D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[Neonchameleon]

I acknowledge the possibility. Even in 100% skill-based games, it is possible (and advisable) to spread those points around. I simply don't think that it should be the only possibility.

Good. Then I'm sure you're a fan of 4e in which you gain general competence in adventuring as a baseline and then if you choose to invest in skills you can increase them further through feats such as skill training and skill focus, or through utility powers.

Just the half level isn't the only possibility in 4e. So where is your problem?

 

[timASW]

I'm probably going to regret this, but, TimASW, when you say:



Why on earth would you play D&D in any form? Because, AFAIC, D&D has always been far, far too much of a game to ever come even close to approaching what you claim you want.

Actually no its really not. For 20 years now its served that purpose admirably for me and millions of others. So this is just abjectly false.

Other then that I appreciate everyones responses, but since 4 pages went by while I was at work I wont clutter up the thread responding to each individually but it was actually pretty interesting and led to a much better understanding of what people who like 4e value in a game.

 

[Obryn]

Actually no its really not. For 20 years now its served that purpose admirably for me and millions of others. So this is just abjectly false.

Other then that I appreciate everyones responses, but since 4 pages went by while I was at work I wont clutter up the thread responding to each individually but it was actually pretty interesting and led to a much better understanding of what people who like 4e value in a game.

I think the general rule is that the more familiar you are with a game, the more it fades into the background. I think that's as big a part as anything. A group trying AD&D for the first time will be kind of hyper-conscious of the system, even though it's an invisible element to a veteran. And yes - I think elements of 4e (and other games such as Savage Worlds, WFRP3, and even 3.x to a large extent) are regularly visible. I find this to be a strength - like I said, I love the game elements of my RPGs. And at this point, I have no problem visualizing an exciting story at the same time. Others disagree.

And no problem, but really I'm hoping you can back off the accusations and whatnot. There's no secret 4e club, and we're not homogenous in our views or likes. And we're discussing the games we like just like you and everyone else.

 

[pemerton]

Build a character. Play that character for one session. Then give the character to someone else. Have them play the character for one session. Now retire the character, and give him to the DM to play as an NPC. Was the character mechanically different in those sessions? Do his abilities change?

If a Vancian spellcaster, almost certainly - the spell load-out will reflect the priorities of each player/GM.
[MENTION=73683]Dannager[/MENTION] has elaborated on this point upthread, and also made the important observation that the impact of a given spell load-out will differ depending on whether a player or the GM is deploying the character.

Every D&D wizard I've ever seen written (2e and 3e) has been a member of the wizard class, has had levels in that class, and has learned, memorized, and cast spells in the same way that a PC wizard would.

In AD&D I've often seen NPC wizards with randomly detemined spell books and randomly determined spell load-out - this is the default in classic D&D.

Whereas most PC wizards don't have randomly determined spell books - they hunt out or research the spells they want - and they certainly don't have randomly determined memorisation.

Since there is no skill for that, I don't see your point. The number on a sheet is what determines what is possible of a character in play. Why else would we spend so much time on those numbers?

The number on a sheet is one determinant of what is possible for a character in play. The resolution mechanics are another, equally or even more significant, determinant of what is possible for a character in play.

Rolemaster and HARP rank skill bonuses from -25 to +100 or higher (there in in principle no upper limit, although going above +150 is pretty unusual). And it is not uncommon to have party members where some are at or about +0 in a skill and another at +100. Resolution is on d%, with typical DCs set between 70 and 200. The gap is therefore about equal to the die size, and not as big as the typical DC spread.

In my 20th level 4e party, on the other hand, the biggest skill gap is in History: the fighter has +9 (+10 level, -1 stat) whereas the invoker has +29 (+10 level, +5 training, +5 item, +2 race, +2 familiar, +5 stat; I'm leaving out the possibility of a further +1d8 buff from Memory of a Thousand Lifetimes). Typical DCs are between 18 and 34. So the gap is about equal to the die size, and bigger than the typical DC spread.

