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

[Garthanos]

And you can do these things in any edition - hell, probably in a high percentage of RPGs overall - but here's the rub: you have to accept that it'll be achieved by your characterization and play of your PC

right oh right so you do not let people play characters whom they do not have the mental abilities of ... sure forget it. I really have no interest in your opinions.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's not the question I was discussing.

What is terribly surprising is why a game released in 2019 would want to share the same genetics as 4E.

Because believe it or not, a lot of people really enjoyed 4e and 5e isn’t really doing much for them.

 

[CapnZapp]

OK trying to take this as actual philosophy discussion

The philosophy you are running up against with this might be magic items a DM controlled resource should not have more influence on the nature of a player character than player controlled elements.

Note I do think with the amount of influence a DM was encouraged to give players over the magic items their character received made this far less necessary than was put into practice.

Thank you for trying to make sense of it for me.

It sure wasn't a problem I needed solved, much less the central conundrum which you needed to focus your entire game around. 5E proved you definitely didn't need to solve it to become popular and successful (its magic items are much closer to 3E/PF1 items). And 4E suggested you should probably avoid trying to solve it.

Yet, here we are.

 

[CapnZapp]

For me that reads as gamers want it easier to build a crippled character so someone can show off their system mastery?

Sure.

But then again, that's only one side of the coin.

The other side is "your build choices matter".

Making it possible to cripple a character can be viewed as a small price well worth paying.

 

[CapnZapp]

Because believe it or not, a lot of people really enjoyed 4e and 5e isn’t really doing much for them.

I believe such people exist. I don't believe the market is significant compared to a crunchier take on 3E/5E.

 

[CapnZapp]

First of all, it’s she/her. Second of all, it’s really awkward to see two people who weren’t involved in the exchange arguing for several posts about what CapnZapp and I did or didn’t say to each other and what was or wasn’t meant by it.

Hello, I'm @CapnZapp and I have zero clue as to who y'all are discussing.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure.

But then again, that's only one side of the coin.

The other side is "your build choices matter".

Making it possible to cripple a character can be viewed as a small price well worth paying.

This makes the rather huge and not-always-correct assumption that people see character build as a relevant part of play; or 'build choices' beyond the most basic of things as anything but an annoying chore.

Just let me do 10 minutes worth of dice rolling and scribbling to generate a character, and during play it'll build itself.

 

[Garthanos]

The NPCS attacking 1e fighter instead of decimating their support and power casters was basically being given the privilege by a cooperative DM. It didnt work with any actual neutral DM a neutrality the game was advocating, and yus you just has to be a tactical genius to play one... huh heh heh see suckah it's easy. The whole thing is just a barrage of nonsense.

 

[CapnZapp]

I imagine the conversation has moved on from this point, but I want to flag this as a key point.

Sucks for who?

See, I've run into a lot of people who have had an attitude that can be best summed up by "I'm too stupid to play DnD". All the options, all the math, they just feel like they are too dumb to be able to play the game well.

I tell them they are wrong about that all the time, that it really isn't as hard as they think it is, but what do we imagine happens when they build a character and it is visibly worse at the game? Or, actually bad?

Even in 5e, where it is nearly impossible to build a bad character by accident, I've had people frustrated and feeling like they aren't good enough, because they don't feel as effective as the other people at the table. This is why I imagine I've only got one person who plays bards, and that is more because he likes the flavor of them. Because support classes are subtle in how they contribute and most people want obvious contributions to make them feel like they are playing the game well.

Now you're taking things personally.

Don't.

I reserve the right to believe Paizo should have made other design decisions without that in any way intended as a slight to you.

 

[CapnZapp]

"If everyone is special then no one is" This doesn't mean if everyone is special in their own way. That isn't included in the line. If everyone is special, even in their own unique and quirky way, then no one is special.

No.

It means that if it isn't possible to create an unspecial character, it isn't possible to create a special character.