Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[JamesonCourage]

Regarding the downsides:

Genre-logic could be used to construct the objective DC, couldn't it? That way the two should be in conflict only rarely. For example, in a wuxia genre game, balancing on the top if bamboo poles is something relatively easy so the Balance DC should be 15 -- within reach of a 1st level character and impossible to fail for a 10th level character who cares about balance. The GM can present the objective DCs for his campaign up front. This helps the players understand the style of campaign and helps them chart a trajectory for the character.

He probably won't go as in-depth as the book will, but I think he can give very solid guidelines that players can follow, yes. I'm not sure how many people would go through and label the DCs like this; I probably would, but many may not want to do that work (even though it'll apply to an entire campaign, or more than one if you visit "wuxia" again).

But, yes, this can definitely help out set up genre-logic in objective terms, just usually not to the same degree at the book.

A GM having a "story" inherently limits player empowerment isn't it? It implies player agency must be constrained to items that fit within that framework that reflects the story being told. So while a valid style for DMing, not the best choice for maximising player empowerment.

I think so, as well. I'm not much one for "forcing" story in my games, but I think it's a valid style of play. If you want more player empowerment, though, working with the power that the players have (through their PCs) probably works better without forcing a certain story for them to follow (not that Tony does this).

But, having a "story" or "plot" in the game is common enough that I didn't want to say something bad about it. My brother runs games like this, and they're highly enjoyable games. But, you don't get quite as much control over shaping the story as something a little less heavy-handed. As always, play what you like

 

[jsaving]

So here are a list of things 4e does that are, I believe, integral to the experience of playing 4e

You say that 4e fans are unique in valuing balance, clear design and purpose, clarity and cohesion, opportunities for teamwork, options and varieties in play, ease of play, and monster factics. Which got me to thinking, who wouldn't agree with them? Could it really be true that 3e fans see these as negatives rather than positives?

A bit of background: my gaming group split in half over the 3e/4e issue and I'm one of the few people who participates in both groups. I like both systems and don't have any particular axe to grind, so I thought I'd show your list to each group (separately) and get their reactions to it. Every single person from both groups agreed they are all valuable components of a well-functioning ruleset. Where they disagreed was over two things: 1) did 4e succeed or fail at achieving them, and 2) did 4e introduce offsetting failures into the ruleset while attempting to achieve them? There's a fine line between "easing play" and "dumbing down the system," between "balance" and "blandness," etc, and I think it's important to correctly articulate the differences between editions if we're truly to understand how their fanbases can be reconciled.

And a significant proportion of us have game loyalty rather than brand loyalty and so will not leave 4th to return to earlier, and in our opinion, worse editions of the game.

After seeing Pathfinder grow to the point where it now outsells 4e in many gaming shops, WotC is *acutely* aware that gamers don't automatically buy new editions of D&D because of brand loyalty -- you need have no concern about that. But WotC's internal sales data have persuaded it that D&D simply isn't a viable enterprise going forward given the size and composition of the existing player base, no matter how much any of us might wish it could be otherwise. This doesn't prove anything about which edition is "better," notwithstanding some of the things one hears from the 3e side of the fanbase. But it does mean Next has to address some of 4e's real or perceived shortcomings from the 3e side of things if it is to have any hope of bringing those players back -- a necessary condition for growing the game.

What's often forgotten, though, is that retaining the existing 4e fanbase is *also* a necessary part of the equation. If what 3e fans want to see in Next is less balance, less ease of play, a muddled design and purpose, less clarity and cohesion, less teamwork, fewer options and varieties in play, and unclear monster design and tactics -- which seems to be where rpgnet is coming from -- then there is no hope for a reconciliation between the respective fanbases because these are things for which almost no 4e fan would stand. The good news is that almost no 3e fan would stand for them either, notwithstanding some of the things one hears from the 4e side of the fanbase. Which leaves some hope that Next can be successful after all, in my view at least.

 

[Harlock]

You say that 4e fans are unique in valuing balance, clear design and purpose, clarity and cohesion, opportunities for teamwork, options and varieties in play, ease of play, and monster factics. Which got me to thinking, who wouldn't agree with them? Could it really be true that 3e fans see these as negatives rather than positives?

Balance in what way? Wizards start as a weak class compared to most others and come to dominate the game at later levels? Balance through varying XP progressions; "better" classes advance more slowly than "weaker" classes? Balance via all classes having virtually identical powers so no one feels unique? Balance in that some classes are better in combat and some are better out of combat? Balance as in everyone has the same starting array and identical starting supplies? Balance as in everyone has the same access to skills, feats, themes, etc.?

