Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[thecasualoblivion]

No matter how many times you convince yourself, does not mean it's right.

I have had plenty of complex, clear, intuitive and user-friendly pre-4th Ed experiences.

Feel free to prefer whatever edition(s) you like, but if you are trying to argue that 4E wasn't a great deal more clear, intuitive, and user-friendly where it was complex compared to earlier editions, let me know when the shuttle lands.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Feel free to prefer whatever edition(s) you like, but if you are trying to argue that 4E wasn't a great deal more clear, intuitive, and user-friendly where it was complex compared to earlier editions, let me know when the shuttle lands.

I enjoy all editions, not arguing (just disagreeing).

...what shuttle?

 

[keterys]

As a reminder, edition warring is not allowed here on EN World. If you have difficulty replying in this thread without breaking that rule, don't reply. Or your right to do so will be removed by a moderator.

 

[billd91]

Feel free to prefer whatever edition(s) you like, but if you are trying to argue that 4E wasn't a great deal more clear, intuitive, and user-friendly where it was complex compared to earlier editions, let me know when the shuttle lands.

I would agree that the layout and the action economy rules were clear and user-friendly. That was a nice improvement over 3e on similar grounds. The interplay of a large array of powers and emergent strategies, not so much.

Clear and user-friendly are both qualities game rulebooks should aspire to. That doesn't mean the game incorporating those rules is going to be as successful as one that's a bit less organized and messy. It just means that the rules were well-communicated, not that they resonated with enough players. I hope the 5e rules are as well communicated in their final form.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

While there certainly were bits in 3e that were individually simpler than the corresponding bit in 4e, there's just no comparison when it comes to the complexity of the whole. In part, precisely because 3e did use different sub-systems or structures to make some things simplistic and others complex - doing so adds to overall complexity.

5e is heading the same way. Overall, it's modular approach is a recipe for levels of complexity D&D has never before seen. But, given a DM with mastery of that complexity, a given campaign could be paired down to a very simple sub-set of that complexity.

I'm not sure that's a big distinction, but OK, if you prefer 'more streamlined,' that's fine.

That 'streamlining' of common mechanics and consistent structure was certainly gone from the playtest, and would seem to be at odds with the modular approach, but bounded accuracy is obviously going to try to deliver on the scaling issue (which was largely illusory, the 4e 'treadmill' being rather transparent, anyway).

Simplicity is appealing on a number of levels. Personal preference, ease of DMing, shallow learning curve, faster play, etc, etc... Varied complexity within a system delivers some of them, like personal preference, player-by-player, but not others. Modular complexity, likewise, it gives the DM a lot to master and a lot to do, but if he puts in the effort, he can deliver a simpler experience (or a more tailored level of complexity) to his players.

I think a critical thing that 5e isn't focused on is that simplicity is much more important to the new player than the experienced one. Experienced players may or may not like complexity, but they can deal with it, new players can be put off by the steep learning curve. 5e isn't really targeting new players, though, in it's attempt to re-unite the existing fan-base.

As someone who's trade is system design in the broad sense, I'd say modularity SHOULD rest heavily on simplicity and consistent architectural design. This is my red flag thing with the way 5e looks so far. Oddities like attacks and saves doing basically the same things in different and overlapping ways for instance is not a good idea.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My experiences are at odds with all of that, but hey, we have just had different D&D lives.

So many fascinating adventures/campaigns/encounters etc since 1986, if you've had otherwise, I'm bummed for you.

No, plenty of things were interesting. EVERYTHING is interesting in my 4e games. I would not be at all satisfied with AD&D monster design for instance right now, though I could make interesting monsters. Actually the 5e CoC playtest illustrated this pretty well. It was orcs, and another bunch of orcs, and a few more orcs, and then some bugbears and a few more bugbears, and then some more bugbears... I found it quite bland after the first hour.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I find it the opposite. Since I don't have to worry about mechanics in 4e, I have more time and brainspace to spend on story.

Oh, I agree, the mechanics just do what they're supposed to and get out of the way. However if you DO make an 'AD&D style' 4 orcs in a room type encounter, it will be boring as all heck. In AD&D it would sort of work. There's a higher standard for design. You can focus on story, but you had BETTER focus on story and good action sequences, etc. Otherwise you'll have a slot ala KotS.

 

[Lanefan]

The advantage of ambiguous spell descriptions is that players and DMs can try and twist them to their advantage in multiple ways. I don't like that sort of play, and don't see it as creative personally

Where I see the ambiguity as in fact an encouragement to creativity. If a spell description clearly states "casting this spell gives effect x no matter what" then nobody is ever going to think about casting it to try and get effect y. And while this makes it simpler for all involved, it also makes it a whole lot duller.

I prefer a single clear understanding of the spell or mechanic, with no ambiguity or wiggle room. It makes for a more coherent game setting, which doesn't shift and distort due to the pleadings of the more socially apt.

Creativity and social apt-ness are not linked.

And the DM can always say "no". What's more important - vitally important - is that the DM be consistent, that if something is allowed to work a certain way one time then it can work that way any other time the same circumstances arise.

Lan-"never mind illusions, where the spell's intended effect is limited only by what the caster can dream up and what the victims believe"-efan

 

[CleverNickName]

I know I've been critical of 4E in the past, but honestly I never had any complaints with the math of 4th Edition. It was all that other stuff that I didn't particularly care for:

1. No OGL
2. No OGL
3. No OGL
4. No OGL
5. Dependence on a battle mat.
6. The healing mechanic.

Everything else was fairly solid, IMO. Simplified skills, simplified monsters, even revolutionary stuff like rituals...I think 5E could learn a lot from 4E.

 

[Steely_Dan]

No, plenty of things were interesting. EVERYTHING is interesting in my 4e games. I would not be at all satisfied with AD&D monster design for instance right now, though I could make interesting monsters. Actually the 5e CoC playtest illustrated this pretty well. It was orcs, and another bunch of orcs, and a few more orcs, and then some bugbears and a few more bugbears, and then some more bugbears... I found it quite bland after the first hour.

Well, as I said, too bad for you.