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

[Steel_Wind]

Let me throw a hat into the ring here on the 5E discussion:

1 - 4E Good: More movement on the battlefield. Anything which creates a more dynamic battle with more movement and less "stand and swing with full attack" is good. This was a weakness in 3.xx and it continues to be the primary weakness of Pathfinder. It's a strength of 4E. KEEP IT.

2- 4E Bad: Pull-back on the "all-in" gameist design. D&D in all of its forms since 1974 had always walked a razor's edge on the gameist/simulationist divide. Sure, when it got right down to it, gameist designs won out in every edition. But in prior editions, there was at least a PRETENSION of simulaitonism in the game rules and its settings. With 4E, the balance shifted greatly in favor of an all-in gameist design, at the expense of simulationist pretensions throughout all aspects of the game rules and its setting. And it went too far.

The gamesist designs ethic pervades 4E with respect to balance, the powers/day system and healing surges, and even the game world.

You can go too far with this, and sales indicate that there are a large number of people who prefer more of a nod to a pretension of simulationism in their game. Sure, when the rubber meets the road, you need to go with what makes a better game. But you need not be so obvious about it.

So that's it: Complex rules for movement and dynamic combat is good. Keep that. It's fun and it makes for a better game. Even the people who dis 4E recognize it. Too much gameist design, however, is bad. Pull back on those aspects and revert to more balance between gameist/simulationist design ethos.

Revise. Reset, Resell.

Last Point: Use DDI and 5E to sell and distribute a large and sweeping number of interlocking adventures of high quality published over a successive number of months. Pay designers top dollar to do this and illustrate them lavishly. Six months each in duration for each AP ought to do it. Yes, yes, we all know that Adventures Paths don't sell, right?

Except when Paizo sells them to their own subscribers, that is.

 

[ExploderWizard]

1977

"You come around the corner. Six inches away is a mind flayer. Init."
"Jeez. 10." "3, dammit" "9"
"It has a 12. Psi points are 62."
"I'm psi, so is Roger."
"What's your defense, then?"
"Tower of Iron Will." "Um, I just have Thought SHield"
"Really? Dang."
"Its 60 feet away, that's a -2 to it's THACO." "Another -1, it has to come through the door."
"Dungeon doors are always locked!"
"Except for monsters, duh."
"Psi actions are ten-to-one."
"Where did you get that?"
"I ready my +1 sword, +2 against aquatic stuff and move five inches up."
"It doesn't live in the water."
"Looks like an octopus to me."
"Cephalopod."
"Still not aquatic."
And so on.

1977 anachronism ROFL!

What does THACO mean?
Where are these init. numbers above 6 coming from?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Let me throw a hat into the ring here on the 5E discussion:

1 - 4E Good: More movement on the battlefield. Anything which creates a more dynamic battle with more movement and less "stand and swing with full attack" is good. This was a weakness in 3.xx and it continues to be the primary weakness of Pathfinder. It's a strength of 4E. KEEP IT.

This doesn't have to be the case in Pathfinder - it pretty much does describe how the folks in my 'grown ups' game play, but the teens 'n' tweens game sees a lot of variation. The dwarf likes to open the battle with a bull rush, the halberd wielding elf loves Trip, etc..

Their parents, on the other hand, seem to prefer going toe to toe, and not explore some of the other possibilities, with a couple of exceptions (who are married, and have a kid in the teens 'n' tweens game...).

2- 4E Bad: Pull-back on the "all-in" gameist design. D&D in all of its forms since 1974 had always walked a razor's edge on the gameist/simulationist divide. Sure, when it got right down to it, gameist designs won out in every edition. But in prior editions, there was at least a PRETENSION of simulaitonism in the game rules and its settings. With 4E, the balance shifted greatly in favor of an all-in gameist design, at the expense of simulationist pretensions throughout all aspects of the game rules and its setting. And it went too far.

The gamesist designs ethic pervades 4E with respect to balance, the powers/day system and healing surges, and even the game world.

You can go too far with this, and sales indicate that there are a large number of people who prefer more of a nod to a pretension of simulationism in their game. Sure, when the rubber meets the road, you need to go with what makes a better game. But you need not be so obvious about it.

So that's it: Complex rules for movement and dynamic combat is good. Keep that. It's fun and it makes for a better game. Even the people who dis 4E recognize it. Too much gameist design, however, is bad. Pull back on those aspects and revert to more balance between gameist/simulationist design ethos.

Revise. Reset, Resell.