Balance is achieved in a variety of ways and encompasses a lot of different aspects of the game. Most of us want some form of balance, but our preferred methods can vary wildly, just as the approach to balance has changed in virtually every edition of the game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, again, this is by permission of the GM. The GM should say "yes" to giving players things (within advice guidelines); the GM can use these guidelines (since they're not the rules of how hard tasks are) if he wants to allow all PCs to be able to complete a task. The things you named are essentially "here's how to be nice to your players for this style of play," not so much "here, players, have some abilities that allow you to affect the story in a reliable manner" like daily abilities are.

It's kind of like saying "the Barbarian player may want to rage, gaining a bonus to attack, damage, and toughness; when he does, you should probably say yes." Or, you could just give the Barbarian player an ability that lets him fly into a rage, where he gets those abilities, letting him have the power to choose when the effect occurs.

Very true. Could you imagine if wizards worked that way?

Even with "objective" DCs, the GM can override them! But, by giving the players a solid baseline that they can work with in the huge majority of cases, they can reliably use their abilities (or even build their characters) to accomplish tasks that they're interested in, and flex their agenda in the fiction by reliably being able to accomplish tasks that they're good at.

At any rate, while "objective" DCs do have their downsides (it's harder to apply genre-logic to them; it might make a GM's "story" harder, as you pointed out), they're more player empowering than a rules-light system of "here's some guidelines that the GM gets to follow; the GM will decide how hard your task is, or if you can even attempt it." And, while there's always a place for that in an RPG, it's not particularly good at granting "player agency" in my opinion.

You know what? I'm convinced. I've always been leary of the system defining too many DCs, because I figure from one campaign or tone of story to another, a DM might want to have different tasks be more or less difficult relative to eachother than in others. An 'anime'-esque campaign might make /jump/ checks a lot easier (or at least, allow greater distances), for instance.

But, that's just the sort of thing a DM is free to house-rule. And, doing a house-rule up front like that means the players still get to know what their characters can do, even if it's different from what they could do 'RAW.'

 

[jsaving]

Balance is achieved in a variety of ways and encompasses a lot of different aspects of the game. Most of us want some form of balance, but our preferred methods can vary wildly, just as the approach to balance has changed in virtually every edition of the game.

Well said. Framing the issue in such a way that 4e fans are the only ones who value balance, as rpgnet has been doing, isn't productive because 3e fans value it too. Honestly outlining how and where fanbase notions of balance differ does potentially offer hope, on the other hand, as the Next team seeks ways to accommodate both -- but this definitely doesn't guarantee success for all the reasons you mention!

 

[JamesonCourage]

Very true. Could you imagine if wizards worked that ay?

I can imagine a system doing so, but I can't see it being accepted by D&D players

You know what? I'm convinced.

I'm surprised, but happy. Thanks for the dialogue. There's obviously room for disagreement on what would make for "good" "objective" DCs, though. Thanks for the long, civil, and productive conversation. I wish that happened more often (even if people don't agree with me at the end!). As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

A GM having a "story" inherently limits player empowerment isn't it? It implies player agency must be constrained to items that fit within that framework that reflects the story being told. So while a valid style for DMing, not the best choice for maximising player empowerment.

I'm not a big fan of the GM having a story. As I posted upthread (I think - some of these threads run together in my memory!) I'm an orthodox Forge-ite when it comes to the GM suspending the action resolution mechanics in the so-called "interests of the story" ie I'm against it.

Well, again, this is by permission of the GM. The GM should say "yes" to giving players things (within advice guidelines); the GM can use these guidelines (since they're not the rules of how hard tasks are) if he wants to allow all PCs to be able to complete a task. The things you named are essentially "here's how to be nice to your players for this style of play," not so much "here, players, have some abilities that allow you to affect the story in a reliable manner" like daily abilities are.

<snip>

Does it particularly empower the player? Not without GM permission, which I don't find inherently empowering.

<snip>

while there's always a place for that in an RPG, it's not particularly good at granting "player agency" in my opinion.

I find it somewhat amusing and ironic to find myself characterised as a "mother may I" GM! (That's not a criticism of you. That's an attempt to communicate the fact that I'm sitting here laughing at myself and the situation.)

I'll say more about DC-setting, genre logic and player agency below.

Genre-logic could be used to construct the objective DC, couldn't it? That way the two should be in conflict only rarely. For example, in a wuxia genre game, balancing on the top if bamboo poles is something relatively easy so the Balance DC should be 15 -- within reach of a 1st level character and impossible to fail for a 10th level character who cares about balance. The GM can present the objective DCs for his campaign up front. This helps the players understand the style of campaign and helps them chart a trajectory for the character.

This is one way of going. I think I prefer my way.

I can think of at least two ways of doing genre logic and DC setting.

One combines Nagol and JC's suggested approaches: objective DCs defined upfront, the GM describes the situation, the players choose their PCs' actions.

The other is the approach I use in 4e, which reads 4e in the spirit of HeroQuest revised (and feels affirmed in that reading by the fact that Robin Laws cribbed extensive sections of HQrev into the 4e DMG2). The GM describes the situation, the players describe their PC actions, in cases where they seem particularly gonzo or wacky (like the "hands in forge" example) they look to the GM for permission. In all situations in which the GM says yes, DCs are set using level-scaling guidelines.

