D&D 4E More reflections on 4e and 5e.

[Argyle King]

For what it's worth, I like hot sauce on my eggs.

 

[Imaro]

For what it's worth, I like hot sauce on my eggs.

But you can't... hot sauce on eggs is bad breakfast design...

 

[Steely_Dan]

For what it's worth, I like hot sauce on my eggs.

Me too, Tabasco on scrambled eggs has a certain panache.

 

[Steely_Dan]

But you can't... hot sauce on eggs is bad breakfast design...

In what country?!

 

[The Little Raven]

But this is excluding huge swathes of people. I play with people who want to play D&D. And I play with people who want to play an RPG with friends - who happen to play D&D because that's what their friends are playing or running.

I don't really feel sympathy for these supposed "huge swathes of people" who refuse to learn the basics of an activity in which they are trying to engage. If someone isn't willing to learn the basic rules of basketball, then I'm not going to play 1-on-1 with them. If someone isn't willing to learn gun safety, I'm not going to go shooting with them. And if someone isn't willing to read a handful of pages that explain what the character they chose can do and aren't receptive to learning (which involves remembering things), then I'm just not willing to play with them. In fact, I asked a player to leave my group a few years ago because of this very thing.

Call me a snob or an elitist or whatever, but I don't think D&D should cater to the "I won't even read or remember things" crowd. There should be a minimum requirement to playing D&D and those requirements should be "Know the absolute basics." and "Be prepared to use your brain."

 

[The Little Raven]

This is really the crux of the matter. People keep claiming how "easy" 4e is to get into but compared to what? OD&D? Moldvay/Cook? BECMI? I don't think it is.

The point for comparison is likely 3.X, since it has far more inter-related rules since it isn't exception-based design. Early versions of D&D are way easy to learn on the player side. Absolutely agreed there.

And I recognize that fact when I introduce new people to 4e. I give them a book to look at, and while they're going through it, I act as a Cliff Notes for it, breaking it down in understandable ways (usually via video games I know they've played, etc), and then do 95% of the mechanical heavy lifting during character creation and gameplay. However, I still require that 5% of effort from them from the outset (read your character stuff, ask questions, take chances, etc) and require more as they get more face time with the game and the books. I don't expect anyone to come to the table with my experience, but I do expect them to make progress with it after a month of playing and reading (maybe picking up 90% of the slack, instead of 95%). And I don't think that is unreasonable.

 

[mlund]

Call me a snob or an elitist or whatever, but I don't think D&D should cater to the "I won't even read or remember things" crowd.

Suit yourself, I guess.

A product with a lot of unnecessary barriers to entry is a poorly designed product. Having a path to a ton of customization and complex, fixed-mechanic decision-trees does not preclude the existence of a path to simple packages and rules-light action resolutions within the same system.

One of the huge failings of early D&D design (up to and including 3.5) was fixing certain core archetypes to massive decision trees - in particular the spell-casters. You want to play a cleric / druid / wizard / sorcerer? OK. Here's the 40% of the Player's Handbook we dedicated entirely to spell lists. They are alphabetical order. Here's your table. Have fun reading them all and trying to figure out which ones are worthwhile and what 60-70% of those text-walls are utter, unplayable garbage you'll never use.

Oh, never mind. You're new. Just play a fighter. No you can't have nice things. What do you mean you don't like playing a fighter? No, seriously, you can't play a Wizard - you're just too stupid.

Heh, it kind of reminds me of Knights of the Dinner Table when Dave wound up playing a Wizard and Brian nearly had an aneurysm before coming around on things.

- Marty Lund

 

[Argyle King]

Not an expert on GURPS, but... Don't different magic systems behave differently? If not... why are there different books such as GURPS Voodoo or GURPS Spirits?

...the wonders of a well designed modular system. You take a very simple base (roll 3d6) and find ways to do a lot of things with it.

That's one of the reasons I have brought the game up in other discussions about 5th Edition. In no way do I expect any edition of D&D -including 5th Edition- to have anywhere near the "modularity" that something like GURPS or Hero System has. However, I do think there a few lessons which can be learned by looking at Steve Jackson's work.

In particular, I've mentioned the more recent GURPS Dungeon Fantasy line in a few discussions because it is a product line which is meant to mimic a style which would be similar to stereotypical D&D, so I think it's a good example of taking a modular approach to the style as well as (in my opinion) a good example of how you can be modular while still working toward a specific theme, genre, and/or idea.



@ mlund

I do not necessarily disagree that having a simple entry into a game is good. I actually feel making something easy to get into is actually good. However, it needs to go both ways. If someone honestly wants to learn how to do something, I do not feel it is too much to ask to take a little bit of time to at least understand the basics behind that thing -whether that be D&D or something else.

