clarity advocates to rewrite the rules to make things simpler? Why shouldn't it be the DM's job to flower it up and make the terms relevant for their own game worlds and campaigns?
I believe they've put the shoe on the wrong foot.

But, ultimately, that doesn't have much to do with the feel of D&D as far as I'm concerned since, as people have pointed out, we've always had a certain amount of this. It has to do more with editorial standards of the material.

 

[Benimoto]

...using them did not encourage MY gaming groups to stop after encounters any longer than was necessary to heal, search, and loot. If a 3.X barbarian rages, he knows that he is still as effective as a fighter for another few encounters, at least. In our 4E-lite demo game, after every encounter, at least half of the party felt that they needed to take the 5-minute "coffee break" after each encounter in order to be effective in the next encounter.

I haven't seen the rules either, but it's my hope that "heal, search, and loot" and "5-minute break" will be effectively equivalent. In other words, I hope that there's not a sense that your characters are sitting around waiting for their powers to reactivate like a light on a waffle iron or something. Instead, your per-encounter powers will be active again whenever the characters have calmed down and prepared themselves for the next encounter. Including things like healing, searching and looting.

 

[malraux]

2) After the hard fought battle, the adventurers immediately fell back into order and continued on their way?

Or even worse, ran to the next door as fast as possible because the cleric had cast a few 1 minute/level buffs and the party didn't want them to run out.

Anyway, I think this partially depends on the DM, but I don't envision the 5 minute rest as involving just sitting around twiddling thumbs, but the process of looting the bodies, healing everyone back up, etc. to be a break during which /encounter abilities reset. If the DM is making you sit and stare at the wall for exactly 5 minutes, that seems to miss the intent of the rule.

 

[JeDiWiker]

I haven't seen the rules either, but it's my hope that "heal, search, and loot" and "5-minute break" will be effectively equivalent. In other words, I hope that there's not a sense that your characters are sitting around waiting for their powers to reactivate like a light on a waffle iron or something. Instead, your per-encounter powers will be active again whenever the characters have calmed down and prepared themselves for the next encounter. Including things like healing, searching and looting.

Unfortunately, mechanically, they *will* be sitting around waiting as though for a waffle iron.

In theory, the players can assume that they're healing, searching, and looting--but, if the encounter was very easy for them (as we've heard some were at DDE), *sometimes* the PCs take no damage, and have no reason to heal. Sometimes there's nothing to search: The summoned monster faded away in a puff of smoke, or the room was previously searched, or whatever. And, sometimes, there's nothing to loot, because, well, sometimes monsters just don't carry any treasure or gear.

So, some of the time, the PCs need to spend some time recovering. But some of the time, they are also just killing time until the 5 minutes are up and they can have their "per encounter" powers back again.

This happened to us while we were playing "Raiders of Oakherst." So I assume it's possible for it to happen in the real game.

JD

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And I firmly second your hope that Wizards actually has a well-researched, well-reasoned strategy behind the way they're going about all this. It's been too long since I've worked there for me to claim that I know what the current zeitgeist is, but I'm fairly certain that Wizards of the Coast is staffed by humans, who have all the usual agendas, foibles, misconceptions, power struggles, and not-so-good-after-all ideas that all humans have--but magnified by the corporate environment (just like every other corporation I've worked for). So, while I don't want to suggest that Wizards is going about this haphazardly, it certainly wouldn't surprise me if their plan is less than carefully calculated.

Sometimes I wonder how I can be so naive, since I am actually working at a company where not everything works fine and smooth and I (and my colleagues) sometimes wonder if people are really as stupid as they seem to be.
(Not that the company is bad or failing. But there are some thing where you really wonder...)

But I always assume the best. (And then incompetence, and then malevolence...)

If the difference appears artificial, then perhaps I didn't express it well enough. Here's another try: While 3.X has plenty of mechanics that can only be used once per "encounter" (and let's not get bogged down in the semantics of "day," "round," "encounter," and any other division of time that D&D employs), using them did not encourage MY gaming groups to stop after encounters any longer than was necessary to heal, search, and loot. If a 3.X barbarian rages, he knows that he is still as effective as a fighter for another few encounters, at least. In our 4E-lite demo game, after every encounter, at least half of the party felt that they needed to take the 5-minute "coffee break" after each encounter in order to be effective in the next encounter.

Hmm. This is not something that feels "new" or un-D&D to me. I started with 3E, and having a 5 minute break to loot bodies and (maybe even more importantly) putting out the Wands of Cure Light Wounds to heal the Fighters back to full.

In regards to rest, I sometimes feel that 4E "shortcuts" the whole thing you did in 3E anyway. Off course you would ensure that all PCs are fit after each combat encounter. Off course you wouldn't start your adventuring day before all resources are replenished (spells prepared, all damage healed, all levels restored...)

 

[AZRogue]

Unfortunately, mechanically, they *will* be sitting around waiting as though for a waffle iron.

In theory, the players can assume that they're healing, searching, and looting--but, if the encounter was very easy for them (as we've heard some were at DDE), *sometimes* the PCs take no damage, and have no reason to heal. Sometimes there's nothing to search: The summoned monster faded away in a puff of smoke, or the room was previously searched, or whatever. And, sometimes, there's nothing to loot, because, well, sometimes monsters just don't carry any treasure or gear.

So, some of the time, the PCs need to spend some time recovering. But some of the time, they are also just killing time until the 5 minutes are up and they can have their "per encounter" powers back again.

This happened to us while we were playing "Raiders of Oakherst." So I assume it's possible for it to happen in the real game.

JD

I see what you're saying, JD, but I think that this sort of thing can easily be explained away by a DM. Just one quick mention in your description of the PCs' "blood cooling" or "adrenaline slowly loosening its hold on their hearts" and you're back in it. I think the 5 minute break is only as much of a speedbump as we want to make it. You could not pay any attention to it at all and just 'assume' that the five minutes were eaten up by searching for loot and 'walking' to the next encounter.

But it does come down to playstyle. My players, for instance, wouldn't, and haven't, noticed anything artificial about the 5-minute break. I insert my one line of descriptive text, they nod, and we move on. They're not the types to wonder if they rested six minutes, or only four minutes, and so on. They just accept that a generic "break" took place while they were doing other stuff and then want to know what they see next.

I would say that these 'new' designations, like encounter powers, only seem strange because they are new. Once you've used them a bit you won't even notice them. Or so I imagine.

 

[Cadfan]

My players, for instance, wouldn't, and haven't, noticed anything artificial about the 5-minute break. I insert my one line of descriptive text, they nod, and we move on. They're not the types to wonder if they rested six minutes, or only four minutes, and so on. They just accept that a generic "break" took place while they were doing other stuff and then want to know what they see next.

Exactly. One sentence- "The last orc falls to the floor. You sheathe your weapons, check one another to make sure everyone is alright, and move on."

If you insist upon narrating it like this- "The last orc falls. Ok, everyone, time for your mandatory 5 minute break! Nothing happens for five minutes. Ok, now move on." then you won't enjoy yourself. And its your own fault, too.