This might make it seem that the 4e fighter has a better chance at hard History stuff than the RM PC with a +0 history bonus. But I'm not at all sure that's true, because really challenging stuff in 4e is going to occur in a skill challenge, not a single check, which requires multiple successes. The invoker uses History (and other knowledge schools) as his principle way of engaging the gameworld. The fighter, on the other hand, is a far more physical character. And the resolution mechanics reinforce that pretty strongly.

 

[pemerton]

My point was that while they're easy to break, they're also easy to fix. Skills have ranks. Feats have requirements.

<snip>

These types of rules are breakable, but also fixable, because of their modularity and transparency.

There were other games (feel free to list some) that had some of the features of 4e.

Actually, I'd like you to make that list. To the best of my knowledge 4e is the only fantasy RPG that offers (i) abstract non-combat resolution, (ii) tactically detailed combat resolution with built-in pacing of the "story game" variety, and (iii) gonzo fantasy.

The only other game that comes close to (i) and (ii) is Burning Wheel, but it is utterly non-gonzo.

Anyone could have played those other games to get the experience of, say, metagame class abilities.

Again, which games do you have in mind? I don't know of any indie-style game that uses classes. This is related to (i) to (iii) above: achieving (ii) and (iii) together depends upon pre-defined lists of mechanically balanced elements, which in 4e is achieved by using classes as the allocation mechansm.

 

[pemerton]

while they're easy to break, they're also easy to fix. Skills have ranks. Feats have requirements.

<snip>

These types of rules are breakable, but also fixable, because of their modularity and transparency.

<snip>

In theory, this approach is how the fighter was constructed, but in practice, the fighter has too many dead levels and the feat options aren't compelling, again which is largely because there aren't enough things for him to be good at. But there's no reason this approach couldn't be done (and done right) for all classes.

I think this sort of approach isn't transparent at all - when you try to generate a spell effect, you don't know what you're going to get until you roll.

Part of the reason the 3E fighter can be built this way is because most of those feats modify certain core numbers (attack bonus, damage, crit chance etc) and there are a range of devices - combat as hit point ablation; multiple attacks (ie rerolls), etc - to ensure that the swinginess generating by dice rolls around those numbers tends to even out over time. As soon as you move from numerical to quantitative effects (eg save or die; roll to trap all enemies in mud; etc) the issues with balance are horrendous, and the play experience is unlikely to be transparent either.

HARP uses scaling spells - all spells require a skill check, and scaled effects which cost more PP also impose a check penalty - but one distinctive feature of HARP spells is that, by D&D standards, they are very low-powered (though probably not as low-powered as traditional Runequest). D&D magic, on the other hand, has always tended towards limited high-powerd fiat - and to the extent that 4e dialled this back, many didn't like it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Again, which games do you have in mind? I don't know of any indie-style game that uses classes.

Apocalypse World + Derivatives (Monster of the Week, Monsterhearts, Dungeon World), Leverage + Derivatives* if MWP's Cortex Plus games count as indie-style even if they aren't actually indie. I think that's about it - and Leverage classes are soft ones.

This is related to (i) to (iii) above: achieving (ii) and (iii) together depends upon pre-defined lists of mechanically balanced elements, which in 4e is achieved by using classes as the allocation mechansm.

Indeed.

As for games with the features of 4e - kinaesthetic combat, distinctly different classes, pretty good balance, story mechanics, I got nothing. Even 13th Age doesn't come close to measuring up (lacking the kinaesthetic combat and at least some of the balance and a lot of the interest in the martial classes), and that's 4e's nearest challenger.

On the other hand there are plenty of games that do process-sim better than 3e (Rolemaster, Runequest, GURPS, even WFRP). And GURPS at least goes classless and from gritty to cinematic. 3e's fundamental premises were different from AD&D's - and were shared by a range of other games. So I'm going to return @Ahenosis' question. If 3e can be D&D, what can't?

