D&D 5E Changes in Interpretation

[Manbearcat]

Yes, that seems right - more (2).

Note that for 4e I am pretty happy to 'Skip* To the Fun!' and pass over the exploratory phase to get to the Big Fight. With pre-3e I find the exploratory phase crucial to building a sense of immersion, which raises the stakes and the tension when the Big Fight or other danger occurs.

I think this is roughly right.

But not necessarily mechanics-neutral. I'm thinking White Plume Mountain - where you're expected (for example) to remove doors so you can "surf" them down the frictionless corridor over the pits of super-tetanus spikes. For me, this is exploratory play - because interacting with the scenery is key to the point of play. It's your (1), not (2), because the environment is obviously not benign. But it's not mechanics-neutral. In a conflict resolution game, surfing the doors over the pits should still trigger an action resolution check - on a failure, for example, your PC's beloved hat falls into the pit as you surf over it! - Now what are you going to do? (ie complications, stakes etc).

Whereas to adjudicate White Plume Mountain in that way would, I think, to be missing the point of it. Engaging with the scenery is what it's about, and once that's happened we move on to the next bit of scenery. (Tomb of Horrors is also like this, but I think less interesting - not as whacky as White Plume Mountain, and the "scenery interaction" very often can be reduced to "The thief flies in tied to a rope and looks for traps" - I'm not the biggest fan of exploratory play in general, but find the bomb squad version of it especially tedious.)

I think I understand what you mean now for "exploratory". What I still don't understand is how 4e hinders, or in some way doesn't lend itself to it.

With 4e I, as the DM, have more tools at my disposal to adjudicate, but the players still retain the "control" of how they decide to "investigate" the environment. I guess I don't see a difference because I've done it (exploratory play) with every edition from Moldvay to 4e.

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. This is what I figured you guys were referring to.

However, I'm with D'karr here. The <poor> 4e editorializing advice notwithstanding, I do not understand what, within the resolution mechanics, would intimate that 4e is unique in its inability to handle this type of play. I share Dkarr's position. As far as I can tell, the resolution mechanics (relative to prior editions where this form of play is advocated for) are indifferent to this playstyle. There are two issues that I think might be at work here to engender the school of thought that 4e uniquely mishandles (or outright cannot handle) this style of play:

1) Designer editorializing (what S'mon is depicting above). I often wonder whether the visceral reaction to 4e would have become manifest if the editor's would have chosen to advocate something less exclusive besides "get to the fun" and thus marginalized peopless playstyles. This is one of the first things that people read about 4e and WOW can I tell you that it turned off an enormous number of gamers in my circle before they were able to even see the resolution mechanics on paper, let alone in game. People are funny. When something turns them off (superficially), their ability to become passive aggressive or willfully indignant is extraordinary. I witnessed it many times when trying to convince players (within my circle) to give the system a go. They couldn't pin down what they didn't like about it but they hated it from the wrods "get to the fun!" Later, there was various (incoherent or untried) mechanical post-hoc justification for their visceral reaction to "get to the fun!" However, it was clear upon probing them that their post-hoc justifications were just cover-up for their rage over "get to the fun!" This is not to say that some folks do not have legitimate, well-considered disdain for 4e's unified mechanics, encounter-based design, etc. However, I am certain (as I witnessed it) that there was a lot of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" after "get to the fun!" and then post-hoc justification (so they wouldn't feel shallow/merely emotive in their angst).

What's more, those initial designer words on 4e (as much if not more than the mechanics) are likely to blame for most "shots off the bow" of "4e is just a tactical skirmish game"...which inevitably forces us into our trenches and then let loose a volley in return.

