Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[JamesonCourage]

The same basic idea would work in other pillars, it'd be a matter of giving all classes access to abilities distinct to each pillar as part of their progression. For instance, utilities could go from minor combat helper powers to significant Exploration or Interaction powers.

I'm more interested in skills being expanded here, rather than "powers", but as long as it's meaningfully expanded, I'll be happy.

Skill Challenges are also a good framework to build on. I'm not sure there's a big difference between giving level-based DCs, or giving task-based DCs, and then letting the DM pick level-appropriate ones, but either way could work. Either way - or any way - the DM has the latitude to decide how hard something might be. I agree that the latter case is both easier on the DM and more confidence-inspiring for the players, since it's above board. And, regardless, the DM can always change a DC for whatever reason.

Well, the DM can change whatever he wants, but a nice, solid baseline with DCs set and given make for players that can look at a task and say "I can reliably hit that." If healing somebody is DC X, then when I have +X-1 as my modifier, I can't fail. If the DC is 15, and I roll at +5, I know I've got a pretty decent chance of success. Codifying common rolls is good for establishing "player agency" as has been used in this conversation.

Nod balancing classes within each pillar gives players the flexibility to play the character they want and DMs the flexibility to run the campaign they want. You don't have to feel like you 'can't' play a fighter in the intrigue game or the beguiler in the combat-heavy game, or that you have to put more fights into your intrigue game because some jerk decided he just had to play a fighter...

Yeah. I think some of what you describe is best settled via social contract issues, but starting pretty 3/3/3 is my preferred point over 5/1/1 or 4/3/1. Set that as the default, and let people alter it (using provided guidelines). As always, play what you like

Besides the DC guidelines, and the power system, there is also the emphasis on the scene/situation as the focus of play.

4e doesn't particularly have rules for player-introduced content outside the context of the PC's acting, but those aren't essential for player agency in the sense I'm interested in. Robust resolution methods are the most important, I think.

Again, isn't the skill system pretty much run by DM fiat for DMs who don't always use the guidelines and scale the DCs of everything? I think Neonchameleon would classify climbing a regular tree as a moderate level 1 DC (or something similar), but since he's determining the level of the difficulty (on a scale of 1-30, then on a easy/moderate/hard level), isn't guessing what you can do mean that you're essentially engaging in a "Mother May I?" situation during play?

That is, don't defined DCs give players the ability to know how they can shape the content of the fiction, rather than saying "can I do this?" followed by a "and how hard is that?"

It just seems like the rules-light nature of the skill system isn't a great outlet for "player agency" unless the DM allows it to be, which seems to be a poor form of "player agency", in my opinion. As always, play what you like

 

[Bedrockgames]

Fair enough. But, you cannot play with mechanics you don't have. It's fairly easy, in a balanced system, to remove elements that you don't want to use. We do it all the time. How many groups do you think slavishly follow the diplomacy rules in 3e? IME, diplomacy gets used, sure, but, it's still heavily DM fiat and out and out free form that carries a lot of the interaction between PC's and NPC's.

So, even though the mechanics for determining things are there, DM's are fairly free to ignore them, presuming that the group is groovy with that. OTOH, if the DM doesn't want to free form a particular interaction, perhaps its a fairly minor thing that he wants to skip over quickly in order to get to something more interesting to the rest of the group, for example, dickering about the price of a crossbow, he can let the dice mechanics determine the result and move on.

In earlier editions, which lacked any sort of social mechanics, the DM is entirely free-forming all the time.

What needs to be absolutely clear from the outset is that mechanics are merely tools to an end. If you don't want to use them, you don't have to.

I wasn't really addressing what Next should have as default for social mechanics (they need to figure out which default will have the broadest appeal I suppose. Just refuting the notion that having "with GM approval" elements is shoddy design. There are perfectly valid design reasons to put certain decisions in the hands of the GM (for instant when human judgement is the most appropriate way to resolve things). Whether D&D ought to take that approach is another matter.

 

[Harlock]

Rolemaster is more like 3E than 4e in this respect. It relies heavily on the GM to set difficulties, and to determine when non-combat conflicts come to an end.

And? That's not a bad thing.

For me it's not about "screwing the players". It's about giving the players control over the content of the fiction.

You and I have the same end goal and get that result through different means. I give my players complete control over the content and the fiction. You can do that and still arbitrate in the stead of hard codified rules. I feel my approach is more human and more intuitive than any rule and subsequent roll may be.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Not addressed to me, but I keep seeing DM fiat and DM approval used like dirty words.

To many of us, that's not necessarily a negative and allows more player agency than a vast, rigidly defined set of circumstances and options for those circumstances.

I'm of the opinion that, as a DM, I don't like having to make a bunch of little judgement calls.

You can run a good game with nothing but a good DM. A good DM can run a good game of anything. A good DM knows when to break the rules, how to set the stage, how to enhance the game, how to entertain. A good DM earns and keeps your trust, is fully impartial, and is always honest and direct.

