TheRPGSite

I've mentioned earlier that 4e was when I became a serious TTRPG gamer.

> 4e
> serious
> lolwut

Haha, seriously. Before then, I'd only occasionally joined a session or two of D&D when invited. With 4e, some friends and I started gaming weekly, buying stacks of book, devising our own campaign worlds, etc. Of course, it also caused a huge fooferaw that I only became aware of a couple years into it, but mostly stayed out of. Now that it doesn't generate as much NEEERRRRRD RRRRAAAAAGE and I haven't played it in a while, I thought it might be a good idea look back at it dispassionately.

With 4e, WotC learned a big, super-serious lesson about brand identity and customer expectations. For what was essentially a new game from the ground up, 4e was pretty solid out of the gate. Not perfect, but solid. You could play from 1st to 30th level, and the wheels would never really fly off the system, although high-level combat would bog down. But the fact is, it doesn't matter how many boxes you check off on anyone's list of "good design," customers have certain expectations from an established brand, and you had better damn well meet them. It is pretty obvious 4e didn't meet most customers' expectations, while 3.x, for all its design flaws, mostly did. I feel like 5e goes back and attacks many of the same problems 4e did, but within the parameters that it has got to deliver what people expect out of D&D.

I also think that WotC finally learned its lesson about milking people's wallets via supplements. Early on, they alluded Monster Manual 5(!!!), and it seems pretty clear that each MM was to be themed around a different evil deity for endless money absorption. By the time I'd accumulated 3 PHBs, 3 powers books, 2 monster manuals, Open Grave, a really shitty Heroes of the Elemental Chaos book, and two monster manuals, it was pretty clear that Dollars Spent Per Pages Used was going unacceptably high. On top of that, I was paying 75 bucks a year to use a really crappy Silverlight app to generate character sheets, which were irritatingly complicated.

They seem to have learned to stop killing editions with expansions...finally. Anyway, I could write a lot more retrospective on 4e, but thought I'd shut up and give someone else the floor. Next post will probably be what I thought was positive.

There were parts about 4e that I liked (I really like the vibe of minions - front-loaded HP, and a few other tidbits), but the biggest thing for me was the symmetry of the game, such as how classes' Powers structure made most fights feel very similar.

Balance is a good thing in a TTRPG, and symmetry between characters is the easiest way to do it.  (Not that it was perfectly symmetrical.)  But... symmetry is also the most boring way to balance - especially in a co-op game.  Moreso in a game such as a TTRPG which you expect to play for long periods of time.

In my opinion, much worse than the symmetry of class design was the symmetry of foes.  All of their defenses would be within a few points, and rarely did they have off-the-wall tricks which were what made them scary.  In my opinion, the variety of the monsters is a lot of the secret to D&D's success over the years.  It inherently adds variety to play, as even a mediocre DM will pull out different monsters and tactics, especially as you level.

In addition - the two-dozen sourcebook thing works best if, like 3e, there is a lot of customization for characters so that players feel there will be something cool to use in each book.  (Though that's as much a business critique as an edition one.)

Everyone I knew who was really into 4e was either a hardcore math nerd/baseball stat-cruncher or an actual diagnosed high-functioning autistic.

No joke or insult intended. Dead serious. Make of this what you will for good or ill.

I love 4e, but my fav iteration is the Gamma World game. Even players who burnt on 4e are happy to join up for my GW stuff. They keep asking for me to do a fantasy conversion.

I need to check out the 4e retroclones that are floating around the web.

My friends who loved 4e have mostly migrated to 13th Age. I've played enough to like the system, but I haven't run it yet.

Quote from: Spinachcat;963214I love 4e, but my fav iteration is the Gamma World game. Even players who burnt on 4e are happy to join up for my GW stuff. They keep asking for me to do a fantasy conversion.

Yes. Everyone I've met who disliked 4e has stated that they liked how 4e D&D GW streamlined the system. They also universally detested the so-called Gamma World setting that was in name only.

Quote from: Spinachcat;963214My friends who loved 4e have mostly migrated to 13th Age. I've played enough to like the system, but I haven't run it yet.

I've heard similar stories from a lot of people. I was not a huge fan of 4e, but even I think 13th Age is a solid game and does what 4e did, only better. The way it handles monsters alone is enough to make it a lot easier for the GM to handle. The way it spreads out stat calculations is something I think D&D should have learned from, too.

I wasn't on the roleplaying scene at the time so I missed all of 3rd and 4th and was only even aware there had been a 3rd and 4th edition maybe three or four years ago as I was never a big D&D player way back when and when I came back to RPGs I wasn't interested in D&D any more than I was before. I remember being somewhat surprised to learn D&D was no longer owned by TSR. So, I've never actually seen a copy of 3rd or 4th edition D&D (or 5th for that matter). I hear lots of nasty remarks about the 4th edition. To the point that it appears everyone was forced to play it in gulags and had their older editions stripped out of their libraries.

Quote from: Dumarest;963222To the point that it appears everyone was forced to play it in gulags and had their older editions stripped out of their libraries.

We were.  

It was terrible.

"Mark those enemies" they said!  But I wanted to play a charger paladin who focused on dueling.  Not in THEIR game I wouldn't!  Only when there were solo enemies - and those took so many rounds to play...

Sometimes I still have flashbacks of magic missiles missing their targets.  *shudder*

There is one core idea in 4E that really clicked with me when I first heard it, and I remain convinced that it could work really well if cooked into a better edition: The notion that all classes have capacities that function more or less like spells: they are a limited resource of special actions or abilities, and as you advance in level you get access to more and better ones, and can use them more frequently. If this idea had been merged with 1E, and implemented in a way that respected the power balance of the game, and not wandered down the shitty road of garbage-bin feats we walked down for most of the last 20 years, it could be awesome. I feel like I could write an OSR game with this included and you'd end up with something fun and in keeping with the traditions of the game.

On the down side, 4E was just fucking slow to play, so it turned into a death march of combat after combat. It is ironic that youngsters often criticize old D&D dungeon craws as being one boring fight after another when the reality was you'd spend maybe 10-25 % of the night resolving fights (because they were super quick) and the rest of it role playing, exploring, goofing off, etc. In my experience, a standard 4E fight would last 2 hours, and at no point in that time were any player characters seriously in danger of dying. I found it to be a huge turn off.

Quote from: Omega;963218Yes. Everyone I've met who disliked 4e has stated that they liked how 4e D&D GW streamlined the system. They also universally detested the so-called Gamma World setting that was in name only.

The "setting" for the new GW is threadbare. It begins with an okay premise (the Hadron supercollider causes all possible Earths to slam together and mix up) and then its basically just a combat boardgame unless the GM takes the initiative to create a coherent world. It went too gonzo in chargen, but the monsters were mostly well done and the streamlined and deadlier system made combat faster.

I reigned in chargen with some world design (literally just an afternoon) and I've found it very enjoyable. For me, it scratches my itch for a RPG / skirmish boardgame hybrid. I have plenty of other post-apoc RPGs for my other needs.

There have been a few attempts over the decades to create a "Very casual" RPG, something halfway between a board/minis game and an RPG, a party game that would give you an RPG-like experience without a lot of GM prep, rulebooks, etc.

I got to play the 4e Gamma World twice and felt it was the closest anyone ever came. It was a blast even with a mediocre GM. Really underrated product line. Shame WotC didn't pursue it (Or similar projects in different genres, like maybe a rebooted Gangbusters or Boot Hill with the same approach) farther.

4E was the first edition where I ended up having too many players to handle: before that it was difficult to find players looking for a 3E game, and when I did it was rare that they would stick around.

I did like that it was easy to houserule (I did the half-hp thing, then did the "somewhere between half and one-third hp" thing because it could still be grindy, also modded monsters to not assume magic items and leveled up the party whenever) and seemed to work at any given level. Even monsters like dragons and demons were easy to run without referencing other books.

I've actually almost completed something that started as a 4E retroclone (really just wrapping up a bit of GM advice), then veered off and I guess ended up more like (in someone else's words) B/X or Rules Cyclopedia.

4e just never really became a thing in my area. Across all the FLGSes and gaming haunts in my area I recall hearing of two 4e groups. Everyone either switched to Pathfinder or kept on playing 3rd.

4e is still my favorite edition to DM and play. 5e does some interesting things and the adventures are solid but its missing that certain....something.

In 4e you could play without someone being the dedicated healer. You didnt need magic in your campaign if you didn't want it. Playing monsters, such as werewolves or vampires, was easily done without the necessary complications of level adjustment. Combat, for us, was about thr same as it was in our 3e games so I never got what all that fuss was about?

Quote from: Larsdangly;963229There is one core idea in 4E that really clicked with me when I first heard it, and I remain convinced that it could work really well if cooked into a better edition: The notion that all classes have capacities that function more or less like spells...

I have to confess that this was one of the things that really turned me off to 4E. I felt like magic was no longer special, since everyone could do it. Oh, I know that some of the "spells" and "magic" were just fighter moves, but they all felt like spells.

I enjoyed a lot of the concept of 4E -- the fact that they were reorganizing things and streamlining somewhat from 3E was a real plus -- but somehow 4E never really caught on with my group. I had this huge mountain of 4E rulebooks and no players.

Quote from: finarvyn;963269I have to confess that this was one of the things that really turned me off to 4E. I felt like magic was no longer special, since everyone could do it. Oh, I know that some of the "spells" and "magic" were just fighter moves, but they all felt like spells.

I enjoyed a lot of the concept of 4E -- the fact that they were reorganizing things and streamlining somewhat from 3E was a real plus -- but somehow 4E never really caught on with my group. I had this huge mountain of 4E rulebooks and no players.

I think the weakness you point to is a result of how the implemented the idea, not anything intrinsic to the notion of level-based 'slots' for non magical characters. A major goal of 4E's design is to flatten the combat powers of all classes, so basically everyone has a path to achieving a similar balance of offensive and defensive capacity in a fight, and has something to do in a fight most rounds. This was a terrible choice, and then it was compounded by the drab choices they made designing the list of feats, very few of which are interesting. What I think could have worked would have been to keep the class roles and power balance as they were in 1E or 2E, but fold in the idea that fighters and thieves (and their sub classes) have level based slots to do things associated with their class. e.g., this mechanic could be used as the way you implement extra attacks for fighters, or thieves lock picking abilities and so forth.

I just started a new 4e campaign - will be sticking to Heroic Tier this time (maybe a bit of Paragon) not like my last 1-29 5.5-year epic.

Gamma World 4e - nice game, went a bit too gonzo in places with eg the ever-changing mutations deck and the heal-all-every-fight. Looks like it could easily be tweaked though, and the basic idea is very good. Monsters are notably well done.

Overall I loved 4e's Powers approach, giving Martial PCs cool things to do. There are some issues with excessive fiddliness and players having to explain to GM what is happening, rather than vice-versa as in normal D&D.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;963197Everyone I knew who was really into 4e was either a hardcore math nerd/baseball stat-cruncher or an actual diagnosed high-functioning autistic.

No joke or insult intended. Dead serious. Make of this what you will for good or ill.

That's not true, I uh...played...4e...with...uh...the other guys in my math PhD program.

Nevermind.

D&D 4e was brilliant in presented a RPG with a detailed combat system that was easy to learn. But it wasn't D&D which proved to be it downfall. The adventures up into the Esstentials reset were combat scenarios with a some plot and roleplaying as window dressing. This extended to the organized play material as well. Organized play material so cookie cutter that I quickly learn the beats of how one worked.

• Start off with a little bit of roleplaying to set the scenario
• First combat encounter lasting for a hour or hour and a half
• A little bit more roleplaying
• The second and more elaborate combat encounter filling up all but the last 15 minutes of the time slot.
• The concluding bit of roleplaying.

Also D&D 4e was interesting in that combat took as long to resolve as GURPS. Mainly due to the ease of being healed. So it took a while to crater the hit points of one side or the other.

In D&D 4e's defense if you ignore the modules and organized play the core books supported traditional campaigns and roleplaying as well as any other RPG or edition of D&D. A good deal D&D 4e trouble are a result of what Wizard choose to do with it rather than some major flaw with the system. That in combination with the fact that its mechanics were not rooted in a prior edition of D&D is what lead it to its downfall.

I really liked some of the ideas behind 4e monster design. The Minion/Lurker/Skirmisher/Soldier/Brute/Artillery structure made it pretty easy to put together a combat with interesting tactical situations coming up. You didn't have to put in work to make 8 goblins an interesting encounter. Four minions, two blackblades, and two sharpshooters are going to give you more out of the box than just "eight little dudes with the same hp and attack/damage" in earlier editions. Obviously, you can modify monsters to your heart's content in any edition, but I found it more convenient to have them already written up; that's why I buy monster manuals in the first place.

Some of that is still around. Most monsters in 5e have at least one interesting twist beyond "has hit points as does attacks," but there are rarely sub-types within a species.

Quote from: estar;963287D&D 4e was brilliant in presented a RPG with a detailed combat system that was easy to learn. But it wasn't D&D which proved to be it downfall. The adventures up into the Esstentials reset were combat scenarios with a some plot and roleplaying as window dressing. This extended to the organized play material as well. Organized play material so cookie cutter that I quickly learn the beats of how one worked.

• Start off with a little bit of roleplaying to set the scenario
• First combat encounter lasting for a hour or hour and a half
• A little bit more roleplaying
• The second and more elaborate combat encounter filling up all but the last 15 minutes of the time slot.
• The concluding bit of roleplaying.

Also D&D 4e was interesting in that combat took as long to resolve as GURPS. Mainly due to the ease of being healed. So it took a while to crater the hit points of one side or the other.

In D&D 4e's defense if you ignore the modules and organized play the core books supported traditional campaigns and roleplaying as well as any other RPG or edition of D&D. A good deal D&D 4e trouble are a result of what Wizard choose to do with it rather than some major flaw with the system. That in combination with the fact that its mechanics were not rooted in a prior edition of D&D is what lead it to its downfall.

I agree with that. It's even possible to have fast combats in 4e - you just can't have fast combats that threaten to TPK the party. In my new game I lowered the healing surge recovery rate to 1/4 per day (1/3 in town) which has been a huge improvement. It raises the spectre of attrition and allows for quick fights that gradually wear down the PCs.

Quote from: Spinachcat;963235The "setting" for the new GW is threadbare. It begins with an okay premise (the Hadron supercollider causes all possible Earths to slam together and mix up) and then its basically just a combat boardgame unless the GM takes the initiative to create a coherent world. It went too gonzo in chargen, but the monsters were mostly well done and the streamlined and deadlier system made combat faster.

"Its the Year Ten Monkey Slap Slap" or something like that and some other elements. It calls back to 4e GW and the Mutant Cannibal Biker Librarians and the Bi-Polar Bear etc from the EQ book. The main problem though is the schizo nature of the thing. Pretty much you have three different ideas of what the game was as if none of the developers were talking to eachother. The "Wacky World" slapstick setting which the designers really pushed, the relatively serious standard GW setting and the "Circus Freaks" look. Combined with the CCG needed to get the rest of the mutations and equipment.

Its a mess. But a well written mess. And yeah encounters are plotted out like a board game. But thats between the general exploration and adventuring. YMMV on that since WOTC was still pushing the board game aspects. But then GW has allways been a very hostile setting, moreso than Dark sun in some ways. Combat does tend to happen alot. d20 GW for all its problems at least took it in a different direction and put alot more emphasis on interactions. Though some of that devolved down to literal social combat. Which makes sense in context.

All said though it does 4e D&D well and the one time I DMed it was ok. But yeah even the players unfamilliar with 4e commented on the heavy board game feel whenever combat broke out. But we also played one encounter without the map and pogs and it flowed along well enough.

Id like to see more of 4e D&D to get a feel of what they really changed and streamlined.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;963237There have been a few attempts over the decades to create a "Very casual" RPG, something halfway between a board/minis game and an RPG, a party game that would give you an RPG-like experience without a lot of GM prep, rulebooks, etc.

I got to play the 4e Gamma World twice and felt it was the closest anyone ever came. It was a blast even with a mediocre GM. Really underrated product line. Shame WotC didn't pursue it (Or similar projects in different genres, like maybe a rebooted Gangbusters or Boot Hill with the same approach) farther.

I have seen one or two comments that it could, or even should have been produced as a board game akin to HeroQuest or Dragon Strike. Or merged with HeroScape like they did D&D.

The trouble (for me) with 4E as a tactical combat board game is that it isn't as good as other games built for just this purpose. The Fantasy Trip or Man-to-Man (proto GURPS) are cheap, exciting, fast-playing and arguably richer tactical games than 4E. So, this edition just fell between the rpg/board game stools, as I see it.

Quote from: estar;963287But it wasn't D&D which proved to be it downfall.

This is a common problem with any product. For some reason the developers decide to prop the system up with a known IP rather than let it be its own thing. And then wonder why its met with a cold or negative reception.

Quote from: Omega;963326This is a common problem with any product. For some reason the developers decide to prop the system up with a known IP rather than let it be its own thing. And then wonder why its met with a cold or negative reception.

I think this is spot on.

If someone told me - WotC made this cool skirmish-game and presented what is 4e. I'd probably have liked it a lot more. Due to my other gaming habits (tabletop and otherwise) 4e never clicked for me as "D&D".

It also was the point where I recognized my lifelong affair with D&D had essentially ended. The game went off in a totally different direction - and I, personally, was looking at other games and systems, and my own tastes were changing. 5e didn't really reconcile that gap for me either.

I don't get about 4e is the 'it wasn't D&D'.  Yes, it was.  It has all the things that makes D&D unique:  The Six Stats, Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, it has attribute bonuses tied to each of them.  It has Saving Throws.  It has Hit Points.  It has Armour Class.  Each of it's 'spells' are an exclusionary block of rules that don't interact with the basic system in any way.  It IS D&D.

It was also in retaliation to what people complained a lot of the time in D&D, Caster Supremacy.

One thing that I find amusing is how WoTC didn't see that what players say they want ISN'T what they really want.  The savage backlash that The Book of Nine Swords got when it came out should have been clue enough.  No matter how much people complain about how magic dominates, the moment you try and raise up any other non-caster to the same level as the Cleric or Wizard/Magic User you get an immediate push back.  Casters are the Gods of D&D and anyone who DARES upset that balance MUST burn in hell for blasphemy.  Paizo's forums at the time of Pathfinder's rise to prominence should have also been a clue.

Quote from: Omega;963326This is a common problem with any product. For some reason the developers decide to prop the system up with a known IP rather than let it be its own thing. And then wonder why its met with a cold or negative reception.

It's a really common issue with creatives. Most people don't really want to make minor iterations on someone else's design; they want to make their mark. They have their own ideas about what's best and are sure consumers will see it their way. And if the consumers don't? Well, it's the consumers who are wrong! Look at how over at Nintendo, Miyamoto's been relentless in trying to make 3D Mario games sell to people who just like the 2D game, to the point of shipping Galaxy 2 with an instructional DVD. Guy's got his vision, customers aren't buying it, and he's sure it's because he just hasn't gotten the message across.

Still flooring the gas pedal... :cool: Still visible, not yet far enough for me.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963336I don't get about 4e is the 'it wasn't D&D'.  Yes, it was.  It has all the things that makes D&D unique:  The Six Stats, Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, it has attribute bonuses tied to each of them.  It has Saving Throws.  It has Hit Points.  It has Armour Class.  Each of it's 'spells' are an exclusionary block of rules that don't interact with the basic system in any way.  It IS D&D.

It was also in retaliation to what people complained a lot of the time in D&D, Caster Supremacy.

Yes to all of these things. Here's the issue - there is some nuance to how all these things are expressed at the table. To the degree that 4e diverges from what I, and apparently many others, felt about how these elements are mechanically expressed at the table - didn't feel like D&D. shrug.

I found 4e was so... formulaic? - it was those elements packed into a skirmish game. Which is my problem with it.

I've talked about Caster Supremacy many times in many threads around here. I don't think the answer to this issue in D&D is to handle it the way 4e handled it. I think they opted for a very closed system that essentially blurred too many assumed lines by class role. That by itself is not the total issue. I think it overall also expressed itself as a very watered down experience imo. There are ways to skin that cat without sacrificing the power-level of casters. The problem to me has never been that casters are too powerful. It's that in light of casters, non-casters, for the assumed form of play in D&D post-1e aren't powerful enough. /shrug. That's just my opinion of course.

Sure you could RP in 4e. But there is nothing specific that lends itself by implication mechanically to do so. It clearly is pushing combat-as-game. Let's not beat around the bush. That combat experience felt precisely what others have mentioned - like a skirmish-game. I would also say I had similar issues with 3e/PF - but less so than 4e.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963336One thing that I find amusing is how WoTC didn't see that what players say they want ISN'T what they really want.  The savage backlash that The Book of Nine Swords got when it came out should have been clue enough.  No matter how much people complain about how magic dominates, the moment you try and raise up any other non-caster to the same level as the Cleric or Wizard/Magic User you get an immediate push back.  Casters are the Gods of D&D and anyone who DARES upset that balance MUST burn in hell for blasphemy.  Paizo's forums at the time of Pathfinder's rise to prominence should have also been a clue.