Last Point: Use DDI and 5E to sell and distribute a large and sweeping number of interlocking adventures of high quality published over a successive number of months. Pay designers top dollar to do this and illustrate them lavishly. Six months each in duration for each AP ought to do it. Yes, yes, we all know that Adventures Paths don't sell, right?

Except when Paizo sells them to their own subscribers, that is.

I blame the 'twenty minutes of fun' quote for this. All Action! All the Time! (This is also where I think 4e comes closest to fitting the 'MORPG accusations' - not the rules, but in the idea that the whole game should be about action.)

That said... I kind of think that the split has happened, Pathfinder has picked up the folks who don't want 'All Action! All the Time!' We have found a home, and that home is getting larger as more folks move into the neighborhood.

4e players would be disappointed if WotC tried to roll back on the changes. So let 5e build on 4e - I won't play it, but there are others who will. Them losing their fun won't make me enjoy my fun better, so if they are happy then continue to aim the game at them. If they tire of it then Pathfinder has room.

As long as the hobby is flourishing then let the games travel their separate paths. The fact that both 4e and Pathfinder are doing well seems to say that there is plenty of room for both. I would rather see both grow than see either one die out.

I will admit to being an alarmist when 4e dropped what I liked in gaming, and did not think that Pathfinder would grow like it has. But it is burgeoning like a rose, so my fears appear to have been largely groundless.

The Auld Grump

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

2- 4E Bad: Pull-back on the "all-in" gameist design. D&D in all of its forms since 1974 had always walked a razor's edge on the gameist/simulationist divide. Sure, when it got right down to it, gameist designs won out in every edition. But in prior editions, there was at least a PRETENSION of simulaitonism in the game rules and its settings. With 4E, the balance shifted greatly in favor of an all-in gameist design, at the expense of simulationist pretensions throughout all aspects of the game rules and its setting. And it went too far.

Me, I disagree. I love that 4e threw D&D sim pretensions to the wind. I guess I don't believe in doing things by halves. If I'm playing a game with hp, magic swords, and giant flying lizards who speak a truly universal common tongue, I don't want the game devs unbalancing the game by pretending the rest should be realistic.

On the other hand, I think it might be a nice change of pace to have an honestly sim edition. Imagine, a D&D game where everything makes some kind of sense! I probably wouldn't buy it, but hey, I've got 4e.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Me, I disagree. I love that 4e threw D&D sim pretensions to the wind. I guess I don't believe in doing things by halves. If I'm playing a game with hp, magic swords, and giant flying lizards who speak a truly universal common tongue, I don't want the game devs unbalancing the game by pretending the rest should be realistic.

It looks like you do agree with him in that you believe 4E did in fact throw out the sim pretensions. Where you disagree is you like that it did this and you don't think it went too far. But the issue this created I think is while it pleased players like yourself, it displeased players who felt differently. And it seems this was a substantial enough number that the game is pretty evenly split at the moment.

Ideally D&D wants the best of both worlds because it is a game that has classically appealed to a broad base of players. If they appeal too strongly to one segment of their audience they risk losing another segment.

That said I think Auld Grump may have a point that since the community is already split their best bet may be to continue with the design goals of 4E. I mean 4E is out there now, so if that edition meets your needs, I suspect you wouldn't pick up another one that tried to meet somewhere in the middle of 3E and 4E.

 

[Balesir]

It looks like you do agree with him in that you believe 4E did in fact throw out the sim pretensions. Where you disagree is you like that it did this and you don't think it went too far. But the issue this created I think is while it pleased players like yourself, it displeased players who felt differently. And it seems this was a substantial enough number that the game is pretty evenly split at the moment.

Even though I am a bit confused with the meaning(s) of Sim used around here (it seems to have some connotations around "simulating the real world", which for a fantasy game I find just weird), I agree with TS on this. I also agree that there is a constituency of folks who won't like this. The odd thing is that everybody feels the need for D&D, specifically, to be "their type of game". TheAuldGrump seems to have got over this - only a "need to spread it around" prevented me from XPing him for that last post.

Maybe I am slightly unusual, in that the confused, mish-mash nature of D&D set me off playing a myriad other games for nearly 20 years before I dipped a toe in 3.x and then came back to it fully in 4E. I would honestly be quite happy if 4E was just called "Fourth Edition" or something, and "D&D" was used for some other game I could quietly ignore. The only issue is that I would want support/development of 4E to continue - and WotC seem somewhat anally retentive about supporting (read: keeping making money out of) 'old' editions.

