D&D (2024) Dungeons and Dragons future? Ray Winninger gives a nod to Mike Shea's proposed changes.

[Hussar]

That's kind of the point: precise language isn't the same as readable language. Scientific papers use very precise language, but they are a devil to read, and even harder to comprehend.

I didn't say that. Some of them, once someone has explained them to me in natural language, seem great. But when I tried to read the 4e book, I didn't understand the rules.

No, scientific papers use very technical language that is specific to the science that it happens to be discussing. It's precise, true, but, also very much embedded in the specific area of study that it's talking about. IOW, comprehension requires you to have a grounding in the field.

I'm frankly rather baffled how you couldn't understand the language, but, find 5e easy to follow. To each his own. But, it's pretty easily shown the 4e is far, far clearer and easier to understand than any other edition. Again, compare stealth rules.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No, scientific papers use very technical language that is specific to the science that it happens to be discussing. It's precise, true, but, also very much embedded in the specific area of study that it's talking about. IOW, comprehension requires you to have a grounding in the field.

I know. I have a PhD in Astrophysics. But those papers are still difficult.

I'm frankly rather baffled how you couldn't understand the language, but, find 5e easy to follow.

It's not the language, it's the comprehension. I understood what the words meant; I just couldn't see how it related to the D&D I had been playing since 1982.

But, it's pretty easily shown the 4e is far, far clearer and easier to understand than any other edition. Again, compare stealth rules.

The rules where precise, rigid and required a specific playstyle. Which was the problem. A degree of vagurery in the rules enables a wide range of playstyles and helps with the narrative. In my games, if there is a conflict between narrative logic and rules, then narrative always wins. Vague rules help with that, because the DM is constantly interpreting.

 

[Hussar]

I know. I have a PhD in Astrophysics. But those papers are still difficult.

It's not the language, it's the comprehension. I understood what the words meant; I just couldn't see how it related to the D&D I had been playing since 1982.

The rules where precise, rigid and required a specific playstyle. Which was the problem. A degree of vagurery in the rules enables a wide range of playstyles and helps with the narrative. In my games, if there is a conflict between narrative logic and rules, then narrative always wins. Vague rules help with that, because the DM is constantly interpreting.

But, again, that's a different issue from readability. You might prefer one type of writing to another, but, again, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about clarity.

I mean, one of the biggest complaints in the "things I wanna bitch about in 5e" thread is the lack of a decent index. 4e barely needed an index because it was ludicrously easy to find things (it did get more difficult down the line simply because there were SO MANY BOOKS - but, again, that's a separate issue).

Personally, I find the whole "required a specific playstyle" to largely be an edition war talking point without any real substance or value. It was really not true. But, hey, it sounded good and it's the reason that here we are, ten years later, and we still can't even suggest that 4e did anything good because, hey, it's the "failed edition" and everything about it must be bad because admitting that 4e did anything good is tantamount to admitting that most of the edition war crap was simply petty naughty word from people who hated the fact that someone else was getting a game they liked.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

We're talking about clarity.

Which is not the same as "readability", and not necessarily a good thing.

4e told you what the rules were, in no uncertain terms. But it didn't tell you how to use them to play D&D. I have the same issue with Starfinder. It has lots of rules, but it doesn't tell you how to use them to have fun.

Personally, I find the whole "required a specific playstyle" to largely be an edition war talking point without any real substance or value. It was really not true.

Not true for you, because you were already playing D&D the 4e way. For those of us who were playing differently, 4e said "YOU ARE HAVING BADWRONGFUN".

And once you have been told that, you tend not to notice any good ideas that might be lurking there.

 

[dave2008]

Which is not the same as "readability", and not necessarily a good thing.

4e told you what the rules were, in no uncertain terms. But it didn't tell you how to use them to play D&D. I have the same issue with Starfinder. It has lots of rules, but it doesn't tell you have to use them to have fun.

Not true for you, because you were already playing D&D the 4e way. For those of us who were playing differently, 4e said "YOU ARE HAVING BADWRONGFUN".

And once you have been told that, you tend not to notice any good ideas that might be lurking there.

