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

[Neonchameleon]

Whereas I felt significantly less empowered DMing 4e than I do DMing 5e. And I say this as a diehard 4e supporter. 4e’s system was just too intricate and precise, it never felt like it was my game. It felt like it was a game that existed independently of me that needed someone to execute it. And that ended up being me most of the time because none of my other friends wanted to. But 5e feels like my game in a way I had never experienced before it. 4e gave me a very well-crafted recipe and told me I could change it if I wanted, but 5e taught me the fundamentals of cooking and encouraged me to experiment and create my own dishes.

I'd put things a different way. I'd say 4e is at least as easy to hack as 5e - but the difference is that 5e's design is significantly messier. This means that most hacks for 4e are going to be much much more noticeable than hacks made for 5e. So a bad hack stands out much more in 4e. I therefore need to second guess myself a bit more.

On the other hand I also find that because 4e is cleaner I can make major hacks much more easily and reliably because I'll see where the outcome is and they don't squash into the system so much.

I don’t know it. It has been perfectly adequate for me, and in fact, having that as the guideline instead of a gigantic list of tasks and DCs and modifiers I have to memorize has made it considerably easier for me to adjudicate actions. Never again do I have to worry that I misremembered the DC for weaving an 11th level masterwork basket or forgot to apply the penalty for doing fiber arts underwater, or the bonus for expert weaver’s tools. I can just go “yeah, that seems like something that could succeed or fail and has consequences. Make a moderate difficulty Dexterity check with disadvantage for being underwater.”

That sounds as if you're talking about 3.X rather than 4e to be honest. With 4e I just used the skill challenge tables - not much to remember there. I'd then just call it a hard rather than a moderate check for being underwater. Meanwhile the gigantic list of tasks (and for that matter the craft check rules) were one of the parts of 3.X that 4e more or less dropped.

 

[Manbearcat]

The best thing you can do is voice your opinions in a respectable manner - whether you like or dislike something - as long as you find the topic important enough to you to spend your time on.

This.

This I 100 % agree with. I endorse this entirely. I think someone who doesn't endorse something and someone who does endorse that something (especially friends) should be able to have respectful, functional conversation about it. This can be a corrective process where misconceptions are resolved and/or it can be someone removing an information deficit that the other party was working off of. Maybe one party softens their positions or changes it entirely (or perhaps both soften in different ways). Its constructive.

But "voicing your opinions in a respectable manner" are not what we're talking about here.

 

[Garthanos]

I don’t know it.

You do to. The statement tells me absolutely nothing about what you think a human is capable of

 

[FrogReaver]

You'd have to show your math there (figuratively), because I'm not connecting with your meaning here.

Is it something like:

I make leisure activity x an absolutely cornerstone of my life.

Therefore, my active hatred (proselytizing, activism, protest...to both bystanders and people who enjoy it) as it pertains to it are worthy of respect, deference. and empathy.

Is that your meaning? In proportion to how deeply you identify with a leisure activity is the proportion to which your active hatred should be worthy of respect, deference, and empathy?

No idea what you are saying here. I actually meant - imagine the most deplorable leisure activity you can - let's keep it to legal ones. Are you saying that so long as there is someone that loves that activity that you can't speak out against it no matter how vile or disgusting you think it is?

 

[Neonchameleon]

I believe believe honest and open dialogue that changes someone's mind is far better than no dialogue taking place and them remaining in a blissfully ignorant state.

And I believe that by the time you are referring to the way you think of something as hate you have decided that you are not going to have an honest and open dialogue. Fear isn't the mind-killer so much as hatred is.

And I can say "I hate naga chili". I do - it blows the roof off my mouth. There is no earthly point in me trying to convince other people to hate naga chili. I wouldn't try to yuck their yum. Different people are allowed to love different things. Especially when it comes to entertainment.

Wow. The best thing you can do is voice your opinions in a respectable manner - whether you like or dislike something - as long as you find the topic important enough to you to spend your time on.

If you want a respectable dialogue never say you hate something someone else loves - you've closed off the possibility of it being other than adversarial.

