D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[TwoSix]

What is interesting though is what had happened a few times in the past where a few of the very good GMs I run games for (of which I've witnessed their craft first-hand and can attest to their skill...so it isn't an intimidation thing) wanted to switch out and run games for the group but won't because they won't run a game for me! This is because I've basically exclusively GMed for 31 years. The hypothesis is that because of this, I have sort of programmed my mental framework to only be interested in inhabiting, and thus advocating for, multiple, disparate fronts/individuals/forces while gaming. Hence, I wouldn't be capable of maintaining interest in advocating for a singular player character for any length of time so they would be incapable of making a fun game for me. They may explain it differently, but this is my take on, in effect, what they've said.

Like I have some kind of GM personality disorder Anyone ever get that?

I would say I have a similar pattern of behavior, although my main group has everyone rotate turns DMing, so I don't have to worry about anyone's sudden refusal to DM me. I do tend to get bored quickly playing a single character, so I almost always play more generalist characters, with competencies both inside and outside combat. In 3.X systems, I also tend to play characters with animal companions/familiars/followers, so I also have more than one character to focus on. I also tend to advocate for conflict, so my characters also have a high attrition rate.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The hypothesis is that because of this, I have sort of programmed my mental framework to only be interested in inhabiting, and thus advocating for, multiple, disparate fronts/individuals/forces while gaming. Hence, I wouldn't be capable of maintaining interest in advocating for a singular player character for any length of time so they would be incapable of making a fun game for me. They may explain it differently, but this is my take on, in effect, what they've said.

Like I have some kind of GM personality disorder Anyone ever get that?

Not at all. I think all of my players have complete faith that I can immerse myself in just one character's mindset. And they've all stated that they like playing alongside me (save for my brother, since he's really never really had the opportunity).

 

[Manbearcat]

Dude, that's the first I've ever heard that! Now, I'd say I'm an 80/20 DM/Player, but I DO play some reasonable amount of the time, though I must admit to having 95% DMed 4e, which is a bit odd even for me. In any case, I think DMing for other DMs is usually pretty good. I mean that way I get players who are practiced at coming up with plots and motivations, generally know what sort of things make a DM's life easier, etc. I guess the worst I've run into is a few "I'm going to be lazy now" DM types that didn't want to pull their weight as players. Maybe they didn't have the best players? Maybe they're just not really cut out to BE players, I dunno. So I can see where maybe now and then a long-time DM doesn't make the greatest player, but I think its more likely they'll be pleasant players at least than when you get Joe random player, who may have any amount of craziness under the hood!

I'm on the DM side about 95% of the time. It's only in recent years that we've been playing such a variety of games that I've had the opportunity to play more often. Before that my play was mostly through organized play. This past year has been the one where I've had the opportunity to play the most. At this point I'm at about 70% DM and 30% player. I'm having a good time playing but DMing is definitely my first love.

I would say I have a similar pattern of behavior, although my main group has everyone rotate turns DMing, so I don't have to worry about anyone's sudden refusal to DM me. I do tend to get bored quickly playing a single character, so I almost always play more generalist characters, with competencies both inside and outside combat. In 3.X systems, I also tend to play characters with animal companions/familiars/followers, so I also have more than one character to focus on. I also tend to advocate for conflict, so my characters also have a high attrition rate.

Not at all. I think all of my players have complete faith that I can immerse myself in just one character's mindset. And they've all stated that they like playing alongside me (save for my brother, since he's really never really had the opportunity).

I certainly think I would be a creative, proactive player (not quite an instigator, but definitely pushing toward conflict like [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] mentioned above). I just wonder about "enduring" being solely a player for a several months-long (perhaps a year or more) campaign without finding my mind wandering toward the meta-aspects of play and/or needing lots and lots of varying stimulation. I would definitely need a focused game, that is for sure.

I've been a player in a few evenings worth of Cthulu and Dread games (by a very good horror GM), an evening of Dogs from one of my players that wanted to try their hand out at a single town/conflict, and a few dungeon crawls as a wizard and a cleric. Those were fun enough and I was certainly actively engaged mentally and emotionally (on behalf of my PC). I've just never done the extended play thing so I'm left wondering if my (GM) players are correct in that someone can become operatively conditioned from 30 + years of solely GMing such that they are incapable of "staying frosty" as a player in a long term game...that listlessness is inevitable.

I'll never find out, I'm sure, but it is a curious hypothesis.

