Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[Tony Vargas]

Long-standing and stable groups are easier to form a consensus within (or more prone to groupthink), and better able to solve or mask problems with a familiar system. When group-hopping, you depend on the system to be functional and consistent from one table to the next.

 

[Ahnehnois]

One of the things I don't think D&D game designer didn't and don't account for is how many groups a gamer plays with.

If you play with the same group for years and rarely hit the internet (or rarely let it affect you), it is harder to run into those edition complaints that "some gamers never experience".

But grouphoppers run into every "edition issue". I might guess there is a direct correlation between grouphopping and calls for fixes.

Has a question like "How many different groups have you been in during the past 5 years?"been asked in a survey?

It's an interesting question. Personally, I've only ever played with one group; albeit one with none of its original members left. I can see where group-hopping would create a very different gaming experience.

For me, I'd say it makes my rpg business decisions pretty clear-cut and hard-line.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think the key phrase here is the "may have been." The conversation can only go round in circles if we have to not only consider how it was played at your own table, but also assume things about how it was played at other tables. The whole thing becomes completely baseless because it's built on assumptions that cannot be verified, meaning you can speak to your own experience and nothing else.

But if you ignore such information, speculation or whatever, you will also not "unravel" the entire mystery why 3E seemed easier to get into than 4E.

As I said, it would be an academic discussion that doesn't actually help us figure out what we really wanted to figure out.

 

[Fifth Element]

But if you ignore such information, speculation or whatever, you will also not "unravel" the entire mystery why 3E seemed easier to get into than 4E.

To who? I found getting into 4E much easier than 3E. But there we are again in the own-experiences-only area, and there's not much to discuss. I find the premise false based on my experiences. Others presumably feel otherwise. So...?

As I said, it would be an academic discussion that doesn't actually help us figure out what we really wanted to figure out.

The impetus of this part of the discussion was Libramarian's claim that 4E is "clearly" the edition most unlike the others, in the context of arguing that 4E should be the one "left out" in order to please the greatest proportion of fans. To which Hussar responded that he thought the biggest difference is between 2E and 3E, presenting reasons for that statement, which I found quite convincing.

So it hasn't been about figuring out why 3E was "easier to get into". It's about refuting the assertion that 4E is obviously the most "not D&D" edition and therefore should be given the least amount of thought when designing 5E.

 

[Minigiant]

Long-standing and stable groups are easier to form a consensus within (or more prone to groupthink), and better able to solve or mask problems with a familiar system. When group-hopping, you depend on the system to be functional and consistent from one table to the next.

My first group was my longest. And until I left and played with other groups, I didn't realize there were certain aspects of the edition we played. That first DM was restrictive on spells known, even for clerics. So I never experience a Batman Wizard or Godzilla until I played with an "Everything goes" DM. Then and only then did I realize the brokenness of free range spells with no drawbacks. Or crafting. It was a while before I played in a group that ever crafted often. Or used summons nonchalantly.

This is why 4E was the most Pro-Grouphopper edition. It was the most consistent between tables and groups. It also required the least DM supervision and guidance of the weld.

But it did this by tying everything together and having every PC share the same backbone and every NPC share the same skeleton. Many did not like this.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Zustiur!

Agreed. That doesn't mean I have to like it

Well it means you should probably like it most out of all available editions.

The 'flatter math' of 5E interests me a great deal.

I think that is one of their good ideas as regards 5E.

I want to avoid the 'take every possible upgrade to your attack rating, just to stay in line with where you started' thing that 4E does (see every 'the math is broken' thread for details).

By my calculations PCs are (approx.) 18.3% better per (compound) level than the monsters.

So I dispute that 'the math is broken' AGAINST the PCs in how it affects overall PC power.

Like vancian, and no dailies at all (old fighter) etc etc.

People who prefer Vancian Magic generally seem to be players who enjoy having spellcasters dominate other classes. ie. because they play spellcasters.

Though now that you mention it, weekly isn't so far away from the system I'm piecing together at the back of my mind. I was working on the principle that you gain less benefit from each rest in a consecutive dungeon crawl. i.e. regain full HP the first night, only regain 75% hp the second... with an equivalent slow down applying to spell slots and other refreshable abilities. The secondary element of my system being that the longer you stayed 'active' the more downtime you'd before the next adventure.

One of 5E's other good ideas is that of time and healing.

If I listed the other 25 things I'd change about 4E, I'd be going way off topic, so I'll leave that for other threads.

At 40+ pages I think the thread has probably run its course and could survive a few curveballs.

This from the person who was suggesting that WotC should deliberately split their product line into 3 parts... But hey, it has long been established that I have no business sense, so I'll leave that point alone. Suffice to say that these two statement struck me as contradictory.

The more editions you introduce, the more you fracture the fanbase.

I can't resist commenting on one thing that I would NOT carry forward:
* Round by round effects. Especially the +1 to X effects that only last for a round. There are way too many changing conditions to keep track of. I'm convinced that this is a major factor in how long our combats take.

Isn't the only alternative NOT to have conditions at all then?

