Monte Cook and 5e

[TheAuldGrump]

Thanks for getting this back on track.

Monte seems to be very much a gamer first - he likes to run games, and he likes hearing how people feel about his games.

Some of what I heard about the playtests for 4e sounded like things that should have rung alarms - that comments about the non-combat portions of the game, especially skill challenges and the difficulties thereof, were brushed aside, in order to focus on the 'important stuff'.

Monte seems more likely to listen to negative feedback, which is a very good thing. Hopefully he will also pay attention to the non-combat side of the game.

The Auld Grump

 

[Rechan]

You are making an argument where there isn't one.

All I was doing was saying "When I read this from you, I thought that, so I replied this way". And I thought that people thought I was saying something I wasn't, so I clarified. If I was wrong in my interpretation, then I was wrong. But I was clarifing that I was not saying x, I was saying y.

I'm reading a lot of aggression and anger in the tone of your posts and I don't get where it's coming from. Relax.

 

[Rechan]

And I think it boils down to this (for me, at least): I always used to play D&D in a way 4e supports very well, so to me 4e just feels like a streamlined version of 3e.

That's a real good way to put my experience too.

 

[MINI]

Monte seems more likely to listen to negative feedback, which is a very good thing. Hopefully he will also pay attention to the non-combat side of the game.

I think as a player and Gm this is my main hangup with 4e. A large portion of the game is spent resolving this power or that. there is very little time left to get into character when your busy resolving powers for every character in every combat.

I think from a play style standpoint each edition whether it be boxed set thru 3.5 was accommodating to several play styles that ranged from kick in the door to a much more story/plot driven game vs an encounter based game. 4e is mechanically heavy and based off an encounter to encounter path that makes a story heavy play style hard to do in my opinion.

For each edition there is a game breaking book that usually comes out to show what the next edition will be like. For 3.0 it was skill and powers, for 4e it was the book of nine swords. For 4e I don't think we have seen that vision yet and it may not happen.

The next edition of the rules needs to return to a mechanic that supports most play styles well and returns to the classic tenants of the game. Adding Tieflings and Dragon Born as races is great but lets not shirk gnomes (for example). In addition to accommodating playstyles and returning to the classic ideals of D&D I would like to see the new edition be one that plays smoothly for groups that play online. I think this online play is happening more than people plan for. Its much easier to get together a gaming group over the internet. With that said the new system would need to be playable online but still be fun over the table as well.

 

[kimble]

4e is mechanically heavy and based off an encounter to encounter path that makes a story heavy play style hard to do in my opinion.

I solved that problem by making small encounters, that I could use whenever the story needed them. And then throwing plots at the players and waiting to see which one they would follow. If they went for plot A, I´d use encounter A. Plot B, encounter B. Worked really well with Dark Sun.

For each edition there is a game breaking book that usually comes out to show what the next edition will be like. For 3.0 it was skill and powers, for 4e it was the book of nine swords. For 4e I don't think we have seen that vision yet and it may not happen.

Essentials, maybe?

 

[Aldarc]

Reading through the thread, I am reminded yet again that the health of the game and the hobby depends less than most people think on the design specifics, and a whole lot more on the people, and how they treat each other, and how they approach gaming in general.

It's a fairly dismal lot and future for the health of this game, if this thread is anything to go by.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

All I was doing was saying "When I read this from you, I thought that, so I replied this way". And I thought that people thought I was saying something I wasn't, so I clarified. If I was wrong in my interpretation, then I was wrong. But I was clarifing that I was not saying x, I was saying y.

I'm reading a lot of aggression and anger in the tone of your posts and I don't get where it's coming from. Relax.

Dude - read your own danged posts. You came into this with 'a lot of aggression and anger', publicly read my posts to mean something that they did not, and tried several times to start an argument, including a post that you deleted almost immediately. One that was a response to the fact that a lot of folks do see that 4e was a fundamental change.

Then you went and started a 'feel the love' thread on the 4e forum directly after deleting your post.

All in all, I would say that you are feeling defensive. Your game is somehow under attack when people claim that there were fundamental changes between 3.X and 4e. Changes that WotC themselves trumpeted and used as an excuse not to bother with a conversion guide.

So, chill. You came into the discussion in a well balanced manner - a chip on both shoulders. Don't be surprised when you knock them off yourself.

Back to topic -

There should be some good adventures written for the game, ones that show that it can be more than a combat encounter to combat encounter game.

If you do an in store program, go beyond the Encounters format. Make the game more versatile, then show it! Folks use 4e to run games that are more than just combat encounters, make it easier for a DM to put more life into his settings. Don't try to paint 5e into a corner where the game is about combat encounters and that is all that the game is good for.

Monte can write good adventures - I liked his Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil more than the original. (Which is a bit unfair - I really did not much like the original ToEE. But I did like RttToEE.) Let him write a good, solid, mega-adventure to go with the new rules. Or an adventure path that holds together thematically. Borrow a page from Paizo, figure out what they are doing right.