Finally, the coherency of design intent in 4e (from lead designers, to foot soldiers to editors) appears to have been all over the map. I really don't think they had a solid vision for how they intended this game to play. What's more, I really don't need them to tell me how to play...nor do I need them to produce fiction for me to follow. I need clean resolution mechanics and I will use them to support my gaming needs (or not). For a designer (especially when there is nothing unique in the mechanics to infringe upon a certain playstyle), to tell me to "get to the fun"...well, personally, I'm indifferent. I won't emote or have a visceral reaction. That advice means nothing to me. I'll play my game by way of leveraging the mechanical medium they have provided. If it is grossly at odds with what I'm trying to do, I'll change it or walk away. Outside of 2 (below) and "get to the fun", I still don't see much about 4e that refuses to handle or mishandles "exploratory play."

2) Intra-encounter resource siloing and hard-coding of spells. This area was different than before and, for myself, improved the game dramatically. This likely created some angst (at least initially) from some generalist wizard players and others who expected generalist wizards to be "game-solvers" and expected magic to play this historical role of "open-ended swiss army knife" which, when used "cleverly" can circumvent all manner of conflict and plot device. I found this siloing and hard-coding (and the accompanying Ritual system) to be a beautiful step forward in game design. However, there are certainly plenty of general wizard players (and those who just expected the "bargain with the DM by way of the open-endedness of the magic system to defeat all encounters/circumvent plot arcs) who felt that this siloing and hard-coding "ruined magic" and "wasn't D&D." Strategic play whereby the PCs "interact with their environment" is no longer circumvented or dominated by magic...that is 4e's sole contribution here. You can still strategically solve problems by way of exploring the environment...it is just no longer the primary purview of magic's domain. You can fiddle with the wall for secrete nodules, ride a shield down a stairwell, bridge a long pit with an extension ladder or tie the group together in 4e just fine.

Outlining those 2 (the formal changes that I can think of whereby 4e uniquely interacts with exploratory play), I still don't understand how 4e uniquely infringes upon either 1 or 2 that I outlined in my former post. (i) Editorial advice (especially when it is so shallow and ultimately meaningless) does nothing to mandate a narrow style of play or fiction (especially if the resolution mechanics do not agree with the advice) and siloing and hard-coding spells does not ultimately stop "exploratory play"...it just disallows the leveraging/bargaining of their open-ended, infinite nature to dominate (and thus narrow) "exploratory play."
I must be missing something. You invoked WPM and ToH. I agree that those two modules are extremely "exploratory play" in the 1e gamist sense. Maybe you looked at a lot of the initial run of 4e modules and they advocate "get to the fun" and don't have the "exploratory play" nuance of those prior modules? I don't know. I haven't looked at a single 4e module. Further, while you can certainly find the "ways to play that the module creators advocate", that doesn't mean that they are the "only ways to play." I have never looked at modules for inspiration for my games so, while I understand that many are, I'm pretty much unaffected by what "style of play" designers advocate as relevant and/or best supported to/by the current edition.

Am I missing your point or am I completely off the charted path? Somewhere our wires may be crossed.

 

[pemerton]

Am I missing your point or am I completely off the charted path? Somewhere our wires may be crossed.

I don't think so.

However, I'm with D'karr here. The <poor> 4e editorializing advice notwithstanding, I do not understand what, within the resolution mechanics, would intimate that 4e is unique in its inability to handle this type of play.

Not uniquely unsuited. But not the vehicle I personally would choose.

Intra-encounter resource siloing and hard-coding of spells.

<snip>

siloing and hard-coding spells does not ultimately stop "exploratory play"...it just disallows the leveraging/bargaining of their open-ended, infinite nature to dominate (and thus narrow) "exploratory play."

The hard-coding of spells is not an issue, for the reasons you give. But I think the intra-encounter resource siloing is. At least in my experience, it promotes the scene/situation/encounter as the focus of play. For example, it tends to confine the mechanical consequences of action resolution to the scene, as adjudicated in accordance with metagame priorities - whereas exploratory play, traditionally, extends those consequences across "scenes", which are adjudicated via ingame causation (and hence, in a sense, aren't really scenes - thus my inverted commas).

The disease track is an exception to this, and thus it makes sense that you're referred to it. Rituals are another exception. My own feeling is that a version of 4e that heavily emphasised these aspects of its action resolution would have a different feel from "straight out of the books" 4e - and you might want to toy with the gp cost of rituals, which is high enough, at present, to discourage them as the principal means of action resolution. But I don't want to imply that I think it couldn't be done.