*Why yes, if there is an ongoing kickstarter that's relevant and I've bought into I am going to link it. And all three of the Cortex Plus systems are well worthwhile.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION], Apocalypse World and its fantasy derivatives (Dungeon World is the one I know) postdate 4e, I think. Which is not to say that they got the idea of mixing gonzo fantasy and indie from 4e. But just to make the point that 4e was not simply reinventing the wheel.

Whereas I have grave doubts that the world needs another variant of Rolemaster (there are already 3 in print including the playtest edition), HARP, Chivalry & Sorcerery, Mythus, etc, etc. The simulatonist-heavy, all skills, more-or-less soft class fantasy game has pretty well been done to death. 3E was D&D's go at it, was pretty late to the party (and a bit half-hearted about it, as you say), and is now making Paizo a modest fortune. I would be gobsmacked if WotC went down this path with D&Dnext.

Also, while I (perhaps) have your ear, a MHRP question - how much of an NPC datafile is the GM meant to share with the players? Eg is the GM expected to inform in advance of limits, or rather are the players meant to learn about the limits by having their heroes undertake assess actions against the Doom Pool to identify weaknesses. Or some other method I haven't thought of. (In some cases, limits will be obvious - eg gear - but I'm thinking of something like the Hulk Robots "overload" limit.)

 

[Hussar]

Actually no its really not. For 20 years now its served that purpose admirably for me and millions of others. So this is just abjectly false.

Other then that I appreciate everyones responses, but since 4 pages went by while I was at work I wont clutter up the thread responding to each individually but it was actually pretty interesting and led to a much better understanding of what people who like 4e value in a game.

I'm not asking about "millions of others" because I can't ask them. Of course, 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot. I'm asking you.

How are you doing it? I'm not trying to be a jerk here. I'm honestly asking. D&D as a system has always, always been very, very fiddly. If calculating the volume of an irregular hemisphere whenever a fireball is cast in a cave doesn't disturb your immersion, how in the heck does tripping an ooze? If having to reference at least three different tables to make an attack doesn't bother you, why would referencing a small card sitting on the table in front of you bother you? If having more HP than an elephant doesn't cause you to look in confusion, why in heck would healing surges bother you?

I mean, heck, what does rolling for initiative actually mean in the game world? It's a complete abstraction. It doesn't phase you in the slightest that you get one, and only one, opening to hit something per time period, no matter what? And it doesn't bother you that the other guy will ALWAYS get a chance to hit you back before you get to try again?

I'm honestly truly baffled by people who point to D&D as this highly immersive game. It boggles me to no end. Just how much of the system do you have to internalize and/or ignore to achieve that?

 

[billd91]

I think the general rule is that the more familiar you are with a game, the more it fades into the background. I think that's as big a part as anything. A group trying AD&D for the first time will be kind of hyper-conscious of the system, even though it's an invisible element to a veteran.

I'm not so sure of that. I think it has a lot more to do with how you approach the game rather than how new it is to the players. For example, one of the prime recruiting grounds for AD&D when I was a kid was scout camp. There, the primary DM wouldn't teach much about the rules to new gamers. He'd help them make up characters and then send the PCs on their merry way into adventure. The casual gamers just decided what they wanted their characters to do and the DM operationalized it all. The game flowed well and the casual players didn't have to be hyper-conscious of the system - and weren't.

And yes - I think elements of 4e (and other games such as Savage Worlds, WFRP3, and even 3.x to a large extent) are regularly visible. I find this to be a strength - like I said, I love the game elements of my RPGs. And at this point, I have no problem visualizing an exciting story at the same time. Others disagree.

For most role playing games, I see it it as a weakness. Most of the time it just undermines immersion, which I think runs counter to typical RPG goals. Sometimes the mechanic, however, is so good from a narrative standpoint that being pulled out of immersion is acceptable, like James Bond 007's difficulty bidding, but it has been my experience that those mechanics are rare.