As far as 4E goes, I find 4E to be less complicated to learn than some card games (such as Pinochle) I've played. I do feel there is some difficulty in understanding the game because of the game working differently than a prospective player would imagine a situation working out in his head, but I do not feel the actual rules of the game are difficult to learn. That does create an interesting situation though -easy to learn, but not necessarily easy to understand.

In contrast, I'm currently running a game for my two kids -who are 5 and 4, and the system I'm running is (I feel) more complicated than D&D 4th Edition as far as the mechanical parts of the rules go. However, since I can relate most things in the game (even considering fantasy elements) to the world around them and things they know (even considering that -at their age- their worldview may not be 100% accurate,) they are picking up on it very easily. A nice side benefit is that I have a way to sneak in lessons about math, reading, and problem solving in a way which is fun for them.

This is off topic, but I'd also describe the game I am running for them as a sort of "reverse sandbox." I've considered creating a thread on that, but I'm not entirely sure of how to explain it yet. The basic idea is similar to a sandbox, but a lot of the world building is in the hands of the players (the kids in this case.) Through play, they've decided where certain things were such as a town or a castle; etc.

It's been quite interesting, and one of the notable elements which come to mind are a "nice" Ettin who is a firefighter. This came about because my boy liked the Pathfinder Ettin mini I have. If any of you saw the other thread I started a while back, the girl is still playing her "girl with a big sword." Though, that has morphed slightly into "the princess with the big sword."

In closing, if D&D 5th Edition says that putting Frank's Red Hot on scrambled eggs is wrong, I don't want to play it and be right.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But magic is not similar to the mundane in almost all the fiction these games are based off of. Casting a bolt of energy in most fiction in no way relates to the same description or feeling as shooting a bow and arrow... In the broad sense they aren't similar fictionally so why should they be similar mechanically??

Because they are an attempt to do the same thing. Kill the enemy directly and go through their hit points to do it.

So you make the resolution mechanics different, no one said everything had to be different just that there should be a difference in how magic operates mechanically as opposed to mundane things unless the game fiction purposefully wants them to be similar.

And that is precisely and 100% backwards. Unless there is a good reason in the fiction for two things to be different, mechanically they should be treated as similarly as possible. Otherwise the rules are harder to learn and easier to break.

The difference can be in the effect or the resolution but it should be different in some way.

If the difference is in the effect that is fine. The difference is in the fiction. If the difference is in the resolution then that's just adding complications for the sake of complications and is objectively bad game design. (If the difference in the resolution is that you actively need to defeat something in the fiction then that's fine too).

You should really preface this pargraph with an IMO... but I'll assume that's what you meant. I find different mechanics for different fiction, when not taken to an extremem...fun, interesting and more evocative of doing something truly different like oh, say magic...

And I find that when the mechanics themselves do not directly add to the fiction their job is to get out of the way and let me get on with the roleplaying. They are simply in the way. Where there is a purpose to them because they represent a huge difference (for instance having to overcome the observer effect or to not get your face devoured by monsters) there is a point to them

But in GURPS Voodoo (and Spirits if that is all you choose to use) that is the only type of magic.

Not so. GURPS allows you to mix and match sourcebooks as you like. Sometimes it's the only type of magic. Sometimes there are more. And I've played 4e where the only type of magic was rituals. It works.

Are you using magic or are you not?

I don't know. Was Hercules using magic when he performed his feats of strength? I'm not sure. Was Beowolf? I don't know.

Now are you using magic when you use a +1 sword? Yes. By definition that sword is magic. But it would be silly to give it different mechanics just because it was magic - you give it a different static modifier.

if fictional difference is the basis of giving different mechanics...why should they have the same mechanics? Because they are both used in combat? That makes no sense.

Good elegant game design uses as few different mechanics as possible to give the fictional results. Anything more than that is a pointless mess that creates unneeded rules learning, imbalances, and generally worsens the game.

D&D has always done magic differently than martial. No reason to change what works.

D&D Magic has never been popular. In a room full of D&D players before the launch of 4e when it was announced that they were dropping Vancian casting, the room cheered. Ron Edwards observed that in fantasy heartbreakers "Not one uses a D&D style magic system". And I can not think of a single non-D&D game that uses D&D style magic, although I can think of many systems that are repeated across widely varying systems, and I have problems thinking of another D&D system that isn't used in other games.

Saying "D&D magic works" is therefore an incredibly contentious statement.

And for me it is the single least magical magic system I've come across. Only slightly behind it is WFRP 1e (bog standard spell points). WFRP 2e and 3e leave it in the dust with actually risky magic. For that matter 4e rituals leave it in the dust - they actually match non-D&D fiction by having both variable results and casting methods that (a) have a significant cost and (b) have a chance of failure and (c) take time.