But I still feel that, at least in the hands of me and my group, the other parts of the system - the scene framing, the intra-scene resolution orientation, etc - would tend to assert themselves, naturally pulling the game back more in the direction of the editorialised style that you identified.

I must be missing something. You invoked WPM and ToH. I agree that those two modules are extremely "exploratory play" in the 1e gamist sense. Maybe you looked at a lot of the initial run of 4e modules and they advocate "get to the fun" and don't have the "exploratory play" nuance of those prior modules? I don't know.

I invoked those modules to (i) try and convey the playstyle I had in mind - which I think I've succeeded at - and (ii) to try to explain why I think it's not entirely mechanics neutral - which I'm still working on! The key for me is the importance of metagame - 4e puts it right up there, I think, whereas exploratory play tries to subordinate the role of metagame in action resolution as much as possible.

The 4e modules I know - about half-a-dozen of them - are completely different from those modules, not entirely lacking in exploration but not relying on it to feed into action resolution. (They're also very railroady as written - as per my exchange with [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] above, you need to tear them apart and pull out the useful maps, story elements, situations etc but disregard the pre-packaged plot and pacing that they present.)

I think I understand what you mean now for "exploratory". What I still don't understand is how 4e hinders, or in some way doesn't lend itself to it.

<snip>

With your White Plume example, if the PCs came up with the idea of surfing on the doors that can become an auto-success on an extended skill challenge, or it can simply be an use of the "easy" button to bypass the challenge.

This is true, but it seems to me that, at a certain point, if you're mostly doing "auto-successes" then you may not need the skill challenge framework anymore.

I've only done one straight "auto-success/auto-fail" skill challenge - the "interview" with Vecna that opens the Tower of Mysteries in Thunderspire Labyrinth. As the module presents it, the assumption is that the PCs will answer Vecna's questions by sprouting random stuff by making successful knowledge checks; whereas in my game the PCs actually told Vecna stuff that had just recently taken place, about their encounter with Kas and their return of his sword to him. I treated most of this stuff as auto-successes, but when they fudged or hedged or revealed to Vecna that they'd done stuff he didn't approve of (like give Kas back his sword) I treated it as auto-fail.

In this case the skill challenge framework still worked, because I had mechanical consequences (loss of encounter powers and healing surges) that were to be applied based on the number of failures relative to the number of successes at the end of the challenge. But in White Plume Mountain, I'm not sure how I would frame the consequences in such clear metagame terms. As written, at least, the module seems to assume that you either cross the super-tetanus pits, or you don't. I'm sure it could be reworked to reflect a skill challenge style - and parts of ToH too (eg moving through the magic arrow sequence of doors, or exploring the coloured globes, might lend themselves to a skill challenge framework) - but that wouldn't lead to the originally intended experience, I don't think.

I guess I don't see a difference because I've done it (exploratory play) with every edition from Moldvay to 4e.

Well, I run 4e as I (tried) to run classic D&D. But I was never good at GMing in the (WPM, ToH) exploratory style, and never particularly enjoyed it either. I went through a brief phase of trying to run D&D that way, under the influence particularly of Lewis Pulsipher in White Dwarf (and, to a lesser extent, the more light-hearted Roger Musson), but my players didn't care for it and I gave up the attempt - feeling a bit of a failure at the time, but in retrospect moving towards a firmer grasp of what I enjoyed and had to offer as a GM.

Anyway, I'll finish this post with a second-order reflection: we seem to be refuting, by empirical example rather than theory, the claim that 4e only supports a single narrow playstyle!

 

[tomBitonti]

I kind of agree with the OP's broader point, but in the case of the Next Playtest, I think it's off base. This is a playtest. That means we should really be dealing with the rules as they are written in order to test the problems rather than applying our interpretations, or houseruling them.

The thing is, I don't think this is a true playtest.