 

[D'karr]

I've just never done the extended play thing so I'm left wondering if my (GM) players are correct in that someone can become operatively conditioned from 30 + years of solely GMing such that they are incapable of "staying frosty" as a player in a long term game...that listlessness is inevitable.

I'll never find out, I'm sure, but it is a curious hypothesis.

Even when I'm playing I'm always in the back of my mind thinking of aspects of the game from the DM perspective. It think that is inevitable. During our 3.x days usually other DMs were constantly asking me rules questions so I became the Rules 'Cyclopedia for those games so it was harder to keep my focus on my character and not the rules.

In our 4e games that has happened before but the rules are so simple that the other DMs have quickly caught on that they can answer the question for their game situation better than I. I try to steer them in that direction so I can sit back and enjoy myself. Another thing is that I completely remove myself from the other players' play. For example, from the DM perspective, I know that a particular tactic for a specific class can be very helpful in a certain instance. As a DM I usually mention it to the player so that they are aware, until they have caught on. As a player I simply keep my mouth shut. I immerse myself in my character only and let others do the same for their characters. I've even gotten to the point where when players are asking me questions I direct them to the existing DM. That way he can answer with a definitive answer of how he wants to do things.

I can't escape the facts/rules that I know, but I can make it so I'm not responsible for answering the questions.

 

[S'mon]

Yeah, rituals are a great thing, and I was REALLY annoyed that they borked it up in 5e. Its like jeeze, you can't get even one good thing right?

5e PCs can take the Ritualist feat as in 4e, though of course feats are rarer.
It's pretty easy in 5e to declare that NPC X is a Ritualist with rituals of whatever level you like (Raise
Dead?). And you can make some of the non-ritual spells into rituals if desired. So I don't think it's absolutely vital in 5e to have a caster in the group if the GM is accommodating. You can run it like 4e with minimal work.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

5e PCs can take the Ritualist feat as in 4e, though of course feats are rarer.
It's pretty easy in 5e to declare that NPC X is a Ritualist with rituals of whatever level you like (Raise
Dead?). And you can make some of the non-ritual spells into rituals if desired. So I don't think it's absolutely vital in 5e to have a caster in the group if the GM is accommodating. You can run it like 4e with minimal work.

Well, there's one big issue, which is that the ritual subsystem is doing double duty in 5e, and that compromises it. Rituals are first of all a mechanism by which casters can avoid both prepping rarely used spells and blowing slots to cast things that are part of their basic function, AND at the same time they're (sort of) a way to give non-casters access to certain basic utility magic. The two categories kinda overlap, but not very well.

The result is that many spells which should be rituals for the first purpose (things like hilariously Find Familiar) are NOT rituals because that would make them accessible to characters that the designers obviously felt shouldn't have access to them (sadly for mostly 'fluff' reasons, though often also for niche protection, which are both bad reasons IMHO).

5e's ritual system thus really isn't THAT successful. Its perhaps better than nothing, but it falls rather short of its 4e counterpart. Obviously if you simply state "the DM can house rule anything" then of course you can 'make it work', but that's pretty much exactly the opposite of '5e has a good ritual system', its more like it has a kinda not so good one that you can ignore a lot of.

I certainly in no way shape or form think that 5e's ritual system is as good as 4e's. Heck, if anything it isn't even as good in terms of level scaling and cost scaling as the 4e system, which was weak in that area. Honestly its hard to know for sure, since WotC has not bothered to label in the spell lists what is and isn't a ritual, or what its casting costs are exactly. Playing a wizard in 5e requires a LOT of homework, the books leave a lot to be desired organizationally.

 

[S'mon]

Well, there's one big issue, which is that the ritual subsystem is doing double duty in 5e, and that compromises it. Rituals are first of all a mechanism by which casters can avoid both prepping rarely used spells and blowing slots to cast things that are part of their basic function, AND at the same time they're (sort of) a way to give non-casters access to certain basic utility magic. The two categories kinda overlap, but not very well.

The result is that many spells which should be rituals for the first purpose (things like hilariously Find Familiar) are NOT rituals because that would make them accessible to characters that the designers obviously felt shouldn't have access to them (sadly for mostly 'fluff' reasons, though often also for niche protection, which are both bad reasons IMHO).

5e's ritual system thus really isn't THAT successful. Its perhaps better than nothing, but it falls rather short of its 4e counterpart. Obviously if you simply state "the DM can house rule anything" then of course you can 'make it work', but that's pretty much exactly the opposite of '5e has a good ritual system', its more like it has a kinda not so good one that you can ignore a lot of.