I'll say this. I've been mulling this over. I think you might be right. However, my opinion that this cat could be skinned - is based only on one source: Fantasycraft. It happens to be the d20 system that actually raises non-casters to that level of caster-effectiveness (relatively) that satisfies my needs as a resolution to this issue. Nine-swords make casters out of non-casters which is not exactly the same thing as I like - but it certainly has its place. What I find amusing is how when dealing with this issue the only resolution seems to be to give magical powerz to non-casters as if that fixes things. When in reality I think what is needed is to increase power and options for non-casters so that the overall effect of non-casters takes similar stature. What people always griped about in 3e was casters ending fights with a single cast. So too should non-casters if given the right circumstances.

Fantasycraft did this very well by raising others up. 4e did it mechanically by watering things down.

4e in the Rearview Mirror...step on the gas.

Quote from: estar;963287But it wasn't D&D which proved to be it downfall.

Exactly.  It sorta looked like D&D, but it worked very differently, even when using the same labels.  That and it completely demolished the charop game (in comparison to 3e) and didn't pretend to be a "you can do everything" game, guaranteed that it lost a lot of 3e fans.

Quote from: estar;963287In D&D 4e's defense if you ignore the modules and organized play the core books supported traditional campaigns and roleplaying as well as any other RPG or edition of D&D.

I never played the official stuff, and I wasn't a 3e fan, which might explain why I didn't mind it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963336I don't get about 4e is the 'it wasn't D&D'.  Yes, it was.  It has all the things that makes D&D unique:  The Six Stats, Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, it has attribute bonuses tied to each of them.  It has Saving Throws.  It has Hit Points.  It has Armour Class.  Each of it's 'spells' are an exclusionary block of rules that don't interact with the basic system in any way.  It IS D&D.

Except that all of those things were either redefined or were on totally different scales.... wait...

Quote from: Justin Alexander;963345Just naming something "Hit Points" or "saving throw" isn't enough when you fundamentally rewrite the mechanics underlying those labels.

Yeah, that.

When "saving throws" are now something you do when you've been knocked unconscious, then they're no longer "saving throws" in the classic sense and are now something totally different - keeping the name actually makes it *worse* because when you having something called a "saving throw", people expect it to work like the thing they know as a "saving throw".

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963336I don't get about 4e is the 'it wasn't D&D'.  Yes, it was.  It has all the things that makes D&D unique:  The Six Stats, Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, it has attribute bonuses tied to each of them.  It has Saving Throws.  It has Hit Points.  It has Armour Class.  Each of it's 'spells' are an exclusionary block of rules that don't interact with the basic system in any way.  It IS D&D.

It was also in retaliation to what people complained a lot of the time in D&D, Caster Supremacy.

One thing that I find amusing is how WoTC didn't see that what players say they want ISN'T what they really want.  The savage backlash that The Book of Nine Swords got when it came out should have been clue enough.  No matter how much people complain about how magic dominates, the moment you try and raise up any other non-caster to the same level as the Cleric or Wizard/Magic User you get an immediate push back.  Casters are the Gods of D&D and anyone who DARES upset that balance MUST burn in hell for blasphemy.  Paizo's forums at the time of Pathfinder's rise to prominence should have also been a clue.

The problem is, WotC decided to...
1. Remove practically every single restriction on spellcasters from AD&D1
2. Give spellcasters a new set of summoning spells to give them melee OOMPH without using spell slots.
3. Act surprised when this led to LFQW
4. Think the "fix" was to make everyone a caster/superhero with the exact same types of damage powers, skinned from sources of Power like Primal, Testosterone, whatever.

The real answer was to simply roll back the idiocy.  But, the 3/3.5 caster players would have shit their livers.

5e's somewhat better, but it's still the wrong fix.  They now neutered the fuck out of the spellcasting abilities of casters, without instituting any of the sane restrictions from 1e and made them superheros with Pew-Pew cantrips to supplement damage output.  Instead of making all non-casters casters, they're moving casters towards non-casters.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963336I don't get about 4e is the 'it wasn't D&D'.  Yes, it was.  It has all the things that makes D&D unique:  The Six Stats, Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, it has attribute bonuses tied to each of them.  It has Saving Throws.  It has Hit Points.  It has Armour Class.  Each of it's 'spells' are an exclusionary block of rules that don't interact with the basic system in any way.  It IS D&D.

The '4e isn't D&D line' is all about feel, and no one gets a vote in how someone else feels. In other words, their argument doesn't really mean anything, but therefore it is unassailable. Either way, it doesn't matter. The people you would have to have made this argument to (that their argument didn't make sense) weren't the ones on the forums (who clearly were already lost causes) but who simply wandered off and found other things to do (be they other RPGs, no RPGs, or 3.5/PF).

QuoteIt was also in retaliation to what people complained a lot of the time in D&D, Caster Supremacy.

One thing that I find amusing is how WoTC didn't see that what players say they want ISN'T what they really want.  The savage backlash that The Book of Nine Swords got when it came out should have been clue enough.  No matter how much people complain about how magic dominates, the moment you try and raise up any other non-caster to the same level as the Cleric or Wizard/Magic User you get an immediate push back.  Casters are the Gods of D&D and anyone who DARES upset that balance MUST burn in hell for blasphemy.  Paizo's forums at the time of Pathfinder's rise to prominence should have also been a clue.

I saw some pretty strong abuse going the other direction as well. There were a lot of people in 2006-2008 that just couldn't understand how anyone could like that 'horrible' and 'unbalanced' 3rd edition (or TSR/OSR games) and were just as abusive. Likewise, 3e was often derided as the edition which was horrible because it made wizards so good (so, in one edition, the designers do make wizards like gods, and they get called everything from stupid to satan's eviler sibling; and in the next edition the designers make wizards roughly equal to everyone else and they get called everything from stupid to satan's eviler sibling). So when people ask, who is it that really got it unfairly during the great 3e/4e debates, my answer is always "the Mods."


To the OP. Yeah. 4e was never actually a bad game in any real way. You might say it was a bad product, since the buying public gets to decide that. It just hit the market at the wrong time, with the wrong things focused upon, making the wrong statements, and with the wrong baggage.

Scaling skill rolls just irked the shit outta me. Well, along with the incredible slog of combat.

Quote from: tenbones;963349I'll say this. I've been mulling this over. I think you might be right. However, my opinion that this cat could be skinned - is based only on one source: Fantasycraft. It happens to be the d20 system that actually raises non-casters to that level of caster-effectiveness (relatively) that satisfies my needs as a resolution to this issue. Nine-swords make casters out of non-casters which is not exactly the same thing as I like - but it certainly has its place. What I find amusing is how when dealing with this issue the only resolution seems to be to give magical powerz to non-casters as if that fixes things. When in reality I think what is needed is to increase power and options for non-casters so that the overall effect of non-casters takes similar stature. What people always griped about in 3e was casters ending fights with a single cast. So too should non-casters if given the right circumstances.

Fantasycraft did this very well by raising others up. 4e did it mechanically by watering things down.

The thing is about lifting the non-caster to caster level is because the magic system is inherently superiour.  Each single spell operates within it's own special rules, often only interacting with a Saving Throw, but bypassing a lot of restrictions that other mechanics have.  There's no 'swing' that an attack roll gets, often bypassing damage all together for an effect.  Now 5e, changed that, but for the most part in the older editions, it was this way.

And here's the thing about 'magical powers', when you have literary sources in which you have non-casters able to do incredible feats like St. George and The Dragon, Beowulf, Finn Mac Cool, why do players of D&D balk when others want to do similar stuff, but not be wizards or clerics?

I liked the tactical elements, but hated the complete emphasis of it. AEDU didn't bother me much, but it does kind of make the characters all "samey." The Essentials stuff was a nice change of pace. As the edition went on, the books got more interesting.

I hated the online character builder, but used it just like everyone else, that is until I started buying books and doing it the old fashioned pencil and paper style. The Char Builder was stupid easy, had no soul, and just dumb for a company trying to make money in publishing.

I liked the revamp of the the multiverse and various monster lore. The new Forgotten Realms didn't bother me at all. The Dark Sun book is pretty cool.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963336I don't get about 4e is the 'it wasn't D&D'.  Yes, it was.  It has all the things that makes D&D unique:  The Six Stats, Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, it has attribute bonuses tied to each of them.  It has Saving Throws.  It has Hit Points.  It has Armour Class.  Each of it's 'spells' are an exclusionary block of rules that don't interact with the basic system in any way.  It IS D&D.

You forgot about Class and Level. The problem with your thesis is that everything you mention plus the overall concept of class and level is fully explained in two letter sized page. And yes it is largely the same. It the other 319 pages that is problematic and makes it not D&D. Hit Points, Armor Class, Attributes, Class, Saving Throw and Level are used in unique ways not found in previous editions. Not just in additions like feats were in 3e, but the whole system underlying those concepts you mentioned.

The prime piece of evidence is the length of low level combat which took a considerable amount of time resolve compare to 3e and classic editions. The game was fundamentally changed in ways that didn't happen with 3e or later 5e.

I dunno, I think 3e was a pretty significant departure, especially by the time 3.5 rolled around.  The multiclass rules and the plethora of classes available fundamentally changed the game, not to mention the addition of the highly detailed grid-based combat rules.

However, it was far more similar to previous editions at first glance - hit point totals, saving throws, a lot of things at least *looked* compatible with previous versions.  When it first came out the people I was playing with had zero clue of what it would turn into with time.  It looked like a cleaned up version of D&D, and hell, was probably intended as such and playtested as such.

There were a couple things about 4E I actually liked, among them Saves being a static number, and rarer, since targets now had multiple defenses, and a spell/power "attacked" them, rather than having to roll a mod versus a static attack (i.e., the way saves traditionally work).  I like mages to roll their attacks and such, because they, too, should experience the joy of Crits and Fumbles, like the rest of us.:-)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963336I don't get about 4e is the 'it wasn't D&D'.  Yes, it was.  It has all the things that makes D&D unique:  The Six Stats, Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, it has attribute bonuses tied to each of them.  It has Saving Throws.  It has Hit Points.  It has Armour Class.  Each of it's 'spells' are an exclusionary block of rules that don't interact with the basic system in any way.  It IS D&D.

The problem is that customers are never wrong about being unhappy. If people say it doesn't feel like D&D, they'll never be argued out of that.

QuoteOne thing that I find amusing is how WoTC didn't see that what players say they want ISN'T what they really want.  The savage backlash that The Book of Nine Swords got when it came out should have been clue enough.  No matter how much people complain about how magic dominates, the moment you try and raise up any other non-caster to the same level as the Cleric or Wizard/Magic User you get an immediate push back.  Casters are the Gods of D&D and anyone who DARES upset that balance MUST burn in hell for blasphemy.  Paizo's forums at the time of Pathfinder's rise to prominence should have also been a clue.

Yeah, there's the paradox. It's true in every industry. You gotta listen to customers when they say they're unhappy, but if you do what they say they want, you might just piss them off even more. 5e illustrates this as well. People said they hated 4e because it didn't have enough charop, because fighters shouldn't have powers, because healing surges a stupid idea, because monsters shouldn't have powers players can't get...and they got an edition with the fewest fiddly bits since 1e, fighters with short-rest powers, expendable hit dice, and a Monster Manual packed with creatures with unique powers. And yet, we have what may be the highest-selling D&D edition ever.

Turns out Vancian casting is basically a comfort blanket, so as long as you've got your familiar old spells in a pyramid-like slot system, and whatever else you find mostly looks kinda like what you remember AD&D as with cleaned-up numbers and some different things added on, people will be pretty happy.

WotC should have listened to the winds. It was very clear lots of people loved 3e and lots of people loved 0e-2e. They should have kept those editions evergreen AND then launched 4e with another name, like DragonQuest and pimped it as tactical minis roleplay which does have an audience. They could have derailed Paizo by cranking their own 3.75 and used their own damn OGL to create the DM's Guild years beforehand. Instead of OSRIC and the OSR, WotC could have championed people writing for AD&D.

Instead of vitriol, they would have the "family of D&D" united under their brand and company, just playing different editions.

Quote from: Spinachcat;963405WotC should have listened to the winds. It was very clear lots of people loved 3e and lots of people loved 0e-2e. They should have kept those editions evergreen AND then launched 4e with another name, like DragonQuest and pimped it as tactical minis roleplay which does have an audience. They could have derailed Paizo by cranking their own 3.75 and used their own damn OGL to create the DM's Guild years beforehand. Instead of OSRIC and the OSR, WotC could have championed people writing for AD&D.

Instead of vitriol, they would have the "family of D&D" united under their brand and company, just playing different editions.

You mean like they do now?  And no, I'm not being snarky, I'm dead serious here.  There is no vitriol or anger from WoTC.  They'd like it if you bought their stuff, but the idea seems to be that any edition or version you play is fine, no need to replace.  Their stated goal has been to be everyone's second favourite version of D&D.

I think they succeeded.

WotC isn't getting 0e-4e fan dollars or their attention. 0e-2e fans have the OSR and 3e fans have Paizo. 4e fans either have 13th Age, or like most "dead edition" fans just stick with the old books. In total, that's a lot of lost dollars and lost fans, even though all those fans were previously connected to their brand. And its bizarre in the age of PDF/POD/OGL when WotC could easily "support" multiple editions and sell WotC stuff to 0e-4e fans.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963410Their stated goal has been to be everyone's second favourite version of D&D.

That sounds so sad.

WotC: the sisterwife who gets fucked every other Tuesday.

Quote from: Spinachcat;963426And its bizarre in the age of PDF/POD/OGL when WotC could easily "support" multiple editions and sell WotC stuff to 0e-4e fans.

Selling pdf and PoD of stuff they own for 99.99% profit is one thing, it keeps the brand viable for everyone.  Actively creating content for versions of those older games is probably too outside the box for any large corporation.  They've had brand dilution drilled into their heads since Business 101.

Quote from: Spinachcat;963426That sounds so sad.

WotC is back to beating Paizo again, which isn't too bad considering Paizo was previously beating WotC with WotC's own system that they walked away from.

I think you're right in that if they played their cards right, they could have been the shepherds of the OSR designers profiting from them instead of being the whole reason the OSR was created.  You don't create an open license to create a market where other people can profit off supplements while you profit off the rules...and then stop selling the rules handing away the keys to the kingdom to former business partners creating your own competitor.

Quote from: CRKrueger;963429They've had brand dilution drilled into their heads since Business 101.

  And WotC in particular is convinced that 'splitting the fanbase' killed TSR.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963410You mean like they do now?  And no, I'm not being snarky, I'm dead serious here.  There is no vitriol or anger from WoTC.  They'd like it if you bought their stuff, but the idea seems to be that any edition or version you play is fine, no need to replace.  Their stated goal has been to be everyone's second favourite version of D&D.

I think they succeeded.

Quote from: Spinachcat;963426WotC isn't getting 0e-4e fan dollars or their attention. 0e-2e fans have the OSR and 3e fans have Paizo. 4e fans either have 13th Age, or like most "dead edition" fans just stick with the old books. In total, that's a lot of lost dollars and lost fans, even though all those fans were previously connected to their brand. And its bizarre in the age of PDF/POD/OGL when WotC could easily "support" multiple editions and sell WotC stuff to 0e-4e fans.

Quote from: CRKrueger;963429Selling pdf and PoD of stuff they own for 99.99% profit is one thing, it keeps the brand viable for everyone.  Actively creating content for versions of those older games is probably too outside the box for any large corporation.  They've had brand dilution drilled into their heads since Business 101.

Remember too - WoTC/Hasbro isn't only profiting from D&D when you buy a 5e book or an old PDF from them.  They're spending more resources cashing in on the D&D brand in other ways - such as the plethora of D&D themed board-games.  

Sure, buying an OSR game doesn't put $ in their pocket directly, but it makes you think fondly of D&D in general and more likely to think "Oooh cool, a D&D boardgame!".

It's worth keeping in mind that 3.x stuff wasn't selling well any more. Each supplement was selling more poorly than the last, and moreover, 3.x sales were just more and more stuff being sold to the same, aging customer base. An inability to attract younger, newer players is the death knell for a hobby. IIRC, 4e actually succeeded bringing in new players, it just lost so many old ones that D&D as a whole didn't grow. And then WotC mismanaged 4e so badly that even its fans got tired of the BS. Years on, I'm still not entirely sure what the point of Essentials was.

Quote from: CRKrueger;963429Selling pdf and PoD of stuff they own for 99.99% profit is one thing, it keeps the brand viable for everyone.  Actively creating content for versions of those older games is probably too outside the box for any large corporation.  They've had brand dilution drilled into their heads since Business 101.

Removing the PDFs from the online store was about brand dilution. Not making content for old systems is about profit margins. Sure, the WotC crew could make new 0e content, but it wouldn't sell nearly as well as 5e content. 5e is killing it so hard that its adventures are beating Pathfinder Bestiary 6 on Amazon. The 5e PHB sat at #1 for a long time...in all books. It's now #36 in all books. Same reason Valve won't make Half-Life 3. It's not that it would sell poorly, it's that they could generate far more revenue by using those resources elsewhere. Tales from the Yawning Portal is #761 in all books right now and peaked at #42. No legacy content would do that. It's just not worth the investment.

QuoteWotC is back to beating Paizo again, which isn't too bad considering Paizo was previously beating WotC with WotC's own system that they walked away from.

Yeah, not only is it beating Paizo, but by all accounts, it's growing the hobby and beating its past records. Hard to ask for more than that, really.

Quote from: SpinachatWotC isn't getting 0e-4e fan dollars or their attention. 0e-2e fans have the OSR and 3e fans have Paizo. 4e fans either have 13th Age, or like most "dead edition" fans just stick with the old books.

Sure they are. 5e was designed to attract fans of the older editions, and it seems to have done that pretty well. By the way, this is how the breakdown of D&D and its clones looks on roll20 in terms of games played:

(https://image.ibb.co/fagidF/Screen_Shot_2017_05_20_at_7_49_31_AM.png) (https://imgbb.com/)

Quote from: fearsomepirate;963487Yeah, not only is it beating Paizo, but by all accounts, it's growing the hobby and beating its past records. Hard to ask for more than that, really.

I don't have the source, but I've even heard that Paizo is doing as well as ever if not better - 5e is just bringing in new gamers and/or bring back old ones.  The whole 'rising tide lifts all boats' thing.

"Everyone's second favorite version" works - because it's the thing that you can get OSR fans, 3e fans, and 4e fans to play together.

I'll stick with my first favorite* if I'm going to play D&D at all, but if they're making money and drawing new people into roleplaying games, that's good for everyone interested in the hobby.

* I have no money to invest in another edition of a game I already own anyway!

I don't think Mearls or anyone actually said they wanted to be everyone's second favorite. That idea seems to have cropped up among the fan community to explain why 5e didn't seem to have any particular "wow" factor, no feature or concept that really jumps out. What Mearls said early on is they wanted to go back to the fundamentals and build on those.

http://www.gameinformer.com/themes/blogs/generic/post.aspx?WeblogApp=features&y=2012&m=01&d=17&WeblogPostName=what-is-the-next-dungeons-amp-dragons&GroupKeys=&PostPageIndex=1

It's currently my favorite. I had fun with 4e, I played it recently and just felt like each round of combat was an interminable slog. I have no desire to ever touch 3.x or Pathfinder. I love reading AD&D material, but only to crib stuff for my 5e sandbox. About the only classic I ever am interested in playing on its own merits is BECMI, or maybe 0e, but those are a bit orthogonal to what 5e does.  Basically, I think 5e is the best iteration of AD&D.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;963520I don't think Mearls or anyone actually said they wanted to be everyone's second favorite. That idea seems to have cropped up among the fan community to explain why 5e didn't seem to have any particular "wow" factor, no feature or concept that really jumps out. What Mearls said early on is they wanted to go back to the fundamentals and build on those.

http://www.gameinformer.com/themes/blogs/generic/post.aspx?WeblogApp=features&y=2012&m=01&d=17&WeblogPostName=what-is-the-next-dungeons-amp-dragons&GroupKeys=&PostPageIndex=1

It's currently my favorite. I had fun with 4e, I played it recently and just felt like each round of combat was an interminable slog. I have no desire to ever touch 3.x or Pathfinder. I love reading AD&D material, but only to crib stuff for my 5e sandbox. About the only classic I ever am interested in playing on its own merits is BECMI, or maybe 0e, but those are a bit orthogonal to what 5e does.  Basically, I think 5e is the best iteration of AD&D.

