Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
I love 5E, but lately I miss 4E's monsters
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7014337" data-attributes="member: 7006"><p>Having watched all of his other videos and how he thinks and acts as a Dungeon Master, I actually believe that he's not "missing" this aspect per se... but rather just believes that making the game immersive is the role of the DM. That's his job. And thus what is written in the book doesn't really matter, because the DM is meant to take those things and flourish (or not flourish) them as much (or as little) as they want.</p><p></p><p>Now if some DMs want (or expect) their game books to do a lot of the flourishment <em>for them</em>... then that's fine, and there are plenty of books and games that do. "Naturalistic language" and "flavor text" and "long descriptions" (that you might find in 5E or 3E) definitely evoke a different feel while <em>reading it</em> than the more mechanical blocks that make up 4E's manuals. But when you actually play the game... if your combat is mechanical, it's cause you're allowing and playing it <em>as</em> mechanical. But you can just as easily play it as "naturalistic" or "flavorful" if you put in the effort. I just don't know how many DMs, players or tables really put in that effort.</p><p></p><p>So you can take 4E and play it gridless or "theater of the mind", and evoke all the flavor and description you want if you actually just do it yourself. A 4E <em>Sleep</em> spell thrown at the table can be virtually identical to a 5E <em>Sleep</em> spell thrown at the table so long as you decide to describe the casting of the spell, rather than just throw down its mechanical function. Thus it doesn't matter whether one is a "Daily power" versus one that uses a "1st level spell slot"... unless you actually are running the game (and combat especially) from a mechanical terminology point of view.</p><p></p><p>And THAT'S where your point of "language is important" comes into play-- because I think the real issue ended up being not that people didn't like 4E's "mechanical language" versus 3/5E's "naturalistic language"... it was that they didn't like 4E's "mechanical language" versus 3/5E's <strong>"mechanical language"</strong>.</p><p></p><p>Colville's right in that there really is no difference between calling something a "Daily power" versus a "1st level spell slot". They're both mechanical expressions to dictate how often someone can use something. Likewise there's no difference between a "tank" versus a "Defender" because they both have the same job and do that job. And no difference between an "Encounter power" and a spell with a "1 minute duration" because they both last for generally a single fight. "Healing surge" versus "Hit dice"? Sam general principle, same general effect.</p><p></p><p>But it's only because most players were so used to using the "mechanical language" of 3E (and what got re-imported into 5E) that the 4E "mechanical language" just seemed jarring and felt wrong. There was nothing actually wrong with the language in of itself (and indeed, those people who started with 4E never seemed to have these issues of mechanical language)... it was only older players who saw the language change for what they felt was for real no reason (and probably more importantly no real gain) that fought against it.</p><p></p><p>I remember quite clearly when <em>Essentials</em> was released, and all of the new "powers" of each PC were written graphically in the style of 3E spells rather than the color-coded blocks of standard 4E that many players said "If original 4E had looked and felt like this, more people probably would have been more accepting of the game." And I think that might very well have been true. <em>Essentials</em> basically presented the exact same 4E game with 4E mechanics but just used the 3E style and it became a bit more tolerable for many older players. Because the "mechanical language" that moved more towards "naturalistic language" just felt better... despite there being literally no difference in the game itself.</p><p></p><p>I think we're pretty much saying the same thing at the end of the day-- the language does matter. But I think it only matters when you're reading the book, and not when you're at the table. At the table, durations are durations, targets are targets, effects are effects, and attacks and damage are attacks and damage... regardless of the terminology the book uses to describe them. And if you're a Dungeon Master... and that terminology actually matters to you during the game... then your job as a DM is to make the game what you want. You don't <em>need</em> the book itself to do the work for you.</p><p></p><p>If it <em>does</em> do the work for you... then great, you lucked out! The book feels like it was written specifically for you! (And why I think so many previous edition players find themselves drawn back to 5E). But it doesn't have to be written that way for you to still play it and run it the way you want it to... using any and all naturalistic and/or mechanical language you so choose. So pull that 4E monster power out of the 4E Monster Manual and tape it to your 5E Adult Black Dragon statblock! There's no reason why you shouldn't, and if the language matters just change the language of that power to the language you prefer when you do! No harm, no foul! Whatever works best for you!