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

[Imaro]

Because you question why people aren't playing other D&D games when they want other tropes.

No that wasn't my point... my point is if you don't want D&D tropes why not play a different game?

 

[Xetheral]

Usually if you're wanting to jump, it's because there's a specific distance you want to clear, right (like a chasm)? Compare that to the distance the PC can jump. If the distance needed is greater than the PC can manage without a roll, DM decides and ideally says before the action is committed to what the DC is. There aren't the various overly-granular tables of 3.x, but it's not really horribly difficult.

Where 5e gets tricky is that it doesn't opine whether the DC should be based on...

1. the difficulty of jumping X feet,
2. the difficulty of jumping Y extra feet beyond what can be jumped without a check, or
3. the difficulty of jumping Z% farther than can be jumped without a check.

As an example of where that matters, consider a STR 19 character trying to jump a 20' gap. Under option 1, the DC to jump 20' sounds (to me) like it should be high. Under option 2, the DC to jump 1' farther than one routinely can sounds (to me) like it should be moderate. Under option 3 the DC to jump 5.2% farther than one routinely can sounds (to me) like it should be easy. (This exact situation came up in play a few months ago at a table where I am a player.)

There's no right or wrong answer here, but it contributes to a divide in expectations at the table, and is a nuanced-enough issued that it's unlikely to come up in session zero. (Note that even among proponents of fixed DCs that only depend on the task, there is room for disagreement on whether the task is "jumping a fixed distance" or "jumping farther than one can without a check".)

 

[Xetheral]

@Oofta and @FrogReaver and anyone else who felt 4e characters were same due to some aspect of unified mechanical structure.

I’m curious. Have you guys played Magic the Gathering? If so, what do you feel about the deck archetypes/themes and the unified mechanical structure? Does it feel “samey” to you in the same way that 4e does? If not, why?

I've played MtG a long time ago. I'm having a bit of a hard time wrapping my brain around the idea of comparing the differences between deck themes in MtG and character classes in D&D. That's probably because I view MtG as a self-contained game, whereas I see the mechanical elements of D&D (like classes) as a tool for running games (i.e. adventures and campaigns). So the question feels a bit like being asked to compare the replayability of Chess with the effectiveness of image rescaling in Photoshop.

But yes, after thinking about it I would view the deck archetypes in MtG as "samey" in the same way I see classes in 4e as "samey". Indeed, I would consider deck archetypes "samey" to a far greater extent than 4e classes. But the "samey-ness" of deck archetypes doesn't concern me, because I'm not trying to use MtG to model anything, so there are no IC relationships that I want the mechanics to maintain. By contrast, 4e's unified AEDU framework models all powers identically, regardless of the degree of similarities or differences between the IC capabilities they represent. I'd rather that (especially when it comes to IC distinctions that are important to me, like mundane vs magical abilities) similar capabilities had been modeled similarly and different capabilities had been modeled differently. (Upthread I used the example of 5e's Battlemaster Manuevers and Warlock spell slots. Both recover on a short rest but are otherwise mechanically distinct in a way that Encounter powers are not.) That would have helped the mechanics emphasize (rather than blur) the IC distinctions I care about.

Admittedly, my preferences and views on "samey-ness" differ from those of many other posters, so my answer to your question likely isn't representative of what others think.

 

[FrogReaver]

@Manbearcat

I think the MTG comparison helped show the differences in positions in underlying positions in a beneficial way. Fantastic job.

 

[Xetheral]

And it’s pretty insulting when a thing you love is treated as a tale of caution by people who never lacked the option not to play it, and whose campaign of hate against it successfully resulted in support for it being withdrawn.

I suspect that different views on the nature of D&D contribute to wildly different understandings of what it means to "love" or "hate" a particular edition. As an example, consider the difference between loving/hating a new movie in a franchise to loving/hating a new version of office software. One can feel pationately enough about either to make the love/hate labels accurate, but the feelings are still categorically different.

I entirely agree with you that if someone insults a movie I love, I'm going to feel as if my opinions are under attack. By contrast, if someone insults productivity software that I love, I instinctively chalk it up to differences in opinion and different use cases.