I remember hearing the quote in an audio interview.  I could be wrong.  Either way, it's doing it's job as being fun and accessible to as many people as possible.

I missed the whole 4e drama as I wasn't playing D&D at that time. I like 5e a lot, thinking of stripping it down to a BECMI/B/X level of minimalism but I do kinda like how feats make everyone who isn't a magic user a lot more dynamic.

Quote from: Brand55;963221I've heard similar stories from a lot of people. I was not a huge fan of 4e, but even I think 13th Age is a solid game and does what 4e did, only better. The way it handles monsters alone is enough to make it a lot easier for the GM to handle. The way it spreads out stat calculations is something I think D&D should have learned from, too.

I agree that 13th Age is an improved, more flexible, iteration of 4e. It's excellent fun. Our group moved straight to it when it came out, we'd grown bored of 4e by then (about 3 years playing, and the sameness/staleness was really shining through - it was great fun though for a solid 2 years).

In 13th Age I didnt really find that zones worked that well, or the icons. I think in hindsight actually I probably prefer 13th Age to 5e. Hmm I'll have to think about that more. The icons mechanic didnt work for us. But I reeeeally like the idea of the players being able to improvise some kind of event/history mid-play however, to fire those imaginations and keep people engaged/looking for improv opportunities. I find the Paizo Plot Twist cards are a better alternative to icons. Hmmmm I must ruminate on this idea further!

Quote from: cranebump;963362Scaling skill rolls just irked the shit outta me. Well, along with the incredible slog of combat.

True that was crap, along with skill challenges

Quote from: Psikerlord;963572True that was crap, along with skill challenges

Yeah, that, too. I remember thinking it seemed like a cool idea, until I ran it. Of course someone who's into 4E would  probably tell me I was doing it wrong.:-/

Quote from: cranebump;963597Yeah, that, too. I remember thinking it seemed like a cool idea, until I ran it. Of course someone who's into 4E would  probably tell me I was doing it wrong.:-/

The books are very ambiguous about how to set DCs. I eventually worked out my own DC chart that ignored PC level. For Heroic Tier it's identical to 5e's system:

10 - Easy
15 - Moderate
20 - Hard

Where 'easy' means 'easy for a heroic character' - a bog standard human with +0 will succeed 55% of the time.

Quote from: cranebump;963597Yeah, that, too. I remember thinking it seemed like a cool idea, until I ran it. Of course someone who's into 4E would  probably tell me I was doing it wrong.:-/

Haha no no, the first set of books horribly implemented Skill Challenges and did it in such a terribly inorganic way that felt waaay to contrived. The best Skill Challenges I ran were the ones the players didnt even know they were in one. It seemed like they wanted it run like combat, which is stupid. It should have flow and continue with casual role-play with a check here or there.

Quote from: robiswrong;963382I dunno, I think 3e was a pretty significant departure, especially by the time 3.5 rolled around.  The multiclass rules and the plethora of classes available fundamentally changed the game, not to mention the addition of the highly detailed grid-based combat rules.

If you didn't opt to multi class, ran combat as theater of the mind, etc the result was recognizably D&D. Unlike 4e hit points AC, saves, etc all still meant the same thing. 3e thing was customization pushed to an extreme. Sure some of the options pushed the game into very different direction. But remember 2e had variants like Dark Sun and Birthright.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;963197Everyone I knew who was really into 4e was either a hardcore math nerd/baseball stat-cruncher or an actual diagnosed high-functioning autistic.

No joke or insult intended. Dead serious. Make of this what you will for good or ill.

4e D&D is good for what it is: a high-fantasy "heroic" roleplaying game which uses a complicated, but good, tactical war-game as it's primary resolution mechanic. Go beyond that scope, and the game falls apart.

Stripped down, 'core' 3E was totally fine and recognizable as 3E. It's creeping diseases were the mega-giant stat blocks for monsters and NPC's, the proliferation of billions of feats and classes, and the spew of splatbooks that washed like a tidal wave across the gaming scene (ironic, given that the whole idea was to save D+D from 2e's splatbook cancer). But if you just play with the PHB and monster manual its cool.

Quote from: Crabbyapples;9636504e D&D is good for what it is: a high-fantasy "heroic" roleplaying game which uses a complicated, but good, tactical war-game as it's primary resolution mechanic. Go beyond that scope, and the game falls apart.

If you want to play Peter Jackson's Lord of The Rings (and I do) then 4e is an awesome game. Certainly up through level 20 - Epic isn't really worth it IME. But I love my new 4e game, seeing PCs be action movie heroes at level 1.

Quote from: S'mon;963668If you want to play Peter Jackson's Lord of The Rings (and I do) then 4e is an awesome game. Certainly up through level 20 - Epic isn't really worth it IME. But I love my new 4e game, seeing PCs be action movie heroes at level 1.

I've never played a 4e epic game. Why does it fall apart?

4e was too much lopsided toward the wargaming roots of D&D for my taste. It treated characters as nothing more than playing pieces on the board.

And to me. That is not a positive.

Quote from: estar;963643If you didn't opt to multi class, ran combat as theater of the mind, etc the result was recognizably D&D. Unlike 4e hit points AC, saves, etc all still meant the same thing. 3e thing was customization pushed to an extreme. Sure some of the options pushed the game into very different direction. But remember 2e had variants like Dark Sun and Birthright.

If you took out all of the changes 3e made, 3e could look like earlier versions.  I get that.  No sarcasm - the base numbers look similar, and the concepts are there.  And I also understand the 4e not looking like D&D thing - I've often called it the "Uncanny Valley" of D&D.

To me, 3e is still a pretty strong departure from earlier versions, intended or not.

I started with 2nd ed.  So I know at least some of the older systems.  To me 3rd was amazing.  It cleaned up the mess of previous editions, layed it all out nicely and clearly, and added charcter customization.  It encuraged and rewarded system mastery which I wanted.  I liked it a lot.  I was less keen on 3.5.  And don't want anything to do with pathfinder.  4 I didn't like it.  I only played once so I can't say I gave it a fair shake but it seemed too much like WoW to me.  

I'm liking 5.  There isn't as much customization or system mastery, which I itch for.  But its probably better with out it.  And I really appreciate they aren't releasing splat books.

Quote from: Crabbyapples;963696I've never played a 4e epic game. Why does it fall apart?

It doesn't fall apart, it definitely remains playable. But battles take 2-3 hours so my three hour weeknight games were basically one fight with a bit of framing. And after 24th level the PCs' abilities significantly outpace the monster math, so it's hard to threaten them. In the final battle with Orcus I ran at level 29 he was literally taking a PC to 0 hp every round with his Wand while also reanimating all his fallen allies every round, and the PCs still kicked his ass pretty easily. Anything less than Orcus was pretty much a speedbump - a three hour speedbump. :D (Actually I do recall the PCs had to retreat a couple times when low on Healing Surges).

I just didn't find that Epic Tier added enough to the game experience to be worth it for me. Maybe because my Loudwater campaign concept really worked best at Heroic through Paragon Tier. If you like 3 hour battles then Epic might work well as a god-hunters game battling across the Multiverse, but since most of the gods & demon lords are statted to be fought by 30th level PCs one would need to do a bunch of tweaking to use them 21-30.

Quote from: Batman;963634Haha no no, the first set of books horribly implemented Skill Challenges and did it in such a terribly inorganic way that felt waaay to contrived. The best Skill Challenges I ran were the ones the players didnt even know they were in one. It seemed like they wanted it run like combat, which is stupid. It should have flow and continue with casual role-play with a check here or there.

I ran them much more free form (and definitely didn't tell them I was "running a skill challenge"): the players wanted to do something, I'd ask them how they were going to do it, and either mark a success automatically or have them make a skill check (I still did the "get x successes before y failures" thing). Various powers could grant bonuses or successes, too.

The first time I can remember an official skill challenge being actually good was in the Elder Elemental Eye from D&D Encounters, though I recall by then 5th Edition had already been announced.

Quote from: S'mon;963631The books are very ambiguous about how to set DCs. I eventually worked out my own DC chart that ignored PC level. For Heroic Tier it's identical to 5e's system:

10 - Easy
15 - Moderate
20 - Hard

Where 'easy' means 'easy for a heroic character' - a bog standard human with +0 will succeed 55% of the time.

The DMG and PHB actually have fixed tables for a number of things, such as climbing a cliff face, breaking down a wooden door, etc. However, these tables are disorganized jumble. Furthermore, 4e doesn't really lend itself to sandbox gaming at all, so the probability of you ever returning to an area with mundane DC 15 locks in a typical 4e campaign is vanishingly small. So most 4e DMs just used the table on page 42 of the DMG to do everything. In my own games, I actually edited out the (+1/2 Level) modifier from the system entirely. This gave me a broader range of usable monsters and DCs. Basically, I was doing Bounded Accuracy before 5e was announced.

I tried to make a skill challenge once, and it ended up being "Guess what skill the DM wants you to roll," which is awful game design. I concluded that trying to shoehorn everything into the combat engine is a terrible idea and just used skill checks the way they're used in the other WotC editions.

As for how much 3e changed things vs 4e, I think the baseline most players expect is that whatever was familiar to them in the previous edition should port over to the new edition in a fairly straightforward way. There were fundamental, systemic changes in 3rd edition that weren't obvious on a first reading, but on the surface, it was pretty obvious that you could convert your AD&D Fighter/Cleric/Thief/Wizard party over with little fuss. The basic structure and spells are mostly there. I imagine that at first blush, the 3rd edition fighter felt quite a bit more exciting than the 2e fighter, what with the seemingly endless customization via feats.

By contrast, the 4e cleric shares little in common with the AD&D cleric other than "can heal," "likes going to church," and "is called 'the cleric.'"

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963366The thing is about lifting the non-caster to caster level is because the magic system is inherently superiour.  Each single spell operates within it's own special rules, often only interacting with a Saving Throw, but bypassing a lot of restrictions that other mechanics have.  There's no 'swing' that an attack roll gets, often bypassing damage all together for an effect.  Now 5e, changed that, but for the most part in the older editions, it was this way.

Let me put this out there. Again I've said this before elsewhere, but it deserves saying again. Raising non-casters to caster-level power is *already* there in the game as of 3e. It's Feats. Now everyone can argue about what they like/dislike about Feats - I will fully agree that it's been implemented horribly. But *that* was the system that needed to bring non-casters closer to parity. And by making it optional it would serve both camps of people that liked casters being uber-powerful (they can simply ignore the Feat system) but for those of us that want dramatic results backed by mechanics - Feats needed to be far more powerful and easier to obtain. Hell - just making them obtainable by means other than leveling would have been a *huge* improvement. This was one of the best things about 5e - they allowed Feats to be tied to Faction rewards.

I'm perfectly fine with letting a caster shoot a 5d6+ fireball or cast Finger of Death and having a non-caster do a Blade Flurry and strike everyone in a 10-ft area because he has Blade Mastery which might have several other benefits. Or an archer being able to rapid-fire arrows and have a similar effect as a byproduct of having Bow Mastery,  (they still have to hit, but their effectiveness is being raised.) Because ultimately Spells are, as you pointed out, their own system. Just like Feats. But unlike non-casters they can be acquired with far far greater ease, by mechanic AND implication. 3e/4e/5e dropped the ball with this, but 5e is closer to the mark, as far as the Feat system goes. I still contend they should have gone full-Fantasycraft with it in terms of power.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963366And here's the thing about 'magical powers', when you have literary sources in which you have non-casters able to do incredible feats like St. George and The Dragon, Beowulf, Finn Mac Cool, why do players of D&D balk when others want to do similar stuff, but not be wizards or clerics?

Good question. But I think a lot of the feats of these fine figures of myth and history could be handled a number of different ways. My personal view is that if you're going to use Feats as a system - non-casters should be doing incredible martial/skill-based stuff. Not necessarily "magic" unless it's something special to the campaign. This is precisely why the Feat system should be optional for D&D. Because too many people have an issue with it, for whatever reason.

I skipped 3e completely so coming back to D&D for 5e was my intro to feats. At first I balked due to my BECMI and 1e/2e background.

But then I realized they helped address the question 'why play anything besides a wizard'? Not just because a wizard was mechanically superior at mid-to-high levels but they were simply more fun to play. Having them be absurdly weak at low levels never really fixed that issue.

So while sometimes it is hard to get the balance right I think they are good for that reason. And in terms of making the system more complex I'm starting to come around on my thinking. No one ever complains about all the spell lists with their host of rules and exceptions making the game 'too complex' why is allowing a much lower range of options to other classes a bridge too far?

In terms of balance, it is hard to say until you get it to the table, a lot of feats that read overpowered play fine and are a lot less problematic than certain near-game breaking spells that have been in the game since 1e.

Quote from: Voros;963812So while sometimes it is hard to get the balance right I think they are good for that reason. And in terms of making the system more complex I'm starting to come around on my thinking. No one ever complains about all the spell lists with their host of rules and exceptions making the game 'too complex' why is allowing a much lower range of options to other classes a bridge too far?

I will say - there is an advantage to having some simpler and some more complex classes.  Some players never really want to delve into the mechanics of the game and are happier playing something simple.

Quote from: CRKrueger;9633555e's somewhat better, but it's still the wrong fix.  They now neutered the fuck out of the spellcasting abilities of casters, without instituting any of the sane restrictions from 1e and made them superheros with Pew-Pew cantrips to supplement damage output.

 Instead of making all non-casters casters, they're moving casters towards non-casters.

1: Not really. They have about the same oomph as AD&D and 2e casters scaled to 5e. But they now essentially have an unlimited elemental longbow. They removed casting time and spell interruption. But made a fair chunk of spells now concentration based which CAN be interrupted. I think theres a few too many concentration attack spells now. They also got a bump up in HD. But then so did some other classes.

2: Also not really. See point 1 above. It feels more like some of the non-caster classes got more widgets. And the Ranger and Paladin were shifted to being spell reliant for their main hitting power. They did though nerf the combat cantrips down from the playtest versions. Just not enough in my opinion.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;963463And WotC in particular is convinced that 'splitting the fanbase' killed TSR.

And then worship the "5 year plan" like a god. Splitting the fanbase again and again and again.

Quote from: tenbones;963778Let me put this out there. Again I've said this before elsewhere, but it deserves saying again. Raising non-casters to caster-level power is *already* there in the game as of 3e. It's Feats. Now everyone can argue about what they like/dislike about Feats - I will fully agree that it's been implemented horribly. But *that* was the system that needed to bring non-casters closer to parity. And by making it optional it would serve both camps of people that liked casters being uber-powerful (they can simply ignore the Feat system) but for those of us that want dramatic results backed by mechanics - Feats needed to be far more powerful and easier to obtain. Hell - just making them obtainable by means other than leveling would have been a *huge* improvement. This was one of the best things about 5e - they allowed Feats to be tied to Faction rewards.

Actually, that's incorrect.  Feats were designed specifically by Monte Cook to be 'trap cards', because of a misconception of how CCGs work. See, most feats do not scale in terms of power.  A flat +2 boost to an ability, like a save is of a minimal use after a certain level.  The real power, well outside of magic which scales up in utility and damage, are feats that scale, like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Blind Fight...  And that's it.  Those are the only 3 feats in the base game that I could find in the D20 SRD that scale in effectiveness.  I may have missed a couple, but the amount of flat +2 feats is many times that.  

Remember this is the same system that gives Fighters and Wizards, 2 Skill slots because it was set up that skills are as powerful as magic spells.  Yes, Craft is as powerful and has the same level of utility as Charm person.  Jump is just as good as Fly.

Quote from: tenbones;963778I'm perfectly fine with letting a caster shoot a 5d6+ fireball or cast Finger of Death and having a non-caster do a Blade Flurry and strike everyone in a 10-ft area because he has Blade Mastery which might have several other benefits. Or an archer being able to rapid-fire arrows and have a similar effect as a byproduct of having Bow Mastery,  (they still have to hit, but their effectiveness is being raised.) Because ultimately Spells are, as you pointed out, their own system. Just like Feats. But unlike non-casters they can be acquired with far far greater ease, by mechanic AND implication. 3e/4e/5e dropped the ball with this, but 5e is closer to the mark, as far as the Feat system goes. I still contend they should have gone full-Fantasycraft with it in terms of power.

Feats are NOT their own system, most of them tie on to things like combat rolls to hit (Power Attack), combat damage rolls (Power Attack and Cleave(s)), Saving Throws and other already established systems in the game, even metamagic feats affect the Magic system.  However, Magic, like Charm Person by passes most of the mechanics, to affect Saving Throws, but there are several that by pass those as well.  Magic can attack things like statistics instead of hit points, end a conflict in a single action, nothing else in the game does this.

Quote from: tenbones;963778Good question. But I think a lot of the feats of these fine figures of myth and history could be handled a number of different ways. My personal view is that if you're going to use Feats as a system - non-casters should be doing incredible martial/skill-based stuff. Not necessarily "magic" unless it's something special to the campaign. This is precisely why the Feat system should be optional for D&D. Because too many people have an issue with it, for whatever reason.

People have issues with feats for one of two major reasons:  The first they misunderstand the power level, and hate that a non-caster class dares try to touch the ALMIGHTY WIZARD!  The second is that they don't think that feats add anything to the game, other than added complexity.

Personally, I think that all non-casters need something that scales up to increase their utility, the Rogue/Thief's Backstab/Sneak Attack are good examples.  Magic can be utilitarian, but when it becomes the only real tool to solve all problems, whats the point of having anything else?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963845Magic can be utilitarian, but when it becomes the only real tool to solve all problems, whats the point of having anything else?

And that's what seems to invariably happen in any system with any kind of utility magic. One of my constant players, part of every campaign I've run the last 3-5 years, almost always plays a mage for the shortcuts. If there's a fluffy, magic way to circumventing something, he WILL find it, and WILL use it, unless you outlaw it (which is a douchey move I rarely do). The damned "Shadow Walk" move or whatever is was in Dungeon World, basically killed a great deal of the "Perilous Journey" part of the game. I had to amp up the risk  of constant teleportation to  make them think twice about wormholing from home base to dungeon and back and forth constantly, thus negating a major part of the game. It was a minor amp--snake eyes and the caster gets plopped to a different plane--but guess what? It eventually happened... (another story for another time).

My only real beef with magic, magic, everywhere (and everyone shall drink!) is, and has ever been, that messing with the primal force of nature (MISTER BEALS!) should be risky. 5E casters throwing fire bolts out their asses because they can't be bothered to learn a weapon goes against my ethos, in this regard (though, if that's the way the system works, that's the way it works, so, rather than screw someone over by stripping everything, I just don't play that system).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963845Actually, that's incorrect.  Feats were designed specifically by Monte Cook to be 'trap cards', because of a misconception of how CCGs work. See, most feats do not scale in terms of power.  A flat +2 boost to an ability, like a save is of a minimal use after a certain level.  The real power, well outside of magic which scales up in utility and damage, are feats that scale, like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Blind Fight...  And that's it.  Those are the only 3 feats in the base game that I could find in the D20 SRD that scale in effectiveness.  I may have missed a couple, but the amount of flat +2 feats is many times that.

Right. I'm speaking of D&D writ-large. You're talking specifically about 3e, which I can comment on.

So me and Mike Mearls when were designing for 3e back in Dragon and he for AEG and Goodman we had a different opinion because we both saw through this dumb notion about Monte's design. Because we both knew that for Feats to actually be mathematically useful for non-casters they'd have to scale not just against one another, but against... spellcasters. We kept getting shot down by editorial every time we tried to push that envelope for various reasons. I'm assuming everyone like me is looking past all that stupid Monte Cook bullshit.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963845Remember this is the same system that gives Fighters and Wizards, 2 Skill slots because it was set up that skills are as powerful as magic spells.  Yes, Craft is as powerful and has the same level of utility as Charm person.  Jump is just as good as Fly.

Yes. Monte Cook's design reputation survived these ridiculous assumptions.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963845Feats are NOT their own system, most of them tie on to things like combat rolls to hit (Power Attack), combat damage rolls (Power Attack and Cleave(s)), Saving Throws and other already established systems in the game, even metamagic feats affect the Magic system.  However, Magic, like Charm Person by passes most of the mechanics, to affect Saving Throws, but there are several that by pass those as well.  Magic can attack things like statistics instead of hit points, end a conflict in a single action, nothing else in the game does this.

This is only true if you believe it and insist on playing it like this. I liken it to standing in the fire by fiat. You know it hurts you, yet you continue to do it. Right - I'm not playing that game. I tried it, it clearly doesn't work, so it needed to be fixed. So I did. For me - Feats are a System because I make it work to my liking. I have no use for playing bi-polar headgames with rules that get in the way of the game as I want to run things. So while what you're pointing out is RAW true - I want RTW (rules that work). And therefore, I relegate Feats to being a system that neither detracts from those that don't need it - Spellcasters, to those that do, non-casters. Easy. Peasy.