I therefore strongly disagree with your claim that D&D magic works. It is the part of D&D that has never been influential (if Ron Edwards is to be believed it's even less influential than the Polearm listings) and the part that even a significant proportion of D&D fans want to take behind the woodshed and shoot. D&D magic works only for a subset of D&D players - and no one outside D&D.

I don't really feel sympathy for these supposed "huge swathes of people" who refuse to learn the basics of an activity in which they are trying to engage.

The question here is what you count as the basics. Is it the roleplaying or the game?

 

[Grydan]

One of the aspects of being much better is that 4th Ed E-classes do not all bleed into each other as O-4th Ed classes/roles do, with features you slap on and powers that suit, the 4th Ed AEDU system is as close as we've got to class-less D&D (which is great for those who want it).

So the system in which your choice of first level class is a permanent commitment in terms of what choices your character has over 30 levels of play is closer to a class-less system than the one in which your choice of first level class doesn't even shape what your choices are for your class at 2nd level?

Someone who opts to write down Fighter on their sheet at first level in a 4E game will always be a fighter. In order to pick up even a single ability from another class they need a minimum of a two feat investment and to be 4th level. They can never reach the point at which even 50% of their abilities are from the class they multi-classed into. Knowing what class a character is at first level tells you a fair amount about what the character's options and abilities will be like at level 30.

By level 3, any character in 3.X can be more of a given class than the one they took their first level in. By 6th level, they could be more of a third class than they are of either of the first two classes they took. Knowing what class a character is at first level tells you virtually nothing about what the character will look like at second level, never mind level 20.

---

4E is a much more heavily classed system than 3.XE. Your choice of class at first level determines your HP for the rest of your adventuring career, not just for that level. It determines what you will and won't be capable of.

It made many people unhappy, but it's very hard to deny that choosing to play a Fighter (PHB style, not the later Slayer subclass) in 4E means you are fundamentally choosing to play a melee combatant rather than a ranged one. Even if you pour all of your resources into making that Fighter the most effective ranged combatant he can be, he'll never catch up to a equivalent level Ranger in terms of damage, number of targets, maneuverability, and ability to apply interesting effects to his ranged attacks (which is saying a lot, because the ranger doesn't really have all that many interesting effects they add to their attacks, it's pretty much all damage all the time).

In order to have anything beyond a bog-standard basic attack with his ranged weapon of choice, the range-weapon fighter needs to multiclass. At 4th level, he can pick up a single ranged-weapon encounter power. By 8th, he can pick up a single daily option. If he ever wants more than this, he needs to wait to Paragon tier and use his Paragon Path option to either select one (from his multiclass) that grants more ranged attacks, or forgo a Paragon Path in favour of Paragon Multiclassing. Either option grants at most one more encounter and one more daily attack for a grand total of 4 ranged attack options beyond Ranged Basic Attacks. Meanwhile, a ranged-combat focussed Ranger has two at-will ranged attacks (though really, Twin Strike renders their other choice largely irrelevant), four encounter attacks, and three daily ones.

In what way does this unavoidable class-based disparity resemble a classless system?

Class features you "slap on"? With few exceptions, it is either quite difficult or outright impossible to gain the full version of any class feature of any class other than the one you chose at first level in 4th. Do you want to use Sneak Attack more than once per fight? You better pick Rogue at first level, because no amount of multi-classing will ever give you more uses. Do you want to be able to mark your foes with every attack you make, regardless of whether or not you hit? You'll have to choose fighter at first level, because there's no way for any other class to ever gain this ability.

In what way does the permanent siloing of class features resemble a classless system?

At-Will attacks? Unlike encounter attacks, daily attacks, and utility powers, these are pretty much unobtainable from outside of their base class. Oh, if you want to be a half elf and wait until Paragon Tier, you can grab one from outside your base class.

In what way does having your first level choice of class permanently removing access to the bulk of the at-will attack options in the game resemble a classless system?

---

Mutants and Masterminds 3rd Edition is a classless system, based upon the d20 system. Regardless of how I describe my character, if there's an ability the system can model, and I have the build points to afford it without breaking the Power Level restrictions of my campaign, I can have that ability. It's not required to make any sense with the rest of my abilities or origin ("I was struck by lighting and it granted me superspeed... and the ability to communicate with fish"). If, during the course of the campaign, I'm granted the opportunity to add more abilities, again, what I've chosen before has no impact on what I choose now ("In addition to my superspeed and fishtalking, I have now manifested the ability to shoot spiderwebs from my wrists, control plant growth, and I have metal claws").

I don't really see much resemblance between that system and 4E.