Legends & Lore 16 Jan 2012

[Dausuul]

I was struck by a different part of the column, namely this description of 4e:

the carefully balanced elegance of 4th edition​

Is this all the WotC designers see in 4e?

Nearly all the debates on these forums about 4e - including the hit point and warlord threads in this sub-forum - turn not on questions of "balanced elegance" but on the relationship between mechanics and mechanical processes, on the one hand, and the fiction and fictional processes (ie the causal logic of the gameworld) on the other.

That's sort of the point. The relationship between mechanics and fiction in 4E is extremely fraught, the source of great divides within the fanbase. But 4E's elegance and mechanical balance are not widely disputed; most people agree that it has those characteristics, and those who like 4E consider the careful balance to be one of its biggest strengths.

Monte was giving examples of things people might be looking for in a game. Thus, he suggested "simple-yet-wahoo" for BD&D, and "carefully balanced elegance" for 4E. I'm not sure I agree with BD&D, but the description of 4E is right on.

 

[El Mahdi]

I think that despite the ability the game can be played with different style characters at the same table, I'm betting most groups will default to an agreed upon style for the whole group. If for no other reason than DM's will prefer it. But we'll see. Depends on just how versatile it is...

But, as far as different character styles at the same table, I can see it being more of a matter of granularity between characters that will still allow for balance at the same table. The underlying math will be balanced between characters of all types, but the level of granularity can significantly vary.

 

[mlund]

In all likelihood the core mechanics beyond your character are determined by the system the DM is running at the table, with each system having ways to accomadate various complexity levels of characters. A rogue needs combat advantage for his Sneak Attack? Good thing the basic combat mechanics provide a simple way to get this (surprise while attacking a monster already in melee with an ally) while the advanced rules might have complex flanking, prone, and feinting rules to get this instead.

- Marty Lund

 

[BryonD]

Obviously we are still way on the outside with little to go on but....

Just allowing alternate character creation seems problematic enough on its own. but it really doesn't even touch on some of the more fundamental issues that contribute the fan divide.

If you want your fighter to have a healing surge mechanic then more power to ya, but you and I are probably better off a different tables.

I've had multiple debates with people about +1/2 level to everything. I love the idea that the rogue might be able to scamper over a wall that the wizard can dream of finding a single foothold on. Some 4E fans have told me that everyone should gain some skill at everything and trying to get the wizard past a wall is just a slow down in the game, therefore skills should be at least reasonably equitable. No claim of right or wrong, but either they can both climb the wall or they can't.

And these are just two examples off the top of my head. Simple and complex character building don't really seem to speak to the heart of the problem but instead are simply an outgrowth of a much more significant fundamental philosophical difference.

It seems that even with the whole lions and lambs PC creation thought the DM will still need to define his personal game in a way that will appeal to some and not to others.

It also seems that, presuming success, D&D Next would immediately become a kind of survival of the fittest experiment and in 2015 there would be clear niches within the larger community. (Not saying that would be a bad thing for either the gaming community or for WotC) Some options that are available day 1 would likely wall out of favor in short order and others would persist but possibly in significantly different forms.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION], I take as a given that any system flexible enough to do half of what they have implied is also a system flexible enough to provide all kinds of new and interesting ways to do old mistakes and outright screw ups. So I agree with you on the emergent niches.

You can't have artificial intelligence without the prospect of artificial stupidity. You can't have free will without someone making bad choices. And you can't provide gamers with the equivalent of a swiss army knife without some of them sticking the wine corkscrew in their legs.

 

[Quickleaf]

The most encouraging part to me was the clear implication that neither 3E nor 4E would be the base, but would be directly supported via supplements. This says to me that the designers get that the styles that come out with 3E and 4E are both D&D, but neither are comprehensive.

I took away the same thing. Both the latest editions are good, each with innovations, but they also have a lot in common including weaknesses. You said it perfectly: the styles of 3/4e do not comprehensively represent how D&D is played.

