D&D 5E Coming Around on the "Not D&D" D&D Next Train

[Warbringer]

You forgot to add "for me".

No, they are objectively D&D; says it right on the front cover.

Whether it represents D&D for you, is subjective.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yeah, I don't see that this means anything more or less than it expresses one person's opinion.

Most major laws have a record of the discussions of the concerns and merits of doing things one way or the other, as well as the rationales behind the law's final form- its called "legislative intent". Its a guide for how things are to interpreted by future legislators, lawyers, and judges.

With 4Ed, we have not just one, but several designers telling us the same thing: don't bother trying to convert preexisting campaigns & characters to 4Ed.

From that link I cited above ( http://forum.candlekeep.com/pop_printer_friendly.asp?TOPIC_ID=9743 ), some quotes:

"Dear Sage
Will I be able to convert my favorite character to 4th Edition?

A: We learned the hard way with 3rd Edition that accurate conversion really doesn't work. Thus, we're encouraging everyone to start at 1st level and learn the new system from the ground up.
While you'll certainly be able to reinvent many existing characters with the new system, there's no way a conversion guide could adequately cover the vast array of options that have been published over the lifespan of the game.
We'll eventually revisit many favorite parts of the previous edition, and along the way we'll also explore plenty of new territory as well."

<edit down to quoted excerpt from James Wyatt's Blog>

Most of us converted. Now, I think Rob talked about this in his video interview, and we said it several times at GenCon: You can't really just convert a character directly from 3e to 4e. We pretended you could do that from 2e to 3e, but that conversion book was pretty well bogus. The fact is, as I explained it a lot at GenCon, that your character isn't what's on your character sheet: your character is the guy in your head. The character sheet is how the guy in your head interacts with the rules of the game. The rules of the game are different, so you'll be creating a new implementation of that character, but the character needn't change much. In fact, I propose that in 4e your character might actually be truer to your vision of him than in 3e. You might finally see her doing all the cool things you imagined her doing but that never quite came out on the 3e table.

So it's not just one guy- Heinsoo- but several of the edition's designers and WotC high-flyers talking about the futility of conversion due to the differences between 4Ed and its precedents. This is analogous to "legislative intent"- they are telling us about the product they themselves put to paper, and they are telling us it is something different.

Now, I like Wyatt's work, but his experience with the 2Ed=>3Ed conversion does not match what happened in my gaming group, nor does his prediction about how 4Ed would interact with my imagination was miles off.

In fairness, it must be pointed out that the same link has mentions of Heinsoo's rethinking of the non-convertibility. And if one looks, one can find Andy Collins posting some preliminary stuff for some of what appeared in the first 4Ed PHB.

Also in fairness, 4Ed had elements that let me explore different kinds of character design I found to be quite cool & satisfying.

...but my preferred form of D&D character design was essentially sidelined. 4Ed did not let me realize a truer vision of my D&D characters. In fact, it was farther off, more like other FRPGs. Not worse, not better. Different.

And those designers' comments illustrate why.

 

[Subumloc]

R: Coming Around on the "Not D&D" D&D Next Train

In the first months of 4e, Dragon mag (back then still just a collection of online articles) had a series about character/class conversion. It was very rough, sure, but at least it was acknowledged in an official source.

 

[Vanoras]

Of course tradition is a valid argument. It's every bit as valid as arguing that things need to be periodically changed. Putting up bad arguments about the inquisition doesn't change that.

Tradition isn't a valid argument because the fact that it's been going on for generations doesn't make it good.
The inquisition's morality didn't improve as years went by.
Just like a bad rule doesn't become good as time goes by.
A good rule stands up on it's own merit, not on the fact that's it's old.


Change for the sake of change isn't a valid argument either, a good argument requires good reasoning.
If you value deadly combat, reducing the hit points of characters is a good rule change because it makes combat more deadly.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Most major laws have a record of the discussions of the concerns and merits of doing things one way or the other, as well as the rationales behind the law's final form- its called "legislative intent". Its a guide for how things are to interpreted by future legislators, lawyers, and judges.

With 4Ed, we have not just one, but several designers telling us the same thing: don't bother trying to convert preexisting campaigns & characters to 4Ed.

From that link I cited above ( http://forum.candlekeep.com/pop_printer_friendly.asp?TOPIC_ID=9743 ), some quotes:



So it's not just one guy- Heinsoo- but several of the edition's designers and WotC high-flyers talking about the futility of conversion due to the differences between 4Ed and its precedents. This is analogous to "legislative intent"- they are telling us about the product they themselves put to paper, and they are telling us it is something different.

Now, I like Wyatt's work, but his experience with the 2Ed=>3Ed conversion does not match what happened in my gaming group, nor does his prediction about how 4Ed would interact with my imagination was miles off.

In fairness, it must be pointed out that the same link has mentions of Heinsoo's rethinking of the non-convertibility. And if one looks, one can find Andy Collins posting some preliminary stuff for some of what appeared in the first 4Ed PHB.

Also in fairness, 4Ed had elements that let me explore different kinds of character design I found to be quite cool & satisfying.

...but my preferred form of D&D character design was essentially sidelined. 4Ed did not let me realize a truer vision of my D&D characters. In fact, it was farther off, more like other FRPGs. Not worse, not better. Different.

And those designers' comments illustrate why.

My takeaway from that is very different. It sounds to me like what they're saying is that the essential element of your character, the CONCEPT and personality, the part that isn't on the character sheet, works great in 4e because it IS essentially the same game in the way that really matters, it addresses the same genre and tone of game with the same elements. Your crazy elvish figher/cleric of Correlon that wields his sword to avenge the elves against their foes is an Avenger now, but he's just as crazy, elvish, and devoted to Correlon as he was before and he basically wields the same sorts of attacks, can use essentially the same sorts of tactics, etc. There's no one single precise way to say "Every elf fighter/cleric can be turned into an Avenger" because it depends a LOT on the intangible aspects of that PC's personality and story and how they're best expressed through 4e mechanics.

I've run into a lot of people online who are adamant that their character "cannot be converted", but in every single case I've seen really nice and effective suggestions and examples of doing it. A BOOK however would never really capture it, its not a mechanical process. The player has to decide what mechanics would work best, and decide how or if those mechanics can be reflavored (if necessary) to establish the correct narrative, and then insure that any really key 'signature' elements are present (IE certain equipment, magical or fighting techniques, etc).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It sounds to me like what they're saying is that the essential element of your character, the CONCEPT and personality, the part that isn't on the character sheet, works great in 4e because it IS essentially the same game in the way that really matters...

<snip>

I've run into a lot of people online who are adamant that their character "cannot be converted"...

As one whose D&D PCs are usually double or triple classed, most of my prior designs do not work well in 4Ed. I have tried. Furthermore, when I tried to continue designing PCs as I preferred, the mechanics and concepts often came together like the proverbial square peg & round hole.* In truth, sometimes, the concepts worked better in 4Ed than in prior editions.

But basically, for the bulk of my designs, 4Ed's mechanics have not supported the concepts in my head.







*over time, this was alleviated by subsequent releases, but has not disappeared.

 

[Manbearcat]

I've run into a lot of people online who are adamant that their character "cannot be converted", but in every single case I've seen really nice and effective suggestions and examples of doing it. A BOOK however would never really capture it, its not a mechanical process. The player has to decide what mechanics would work best, and decide how or if those mechanics can be reflavored (if necessary) to establish the correct narrative, and then insure that any really key 'signature' elements are present (IE certain equipment, magical or fighting techniques, etc).

Absolutely. Whats more, you see this statement regularly come up when reflecting upon 4e's vanilla release (PHB only) and its ability to capture complex archetypes of 3.x, post 8 years of OGL Splat-O-Rama. Of course the depth and breadth of archetypes won't be comparable; the sheer weight of material on both sides of the respective equation to advance such an agenda is utterly incongruent.

Fast forward 4 years (not 8, and no OGL) of content; Setting books + DMG2 + Source books + Dragon support, coupled with a deeper understanding of the system, and the depth and breadth of customization and archetype rendering is staggering...absolutely staggering.

 

[pemerton]

Now, you could do reasonable ports of the G's and other old classics to other systems. I'd guess conversions to SW or FC would not be super hard. You could probably do something with GURPS, RM, etc too, but I suspect it wouldn't be straightforward.

From experience, converting D&D adventures to RM is pretty straightforward - though RM doesn't have a "minion" analogue, so some of those hordes of humanoids become a bit harder for the PCs to deal with.

 

[Gorgoroth]

I have no doubt that Gorgoroth knows that when he says "X isn't D&D", he's also saying to others "the edition of D&D you like isn't D&D" or "your ideas aren't D&D." That's dismissive, derogatory, and exclusionary...all of which are simply not cool. I'm also sure that Gorogoroth has spent enough time interacting here at ENWorld to know that it's unacceptable behavior here.

From my very first post, I've always spoken my mind, and many others concur with me. The amount of +ve feedback I've had on my posts, relative to my post count, affirm this objectively undeniable fact.

I came here initially to ask a few questions about Pathfinder when I had quit 4e, then these, frankly edition-war-baiting threads pop up, and to defend the spirit of D&D in the way I see it, I voraciously state my opinion. I don't need to be inclusionary, in fact it would defeat the purpose of my posts. I feel 4e should be excluded out right as an anomaly in D&D's history.

I believe it to be an abomination.

Mod Note: We are talking about pretending to be elves, not moral atrocities. Hyperbole may express how you feel, but your communication must be tailored not just for you, but also for your audience and the venue. If you fail to keep a certain level of perspective, you'll not like the results.

Please, folks, don't respond to hyperbole with anger or further hyperbole. It won't change his mind, and will not aid the discussion.

~Umbran

I've played since 1e and no jump to a different edition, despite all the math inverting from 2e to 3e, and innumerable other differences over the years, has been as jarring as what we experienced in 2008. The vexatious relationship our parties have had with that ruleset made me hate this hobby for a while. I joined a PF group and the world was right again. PF is TEN TIMES the D&D that 4e is.

My attempt to reconcile the *literary game I grew up loving, that taught me, patience, imagination, creativity, and many other traits...have let me to feel that any ruleset, to be recognizable as D&D, need to have a combination of certain game mechanics to feel right, to play in such a way that allows your mind and imagination to run free. I tried my hardest to let 4e achieve that, to no avail, frankly it was more annoying than it was worth, as you all know my POV I won't belabor the point any further after this thread.

However, I will never, ever, apologize for stating my opinion on a message board. You're stating yours, mine is equally valid. Yours is that all rulesets are arbitrary and that so long as Hasbro slaps D&D on it, it's D&D, then you're welcome to it!!! But like the New Coke fiasco, the market retaliated, and my posts merely reflect that. My opinion isn't trying to be nice to spare you your feelings about koom bah yah, everything is equal. No, it isn't. 1e, 2e, 3e, and DDN all have certain characteristics that feel a lot closer to what I grew up with, than 4e. Why should I state anything otherwise? If I had the time and the know-how, I could try to break down the "essential characteristics" of what makes a game of D&D feel like playing D&D to you, but I don't feel the need to suffix every sentence with "to me". That is absurd. Obviously my opinions are mine. But they shall not be boxed in with your parameters of what's acceptable or not! I do not submit to your completely arbitrary judgement to defer to Hasbro's trademark as the final word as to what D&D is, and isn't. I know what feels right, and what feels wrong, to me...and 4e feels like some other, different game, with merely the name of D&D purloined and glued on top.

D&D Next is reclaiming the title, with a vengeance. I hope 4e rules die in a funeral pyre of epic proportions, with a stake driven through its heart, such that it shall perish forevermore. That's impolitic, and if it makes you angry or cry or whatever...ask yourself, why? Why does my opinion matter to you? It really shouldn't. Yours don't matter to me, although I've taken great pleasure from reading various posts here over the years, and have learned much in the meanwhile, I just won't submit to bullying. You're stating your opinion is more valid than mine is, since my opinion is that 4e is NOT D&D, that I'm drawing outside the boundaries of what's "acceptable" or not...I laugh at such meager pronouncements.

*literary != board game. You can run a combat in 5 minutes with four rounds, and no grid. That requires imagination, and paying attention. I.e. it's a literary game. 4e you can play just by looking at the board and ignoring pretty much most of what the DM says otherwise. That's an insult to the game, and I've seen it so many times at tables with various DMs to attribute the problem with the rules themselves, not with the DMs. The rules encourage -- nay, require : game-table focusing, instead of story.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Him.

The only game I had an attitude like that about was the Fuzion version of HERO. I really couldn't see how that game connected to anything that came before or after.

I can see links between prior editions and 4Ed- and think that 4Ed would have been a stronger overall design if it hadn't had those legacy issues- but "abomination" isn't a word that springs to my mind. At the very least, I find 4Ed as enjoyable as several other FRPGs I have played.

It isn't D&D to me but it ain't a bad game.

And I say all that as one of the first to make the New Coke comparison on these boards...predictively, as I read some of the initial reports as to what 4Ed was going to be like, and hoping my prediction was wrong.