Ideally D&D wants the best of both worlds because it is a game that has classically appealed to a broad base of players. If they appeal too strongly to one segment of their audience they risk losing another segment.

Myeah. 'Appealing to everybody' is precisely what drove me (and others I play with) away, previously. The result was a mess - it wasn't balanced and yet it didn't really "simulate" anything sustainable (the economics were totally shot and the implications of magic were not evident in the way the world worked) and the rules amounted to a DM-controlled "mother may I" in the end. We played everything from RuneQuest to DragonQuest to Traveller to Bushido instead. We even had an 'offshoot' homebrew from OD&D that was closer to 3.x than to any other edition - and was kinda balanced to a certain point.

That said I think Auld Grump may have a point that since the community is already split their best bet may be to continue with the design goals of 4E. I mean 4E is out there now, so if that edition meets your needs, I suspect you wouldn't pick up another one that tried to meet somewhere in the middle of 3E and 4E.

Yep, I think TheAuldGrump has it absolutely spot on. Pick a game or games that suit the specific elements you want out of roleplaying and enjoy. If it bothers you that "your" particular game should be called "D&D", don't mind me - you are welcome to the name. Just let me have my own preferred game set without telling me I'm "doing it wrong" or what I'm doing "isn't roleplaying" and I'll be happy.

Give me a dependable company that supports my preferred games without all the control freakery that WotC seems to be susceptible to and I'll be even happier...

 

[Bedrockgames]

Dont get me wrong belasir, i think it is highly desirable to play the game tgat appeals to you and for companies to aim at a particular demograpgic or niche ( heck that is what my company does). But i think what made d&d so succesful as a product was ( in addition to it being the first and it having name recognition) it appeales to a large cross section of gamers by straddling many styles of play. By changing the formula to appeal to a specific band i think they sacrificed that broad level of appeal. It would be like just going after min maxers or just going after people that love crunch or just going after people who like dungeon crawls or urban adventures. You take a product that attracts all those folks already and you narrow it to just one of those groups. I think the result is people who like the change are really satisfied. But the others move on to different systems.

Also you should play the game you like. 4e may not be my style but i do realize it is a perfect fit for lots of people out there.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Myeah. 'Appealing to everybody' is precisely what drove me (and others I play with) away, previously. The result was a mess - it wasn't balanced and yet it didn't really "simulate" anything sustainable (the economics were totally shot and the implications of magic were not evident in the way the world worked) and the rules amounted to a DM-controlled "mother may I" in the end. We played everything from RuneQuest to DragonQuest to Traveller to Bushido instead. We even had an 'offshoot' homebrew from OD&D that was closer to 3.x than to any other edition - and was kinda balanced to a certain point.

Yes. When I'm in a sim mood (and I sometimes am), I'd far rather play Fantasy Hero (with framework geared to a sim focus) or RQ or something like it over any version of D&D. Heck, Burning Wheel can do some sim aspects better than D&D, and BW is not a sim game by a long shot.

Of course, I'm also sure that some people like some versions of D&D because they are the mishmash. I can even sort of appreciate that, since when I'm in a beer and pretzels mode, such a mishmash is what appeals to me, rather than "4E played as a wargame" or some such.

But that makes me interested in just how fair Auld Grump and others like him would want 3.5/PF pushed towards sim? Is it the mix that appeals, or simply that it is D&D with as much sim as you can currently get? I'm interested, because those are tastes that I don't really have, and thus don't understand the motivations for.

 

[Herschel]

For me it isnt the amount of crunch in 4e that deters me. For me to return to d&d (played 1st,2nd and 3rd ed, but 4e wasn't for me) they would have to eliminate the powers system.

Every edition of D&D (and every RPG I can think of off the top of my head) has the powers system, many just don't have the Encounter Power level.

 

[Balesir]

But that makes me interested in just how fair Auld Grump and others like him would want 3.5/PF pushed towards sim? Is it the mix that appeals, or simply that it is D&D with as much sim as you can currently get? I'm interested, because those are tastes that I don't really have, and thus don't understand the motivations for.

I must admit to some curiosity about this, too - I harbour a sneaking feeling that there are systems out there that would suit those who play older editions of D&D even better - but at the end of the day it's none of my business, really. If someone is happy playing PF but has never come accross a game that would really rock their boat, the chances are that they will be happier finding it themselves, in time, that feeling 'nagged' to it by me. 'Nagging' might even turn them away from something they would really enjoy, in fact.