Better - I make it optional.

But ultimately these are dead systems to me. If I ever do d20 again, it'll be Fantasycraft, mainly because I'm lazy and everything I need is right there.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963845People have issues with feats for one of two major reasons:  The first they misunderstand the power level, and hate that a non-caster class dares try to touch the ALMIGHTY WIZARD!  The second is that they don't think that feats add anything to the game, other than added complexity.

Personally, I think that all non-casters need something that scales up to increase their utility, the Rogue/Thief's Backstab/Sneak Attack are good examples.  Magic can be utilitarian, but when it becomes the only real tool to solve all problems, whats the point of having anything else?

AGREED! Too bad D&D doesn't do this.

On Topic - And while we tap blades on this topic. At least we're talking about RPGs's we can discuss how mechanics express things we want in the game. 4e's mechanics *WERE* the game.

Edit: And I fully submit that 3e/PF helped synthesize that playstyle, to the detriment of the brand.

Interesting thoughts on feats. I wonder how things would have turned out had feats been only for martial characters right from the get-go and actually been worthy of the name, like things that have you turning into Hercules or Samson as you level up rather than Guy Who Can Trip Another Guy.

4e feats were a total mess. There were just too many of them, and the vast majority were these kinds of odd situational bonuses that you were unlikely to ever run into randomly, and thus weren't worth it compared to feats that just gave you some kind of passive improvement.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;963955Interesting thoughts on feats. I wonder how things would have turned out had feats been only for martial characters right from the get-go and actually been worthy of the name, like things that have you turning into Hercules or Samson as you level up rather than Guy Who Can Trip Another Guy.

4e feats were a total mess. There were just too many of them, and the vast majority were these kinds of odd situational bonuses that you were unlikely to ever run into randomly, and thus weren't worth it compared to feats that just gave you some kind of passive improvement.

I think if you had been in the room and got this idea into the DNA for 3e design, you'd be a goddamn hero.

There's a lot of stuff that's tied into 4e that was incorrectly extrapolated out of 3.x that Feats are only a symptom of.

Leveling as meta-mechanic. 1e and to a lesser extent 2e were spot on. The game should be shooting for a ten-level curve by the math. St. Gary knew it. Beyond 10th, you're really talking superheroic crazytown shit. Especially once you factor in itemization.

3.x had a static (*false*)assumption of power-progression. But the reality was that assumption was clearly not executed on mechanically in the design. LFQM and Itemization as Balance, pigeon-holed into this progression into a mathematical nightmare of post-15th level play *based* on those realities. Plus there was this weird 20th-lvl Capstone ability thing which was like a dingleberry-scented cherry on a shit-cake.

4e codified that further with their own respective curves by implementing Tiers as an actual playable concept. Sure other games kinda do this too - but 4e really "went there" with it.

Quote from: tenbones;963964I think if you had been in the room and got this idea into the DNA for 3e design, you'd be a goddamn hero.

I think a lot of 4e fighter powers would make sense as feats. Hit a guy so hard that that everyone around you is overcome with terror. Bash a guy's face so hard that you do quadruple damage and he's dazed. Knock down a whole group of enemies with a single swing of your warhammer. Those have more in common with the regular use of the word "feat" than "I can trip a guy without drawing OA."

QuoteThere's a lot of stuff that's tied into 4e that was incorrectly extrapolated out of 3.x that Feats are only a symptom of.

Leveling as meta-mechanic. 1e and to a lesser extent 2e were spot on. The game should be shooting for a ten-level curve by the math. St. Gary knew it. Beyond 10th, you're really talking superheroic crazytown shit. Especially once you factor in itemization.

3.x had a static (*false*)assumption of power-progression. But the reality was that assumption was clearly not executed on mechanically in the design. LFQM and Itemization as Balance, pigeon-holed into this progression into a mathematical nightmare of post-15th level play *based* on those realities. Plus there was this weird 20th-lvl Capstone ability thing which was like a dingleberry-scented cherry on a shit-cake.

4e codified that further with their own respective curves by implementing Tiers as an actual playable concept. Sure other games kinda do this too - but 4e really "went there" with it.

I kinda liked the tier concept in 4e, especially the Epic Destiny. Of course, as 4e went up in level, pretty much everyone was just there to set up striker hits. One thing 4e showed is that you don't have to have the game totally break down as you get to high levels. Of course, they did that via homogenization, but at least they showed it's possible. 5e did things via a different route.

Another move 4e made in the right direction was not codifying so much of the skill system. By that I mean things like 3.5's NPC Interaction Table that flat-out defines what you can do with your Diplomacy rolls, what the DC is, what success means, etc. There are still more codified checks in 4e than 5e, but there's a whole lot more that's left up to the DM to decide when you can do a check and what the consequences are for success or failure. I mostly ignored the codified tables, so 5e feels pretty similar in that regard.

Quote from: tenbones;963943Edit: And I fully submit that 3e/PF helped synthesize that playstyle, to the detriment of the brand.

The whole "multiclassing" craze and "dipping" I've seen players try to carry over to 5e. Rather bemusing when they realize later that they hosed their character at the endgame for a short term perceived advantage.

Which brings up the question. Just how multiclassing happy is 4e? I dont think I've ever heard a single 4e player even mention it? Whereas sometimes it feels like thats all 3/PF players do. (Not quite. but sometimes it gets excessive.)

I remember min/maxers being multiclass happy in the 1e/2e days too. I can't stand it and don't allow it. Looking at 5e's rules as written multiclassing seems better balanced but I can't be bothered to allow it as it never feels done for flavour or character but to min/max. The very notion of 'dipping' is mindnumbing to me.  Don't want to come off as badwrongfun but it seems to be the influence of pvp 'builds' in videogames to me.

Quote from: Voros;964025I remember min/maxers being multiclass happy in the 1e/2e days too. I can't stand it and don't allow it. Looking at 5e's rules as written multiclassing seems better balanced but I can't be bothered to allow it as it never feels done for flavour or character but to min/max. The very notion of 'dipping' is mindnumbing to me.  Don't want to come off as badwrongfun but it seems to be the influence of pvp 'builds' in videogames to me.

This is what it feels like to me, too, though paper character 'builds' may have predated video game charop. The discussions surrounding it are key. When you get into damage comparison and such, we're straying into video territory.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;963955Interesting thoughts on feats. I wonder how things would have turned out had feats been only for martial characters right from the get-go and actually been worthy of the name, like things that have you turning into Hercules or Samson as you level up rather than Guy Who Can Trip Another Guy.

4e feats were a total mess. There were just too many of them, and the vast majority were these kinds of odd situational bonuses that you were unlikely to ever run into randomly, and thus weren't worth it compared to feats that just gave you some kind of passive improvement.

RE: Feats for just Martials - On one hand I agree with you. Had Feats been a way for non-magical classes (monk, rogue fit in here too) to do really extraordinary things AND progressed with level then I think that would've been a great idea. Of course that would also be separate from actual class features that a Fighter would receive like wearing your armor better, getting Weapon Specialization etc. Blind-Fight could start off as it's seen in the PHB but then progress to almost like an extra-sensory perception against invisible creatures.

RE: 4e Feats - I think, for the most part, 4e Feats did exactly what their role was....that of a supplementary feature just made classes features better or added versatility and nothing more. 90% of what a character brings to the table, mechanically speaking, was designed to come from class features and powers with the rest made up of your Race and Feats. In this regard Feats worked fairly well. What my biggest beef with 4e feats were was with how bad some of the earlier ones were AND the fact that they were the mechanism to "fix" some classes. Take the Strength-based Paladin for example, it's mechanics were pretty bad considering that it's main sticky feature (Divine Challenge) was Charisma based, making Charisma-based Paladins FAR better in almost every way. Later we got some feats to help out the Strength-based Paladin (like Sudden Smite but these were basically resources that took away from actual choices because original options were bad.

Multiclassing in 4e amounted to a feat that allowed you to get a cut-down version of another class feature and one of its powers. 5e multiclassing is pretty well-balanced. One of the things that really keeps it under control is that extra attacks don't stack, and ASIs are class features. So if you do anything less than a 4-level excursion into another class, you'll miss out on an ASI. But extra attacks are all at level 5. On top of that, the fighter and the rogue have magic-using subclasses, and it's generally a stronger option to just take those instead of trying to multiclass into a full caster.

I feel like the first really build-focused computer game was probably Diablo, and wonder if feat chains were inspired by it.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;964039Multiclassing in 4e amounted to a feat that allowed you to get a cut-down version of another class feature and one of its powers. 5e multiclassing is pretty well-balanced. One of the things that really keeps it under control is that extra attacks don't stack, and ASIs are class features. So if you do anything less than a 4-level excursion into another class, you'll miss out on an ASI. But extra attacks are all at level 5. On top of that, the fighter and the rogue have magic-using subclasses, and it's generally a stronger option to just take those instead of trying to multiclass into a full caster.

I feel like the first really build-focused computer game was probably Diablo, and wonder if feat chains were inspired by it.

I think one of the biggest things people hated about 4e was it's inflexible multiclass system, but of course this is coming from a large majority who just came from a D&D system with probably the most BROKEN multiclass system D&D had ever seen. In 3e I rarely saw straight classes unless either A) forced "Core" books only or B) the class largely didn't benefit much from it (or there weren't very many good PrCs to pick from). A Barbarian 2/ Fighter 2-4/ Cleric X/ PrC X to get Rage, Pounce, Weapon Specialization/Focus, Turn attempts, Spells, the ability to use any and all divine wands, domain powers, etc. ALL by 6th to 8th level was ridiculous. At least in 4e you couldn't create a power-combo of epic proportions before you left Heroic Tier.

Now was 4e's strict handling of Multiclassing the best way to go about it? Certainly not, I think they could have given more bang for their buck in terms of power swaps AND if you wanted to Paragon Multiclass (take more features of a 2nd class rather than a Paragon Path) then it should've been done with less investment, especially since the options of doing so were very "meh".  4e got better, I'll admit, when Hybrid Classes came out in PHB3. I really liked the idea, which sort of went back to the old Dual-Class style of 2e. You get a little bit of Column A and a little bit of Column B and there's definitely good synergy there if you do it right. Paladin|Warlocks, Paladin|Sorcerers, Wizard|Swordmags, Cleric|Avengers, Cleric|Fighters, Fighter|Rangers were all pretty awesome combos that delivered in both Roles but didn't UP the power that something like 3e's Gestalt did.

Quote from: cranebump;964031This is what it feels like to me, too, though paper character 'builds' may have predated video game charop. The discussions surrounding it are key. When you get into damage comparison and such, we're straying into video territory.

Or just people who enjoy the tactical puzzle-game of character building.

Quote from: tenbones;963964a dingleberry-scented cherry on a shit-cake.

I have no appetite now.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;963969I think a lot of 4e fighter powers would make sense as feats. Hit a guy so hard that that everyone around you is overcome with terror. Bash a guy's face so hard that you do quadruple damage and he's dazed. Knock down a whole group of enemies with a single swing of your warhammer. Those have more in common with the regular use of the word "feat" than "I can trip a guy without drawing OA."

Absolutely! Now purists that want their D&D "realistic" might balk, but I contend that's why modularity is needed as a design conceit in order to galvanize the different generations of D&D. And it is quite possible as 5e illustrates.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;963969I kinda liked the tier concept in 4e, especially the Epic Destiny. Of course, as 4e went up in level, pretty much everyone was just there to set up striker hits. One thing 4e showed is that you don't have to have the game totally break down as you get to high levels. Of course, they did that via homogenization, but at least they showed it's possible. 5e did things via a different route.

This is one the sad things about 4e that it inherited for all the wrong reasons from 3.x. The mathematical level-curve does not comport well with 20+ assumed levels of progression. Tiered play is perfectly fine conceptually. I think it's a good demarcation design conceit that can satisfy *all* fantasy styles - much like you do in Super's games. You have newbie-hero play, gritty street-level, enhanced human-level, then real supers, and cosmic-mode. There is *no* reason why you couldn't design D&D to encompass their parallel tiers to meet these needs. But trying to marry it to 20-levels of progression is not necessary and ultimately a vestige of 3.x gone awry.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;963969Another move 4e made in the right direction was not codifying so much of the skill system. By that I mean things like 3.5's NPC Interaction Table that flat-out defines what you can do with your Diplomacy rolls, what the DC is, what success means, etc. There are still more codified checks in 4e than 5e, but there's a whole lot more that's left up to the DM to decide when you can do a check and what the consequences are for success or failure. I mostly ignored the codified tables, so 5e feels pretty similar in that regard.

I don't know a lot of people that would argue much about this. Sure people will cite that D&D didn't use to have to do these things in prior-editions, but the conceits of 4e married to this skill system essentially incentivised players/GM's to pay bare lip-service to these things in lieu of combat. (Unless the adventure called for them). More experienced GM's probably pushed those kinds of skill-challenges, but I'm willing to bet overall, they were a minority.

The biggest problem with 4e feats is there were too many of them, 70% of them were garbage, and their organization was terrible. Class-limited feats should have been grouped by class, for example. It was another instance of being better off using DDI than the books.

One unspoken benefit of 4e is that so many of 3.x's toys were taken away or cut down to nearly nothing that it gave some time and space to evaluate how to make a balanced system. Sure, 4e went too far, but it wasn't broken, and it actually did a pretty decent job of niche protection. I think a lot of people looked at those L1 dailies, saw "3[W] damage" in all of them, and concluded there was no real difference between a Wizard and a Fighter, but that wasn't the case.

Sort of switching gears, I think a lot of people don't realize how similar playing a 5e wizard is to 4e due to Concentration. In 4e, lots of the more interesting Wizard powers had Sustain Minor riders preventing you from stacking them. It was pretty common in a 4e combat for the Wizard to drop a Daily power with a Sustain Minor rider, then blast with Encounters and At-Wills. The notation may have changed, but this is structurally nearly identical to dropping Faerie Fire, then zapping Chromatic Orbs and Fire Bolts at the enemies. The only significant difference is that the anti-stacking rider can be broken by enemies.

I actually am grateful that 4E released. It made me feel okay and stop feeling guilty for not wanting to play D&D anymore. I grew up playing AD&D with my older brother and his friends and 2E is where I really got into the game. I really didn't like 3E when it released. I was super hyped for it. I convinced my parents to send me to GenCon for a Birthday present so I could get the books and play at Gencon. I just didn't like the push to character customization and the prestige class systems. When 4E came out and I didn't like what it did, I just stopped really playing D&D at all and stuck with Palladium and GURPS. I then found HackMaster 4E, which was AD&D, and was super happy with that.

I think AD&D does everything D&D needs to do. I don't see the need for a new edition. It's fine. I wish WoTC ran D&D the way Palladium runs their systems. Upate a core rulebook but don't end the system and require me to rebuy the same books over and over again.

Quote from: tenbones;964061I don't know a lot of people that would argue much about this. Sure people will cite that D&D didn't use to have to do these things in prior-editions, but the conceits of 4e married to this skill system essentially incentivised players/GM's to pay bare lip-service to these things in lieu of combat. (Unless the adventure called for them). More experienced GM's probably pushed those kinds of skill-challenges, but I'm willing to bet overall, they were a minority.

Kind of confused about what you're getting at. What I mean is that in 3.x, people could do crazy things by stacking their skill points in a particular skill, then pointing at the RAW to force the DM's hand, like how it's a DC 25 check to turn a hostile creature indifferent, and it flat-out says you ordinarily can roll the check if you have 60 seconds to talk. 3.x has explicit, rigorous, exploitable rules surrounding skill checks.

By contrast, the 4e had much less rigorous skill check systems. For example, while 3.x had the Influencing NPC Attitudes table, 4e says, "A Diplomacy check is made against a DC set by the DM." Overall this is how skill checks are mostly used in 4e. There are a few standard tables around, but the trend toward "Rulings not Rules" in the skill system really began here.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;964071Kind of confused about what you're getting at. What I mean is that in 3.x, people could do crazy things by stacking their skill points in a particular skill, then pointing at the RAW to force the DM's hand, like how it's a DC 25 check to turn a hostile creature indifferent, and it flat-out says you ordinarily can roll the check if you have 60 seconds to talk. 3.x has explicit, rigorous, exploitable rules surrounding skill checks.

Sorry, when I said "prior editions" I mean pre-3.x. Because I *feel* 3.x's skill system as you astutely pointed out - is the reason why 4e went to the other side of the spectrum.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;964071By contrast, the 4e had much less rigorous skill check systems. For example, while 3.x had the Influencing NPC Attitudes table, 4e says, "A Diplomacy check is made against a DC set by the DM." Overall this is how skill checks are mostly used in 4e. There are a few standard tables around, but the trend toward "Rulings not Rules" in the skill system really began here.

The reason why I said "people will cite that D&D didn't use to have to do these things in prior-editions" is because in those pre-3.x editions Rulings No Rules *was* the rule. This was not invented by 4e (I'm not saying you are actually saying this). I'm saying that while 4e might have had that outcome on the surface, it's simply just that - a surface design. I'm more inclined to believe that based on the rest of the design of the system that lack of rigor for a skill-system was an afterthought because by design 4e is heavily about action-skirmishing-as-game than what apparently a lot of people consider a proper RPG.

5e is a tacit re-embracement of that design and style of play, however.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;963969Another move 4e made in the right direction was not codifying so much of the skill system. By that I mean things like 3.5's NPC Interaction Table that flat-out defines what you can do with your Diplomacy rolls, what the DC is, what success means, etc. There are still more codified checks in 4e than 5e, but there's a whole lot more that's left up to the DM to decide when you can do a check and what the consequences are for success or failure. I mostly ignored the codified tables, so 5e feels pretty similar in that regard.

No it didn't.  It had some basic ideas as to what you could do, but there was plenty of room to interpret as you like.

The third box had POSSIBLE actions.  Very important word there, POSSIBLE. Just because people were too stupid to fully read or were looking to scam the system changes nothing.  Also, isn't the whole point of D&D's rules is that they're meant to be guidelines?  So why is Diplomacy the only skill that you have to follow rigidly?

Example:  You managed to verbally charm (not Charm) a Red Dragon to the point of him willing to take risks to help you.  To him, though, that means he's willing to part with some of his magical toys (His choice of course) to aid you, with the stipulation that you'll give them back when you're done.  And that means when you're dead or retired, which could some decades, sure, but what's that to a Dragon's lifespan?  There's a chance he could lose them permanently, but that's a RISK he's willing to take.

What it boils down to is how each NPC interprets the result, which should be mostly unique to most NPC's.  But laziness and/or power gaming will prevail, I suppose.

Quote from: Omega;964021The whole "multiclassing" craze and "dipping" I've seen players try to carry over to 5e. Rather bemusing when they realize later that they hosed their character at the endgame for a short term perceived advantage.

Which brings up the question. Just how multiclassing happy is 4e? I dont think I've ever heard a single 4e player even mention it? Whereas sometimes it feels like thats all 3/PF players do. (Not quite. but sometimes it gets excessive.)

It began LONG before that.  I remember people complaining about the inability to multiclass as they wanted from the 2e days (and probably earlier, but...)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;964085No it didn't.  It had some basic ideas as to what you could do, but there was plenty of room to interpret as you like.

The third box had POSSIBLE actions.  Very important word there, POSSIBLE. Just because people were too stupid to fully read or were looking to scam the system changes nothing.  Also, isn't the whole point of D&D's rules is that they're meant to be guidelines?  So why is Diplomacy the only skill that you have to follow rigidly?

I hate when I choose a representative example of something and someone goes WHY IS THAT THE ONLY ONE YOU CARE ABOUT.

QuoteExample:  You managed to verbally charm (not Charm) a Red Dragon to the point of him willing to take risks to help you...What it boils down to is how each NPC interprets the result, which should be mostly unique to most NPC's.  But laziness and/or power gaming will prevail, I suppose.

The fundamental issue is that diplomancing the dragon is RAW in the first place. Yes, I know there's a Rule 0 blurb about skills somewhere in my 3e book, but the fact is that once something is written down, rules lawyers can and will use it. You can say that no, getting an ancient dragon to like you isn't that easy, and the player flips open his book and starts whining about RAW. Fact is, too much shit written down leads to too much rules litigation by power-gamers.

Trying to make skills work like the combat engine was a fundamentally bad decision.

Quote from: tenbonesI'm more inclined to believe that based on the rest of the design of the system that lack of rigor for a skill-system was an afterthought because by design 4e is heavily about action-skirmishing-as-game than what apparently a lot of people consider a proper RPG.

