Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[pemerton]

How the imagined content in the game changes in 4E as the characters gain levels isn't quite the same as it is in 3E. I am not going to pretend to have a good grasp of how this works in either system, but my gut says: in 4E the group defines the colour of their campaign as they play it; in 3E it's established when the campaign begins.

<snip>

In 4E, I think the relationship between colour and the reward system changes: you don't know what it will mean, when you first start playing, to make a Hard Level 30 Acrobatics check. Which means that gaining levels doesn't have a defined relationship with what your PC can do in the fiction - just because your Acrobatics check has increased by 1, it doesn't mean you're that much closer to balancing on a cloud. I think the group needs to define that for themselves; as far as I can tell, this is supposed to arise organically through play, and go through major shifts as Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies enter the game.

I think this is true, and I wish I could XP your post.

This comes up again and again in my campaign - players doing stuff with skills, and with powers, that require adjudication based not on a preset correlation of particular tasks to particular DCs, but on exptrapolation from the fictional possibilities already established in play.

A recent example I posted about was the dwarf fighter-cleric making a Hard 16th level Endurance check to hold Whelm stead within a furnace so that his dwarven artificers could grab it with their tongs, preparatory to reforging it as Overwhelm. There is nothing in the DC charts that tells us that this is the sort of thing a paragorn warpriest does by using Endurnace. It emerges out of play. (I think of it as something like the rule in HeroQuest revised that the GM has to impose genre logic on declared actions before then allowing them to proceed to resolution - so even if a PC has Fast Runner 17 and a Horse Modest Galloper 12, it doesn't necessarily follow that the PC can make a check to outrun the horse.)

4E's DC chart is based on what would be a challenge for you at that level. It does not determine that everything you encounter will be a challenge for you at that level. An oak door is an oak door, but a DM who wants to make a door that is hard to break isn't going to use an oak door at level 24. Similarly, specific tasks often have a set DC. The DC to jump a certain distance does not change with level, nor does the DC to heal someone. The DC to cure a disease is determined by the level of the disease. The DC to hear a loud noise at a certain distance through a stone wall does not change with level.

I think these elements of 4e are utlimately flaws in its design. The game works best when the DC chart is used - this is what the pacing and dynamics of the game are balanced around - but all those "simulationist" DC tables require you to read back from the level-appropriate DCs to particular story elements. They're a needless constraint, in my view, and in the case of the jumping rules create too much of an incentive to design a range of jumping utitlity powers that ultimately I think should all just be handled as bonuses to Athletics (just like the social utility powers grant bonuses to Diplomacy) - although arguably the relationship between jumping ability and the grid requires something less abstract here - which just highlight another of 4e's weaker points, namely, it's lack of smooth integration of its combat and non-combat resolution systems.

 

[pemerton]

given a certain development of the campaign's colour through play, I don't know if I'd have a problem with a Feytouched Paragon Path Warlock saying "I listen through the stone wall by casting my mind half-into the Feywild, hoping the stone wall isn't mirrored in that alternate world."

Given the multiple references in the PHB to players using their powers (including attack powers) in skill challenges, I think this sort of thing has to be what the designers had in mind.

So in my game, the wizard tried to read an NPC's mind to extract a password by using an attack power that (i) removed the PC from the game, and (ii) dominated the NPC target - and hence was clearly a possession-style ability, that might permit the reading of a mind.

More recently, the PCs used a teleport utility to step through a crystal ball to the place reflected in it.

In your example, the Warlock should use some sort of encounter or daily teleport power to "cast his/her mind hafl into the Feywild".

(I think At-Will's need to be more restricted in this sort of play, or else the resource managment aspect of the game gets undermined.)

 

[slobo777]

Given the multiple references in the PHB to players using their powers (including attack powers) in skill challenges, I think this sort of thing has to be what the designers had in mind.

So in my game, the wizard tried to read an NPC's mind to extract a password by using an attack power that (i) removed the PC from the game, and (ii) dominated the NPC target - and hence was clearly a possession-style ability, that might permit the reading of a mind.

More recently, the PCs used a teleport utility to step through a crystal ball to the place reflected in it.

In your example, the Warlock should use some sort of encounter or daily teleport power to "cast his/her mind hafl into the Feywild".

