I have largely been lurking around Enworld reading the subdued (thankfully) edition wars but I can't really get involved with the discussion because I am too much of an outsider. I am strongly dissatisfied with 4e but...
- I can't get involved with the old school movement, because while I miss certain aspects of old-school play, I would miss the innovations and improvements that have been implemented into the game in the past 30 years even more.
- I can't go back to 3e, because I spent the last 5 years of that hating that I knew what classes, spells and feats were superior to others and finding DM prep work to be soul-crushing unless I used pre-published adventures.
- I cannot go to Pathfinder because it combines everything I hate about 3e and 4e in one unholy package. I call it "gonzo 3e" when discussing Pathfinder at my table, to the agreement of the Pathfinder player in my 4e game.
There is no edition of D&D that is the right one for me, but I see glimpses of the D&D edition that I want. However, every edition gives me something that I want with the right hand, but takes it away with the left.
Some examples...
1) Tiers of play that divide into dungeon crawling heroic adventures, paragons of legendary heroes, and epic god-like mythological battles. Always present in D&D, but solidified as a trope in 4e.
However, I want to mix it with...
From 1e/2e - Combat abilities (such as Hit Dice and Amour Class) largely cap at level 10, but a play style continues afterward that involves politics, wargaming and mass battles, and realm management.
If you still like your characters and want to continue, why would you want to spend all 30 levels doing the exact same thing? That's 1-3 years of real time, and it always gets stale for me 6 months - 1 year in. So why not change the assumptions of the game to keep it fresh? If all you want to do is dungeon crawl, 10th level is a good place to kill the BBEG and retire at the top of the heap with your keep.
If however you want something different, then after 10 levels of enjoying playing Heroes of Might and Magic III-V on the tabletop, you can get freaky with epic apotheosis. However, the most interesting epic destinies don't require a ceaseless dungeon crawl to get there in my opinion. Immortal Trickster, Demi-god, Eternal King, Saint, Archmage etc. all seem to imply a political career and lots of social interaction beforehand, not just dungeon crawling. Plus, if you are god-like beings, why do you still act like an adventuring party? Shouldn't your game mechanics involve meddling with mortals and causing the Trojan War or Ragnogarok?
2) I want ascending AC... but I want to cap that at AC 30 and cap my to-hit bonus at +20. Why? I want the feeling that you are getting more skilled at hitting things at higher levels, not a ceaseless grind with the same miss chance.
3) I want minis combat... but I don't want it every single time we fight. Setting up minis and tiles is tedious, and while it is fun and interesting for climactic battles, it isn't interesting for dungeon crawling. Dungeon crawling has pretty much died with my 4e game, because my players can't grok to adapting their powers for non-minis play.
I don't want to go back to minis combat that doesn't take full advantage of minis (so 3.5 and earlier are not robust enough rules systems for me) but I want rules that I can run combats without busting out any special equipment (so 3e and 4e aren't satisfying either). 3e and Pathfinder are actually the worst of both worlds for me, because minis are essential enough that you need them (or some sort of marking tokens) but they don't take full advantage of the tabletop minis format like 4e.
4) I hate the diplomacy skill. I don't mind the other social skills (intimidate, bluff, insight) because it is a single action in the narrative. But diplomacy is about persuading someone or convincing them to "like you". That's a whole conversation that is reduced to a single dice roll. The logic in bringing it in was that less socially adept or shy players have limitations of playing charismatic characters, and need the assistance. Well, after 10 years, I'd like to call this experiment a failure, because shy or socially inept players still can't play charismatic heroes, and it just encourages players to run roughshod over plot. Intimidate is good for expressing your will forcefully, bluff allows you to sell your position to the person you are trying to persuade, and insight is good for getting hints from the DM on what the NPC's want to hear. Even the most socially inept PC's are able to piece together the clues and make a convincing case, rather than reaching for the Diplomacy skill right off the bat. The roleplaying aspect of the game was better off without diplomacy in it, though better when it includes the other social skills.
5) I hate the DC system. Most specifically, I hate the fact that you assign a difficulty class based on how easy or hard a PC finds a skill or task. If you are going to assign a difficulty low enough that they are pretty much assured success, then why not just let them do it? If you are going to make it impossible for them to succeed, just tell the PC's it is impossible. If you are going to make it somewhat likely that they will succeed, just have a pass/fail mechanic like rolling saving throws. Figuring out DC's is just a waste of time.
So where I'm odd here is that I want a resolution mechanic similar to what they used in proficiencies, but with the skill system of post-3e.