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 7014337, member: 7006"] Having watched all of his other videos and how he thinks and acts as a Dungeon Master, I actually believe that he's not "missing" this aspect per se... but rather just believes that making the game immersive is the role of the DM. That's his job. And thus what is written in the book doesn't really matter, because the DM is meant to take those things and flourish (or not flourish) them as much (or as little) as they want. Now if some DMs want (or expect) their game books to do a lot of the flourishment [I]for them[/I]... then that's fine, and there are plenty of books and games that do. "Naturalistic language" and "flavor text" and "long descriptions" (that you might find in 5E or 3E) definitely evoke a different feel while [I]reading it[/I] than the more mechanical blocks that make up 4E's manuals. But when you actually play the game... if your combat is mechanical, it's cause you're allowing and playing it [I]as[/I] mechanical. But you can just as easily play it as "naturalistic" or "flavorful" if you put in the effort. I just don't know how many DMs, players or tables really put in that effort. So you can take 4E and play it gridless or "theater of the mind", and evoke all the flavor and description you want if you actually just do it yourself. A 4E [I]Sleep[/I] spell thrown at the table can be virtually identical to a 5E [I]Sleep[/I] spell thrown at the table so long as you decide to describe the casting of the spell, rather than just throw down its mechanical function. Thus it doesn't matter whether one is a "Daily power" versus one that uses a "1st level spell slot"... unless you actually are running the game (and combat especially) from a mechanical terminology point of view. And THAT'S where your point of "language is important" comes into play-- because I think the real issue ended up being not that people didn't like 4E's "mechanical language" versus 3/5E's "naturalistic language"... it was that they didn't like 4E's "mechanical language" versus 3/5E's [B]"mechanical language"[/B]. Colville's right in that there really is no difference between calling something a "Daily power" versus a "1st level spell slot". They're both mechanical expressions to dictate how often someone can use something. Likewise there's no difference between a "tank" versus a "Defender" because they both have the same job and do that job. And no difference between an "Encounter power" and a spell with a "1 minute duration" because they both last for generally a single fight. "Healing surge" versus "Hit dice"? Sam general principle, same general effect. But it's only because most players were so used to using the "mechanical language" of 3E (and what got re-imported into 5E) that the 4E "mechanical language" just seemed jarring and felt wrong. There was nothing actually wrong with the language in of itself (and indeed, those people who started with 4E never seemed to have these issues of mechanical language)... it was only older players who saw the language change for what they felt was for real no reason (and probably more importantly no real gain) that fought against it. I remember quite clearly when [I]Essentials[/I] was released, and all of the new "powers" of each PC were written graphically in the style of 3E spells rather than the color-coded blocks of standard 4E that many players said "If original 4E had looked and felt like this, more people probably would have been more accepting of the game." And I think that might very well have been true. [I]Essentials[/I] basically presented the exact same 4E game with 4E mechanics but just used the 3E style and it became a bit more tolerable for many older players. Because the "mechanical language" that moved more towards "naturalistic language" just felt better... despite there being literally no difference in the game itself. I think we're pretty much saying the same thing at the end of the day-- the language does matter. But I think it only matters when you're reading the book, and not when you're at the table. At the table, durations are durations, targets are targets, effects are effects, and attacks and damage are attacks and damage... regardless of the terminology the book uses to describe them. And if you're a Dungeon Master... and that terminology actually matters to you during the game... then your job as a DM is to make the game what you want. You don't [I]need[/I] the book itself to do the work for you. If it [I]does[/I] do the work for you... then great, you lucked out! The book feels like it was written specifically for you! (And why I think so many previous edition players find themselves drawn back to 5E). But it doesn't have to be written that way for you to still play it and run it the way you want it to... using any and all naturalistic and/or mechanical language you so choose. So pull that 4E monster power out of the 4E Monster Manual and tape it to your 5E Adult Black Dragon statblock! There's no reason why you shouldn't, and if the language matters just change the language of that power to the language you prefer when you do! No harm, no foul! Whatever works best for you! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
I love 5E, but lately I miss 4E's monsters
Top