D&D 5E L&L 8/19/13: The Final Countdown

[pemerton]

what class is the one that sucks at combat in 4e? What do they get instead?

In my particular game, that would be the invoker-wizard/Divine Philosopher/Sage of Ages. Perhaps not "suck", but notably weaker than (say) the polearm controller fighter-cleric, the ranger-cleric or the chaos sorcerer.

What the PC gets instead is lots of lore and rituals.

I did not say that you could not roleplay with 4e, what I said was, it's not great for roleplaying.

I happen to think it's the best RPG that TSR/WotC has published, mostly because it does the most to address issues around GM conflicts of interest, the ever-present problem of railroading, and player control over the resolution of scenes framed by the GM.

Or in other words, I think you may be mistaking your own roleplaying preferences for roleplaying as such.

4e is no worse as a roleplaying game than any other version of D&D, and may be somewhat better, depending on one's opinion of varying skill systems.

In addition to skill systems, I would mention the flexible resolution provided by page 42 et al, and also the skill challenge mechanic.

4e is indisputably worse as a game of resource management and strategic deployment of non-combat related effects. I fully agree that for many D&D players, this is the core element that makes D&D feel like D&D.

But doesn't strike me as having any special or intimate relationship to "roleplaying".

I've sat in on some very fun 4e games where no one even tried to roleplay, any more than they would over Magic: The Gathering. No other edition of D&D could you do that (maybe 0ed, with a really good DM).

Have you ever played Against the Giants in AD&D or OD&D? It can be played without much roleplaying (in the sense of developing a character with a life or personality outside the immediate tactical situation). The report on the winning teams at the original tournament, in an early Dragon magazine, as well as my own experience in GMing it for AD&D, bears this out.

 

[Falling Icicle]

So, what did we learn from the public playtest? In some cases you confirmed things, in others you dispelled some notions that had become lodged in R&D's view of you.
• You like simplicity. You want to jump into the game quickly, create characters, monsters, NPCs, and adventures with a minimum of fuss, and get down to the business of playing D&D.

No. I like making characters. I like crunch, and exploring different ways to optimize my character. I'm not the only one. Lots of people enjoy character optimization. I enjoy having a wide range of choices. I DO NOT enjoy having the same cookie-cutter character as everyone else and not getting to make hardly any meaningful choices about my character until level 3, and hardly any after that. Race, background, class are just not enough choices for me at level 1. Not even close!

•You like that every class has the potential to contribute in most situations, but you're OK with some classes being better at certain things if that fits the class's image. You see balance on a larger, adventure-based or campaign-based scale.

What about fighters, who dominate combat, but suck at the other 2/3 of the game: interaction and exploration? They don't really have the potential to contribute in most situations. It's one thing for certain classes to be a bit better than others in certain areas, but the problem is you have some classes that greatly excel at exploration or interaction and other classes that can barely participate at all.

•You want rules that make it easy to build adventures and encounters. You want to think about the story or your setting's details, rather than fiddle with math.

Okay, this one is true.

•You value flexibility in rules. You prefer an ability or a rule that's easy to adapt or that leaves space for creative applications, rather than rigidly defined abilities.

No. I don't like having to burden myself with making up a bunch of rulings as the DM. I want the rules to be as clear and concise as possible, so that I don't have to rule by fiat very often.

•You aren't edition warriors. You want the game to support a variety play styles in equal measure. You're not attached to any specific ways of doing things as long as the game works.

What about 4e? 4e definitely worked. It was a pretty well designed game, and the most balanced version of D&D to date. But many people still hated it. Why? Because it didn't work the way they wanted D&D to work. People don't mind if the game supports many different playstyles, but only as long as it supports theirs. Otherwise, they'll just find another game that does. I'm not trying to edition war here, I'm just pointing out that having a set of rules that works isn't good enough for everyone, and people very much are attached to specific ways of doing things. That's why so many people still play older editions.

 

[Salamandyr]

One of the earlier playtests had the "Difficulty Threshold" (or whatever its name was), where if a character's attribute was X points higher than the DC, he succeeded automatically.

I was a big fan of that. If I recall correctly, it was something that died due to player feedback. The rogue got a lot of negative feedback early on for being "boring" because a lot of its abilities were often automatic successes.

Personally, I loved it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It feels like this is a justification. They don't want to give away almost finished rules out of a paranoid fear people won't buy if they can get it for free, so they're cancelling the playtest before we actually start playtesting.

Oh Daniel-san. Hit nail on head.

Mearls says:
Our playtest emphasis is now changing to the repetitive grind of balancing out the math and finding and dispelling abusive combinations. We'll continue to work with a big list of testers, but our needs are such that we require focused, directed play to drive our results. Frankly, that kind of testing can be fairly boring. It also mandates a level of feedback that is more detailed and demands more work than the testing done so far.

