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

[Garthanos]

the minute you give "examples" you create an expectation that players look to in every campaign, irregardless if a particular DM wants it in his game or not.

Allows one to have expectations about one can accomplish yup. Allows players to go from table to table knowing what their characters might be able to do yes.. Does not prevent the DM from presenting his own examples... now actually sort of requires it if he wants something different. You are emphasizing DM should be communicating this is one way

 

[Imaro]

Allows one to have expectations about one can accomplish yup. Allows players to go from table to table knowing what their characters might be able to do yes.. Does not prevent the DM from presenting his own examples... now actually sort of requires it if he wants something different. You are emphasizing DM should be communicating this is one way

But my table isn't the table you played at last week... I don't want or need the expectation that they will be run the same way set up. (EDIT: And 5e is very careful to make a point that players should not assume this in any way) Usually when there is an assumption it isn't discussed or even brought up because well that's what assumptions do... they cause people to assume.... and if I am bringing it up at every table to make sure it still applies well then what was the point of including it?

 

[Eric V]

The game not giving anything about what skills are capable of accomplishing seems a huge hole to be filled with handwaving

In the end though, this is true, and it's exactly what some/many people want. Some DMs want to be made to feel like their decisions cannot be wrong, and the rulebooks back that up. Some, especially those who game exclusively with friends, really like the idea of "gaming the DM" because everyone is buds around the table. Some just don't give a crap about the system at all and just want to hang out with people they like doing something they all find kinda fun; with fewer demands on rules knowledge and less demanding character creation and so forth, 5e fits that. So yeah, a system that basically just says "eh, figure it out" and the DM is like "Uh, I dunno....DC 15" works in those regards. After all, as people are pointing out, lots of people are playing the game.

For myself, I don't understand why buying a product that says "figure it out yourself" is a feature, but maybe I care too much about that. I assume professional game designers have more insight into how to run the game they've devised, and wish more of that insight had made its way in for some of these issues, but again, the expectation on my part may be what's wrong. It's just a more casual game in that regard. I suppose as long as the penalty for failing the arbitrary DC skill check isn't too egregious, it really doesn't matter.

 

[Garthanos]

So, this is why I keep wondering if there is the background assumption of the adversarial DM?

Because I want to have a game which gives me something about what characters can do when they arent casting a spell or hitting it with a sword?

 

[Parmandur]

In the end though, this is true, and it's exactly what some/many people want. Some DMs want to be made to feel like their decisions cannot be wrong, and the rulebooks back that up. Some, especially those who game exclusively with friends, really like the idea of "gaming the DM" because everyone is buds around the table. Some just don't give a crap about the system at all and just want to hang out with people they like doing something they all find kinda fun; with fewer demands on rules knowledge and less demanding character creation and so forth, 5e fits that. So yeah, a system that basically just says "eh, figure it out" and the DM is like "Uh, I dunno....DC 15" works in those regards. After all, as people are pointing out, lots of people are playing the game.

For myself, I don't understand why buying a product that says "figure it out yourself" is a feature, but maybe I care too much about that. I assume professional game designers have more insight into how to run the game they've devised, and wish more of that insight had made its way in for some of these issues, but again, the expectation on my part may be what's wrong. It's just a more casual game in that regard. I suppose as long as the penalty for failing the arbitrary DC skill check isn't too egregious, it really doesn't matter.

They do have insight, about the math elements of the system, and observations about how different elements work out in actual play. Hence why they settled on the free-form rules they did, with a robust and elegant action resolution model.

 

[Eric V]

They do have insight, about the math elements of the system, and observations about how different elements work out in actual play. Hence why they settled on the free-form rules they did, with a robust and elegant action resolution model.

You and I do not use the words "robust" or "elegant" in the same way, it seems.

Besides, it's just roll d20 + whatever to meet DC whatever...fine. The issue is "how do I determine the DC?" The answer given is "eh."

 

[Garthanos]

But my table isn't the table you played at last week... I don't want or need the expectation that they will be run the same way set up.

It means we now have specific questions to address it can even be seen as a guide about what you should be communicating and what the player might need to know about your game,

Personally I want you tell me no you cannot reduce the falling damage by use of your acrobatics skill until late paragon... I mean I know the caster can do it for the whole party at level one the book informed me of that

if you change that spell you will tell me you did so. Why wouldnt you just tell me about skill based things of the same sort?

 

[Imaro]

It means we now have specific questions to address it can even be seen as a guide about what you should be communicating and what the player might need to know about your game,

Personally I want you tell me no you cannot reduce the falling damage by use of your acrobatics skill until late paragon... I mean I know the caster can do it for the whole party at level one the book informed me of that

if you change that spell you will tell me you did so. Why wouldnt you just tell me about skill based things of the same sort?

Session zero

 

[Imaro]

The game not giving anything about what skills are capable of accomplishing seems a huge hole to be filled with handwaving

This isn't entirely true it gives a broad overview of what the skills cover... what it doesnt do is give specific DC's or go into minute detail.

 

[Parmandur]

You and I do not use the words "robust" or "elegant" in the same way, it seems.

Besides, it's just roll d20 + whatever to meet DC whatever...fine. The issue is "how do I determine the DC?" The answer given is "eh."

That last part is what makes it elegant: the way the math works on rolling the d20 is what makes it robust.