I think the second approach more strongly involves the players in pushing the boundaries of situations, mutually defining what is permitted within the "genre logic" context, etc. Nothing is per se off limits, and if they want to push the boundaries of what has happened before in play, or what the rulebooks suggest (eg the list of stunts included in the Essentials skill descriptions), they only have to talk it through with the GM. Possibilities in play are open-ended, and the comparitive simplicity of the resolution mechanics (a single roll against a level-appropriate DC) tends to prevent "probabibility traps" of the sort [MENTION=43019]keterys[/MENTION] mentioned from arising.

Burning Wheel has more definite genre (and genre limitations) built in to the mechanics, and uses different techniques to get the players involved in the pushing-and-shaping stuff (Wises, Circles, relationships, etc).

These are different techniques for supporting player agency, and reducing the domination of the GM over the content of the fiction that arises out of play.

 

[pemerton]

This gets down to a very basic question of what an RPG is. Is it a game that models what a player's /character/ can do, or is it a game in which the player places /himself/ a role? If the former, yes, the game needs mechanical resolution systems to help determine what they character can achieve in a social situation. If a character is a 'silver tongued bard,' he'll do better in social situations than a character conceived and modeled as an 'uncouth barbarian.' In the latter case, there's no need for a system, regardless of the character, it's the ability of the player to convince the DM that matters in a social situation.

The rules could be presented as a 'bad day' or 'shy player' safety-net. If the player doesn't feel like RPing the interaction, he can lean on th rules. If the player is into the interaction, he can just go with it.

I think there is at least one more option for the way social rules interact with the game as an RPG.

They can provide a system for resolving different desires among the participants as to how a given situation resolves itself. [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] provided a simple coin-flip example of such mechanics upthread.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I find it somewhat amusing and ironic to find myself characterised as a "mother may I" GM! (That's not a criticism of you. That's an attempt to communicate the fact that I'm sitting here laughing at myself and the situation.)

I did hesitate before using the term, but it seemed to be how it's colloquially used on these boards. I did not mean to offend you, if I did. (I don't think I did, but I thought I'd make it clear.)

I think the second approach more strongly involves the players in pushing the boundaries of situations, mutually defining what is permitted within the "genre logic" context, etc. Nothing is per se off limits, and if they want to push the boundaries of what has happened before in play, or what the rulebooks suggest (eg the list of stunts included in the Essentials skill descriptions), they only have to talk it through with the GM. Possibilities in play are open-ended, and the comparitive simplicity of the resolution mechanics (a single roll against a level-appropriate DC) tends to prevent "probabibility traps" of the sort [MENTION=43019]keterys[/MENTION] mentioned from arising.

This makes sense to me, but I'd say that things are still off-limits when the GM says they are. By using more "objective" DCs, there are certainly things that are off-limit, but the players are aware of what those things are. And, using Nagol's method of giving concrete examples beforehand, this is used to good effect to establish the genre you want (in a gritty, more 'realistic' type of game, keeping people from performing gonzo actions is a feature, not a bug).

These are different techniques for supporting player agency, and reducing the domination of the GM over the content of the fiction that arises out of play.

Yes, this is another big thing that can be done to increase player agency when playing. There's a whole host of effects that can be used here, and these effects can definitely make up for a lack of "objective" DCs, and then some.

Personally, I like my "objective" DCs, and I like a minimum amount of other player agency devices (like Hero Points in M&M) in my fantasy games, but that's just personal preference. I definitely like that type of thing in M&M, and I even use a couple devices in my RPG (Luck Points and Fame Points). So, I can definitely tolerate (and even quite enjoy) that type of mechanic. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Balance in what way? Wizards start as a weak class compared to most others and come to dominate the game at later levels? Balance through varying XP progressions; "better" classes advance more slowly than "weaker" classes? Balance via all classes having virtually identical powers so no one feels unique? Balance in that some classes are better in combat and some are better out of combat? Balance as in everyone has the same starting array and identical starting supplies? Balance as in everyone has the same access to skills, feats, themes, etc.?

Balance is achieved in a variety of ways and encompasses a lot of different aspects of the game. Most of us want some form of balance, but our preferred methods can vary wildly, just as the approach to balance has changed in virtually every edition of the game.

I think the issue is that some people define balance in a very, very strange and idiosyncratic way. For example, weak to strong is not game balance. It is multiple points of imbalance with a very, very small point of actual balance.

Balance through averaging over time is a definition of balance that does not appeal to 4e gamers (at least I don't think so) and probably isn't even considered when a later era gamer talks about balance since we've had twelve years of rejection of that style of balance. After all, it's not like Pathfinder suddenly went all OSR and re-introduced differing xp tables.