6) I love conditions, unreservedly. I have yet to see any monster attack or character ability that can't be mimicked adequately by using conditions, and they are very simple and quick to implement. Crippling wound? Slowed and ongoing damage. Someone threw dirt in your eyes? Blinded. Hit exceptionally hard upside the head? Dazed. Shadow drained your strength? Weakened.
Nobody, as far as I know, has shown any interest in adding 4e conditions to the rules systems of old school D&D or old school monsters.
7) I hate the powers system, unreservedly. At-wills are too repetitive. Encounter powers are front-loaded in encounters, and thus the combat drags after they are spent. Dailies are hoarded all day, and you have the sheer disappointment of knowing you'll have to wait 1-4 weeks before you can try it again.
Plus, every power is built on the very flexible system of combining damage, a condition, and an attack type (melee, ranged, area burst etc.). It could be so much more fluid if we could flexibly build these special attacks instead of relying on a straight jacket of choosing a single attack every level or two.
But I haven't seen too many complaints about how the powers system was implemented, just a pox on the existence of powers in general.
8) But.... I love the idea of powers. I don't want to go back to the case where only wizards have special attacks. It doesn't make any sense why a wizard has a disintegrate spell that causes someone to instantly die, but a rogue doesn't have a "knife to the head" attack that does the same thing. It doesn't make sense that wizards can become godlike arcanists, but fighters can't become super soldier kung fu assassins that can cut giants in half with a single blow or leap tall buildings in a single bound. Powers also allow players to have a more exciting and descriptive experience with combat, rather than "I hit and hit again". True, you can describe an abstract attack roll however you wish, but it helps if you aren't just doing damage to a single creature. Being able to target multiple opponents, trip them, slow them, blind them, daze them or whatever helps sell the experience. Just not if you do the same injuries in every encounter, or (even worse) round to round with your at-wills.
-----------------------------------------------------------
So as you can see, I don't really fit in the new or old school. I hate things nobody else seems to dislike, and I want things few others want. Certainly, I am a heretic for wanting to blend old and new school assumptions of rules mechanics and playstyle, as it seems I am forced to choose between the two unless I want to build my system from scratch. It also seems, based on the fan community, that I have to choose sides between the new school or the old school, or at the very least play one or the other at a time.
Is there anyone else out there that also feels that blending the various mechanics of different D&D systems would be better than any one edition of the game?
- I can't get involved with the old school movement, because while I miss certain aspects of old-school play, I would miss the innovations and improvements that have been implemented into the game in the past 30 years even more.
- I can't go back to 3e, because I spent the last 5 years of that hating that I knew what classes, spells and feats were superior to others and finding DM prep work to be soul-crushing unless I used pre-published adventures.
- I cannot go to Pathfinder because it combines everything I hate about 3e and 4e in one unholy package. I call it "gonzo 3e" when discussing Pathfinder at my table, to the agreement of the Pathfinder player in my 4e game.
There is no edition of D&D that is the right one for me, but I see glimpses of the D&D edition that I want. However, every edition gives me something that I want with the right hand, but takes it away with the left.
Some examples...
1) Tiers of play that divide into dungeon crawling heroic adventures, paragons of legendary heroes, and epic god-like mythological battles. Always present in D&D, but solidified as a trope in 4e.
However, I want to mix it with...
From 1e/2e - Combat abilities (such as Hit Dice and Amour Class) largely cap at level 10, but a play style continues afterward that involves politics, wargaming and mass battles, and realm management.
If you still like your characters and want to continue, why would you want to spend all 30 levels doing the exact same thing? That's 1-3 years of real time, and it always gets stale for me 6 months - 1 year in. So why not change the assumptions of the game to keep it fresh? If all you want to do is dungeon crawl, 10th level is a good place to kill the BBEG and retire at the top of the heap with your keep.
If however you want something different, then after 10 levels of enjoying playing Heroes of Might and Magic III-V on the tabletop, you can get freaky with epic apotheosis. However, the most interesting epic destinies don't require a ceaseless dungeon crawl to get there in my opinion. Immortal Trickster, Demi-god, Eternal King, Saint, Archmage etc. all seem to imply a political career and lots of social interaction beforehand, not just dungeon crawling. Plus, if you are god-like beings, why do you still act like an adventuring party? Shouldn't your game mechanics involve meddling with mortals and causing the Trojan War or Ragnogarok?
2) I want ascending AC... but I want to cap that at AC 30 and cap my to-hit bonus at +20. Why? I want the feeling that you are getting more skilled at hitting things at higher levels, not a ceaseless grind with the same miss chance.