(I think At-Will's need to be more restricted in this sort of play, or else the resource managment aspect of the game gets undermined.)

I'd really like to encourage this sort of creative play, but I find my group, who are all experienced gamers and have played in more open-ended systems such as e.g. Changeling, are encouraged by the 4E set up to "button push" their powers and skill rolls. Partly, I blame Wow, LotR and Star Wars online games (we have keen players of those in the group), where quite often solutions are found by experimenting in just this way, and narration provided by the game engine afterwards.

It's one of those counter-intuitive things, that in my mind points away from the supposed nirvana of a computerised virtual table. Making things really easy (power cards for combat on 4E character sheets), makes other things harder by comparison. Users will "go with the flow", unless they have a good reason to fight it.

I could quite happily go with a powers-based system that had the rather general and rules-lite descriptions as seen in the playtest spell descriptions, followed by one or two 4E-style descriptions for use of the power in combat and non-combat. Perhaps even add an "improvising with ..." section like skills for truly versatile powers. One benefit of this approach is you would need less powers to note down on a PC to cover a broad range of fantasy genre abilities.

In last paragraph, you might be able to substitue "powers" for "themes" and have something that ties in with 5E as presented to us so far.

 

[Lanefan]

I'll say it again. The quality of a game design is measured entirely by how well it pleases its target audience.

Er...not quite.

The financial success of a game design is (very likely to be) measured by how well it pleases its target audience; and by how large that target audience may become.

Actual quality - be it in design or production - may have nothing to do with it. Real-life history is rife with examples of something of poor quality (a lot of late '70s disco music leaps to mind as one such example) pleasing its target audience and doing very well financially for no logical reason whatsoever.

But although people who are not entirely happy with 3E (which it is possible to be without being a hater) would have been a part of the target market, so would people who are happy with 3E.

This would have probably been true were it not for the way WotC blundered up the 4e release by running down 3e - "This game you have? It's not good. This new game is good." - a series of mistaken actions which I've come to realize probably did more to split the community than anything else before or since.

Lan-"late '70s mainstream culture was awful, which is why we all turned to D&D"-efan

 

[pemerton]

In last paragraph, you might be able to substitue "powers" for "themes" and have something that ties in with 5E as presented to us so far.

I think themes are a bit tricky, because to date they don't involve resource management. But both themes and background look like the sort of thing that could support the in-play emergence of the fiction/colour in the way [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] was talking about.

LostSoul has done some interesting stuff with skills in his 4e hack which I think would translate well to 5e-ish backgrounds.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That's a fair comment, I think. But should the fact that people were not playing the system as written enter into discussions about the systems themselves? If DMs allowed full overnight healing in 3E, could we then claim that 4E's healing wasn't so different after all?

Well, we're not really discussing how these games look compared on paper, but how they were received and perceived. And if people ignored level limits and racial restrictions on classes before, then 3E removing them would not feel that different to them. It was just doing what they already did anyway. Just like when most DMs allowed overnight healing in 3E, 4E rules would seem logical. (And in fact, that's exactly what has happened in 3E for us. Not because the DMs handwaved healing, though, but because Wands of Cure Light Wounds were dirt cheap and were so useful for this. So 4E simply handwaving this entirely was an minor change to me in effect.)

I believe that moving from THAC0 to attack bonuses was a more significant step then removing level limits. Because it changed the way dice were interpreted and "fighting ability" was expressed. And it is similar to the design shift in 4E from rolling saving throws to rolling against defense (and saving throws as a term be used basically for duration measuring instead of their traditional purpose).
Introducing encounter and daily powers for every class seems the bigger thing to do and I tend to agree that no edition shift brought such a big change. Encounter powers weren't even a "thing" in D&D before 4E. Sure, Book of Nine Swords tried something like that, but it wasn't a commonly used book then, probably not as common as ignorin level limits.

I welcomed this change, but I see why it bothers some people. I don't need that for D&D Next, but I'd take it if I could get it as well.
This thread isn't about "give me back AEDU" "I want to play 4E with serial numbers filed off". This is about D&D Next appealing to 4E fans. And that doesn't necessarily require these nitty-gritty details. Maybe it does for some, but if you don't want any changes, you can keep playing 4E (hopefully with the tool support still around ).