I don't think so. I think negating the ways people abused and exploited 3.x was in the forefront of Heinsoo et al's thinking. It was pretty obvious by the time 4e design work started that the 3.x skill system was broken. They didn't seem to quite understand that the combat engine isn't universally applicable, though, hence the awful skill challenge concept.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;964094The fundamental issue is that diplomancing the dragon is RAW in the first place. Yes, I know there's a Rule 0 blurb about skills somewhere in my 3e book, but the fact is that once something is written down, rules lawyers can and will use it. You can say that no, getting an ancient dragon to like you isn't that easy, and the player flips open his book and starts whining about RAW. Fact is, too much shit written down leads to too much rules litigation by power-gamers.

What's wrong with letting players do a legendary act?  This is a FANTASY game...

Quote from: fearsomepirate;964094Trying to make skills work like the combat engine was a fundamentally bad decision.

It's not like the combat engine, it's like the magic system.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;964094I don't think so. I think negating the ways people abused and exploited 3.x was in the forefront of Heinsoo et al's thinking. It was pretty obvious by the time 4e design work started that the 3.x skill system was broken. They didn't seem to quite understand that the combat engine isn't universally applicable, though, hence the awful skill challenge concept.

Wait, hold on.  What are you calling the 'combat engine'?  The D20 roll high mechanic?  Something else?

Quote from: fearsomepirate;964071By contrast, the 4e had much less rigorous skill check systems. For example, while 3.x had the Influencing NPC Attitudes table, 4e says, "A Diplomacy check is made against a DC set by the DM." Overall this is how skill checks are mostly used in 4e. There are a few standard tables around, but the trend toward "Rulings not Rules" in the skill system really began here.

I said this back in 2008 (http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2008/10/tale-of-two-4th-editions.html)

• Fourth edition is not the Dungeon & Dragons Game system.
• It is High Fantasy 24/7
• It takes away the character customization found in 3.X
• Open Licensing is gone, gone, gone.
• Combat is one of the crunchiest I seen, everything else reaches beyond AD&D 1st and reflects the spirt of OD&D than any other modern edition.
• The DMG is the best since the 1st edition AD&D DMG
• The design of the combat system works and plays well.

D&D 4th edition is GURPS combat/magic/powers with OD&D rules for everything else.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;964056Or just people who enjoy the tactical puzzle-game of character building.

One of my players loooooves that and looooooves 3e and Gurps.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;964085It began LONG before that.  I remember people complaining about the inability to multiclass as they wanted from the 2e days (and probably earlier, but...)

It goes a ways back and in fact you had to multiclass to become a Bard in AD&D. And Demi-humans could right out the gate. 3e just made it integral to gameplay and empowered those who liked it. AD&D though was open ended in levels. Which is where the problems seemed to set in. Ive seen some of the letters sent into TSR and Dragon magazine. Some probably were just jokes. Some obviously were not.

Quote from: Omega;964110One of my players loooooves that and looooooves 3e and Gurps.

I'm with them to a degree.  I especially enjoy powergaming sub-par concepts up to viability.  I don't want to be "that guy" whose character dominates the table, but I enjoy the character building game and having the customization to express my character's vibe mechanically.

Edit: Of course - there are ways to do that in older editions of D&D too.  Such as dual-classing with a human in Fighter long enough to get max weapon specialization and then go Thief - getting that bonus multiplied in backstab & potentially get a 18/XX STR.  I played that combo in Baldur's Gate II.

Quote from: Omega;9641113e just made it integral to gameplay and empowered those who liked it.

This part I may be wrong on though? Much like some synergies in older editions, wasnt the multiclassing problems that developed in 3e an unforeseen side effect? And then later they catered to it?

Quote from: Ulairi;964066I think AD&D does everything D&D needs to do. I don't see the need for a new edition. It's fine.

So you're fine with AD&D segments, bards, psionics and grappling? I think the core of AD&D, which is basically not too far from OD&D and B/X is solid and it has a great selection of spells and magic items but I can't see it being left as is for most DMs and players.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;964097What's wrong with letting players do a legendary act?  This is a FANTASY game...

This cop-out to justify bad systems never stops being dumb.

QuoteIt's not like the combat engine, it's like the magic system.

Wait, hold on.  What are you calling the 'combat engine'?  The D20 roll high mechanic?  Something else?

d20 + Mods >= Defense -> Apply Result

3.x skills are a generalization of d20 +mods >= defense -> apply damage roll to hp. Problem is that while hp is an adequate enough abstraction of all the nasty things a sword, warhammer, arrow, etc might do to someone to keep players engaged, everything the skills cover is far too broad. So 3rd edition has all these tables to define what happens when your attack beats the defense. The tables aren't particularly well-designed, which is a problem in itself, but also the concept of extending the combat engine to everything is a bad one. Skill, BAB, etc are all just attack ratings. A DC is just a defense.

Concretely, since 0e, if a player says "I attack the orc with my sword," its resolution and consequences have always been defined. Roll d20, check AC, apply damage. If the DM doesn't let you roll and just says, "Naw, the orc dodges your sword!" he's a shitty DM and shouldn't be running D&D, or allowed in public. This concept is extensible, but not infinitely so. I think most people agree that the combat engine works pretty well when rejiggered for stealth.

One place where it got insanely stupid was Use Rope. A rope has a defense of 10 against being tied in a "secure knot," and each player has an attack rating for being able to beat the rope's defense. This is so dumb it hurts, and whoever wrote the Use Rope skill in 3rd edition should be barred for life from the RPG industry. If D&D needs a mechanic for resolving whether someone knows how to tie a knot, Attack vs Defense sure as heck isn't it.

Attack vs Defense is an awful model for Knowing How to Do Something. It's an awful model for Having a Conversation, Unravelling the Mystery, or Remembering the Information. I think there's a chunk of the game from '74-'99 where player knowledge, fact-finding, intuition, and role-playing was the mechanic, and shoehorning it into the Attack vs Defense scheme kind of ruined it. Against the Cult of the Reptile Gods with the NPCs rolling Bluff vs Sense Motive just wouldn't be the same.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;964123Attack vs Defense is an awful model for Knowing How to Do Something. It's an awful model for Having a Conversation, Unravelling the Mystery, or Remembering the Information. I think there's a chunk of the game from '74-'99 where player knowledge, fact-finding, intuition, and role-playing was the mechanic, and shoehorning it into the Attack vs Defense scheme kind of ruined it.

At that point though, why even have a "character" when a LARGE part of this is simply 'You' doing all of this? We don't ask players to actually perform feats of Strength or have actual intricate knowledge of sword play or have a working knowledge of medieval warfare and even if they did, I don't think they should get a bonus just for having this knowledge as a player. Besides with today's technology anyone can be an "Expert" simply by looking at their smart phone for the answer. Sure this doesn't cover things like intuition but now "I'm" a venerable wellspring of information on how to sail, manage, and maintain a boat at sea. As for role-playing, that's prevalent in every iteration of the game so I'm not sure how that fits into it exactly...?

I do agree with you on how some of the skills played out in 3e and 4e. Just saying "I roll for diplomacy" isn't enough at my tables to get by, you have to have some notion of what to say or at least 3rd-person the dialog to get the message across to roll. And if what is conveyed is plausible and makes sense, maybe there's a bonus or I decrease the DC but if your're trying to get something for nothing or the conversation is crazy (like asking a King for his kingdom) results in an instant fail.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;964123This cop-out to justify bad systems never stops being dumb.

One man's bad system...

Quote from: fearsomepirate;964123Attack vs Defense is an awful model for Knowing How to Do Something. It's an awful model for Having a Conversation, Unravelling the Mystery, or Remembering the Information. I think there's a chunk of the game from '74-'99 where player knowledge, fact-finding, intuition, and role-playing was the mechanic, and shoehorning it into the Attack vs Defense scheme kind of ruined it. Against the Cult of the Reptile Gods with the NPCs rolling Bluff vs Sense Motive just wouldn't be the same.

But that's been D&D's model since day one.  It doesn't matter what dice you rolled, or if it was additive or roll under, it's still a roll against a 'defense'.  Saving throws, to hit, rolling under an attribute to 'know' something...  All of it, since the first time everyone crowded to Gygax's or Arnenson's tables.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;964123... I think there's a chunk of the game from '74-'99 where player knowledge, fact-finding, intuition, and role-playing was the mechanic, and shoehorning it into the Attack vs Defense scheme kind of ruined it. Against the Cult of the Reptile Gods with the NPCs rolling Bluff vs Sense Motive just wouldn't be the same.

You seem to be projecting a style of play onto the past that was never so simple. There's good evidence the use of ability checks were hacked into the game pretty early. They were never a replacement for solving a mystery yourself, that seems to be a strawman. Describe what you do, then roll and resolve is the method laid out even in the 5e DMG. Perhaps some OCD rules lawyers did it otherwise in the late days of 3e but this seems to be a bugbear of the OSR's imagination than a widespread practice.

Quote from: Voros;964364Perhaps some OCD rules lawyers did it otherwise in the late days of 3e but this seems to be a bugbear of the OSR's imagination than a widespread practice.

I've already mentioned once today somewhere on this site that a lot of the 'problems' with 3e were in fact only problems with people online discussing exploits in 3e and trying to prove some point*, and not for those who were trying to make the system work. However, I was on the WotC forums around 2001-2005. I remember some discussion surrounding Diplomacy checks. Apparently there were trivially easy ways to get a phenomenally high skill check (for instance, boots of jumping give you a +20 jump check, or potions of glibness for +30 bluff, and the magic item equivalence rules suggest that you can make an equivalent item for any other skill, IIRC), and you could do some world-changing things with a high skill check (particularly if you used the 'DC X allows you to do Y' rules listed in the Epic Level Handbook). Now I've quite literally never met any DM that allowed anything from the ELH into a pre-epic game, but on the forums, there was always someone there phenomenally upset that the rules did in fact exist somewhere in the game.


*By no means all of the problems with 3e

Quote from: Batman;964286At that point though, why even have a "character" when a LARGE part of this is simply 'You' doing all of this? We don't ask players to actually perform feats of Strength or have actual intricate knowledge of sword play or have a working knowledge of medieval warfare and even if they did, I don't think they should get a bonus just for having this knowledge as a player.

We do expect players to be smart, or we'd take away all choices from them. Nobody wants to play a game where all choices are stripped from the player and left to rolling against the WIS and INT stats of the party.

However, note that I'm being rather specific here, not just going on a general tirade against overusing the RNG. 5e's rule is "The DM decides will have you roll when he decides there should be a random result." That's not the combat engine.

The combat engine is about RAW:
1. The rules define your attack bonus
2. The rules define the target's defense
3. The rules define the consequences of a hit or miss

This is critical. If the DM can make up a DC, or straight-out say there's no roll for this one, you don't have the D&D combat engine. Just ask if that works in combat. "18 vs AC on the kobold? You miss. He's taking defensive maneuvers, so I gave him an AC of 20 for this round." "Nah, you don't get to attack the giant this round. He's not giving you an opening." "18 vs AC on the wight is a hit. He stumbles backward 5 feet and drops his weapon. Nah, no damage roll this time."

I also didn't get this from the OSR. I got this from running TSR modules in 5e, especially N1. There's no roll to know which villagers are lying to you. You've got to figure it out on your own by observing patterns and noticing inconsistencies. That's what makes it a great module. I realized in the course of running it that I hate telling players, "You get the sense that he is lying to you." Screw that. And my players, all of whom started with 4e, loved it. Once they internalized that I was never going to just have the d20 tell them whom to trust, it changed the whole tempo of the adventure and the way the players interacted with the world.

Sure but where's the 5e rule saying you need to make a INT or WIS roll to detect a lie?

Quote from: fearsomepirate;964123This cop-out to justify bad systems never stops being dumb.



d20 + Mods >= Defense -> Apply Result

3.x skills are a generalization of d20 +mods >= defense -> apply damage roll to hp. Problem is that while hp is an adequate enough abstraction of all the nasty things a sword, warhammer, arrow, etc might do to someone to keep players engaged, everything the skills cover is far too broad. So 3rd edition has all these tables to define what happens when your attack beats the defense. The tables aren't particularly well-designed, which is a problem in itself, but also the concept of extending the combat engine to everything is a bad one. Skill, BAB, etc are all just attack ratings. A DC is just a defense.

Concretely, since 0e, if a player says "I attack the orc with my sword," its resolution and consequences have always been defined. Roll d20, check AC, apply damage. If the DM doesn't let you roll and just says, "Naw, the orc dodges your sword!" he's a shitty DM and shouldn't be running D&D, or allowed in public. This concept is extensible, but not infinitely so. I think most people agree that the combat engine works pretty well when rejiggered for stealth.

One place where it got insanely stupid was Use Rope. A rope has a defense of 10 against being tied in a "secure knot," and each player has an attack rating for being able to beat the rope's defense. This is so dumb it hurts, and whoever wrote the Use Rope skill in 3rd edition should be barred for life from the RPG industry. If D&D needs a mechanic for resolving whether someone knows how to tie a knot, Attack vs Defense sure as heck isn't it.

Attack vs Defense is an awful model for Knowing How to Do Something. It's an awful model for Having a Conversation, Unravelling the Mystery, or Remembering the Information. I think there's a chunk of the game from '74-'99 where player knowledge, fact-finding, intuition, and role-playing was the mechanic, and shoehorning it into the Attack vs Defense scheme kind of ruined it. Against the Cult of the Reptile Gods with the NPCs rolling Bluff vs Sense Motive just wouldn't be the same.

Quoth for truth.

As the equation above illustrates, the Pass/fail roll is the broad category of the function. (The four basic die functions being: pass/fail, degree of success, active opposition roll, & extended roll. They can be combined later in other ways.) But!, it is defined here in 3.x as a subset, as it is in opposition to a passive defense. That matters, because you then have to define oppositional value to create the fictive reality's passive defense from being acted upon -- regardless of any illogic that entails.

Needless to say this is not ideal for it requires you to subsume the totality of fictive reality within a numeric scale before play even starts. And what's the first fatal flaw there (besides over-prossessing)?, it necessitates ignoring extenuating contexts to fabricate a functional measure so play can even start. Later, it becomes counter-intuitive for everything becomes resistant to your will -- and thus inflation being a handmaiden to entropic madness -- so if inanimate objects can "successfully resist" at base competency, eventually power inflation creeps into the system to the point of incoherency.

Ergo the beauty of AD&D's "1st skill system," as Gronan summarizes, "assuming adventurers, like the players, can shit unassisted." And later you get AD&D 2e optional skill system 2, professions, and optional system 3, NWPs (professional piecemeal skills) -- where the base assumption is you don't need to roll for anything if it is within the basic wheelhouse of expected tasks within a professional's capacity. In fact, rolling is only for professional tricks that are beyond the average expectation of a professional's capacity.

Which gets to Rope Use. There is a profound difference from 3.x rolls versus inanimate rope "resisting" basic attempts to knot it, and 2e NWP rolls versus attempts at hard professional rope tricks, like making self-untying knots under time pressure. Besides one waving away even the question at whether the basics can be done, it becomes a contest "versus one's skill" compared to a contest "versus the static features of one's reality." The perspective of measurement matters, because it cascades assumptions from there.

So, good job! Good job! You've articulated an oft overlooked and misunderstood cascading design problem embedded within the 3.x paradigm. People should study their tools before they use them to see if they are approaching their desired aesthetic appropriately.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;964123This cop-out to justify bad systems never stops being dumb.



d20 + Mods >= Defense -> Apply Result

3.x skills are a generalization of d20 +mods >= defense -> apply damage roll to hp. Problem is that while hp is an adequate enough abstraction of all the nasty things a sword, warhammer, arrow, etc might do to someone to keep players engaged, everything the skills cover is far too broad. So 3rd edition has all these tables to define what happens when your attack beats the defense. The tables aren't particularly well-designed, which is a problem in itself, but also the concept of extending the combat engine to everything is a bad one. Skill, BAB, etc are all just attack ratings. A DC is just a defense.
.....

Attack vs Defense is an awful model for Knowing How to Do Something. It's an awful model for Having a Conversation, Unravelling the Mystery, or Remembering the Information. I think there's a chunk of the game from '74-'99 where player knowledge, fact-finding, intuition, and role-playing was the mechanic, and shoehorning it into the Attack vs Defense scheme kind of ruined it. Against the Cult of the Reptile Gods with the NPCs rolling Bluff vs Sense Motive just wouldn't be the same.

Sorry but this is just talking out of your ass. The idea of rolling dice + mods >= target numbers been around for a long time in wargames and RPGs. For example Traveller in 1977.

Your criticism of the existence and use of a "Use Rope" skill has merit. Not because of the dice rolling mechanic but rather of the scope of the skill and how fiddly it is. When I wrote the Majestic Wilderlands I put a lot of thought into what categories I ought to make for my ability (skill) system and did some reading on the few design notes where the author talks about how they designed their skill system. It an art to get it right. Even now after nearly a decade of using it and fine tuning it there is probably room for improvement.

What I do know is that you can't have too few skills or too many. There is a sweet spot that in my view is around two dozen to three dozen skills. Even with my system I wonder whether having a Eavesdrop and a Perception ability is splitting hair too finely. Recently I changed how negotiations worked. Before I made a distinction between large scale deals (like ships full of grain, what feudal dues one vassal owes) an ability called Accounting. While day to day haggling fell under Locution. Accounting included knowledge of finance as well.

But after several campaign and input from players, I changed Accounting to Haggling and removed the use of Locution for haggling, now Locution is solely about gaining a favorable reaction while speaking. Haggling still has a knowledge of finance components which doesn't quite fit with a idea of a character good at day to day negotiation  for a bushel of fruit. But I don't want to expand the list much beyond what it is now.

Could the d20 skill list be better sure,  and certainty with the OGL in play people have the chance to make changes and it appears that Pathfinder did so. For example d20 has

QuoteAppraise
Balance
Bluff
Climb
Concentration
Craft
Decipher Script
Diplomacy
Disable Device
Disguise
Escape Artist
Forgery
Gather Information
Handle Animal
Heal
Hide
Intimidate
Jump
Knowledge
Listen
Move Silently
Open Lock
Perform
Profession
Ride
Search
Sense Motive
Sleight Of Hand
Speak Language
Spellcraft
Spot
Survival
Swim
Tumble
Use Magic Device
Use Rope

While Pathfinder has

QuoteAcrobatics
Appraise
Bluff
Climb
Craft
Diplomacy
Disable Device
Disguise
Escape Artist
Fly
Handle Animal
Heal
Intimidate
Knowledge (arcana)
Knowledge (dungeoneering)
Knowledge (engineering)
Knowledge (geography)
Knowledge (history)
Knowledge (local)
Knowledge (nature)
Knowledge (nobility)
Knowledge (planes)
Knowledge (religion)
Linguistics
Perception
Perform
Profession
Ride
Sense Motive
Sleight of Hand
Spellcraft
Stealth
Survival
Swim
Use Magic Device

Quote from: fearsomepirate;964388We do expect players to be smart, or we'd take away all choices from them. Nobody wants to play a game where all choices are stripped from the player and left to rolling against the WIS and INT stats of the party.

What I'm discussing is actual player skill that bleeds over onto the character, and the problems that arise there when the character shouldn't have said knowledge. The Player might be perceptive as hell, finding flaws in logic or picking up on things that tip him off to an NPC lying.....but you're playing a half-orc Barbarian with a Wisdom of 8 and an Intelligence of 6. I understand that it's just one specific example but this trend tends to lead to other areas like players having good working knowledge of things like Physics or even something specific like nautical know-how.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;964388However, note that I'm being rather specific here, not just going on a general tirade against overusing the RNG. 5e's rule is "The DM decides will have you roll when he decides there should be a random result." That's not the combat engine.

The combat engine is about RAW:
1. The rules define your attack bonus
2. The rules define the target's defense
3. The rules define the consequences of a hit or miss

This is critical. If the DM can make up a DC, or straight-out say there's no roll for this one, you don't have the D&D combat engine. Just ask if that works in combat. "18 vs AC on the kobold? You miss. He's taking defensive maneuvers, so I gave him an AC of 20 for this round." "Nah, you don't get to attack the giant this round. He's not giving you an opening." "18 vs AC on the wight is a hit. He stumbles backward 5 feet and drops his weapon. Nah, no damage roll this time."

That sounds arbitrary and pretty terrible and would, likely, lead to players just saying or narrating what they say goes and chaos ensues where the game dissolves into "Nuh uh" "yeah huh!" especially with today's players. But even in my days of AD&D it never came to that. But i'll admit my time with pre-WotC D&D was very limited. I think we were already full-swing into books like Player's Options: Skills and Powers.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;964388I also didn't get this from the OSR. I got this from running TSR modules in 5e, especially N1. There's no roll to know which villagers are lying to you. You've got to figure it out on your own by observing patterns and noticing inconsistencies. That's what makes it a great module. I realized in the course of running it that I hate telling players, "You get the sense that he is lying to you." Screw that. And my players, all of whom started with 4e, loved it. Once they internalized that I was never going to just have the d20 tell them whom to trust, it changed the whole tempo of the adventure and the way the players interacted with the world.