What I am gathering is that the 5E "playtest" is more of a rules laboratory. There are a number of rules which have been presented specifically not in their intended final form. Some of the rules have been deliberately tweaked to a high or low side, for the purpose of gathering feedback. Some rules seem to be presented as experiments.

TomB

 

[Salamandyr]

The thing is, I don't think this is a true playtest.

What I am gathering is that the 5E "playtest" is more of a rules laboratory. There are a number of rules which have been presented specifically not in their intended final form. Some of the rules have been deliberately tweaked to a high or low side, for the purpose of gathering feedback. Some rules seem to be presented as experiments.

TomB

I think that's okay too. But we still need to deal with the rules as presented, because if we don't, we may not be giving them the best feedback possible.

 

[Manbearcat]

<snip of lots of extremely well explained, good stuff >

Anyway, I'll finish this post with a second-order reflection: we seem to be refuting, by empirical example rather than theory, the claim that 4e only supports a single narrow playstyle!

Thank you for your well-considered post. I understand your position very well at this point.

I think I'll respond by just taking the last bit as I think its the prevailing wind here. This is what my contention has been since my first play of the system. 4e (to the opposite of its detractors position) is more inclusionary than any edition that preceded it. It is not exclusionary. It just supports a specific gaming style (for the first time ever), by way of its scene-framing and action-resolution mechanics, unlike all of the prior editions. However, just because it can produce this (and can produce this assertively as you put it) does not make it exclusionary of prior modes of play. Perhaps because it is more inclusionary than ever, perhaps because it is so successful in its inclusionary endeavor, there is an expectation that the newly included playstyle (gamist/narrativist marriage) is the default assumption of the system...and thereby the only possible mode of operation?

Perhaps that is the case? If that is yet another of the tenants of the edition war, then, again, as happen to disagree with it and strongly at that. I didn't agree with that theoretically upon first read (even though I knew immediately what the impact of the "get to the fun" editorialising would be) and then verified it empirically in play.

 

[D'karr]

This is true, but it seems to me that, at a certain point, if you're mostly doing "auto-successes" then you may not need the skill challenge framework anymore.

<snip>

But in White Plume Mountain, I'm not sure how I would frame the consequences in such clear metagame terms. As written, at least, the module seems to assume that you either cross the super-tetanus pits, or you don't. I'm sure it could be reworked to reflect a skill challenge style - and parts of ToH too (eg moving through the magic arrow sequence of doors, or exploring the coloured globes, might lend themselves to a skill challenge framework) - but that wouldn't lead to the originally intended experience, I don't think.

Now, I understand exactly what you are talking about. In my case if a particular tool does not fit the job, I modify the tool, find another, or don't use it. I don't try to force a particular tool to do something it is ill equipped to do.

In pre-4e play there was no "skill challenge" framework. In some editions there were no "skills". Something like WPM and ToH were designed during that period. So if the "skill challenge" framework works for them, I adapt it. If it doesn't work for them, I look at other tools, create my own, or simply revert to the exact way those editions handled it - wing it.

That is why I found the idea that the game was ill suited for that type of play strange. That type of play in previous editions never had ANY tools. It's not that the game and its provided mechanics are ill suited, it's that some particular examples of play in those are better handled with the "old tools", which was no tool at all.

Well, I run 4e as I (tried) to run classic D&D. But I was never good at GMing in the (WPM, ToH) exploratory style, and never particularly enjoyed it either. I went through a brief phase of trying to run D&D that way, under the influence particularly of Lewis Pulsipher in White Dwarf (and, to a lesser extent, the more light-hearted Roger Musson), but my players didn't care for it and I gave up the attempt - feeling a bit of a failure at the time, but in retrospect moving towards a firmer grasp of what I enjoyed and had to offer as a GM.

And that is probably the best thing to recognize. DM in the style that best suits your inclination, and your player inclinations. Your players will definitely thank you in the end.

When the DMG refered to "get to the fun!" that "realization" is what I read. Get to the parts that excite everyone at the table.