 

[Greg K]

Long-standing and stable groups are easier to form a consensus within (or more prone to groupthink), and better able to solve or mask problems with a familiar system. When group-hopping, you depend on the system to be functional and consistent from one table to the next.

Long standing groups are easier to form a consensus.

I disagree with you about group-hopping. Some group hoppers depend on the system to be functional and consistent form one table to the next. Others do not. Having have had several experienced players that have group hopped at various periods (e.g., guest players, military personnel, military brats, students, gaming clubs, people playing in multiple groups etc.), not one has ever depended on the game to be consistent from game to game only within the game at a given table.

When I used to play under multiple DMs, I was happy to learn house rules. It was very rare that I met a DM whose house rules I didn't want to play under. Maybe, I was lucky to have played under very good DMs and I learned a lot of good ideas and techniques. I had more of an issue with certain styles (e.g, the group that was running characters based on superheroes (magic items were based on Wolverine's claws, Green Lantern's Ring, Captain America's shield) and the group in which the GM was a writer and he railroaded the characters to fit his plot.

 

[Greg K]

So it hasn't been about figuring out why 3E was "easier to get into". It's about refuting the assertion that 4E is obviously the most "not D&D" edition and therefore should be given the least amount of thought when designing 5E.

For the gamers that I, personally, know, 3e was considered closer. Much of this had to do with house rules that the various groups used and resembled 3e changes. Common house rules included

1. Humans multiclassing
2. Demi-human class and racial limits were ignored
3. Clerics and Wizards worked like spontaneous casters or the spell point system in PO: Spells and Magic
4. ascending AC was a common house rule
5. Ditching the Great Wheel cosmology (Edit:This was, actually, an example of something we did and wanted in 3e, but occurred in 4e and I want kept in 5e. I was being hurried to leave the house and put it here by mistake).

Three saves, monster ability scores, breaking down monster AC were things we wanted for a long time. It seemed logical, something we wanted to see, and grasped quickly.



4e seemed much different to us
1. The power system- especially for martial characters
2. Saving throws as duration
3. Removing ability penalties (especially, strength penalties for halflings and other races)
4. Overnight healing
5. a lot of the design philosophy in general

Edit: Despite my preference for 3e, there are several things that I would want to see from 4e. My preference for 5e would be based more in 3e, but there are many concepts I would bring in from 4e along with 2e approach to setting and campaign and 2e special priests.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The impetus of this part of the discussion was Libramarian's claim that 4E is "clearly" the edition most unlike the others, in the context of arguing that 4E should be the one "left out" in order to please the greatest proportion of fans. To which Hussar responded that he thought the biggest difference is between 2E and 3E, presenting reasons for that statement, which I found quite convincing.

So it hasn't been about figuring out why 3E was "easier to get into". It's about refuting the assertion that 4E is obviously the most "not D&D" edition and therefore should be given the least amount of thought when designing 5E.

If we want to please the greatest proportion of fans, the very first thing that has to be addressed is how to filter out from all consideration on questions of design that group of fans that are motivated to leave someone out. Make the design inclusive.

If the products built on top of that design are then varied, some of those products will naturally be more or less appealing to different groups, and some people will be "left out" by certain products. That's always been true, from Greyhawk to Planescape. By all means, when you write Planescape, leave out the people that don't much care for Planescape.

Of course, to make this distinction would imply an understanding of the difference between design and product, and the evidence for that understanding being common is decidely mixed.

 

[billd91]

For the gamers that I, personally, know, 3e was considered closer. Much of this had to do with house rules that the various groups used and resembled 3e changes. Common house rules included

1. Humans multiclassing
2. Demi-human class and racial limits were ignored
3. Clerics and Wizards worked like spontaneous casters or the spell point system in Combat and Tactics
4. ascending AC was a common house rule
5. Ditching the Great Wheel cosmology

Three saves, monster ability scores, breaking down monster AC were things we wanted for a long time. It seemed logical, something we wanted to see, and grasped quickly.


4e seemed much different to us
1. The power system- especially for martial characters
2. Saving throws as duration
3. Removing ability penalties (especially, strength penalties for halflings and other races)
4. Overnight healing
5. a lot of the design philosophy in general

Edit: Despite my preference for 3e, there are several things that I would want to see from 4e. My preference for 5e would be based more in 3e, but there are many concepts I would bring in from 4e along with 2e approach to setting and campaign and 2e special priests.

That amounts to my experience too. 3e seemed to reflect a lot of trends in house rules and some game simplification (cyclical initiative, for example) that had debuted elsewhere. I no longer have the details but I swear I saw the 3 saves, or something like them, on a website in the 2e days. And even the skill structure, while fairly new to D&D (I can't remember how closely it developed out of Player's Option ideas and am too lazy to look them up right now), were familiar from other sources.

4e, by comparison, came up with whole new structures that I, at least, wasn't familiar with, and then restructured the classes and their mathematical progressions to fit into them. A positive spin might say that they did a lot more innovating. A not so positive one would be that they made a different game and slapped on the D&D brand.