I'm not entirely sure why this couldn't be done with any system or why 3e/4e (even 5e) system somehow limits this? Maybe that's not what you're saying but I sort of assumed that most DMs did this anyways?

Quote from: Batman;964480What I'm discussing is actual player skill that bleeds over onto the character, and the problems that arise there when the character shouldn't have said knowledge. The Player might be perceptive as hell, finding flaws in logic or picking up on things that tip him off to an NPC lying.....but you're playing a half-orc Barbarian with a Wisdom of 8 and an Intelligence of 6. I understand that it's just one specific example but this trend tends to lead to other areas like players having good working knowledge of things like Physics or even something specific like nautical know-how.  

There will always be people who want to play characters with better skills than their own (often social skills), and there will always be people who make characters with horrible stats (usually social or mental) but then decline to play them that way. I don't really know that I think the rule set should be tasked with resolving those issues.



 

QuoteI'm not entirely sure why this couldn't be done with any system or why 3e/4e (even 5e) system somehow limits this? Maybe that's not what you're saying but I sort of assumed that most DMs did this anyways?

I think this is a subset of what I call the "should there have been a thief class?" conundrum. If you make a set of rules, and put into them a mechanism for doing something, is that an implication that you cannot achieve that something through other means? In other words, is the inclusion of an insight skill an implication that you need that skill to be able to determine if someone is lying? My gut on that specific scenario is no, but I'm not consistent in general. I do think that the thief class, when introduced, should have had wording along the lines of "the inclusion of this new class does not imply that all non-thieves should no longer be able to move stealthily, climb things, or find traps. This is an additional benefit on top of however one has been adjudicating such things up to this point... [and then explanation on how the two should meld]" and I think the absence of such wording caused much headache and gnashing of teeth.


There's certainly a nugget of truth to what Fearsome is saying. I've never been particularly happy with a single roll (regardless of whether the DCs were reasonable or poorly thought out) determining social situations. If you are going to have social situations resolved by dice roll at all, it should be more along the lines of a full small combat than like a single attack roll. I've yet to see one that works at all well though. Skullduggery is the closest I've seen, and even that ends up being a series of dice rolls after an initial comparing one's social attack to the other's social defense.

Quote from: estar;964468Sorry but this is just talking out of your ass. The idea of rolling dice + mods >= target numbers been around for a long time in wargames and RPGs. For example Traveller in 1977.

You left out -> apply effect and RAW. If the rules either don't define the check, its effects, or its circumstance, we're not talking about the combat engine. Furthermore, I didn't say rolling vs DC is bad. I said the idea that it can be extended to everything, which is more or less what 3.x tried to do, is bad.

Basically it works when these conditions are met:
1. Any PC has the right to roll
2. It should be pass/fail
3. The conditions of the roll and its consequences should be significantly protected from DM discretion.

Stealth vs Perception is my go-to example of a case when these conditions are met, which is probably why it's one of the few explicitly defined skill checks from 3rd edition that didn't get axed in 5e. There's actually a lot of stuff explicitly in D&D that doesn't fall under those categories. In 5e, whether or not you get a skill check at all is explicitly left to DM discretion in most circumstances. Language proficiency doesn't mean you add your proficiency to an Understand Speech roll. Not every class can use scrolls. In 5e, Ideal/Bond/Flaw is a mechanic for gaining Inspiration that has nothing to with d20 vs DC. The backgrounds also have mechanics. For example, the Sailor can secure free passage on sailing ships for his party; no one else intrinsically has this ability. There's no Secure Free Passage DC for anyone to roll against. Either you have Feature: Ship's Passage, or you don't.

I also think the WotC system simply moved a lot of the game from player/DM agency to the d20 via Sense Motive. Consider the classic "Two guards, one always lies, one always tells the truth" puzzle. In 3.5, a failed Bluff vs Sense Motive on the part of the lying guard solves the puzzle. But there's no need for a roll; the puzzle is completely solvable without a roll. Same goes for the N1 module. In the module, there are no rolls to figure out who is a cultist and who isn't, and it's considered one of the best AD&D modules. Having run it, not only do I think it was great, but I also think that it would have been ruined, not improved, with 3.5-style Bluff vs Sense Motive checks. Early on, a player was somewhat miffed that I wouldn't let him roll Insight checks on every villager he talked to, but as the module went on, it became obvious why, and everyone had a lot of fun.

QuoteYour criticism of the existence and use of a "Use Rope" skill has merit. Not because of the dice rolling mechanic but rather of the scope of the skill and how fiddly it is.

If you know how to tie a knot, you can tie it reliably approximately 100% of the time. It's not that everyone necessarily should know how to tie a Boy Scout-quality knot, it's that it shouldn't be randomly determined, player by player, knot by knot. That's why Attack vs Defense is a bad model for knot-tying. It's not just that the DC is too high and skill points are too scarce.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;964484There will always be people who want to play characters with better skills than their own (often social skills), and there will always be people who make characters with horrible stats (usually social or mental) but then decline to play them that way. I don't really know that I think the rule set should be tasked with resolving those issues.

By making rolls based off those stats it helps to limit the glib, silver tongued player who knows everything from steam-rolling conversations with NPCs when he's playing a Character with a Charisma of 8. It the same vein that it helps those players who might want to play a smooth talking and Charismatic bard but in reality isn't very socially outward or adept or shy. Essentially it puts more focus with the Character that's actually there and interacting than the player who's pulling the levers.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;964484I think this is a subset of what I call the "should there have been a thief class?" conundrum. If you make a set of rules, and put into them a mechanism for doing something, is that an implication that you cannot achieve that something through other means? In other words, is the inclusion of an insight skill an implication that you need that skill to be able to determine if someone is lying? My gut on that specific scenario is no, but I'm not consistent in general. I do think that the thief class, when introduced, should have had wording along the lines of "the inclusion of this new class does not imply that all non-thieves should no longer be able to move stealthily, climb things, or find traps. This is an additional benefit on top of however one has been adjudicating such things up to this point... [and then explanation on how the two should meld]" and I think the absence of such wording caused much headache and gnashing of teeth.

I see what you mean. But let me ask you, by creating the Fireball spell are we saying that there's no other way to produce similar effects or even non-magical effects besides casting that particular spell? Look at 3e's inclusion of Feats like Power Attack and it sounds like the only way someone could do more damage with a wildly inaccurate swing is by having this special widget and no one else can attempt without. Some people are OK with the first because....magic.....but the second is bad because I guess anyone can pick up 3-ft of steel and swing it around. Either way, it's called Exception-based Rules. Now I'm of the mind that if you want to produce your own "Fireball" then you get a lot of oil in a barrel throw it at someone or something with a lit wick coming from the top.  In 4e I usually llow most of my players to try stuff even if they don't have a specified power for it. Want to "Cleave", ok you can try but you might do so at a disadvantage and it probably won't be as good as the actual power but the gist of what you want to do will come across. And I run that line of thinking across every part of the game. Want to cast a Cantrip but aren't a Magic-User? Well you can attempt an Arcane check and it might cost you something in return (maybe HP or a Healing Surge or something like that) and the DC will be High but there are times when it's worth the attempt.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;964484There's certainly a nugget of truth to what Fearsome is saying. I've never been particularly happy with a single roll (regardless of whether the DCs were reasonable or poorly thought out) determining social situations. If you are going to have social situations resolved by dice roll at all, it should be more along the lines of a full small combat than like a single attack roll. I've yet to see one that works at all well though. Skullduggery is the closest I've seen, and even that ends up being a series of dice rolls after an initial comparing one's social attack to the other's social defense.

That's sort of the whole point behind Skill Challenges in 4e. The fact that the entire social interaction isn't determined by 1 roll AND that everyone can, in some capacity, participate. Now we can argue about how terribly it was implemented, how it was FAR too formulaic and constructed in it's approach, and that it took a few years later to get it right in terms of how to proceed with the checks but the intent was there. When I run skill challenges the DC fluctuates depending on how the players act and what they players say to the point where if they're good and their character reflects that then they by-pass the check altogether. And by their character reflection, I mean when they spout their line of BS I'm gonna check their Charisma score and if it's positive or negative. Positive might require a roll or might get a freebe and if it's negative then most likely a check.

Quote from: Batman;964480What I'm discussing is actual player skill that bleeds over onto the character, and the problems that arise there when the character shouldn't have said knowledge. The Player might be perceptive as hell, finding flaws in logic or picking up on things that tip him off to an NPC lying.....but you're playing a half-orc Barbarian with a Wisdom of 8 and an Intelligence of 6. I understand that it's just one specific example but this trend tends to lead to other areas like players having good working knowledge of things like Physics or even something specific like nautical know-how.

TBH I never much cared about what players know. If you pick up on logical flaws with an INT of 8, good for you. I think it's a fool's errand to try and stop "meta-gaming."

QuoteI'm not entirely sure why this couldn't be done with any system or why 3e/4e (even 5e) system somehow limits this? Maybe that's not what you're saying but I sort of assumed that most DMs did this anyways?

You really can't in 3e, because it doesn't leave a lot to DM discretion. If you talk to the Orlane constable for a couple minutes and the DM doesn't let you roll Sense Motive, you have as much right to complain as if you swung your sword and he didn't let you roll Attack. If your Sense Motive check is 25, and the DM doesn't also tell you that the constable is being magically influenced, he's just as much in violation of RAW as if he told you that you missed on an attack roll of 25. Additionally, if the constable tells you to go to the Golden Grain Inn for a nice, kidnapping-free rest and a hearty, non-poisoned meal, he needs to roll a Bluff vs Sense Motive check.

The mentality of 3e design is summed up in the 3.0 DMG:
"The whole game can be boiled down to the characters trying to accomplish various tasks, the DM determining how difficult the tasks are to accomplish, and the dice determining success or failure. While combat and spellcasting have their own rules for how difficult tasks are, skill checks and ability checks handle everything else."

If you read the whole section, considering their first example is making a pot, it's pretty clear they expect everything to be rolled. You might give the constable a bonus or penalty on his Bluff check, but the idea that you wouldn't roll it at all is not even countenanced. Now, 4e backs off this attempt to combatify the entire game in some ways, and 5e backs off even more. By the time we get to 5e, skills have been transformed from Combat Engine For Everything to a set of DM tools for when you want to throw some randomness into the game.

Quote from: estar;964468When I wrote the Majestic Wilderlands...

Is this a game now as well as your setting book?

Quote from: fearsomepirate;964500You really can't in 3e, because it doesn't leave a lot to DM discretion. If you talk to the Orlane constable for a couple minutes and the DM doesn't let you roll Sense Motive, you have as much right to complain as if you swung your sword and he didn't let you roll Attack. If your Sense Motive check is 25, and the DM doesn't also tell you that the constable is being magically influenced, he's just as much in violation of RAW as if he told you that you missed on an attack roll of 25. Additionally, if the constable tells you to go to the Golden Grain Inn for a nice, kidnapping-free rest and a hearty, non-poisoned meal, he needs to roll a Bluff vs Sense Motive check.

I don't see how the system has the power not to leave the DM discretion. The DM has equal power to ignore the rules when using od&d, 1e, 3e, and Runequest. The only difference between OD&D and 3e is that 3e actually has (poorly implemented) rules related to sense motive.

No small part of the distinction that might be missing is the social contract of acceptability--if I as the player have a DM who tells me that I missed on an attack roll of 25 when I clearly should have hit, I get upset. If I as the player have a DM who tells me that I don't know if the constable is lying on a sense motive roll of 25 when I clearly should have succeeded, I congratulate them on being able to make and adventure like a real human being, and not some hidebound drone with a construct-like dedication to RAW. Is that capricious and arbitrary? Yes, but I bet it maps player behavior pretty accurately.

QuoteThe mentality of 3e design is summed up in the 3.0 DMG:
"The whole game can be boiled down to the characters trying to accomplish various tasks, the DM determining how difficult the tasks are to accomplish, and the dice determining success or failure. While combat and spellcasting have their own rules for how difficult tasks are, skill checks and ability checks handle everything else."

If you read the whole section, considering their first example is making a pot, it's pretty clear they expect everything to be rolled. You might give the constable a bonus or penalty on his Bluff check, but the idea that you wouldn't roll it at all is not even countenanced. Now, 4e backs off this attempt to combatify the entire game in some ways, and 5e backs off even more. By the time we get to 5e, skills have been transformed from Combat Engine For Everything to a set of DM tools for when you want to throw some randomness into the game.

I'll agree, 3e seemed to be the point where the game designers thought we wanted every part of the world and every action able to be codified by the rules. If you term that combatify, I tentatively agree.

Quote from: Dumarest;964507Is this a game now as well as your setting book?

Yes, as it turns out in the seven years since I released it, I have enough rules to make it its own system. But since there been so many clones, and near clones released I am going to do it a bit differently. Instead of a single book of core rules, I am going to release it as a series. When combined they will function as their own RPG, separate they work as supplements to Swords and Wizardry.

It worked up a set of basic rules to be included as an appendix in each of these which anybody can download (https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0Bx9oLF40m-b8Q01OSFRqOFJ6Wms). I also have a blog post (http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-basic-rules-for-majestic-fantasy-rpg.html) with design notes.

I like bluff and sense motive both as a player and as a DM.  Admitibly I used them a lot more as a player.  

It comes down to band width.  The DM can't lie to the players.  Can't. Can't.  Muther Fucking Never Ever Ever CAN'T FUCKING LIE TO THE PLAYERS.  The DM is the universe, and the players senses, and logic and reason causality and time.  If the DM lies as causality or the players senses then the players are playing insane people, if their reason is unreliable, if their senses don't show truth, then.....   Then a whole bunch of stuff all of it bad but basicly the whole game completely falls apart.  

Now the DM is also a character, all the other characters.  Obviously NPCs can lie.  The DM can lie to the players as an NPC.  But he has to truthfully lie.  He has to be on enough, and the players have to be engaged enough so he can lay out subtle signals that, this fiction he is spinning is a false fiction.  And what the fuck does that even mean?  There is no Inn, so you aren't going to be sold into slavery no matter what, there is no constible, and I am not a fucking elf.  

Now if you are a good enough actor to put all of that in there great.  If your players are preceptive and engaged enough topick it up fan fucking tastic.  If you have been playing together long enough to have a read on each other so you know each other well enough that you have that kind of reliable unspoken comunication thats amazing.  But other wise have a roll.  Or don't make the player roll but when they ask tell them, that constible is lieing, or hiding something or doesn't like strangers in his town or what ever.  

And one more thing.  You aren't as good as you thing you are.  You missed something, some clue, that if this was a real place and we were really in it, would tip off a perceptive person that all was not as it seemed.  You forgot to put it in, or didn't know it belonged there, so you've already cheated.  You have already lied as the universe.

Quote from: estar;964516Yes, as it turns out in the seven years since I released it, I have enough rules to make it its own system. But since there been so many clones, and near clones released I am going to do it a bit differently. Instead of a single book of core rules, I am going to release it as a series. When combined they will function as their own RPG, separate they work as supplements to Swords and Wizardry.

It worked up a set of basic rules to be included as an appendix in each of these which anybody can download (https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0Bx9oLF40m-b8Q01OSFRqOFJ6Wms). I also have a blog post (http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-basic-rules-for-majestic-fantasy-rpg.html) with design notes.

Neat, I will check that out. Can't beat free!

Quote from: fearsomepirate;964500You really can't in 3e, because it doesn't leave a lot to DM discretion. If you talk to the Orlane constable for a couple minutes and the DM doesn't let you roll Sense Motive, you have as much right to complain as if you swung your sword and he didn't let you roll Attack.

Oh and just what exactly can a player do via the 3.X rules to that recalcitrant referee. Complain to Wizards that his referee is being a meanie and a cheater and should revoke his credentials? Oh wait that only found in a comic book (http://www.kenzerco.com/index.php?cPath=22_23).

Look the whole reason we have a referee in tabletop roleplaying is that the player has incomplete information. The what governs what happens is the specifics of the situation. Of which only the referee has complete knowledge of. The rules are a useful tools for the players and referee to be consistent about how things are resolved. There may be times when I just declare nothing happens when you swing your sword. It on you as the players to figure out why that was so. And if I proved to be erratic and arbitrary for your tastes you can always vote with your feet (or mouse if using a VTT).

Reread the 3.0 and 3.5 DM's Guide nowhere it strips the referee of his authority to make a ruling as he see fits. If you think it does then point out the page number where I can find it.

Now when it comes to organized play then it is a different story. To make it work the referee doesn't have the latitude he does with a home campaign.

Quote from: Headless;964518IIt comes down to band width.  The DM can't lie to the players.  Can't. Can't.  Muther Fucking Never Ever Ever CAN'T FUCKING LIE TO THE PLAYERS.  The DM is the universe, and the players senses, and logic and reason causality and time.  If the DM lies as causality or the players senses then the players are playing insane people, if their reason is unreliable, if their senses don't show truth, then.....   Then a whole bunch of stuff all of it bad but basicly the whole game completely falls apart.

In a sense you are right but you over-complicate it. It straightforward, when describing the environment and what in it, do it as accurate as the players would see if they were there as their characters. When roleplaying a NPC one shouldn't assume that what the NPCs is saying is accurate or truthful.

Now if a referee want to be effective then there are some additional techniques I found useful like making sure that not all of your NPCs are assholes in form or another and are actually helpful.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;964500TBH I never much cared about what players know. If you pick up on logical flaws with an INT of 8, good for you. I think it's a fool's errand to try and stop "meta-gaming."

I find it incredibly jarring. And the best way to stop meta-gaming is at the table when you come across it. Not necessarily something the system can fix but at least there are some things in there to knock it down a peg.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;964500You really can't in 3e, because it doesn't leave a lot to DM discretion. If you talk to the Orlane constable for a couple minutes and the DM doesn't let you roll Sense Motive, you have as much right to complain as if you swung your sword and he didn't let you roll Attack. If your Sense Motive check is 25, and the DM doesn't also tell you that the constable is being magically influenced, he's just as much in violation of RAW as if he told you that you missed on an attack roll of 25. Additionally, if the constable tells you to go to the Golden Grain Inn for a nice, kidnapping-free rest and a hearty, non-poisoned meal, he needs to roll a Bluff vs Sense Motive check.

I'm going to beg to differ here. Sort of like Meta-gaming, asking to roll Sense Motive after every single NPC interaction just bogs down the game and I'm probably going to tell the Player "No". Not because they can't but because there's no in-game reason why they would. And that's certainly different than saying "I'm going to attack this guy with my sword" and the DM saying no. Sense Motive should be used when there's a reason to be suspicious of someone, not just because you willy-nilly mistrust EVERY single person you come across.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;964500The mentality of 3e design is summed up in the 3.0 DMG:
"The whole game can be boiled down to the characters trying to accomplish various tasks, the DM determining how difficult the tasks are to accomplish, and the dice determining success or failure. While combat and spellcasting have their own rules for how difficult tasks are, skill checks and ability checks handle everything else."

If you read the whole section, considering their first example is making a pot, it's pretty clear they expect everything to be rolled. You might give the constable a bonus or penalty on his Bluff check, but the idea that you wouldn't roll it at all is not even countenanced. Now, 4e backs off this attempt to combatify the entire game in some ways, and 5e backs off even more. By the time we get to 5e, skills have been transformed from Combat Engine For Everything to a set of DM tools for when you want to throw some randomness into the game.

Within the context of the rules, sure that's what it says. The Designers also know that there's a human being behind the screen determining when those skills can be of use.

I think I should give a clarifying example of what I mean about "perspective of measurement":

In art realism with a nod to "viewer perspective" you use a bite-sized chunk of space from the subject to calculate relative spatial perspective, and thus use that as a ruler to measure the component images for the final drawing.

e.g. Use the head of a person as a measurement segment to calculate the rest of the given images size. So, someone might be 7 to 9 "heads" tall and 3 "heads" wide, a nearby tree 3 "subject's height" tall, and the distant cow on the hill half a "head."

In placing the emphasis of measurement on the statics of a fictive world, to calculate things like DC, you have to essentially invent their "meter." Basically, you must invent a universal measurement system in which perspective is removed from what's immediately at hand, and then work backwards to the image to be painted.

It is doable. But, like all systems, has its benefits and pitfalls. And one of those is its challenge to account for adjudication with unexpected context when you are privileging the fictive world with static laws that resist PC actions and assume to supercede GM judgment. Suddenly you've handed over your game to the nearest mathmetician to extrapolate ImaginationLand. And given no boundaries (due to magic & gods & planes & stuff)... something is bound to break.

Quote from: estarOh and just what exactly can a player do via the 3.X rules to that recalcitrant referee. Complain to Wizards that his referee is being a meanie and a cheater and should revoke his credentials?