3) I want minis combat... but I don't want it every single time we fight. Setting up minis and tiles is tedious, and while it is fun and interesting for climactic battles, it isn't interesting for dungeon crawling. Dungeon crawling has pretty much died with my 4e game, because my players can't grok to adapting their powers for non-minis play.
I don't want to go back to minis combat that doesn't take full advantage of minis (so 3.5 and earlier are not robust enough rules systems for me) but I want rules that I can run combats without busting out any special equipment (so 3e and 4e aren't satisfying either). 3e and Pathfinder are actually the worst of both worlds for me, because minis are essential enough that you need them (or some sort of marking tokens) but they don't take full advantage of the tabletop minis format like 4e.
4) I hate the diplomacy skill. I don't mind the other social skills (intimidate, bluff, insight) because it is a single action in the narrative. But diplomacy is about persuading someone or convincing them to "like you". That's a whole conversation that is reduced to a single dice roll. The logic in bringing it in was that less socially adept or shy players have limitations of playing charismatic characters, and need the assistance. Well, after 10 years, I'd like to call this experiment a failure, because shy or socially inept players still can't play charismatic heroes, and it just encourages players to run roughshod over plot. Intimidate is good for expressing your will forcefully, bluff allows you to sell your position to the person you are trying to persuade, and insight is good for getting hints from the DM on what the NPC's want to hear. Even the most socially inept PC's are able to piece together the clues and make a convincing case, rather than reaching for the Diplomacy skill right off the bat. The roleplaying aspect of the game was better off without diplomacy in it, though better when it includes the other social skills.
5) I hate the DC system. Most specifically, I hate the fact that you assign a difficulty class based on how easy or hard a PC finds a skill or task. If you are going to assign a difficulty low enough that they are pretty much assured success, then why not just let them do it? If you are going to make it impossible for them to succeed, just tell the PC's it is impossible. If you are going to make it somewhat likely that they will succeed, just have a pass/fail mechanic like rolling saving throws. Figuring out DC's is just a waste of time.
So where I'm odd here is that I want a resolution mechanic similar to what they used in proficiencies, but with the skill system of post-3e.
6) I love conditions, unreservedly. I have yet to see any monster attack or character ability that can't be mimicked adequately by using conditions, and they are very simple and quick to implement. Crippling wound? Slowed and ongoing damage. Someone threw dirt in your eyes? Blinded. Hit exceptionally hard upside the head? Dazed. Shadow drained your strength? Weakened.
Nobody, as far as I know, has shown any interest in adding 4e conditions to the rules systems of old school D&D or old school monsters.
7) I hate the powers system, unreservedly. At-wills are too repetitive. Encounter powers are front-loaded in encounters, and thus the combat drags after they are spent. Dailies are hoarded all day, and you have the sheer disappointment of knowing you'll have to wait 1-4 weeks before you can try it again.
Plus, every power is built on the very flexible system of combining damage, a condition, and an attack type (melee, ranged, area burst etc.). It could be so much more fluid if we could flexibly build these special attacks instead of relying on a straight jacket of choosing a single attack every level or two.
But I haven't seen too many complaints about how the powers system was implemented, just a pox on the existence of powers in general.
8) But.... I love the idea of powers. I don't want to go back to the case where only wizards have special attacks. It doesn't make any sense why a wizard has a disintegrate spell that causes someone to instantly die, but a rogue doesn't have a "knife to the head" attack that does the same thing. It doesn't make sense that wizards can become godlike arcanists, but fighters can't become super soldier kung fu assassins that can cut giants in half with a single blow or leap tall buildings in a single bound. Powers also allow players to have a more exciting and descriptive experience with combat, rather than "I hit and hit again". True, you can describe an abstract attack roll however you wish, but it helps if you aren't just doing damage to a single creature. Being able to target multiple opponents, trip them, slow them, blind them, daze them or whatever helps sell the experience. Just not if you do the same injuries in every encounter, or (even worse) round to round with your at-wills.
-----------------------------------------------------------
So as you can see, I don't really fit in the new or old school. I hate things nobody else seems to dislike, and I want things few others want. Certainly, I am a heretic for wanting to blend old and new school assumptions of rules mechanics and playstyle, as it seems I am forced to choose between the two unless I want to build my system from scratch. It also seems, based on the fan community, that I have to choose sides between the new school or the old school, or at the very least play one or the other at a time.
Is there anyone else out there that also feels that blending the various mechanics of different D&D systems would be better than any one edition of the game?
Last edited:
