D&D 4E Where was 4e headed before it was canned?

[Umbran]

I really think you are missing some fundamental points (from my perspective).

Let's try a slightly different approach. Why don't you explain to me, as if I was a slightly dumb golden retriever, what you think a freefrom style of play really means?

I'm going to suggest a point, which may or may not be what Garthanos is talking about....

4e, and 5e, have spaces where the rules do not strictly say what happens - the player and GM are allowed to figure it out. Whatever the player can convince the GM will work can work. So, instead of "playing by the rules" the player, 'plays by the GM" - learning the GM's personal style, and what the GM is willing to allow, or not, and how much oomph the result will have by intuition.

This is different than, for example, how FATE manages a similar issue - the rules do not in the same way say strictly what happens, but gives a definitive process for how it goes, and gives the player some idea of exactly what kind of bonus or oomph the result will have for a given investment of Fate Points to make a thing happen.

So, 4e and 5e have areas without rules, structures, or well-defined processes. FATE has a structure for resolving things the rules don't stipulate exactly.

Now, some players are fine with the "blue sky" approach, willing to push for anything in the hopes of it working out. Others, one may dare to say many, are not interested in investing effort when they don't know what the result is likely to be, and so will not engage with such gaps.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm going to suggest a point, which may or may not be what Garthanos is talking about....

4e, and 5e, have spaces where the rules do not strictly say what happens - the player and GM are allowed to figure it out. Whatever the player can convince the GM will work can work. So, instead of "playing by the rules" the player, 'plays by the GM" - learning the GM's personal style, and what the GM is willing to allow, or not, and how much oomph the result will have by intuition.

This is different than, for example, how FATE manages a similar issue - the rules do not in the same way say strictly what happens, but gives a definitive process for how it goes, and gives the player some idea of exactly what kind of bonus or oomph the result will have for a given investment of Fate Points to make a thing happen.

So, 4e and 5e have areas without rules, structures, or well-defined processes. FATE has a structure for resolving things the rules don't stipulate exactly.

Now, some players are fine with the "blue sky" approach, willing to push for anything in the hopes of it working out. Others, one may dare to say many, are not interested in investing effort when they don't know what the result is likely to be, and so will not engage with such gaps.

Not knowing what the result will be can be part of the fun.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ratskinner]

There are Inspiration points in 5E, and the elegance of the system does encourage out of the box thinking.

I think I would rather say that it doesn't do anything to particularly discourage OOTB thinking. Perhaps a fine line, but compared to a game like Fate, wherein you can rely on the results of such thinking, the in-play results become obvious.

Of course, if your D&D is working fine that way for you, then there's no benefit. Which can be highly dependent on the group you're playing with.

 

[Parmandur]

I think I would rather say that it doesn't do anything to particularly discourage OOTB thinking. Perhaps a fine line, but compared to a game like Fate, wherein you can rely on the results of such thinking, the in-play results become obvious.

Of course, if your D&D is working fine that way for you, then there's no benefit. Which can be highly dependent on the group you're playing with.

I'd say RPGs are always dependent on the group that you are playing with, really.

 

[Ratskinner]

So, 4e and 5e have areas without rules, structures, or well-defined processes. FATE has a structure for resolving things the rules don't stipulate exactly.

This is what I was talking about upthread. Having that structure allows for a freeform game that is much more flexible and reliable than the list-games like D&D. Additionally, it creates a level of balance (all methods have access to the same methods) that I think is really hard to obtain in D&D and similar games.

 

[Garthanos]

Of course, I either play with friends that I've played with for a long time, or I teach kids (who tend to be fun, enthusiastic, and not so caught up in the whole "I need everything specified for me").

Adults - > I need everything to be "realistic"

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Garthanos]

Yeah, I don't understand this at all; but I also don't get the a priori assumption of the adversarial relationship with the DM.

Back in the day I saw players who said that they wouldn't tell the DMs what their characters family were like or other details for fear "the DM would use them against me" to quote this person NOW that was something I didnt understand.

Negotiations where you invest in an actions success with an in game resource is like spending spell points or healing surges ... or taking a risk of experiencing fatigue or some form of snap back because you did something extreme.

This is two different things - conflating them is a bit hostile in my opinion