But that's a lot of frickin' work. And a lot of unnecessary work. I shouldn't NEED to make a million little judgement calls about whether or not my party is permitted to succeed in Action X or Y. The game should be able to tell me what happens and give my players enough confidence to friggin' get on with it, so I can react for a little while, rather than pro-act.

I'm perhaps a bit of an outlier -- so many DMs saw 3e's "rules for everything" approach as limiting, but I saw it as liberating. Finally, I don't have to make up the rules for how fast you climb that wall! There they are! And I can always change them if I want to, since I'm still the DM!

Some people want a lot of autonomy built into the rules to enable players to act without asking, and to enable DMs to relax and roll with the dice without having to second-guess the balance implications of every player stunt. DM Fiat is always going to be there, and always essential for the very best games, but not everyone thinks that it should be a prerequisite for play. If you require that, you exclude a broad swath of people. You don't need to have a mental disorder to not like DM Fiat anymore than you need one to appreciate it. It is a tool like any other. Over-use it, and it is bound to break, but keep it for when you need it, and you can employ it judiciously, to enhance, rather than as a necessary prerequisite for the game to be enjoyable.

 

[Harlock]

I'm of the opinion that, as a DM, I don't like having to make a bunch of little judgement calls.

You can run a good game with nothing but a good DM. A good DM can run a good game of anything. A good DM knows when to break the rules, how to set the stage, how to enhance the game, how to entertain. A good DM earns and keeps your trust, is fully impartial, and is always honest and direct.

But that's a lot of frickin' work. And a lot of unnecessary work. I shouldn't NEED to make a million little judgement calls about whether or not my party is permitted to succeed in Action X or Y. The game should be able to tell me what happens and give my players enough confidence to friggin' get on with it, so I can react for a little while, rather than pro-act.

I'm perhaps a bit of an outlier -- so many DMs saw 3e's "rules for everything" approach as limiting, but I saw it as liberating. Finally, I don't have to make up the rules for how fast you climb that wall! There they are! And I can always change them if I want to, since I'm still the DM!

Some people want a lot of autonomy built into the rules to enable players to act without asking, and to enable DMs to relax and roll with the dice without having to second-guess the balance implications of every player stunt. DM Fiat is always going to be there, and always essential for the very best games, but not everyone thinks that it should be a prerequisite for play. If you require that, you exclude a broad swath of people. You don't need to have a mental disorder to not like DM Fiat anymore than you need one to appreciate it. It is a tool like any other. Over-use it, and it is bound to break, but keep it for when you need it, and you can employ it judiciously, to enhance, rather than as a necessary prerequisite for the game to be enjoyable.

Thanks for explaining it coherently without relying on false statements like poor game design, or using DM fiat as a curse. I'd have XP'd you, but well, I have to spread it around. I do think this is an outlier opinion and I do hope it is one that is addressed and served in a module. Frankly, I really want everyone to embrace 5e. Not because I have anything invested in it, but because I want D&D to be the one system everyone knows and plays again. Heck, I want to play it again, so maybe I am a bit personally invested.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Frankly, I really want everyone to embrace 5e. Not because I have anything invested in it, but because I want D&D to be the one system everyone knows and plays again. Heck, I want to play it again, so maybe I am a bit personally invested.

I think it's quite possible. If you take the "raw, basic elements of D&D" and give some solid, broad rules for them (looking a little like OD&D in the process), you can let people opt into more complexity where they like it -- with minis combat or with exploration rules or with precise distance measurement or with elaborate social interaction. Given the playtest, it seems clear that the 5e team is very dedicated to the idea that you don't need walls of rules to run a good D&D game. At the same time, someone could use a particular rule (or all the rules, or whatever) to make their game easier on them, or to empower their players in a specific way.

Saying it's "lousy game design" isn't accurate, IMO. It does take a special kind of design to keep in mind the end-user who wants the bare minimum and wants to add themselves. I'm pretty confident 5e will be including that! And probably also including minis combat and encumbrance rules and random dungeon generation and detailed climbing rules and....all else. On a clearly optional basis.

 

[Hussar]

Thanks for explaining it coherently without relying on false statements like poor game design, or using DM fiat as a curse. I'd have XP'd you, but well, I have to spread it around. I do think this is an outlier opinion and I do hope it is one that is addressed and served in a module. Frankly, I really want everyone to embrace 5e. Not because I have anything invested in it, but because I want D&D to be the one system everyone knows and plays again. Heck, I want to play it again, so maybe I am a bit personally invested.

The idea of poor game design isn't necessarily false though. There are mechanics out there that are pretty easily categorized as "poor design". They are poor design because they are overly complicated and too difficult to use (1e Initiative rules, 3e grapple rules) or they are poor design because they lead to really boring times around the table (4e MM1 incorporeal undead with weakness powers - REALLY boring).

