*Deleted by user*
With respect - perhaps you have forgotten that 5e was designed with not just whiners, but feedback from the largest playtest audience ever seen in tabletop RPGs?...and some changes between 4e and 5e really point to a compliance with those who whined rather than a legitimate exploration of possible future D&D derived of the games better elements.
Holy crap Amber????? I found that a very inspiring one back in the day played a lot of diceless D&D with some of its thinking under the hood.As I wrote, I have streamlined the game immensely by stripping away aspects of 5e, and incorporating bits from other RPGs (such as Amber)
The argument from popularity continues to not impress me. Any more than game designers who can actually publicly claim the action economy is not important for designers to pay attention to, that does not impress me.Also... you are arguing with success
Due to feedback from the players.The argument from popularity continues to not impress me. Any more than game designers who can actually publicly claim the action economy is not important for designers to pay attention to, that does not impress me.
Also yes I will still like what I like and think MANY cool elements with potential from 4e were given piss poor lip service and not developed in 5e or rewound into inferior forms (like rituals).
None of this says anything about what "should" be done its about what I like
And I also think even some of the most interesting aspects of the play test were kept in an undeveloped form instead of used as a direction to accomplish more with.
So there are two reasons why the "Trickle Down Genre Creep" wouldn't be an issue in 4e:Question... if non-paragon characters were able to achieve the necessary DC's would you let them succeed at the same tasks?
One more question is there a formal way laid out in the rules that prohibits non-paragon PC's from achieving paragon feats? If so what is it? If it's just DC's well @Garthanos made the argument that it's very possible for low level PC's to get extremely high skill bonuses when built for it. Assuming that's the case how do you avoid the "creep" @Manbearcat was speaking too?
Excuses like everything in the game was actually run through the players or as though play test questions are perfect at discovering things.Due to feedback from the players.
That's why they worked it for two years, to ensure they got as wide feedback as possible. And every survey got bigger, and bigger, so the net was cast wider over time.Excuses like everything in the game was actually run through the players or as though play test questions are perfect at discovering things.
Ever see how differently worded questions in polls result in seemingly diseparate results?
I was playing lost worlds with my brother when I first found Amber a lot of things came together ... the concept of generalized methods which were like tactics. Ie situationally better or worse depending on a roshambo combinations merging with some diceless rules like resources you could allocate really fired up my brain.And gradually grokking it, and then incorporating some of it back into my D&D after we had played it through a few times.
Hmmm... @Garthanos seemed to imply that the numbers to reach a paragon level of DC's wouldn't be all that hard for a heroic 4e character to reach...So there are two reasons why the "Trickle Down Genre Creep" wouldn't be an issue in 4e:
1) I've run about 95 levels of 4e play (including a pair of 1-30 games). In all of that time, I've never seen a PC who could deploy the action resolution numbers necessary to make the maths work in any meaningful way. There primary reason for this is opportunity cost. 4e rewards you for breadth when it comes to investing in Utility (you get a lot of bang for your back there), but there are comparatively steep diminishing returns for trying to invest in the y-axis and piling on Skill numbers. Further, over-investing there will lead to under-investing in combat returns. And 4e combat is by far the D&D combat with the most tactical depth and related punishing nature for not building toward engaging with that to a reasonable degree.
Ok... so DM force/choice/fiat/whatever doesn' allow the PC's to choose to interact with obstacles, threats, etc. that are higher then their tier...2) Conflict framing in 4e isn't neutral. The GMing ethos of 4e is about proportionate escalating threats and stakes as the game progresses. This is the fundamental machinery of the Tier system, the themes, the cosmology, and the PC build machinery which is centered around it.
You aren't framing Heroic PCs against Paragon/Epic Tier obstacles and threats and vice versa. A Heroic Tier PC is not going to run into a level 21 Threat/Obstacle. A Paragon Tier PC is not going to run into a level 1 Threat/Obstacle.
So the situation just doesn't come up.
It seems to me that the main element in either edition preventing the lower mythic character from doing the same feats as the higher mythic character is the DM not actual mechanics.This is the beating heart of the sort of Story Now/Step On Up pedal-to-the-floor action/adventure nature of 4e play.