Don't limit your adventures with the assumption that the DM is thirteen years old. Assume that he has the brain and the maturity to handle something with teeth.

The Auld Grump

 

[Crazy Jerome]

2E tried to change the sensibilities of D&D without changing the mechanics. 3E tried really hard to keep earlier sensibilities (especially late 1E, early 2E), but with cleaned up mechanics. In the process of trying to preserve all those sensibilities, it ended up with a lot of mechanics. 4E, in contrast, tried to recreate some of the earlier sensibilities that were neglected by 2E/3E and streamline the mechanics for that, while cutting out things that didn't work very well. In the process, it neglected some of those 2E/3E sensibilities.


I get that the "how easy is the character to convert?" test makes 4E look like the odd kid out. I counter with, "how easy is it to replicate the feel of BECMI/RC play?" test and find 4E the best options with steamlined rules. (Not the best possible option, but of the printed ones, including clones, yes.) And for every person saying that it doesn't play the way they played Basic, there is one of us saying that the way we convert characters (by main sense of the character, not specific abilities) works pretty darn well in 4E. So around and around we go.

So this is part of why I keep saying that 5E could do a lot worse than to start with BECMI/RC, modernize the mechanics, go after the main sensibilities of play supported by those editions, and then provide supplements to support the rest. They must be supplements, because the core game must stand alone.

To get that, here are what I think of as the critical tests, which are neutral on 2E/3E/4E sensibilities:

1. Character sheet on one page, and not cluttered. Can't pass that test, then something got included for a more narrow target, and it doesn't belong.
2. Can play a full game with just the material in one book (e.g. like RC) but easily and quickly supplemented by a compatible monster book, magic item books, setting material, etc. -- if you want to.
3. About 6 races, about 8 classes, and you make characters that fight, explore, talk, and generally express themselves "heroically" in dungeons, woodland glades, mountain peaks, swamps, pocket dimensions, etc.
4. You find some pretty basic treasure, some niftier things, and a few oddball things, too.

That's it. There are whole tons of things that belong in one of those supplements that are nice to have. Powers, feats, skills, prestige classes, extra classes, more races, "storyteller" elements such as background information, terrain rules, etc. It is possible that the barest bones of skills, feats, and/or powers might fit into that main, core ruleset, at least as options. After all, even RC had some guidelines on castles, and optional weapon rules. And certainly there is no requirement to keep "elf" as a class, or arbitrary level limits, etc. If some of the supplemental material takes supplemental pages on the character sheet, alright.

The only thing really wrong with this approach is that if you do a good enough job, you might sell a bunch of copies of that one book and then find it difficult to sell those customers anything else. But somehow I can't help but think that there is a market for power and feat supplements, class supplements, etc. for a core system as hot as all that. You might find "4E" folks buying mainly power supplements and "3E" folks buying mainly "character rounding out" supplements. But that's alright, if the core is good.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

According to many people (not all, I grant you) recreating the BECMI feeling with 4e is not that easy.
4e changed both the sensibilities and the mechanics.

Combats are a lot more complex, at least as complex as those with 3.5, and take a lot more time.

The core of BECMI was simplicity - there are some very good OSR games that do a much better job of recreating that BECMI feel than either 3.X or 4e - DCC comes to mind, in particular.

Both 3.X and 4e are complex games, 3.X is complex across the board while 4e focused on combat.

Dozens of powers and abilities, many with nearly identical mechanics but different names, the ability to push, pull, and otherwise maneuver the enemy models around the board. (Remember when WotC tried to claim that what they really meant by 4e not being in the works was that a 4e that requires miniatures was not in the works? By and large... they were either lying, or failed miserably in the attempt to limit the use of minis.)

So, not BECMI, by any stretch. I am not saying that 4e is a bad game, not my cuppa, but enough people like the thing that trying to claim that it has no good points would be an exercise in futility, and silly to boot.

Nor am I claiming that you aren't running a BECMI style game with it - if you are then good on you! Make the game your own! I am merely saying that the BECMI style is not intrinsic to the game, and it would take a fair amount of effort to do so. A good DM can do an awful lot of stuff by thinking outside the books.

The Auld Grump

 

[Pour]

Monte is a professional, and an acclaimed designer in many circles, and I expect he'll give an honest effort producing a game that is fun. The whole team will. However, I get the feeling he has very little (or maybe no) play or design experience with 4e from his L&L, journal, interviews, and twitter. That really does bum me out, given the many positives I feel have come from this current iteration.

I don't know, maybe that's what the rpg team is looking for, fresh perspective accompanying 4e designers. Design is definitely a group effort, and it seems like they're trying to take the best of every edition into account, but I'm kind of turned off by his joining, and especially his published ruminations on the site, while 4e is still living. I guess I'm also a little sore about Baker leaving, who was doing positive things with 4e, and Monte joining, waxing poetic about things that, while interesting, don't pertain to the current edition, my edition.

Maybe if he actually dipped a toe into the current edition, tried to co-design something, or just acknowledged it, I'd feel a little better. Instead he's kind of just there, writing stuff, working behind the scenes, and I don't like it.