-

 

[Ratskinner]

I think I'll respond by just taking the last bit as I think its the prevailing wind here. This is what my contention has been since my first play of the system. 4e (to the opposite of its detractors position) is more inclusionary than any edition that preceded it. It is not exclusionary. It just supports a specific gaming style (for the first time ever), by way of its scene-framing and action-resolution mechanics, unlike all of the prior editions.

Not to begin/forward any edition warring here (or crash the 4e love fest), but that seems kinda "highbrow" for the typical edition-war "arguments".

For myself, none of the concerns you folks have been discussing were even on my radar (perhaps because I skimmed much of text, rather than studied it, before playing). My biggest concern with 4e was that the (particularly combat & power) mechanics were so tightly scripted(?) that it was very difficult to get it out of a modern action-movie feel (not sure that's the best description of the combat "feel" but anyway.) Even with generous allowance for narrative interpretation, the mechanics seem to favor combats going "a certain way". To be fair, I think that was what they were going for, and when I want that, 4e would be the go-to edition of D&D (barring other considerations).

Does that make 4e bad? No. It is what it is. There are plenty of games on my shelf/hard-drive, that are good for only a narrow band of things (or sometimes one thing).

However, just because it can produce this (and can produce this assertively as you put it) does not make it exclusionary of prior modes of play. Perhaps because it is more inclusionary than ever, perhaps because it is so successful in its inclusionary endeavor, there is an expectation that the newly included playstyle (gamist/narrativist marriage) is the default assumption of the system...and thereby the only possible mode of operation?

Yeah, no. Things that are successful at being inclusionary don't alienate large swaths of their potential audience, and keep them alienated. I submit that (the occasional Gnomish patriot aside) if 4e was as inclusionary as you assert that it would have eventually reclaimed many of its opponents. Articles, word of mouth, forum discussions, etc. would have eventually gotten people to try it out and explore it more fully. People would have found a way to put those pretty new books and awesome DM-side tools to use.

I'm sure that if we dissect 4e's text and presentation we will find issues and inaccuracies. However, I'm also sure that I'm not alone as a DM in that I sorta skimmed large parts of 4e before running it, figuring my experience would make up the gap. (It did.) To me, that means that 4e's presentation isn't hiding some massive wonderful inclusiveness. If it was, all us cocksure DMs would have discovered that in the first few months after its release.

Again, I'm not hating on 4e. As I said above, it is what it is. I've actually got a few more "experiments" with 4e that I'd like to run (but its unlikely I'll find the time and players now.) However, 4e is certainly not some "all things to everyone" edition of D&D that hides behind an accidental agressively gamist presentation.

 

[Emerikol]

It would be wrong to say 4e only supports one style. I don't even claim to know every possible style or even what constitutes enough difference to be a new style.

I do know though that 4e does not support my style. I dislike plot coupon design. Others like it. I don't. It's a matter of taste but for me it is inescapable in 4e.

I also didn't like the classes all using the same AEDU structure. (I didn't play after phb 2). I'm not sure if this is really a style thing or just a taste preference.

 

[Manbearcat]

Not to begin/forward any edition warring here (or crash the 4e love fest), but that seems kinda "highbrow" for the typical edition-war "arguments".

<snip>

Again, I'm not hating on 4e. As I said above, it is what it is. I've actually got a few more "experiments" with 4e that I'd like to run (but its unlikely I'll find the time and players now.) However, 4e is certainly not some "all things to everyone" edition of D&D that hides behind an accidental agressively gamist presentation.

It would be wrong to say 4e only supports one style. I don't even claim to know every possible style or even what constitutes enough difference to be a new style.

I do know though that 4e does not support my style. I dislike plot coupon design. Others like it. I don't. It's a matter of taste but for me it is inescapable in 4e.

I also didn't like the classes all using the same AEDU structure. (I didn't play after phb 2). I'm not sure if this is really a style thing or just a taste preference.

