D&D 4E Presentation vs design... vs philosophy

[Krachek]

4 ed has a good design, but a narrow range of play style.
4ed was also very balance and thus very predictable. Most combat were soak, wash, rinse, repeat.
I like it very much for a time, but get totally bored after some years.

each edition brings it own core play style, and it’s not that easy go against the wind. Rewriting spell lists or magic items list is some kind of foolish, but have a one page of selected home brew adjustment should be usual.

 

[Charlaquin]

I seem to remember interviews with the devs when 4E came out where they pretty much stated that, yes, to a degree they were trying to emulate MMOs.

Problem is that what works for MMOs tends to bog down a TTRPG, or at least it did in my experience.

Mike Mearls said that, yeah. But also, if you look at how some of the 4e and 4e adjacent material he had the most influence on (such as Essentials and his take on Nentir Vale) have been received by 4e fans, I think it’s pretty clear he didn’t “get” 4e.

 

[Charlaquin]

2) I felt like I couldn't change anything. I don't know how much of this was from #1 and how much was me being less experienced as a DM, but I felt far more constrained by 4e than I do by 5e. I didn't feel like I could change the monsters, the items, the class abilities, everything just was so tightly locked in place that I couldn't see a way to move the pieces to get a different effect. I don't have that in 5e. I feel completely comfortable altering things all the time, and have for a long time.

I had this problem as well, but to be fair, I had it even more with 3e. 5e is the first edition I’ve felt comfortable DMing, and for that it is my favorite edition (despite my issues with it).

 

[Undrave]

Yeah, they certainly claim that. Doesn’t really hold up in an analysis of the game’s systems, but that’s what they claimed.

I'm still not sure the game actually has rules for 'exploration gameplay'.

 

[Krachek]

Yeah, they certainly claim that. Doesn’t really hold up in an analysis of the game’s systems, but that’s what they claimed.

Indeed, but for sure they never claim that the 5ed was about tactical choice, ressource management and optimized character building.

 

[Charlaquin]

Indeed, but for sure they never claim that the 5ed was about tactical choice, ressource management and optimized character building.

The never claimed any edition was about those things, because they’re not very strong selling points for RPGs. Resource management is the core D&D’s difficulty is built around though (in any edition).

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, they certainly claim that. Doesn’t really hold up in an analysis of the game’s systems, but that’s what they claimed.

Speaking for myself - I'm not sure I'd want much more in the way of rules for the exploration or social aspects of the game. I don't want a faction system for example. If we had one people would expect me to use it then I'd have to house rule ... and just ugh. Nope, not for me.

Unless I'm just totally missing your point, I'd rather have rules-light or even rules-absent for some aspects of the game. I don't want another skill challenge model, I can use my own judgement on when to call for checks.

 

[Charlaquin]

Speaking for myself - I'm not sure I'd want much more in the way of rules for the exploration or social aspects of the game. I don't want a faction system for example. If we had one people would expect me to use it then I'd have to house rule ... and just ugh. Nope, not for me.

Unless I'm just totally missing your point, I'd rather have rules-light or even rules-absent for some aspects of the game. I don't want another skill challenge model, I can use my own judgement on when to call for checks.

I agree with you, I like 5e’s systems quite a bit. I’m glad the “three pillars” don’t actually have equal weight, I think trying to give it to them would have been a poor design goal.

 

[Undrave]

Speaking for myself - I'm not sure I'd want much more in the way of rules for the exploration or social aspects of the game. I don't want a faction system for example. If we had one people would expect me to use it then I'd have to house rule ... and just ugh. Nope, not for me.

Unless I'm just totally missing your point, I'd rather have rules-light or even rules-absent for some aspects of the game. I don't want another skill challenge model, I can use my own judgement on when to call for checks.

Free form works GREAT for social, but I feel like the rules in 'Exploration' are too light for that pillar to even feel like an actual part of the game and the rules that do relate to it are SO easy to ignore. Food and water? Just be an Outlander or get some Goodberry. Light? Half the races have dark vision and Produce Flame, Create Bonfire and Light are cantrips. Encumbrance? No one cares about that.

You're down to a couple of skill checks that don't really amount to much, tension wise.

At the very least, more play examples would have been nice.

 

[Krachek]

Speaking for myself - I'm not sure I'd want much more in the way of rules for the exploration or social aspects of the game. I don't want a faction system for example. If we had one people would expect me to use it then I'd have to house rule ... and just ugh. Nope, not for me.

Unless I'm just totally missing your point, I'd rather have rules-light or even rules-absent for some aspects of the game. I don't want another skill challenge model, I can use my own judgement on when to call for checks.

Importance don’t mean rules, but time play and fun.