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

[Dannyalcatraz]

Is 4e too different from 1e to be in this sense 'the same game'? That's a call so subjective its pointless to even debate about it IMHO.

During the rollout, the 4Ed developers* themselves specifically cited the new game's design differences as a main reason why there would be no conversion guide (as per the 2Ed=>3Ed transition), and that groups were better off starting new 4Ed campaigns instead of trying to port old campaigns into the new system. Considering that, there is at least some objective evidence as to the vast gulf that exists between 4Ed and earlier editions.





* as I recall, it was Andy Collins. Edit: it may have been Rob Heinsoo- his name was brought up in this context in this discussion. You'll have to scroll down to the August 19, 2007 posts.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

During the rollout, the 4Ed developers* themselves specifically cited the new game's design differences as a main reason why there would be no conversion guide (as per the 2Ed=>3Ed transition), and that groups were better off starting new 4Ed campaigns instead of trying to port old campaigns into the new system. Considering that, there is at least some objective evidence as to the vast gulf that exists between 4Ed and earlier editions.





* as I recall, it was Andy Collins. Edit: it may have been Rob Heinsoo- his name was brought up in this context in this discussion. You'll have to scroll down to the August 19, 2007 posts.

Yeah, I don't see that this means anything more or less than it expresses one person's opinion. AFAIK you can find at least one conversion of every single classic adventure module to 4e. Several of the most classic settings have 4e versions which differ only in ways that have little or nothing to do with mechanics, etc. Frankly I haven't personally converted a campaign to 4e, but I don't see any real issue with doing so.

As for converting PCs, that's always a variable sort of thing. Converting an OD&D/BECMI character to 3.5 is an exercise in approximation, as is converting the same character to 4e. I'd also note that 2e -> 3e is the only time a conversion guide ever WAS produced. Truthfully I have to question the REASON cited by whomever it was, AC or RH. At the time of 4e's release all a conversion guide would have illustrated is the sheer amount of 3e material that wasn't yet available for 4e. Would it really have been that useful to produce a guide for converting only a few of the available classes? Remember, even some core 3.5 PHB classes don't exist in the 4e PHB. If you do a conversion NOW the results are very different than they would have been in 2008.

 

[teitan]

I want a 4e conversion of the Temple of Elemental Evil with some tweaks to fix the problems.

 

[n00bdragon]

During the rollout, the 4Ed developers* themselves specifically cited the new game's design differences as a main reason why there would be no conversion guide (as per the 2Ed=>3Ed transition), and that groups were better off starting new 4Ed campaigns instead of trying to port old campaigns into the new system. Considering that, there is at least some objective evidence as to the vast gulf that exists between 4Ed and earlier editions.





* as I recall, it was Andy Collins. Edit: it may have been Rob Heinsoo- his name was brought up in this context in this discussion. You'll have to scroll down to the August 19, 2007 posts.

The issue isn't that 4E is a vastly different game, it's that the means of character creation are so different. In 3E if you wanted to play a magical sword using character for example you'd probably have a few levels of fighter, a few of sorcerer or wizard, and then a bunch of levels in some prestige class or another. In 4E you don't play a fighter multiclass wizard or vice versa. You play a Swordmage. You have to take a step back from your character sheets in older editions and say "What would the 4E equivalent be here?" because though the end result is the say the path there is the same.

 

[Iosue]

Called it.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Vanoras]

So I've been ambivalent-to-mildly negative towards D&D Next to this point. It's had some interesting ideas, but haven't been able to play it with a group yet, to really put it through its paces. But I'm coming around to the idea that maybe this really WILL be a "D&D" worth playing--insofar as I'm actually interested in "D&D" as a game / genre / trope.

I'm pretty much DONE with "bog standard" D&D 3.x, including Pathfinder, though I love the Golarion campaign setting and Paizo's adventure paths. Had a great Pathfinder campaign in 2011, but really have no desire to run it ever again (if I'm going to bother with the 3.x "chassis" at all it's going to be Fantasy Craft). And though my earlier feelings of disdain for 4e have considerably lessened, at this point it's just too much of an investment to even get started--$100+ to either get the PHB 1 and 2, DMG 1 and 2, Monster Vault, Essentials, etc.--and I'm just not willing to commit that to a game that I might run once. If I want a 4e-style, "heroic" D&D fantasy vibe, 13th Age or a modded Radiance RPG are much more likely candidates.

But the more I think about what D&D Next is trying to accomplish, the more I realize that the final rules themselves are almost irrelevant at this point. It's clear by now that D&D Next is most DEFINITELY its own thing now. It's NOT 3e. It's NOT 4e. It's not 2e or 1e. And strangely, right now that's pretty much good enough.

When I think about it, I still WANT a "D&D" in my life, but I'm not really interested in what has come before. Though I still have my original Rules Cyclopedia on my shelf, I'm not a grognard. I'm not nostalgically attached to 1e or 2e. I've played out 3e as much as I can handle. 4e isn't really a consideration at this point.

But I want "D&D," because sometimes you just want to have the option available to you. It's . . . comforting, somehow, to know that it will always be there as a fallback, and right now I don't have a D&D system that does that for me. There's no existing version of D&D, Pathfinder included, that I think about running for a group without going, "Yeah, I guess I could run this, but . . . ."

