Rebutting a fallacy: why I await 5e (without holding my breath)

[Pentius]

Example: in 3e all character actions are divided up in a round: Full-round action, standard action, move action, minor action, free action. All of them. Some are "spells", some are "weapon attacks", some are "racial/class abilities", but all are divided in exactly the same way.

Is that cookie cutter?

Very much so.

This is the full round cookie:

Here is the Standard Cookie:

The Move Cookie:

The Minor Cookie:

And finally, the Free Cookie:

 

[Lanefan]

when you want to play OD&D (1974) using Chainmail (1971) some time come find me at Gen Con or Gary Con.

side trek

[MENTION=2885]diaglo[/MENTION] - Where and when does one find you at Gen Con? (shoot me a note or post in the GenCon planning forum...)

/side trek

Lan-"you'd probably consider me new-school: I play 1e"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Second, you assume that the concepts i'm summarising are not of rational merit, but anyone who has a rational view of game design knows that, for instance, 3e fighters are garbage. I can refrence that, and rational, informed people probably know what i'm talking about, or can ask about it.

Of course, this assertion completely depends on what you're defining as "garbage" within the game context.

As far as I'm concerned, regardless of class, race, stats, even system: if I can give it a personality and role-play it we're already beyond the garbage stage. And I've yet to see any game where this was impossible.

Now, if you're talking about things like damage-per-round output etc. etc. then I'll just leave you to it, as in my view that (along with most other char-op gype) is just not a relevant part of the game - in any edition. As long as you can take down the monster before it kills you, whether you can give out 16.5 dpr or 22.4 dpr is utterly immaterial.*

* - these are numbers pulled out of my hat - I've no idea if they're realistic or not.

I am holding my breath that 5e will be so great that we all will look back and say. "what were we thinking?"

I second this motion.

Lan-"I call question on the motion. All in favour?"-efan

 

[catastrophic]

Of course, this assertion completely depends on what you're defining as "garbage" within the game context.

Implications of mechanics, for gameplay, as opposed to meaningless drivel about how fun somebody's terrible 1e rogue was despite himself, or whatever.

As far as I'm concerned, regardless of class, race, stats, even system: if I can give it a personality and role-play it we're already beyond the garbage stage. And I've yet to see any game where this was impossible.

These are roleplaying games. If they're games, then the rules have to add to the fun. Otherwise, why have them? For the sake of tradition, no matter how many absurd, time-wasting hoops they require you to jump through?

There's roleplaying, there's craft, but they should not be a crutch for design. Design should pay it's way, otherwise, why are we paying people to do it? Sure, we don't pay them much, or often, but still. It's a skill, and it deserves respect.

Now, if you're talking about things like damage-per-round output etc. etc. then I'll just leave you to it, as in my view that (along with most other char-op gype) is just not a relevant part of the game - in any edition.

You can dismiss whatever you want, but this isn't about character optimisation- it's about good design which leads to players having more fun, and all players being able to contribute to a substantial degree in game.

You can dismiss good design because you don't care about the amount of time, in fact the number of fans our hobby loses to idiotic tripe like 3e style fighters. But design matters, system matters, and the best way for a roleplaying game to make fun is for it to be well designed.

And I don't give a damn if you scoff at that. You're not a rational contributor to the discussion. You reject design, fine. I don't have to take your viewpoint seriously.

As long as you can take down the monster before it kills you, whether you can give out 16.5 dpr or 22.4 dpr is utterly immaterial.*

And fighters never do that. This is not about minutia. This is not about dps decimals.

This is about the fact that at high levels, fighters can't make will saves, despite often facing them from high level monsters. Your heroic fighter? Will scream and run away unless he's standing next to a paladin.

This is about the fact that full progression spelllcasters can cast 'be better than a fighter at fighting' 50 different ways, and for the cleric, do it all day off one spell slot and a turn undead attempt or two. And on top of that, they get to nuke everything, raise the dead, fly, ect, ect.

This is about the fact that when a new player joins D&D, half of them are going to say "i wanna play a cool guy with a sword!', and most of those people are going to end up playing a fighter. In 4e, they get to be a cool guy with a sword. In 3e, even at low levels, they play a boring garbage class that does the same thing over and over again, and is rapidly left behind.

This is about fighters and many, many many many other builds in 4e being utterly WORHTLESS past a very low level, and people having MUCH LESS FUN as a result. And again, I don't care about the guy who loves his boring do-nothing fighter. I care about good design, not people who aren't engaged in the game enough for design to matter.

Not to mention many many many many other problems that again, damage people's fun. , wizards at low level? One spell, then a crossbow. You can tell your little fairy tales about how that 'makes up for' them being stronger later, but that's garbage design that doesn't work in play.

In play, it leads to 15 minute days, it leads to people dropping in an out of classes- or games- based on when their pc starts or stops being fun, it leads to the kind of negative outcomes that 4e makes an effort to prevent. It doesn't always work, 4e has a lot of flaws- but it's better than wallowing in failure.