Quote from: Batman;964533I'm going to beg to differ here. Sort of like Meta-gaming, asking to roll Sense Motive after every single NPC interaction just bogs down the game and I'm probably going to tell the Player "No". Not because they can't but because there's no in-game reason why they would.

"The rules work fine because I ignored them, and there's no International Game Police to stop me" doesn't prove the paradigm worked. Quite the opposite. I think it's quite clear from the 3rd edition PHB and DMG text that you weren't supposed to ignore the rules, so the fact that everyone seems to agree that ignoring them is the way to go is proof enough that trying to combat-ify everything with codified DCs, rolling conditions, etc was in fact a colossal failure.

QuoteThe Designers also know that there's a human being behind the screen determining when those skills can be of use.

Assuming reasonableness on the part of Monte Cook usually ends in tears.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;964510I don't see how the system has the power not to leave the DM discretion. The DM has equal power to ignore the rules when using od&d, 1e, 3e, and Runequest. The only difference between OD&D and 3e is that 3e actually has (poorly implemented) rules related to sense motive.

No small part of the distinction that might be missing is the social contract of acceptability--if I as the player have a DM who tells me that I missed on an attack roll of 25 when I clearly should have hit, I get upset. If I as the player have a DM who tells me that I don't know if the constable is lying on a sense motive roll of 25 when I clearly should have succeeded, I congratulate them on being able to make and adventure like a real human being, and not some hidebound drone with a construct-like dedication to RAW. Is that capricious and arbitrary? Yes, but I bet it maps player behavior pretty accurately.

To whatever extent the players and DM failed to buy into the rules (e.g. the DM just overrides that Sense Motive of 25 = I know you're charmed), that's a failure of the rules. Which is really my point. I think the tone of 3e's text makes it pretty clear that Cook et al. fully intended to bake d20 vs DC into everything, and people figured out this was a bad idea one way or another early on. 4e makes this more explicit by backing off the codification, and 5e straight up says you roll skills when the DM decides he wants randomness.

QuoteI'll agree, 3e seemed to be the point where the game designers thought we wanted every part of the world and every action able to be codified by the rules. If you term that combatify, I tentatively agree.

Not just codification, but codification into the d20 system. Take for example Use Rope. Not everyone in real life knows how to tie good knots, and it would be entirely reasonable to have a system where a character has a variety of simple yes/no abilities to cover things like that. Either you can tie good knots, or you can't. Either you can navigate by the stars, or you can't. Either you can make a pot, or you can't. Either you can operate siege weapons, or you can't. Etc.  3.x's mistake was trying to extend Attack vs Defense to everything, so that "being skilled" basically means "having a good attack rating." And it's a bad model for many things for all the aforementioned reasons.

The only good thing about 4e is that it proved a whole bunch of people's horrible ideas to be definitively wrong.

Quote from: RPGPundit;965015The only good thing about 4e is that it proved a whole bunch of people's horrible ideas to be definitively wrong.

Yes, like Long and Short Rests, the Warlords powers (Battlemaster Fighter) Second Wind (Fighter), Action Surge (Fighter), various spell effects (Like pushing targets so many feet), codification of the conditions and damages, like Poison, Thunder, Cold and Fire (among all the others)...

Thank God that 5e avoided that, eh?  Eh?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;965058Yes, like Long and Short Rests, the Warlords powers (Battlemaster Fighter) Second Wind (Fighter), Action Surge (Fighter), various spell effects (Like pushing targets so many feet), codification of the conditions and damages, like Poison, Thunder, Cold and Fire (among all the others)...

Thank God that 5e avoided that, eh?  Eh?

I would imagine Pundit doesn't like those either?  Or he could be referring to scaling skills, skill challenges, power-based character design, the incredible slog of scripted battles and...well, there's more, I'm sure.

There were lots of good ideas from 4e that stuck around, they were just peripheral ideas rather than the core AEDU concept:

1. Fighter & Warlord powers -> Quite a few Battle Master abilities
2. Action Point & Second Wind -> Action Surge & Second Wind as Fighter powers
3. Sustain Minor -> Concentration
4. Skill checks as DM tools rather than pseudo-combat system
5. Long/Short Rest
6. Channel Divinity
7. "Striker" abilities Hex & Hunter's Mark

I'm sure there are more.

From what I've read most seem to think 4e was well designed, if it was an entirely new tatical minis game, rather than D&D, so were the 'horrible ideas' truly 'proven wrong' or that they were misapplied to an iconic game and system?

Quote from: RPGPundit;965015The only good thing about 4e is that it proved a whole bunch of people's horrible ideas to be definitively wrong.

Play an older version?

Quote from: Voros;965114From what I've read most seem to think 4e was well designed, if it was an entirely new tatical minis game, rather than D&D, so were the 'horrible ideas' truly 'proven wrong' or that they were misapplied to an iconic game and system?

Good game designed aimed at a group of people who, for all the bleating of "theorycrafting" and balance, didnt really want either and cried when the sacred cows were put to pasture. Fact is people want a game thats flawed, or at least dont care too much about said flaws when it comes down to it.

Quote from: Batman;965117Good game designed aimed at a group of people who, for all the bleating of "theorycrafting" and balance, didnt really want either and cried when the sacred cows were put to pasture. Fact is people want a game thats flawed, or at least dont care too much about said flaws when it comes down to it.

I disagree entirely.

While they fixed some of the things being complained about, the problem wasn't with the fixes themselves, it was all of the other things which they did badly in the process.

It'd be like if they were serving burgers and curly fries.  People complain that they want something healthier, and they slop up the soupy mush from The Matrix.  "Why aren't you happy?  It's super healthy!"  The problem in that case wouldn't be that it's healthy, it's that it's gross.

Obviously not a perfect metaphor - but it gets my point across.  Just because you give someone a product which contains what they asked for and they don't like it, that doesn't mean that they didn't really want what they asked for in the first place.  They did, they just didn't want the parts of the product they already liked ruined in the process of giving it to them.  (Arguably - such is inevitable - but that's an entirely different argument.)

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;965120Obviously not a perfect metaphor - but it gets my point across.  Just because you give someone a product which contains what they asked for and they don't like it, that doesn't mean that they didn't really want what they asked for in the first place.  They did, they just didn't want the parts of the product they already liked ruined in the process of giving it to them.  (Arguably - such is inevitable - but that's an entirely different argument.)

People clamored for parity between spellcasters and non-spellcasters. Martials were beefed up and have heroic actions that tended to keep them relevant thru all 30 levels of play.

People complained about the sheer amount of power and versatility of spellcasters. So spells didnt stack, couldn't have multiple spells going at the same time, couldn't power through encounters single-handedly.

People complained about save or die/save or suck making the game too swingy so we got death saving throws and removal of things like finger of death.

People didnt want to choose between healing or attacking so we got minor action healing.

People thought multiclassing was far too broken, leading to the ridiculous notion of "dipping" so they made it feat based.

These are straight up fixes to perceived problems that people voiced during 3e's run. People thoroughly rejected them. They decided to go to Pathfinder that practically didnt address ANY of these issues. Spellcasters are still broken, Fighters still suck without drawing from a dozen sources, spells are still save or suck, and multiclassing/ dipping is as popular as ever.

Quote from: Batman;965128People clamored for parity between spellcasters and non-spellcasters. Martials were beefed up and have heroic actions that tended to keep them relevant thru all 30 levels of play.

People complained about the sheer amount of power and versatility of spellcasters. So spells didnt stack, couldn't have multiple spells going at the same time, couldn't power through encounters single-handedly.

People complained about save or die/save or suck making the game too swingy so we got death saving throws and removal of things like finger of death.

People didnt want to choose between healing or attacking so we got minor action healing.

People thought multiclassing was far too broken, leading to the ridiculous notion of "dipping" so they made it feat based.

These are straight up fixes to perceived problems that people voiced during 3e's run. People thoroughly rejected them. They decided to go to Pathfinder that practically didnt address ANY of these issues. Spellcasters are still broken, Fighters still suck without drawing from a dozen sources, spells are still save or suck, and multiclassing/ dipping is as popular as ever.

Well I like 4e (and dislike Pathfinder, which I GM'd to 14th level) for the reasons you describe. I have a new 4e campaign. But 4e is a very strongly themed game not well designed to support "regular D&D" play; in particular it does not do exploration well. So for "playing D&D" I go to either 5e or Classic (BECM, BX, or a retroclone) since those give the regular D&D experience best. If I want to run a Paizo AP I use 5e, previously 1e. For Wilderlands I use 5e, previously Classic/LL. For Mystara I use Classic - but might try 5e next time.  For the specific 4e experience I use 4e.

Quote from: Batman;965128People clamored for parity between spellcasters and non-spellcasters. Martials were beefed up and have heroic actions that tended to keep them relevant thru all 30 levels of play.

People complained about the sheer amount of power and versatility of spellcasters. So spells didnt stack, couldn't have multiple spells going at the same time, couldn't power through encounters single-handedly.

People complained about save or die/save or suck making the game too swingy so we got death saving throws and removal of things like finger of death.

People didnt want to choose between healing or attacking so we got minor action healing.

People thought multiclassing was far too broken, leading to the ridiculous notion of "dipping" so they made it feat based.

These are straight up fixes to perceived problems that people voiced during 3e's run. People thoroughly rejected them. They decided to go to Pathfinder that practically didnt address ANY of these issues. Spellcasters are still broken, Fighters still suck without drawing from a dozen sources, spells are still save or suck, and multiclassing/ dipping is as popular as ever.

Nearly all of these are still in 5e, the most popular edition in decades. Seems like what people really didn't like was that 4e just didn't feel like D&D, and that mostly came down to the AEDU system and everything related to it.

Quote from: Arkansan;9632504e just never really became a thing in my area. Across all the FLGSes and gaming haunts in my area I recall hearing of two 4e groups. Everyone either switched to Pathfinder or kept on playing 3rd.

Same here.We had only one 4e group everything else was Pathfinder, 3rd e with a little shadow run tossed in.

4E didn't do it for me as a game, but I save my disdain for everything surrounding it. The advertising campaign and licensing change which effectively jettisoned all of the fans and 3PP of D&D who came before 4E plus the rise of 4rons to preach and proselytize that 4E was the best version of D&D evar (this includes the schills at Organized Play who used WotC's tacit approval to justify their asshole behavior).

I do not want to forget the lessons of 4E because they are important from an industry viewpoint. However, the further 4E recedes in the rearview mirror, the better.

EDIT: I have to note that the same fucknuggets who were 4rons locally to me have become SJWs with the coming of 5E.

Quote from: Batman;965117Good game designed aimed at a group of people who, for all the bleating of "theorycrafting" and balance, didnt really want either and cried when the sacred cows were put to pasture. Fact is people want a game thats flawed, or at least dont care too much about said flaws when it comes down to it.

I disagree:  People want the old game but 'better', but never define what 'better' is.

Like all D&D editions 4e had some good ideas and some not so good ones. It went too far down the "powers" path for me, and I greatly disliked the hardcoded "striker" class abilities. But I liked short/long rests, events/abilities triggering off bloodied status, and that each monster felt unique with a custom ability. I consider 13A an improved version of 4e.

It may have been "perfectly balanced," but 4E felt like a straightjacket.

Quote from: cranebump;965146It may have been "perfectly balanced," but 4E felt like a straightjacket.

I think that's because they went the easy route to achieve balance - they went with near symmetry.  Symmetry is the easiest way to balance, but it's also the most boring, especially in a co-op game which you're expected to play the same character for dozens of hours of gameplay.  IMHO

Most D&D has hard asymmetry between casters & martials, and even some between different casters.  Now - 3e had pretty bad balance between the asymmety, especially at higher levels (easy to do).  But their solution in 4e - a very soft asymmetry - made all the classes feel samey.

Quote from: Voros;965114From what I've read most seem to think 4e was well designed, if it was an entirely new tatical minis game, rather than D&D, so were the 'horrible ideas' truly 'proven wrong' or that they were misapplied to an iconic game and system?

It wasnt so much the ideas were wrong. It was the execution and application. Part of 4e was built on the totally flawed "GNS Theory" of game design and surprise surprise it didnt work when actually put to use in a RPG. They ended up with something more like a board game and alot of people noticed it and a fair chunk didnt like it.

The other problem was that WOTC went out of their way to insult fans of past editions. They did it again with 4e D&D Gamma World to a lesser degree. So their advertising gag ended up setting up a negative mindset before the game even came out and when people got their hands on it reality ensued.

Aaaaand... The books were worded like a MMO. This was a major kill point for some on top of the rest of the issues.

4e was a good game used badly. About everything WOTC could have done wrong with it, they did.

Toss in some rather toxic fans and things devolved further to the point WOTC got fed up with them even.

Handled right 4e could have worked as its own thing. Like a bridge between Battlesystem/Chainmail and D&D.

Quote from: Omega;965152It wasnt so much the ideas were wrong. It was the execution and application. Part of 4e was built on the totally flawed "GNS Theory" of game design and surprise surprise it didnt work when actually put to use in a RPG. They ended up with something more like a board game and alot of people noticed it and a fair chunk didnt like it.

The other problem was that WOTC went out of their way to insult fans of past editions. They did it again with 4e D&D Gamma World to a lesser degree. So their advertising gag ended up setting up a negative mindset before the game even came out and when people got their hands on it reality ensued.

Aaaaand... The books were worded like a MMO. This was a major kill point for some on top of the rest of the issues.

4e was a good game used badly. About everything WOTC could have done wrong with it, they did.

Toss in some rather toxic fans and things devolved further to the point WOTC got fed up with them even.

Handled right 4e could have worked as its own thing. Like a bridge between Battlesystem/Chainmail and D&D.

Hell if they re-released 4e now, as D&D Tactics, a skirmish game with good miniatures, they'd do well.  Skirmish wargames/boardgames with minis are selling really well, fuck the collectible mini aspect and get some good quality sculpts out there, they'd put some of these multi-million Kickstarters to shame and put a hurtin' on GW and PP.

Quote from: CRKrueger;965159Hell if they re-released 4e now, as D&D Tactics, a skirmish game with good miniatures, they'd do well.  Skirmish wargames/boardgames with minis are selling really well, fuck the collectible mini aspect and get some good quality sculpts out there, they'd put some of these multi-million Kickstarters to shame and put a hurtin' on GW and PP.

Instead they outsourced to WizKids for the new minis wargame.

Quote from: Omega;965162Instead they outsourced to WizKids for the new minis wargame.

Which I'm sure will be some cheapass soft plastic kindergarten-paintjob collectible shitshow.  WotC has a bad habit of looking at what makes the market leaders in miniatures games work, and then doing the opposite.

Quote from: Omega;965152It wasnt so much the ideas were wrong. It was the execution and application. Part of 4e was built on the totally flawed "GNS Theory" of game design and surprise surprise it didnt work when actually put to use in a RPG. They ended up with something more like a board game and alot of people noticed it and a fair chunk didnt like it.

The other problem was that WOTC went out of their way to insult fans of past editions. They did it again with 4e D&D Gamma World to a lesser degree. So their advertising gag ended up setting up a negative mindset before the game even came out and when people got their hands on it reality ensued.

Aaaaand... The books were worded like a MMO. This was a major kill point for some on top of the rest of the issues.

4e was a good game used badly. About everything WOTC could have done wrong with it, they did.

Toss in some rather toxic fans and things devolved further to the point WOTC got fed up with them even.

Handled right 4e could have worked as its own thing. Like a bridge between Battlesystem/Chainmail and D&D.

You know what caused this situation?  The OGL.  Because it allowed Paizo to keep printing modified copies of 3.x.  If they couldn't, there would be bitching, but those who wanted to buy the next supported edition would have switched over eventually.  Just like those who did from RC to 1e to 2e to 3e and 3.5.  But now that there was another contender, and one that stuck with what gamers truly wanted (that is to say the old game but supported, even if it sucks for what they want) that's what killed 4e.

Let's not kid ourselves here.  If the old little brown books were the only thing printed from then to now, we'd still be playing those.  The market might be smaller than it is now, but it would still be there  And do you know why?  Because people hate, HATE, HATE change.  The amount of bitching that happens when 'having' (note quotations there, very important) to switch to the newer, supported game line has never changed, it's the same BS just updated for the times.

So the real reason is that we suddenly had a CHOICE in D&D-likes, and once that genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.

ALL HAIL THE OGL!  The Great Purveyor of Crap and Some Gems.  But now, we have a wide range of choice just to play D&D in some fashion.  I'd say it's a win for us Consumers.

Right Citizen?

Quote from: CRKrueger;965159Hell if they re-released 4e now, as D&D Tactics, a skirmish game with good miniatures, they'd do well.  Skirmish wargames/boardgames with minis are selling really well, fuck the collectible mini aspect and get some good quality sculpts out there, they'd put some of these multi-million Kickstarters to shame and put a hurtin' on GW and PP.

I agree, a good mini skirmish game could really fill a niche and crossover with the boardgame crowd due to the D&D brand. I recently played their Assault of the Giants board game and it was mighty fine.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;965178You know what caused this situation?  The OGL.  Because it allowed Paizo to keep printing modified copies of 3.x.  If they couldn't, there would be bitching, but those who wanted to buy the next supported edition would have switched over eventually.  Just like those who did from RC to 1e to 2e to 3e and 3.5.  But now that there was another contender, and one that stuck with what gamers truly wanted (that is to say the old game but supported, even if it sucks for what they want) that's what killed 4e.

Let's not kid ourselves here.  If the old little brown books were the only thing printed from then to now, we'd still be playing those.  The market might be smaller than it is now, but it would still be there  And do you know why?  Because people hate, HATE, HATE change.  The amount of bitching that happens when 'having' (note quotations there, very important) to switch to the newer, supported game line has never changed, it's the same BS just updated for the times.

So the real reason is that we suddenly had a CHOICE in D&D-likes, and once that genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.

ALL HAIL THE OGL!  The Great Purveyor of Crap and Some Gems.  But now, we have a wide range of choice just to play D&D in some fashion.  I'd say it's a win for us Consumers.

Right Citizen?

Having a real choice definitely played a part in what happened with 4E. The fact that so many made the choice to play something else, something that you, at least, consider obviously inferior to the new shiny, speaks volumes about people's opinions of the system. I'm not sure it's just about being scared of/pissed off about change. But it did seem like 4E was not just change, but an overhaul, to the point where the basic engine that drove the game seemed obscured.

I can't get too philosophical about this, though. 4E was just fuckin' weird to me, man. Glossy and soulless. Soooooo draggy and fiddly and sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow...*

That was the main issue for me, above all else. It was do. Damned. Slow. (I'd still rather play this than full-blown 3.5, with all its bullshit fiddliness).

*Having played the Neverwinter MMO, I can tell you the 4E chassis works great for the video game! (gasp! [unsurprised look).:-/

Quote from: Voros;965189I agree, a good mini skirmish game could really fill a niche and crossover with the boardgame crowd due to the D&D brand. I recently played their Assault of the Giants board game and it was mighty fine.

Count me in on this. 4E would make a very good skirmish game. You could probably even still do the skill challenges between setting up the next battle, making those skills affect the board setup for the next battle.

Paizo marketing Pathfinder as the true D&D was kind of unsightly, but then, so was the way that WotC unceremoniously dumped them. As 3.x continues to stagger across the gaming landscape like a bloated, rotting zombie, I often find myself wishing Ryan Dancey hadn't made so much D&D original content public. But what's done is done. However, if the new thing can't compete effectively against the old thing, that's the new thing's problem. If people don't want your crap, they won't buy it. Might get a few stragglers playing it just to get a D&D fix, but many more will just dump the game completely.

Skill challenges were an awful idea. "Guess which skill the DM wants you to roll so you can do another hit point of damage to the challenge" had no redeeming value. There's no way to make it fun.

Quote from: S'mon;965129Well I like 4e (and dislike Pathfinder, which I GM'd to 14th level) for the reasons you describe. I have a new 4e campaign. But 4e is a very strongly themed game not well designed to support "regular D&D" play; in particular it does not do exploration well. So for "playing D&D" I go to either 5e or Classic (BECM, BX, or a retroclone) since those give the regular D&D experience best. If I want to run a Paizo AP I use 5e, previously 1e. For Wilderlands I use 5e, previously Classic/LL. For Mystara I use Classic - but might try 5e next time.  For the specific 4e experience I use 4e.