Contrast with open world, serial exploration/hexcrawl play where the the magnitude upon play of theme/premise and conflict will vary wildly from moment to moment, from session to session.
5e is built to support the latter sort of play (which is "Classic D&D").
Even with your number 2 being the likely problem - I am tempted by bits of 5e, like inspiration and like the movement system seems like the Attunement subsystem. Those are swipeable and I may be totally able to bring to 4e. To be honest I am seeing things in PF2 I want to steal also related to skills.2. To the extent that you appreciate the elegance of the 4e system as a unified whole, then it will be difficult to attach on to the 5e superstructure.
I think that (actually fairly simple) idea caused a lot of consternation. What a threat/obstacle represented was relative to the PCs encountering it. That didn't mean that lower level threats 'disappeared' or leveled up with the PCs, it meant that how they were handled by the system changed to model the relative challenge they represented.You aren't framing Heroic PCs against Paragon/Epic Tier obstacles and threats and vice versa. A Heroic Tier PC is not going to run into a level 21 Threat/Obstacle. A Paragon Tier PC is not going to run into a level 1 Threat/Obstacle.
So the situation just doesn't come up.
Care to elaborate?So, again, I don't see what you're arguing? I look at your example, and if that is as freeform as 4e gets ... it doesn't seem that freeform.
No. A non-paragon dwarf isn't the toughtest dwarf around. This is why I think it's strictluy analogous to your example of the amphibious PC.Question... if non-paragon characters were able to achieve the necessary DC's would you let them succeed at the same tasks?
No. That's why I am saying that it is a freefrom mode of adjudication, based on the table's conception of the tiers of play.One more question is there a formal way laid out in the rules that prohibits non-paragon PC's from achieving paragon feats?
Fewer restrictions and assumed systems = more free in a formal sense.
So as I posted upthread, I don't see freeform as a synonym for GM decides or GM makes up whatever s/he wants and/or calls for whatever rolls s/he feels like. What I would see as paradigms of freeform systems would be HeroQuest revised and Maelstrom Storytelling. (Others have mentioned Fate but I'm less familiar with it.) Both these systems have PCs built around freely chosen natural language descriptors (much like Cthulhu Dark that I mentioned upthread). Both have very tight scene-resolution frameworks (similar to skill challenges in 4e) but I don't see that is at odds with them being freeform.Yep 5e just has less formal structure in general... which just goes to the point that many of us have been making about 5e.
I don't know what you mean by "parameters".I do find it weird that half the proponents for 4e seem to be arguing that unlike 5e it's a tightly integrated ruleset with clearly defined parameters and this is a plus... while the other half seem to be claiming it's just as freeform as 5e and it's parameters are no more locked down than 5e...
If it was subjective the DC would change depending on the character?/level?/... well something, in my example it doesn't change. Your inability to grasp that doesn't mean it isn't true.I'm still rather baffled how the DM determining that X is impossible unless the character is trained is somehow an "objective" DC. How does the DM determine that? Sure, it applies to everyone in the game world, but, that's not what objective means. It's an entirely subjective determination (whatever the DM feels is appropriate for his or her understanding of how difficult the task would be) that is simply applied generally.
That's not what objective means.
Because determining whether it's appropriate to roll and determining the DC are two different steps.So, again, if the DC is 25 for performing a task, what difference does it make how I achieve that DC? And, how can you claim that the DC is objective when it is gated behind a DM's determination?
Lol... The beauty is as long as the book states that the DM determines if a roll is appropriate or not before determining a DC... you can run your game in the world of Happy Days and I can run my game in a world where some kind of tool is necessary to pick locks and neither of us is having badwrongfun.In 5e, the only mechanical difference between trained and untrained is a +2-6 (7?) bonus to the ability check. Note, you never actually make a "skill check". You make an ability check that is modified by skills. There's a key difference there. How do I unlock a lock without lock picks? Fonzie Bump for the win. I achieved the appropriate DC (somehow) and the lock is open. Whether or not I'm trained shouldn't actually enter into it, not if the DC's are objective to the game world, rather than subjectively determined by the DM on an ad hoc basis dependent on the DM's understanding of genre convention.