Understood. I won't try to convince you otherwise. We were discussing a pretty narrow issue - does 4e support "exploratory play"? I contend that it does and I contend that the same game I've run from Basic onward is what I run with 4e (only it is better supported). That game is not a heroic action movie game nor is it a tactical skirmish game. I would say that my game actually has a large swath of diversity of playstyle and "mood/tone/feel." Given that I can play all of the various ways that I always have (including "Exploratory Play" and "Appalachian Trail Attrition" - and I feel that these are extremely well supported by the Skill Challenge and Disease/Condition Track mechancs) and now my Narrative/Meta-game and Gamist preferences are more supported than ever, empirically, I cannot logically state anything other than I feel the game is more inclusionary than ever.

I really don't want to get into an exceedingly, edition-warry broad topic. I know all of the issues that detractors have with the edition;

- from the dismissive editorialising - "get to the fun"
- to the unified mechanics structure/homogenization of classses
- to the siloing/constraining of magical utility
- to the tactical depth/granularity of combat (and its corresponding difficulty in playing TotM)
- to its outcome-based (rather than process-sim) resolution mechanics and monster/threat creation
- to its overt, "in your face" meta-game mechanics and the deployable player resources allowing (and expecting) author and director stance.
- to its not including gnomes core classes in phb1
- to its inclusion of the Warlord and martial healing

and on and on. I understand all of these issues. They are well-considered, thoughtful positions and I respect them. I still hold that 4e allows me to play every single way that I have ever played before (and provides me more user-friendly tools to do so) and also supports my gamist/narrative tastes. Getting into "why people believe the way they believe" or "feel the way they feel" and thus why was 4e not more popular is not going to get us anywhere. There were/are an enormous number of spokes to that wheel...and I really am not interested in speculating on them anymore.

The most speculation I will do is my first hand anecdotes of why friends (long-time ardent gamers) had the visceral reaction that they did after reading the initial editorials...what those same friends' fundamental nature is outside of gaming...and why they responded the way that they did after those initial reactions. Many of them were unbelievably angry by those initial condescending, patronising words of "get to the fun" and their spite and angst was a palpable thing. I'm pretty sure the designers could have grovelled at their feet and begged for forgiveness - "please take me back" - and it wouldn't have made a lick of difference to the edition's success on that micro-scale. It was shallow, "jilted-lover" type stuff that didn't care one way or another about dissociated mechanics, battlemat grinds, unified mechanics, homogenization of classes, etc. What my micro-anecdote says about any of the macro-issues, I don't know. However, I fully hold that certain friends of mine would have given the edition a chance if it weren't for that fateful introduction to the edition. What percentage they are, I know not. It doesn't matter though because the edition is quite dead and we have moved on. I'm just discussing its support, or lacktherof, relative to other editions, for "exploratory or appalachian trail attrition play". I did ruminate on why, generally, people would be dismissive of this specific range of 4e play due to the fact that I find it a bizarre position to take as I can/have empirically reproduced the playstyle via 4e mechanics (especially given that I've never felt that style of play was specifically supported - outside of secret door checks and some ad-hoc stuff with rolling under ability scores, saving throws, BB/LG stuff and other house-ruled shenanigans...most of the play that pemerton is invoking was more-or-less player negotiation with DM BSing your way through lack of concrete mechanics.). S'mon brought up "get to the fun" so it made a nice segue/lead-in to talk about the impact of that initial editorialising.

 

[S'mon]

There are two issues that I think might be at work here to engender the school of thought that 4e uniquely mishandles (or outright cannot handle) this style of play

My first 4e campaign was an exploratory, you-are-there 'Simulationist' campaign - Vault of Larin Karr. I ran it for I think around 20 sessions, over 2 years, I think mid 2009 to early 2011. I just don't think it worked very well. I can't even say why, exactly. The 4e mechanics didn't *stop* me running this style of play. But I know my subsequent, much more Narrativist & Dramatist, Southlands and Loudwater 4e campaigns seemed to fit the 4e game engine far, far better. I never got the 'something's wrong with this game' feeling from them (about the rules - I was not entirely happy about the lack of engagement by some of the Southlands players, so I ended it after Heroic Tier, but that wasn't a mechanical issue).