D&D 5E FeeFiFoFum *splat* goes the giants

[Lyxen]

start here and enter here are not really different, so no I wont be going back to look for maps that are labled or not.

And you will find neither on most maps for D&D. Since you have such a large experience, you should be able to remember some ?

and forget "my experience' "your experience" do you REALLY believe that if you asked right now in a 4e thread that 1/2 the people who like 4e would say that is there experience? how about 1/3? 10% maybe? less then 5%? and no I am not asking you to do it... I am asking what you believe (Purely your thoughts). or, do you think that the 4e fan base would be no more or less likely to have this experience then any other edition? The important part here can be tricky because I said people who like (aka fans) because an argument can be made that people that had your experience did not like the game and people who had mine did.

I have no idea and I absolutely don't care. Once more, I have seen it enough times - Including a full campaign that I played levels 1 to 20 - to know that was a thing for some people.

However before declaiming it a "Combat Game" think about it this way... every edition (at least since 1993 when I started playing) has had more rules for combat then any other part of the game.

Oh, yes, that (in)famous fallacy. Has it occured to you that first, it's not true because some editions had actually lists of spells, both for combat and out of combat, take more space than combat rules (whereas, I agree, in 4e there are no spells (in the usual sense), only powers and these are all combat oriented).

And yes, combat is complex and requires more space to describe. However, I'm sure that you also will find lots of people explaining to you that combat is infrequent in their games, and that they have many evenings of play without one combat, which you can do with most editions but is harder with 4e because powers are only for combat both in their description and their availability / application.

On the other hand, 4e is the only edition in which I remember publications dedicated only to combat with nothing else in there, e.g. Dungeon Delve. Not a hint of roleplay or story here, just descend into the dungeon and hack some monsters. Even the very first adventures published in Basic and AD&D had more roleplaying than this. And I'm not speaking about a style of play, I'm speaking about a published hardcover book.

Again, it's fine playing that way, what is less fine is denying the reality of the design and the play that resulted. Never before or after have I seen sessions dedicated to simply fighting, tactically, on a grid.

 

[HammerMan]

In a sense, it's already there, possibly not with the level of detail or the specific orientation that you want, but remember that for me, more is not necessarily better. It's really hard to touch on so many concepts without making the whole book hard to read for newbies, whereas experienced gamers can certainly find a lot of information in their memories or how to integrate knowledge from outside sources like the web...

while i think we found one thing to agree on... writing up both an informative and helpful set of tools is hard. Especially when you need to write for me who has been playing since 93, the guy who back in college was photo copieing booklits in 74, the girl that started in 2004, and all the people that it will be the first book for, and it needs to help all of them. Again, no one is paying ME (and my guess is you) to write these books. it is also why so many people don't do 3rd party books... not that the 3rd parties are bad (I personally love some) but because you never know what you will get.

 

[Oofta]

my suggestion is a ground up redesign of what book is what... take epic stuff out for later (like they would ever balance that at start) take 3/4 the magic items out (they are optional anyway) replace that with advice (or a guide) on how to DM.

I just disagree. There's plenty of advice and blogs out there that cover this sort of thing. For some people a blog is the best venue, for others video, for others actual play example. Best to leave this stuff on the web IMHO.

 

[HammerMan]

Oh, yes, that (in)famous fallacy. Has it occured to you that first, it's not true because some editions had actually lists of spells, both for combat and out of combat, take more space than combat rules (whereas, I agree, in 4e there are no spells (in the usual sense), only powers and these are all combat oriented).

And yes, combat is complex and requires more space to describe. However, I'm sure that you also will find lots of people explaining to you that combat is infrequent in their games, and that they have many evenings of play without one combat, which you can do with most editions but is harder with 4e because powers are only for combat both in their description and their availability / application.

On the other hand, 4e is the only edition in which I remember publications dedicated only to combat with nothing else in there, e.g. Dungeon Delve. Not a hint of roleplay or story here, just descend into the dungeon and hack some monsters. Even the very first adventures published in Basic and AD&D had more roleplaying than this. And I'm not speaking about a style of play, I'm speaking about a published hardcover book.