It requires stuff like keeping an eye out on game balance.

Saying magical items give bonsues but we don't require them is fine for me. But I want to know how powerful this item makes a character so I can figure out what kind of challenges i can throw at him. I'd even prefer more (and that's not a 4E appeal thingy, but a MustrumRidcully appeal thingy) if there were no more attack bonuses and defense bonuses from magic items.

But if they don't deliver such information, then that's a turn off. I don't want to figure this out in my role as DM. I want the books to guide me here so I can focus on the fun stuff- world building, adventure design, NPC characterizations and motivations.

Generally, what D&D 4 offered me were two things

1. Ease of DMing
   • The monster building rules were simple, and I could still create interesting, flavorful NPCs if I wanted, without jumping too tha many hoops. It was more about thinking how to express a certain story feature in game mechanics, not figuring out how much hit dice it would need to have so my players would feel challenged.
   • Pre-fabricated monsters and built monsters were easy to use at the table - all information was in the stat block.
   • Encounter building rules were even simpler than 3E, and gave more reliable results. Just add the XP.
   • It gave me tools to handle non-combat challenges for the players - not perfect, but better than the utter lack 3E had in that regard. It only knew DCs, not how to combine skill checks into a challenge.
   • Balanced classes and simple skill acquisiton rules made it easier to create content that would work with all players, without anyone taking the spotlight all the time or being useless.
2. Interesting Gameplay
   • It didn't matter what class I would play, I was guaranteed some interesting abilities and rich mechanical options.
   • My character wasn't defined by his "build" alone, but how he used it in any given situation. This made combat at the table varied. 3E had tons of character build options, but I think it fell flat during the gameplay, since resolving these abilities was straightforward with little variation often.
   • Roles: I liked the concept of every character having a defined role that he would excel at. This gave each character a clear purpose. I don't need just combat roles, but 3E classes often lacked when they didn't have any real role and couldn't really fulfill any purpose. Monk and Bard were "Jack of All Trades", but really they were only "Master of None". You don't need a Bard to diplomance someone - a Rogue can do this thanks to his skill points. You don't need him as wise sage - the Wizard can do it. You don'T need him as healer, the Cleric is far better. You don't need him for buffs, as Cleric, Druids and Wizard had buffs. (But if there was any role he could reall y hope to achieve well, buffing may have been it.) He didn't need him for fighting, since other classes could fight better, with better AC, damage or attack bonuses.

There are things I don't necessarily want or stuff I missed.

• I don't need long combats.
  4E combats were usually fun, but also usually long. I can do with less time spend on individual combats. As long as I still get a lot of options during the gaming sessions. (So making the Fighter the best at combat if combats are shorter may not really in any way end up being cool, unless maybe combat is so fast and the fighter so powerful that he can resolve a fight alone as quickly as a Rogue can disable a trap)
• World Building Tools
  3E had interesting rules for buildig towns and cities. I liked those. Earlier editions than 4E may have had stuff for gaining followers and more. I would have liked some of it for 4E and I'd like to see something like that for D&D Next. The Leadership feat in 3E was greatly (ab)used by us for world-building by us.
  I think these rules really come to their own once it also involves the players - because it makes world-building cooperative. It's one thing for the DM to hash out a city with NPCs. It's even cooler I think if the players can start building their own

 

[Tony Vargas]

This would have probably been true were it not for the way WotC blundered up the 4e release by running down 3e - "This game you have? It's not good. This new game is good."

I can't really blame 'em for it though. The sheer amount (and validity) of criticism being leveled at the game - by it's own fans, on their own forums - must have made it seem like a reasonable thing to do. And 4e went ahead and addressed those complaints successfully. The 3.5 Fighter SUX! The 4e fighter was awesome. Heal-bots were boring but CoDzilla is broken! Here's a Cleric that's interesting, not broken, and not a heal-bot - and another alternative 'leader' as a bonus. SoDs destroy the game! OK, they're gone.

And on and on. 4e was a response to everything that was wrong with 3.5, and a mostly successful response. And it was rejected with greater rancor than I'd seen even in the most virulent threads where those complaints came to light. It was a stunning reversal by the fan base - a bit perverse, even, like all they really wanted was to complain and feel like they knew the game better than the folks making it.