Translation: Once again we feel that the general playing public dosen't have the skill to detect loopholes large enough to fly a plane through. Furthermore our "big list of testers" will make sure the game works properly as designed when it is "played correctly" as determined by us of course.

I happen to think it's the best RPG that TSR/WotC has published, mostly because it does the most to address issues around GM conflicts of interest, the ever-present problem of railroading, and player control over the resolution of scenes framed by the GM.

Did I read that right? Did you just say that 4E has done more than any other rpg to combat the problem of railroading?

FLAG ON THE FIELD!

First off, the entire 4E framework is railroad oriented. This doesn't mean a lack of opportunity for roleplay, merely a lack of opportunity for meaningful choice. By meaningful choice I'm not talking about which limited rainbow power is going to be pulled out of your butt this round, rather actual meaningful choice: are we gonna fight this thing? If so are we gonna do it here in the Summerslam ring of fire arena or in a better battleground of our choosing?

The resolution of scenes framed by the GM? you mean stops on the railroad?

In addition to skill systems, I would mention the flexible resolution provided by page 42 et al, and also the skill challenge mechanic.

If a range of damage expressions is what passes for flexible resolution these days then there is truly no hope. Skill challenges did the most to inhibit roleplaying IMHO. The challenge became a whack-a-mole fixation on die rolling and justifications to try and use the largest bonuses possible.

Have you ever played Against the Giants in AD&D or OD&D? It can be played without much roleplaying (in the sense of developing a character with a life or personality outside the immediate tactical situation). The report on the winning teams at the original tournament, in an early Dragon magazine, as well as my own experience in GMing it for AD&D, bears this out.

That goes for any D&D game. Roleplaying is always about what the player wants to put into it. Non-campaign tournament play is going to be among the worst of this. There is no investment in an ongoing character and no campaign to develop them in.

 

[Umbran]

FLAG ON THE FIELD!

Quite. Flag on the flag, actually.

Folks, let's not turn this into an opportunity to bash on WotC, trash on particular games, or engage edition warring. We recognize that in the past edition change we were not strict enough in curtailing it, so we have little patience for it now. You're allowed to have an opinion, and to express it, but we expect it to be done with respect, and in a constructive manner.

 

[the Jester]

So to try to veer back on track a bit, what do you guys expect to see in the next packet that is new or changed?

I think we're likely to see bards, sorcerers, warlocks and warlords, though warlords are probably going to be a bard subclass (boo, I wanted a full class, but I'll withhold my final judgment until I see it) and warlocks & sorcerers are likely to be types of mage (I'm okay with this).

We've already heard that we're getting multiclassing rules (FINALLY!).

We've been told to expect kender (ick), warforged (me likee), tieflings (I presume of various stripes) and dragonborn (good- the 4e crowd hasn't gotten many bones thrown their way yet).

I more than half-expect to get the interaction rules (PLEASE!). Here's hoping!

I wouldn't be surprised to see rebalanced monsters; some rewrites to the equipment chapter; more magic items; more and somewhat revised spells; more and somewhat revised feats; an optional skill system, for those who want it; tweaks to the classes, but mostly minor ones; expanded racial treatments for the races that are barely touched in the current packet; and/or an expanded list of backgrounds.

I very much expect further revisions to the exploration rules.

I would like to see, but doubt whether we will, more subclasses/build options. (I wouldn't be surprised to see a few new choices scattered among the existing classes, but I'd be shocked if we got, for example, all the old wizard specialist types.)

 

[Pseudopsyche]

I fully expect to see the interaction rules, if you mean the mechanism for giving NPCs story-based triggers for improving or worsening their disposition, as well as mechanisms for awarding inspiration points for role-playing in line with a PC's stated goals and motivations. Since these mechanisms branch the rules out into somewhat of a new direction, WotC undoubtedly wants to see some feedback as to how much they "feel like D&D."

 

[Manbearcat]

Originally Posted by Mike Mearls
•You want rules that make it easy to build adventures and encounters. You want to think about the story or your setting's details, rather than fiddle with math.

Quite the interesting paradox here for me. Yes, I want to focus on the story details, rather than fiddle with math. You know what makes me more inclined to fiddle with math rather than focusing on story or the non-mechanical dynamics of the situation at hand? Poor resolution encounter budgeting; eg zoomed-out encounter budgeting at the adventure level rather than the inverse of precision at the encounter level.