Again, it's fine playing that way, what is less fine is denying the reality of the design and the play that resulted. Never before or after have I seen sessions dedicated to simply fighting, tactically, on a grid.

it is no harder to run 4e without combat then it is 3e, 2e, or 5e (or WOD, or GURPS, or almost any system...I say almost because RIFTs exists). You are letting "I don't like it" shade your ability to be inclusive.


the first time I say tactically fighting on a grid take over was a store game I couldn't stand back in the late 90s. and they called it 3e but it was just a bunch of optional rules from Combat and Tactics, Spells and Powers, and a third book I can't remember right now. 2 players 1 DM and 6 character (aka each playing 3 characters) going through what I would call a board game.

However When I complained one of my friends reminded me in my first game I ran since no one "wanted to be the cleric" we had the guy playing the fighter/thief roll up a cleric as a secondary character... who never spoke, didn't do much other then turn undead and cast spells (mostly healing) so it wasn't really worse.

The worst time I saw it was 3.5 around the time I was looking for a new game (maybe 2ish years before 4e was announced) when I saw multi groups between cons stores, and even a home game I walked away from turn into what I then called 'space counters'

The least war gamey game I have ever played/run in was useing the 4e system to play a Harry Dresden style game in a modern world refluffing things. We advanced from level 7-13 without a single fight that PC were part of.

The worst 4e game I played in was using dungeon delve though... but it wasn't bad because of a lack of RP (I never remember 4e ever lacking for RP) but because the DM was a trash person and drove off one of the players because they didn't think "That type of person" should be in the hobby... and that story is 100% game/system agnostic.... although it is funny he WAS useing dungeon delve and Book of VIle Darkness as his main books.

I would play any edition OTHER then 3e/3.5/PF right now...even though I did play those for years, they are my least favorite. I never say "that edition is only X" or even "That edition is what is wrong" or "That edition is the worst" me not likeing something doesn't make me have to think nothing good came from it...

try to look back and name 3 good things that came form 4e, if you can't maybe you need to admit you are letting your personal prefrence color too much.

 

[HammerMan]

I just disagree. There's plenty of advice and blogs out there that cover this sort of thing. For some people a blog is the best venue, for others video, for others actual play example. Best to leave this stuff on the web IMHO.

I disagree no paper and pencile game should be sold with "Go watch this youtube video" as instructions... the books need to stand alone

 

[Oofta]

I disagree no paper and pencile game should be sold with "Go watch this youtube video" as instructions... the books need to stand alone

There are plenty of instructions. There could always be more, but the areas that people complain about incessantly (like this topic) are the ones where there is no clear one true way. Sometimes there are simply too many variables and you just have to figure it out.

There is no formula that could work for every table, every scenario every time.

 

[Mort]

There are plenty of instructions. There could always be more, but the areas that people complain about incessantly (like this topic) are the ones where there is no clear one true way. Sometimes there are simply too many variables and you just have to figure it out.

There is no formula that could work for every table, every scenario every time.

While that's true, one problem with the 5e books (Certainly the DMG) is the poor indexing and organization. There's a ton of valuable/relevant information in the DMG that doesn't get used/gets used incorrectly because it's not well presented. that COULD use a redesign or at least a repackaging. I think it's relevant here, though may be better as it's own topic.

 

[Ancalagon]

Right, so some people liked it and some didn't. That's what he said above.

Nothing wrong with Combat as Sport (or Combat as Performance), and it still allows for just as much creative play. It's just a different set of constraints to be creative within.

Oh for sure - I vastly prefer combat as war, but it's not for everyone. But I hadn't realized that 4e forced you to pick one and not the other...

 

[jmartkdr2]

Oh for sure - I vastly prefer combat as war, but it's not for everyone. But I hadn't realized that 4e forced you to pick one and not the other...

Yeah, 4e is really built for CaS, to the detriment of other options. It's part of the reason it did poorly overall, or at least poorly compared to expectations. A good chunk of the dnd playerbase discovered it didn't work for their playstyle.

It is really good at CaS play, however, for those that like it.

 

[HammerMan]

Yeah, 4e is really built for CaS, to the detriment of other options. It's part of the reason it did poorly overall, or at least poorly compared to expectations. A good chunk of the dnd playerbase discovered it didn't work for their playstyle.

It is really good at CaS play, however, for those that like it.

how does the false narrative keep going?