Interesting point about the double-duty. Makes sense that only dedicated casters get Find Familiar.
House Ruling - I think it's important to understand that ease of house ruling is highly variable by edition. Pre-4e gives NO support for non-caster-class ritualists. 3e/d20 is extremely hostile to house ruling overall, because the system is so fragile. 4e has the problem that house ruling unsupported by the charbuilder software won't be used by players, but is pretty robust at the GM end. 5e is designed to make house ruling extremely easy, more like pre-3e but also has some rudimentary mechanical support. If you hate house ruling per se then this strength of 5e won't be a factor, but I'm finding it quite significant. I'm currently running 4e, PF, Mentzer Classic, and 5e. The latter two play most alike and are quite different from the former two, being much more amenable to GM tinkering.

More on-topic: I like 4e Rituals and I let everyone use them without need for the Ritual Caster feat, but many are just laughably weak, and many are far too expensive. The number of genuinely useful ones is
pretty small.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Interesting point about the double-duty. Makes sense that only dedicated casters get Find Familiar.
House Ruling - I think it's important to understand that ease of house ruling is highly variable by edition. Pre-4e gives NO support for non-caster-class ritualists. 3e/d20 is extremely hostile to house ruling overall, because the system is so fragile. 4e has the problem that house ruling unsupported by the charbuilder software won't be used by players, but is pretty robust at the GM end. 5e is designed to make house ruling extremely easy, more like pre-3e but also has some rudimentary mechanical support. If you hate house ruling per se then this strength of 5e won't be a factor, but I'm finding it quite significant. I'm currently running 4e, PF, Mentzer Classic, and 5e. The latter two play most alike and are quite different from the former two, being much more amenable to GM tinkering.

More on-topic: I like 4e Rituals and I let everyone use them without need for the Ritual Caster feat, but many are just laughably weak, and many are far too expensive. The number of genuinely useful ones is
pretty small.

4e seems easy to tinker with to me. My experience is that players rarely ever want to tinker with stuff that goes on their character sheets, its a lot of work for them, though you will find a few players that will go that extra mile. So I didn't really find the existence of CB to be really inhibiting (in any case you simply don't have it in other editions, so its hardly a lack). As you say, 4e is very easy to hack on, on both sides, easier than any previous edition. Basic/BECMI is NOT easy IMHO because you have no unified system, nobody has a real notion of what the appropriate mechanics are for ANYTHING, it could be any arbitrary type of dice, possibly varying by class or race, etc. Its a zoo! 5e isn't so bad, but I don't personally see where it matches or exceeds 4e, which has a better keyword system, tighter skill system, and much more significant non-combat resolution systems as well as page 42.

 

[S'mon]

Basic/BECMI is NOT easy IMHO because you have no unified system, nobody has a real notion of what the appropriate mechanics are for ANYTHING, it could be any arbitrary type of dice, possibly varying by class or race, etc. Its a zoo!

If the answer can be anything, then the best answer is 'whatever works'. I'm finding BECM very easy to mod currently, though I think I'm helped a lot by experience of the later editions and their design considerations. Also that OD&D & Classic has some significant structure that was later lost, eg the class/level Attack/Save Tiers where Fighters have 3-level bands, Clerics & Thieves 4, M-Us 5. A lot can be hung on that. There is also the d6-roll-high task resolution system that almost became a unified mechanic, but was later lost.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If the answer can be anything, then the best answer is 'whatever works'. I'm finding BECM very easy to mod currently, though I think I'm helped a lot by experience of the later editions and their design considerations. Also that OD&D & Classic has some significant structure that was later lost, eg the class/level Attack/Save Tiers where Fighters have 3-level bands, Clerics & Thieves 4, M-Us 5. A lot can be hung on that. There is also the d6-roll-high task resolution system that almost became a unified mechanic, but was later lost.

Unified d20 mechanics stomp the heck out of any rather happenstancy patterns that exist in OD&D tables. OD&D and BECMI have a lot of weird and mostly random stuff in them. I'd hardly call any of it an incipient system (except the combat system, which is backwards and wonky, but after being 3e-ized did form the basis for everything else). I have no idea what d6 mechanic you mean. There are MANY divergent d6 mechanics in early editions. They include initiative, searching, random encounter checks, surprise, and no doubt a few others, many of which are only NOMINALLY d6, as they sometimes fairly arbitrarily switch to d8 etc.