 

[Manbearcat]

No idea what you are saying here. I actually meant - imagine the most deplorable leisure activity you can - let's keep it to legal ones. Are you saying that so long as there is someone that loves that activity that you can't speak out against it no matter how vile or disgusting you think it is?

Ah ok, you went way off the grid to things aren't benign.

No, of course I don't think that malignant activities that actively cause harm work in this model we're talking about (but we're not talking about those things).

 

[FrogReaver]

And I believe that by the time you are referring to the way you think of something as hate you have decided that you are not going to have an honest and open dialogue. Fear isn't the mind-killer so much as hatred is.

And I can say "I hate naga chili". I do - it blows the roof off my mouth. There is no earthly point in me trying to convince other people to hate naga chili. I wouldn't try to yuck their yum. Different people are allowed to love different things. Especially when it comes to entertainment.

The problem is we don't each live in separate bubbles. It's like if you sit down at a table and had to eat what everyone else was eating. If everyone voted on naga chili that's all you could have. You'd be very outspoken about your hatred for it and justifiably so.

If you want a respectable dialogue never say you hate something someone else loves - you've closed off the possibility of it being other than adversarial.

I disagree. I can say I hate banana popsicles. Doesn't mean I'm trying to force you to hate them.

The problem is when there's a zero sum situation and it's everyone either gets banana flavored popsicles or everyone gets cherry ones. I'll be complaining the whole time if we get stuck with banana flavored ones no matter how much you love them.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'd put things a different way. I'd say 4e is at least as easy to hack as 5e - but the difference is that 5e's design is significantly messier. This means that most hacks for 4e are going to be much much more noticeable than hacks made for 5e. So a bad hack stands out much more in 4e. I therefore need to second guess myself a bit more.

On the other hand I also find that because 4e is cleaner I can make major hacks much more easily and reliably because I'll see where the outcome is and they don't squash into the system so much.

I guess? More so than hacks though, the difference to me is in the way the game is built to be run. I think the cooking analogy is far stronger than my earlier conductor/engineer analogy. 4e feels like a recipe created by a master chef. If followed precisely, it yields delicious results, and it even includes plenty of guidance about how to adjust it if someone orders gluten-free or whatever. But at the end of the day, it’s still instructions to follow. 5e in comparison was like a cooking class. It taught me the fundamentals so I could craft my own recipes. It didn’t really give me much in the way of instructions to follow, except maybe a very basic, staple recipe. But it taught me how to improvise and experiment and do my own thing in a way that I never felt 4e equipped me to do.

That sounds as if you're talking about 3.X rather than 4e to be honest. With 4e I just used the skill challenge tables - not much to remember there. I'd then just call it a hard rather than a moderate check for being underwater. Meanwhile the gigantic list of tasks (and for that matter the craft check rules) were one of the parts of 3.X that 4e more or less dropped.

True, I was being a bit hyperbolic there. Still, I never felt comfortable setting DCs on the fly in 4e. I needed that table in front of me if the players wanted to try anything I hadn‘t expected. Moreover, 4e taught me to let the players ask when they wanted to make checks and to say yes unless I had a strong reason not to. That put me into a position of executing a set of instructions, rather than adjudicating actions myself. It felt like the rules were the core engine and I was just the hardware running it. 5e makes me feel like the core engine and the rules are my tools.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ah ok, you went way off the grid to things aren't benign.

No, of course I don't think that malignant activities that actively cause harm work in this model we're talking about (but we're not talking about those things).

right but it does show the overall point that hating something and being outspoken about it aren't universally bad things. That's the only reason I went there.

 

[Charlaquin]

You do to.

Please stop insinuating that I am being deliberately obtuse. I am not, and it is extremely rude of you to act like I am.

The statement tells me absolutely nothing about what you think a human is capable of

I can’t give you a comprehensive list of everything I think a human is capable of, and it is not reasonable to ask me to do so. You’re a human (as far as I know), your own human experience will be a far more reliable metric than any list I could give you.