I don't care who wants to boast about their hard-earned wizard from the old days, and how it's really really important to their play style that the guy with the sword starts looking like a complete chump at some arbitary point in the storyline. This is D&D, not ars magica.

I don't care about the sacred cows, especially when they step all over people's fun. I'm interested in making fun for people, not just the people who shoult their 4e-bashing outrage the loudest who insists that everyone act like there's no such thing as merit in design, and no way to improve play, because after all, everything is just, like, your opinion, mannn!

Either we recognise that design can improve, and that improving design improves play, or, we act as a stagnant backwater, hostile to improvement and genuine design goals. Either we recognise that play experiences can be improved with design, or we buy into the copout that all design can do is service play-style, when in reality, that is only part of what design does, and that the features people are defending are toxic to good design, and good play.

We have old timers playing 4e. We have people who've never liked dnd playing it. And we have a shitload of people who used to play 3e, and are damn glad to see the back of it. 4e is well designed and deserved credit for that. Discussion of it should not be dominated with the outrage of people who rejected it before they even saw it, because frankly? You have no idea what you're talking about.

* - these are numbers pulled out of my hat - I've no idea if they're realistic or not.

Well, at least you admit it.

 

[JamesonCourage]

This is about fighters and many, many many many other builds in 4e being utterly WORHTLESS past a very low level, and people having MUCH LESS FUN as a result. And again, I don't care about the guy who loves his boring do-nothing fighter. I care about good design, not people who aren't engaged in the game enough for design to matter.

If that's your opinion, who am I to argue with it

Play what you like

 

[Ranes]

3.X players have to buy as many sourcebooks as possible to get access to components to build uber-characters. Likewise, the set-up of the sourcebooks is in parallel to purchasable magic decks; you have the useless fluff no one pays attention to; the obviously useless classes and feats; the occasionally useful versions of the same; and finally, the "rare" classes, feats, templates or powers that can be used in combination with the right attributes from other books to make unbeatably powerful decks- er, characters.

Ye gods, I'm glad my experience tells me otherwise. Rarely have I come across such a ludicrous assertion. I always make it clear to new players, just as most of the other DMs I have ever known, that non-core sources may be allowed by me if (a) I own the source and no I'm not interested in borrowing your copy, thanks and (b) I don't have an issue with it (ruling out almost anything that ever had 'Complete' in the title).

Furthermore, if you cannot control your anal-retentive and typically selective rules mastery skillzzzzzzz, there's the door.

Fortunately, in eight years of DMing 3e for dozens of players, I've only had one problem player who expected me to incorporate any rule ever written by anyone. That's about the same rate as when I played 1e.

Everyone else seems to have a good time without feeling trapped by choice. They don't worry about whether or not they have squeezed every last little plus one they could have done our of their characters.

If what you wrote genuinely reflects your experience, I do feel sorry for you.

As for what 5e might be like, I don't care to speculate. My D&D works fine.

 

[Ranes]

This is about fighters and many, many many many other builds in 4e being utterly WORHTLESS past a very low level, and people having MUCH LESS FUN as a result.

[Beavis] Hehe. You said, "4e." Hehehe. [/Butthead]

Not to mention many many many many other problems that again, damage people's fun.

I've never taken fun damage.

In play, it leads to 15 minute days...

Actually, no, it doesn't.

4e has a lot of flaws- but it's better than wallowing in failure.

It is not a binary argument.

I'm interested in making fun for people, not just the people who shoult their 4e-bashing outrage the loudest who insists that everyone act like there's no such thing as merit in design, and no way to improve play, because after all, everything is just, like, your opinion, mannn!

Well done. You win today's straw man award.

Either we recognise that design can improve, and that improving design improves play, or, we act as a stagnant backwater, hostile to improvement and genuine design goals.

I'm sure no one wants to act like 'a stagnant backwater'. I'm not even sure that anyone can.

I do recognise that design can improve. I also recognise that, just because it can, it doesn't necessarily so do.

Either we recognise that play experiences can be improved with design, or we buy into the copout that all design can do is service play-style, when in reality, that is only part of what design does, and that the features people are defending are toxic to good design, and good play.

I agree that design can improve play. But a good game is more than the sum of its mechanics. Furthermore, irrespective of a new game's merits, if you're still enjoying the one you've already got, why not spend your money on something or someone else? Wait, would that be acting like a stagnant backwater?

4e is well designed and deserved credit for that. Discussion of it should not be dominated with the outrage of people who rejected it before they even saw it, because frankly? You have no idea what you're talking about.

The outrage seems to be all yours.

 

[3catcircus]

Not so. I, for one, spend my time playing earlier editions (and Pathfinder) because I like thinking about how to create objects and have them work in, basically, a simulation of a world. I also like creating games using these rules, and am informed by 4e when I do this. These are the two reasons that spring immediately to mind, and I'm sure I could find others, but I didn't start RPGs because I wanted to avoid cookie-cutter rpg classes.