 

[slobo777]

I think themes are a bit tricky, because to date they don't involve resource management. But both themes and background look like the sort of thing that could support the in-play emergence of the fiction/colour in the way @LostSoul was talking about.

LostSoul has done some interesting stuff with skills in his 4e hack which I think would translate well to 5e-ish backgrounds.

Nothing prevents a theme being a general source of related "powers" (sorry to re-use that term in a discussion about what that means!) .

Obvious examples might be a Fire Mage theme, who you'd think might be able to set things alight and make various burning death attacks. And it would be nice (for me) if that was without having to identify and note down 10 fire-based spells from the PHB that went well with the theme due to getting a bonus when using them (which is 3E's and - mostly - 4E's way of making thematic consistency rewarding to a player).

 

[Lanefan]

I can't really blame 'em for it though. The sheer amount (and validity) of criticism being leveled at the game - by it's own fans, on their own forums - must have made it seem like a reasonable thing to do. And 4e went ahead and addressed those complaints successfully. The 3.5 Fighter SUX! The 4e fighter was awesome. Heal-bots were boring but CoDzilla is broken! Here's a Cleric that's interesting, not broken, and not a heal-bot - and another alternative 'leader' as a bonus. SoDs destroy the game! OK, they're gone.

And on and on. 4e was a response to everything that was wrong with 3.5, and a mostly successful response. And it was rejected with greater rancor than I'd seen even in the most virulent threads where those complaints came to light. It was a stunning reversal by the fan base - a bit perverse, even, like all they really wanted was to complain and feel like they knew the game better than the folks making it.

The first question that leaps to mind here is "was it the same actual people doing both?" - it's quite possible those in the fanbase who were complaining about 3e went on to become happy 4e players, while those who thought 3e was fine (and thus who up until then had been mostly quiet) ended up rancorously rejecting 4e both as a system and because its existence meant support for 3e was about to disappear...not to mention watching their game get slagged by the very people whose job it had been up until recently to support and develop it didn't exactly go over well.

And lest you start thinking I'm a 3e supporter: while I certainly did my time in the 3e squadron I didn't like it much as a system (the DM ran a good game, so I stuck around anyway), and I liked 3.5 even less as I felt it only magnified 3e's problems. I followed 4e design avidly in here to begin with and even had my hopes up for a while, but came to realize it also wasn't for me particularly once I'd bought and read the first round of core books.

My hopes thus far for 5e remain just that - hopes.

Lanefan

 

[Tony Vargas]

The first question that leaps to mind here is "was it the same actual people doing both?"

May well have been. There was not a lot of vocal defense of 3.5, and what there was wasn't always the most strident. I often found myself defending the 3.5 fighter, for instance, but often merely by pointing out that the real problem was casters, and admitting that the balance issues could be solved only with a lot of DM effort (but that such effort was worth it). I can even think of a few examples of critics of 3.5 who immediately became even harsher critics of 4e. Roxlimn, I recall, being harshly critical of 3.5, but then being aghast at the 4e wizard, for instance, and I seem to recall Polaris being harshly critical of both 3.5 and 4e, and now 5e, as well. I don't notice many posters enough to remember their handles and positions on issues - like me, they were /very/ active on the forums.

it's quite possible those in the fanbase who were complaining about 3e went on to become happy 4e players, while those who thought 3e was fine (and thus who up until then had been mostly quiet) ended up rancorously rejecting 4e

It's possible that there was some sort of 'silent majority' standing complacently behind 3.5 that radicalized upon the announcement of 4e.

Call my cynical - you have before, and I /am/ - but, in retrospect, I get the feeling that the complaining wasn't about wanting a solution so much as gratifying an urge to complain.

And lest you start thinking I'm a 3e supporter: while I certainly did my time in the 3e squadron I didn't like it much as a system (the DM ran a good game, so I stuck around anyway), and I liked 3.5 even less as I felt it only magnified 3e's problems.

We were in the same boat, then. I found 3e to have some very good points, and often 'defended' it, but knew it was far from perfect, and that it was acceptable for it to be that far from perfectly mainly just because it /was/ D&D.