Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, I think you are right here: 4E is far more systematic, so harder to effectively homebrew: you can do it, clearly, and correct me if I am wrong, but 4E homebrewing seems to have been less prevalent than with 3.x or 5E; leaving aside the hope of turning a homebrew into a viable product that the OGL provides over the GSL. The system is tight, and doesn't invite tinkering in the same way: a strength or a weakness, depending on perspective.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

A lot of blame has been laid on CG/DDI Compendium for this, as it is just so convenient to use those exclusively for content that anything 3PP or homebrew is disfavored. Given the HUGE range of material they made available on those platforms it was hard to argue with.

OTOH if you are going to do something like use TotM, that really is a separate issue that isn't related so much to sources of information. I agree, 4e is written in a way where rules cross-reference via standardized terminology and procedures quite a bit, so if you change something like the grid, then a lot of other areas will be effected. HOWEVER, I think its safe to say, for example, that changing 2e to use a grid would equally pervasively effect the game, yet people seem more willing to consider it no more than a minor variation.

I agree that this is all a matter of presentation, whatever aspect of that causes it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

AFAICT, we're on the issue of homebrewing, here, and no, you're not really working a 'against the system' when homebrewing, rather, the headwind you can face comes from your players.

I honestly think the main 'headwind' for homebrew comes from a consideration of the design goals and coherency of the system in question.

OD&D for example literally says right on the tin, "this is a set of guidelines that is useful in setting up a fantasy miniatures campaign", so its virtually telling you it isn't even complete (which is true) and that you can/should/will extend, adapt, etc as required to meet your own needs. OD&D also doesn't give you any specific indication of a coherent style of play, play procedures, conventions, or even any advice at all.

4e, OTOH, is highly coherent. It certainly mentions homebrewing and modification, but it only talks about 2 minor forms of such, reflavoring things and rules modifications or additions (which it pretty much frowns on). While 4e didn't articulate its goals and methods well in a lot of cases, it certainly tells you how to play, advises you extensively about the use of rules, play procedures, and its goals (get to the fun, say yes, etc).

In the face of a coherent game, most DMs and players will try to honor the design goals implicit in that game. They may not understand them, inadvertently undermine them, or sometimes choose certain specifics to ignore or change, but they usually set out to experience the game in a way that was intended. This was also true of OD&D, but you had to fill in a lot of blanks, so it was less likely you'd arrive at what Gygax played himself (and this was why he wrote AD&D in the first place and added the infamous "this is the official rules" statement).

I know this is true for me. In fact I have very little tendency to make significant changes to rules systems. I will just pick a different system if I don't like one. I never changed any rules in 4e and only ignored a few or shifted how they mapped to fiction (IE making a long rest happen after a week instead of a day in the wilderness, mechanically it still worked as per the rules).

 

[The Fighter-Cricket]

Oh guys, you succesfully made me read the last seven to eight pages that suddenly were there when I came home from work. How do you keep doing that?

Presentation can have a tremendous impact on reception ...

There is (maybe sadly?) so much truth in this. We have had very many discussions about 4E, its reception, the suprisingly rude backlash against it, the Edition Wars (tm), and there were many attempts to uncover what exactly put some people off so strongly. Users talked about the rules, the design, the marketing, and every other aspect that could be linked to the hate 4E and its players got. And after all I have read in the last six years the argument that really stays (imo) is about aesthetics, presentation, and emotion.

I think in the end, what put people so strongly off, really was how people felt 4E symbolized. Call me crazy, but I think that it was really about the art style of the books, the illustrations, even the fonts the books featured, the formalized presentation of the powers, the general aesthetics that you really were reading a book about a game, a rule book if you will, and not "a tome wherein shall lie the magic of olde and the mystic adventure in donjons" or something like that. By breaking the fourth wall (pun intended) I think some people felt a strong adversity to this, yes, game.
Additionally from somewhere came the mechanically false argument that it was more of an MMO that pen and paper rpg. It was mechanically false, but it rang true to those who looked at the more colourful aesthetic that also revealed openly the wheels and cogs that kept this game running. It declared: This is a game you are playing. For some very vocal people that was too much.

And on the other hand I feel somewhat relieved that this whole arguing and bickering was mostly done on the internet by people who are a bit too much involved in all of this (I mean us). I really hope that those people who are happy playing 5th Edtion and watching their beloved YouTube stars playing it too never stumble upon rpg forums.

 

[Parmandur]

Oh guys, you succesfully made me read the last seven to eight pages that suddenly were there when I came home from work. How do you keep doing that?




There is (maybe sadly?) so much truth in this. We have had very many discussions about 4E, its reception, the suprisingly rude backlash against it, the Edition Wars (tm), and there were many attempts to uncover what exactly put some people off so strongly. Users talked about the rules, the design, the marketing, and every other aspect that could be linked to the hate 4E and its players got. And after all I have read in the last six years the argument that really stays (imo) is about aesthetics, presentation, and emotion.