The tighter, more predictable, the math is at the encounter level, the less focus I have to put into "massaging" encounter difficulty on the fly in real time and the more I can focus on the story/dynamics of the conflict in front of us, and pressuring the PCs to the fullest with the resources I can bring to bear (which, with respect to encounters, are both what is fun to me as a GM). The less * predictable the encounter outcome is for me (the GM), the less I can focus on the story/challenge dynamics of the encounter and playing out the challenge full tilt because I don't know what n is in 2 = 2. Maybe its 1 (hopefully)? Maybe its 2?...worse yet, what if its 3 and I expect it to be somewhere around 1? Big problems. Now I'm worrying about fiddling with the math of future encounters rather than focusing on story, setting, situation.

* In terms of total resource ablation and or TPK > Cakewalk continuum specifically with respect to the challenges (monsters, traps, hazards, stakes) I put before my PCs...not in terms of the actual dynamics of the outcome as dictated by anomalous PC strategy or tactics.

 

[pemerton]

If a range of damage expressions is what passes for flexible resolution these days then there is truly no hope.

Page 42 is not just damage expressions. It is also DCs. And as expanded in DMG2, by [MENTION=64825]wrecan[/MENTION]'s article online, etc it is also conditions and terrain powers.

Given that all resolution in 4e is based on DCs, plus (in combat, but not in skill challenges) damage and conditions, then guidelines for DCs, damage and conditions pretty much cover the field.

Skill challenges did the most to inhibit roleplaying IMHO. The challenge became a whack-a-mole fixation on die rolling and justifications to try and use the largest bonuses possible.

To me, at least, this suggests poor GMing. Of course players will try to have their PCs deploy their best skills relevant in the situation - trying to engage your best skill is no different from an AD&D magic-user preferring to use magic rather than muscle when feasible.

If a GM wants the player of the fighter with low CHA to make a Diplomacy check, s/he has to frame that PC into a situation where a Diplomacy check is required. There are plenty of threads around this place providing examples of how this can be done. The fundamental techniques are no different from those used in other games with tight scene-resolution mechanics (eg HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel Duels of Wits, Marvel Heroic RP, Maelstrom Storytelling, etc).

Did I read that right? Did you just say that 4E has done more than any other rpg to combat the problem of railroading?

You read wrong. I said I think it is the best of the TSR/WotC RPGs to combat railroading. Of non-TSR/WotC RPGs there are many that do this, and the 4e design team very clearly learned at the feet of some of them.

The resolution of scenes framed by the GM? you mean stops on the railroad?

I don't know how familiar you are with the scene-framing techniques in the RPGs I mentioned above, that 4e also relies upon. They don't have any connection to railroading, because a new scene cannot be framed until the previous one is resolved.

First off, the entire 4E framework is railroad oriented. This doesn't mean a lack of opportunity for roleplay, merely a lack of opportunity for meaningful choice. By meaningful choice I'm not talking about which limited rainbow power is going to be pulled out of your butt this round, rather actual meaningful choice: are we gonna fight this thing? If so are we gonna do it here in the Summerslam ring of fire arena or in a better battleground of our choosing?

What you describe here has nothing to do with 4e as I read the rulebooks, play the game or see it discussed around here by others who play it. You seem to be assuming that 4e encourages GMs to ignore players' declarations of action for their PCs. I don't think that can be found in the books, and nothing else encourages it (if anything, the game has been criticised for encouraging GMs to "say yes" to declarations of action by players for their PCs).

 

[Blackbrrd]

@pemerton I think part of the reason ExploderWizard feels that 4e is "railroady" is that the published adventures (at least the early ones) were really focused on the encounters. The encounters were typically very detailed on how to run them. This quickly leads to them being run as written. If you just ran the module as written you basically got a railroad with encounter stations. Sure you could just use the encounters as examples of how things would pan out, but then you have a lot of information that basically obfuscates the adventure.

Now, I do know that pemerton would never run one of the published adventures as written, but I have experienced several DM's running the WotC's 4e adventures as written. To me the first adventures should be show cases or examples of how the system is intended to be used. To me, the first adventures showed that 4e is intended to be run as a railroady grindfeast.

One of the worst experiences I had was when my DM just said: "You are surprised" after we broke down a door to get into a room. Why would we be surprised? The DM explained it said so in the module. Why does it say you are surprised when you enter that room? It just makes no sense and is an example of the overdetailed encounter descriptions in 4e that puts the DM into a railroady led-by-the-hand mentality.

You do mention the DMG, but it's actually the one book I have barely opened. One of the reasons was that I ran my first 4e game during the last playtest phases. Instead I looked at the adventures they had written and how they wanted you to run those. Terrible examples. I did run the first module of War of the Burning Sky and I think it makes for a much better (if more complicated) example and I really felt it encouraged me as a DM to build on the adventure and make it my own.