 

[Aldarc]

I see now what they are doing, foggily but I see it. An elf fighter/magic-user/thief, at a table with a fighting-man, warlord, and a CoDzilla is not what they are going to have. You will have a set of base classes that people will switch out bonuses/class attributes for specifics. The base class may be a bit more generic but can stand side by side with the tricked out option pony customized to each players desire.
How the heck can they balance this? The concept and goal is great, but no one likes to feel like they are the back up singers to the cheese factory. They need to playtest the crap out of this so cheese-weasels, (I am an apprentice cheddar marmot myself) can twist every combination to try and break the rules before it ships.
5E looks to be a new edition. The initial release(s) will be a new game that will not fulfill the promise of all editions at one table. The options/modules books will fulfill that with subsequent releases. 5E will be more robust than previous editions. Each module will be like a new mini-edition. I am more intrigued.

If you can build the core class package with the advanced options, then that should work in terms of balance. You balance out the options, but the core class gets a pre-set package of options that are pragmatically balanced with the "advanced" options. The "advanced" options are more complex because there are simply more choices you can make in crafting your character. But I'm skeptical of "advanced" meaning "more powerful" options.

 

[Minigiant]

If you can build the core class package with the advanced options, then that should work in terms of balance. You balance out the options, but the core class gets a pre-set package of options that are pragmatically balanced with the "advanced" options. The "advanced" options are more complex because there are simply more choices you can make in crafting your character. But I'm skeptical of "advanced" meaning "more powerful" options.

Actually I see the "core/basic" class having stats and power that an "advanced" class cannot achieve. The strength of the "advanced" classes would be that they have access to strategies "core/basic" classes don't have access to (two weapon fighting, metamagic, turn undead).

 

[BryonD]

[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION], I take as a given that any system flexible enough to do half of what they have implied is also a system flexible enough to provide all kinds of new and interesting ways to do old mistakes and outright screw ups. So I agree with you on the emergent niches.

You can't have artificial intelligence without the prospect of artificial stupidity. You can't have free will without someone making bad choices. And you can't provide gamers with the equivalent of a swiss army knife without some of them sticking the wine corkscrew in their legs.

Hell Yeah,

If 80 things go to hell in a handbasket and three emerge as awesome then I'll scoring this a HUGE win. (No sarcasm meant, I truly mean that as a positive)

 

[pemerton]

I get the idea of spiking, but being really good for a few encounters out of a day and then being less competent the rest of the day doesn't seem to match the utility of being good at what you do all the time. Granted, that's something which will vary wildly by campaign style. If you're playing in a game where you have a chance to rest all the time (going back to the 15 minute adventuring day problem) then you're not going to mind needing to rely on spikes. If you're playing a game where the action isn't neatly broken down into X encounters during a day, the guy who can perform his job all the time seems a lot better to me.

Essentials had character classes (or builds) that didn't have daily powers, for example. They weren't "pre-selected". They didn't exist. Instead, they got various bonuses that were roughly equivalent to having daily powers (no spike potential, but more reliable).
They still had encounter powers. But I suppose even those could be replaced with static bonuses.

<snip>

Now, the reason it worked for 4E was basically - people had healing surges. That still limited how much they could do over the course of a day, as combat will inevitably cost hit points. Does that imply something like healing surges will remain in the game?

So the answer, in 4e at least, is that the game has a built in pacing mechanic - the healing surge.

Of course this still gives rise to the potential 15 minute day problem, because recovery of surges, in 4e, is linked to an ingame event - the extended rest - over which the players have at least some degree of control. I wouldn't be surprised if 5e takes some steps to shift control over resting, and therefore pacing, more into the GM's hands (at least as the default).

I think it is silly to have cleric's miraculous powers of healing or the usefulness of a healing poiton be limited by how "tired" the fighter is.

Agreed. That's why a cleric's miraculous healing powers (Cure Light Wounds, etc) don't require expenditure of a surge. It is only the cleric's powers of counselling, advising and bestowing rather generic but inspirational "grace" (eg Healing Word) that requires expendituer of a surge.

That's sort of the point. The relationship between mechanics and fiction in 4E is extremely fraught, the source of great divides within the fanbase. But 4E's elegance and mechanical balance are not widely disputed; most people agree that it has those characteristics, and those who like 4E consider the careful balance to be one of its biggest strengths.

That makes some sense, but my concern is that the so-called "unity" edition may not be able to support the sort of relation between mechanics and fiction that, for some players of 4e at least, is central to the system's attraction.