I think in the end, what put people so strongly off, really was how people felt 4E symbolized. Call me crazy, but I think that it was really about the art style of the books, the illustrations, even the fonts the books featured, the formalized presentation of the powers, the general aesthetics that you really were reading a book about a game, a rule book if you will, and not "a tome wherein shall lie the magic of olde and the mystic adventure in donjons" or something like that. By breaking the fourth wall (pun intended) I think some people felt a strong adversity to this, yes, game.
Additionally from somewhere came the mechanically false argument that it was more of an MMO that pen and paper rpg. It was mechanically false, but it rang true to those who looked at the more colourful aesthetic that also revealed openly the wheels and cogs that kept this game running. It declared: This is a game you are playing. For some very vocal people that was too much.

And on the other hand I feel somewhat relieved that this whole arguing and bickering was mostly done on the internet by people who are a bit too much involved in all of this (I mean us). I really hope that those people who are happy playing 5th Edtion and watching their beloved YouTube stars playing it too never stumble upon rpg forums.

Most don't, certainly.

I actually really dug the art style; was pretty excited pre-release. For art, my ranking would be 5E > 2E > 4E > 1E > 3.x/PF. 3rd Ed art was just...yuck, mainly. Expensive, well crafted high production value yuck, but just not very appetizing fantasy art in my book; 4E was a big improvement on that front. The powers and monster stat block presentations were pretty atrocious, though.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[MwaO]

HOW?? Not being snarky or funny here either. I'm honestly curious I've been running and playing 5e for a while and I'm not seeing this at all, especially within the limits of Concentration.

I think something really important to note in 5e is that your movement is not limited to before or after your attack.

i.e. my variant human enchanter goes first, moves into the room to identify targets, detonates a spell, and then retreats behind the front line. And if possible, behind a corner.

That then creates a lot of problems with breaking concentration. And as [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] noted, 16 Dex+Mage Armor+Shield is a 21 AC for a turn. And knowing a 21 AC is available at a moment's notice = ability to be in the 2nd line or even the front. You have the Alert feat, so you can't actually be surprised. You likely go first, so again, any trouble shows up, you're out of there as fast as you can.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That then creates a lot of problems with breaking concentration. And as [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] noted, 16 Dex+Mage Armor+Shield is a 21 AC for a turn. And knowing a 21 AC is available at a moment's notice = ability to be in the 2nd line or even the front. You have the Alert feat, so you can't actually be surprised.

Concentration is without a doubt the biggest limitation on 5e casters. It is also a pretty modest little limitation,[sblock]just standing there, all alone, in a big, white room, fondly recalling the days when casters needed it to cast spells /at all/ and didn't get rolls to ignore it, and it was surrounded by fellow limitations like race/level limits and AoOs and hard armor/weapon restrictions and long casting times and non-spontaneous casting and caster levels (didn't even realize that was a limitation until it was gone) and exacting component requirements and needing to stand still (really still!) & use both hands to cast and... :sigh: good times.[/sblock] It only applies to a few spells - some of them it's crippling an otherwise OK spell, other's it's 'balancing' (possibly inadequately) a potentially broken one - and there are plenty of ways to mitigate against becoming a target.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Concentration is without a doubt the biggest limitation on 5e casters. It is also a pretty modest little limitation. It only applies to a few spells - some of them it's crippling an otherwise OK spell, other's it's 'balancing' (possibly inadequately) a potentially broken one - and there are plenty of ways to mitigate against becoming a target.

It is definitely a limitation on buffs in particular, more in terms of how many you can use at a time and that they tend to get dropped quickly on contact with the enemy. Limitations however are an interesting thing. They can obviously remove a specific spell as a solution to a specific problem, but mostly they just impose another piece to the overall answer. At times this can mean a non-magical solution becomes favored, which is cool, but the sheer number and fundamental versatility of spells tends to mean you end up using them a lot no matter what and they're sort of the go-to tool for a party in need of a plan.

Wizard power to me is best evinced not in the midst of a fight, but when sitting in the tavern pouring over a map and asking "how the heck are we going to get past the crevasse filled with stirges and giant spiders?" The answer usually starts with "Alzardel will cast invisibility on the cleric and..." or something like that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It is definitely a limitation on buffs in particular, more in terms of how many you can use at a time and that they tend to get dropped quickly on contact with the enemy. Limitations however are an interesting thing.

More interesting than unlimited power.

One thing about limitations on party-buffs, though, is that it's not the caster of the buff that experiences the limitation so much as the party relying on it. Though, IDK that 5e suffers from the phenomenon like 3.5 did (which was also more than 3.0 did - it was one of the subtler changes that I didn't care for, that turned CoDzilla up from 11 to 13.).

They can obviously remove a specific spell as a solution to a specific problem, but mostly they just impose another piece to the overall answer. ... The answer usually starts with "Alzardel will cast invisibility on the cleric and..." or something like that.

I sense 'classic feel.'

 

[cavalier973]

"Alzardel will cast invisibility on the cleric and..."

Aw, man; don't leave us hanging like that!

A 4e wizard in that situation would need to stay within 5 squares--I mean, 25', of the cleric.


As a tangentially related observation, that same wizard, if he wanted to fly around while invisible, would need to cast "Fly" first, then "Invisible".

 

[pemerton]

I think that it was really about the art style of the books, the illustrations, even the fonts the books featured, the formalized presentation of the powers, the general aesthetics that you really were reading a book about a game, a rule book if you will, and not "a tome wherein shall lie the magic of olde and the mystic adventure in donjons" or something like that. By breaking the fourth wall (pun intended) I think some people felt a strong adversity to this, yes, game.

Yes. I posted something similar upthread.