Honestly you and @Hussar are arguing opinions and seem to think they are facts. For myself, I will side with Hussar on this one, I found 4e to be:

1. Easier to understand than 1e, 2e, & 3e. So easy in fact I taught to my 6 & 8 your sons and their friends to play it.
2. I came from a 1e playstyle (since that is the only edition I actually played previously) and I found I could play 4e the same way. It reminded me so much of 1e in fact it felt very nostalgic actually.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Honestly you and @Hussar are arguing opinions and seem to think they are facts. For myself, I will side with Hussar on this one, I found 4e to be:

1. Easier to understand than 1e, 2e, & 3e. So easy in fact I taught to my 6 & 8 your sons and their friends to play it.
2. I came from a 1e playstyle (since that is the only edition I actually played previously) and I found I could play 4e the same way. It reminded me so much of 1e in fact it felt very nostalgic actually.

I'm talking from personal experience. It is a FACT that I did not understand the 4e rules.

There were lots of playstyles for 1st edition. That was its strength. Most other editions retained that. 4e lost it.

 

[Nikosandros]

Honestly you and @Hussar are arguing opinions and seem to think they are facts. For myself, I will side with Hussar on this one, I found 4e to be:

1. Easier to understand than 1e, 2e, & 3e. So easy in fact I taught to my 6 & 8 your sons and their friends to play it.
2. I came from a 1e playstyle (since that is the only edition I actually played previously) and I found I could play 4e the same way. It reminded me so much of 1e in fact it felt very nostalgic actually.

Interesting. I agree fully that 4e is very easy to understand. I've witnesses several new players approach to it both in home games and at a store (back then a friend of mine owned a store and I ran several Game Days and Encounters).

I'm a bit perplexed about the second statement. I'm fan of AD&D, but I don't see a very similar playstyle with 4e. Could you expand on that point?

 

[Aldarc]

Which is not the same as "readability", and not necessarily a good thing.

"Readability" is about "ease of understanding" of texts, which is closely tied to the "clarity" of said texts.

Edit: This conversation would be a lot easier if people could admit that the word "readability" was misused rather than doubling down on the error so that we didn't have to keep returning to what "readability" means. It's not as if there is some great word deficit that requires misuing the word "readability" for the sake of trash-talking 4e.

4e told you what the rules were, in no uncertain terms. But it didn't tell you how to use them to play D&D. I have the same issue with Starfinder. It has lots of rules, but it doesn't tell you have to use them to have fun.

I'm skeptical that any of your assertions here would hold up to even the bare minimum of scrutiny nor do I suspect that they are rooted in facts of the texts in any way. But in the interest of an open mind, perhaps you would be willing to compare 4e with 5e concretely on some particular point regarding how 5e tells you how to have fun but 4e does not.

Edit: FYI, here is a bit from the 4e DMG (p. 7) explicitly about fun.

Fun!
The last essential component of a D&D game is fun. It’s not the DM’s job to entertain the players and make sure they have fun. Every person playing the game is responsible for the fun of the game. Everyone speeds the game along, heightens the drama, helps set how much roleplaying the group is comfortable with, and brings the game world to life with their imaginations. Everyone should treat each other with respect and consideration, too—personal squabbles and fights among the characters get in the way of the fun. Different people have different ideas of what’s fun about D&D. Remember that the “right way” to play D&D is the way that you and your players agree on and enjoy. If everyone comes to the table prepared to contribute to the game, everyone has fun.

Now to me that sounds like 4e is against OneTrueWay when it comes to "fun" and that it's resistant to tell people how to have fun because (a) it's table-dependent, and (b) they are resistant against prescribing a "right way" to have fun or play D&D.

 

[rooneg]

Yeah, and after the reset button going into 5e, that's about it right?

Umm, no. The latest Drizzt novel (Glacier’s Edge) was literally released last week.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Robert Schwalb is working on his more generic fantasy roleplaying game based on his Shadow of the Demon Lord game. When working on the write-ups for spells and other entries, he asked playtesters for feedback on two different formats. One version looked more like 3e/5e with spell effects and such buried in flavor text. The other version was like 4e. Most playtesters reported preferring the latter more 4e-like version, though they didn't recognize it as such. Schwalb admitted that he feared presenting it the latter way due to people's visceral reactions to anything remotely 4e like. However, this 4e style formatting is what the playtesters wanted because it was hands down far easier to parse.

I think a good compromise is the presentation of force powers and starship maneuvers in Star Wars Saga Edition. In fact, I think that if 4e had been presented in a very similar way to SWSE, it would have had much less resistance.