That they're different is not a primary concern; certainly not one of the desires I'm conscious of (though if it's an unconscious desire for classes that play differently but mix well enough, explain that to Freud or Erickson).


I don't get the argument about cookie cutter design. The Leader role in 4e is very different from the striker, and the defender, and the controller. The emphasis is certainly different. My wizard blankets areas in small damage, while my barbarian whallops one target for big damage. Yes, they all have powers that function a certain number of times a day, but that's not a new phenomenon for anyone except spellcasters.

Example: in 3e all character actions are divided up in a round: Full-round action, standard action, move action, minor action, free action. All of them. Some are "spells", some are "weapon attacks", some are "racial/class abilities", but all are divided in exactly the same way.

Is that cookie cutter?

You miss my point - in prior editions of the game, character abilities were thematically and mechanically different. A fighter didn't have "powers." He was able to engage in combat based solely upon his own physical ability and training. A wizard was able cast spells do to an entirely different source of ability - his intelligence and mastery of the mind. Thematically different.

Mechanically, also different - wizards cast spells that oftentimes just did damage. It wasn't until 3.x that they started to emphasize spells that required a to-hit roll. Likewise, who can forget the thief skills being percentile-based - vastly different than a d20 roll to-hit.

In 4e, *every* class has its abilities (whether spells, class abilities, etc.) described, for the most part, as a power of some kind. Every class can do the exact same thing - some powers at-will, some per each encounter, and some each day. The PHB reads to me like a logistics manual - extremely repetitive and boring.

The point I made for previous editions is that because of the mechanical differences in how each class played, it allowed different players to gravitate towards the class that appealed to them more easily. In 4e, because each class "reads" the same, it can lead to analysis paralysis by players.

Ye gods, I'm glad my experience tells me otherwise. Rarely have I come across such a ludicrous assertion. I always make it clear to new players, just as most of the other DMs I have ever known, that non-core sources may be allowed by me if (a) I own the source and no I'm not interested in borrowing your copy, thanks and (b) I don't have an issue with it (ruling out almost anything that ever had 'Complete' in the title).

Furthermore, if you cannot control your anal-retentive and typically selective rules mastery skillzzzzzzz, there's the door.

Fortunately, in eight years of DMing 3e for dozens of players, I've only had one problem player who expected me to incorporate any rule ever written by anyone. That's about the same rate as when I played 1e.

Everyone else seems to have a good time without feeling trapped by choice. They don't worry about whether or not they have squeezed every last little plus one they could have done our of their characters.

If what you wrote genuinely reflects your experience, I do feel sorry for you.

As for what 5e might be like, I don't care to speculate. My D&D works fine.

This - in DMing both 3.x and Pathfinder, I make it clear up-front which books are allowed and, in some, even which parts of which books are allowed.

For example - in my current Pathfinder campaign, which is set in Goodman Games' campaign setting World of Aereth (Gazetteer of the Known Realms) and is using 3e DCC adventure modules, none of the pathfinder campaign setting or adventure paths are allowed - only the core Pathfinder book, APG, and the two bestiaries. Likewise, none of the 3.x books are allowed wholesale and, so far, the only thing I've allowed is the Healing Belt from MIC (since there are only 3 players and healing can become difficult because of the way I run my campaign.)

 

[TheAuldGrump]

In your opinion.

So put away your bubble pipe. It is a matter of opinion, but one that can be defended, depending on personal definitions.

For some folks it is three paragraphs of carved in stone truth.

Your sentence by sentence correction would, because they are based on your opinions, be wrong, sentence by sentence, because it is not your opinion that he is describing.

The Auld Grump

 

[TheAuldGrump]

4e isn't D&D in a large number of substantiable ways - but the only unopposable defense and the one that matters legally is that it is the current game under that title by the trademark holder.

For many people that is the least important way.

I do not say that 4e is not D&D, I do say that is the first edition of 4e that I have no interest in either playing or running. If pressed then I will say that it is a bad edition of D&D, which is true in my opinion.

Other people do not care about the legalities, and feel that it has changed too much from what was D&D to be worthy of the name.

Yet other folks consider it to be a good edition of D&D, if not the best.

At least one considers OD&D to be the one true edition of the game, with all others being pale imitations, 4e, 3.X, and all the rest.

As a non-fan of 4e I have seen the mods stomp on folks who were too vocal in their annoyance with 4e and their dislike of either the game or its players. To me it looked like they were partial towards 4e.

Going through the archives, on the other hand, and actually taking note, it is the tone the folks were taking, not the message that they were carrying.

Frankly, there are folks on both sides that the mods should stomp more firmly, who cannot seem to grasp the difference between fact and opinion. But whom are more than willing to share what they consider to be carved in stone fact, then complain that they are being treated unfairly when it is pointed out that what they are saying is not fact, but opinion....

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* Just to make it completely plain - yes, both sides! There is at least one pro 3.X/Pathfinder evangelist who is the exactly the same in not respecting others's opinions.