When my current Savage Worlds group finishes this campaign, I'd love to pull down my D&D 5e handook and say to the players, "Hey let's give this a shot. It's D&D! You guys know D&D, right?" And my group would jump on it in a heartbeat, because---it's D&D. They know D&D. They get it. It's the literal ancestor of nearly every RPG, CRPG, and MMO that has ever existed.

I don't think it's ever going to be my "go to" system. With each passing week of my current Savage Worlds campaign, SW more firmly entrenches itself in that regard. But I DEFINITELY want D&D Next as a viable alternative, heck, even a good-to-great alternative when I want a "true D&D fantasy experience." Pathfinder is great in its own right, but it's no longer my preferred system, or even my "preferred D&D."

It seemed a bit of paradox at first, but the more I think about it, D&D Next makes a whole lot of sense to me as the "Not Yet Anybody's D&D" edition. If D&D Next manages to straddle the line between editions even moderately well, then I'm okay playing a D&D that ISN'T anything that came before it, and just manages to be "D&D" on its own terms.

I think that's part of it. It's something with a D20 chassis, with classes and skills, hit points, and as much as I have come to dislike it generally, Vancian magic. If I'm going to "play D&D," I might as well play D&D, if not in its "purest" form, in its most recognizable form.

I guess I'm partially saying I finally get why people always say, "If you don't want to play D&D, play something else, but quit messing with my D&D." The thread about D&D being a toolbox vs. setting got me thinking about it. If I'm going to play D&D, by golly, why don't I just play D&D and enjoy it for its "D&D-ness," instead of playing D&D while griping about the 85 things I wish D&D did differently.

And I think 5e has a chance to really do that.

Tradition isn't a valid argument, otherwise you could justify the inquisition coming back since it lasted a long time.


People don't want changes because they are scared, the vancian magic system will always cause problems.
You can't give some the same abilities all the time, and others some OP abilities with limited uses leaving them UP after.
You can't balance that because not every campaign will require the same amount of spell use.
Or the player could have memorized spells that aren't much use for the situations he faces that day and be UP because of it.
There is no way to balance this system because too many things can mess it up.


And 5e's used of modular rules will also make it almost impossible to balance because the number of rules interactions to consider will be insane.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think part of what is lost in the comparison of the editions is the comparison of the cultures that underwrites expectant playstyles. There are obvious system issues that comprise a table experience but there are system-neutral techniques that are culturally driven. There are also misunderstandings as to what experience the systems (and the voice of its designers - and editors - via the books) are mandating.

For instance, take the two below entries of the 2009 4e DMG2 with Robin Laws very prominently featured as a voice:

4e DMG2; DM's Workshop; Tanis page 19

During the party's first trip to the city of Sigil, Brom decides to finda alocal to show them the ropes. "I look for a street urchin. Are any around?"

"You see a bunch of them," you reply. "Describe the one you want to talk to."

"Uh, okay. I see a young girl, dressed in rags with a mop of dark hair, and something about her makes the others treat her as a pariah."

"I know," suggests Amy. "She has a clawed hand, as if she has a demon or monster in her ancestry."

"Yeah, a clawed hand, that's awesome. She looks hungry; she doesn't receive the handouts that the others do." Ben takes the sheet of Sigil character names. "Her name's Tanis."

You note this detail, and take on the role of Tanis. For the first few sessions of play, you retain control of the character in order to convey information about the city.

<snip a lot of guidance on techniques for the DM to employ in the future use of Tanis>

A whole lot going on here. One thing is that the scene invokes the aesthetic of classic, serial world exploration play that most expect with D&D. You've got something of a Transition Scene treated as an Action/Exploration Scene. So that cultural pillar is well embraced and advocated for here.

However, much more interesting than that is the empowerment of PCs to establish setting around them...outright employment in the effort of authoring the fiction and then the GM runs with it. Can you imagine this sort of DM toolkit/technique advice being in the 2e? It would be utterly anathema to 2e's metagame averse, strident forbidding of PC deviation from actor stance. And yet, I've been using this technique since the mid-90s...well before the "indie renaissance"...smack in the middle of the 2e culture outlined above...and received plenty of sideways glances and sometimes outright ire from new, classic 2e culture-entrenched players.

This absolutely does make for a different table experience, and its entirely system-neutral with respect to D&D. Even most of 4e doesn't have specific PC build resources to promulgate this style of play; however, there are some explicitly bound up in Rituals and Themes and implied in Backgrounds. Its primarily just a technique that creates a table aesthetic which is dynamically in opposition with classic 2e play.

4e DMG2; DM's Workshop; Dragons Love Elves page 18

The party finds itself in a treasure chamber of an ancient dragon. The characters have no hope of defeating the dragon in combat and must resort to persuasion to avoid becoming its midday snack.

<snip example of play>

A classic trope of classic OD&D play onward. What's most interesting here is that it is entirely at odds with many folks utter misconception that 4e GMs are expected to never, ever put the PCs in unwinnable combat scenarios...typically alleged that there is some sort of (unwritten but implicit) doctrine built into the system that forbids it because combat is acutely balanced (and therefore predictable in output); the fallacy of "entitlement 4e play."

Tons of system-neutral, cultural elements at work (or phantoms of cultural elements) that either endorse techniques, abhor them, or invoke them as omnipresent or explicit (in order to dismiss them) when they are not so...or at least their function in play as a table dynamic is misunderstood or misrepresented.

 

[billd91]

Tradition isn't a valid argument, otherwise you could justify the inquisition coming back since it lasted a long time.

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.