There's nothing wrong with pointing to a mechanic and saying, "Yes, this mechanic here? It's a badly written mechanic and here's three different ways we could do it better". And, honestly, I'm in the camp of "Let's make DM's into amateur game designers=poor game design". You can have very light rules without forcing the DM to play amateur game designer.

"How do I jump across this pit?" is not something I want to get fifteen different answers to. That's a fairly standard action that is perfectly predictable in a D&D game. Every table should give you the same answer, IMO. Exactly the same way that every table will give you the same answer when you ask, "What do I have to roll to hit this AC?" (Presuming, of course, you only ask tables that play the same edition )

Like KM, I want the system to handle the fiddly bits and the details. I have no interest in doing that. Whether you do it with 3e's "Rule for everything" approach or something like Savage World's Rule of 4 - any score of 4 or higher succeeds, I'm pretty content.

But, rules absent is poor game design when we're talking about adjudicating actions that are perfectly reasonable and quite likely will occur several times, if not per session, then certainly per adventure.

 

[Lwaxy]

Unless you are gaming with people with borderline personality disorders, chances are you can find a decent DM who isn't out to screw the players at every turn with relative ease. Your straw man is a bogey man to boot.

Are you implying people with BPD are bad role players or GMs? Why would you say that? This is far from the truth, we actually have players and GMs with BPD on here, and I had, in the past several in my groups and never once had an issue.

Please avoid cheap swipes at a handicapped part of the player base, please. You have no idea how much hurt such silly offhand comments can cause. This goes for every sort of disorder, of course.

Thanks.

 

[Lanefan]

What needs to be absolutely clear from the outset is that mechanics are merely tools to an end. If you don't want to use them, you don't have to.

This; and the word you might be looking for is "guidelines".

I'm of the opinion that, as a DM, I don't like having to make a bunch of little judgement calls.

Where I just see it as part of the job, and more efficient than having to check a rule for every little thing.

The game should be able to tell me what happens and give my players enough confidence to friggin' get on with it, so I can react for a little while, rather than pro-act.

In my case they wouldn't be able to get on with it, I'd have my nose stuck in a book looking the rule up.

Charts and tables I don't mind - I can nail 'em up on the back of my DM screen and they're right in front of me when I need 'em. But something like climbing rules I'd get fed up with looking up after the first ten times, start doing it by memory instead (and thus get it wrong), and end up in effect winging it anyway. So I might as well just wing it from the start and have done with it.

I'm perhaps a bit of an outlier -- so many DMs saw 3e's "rules for everything" approach as limiting, but I saw it as liberating. Finally, I don't have to make up the rules for how fast you climb that wall! There they are! And I can always change them if I want to, since I'm still the DM!

Thing is, you might not realize it at the time but you're probably changing them every time to suit the particular situation (slipperiness of wall, lighting conditions, whether stealth is required, structural integrity, etc.); it's not much more work if any to just wing it.

That's what I do now - sure, some characters have listed %-age chances to climb walls, but there's so much variance involved that it's actually pretty rare that the listed % chance is exactly what applies. Flap flap flap...

Some people want a lot of autonomy built into the rules to enable players to act without asking, and to enable DMs to relax and roll with the dice without having to second-guess the balance implications of every player stunt. DM Fiat is always going to be there, and always essential for the very best games, but not everyone thinks that it should be a prerequisite for play. If you require that, you exclude a broad swath of people.

Ha, but there's the trick! Nothing says the players ever have to know whether you're winging it or not...roll some dice and make it look good, and you're set.

Lan-"winging it here even though the flight discussion is in another thread"-efan

 

[pemerton]

Again, isn't the skill system pretty much run by DM fiat for DMs who don't always use the guidelines and scale the DCs of everything?

Maybe. We'd have to look at how they do it.

BW (as written, at least) uses "objective" (ie non-scaled) DCs and no "genre logic" adjudication. And emphasises player agency.

HeroQuest revised (as written, at least) uses scaled DCs and "genre logic" adjudication. And emphasises player agency.

I think that 4e, as written, is closer to HQ than BW in this particular respect, although there is a degree of incoherence in the presentation of the skill rules (in part related to the broader tension between 4e's two very different modes of conflict resolution - combat and skill challenges).

The D&Dnext playtest clearly uses "objective" DCs - and that's part of the implemenation of "bounded accuracy". I've got nothing against that per se, although I think for gonzo fantasy the 4e/HQ approach is probably superior - especially because (in my view, and for the reasons I gave in my other thread) it makes it easier to incorporate improvised use of the wacky powers and abilities that D&D PCs tend to have.

But the playtest skill rules don't have anything else to support player agency within its action resolution framework (eg there is no Let it Ride, nothing analogous to BW's "intent and task", etc). That is something that I would like to see. And it's not just as simple as implementing it myself. For example, "intent and task" and Let it Ride both work most naturally within a framework of scene-based play. And supporting scene-based play can be helped or hindered by other features of the game, like its rules involving the passage of time (durations, healing, movement, wandering monster checks, etc). 4e gets most of this right, for my purposes at least.