It's probably difficult for those who think of D&D as analagous to a movie to consider it instead as analagous to a tool, and vice versa. But while both opinions are equally valid, I think we should all use language that respects the stronger of the two types of attachments, so that no one feels attacked.

 

[Garthanos]

Upthread I used the example of 5e's Battlemaster Manuevers and Warlock spell slots. Both recover on a short rest but are otherwise mechanically distinct in a way that Encounter powers are not.)

I find encounter powers more distinct than a short rest all on their own. As I am not limited as to why "in character" its an encounter power in a sense.

My fighter or Rogues "in character" Encounter power is a trick that I can only use against a given character once. This is my favorite and short rest abilities model them poorly.

My Druids Encounter power "in character" is a trick that requires the venue either be purified with a ritual after its been cast in order to do it again or that there be a significant change of scene.

My Wizards Encounter power "in character" is a magical incantation very vancian style which I can only contain once and I have to pull back in by a glance at my books easily done in a minute or so. Actual Jack Vance stories I am pretty sure did not have a daily requirement.

This other fighter "in character" sees his encounter power (a huge massive jump perhaps) as straining a certain calve muscle in a specify way and a short rest works fine.

To me short rest feels less flexible and less able to represent cool things.

 

[Xetheral]

OK hold it I find encounter powers way more distinct than a short rest all on their own regardless of whether you call the pts dice... ki points ... or slots ... mana points.

My fighter or Rogues in character Encounter power is a trick that I can only use against a given character once. This is my favorite and short rest abilities model them poorly.

My Druids Encounter power is a trick that requires the venue either be purified with a ritual after its been cast in order to do it again or that there be a significant change of scene.

My Wizards Encounter power is a magical incantation very vancian style which I can only contain once and I have to pull back in by a glance at my books easily done in a minute or so.

This other fighter sees his encounter power (a huge massive jump perhaps) as straining a certain calve muscle in a specify way and a short rest works fine.

To me short rest feels less flexible and less able to represent cool things.

There are definitely ways to add IC diversity to the Encounter power model, and the ones you list seem like good ones. I'll I'm saying is that, OOC, Encounter powers are structurally identical to each other in the same way that 5e spells are structurally identical to each other. (There may be limited exceptions in each case, I'm arguing in the general case.) By contrast, in 5e Warlock spells are structurally distinct from Battlemaster manuevers.

I realize that not everyone cares about the structural level, and if you don't my point may not be relevant to your experience. The structure matters to me though (see the parts of my post where I talk about maintaining pre-existing relationships in a system being modeled), and so the structure is relevant to why I personally felt 4e classes (or, more specifically, 4e powers) were too "samey".

 

[MichaelSomething]

So people would like 4E more if all the powers were written in Gygaxian prose?

 

[Chaosmancer]

There are definitely ways to add IC diversity to the Encounter power model, and the ones you list seem like good ones. I'll I'm saying is that, OOC, Encounter powers are structurally identical to each other in the same way that 5e spells are structurally identical to each other. (There may be limited exceptions in each case, I'm arguing in the general case.) By contrast, in 5e Warlock spells are structurally distinct from Battlemaster manuevers.

I realize that not everyone cares about the structural level, and if you don't my point may not be relevant to your experience. The structure matters to me though (see the parts of my post where I talk about maintaining pre-existing relationships in a system being modeled), and so the structure is relevant to why I personally felt 4e classes (or, more specifically, 4e powers) were too "samey".

I definetly think that was not a problem for most people. After all, most spells in all additions of DnD are "structurally" similiar, so daily and encounter powers being "structurally" similiar isn't a problem for most.

 

[Sadras]

I've also said in the past that I don't think its a coincidence as (a) Heinsoo loved indie games and (b) Magic team members at WotC apparently had some input on the game's design.

Many of my players who are familiar with MtG have stated that playing their character feels like playing a magic deck (both the decision-point inputs and outputs and the thematic diversity), except they've used it as an extremely positive descriptor.

That is interesting, never knew that (bold emphasis) and the fact that your players identified some sort of relationship between the two speaks volumes. I played V:tes. supposedly a different game to MtG (never played this) but I never drew any parallels between V:tes and 4e. Are you familiar with V:tes?