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

[Nagol]

I don't have any objection to that approach. I have an objection to a game not telling me that's its approach in the game itself.

That's part of my real objection to the marketing. There's no mention of any of the design concepts that were in Legends & Lore and there's information that directly contradicts the design concepts. So the game should make that explicit.

As an example, if 5e said the following, "Over the course of a typical campaign, a party finds treasure hoards amount to (insert rolls here). It could be exciting to have either less rolls or more rolls or even none at all. Here's how to modify the CR chart for a no-magic, low magic, or high-magic game to make the encounter difficulty appropriate."

See? Same thing as what 5e actually does, but there's no pretending by the marketing of something the game doesn't actually say. Put some additional language saying you don't have to stick to encounter strength, just be warned things might not go expected, and away you go. A player new to the edition knows what to expect just by reading the game, not by finding out the hard way.

Every edition of D&D suffers from this. One of the great lacks in the game across all editions is a forthright discussion of what is, what is expected and (most importantly) why, and the ramifications of adopting different parameters. Such dissuasions did take place in early Dragon, White Dwarf and similar mechanisms.

 

[MwaO]

First, just to get a possible confusion out of the way - I prefer a game that is overt about its design principles and the play experience it sets out (and, hopefull, does) deliver. That's why Luke Crane's Burning Wheel is my favourite set of RPG rules from the point of view of writing (I like them a lot in play too); and why I like other clearly-written rulesets too (eg Maelstrom Storytelling, bits of Over the Edge, HeroQuest revised, Marvel Heroic RP most of the time, and bits of 4e).

I do as well.

But second, I don't think my preference is universal. I'm not even sure it's very widespread. I think a significant number of RPGers - perhaps even a majority - prefer that the rules not talk about their underlying concepts or the way they are intended to yield a certain play experience, because that is already too much "pulling back of the curtain". They want the experience of immersion/verisimilitude to extend from play even into engaging with the rulebooks.

In general, failing the 1st, I like the 2nd. This is neither of those situations.

This is marketing telling us the 1st while the rules present the 2nd. And they're not the same assumptions.

 

[Parmandur]

I expect the style to come from play. I prefer the rules themselves to be clear and easy to read in a hurry. I regard Rolemaster as an early pioneer in this respect (clear spell layout, clear monster/NPC layout, clear attack table layout, etc), even though the rules themselves are rather complex and a bit clunky in places.

Well, but leisure reading stands up with play for me; kind of equal values?

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[Parmandur]

Sorry, not sure whether you are being ironic/sarcastic or sincere/literal. If the former, sorry - I wasn't meaning to mischaracterise and am very happy to engage further.

If the latter, OK, I'm glad I wasn't too far off the mark.

Full serious; that post was excellent, and added to my understanding of the phenomenon in question (understanding being my goal here).

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[Parmandur]

The survey questions were designed to do that. It wasn't a real survey at all. It was a marketing push poll - you ask questions hoping to get respondents to come to conclusions you want them to come to anyway. If you feel 5e almost feels as if you designed the product yourself, you were influenced.

Also, at no point did they ever claim they got bigger and bigger responses over time. They made a claim that they had more and more unique playtesters. Not that the playtesters were all active. One reason you might have a unique playtester was that you forgot your playtester password and had to make up a new account because there was no password reset...

I didn't participate in the playtest, or the pre-release surveys; but they have said they got more unique survey responds over time, extending to the post-release surveys.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[MwaO]

Every edition of D&D suffers from this. One of the great lacks in the game across all editions is a forthright discussion of what is, what is expected and (most importantly) why, and the ramifications of adopting different parameters. Such dissuasions did take place in early Dragon, White Dwarf and similar mechanisms.

My point is 5e does not suffer from this because there was a forthright discussion of what is, why, and ramifications. It suffers from this because the forthright discussion that did happen wasn't actually implemented. And because that was never called out as not having happened, people assume it was implemented.

 

[Nagol]

This gets back to the bit I don't entirely get: 5e has manoeuvres et al (wizard spells with forced movement, battlemaster abilities, the much-vaunted "shove" attack, etc).

Is it, as [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] suggested upthread, about the quantity of these?

<snip>

For me, absolutely. With 4e, I could expect a tactical shuffle multiple times a round with required tracking all the riders and conditional effects of said movement. I get that many people enjoy the more fluid combat but it drives me nuts. 5e has more motion than pre-4e editions, but the sources of movement are more contained and has a smaller footprint of movement restrictions and triggered effects.

 

[Parmandur]

This gets back to the bit I don't entirely get: 5e has manoeuvres et al (wizard spells with forced movement, battlemaster abilities, the much-vaunted "shove" attack, etc).

Is it, as [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] suggested upthread, about the quantity of these?





My response to this is similar to [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]'s - there seems to be a tension between the first two posts and the latter three.

That is, if in fact the casters are "realisitically" more powerful than the fighters, then why is this not manifesting itself at the table? And if in fact what the fighters do is more effective, then in whay theoretical sense are the casters more powerful?

(Personally, and bracketing whether "realistic" is the right word, I think that knights in shining armour clearly are as powerful as Merlin from the story point of view - it is their exploits, not Merlin's, that determine the fate of the realm. Or, in LotR terms, it is Aragorn as much as Gandalf who makes the choices and performs the deeds that determine the outcome for Middle Earth. I like a RPG that can somehow capture this on the player side rather than making it a matter of GM behind-the-scenes manipulation.)

I acknowledge the paradox in those statements; a big part of it is feels, and potency versus actualization: the Wizard can cast Sleep, but my Champions sword is waaaaay more reliable (just watched a session of Acquisitions Inc. where Sleep failed to help, actually).

As to the former, yeah, quantity is part of it; verisimilitude, as well. Magic like Sleep is more narratively satisfying than "Come And Get It" or "Another Classes Version of Come And Get It."

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[Nagol]

My point is 5e does not suffer from this because there was a forthright discussion of what is, why, and ramifications. It suffers from this because the forthright discussion that did happen wasn't actually implemented. And because that was never called out as not having happened, people assume it was implemented.

Gotcha. I tend not to hold implementation variances from aspirational text (like L&L and pre-edition publications) against a product. There are often differences between what developers aspire to do and what hey manage to accomplish with limited time and money. That's why I focus of the discussions that don't happen in the edition text.

 

[MwaO]

I didn't participate in the playtest, or the pre-release surveys; but they have said they got more unique survey responds over time, extending to the post-release surveys.

Yes. Exactly. They're not claiming what you think they're claiming. They're claiming what I'm saying they're claiming. Honestly, they probably can't claim more survey respondents because their system wasn't setup to tell if a survey was the only one submitted by an individual.

Anyone makes up a new account. That's a unique survey respond...