I don't really understand the "regular D&D" thing. I mean every version of D&D I've played (AD&D 2e, 3e/3.5, 4e, 5e) from their published adventures to hex-grid sand box-y games, felt like D&D. What about 4e doesn't do exploration? People got wilderness skills, powers, rituals? Yeah I'm pretty sure they do. Can you throw a wide range of monsters at them? Yeah, pretty sure you can. Hell it might even be easier IF you take a hex-grid and simply put ranges of monsters based on Tier. If a 1st level group of characters go to a grid that has the potential to be Epic level, well they're gonna die just as if you put a group of 1st level AD&D characters against a 5 headed hydra or Tiamat in 2e.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;965133Nearly all of these are still in 5e, the most popular edition in decades. Seems like what people really didn't like was that 4e just didn't feel like D&D, and that mostly came down to the AEDU system and everything related to it.

The bedrock of which was specifically laid out by 4e. Basically the designers saw the amount of gaming potential in 4e's rules BUT didn't want to put it into little colored/codified boxes and make it as structured. Couple that with the language going back to non-game speak and a "vintage" style of art and paper with lots of boxes somehow makes it "D&D" again. I would wager that had 4e been presented with the look and feel (no change in mechanics) as 5e or 3e in terms of feel and boxes and art it would've been FAR better received. Simply on how it looks. The amount of people I've talked to or read review from online were simply "I opened the book and the only thing to come to mind was WoW" without even playing the damn thing. Based their opinion simply by design and layout. Now I know there are just as many who gave it a fair shake and simply didn't care for it, it's understandable. All I'm saying is that SO MUCH of 5e is derived from 4e in terms of mechanics and spirit that I find it a tad hilarious when people claim that 5e has gone "back" to D&D.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;965137I disagree:  People want the old game but 'better', but never define what 'better' is.

Well that's sort of the problem, what's "better" for one person is another's "travesty". I mean I didn't mind the AEDU system. It was simple, easy to apply, and gave each class something interesting to do across the board. For me, it didn't feel same-y because everyone's powers interacted with their class features differently. A Fighter who has a multi-attack power (burst 1) is CRAZY good since they mark every target they swing at (hit or miss) vs. say a Paladin with a similar ability that usually has a different effect like slowing them down or knocking them prone. Same level, similar attack, very different outcome. Compared this to the differences between a Wizard's spell list in 3e vs. a Sorcerers.....and they're virtually the exact same thing. Even in 5e classes all draw from the same spell lists a lot of the time. The Paladin draws somewhere around 90% of it's spells from the cleric's list with just a few Smites and challenges here and there. Yet many people think that's a good thing. I personally think it's same-y because they're literally the same.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;965178You know what caused this situation?  The OGL.  Because it allowed Paizo to keep printing modified copies of 3.x.

Because our betters knows what best for our hobby right?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;965178If they couldn't, there would be bitching, but those who wanted to buy the next supported edition would have switched over eventually.  Just like those who did from RC to 1e to 2e to 3e and 3.5.  But now that there was another contender, and one that stuck with what gamers truly wanted (that is to say the old game but supported, even if it sucks for what they want) that's what killed 4e.

If it is poorly received it would reduce the number of hobbyists playing all editions of that game. If happens to be the market leader like D&D, it will impact the entire hobby and industry as D&D is the primary source of new gamers.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;965178So the real reason is that we suddenly had a CHOICE in D&D-likes, and once that genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.

Damn straight the genie is out of the bottle.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;965178ALL HAIL THE OGL!  The Great Purveyor of Crap and Some Gems.  But now, we have a wide range of choice just to play D&D in some fashion.  I'd say it's a win for us Consumers.

The fact we have choices, doesn't prevent you from allowing Wizards to make the choices for you like have been doing. Nobody is twisting your arms to buy my Majestic Wilderlands, Dungeon Crawl Classics, or Arrows of Indra. If you want to shackle yourself to Wizard's latest offering go ahead. Plenty of other people do and in fact the era of D&D 3.5 was largely defined by the fact that people gave up on third party products and only bought Wizard of the Coast releases.

While it sucked for d20 publishers ultimately had a silver lining in that it forced the more creative companies to come up with their own thing. Even Paizo after the bust was defined by their adventure paths. Pathfinder came later.

I also liked AEDU just fine (as I said in the OP, I didn't play much D&D previously and had no particular affection for it). The playability problems with 4e were the kinds of things that could be easily cleaned up with a second edition. These are well-rehearsed: Monsters had too many HPs, nobody really did enough damage, high-level play would trigger eight billion off-round actions (seriously, the number of off-round actions would often make me lose track of whose turn it was), the scaling was too steep, Starlock was garbage, etc. And the classes really weren't that similar. Once you figure out what marking is really for, or the way a Warlord synergizes with a Rogue, the game opens up. Homogenization was more an issue across levels than across classes. Playing a 25th-level Warlord really isn't that different from playing at 10th level. The numbers are just bigger.

Kinda wonder what would have happened if they'd put casters on the 5e system, had AEDU be the differentiating feature of martial classes, and gone with a more classic visual presentation.

Quote from: Batman;965274I mean I didn't mind the AEDU system. It was simple, easy to apply, and gave each class something [strike]interesting[/strike] to do across the board.

Fixed that for you.

Spamming power buttons isn't 'interesting' for any definition of interesting I would apply to roleplaying games.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;965281Fixed that for you.

Spamming power buttons isn't 'interesting' for any definition of interesting I would apply to roleplaying games.

Haha, no. If you look at it like that then shit 4e had buttons A, B, X, Y, and L1 and R1 BUT 3E had A, A, A, and hold down A and 5e has A & B and A+B for a special. It's all fucking button mashing

Quote from: fearsomepirate;965257Paizo marketing Pathfinder as the true D&D was kind of unsightly, but then, so was the way that WotC unceremoniously dumped them.

According to Erik Mona (I think it was him?) at the time, the split was amicable, actually.  Paizo wanted to keep printing their stuff in 3.x, but Wizard's wanted to go with a new edition, and given that Paizo's Adventure Paths were their most profitable, they declined to renew the Dragon and Dungeon magazine contract.  As I remember it.  Given that Paizo was also selling official 4e books along side their Pathfinder stuff indicates that the very least Wizards and Paizo maintained a working relationship.

And to be fair as much as I hated the whole cancerous culture at Paizo's boards (before they formatted it and restarted it) it wasn't Paizo that promoted their game as the 'second coming', it was all the whiny, clingy 3.x fans that hated the idea of their game no longer supported.  The people there hated on 4e before anyone knew what it was about, or how it was going to change anything.  It was kind of amazing, in a train wreck sort of way.  Of course, while not officially endorsing that opinion, Paizo wisely didn't stop it either.

Quote from: Batman;965289Haha, no. If you look at it like that then shit 4e had buttons A, B, X, Y, and L1 and R1 BUT 3E had A, A, A, and hold down A and 5e has A & B and A+B for a special. It's all fucking button mashing

And I don't play any of them.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;965293And I don't play any of them.

Good for you?

Quote from: fearsomepirate;965277I also liked AEDU just fine (as I said in the OP, I didn't play much D&D previously and had no particular affection for it). The playability problems with 4e were the kinds of things that could be easily cleaned up with a second edition. These are well-rehearsed: Monsters had too many HPs, nobody really did enough damage, high-level play would trigger eight billion off-round actions (seriously, the number of off-round actions would often make me lose track of whose turn it was), the scaling was too steep, Starlock was garbage, etc. And the classes really weren't that similar. Once you figure out what marking is really for, or the way a Warlord synergizes with a Rogue, the game opens up. Homogenization was more an issue across levels than across classes. Playing a 25th-level Warlord really isn't that different from playing at 10th level. The numbers are just bigger.

Yep, can't argue with any of this. Though off-turn attacks weren't really that much of a problem because most classes didn't have too many Immediate Interrupts and monsters were shifty quite often (thus not provoking OA's). Besides you could only take 1 off-turn (immediate action) per round - not turn. And yea, a 2nd edition with better math and less focus on "BIG NUMBERS" would certainly be welcoming.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;965277Kinda wonder what would have happened if they'd put casters on the 5e system, had AEDU be the differentiating feature of martial classes, and gone with a more classic visual presentation.

It would probably look very similar to 5e. I mean most classes still follow a specific pattern. Rangers and Paladins gain spells at the same levels and at the same rates. Druids, Clerics, Wizards, and Sorcerers ALL gain spells at the same levels and rate. The only issue would be over hauling the Martial Maneuvers that Battle masters receive. It's definitely something that I'd love to see, a way to use more dice on your turn for a bigger effect but you lose out if you miss. And more effects akin to forced movement, ally movement, and bonuses to attack or damage.

Quote from: Batman;965299Good for you?

Yes, definitely.

Inquiring minds want to know: "AEDU" would mean what?

(I've never played any D&D editions post-1989.)

Quote from: Dumarest;965319Inquiring minds want to know: "AEDU" would mean what?

(I've never played any D&D editions post-1989.)

At-Will
Encounter
Daily
Utility (which is usually an encounter or daily power but not usually offensive in nature).

4e's classes all started off this way, each one starting with a finite number of these and increase the level and amount as one levels up. Humans get a free third at-will as their racial ability while other races get stuff like Elves get Elven Accuracy (useable 1/encounter). As the game progressed into PHB 2 and 3 there was a desire to see different formats for classes. We got Psionics in the PHB 3 which doesn't follow the format and then later we got Essentials which overhauled some of the classes to be more......basic. A Knight didn't get daily powers but more ways to spam their normal attacks and they still got Encounter and Utility powers at the same level as everyone else for the most part.

This led people to feel that there was too much homogenization between everyone and that all classes played the same (I guess in theory?) because they all had the same resources to spend. Of course I find the notion pretty silly since the way in which these effect the game world, combat, out-of-combat, etc. are ALL entirely different and it only changes more with things like feats and the type of weapon a character wields. For example a Elven Fighter with a spear is going to play and feel much different than a Human Fighter with a sword and shield or one using Two-Weapon Fighting. Their feats will be different, their powers will be different, their play-style will be different, even though they have the same at-will / encounter/ daily / utility power structure.

Quote from: cranebump;965250I can't get too philosophical about this, though. 4E was just fuckin' weird to me, man. Glossy and soulless. Soooooo draggy and fiddly and sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow...*

The slowness is just from monsters having too many hp & too little damage. I seem to have solved it by using the Minion stats as the baseline creatures, & giving them 1/4 standard monster hit points. The fights in my new 4e game go great. It only gets slow if I have more than 2-3 non-minion creatures on the battlemat.

Quote from: Batman;965273I don't really understand the "regular D&D" thing. I mean every version of D&D I've played (AD&D 2e, 3e/3.5, 4e, 5e) from their published adventures to hex-grid sand box-y games, felt like D&D. What about 4e doesn't do exploration? People got wilderness skills, powers, rituals? Yeah I'm pretty sure they do. Can you throw a wide range of monsters at them? Yeah, pretty sure you can. Hell it might even be easier IF you take a hex-grid and simply put ranges of monsters based on Tier. If a 1st level group of characters go to a grid that has the potential to be Epic level, well they're gonna die just as if you put a group of 1st level AD&D characters against a 5 headed hydra or Tiamat in 2e.

They're going to die in a very slow, boring fashion. Underlevelled non-minion monsters vs PCs also die in a very slow, boring fashion.
When 4e was new I ran 4e sandbox "Vault of Larin Karr". It was a terrible scenario for the system and I know not to do that again.
There is a reason the 4e DMG calls exploration "not fun" and says "skip to the fun". 4e does combat, dramatic character interaction, and to some extent chase/pursuit scenarios (had one last session). It's not bad at LoTR trekking across vast landscapes. But it is very poor design for traditional explore-the-dungeon play - qv eg Keep on the Shadowfell.

Quote from: Batman;965305Besides you could only take 1 off-turn (immediate action) per round - not turn.

No, opportunity actions (eg opp atts) in 4e are 1/turn not 1/round, and you get those as well as 1 immediate action (eg reaction or interrupt).

Mind you it was damn hard to get my players not to use multiple immediate actions. I found player rules mastery of 4e incredibly weak for most players compared to any other edition. Combination of not buying the books (just use charbuilder), plus poor presentation of rules in the PHB.

Luckily in my new 4e game I have a rules-guru player who can help out the others.

In my games, the slowness of 4e was in large part due to the analysis paralysis of the engineers and scientists at my table overanalyzing every single round in order to achieve maximum damage output and minimum damage taken. Gotta admit, I can't resist doing the same thing.

They still do that in 5e, though. Sunday night, there was a rather lengthy debate on whether the rogue should climb across a pit of mud to see what is on the other side. I gotta be meaner about wandering monsters.

Quote from: cranebump;965250Having a real choice definitely played a part in what happened with 4E. The fact that so many made the choice to play something else, something that you, at least, consider obviously inferior to the new shiny, speaks volumes about people's opinions of the system. I'm not sure it's just about being scared of/pissed off about change. But it did seem like 4E was not just change, but an overhaul, to the point where the basic engine that drove the game seemed obscured.

People are getting progressively tired of edition treadmills past a certain point. And exponentially sick of the "make it incompatible" edition treadmills.

Note that the transitions from say AD&D to 2e was pretty smooth as not much was really changed and your old stuff was still usable with the new. Same with the transitions from BX to BECMI to RC even. And more or less the same with the transition from 3 to 3.5. The main complaint there was it was too soon.

What publishers still dont get is that if you change things to be incompatible then you lose players and you may lose alot of players. Same with the setting. Gamma World has been the posterchild for fucking that up just about every new iteration. Change too much and its no longer what attracted people in the first place.

Its not that players hate change. They hate senseless change and they hate too much change.

And in 4es case they hated being insulted on top of all that. I still think the marketing failure for 4e contributed alot to its downfall.

Quote from: Omega;965389What publishers still dont get is that if you change things to be incompatible then you lose players and you may lose alot of players.

I think that they do.  But at least some of the players they lose won't buy much/any more of the current edition anyway.  So even if they lost someone as a player, they don't inherently lose them as a customer.

Plus - I believe that 4e sold out of their first printing pretty quick.  It wasn't the initial sales plan which was the issue - it was the system itself.

Quote from: Omega;965389Note that the transitions from say AD&D to 2e was pretty smooth as not much was really changed and your old stuff was still usable with the new. Same with the transitions from BX to BECMI to RC even. And more or less the same with the transition from 3 to 3.5. The main complaint there was it was too soon.

I dropped out of D&D just as 3rd was introduced because I had no interest in starting from scratch with new core books.

But couldn't the relative lack of backlash have more to do with there being no easily accessible internet for self-important bores to rant and rave about how much of a betrayal 2e, B/X and BECMI were of the 'real' AD&D? You can still find some who say this on the edges of the OSR forums.

For me, 4e is both the best and the worst of all editions.

4e is the best because it prioritizes consistency, balance, and a nearly ideal mix of class-based advancement and customization. 4e has its problems, but those issues pale in frequency and magnitude when compared to the problems of other editions. There is a hypothetical descendent of 3e that I might like as much or more than 4e, but it'd run into the same thing that makes 4e the worst edition...

4e is the worst because it really highlighted for me just how different my priorities are from a solid chunk of people. As someone mentioned in a different thread, fans love to complain about their edition of choice but at the end of the day, a surprisingly large number of them would rather muddle through their problems than accept "too much" or "senseless" change, as omega says. Not to mention the bottomless capacity for these conservative fans to rationalize their preferences, howl and moan at the mountains they've made out of molehills, and straight-up lie in order to invent problems with 4e. The mixed fan reception of 4e has really disillusioned me with the D&D fanbase, and to a lesser extent with people in general.

Quote from: Voros;965399I dropped out of D&D just as 3rd was introduced because I had no interest in starting from scratch with new core books.

But couldn't the relative lack of backlash have more to do with there being no easily accessible internet for self-important bores to rant and rave about how much of a betrayal 2e, B/X and BECMI were of the 'real' AD&D? You can still find some who say this on the edges of the OSR forums.

They had gaming magazines and and gaming fanzines. Something people forget when they point at the internet. Before the net really took off we were still discussing games, sometimes brutally, in various publications.

For sure but the reach of both was much smaller. The vast, vast majority of players didn't read fanzines and I quickly learned to skip the letters page in Dragon. Contrast that with the groupthink and rhetoric one now finds throughout the hobby online. The internet has allowed the American culture war to derail most RPG conversations at the drop of a hat.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;965407The mixed fan reception of 4e has really disillusioned me with the D&D fanbase, and to a lesser extent with people in general.

You're mixing up loudmouths on the net with not only the fanbase but 'people in general.'

Quote from: Voros;965436You're mixing up loudmouths on the net with not only the fanbase but 'people in general.'

No, no he's not.  Seriously, the amount of vitriol that's spewed towards a new edition 'back in the day' was just as vicious, knee-jerk reactionary and irrational as any rant on the internet.  It might not seem like it was more than a local phenomena, but after moving around a lot to several differing cities and finding out that most of the D&D players had the same rants as they do today...  Nope.  Gamers HATE change and new editions, but will get them if they feel they have no other choice.

Paizo gave them a choice.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;965439Gamers HATE change and new editions, but will get them if they feel they have no other choice.

Yeah...people screamed, wailed and gnashed their teeth at going from 4th to 5th...err wait, or were they enraptured like the second coming?  I forget. :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;965440Yeah...people screamed, wailed and gnashed their teeth at going from 4th to 5th...err wait, or were they enraptured like the second coming?  I forget. :D

Nope. People screamed, wailed and gnashed their teeth at going from 4th to 5th...and they were enraptured like the second coming. :o

Quote from: Voros;965436You're mixing up loudmouths on the net with not only the fanbase but 'people in general.'

I disagree. There seemed to be a lot of people associated with WotC's Organized Play in Real Life that were encouraged by WotC to schill for the game and use their advertising message that if you did not like D&D 4E then you were playing substandard games out of nostalgia.

More like the 4e fans, few as they were, totally flipped out. They flipped out so spectacularly they turned WOTC off 4e even.
Everyone else was either "meh, I have 3e/PF to give me all my POWERZ!!!!" and the rest were "THANK GYGAX! FINALLY!" And some of us were "Well its a step in the right direction at least."

Quote from: Christopher Brady;965439Gamers HATE change and new editions, but will get them if they feel they have no other choice.

Paizo gave them a choice.

Seeing as how all of us ostensibly had copies of our old games, not to mention access to Half Price books, e-commerce and all that stuff, then it's safe to say we've ALWAYS had a choice of whether to embrace new editions or not. Even in the fledgling days of the hobby, there were other games and systems to play, so there's really no way to test this assertion. There's simply no situation where gamers didn't have a choice.

Given that, I think your main, implied contention here is that gamers hated the new editions because they hate change. Well, sir, this conveniently overlooks the fact that gamers (many, I'll warrant) may have actually tried the new editions, and not liked them, for various reasons well beyond being cranky old bastards.

I don't have reams of data to back this up, but I've tried every single version of D&D out there. If we actually DID live in this "land of no (supposedly) no choices," I'd be dragging out my B/X stuff and playing that (which, I assume is making a choice?).

Quote from: jeff37923;965487I disagree. There seemed to be a lot of people associated with WotC's Organized Play in Real Life that were encouraged by WotC to schill for the game and use their advertising message that if you did not like D&D 4E then you were playing substandard games out of nostalgia.

This practice of nostalgia-bashing is still going on.

Quote from: cranebump;965507Seeing as how all of us ostensibly had copies of our old games, not to mention access to Half Price books, e-commerce and all that stuff, then it's safe to say we've ALWAYS had a choice of whether to embrace new editions or not. Even in the fledgling days of the hobby, there were other games and systems to play, so there's really no way to test this assertion. There's simply no situation where gamers didn't have a choice.

Here's the thing, you are completely correct, and you always have a bunch of people who have the epiphany that just cuz the old edition isn't officially supported doesn't mean it's 'dead'.  But on the most part, most gamers will go for the 'new thing' because they want to feel 'relevant'.  Also, it adds common ground for discussion if everyone is playing the same game, yeah?

Quote from: cranebump;965507Given that, I think your main, implied contention here is that gamers hated the new editions because they hate change. Well, sir, this conveniently overlooks the fact that gamers (many, I'll warrant) may have actually tried the new editions, and not liked them, for various reasons well beyond being cranky old bastards.

You didn't hear/read the bashing of editions when a new one was rumoured/confirmed to come out?  2e to 3e was all about how 3e was going to become a Diablo styled video game in a book.  People bashed 4e for being an MMO on paper.  And I vaguely remember some bashing about 2e when it cam out in the various hobby stores at the time.  As for 5e, some of the complaints I heard were how WoTC was selling out to the older generations by bringing back the 'old crap'.

Quote from: cranebump;965507I don't have reams of data to back this up, but I've tried every single version of D&D out there. If we actually DID live in this "land of no (supposedly) no choices," I'd be dragging out my B/X stuff and playing that (which, I assume is making a choice?).

Some hold outs don't make the majority, I'm afraid, and to a lot of folks, if the game isn't 'supported' it's 'dead' and it's time to move on, whether or not you want to.  What I meant by 'choice' was that Paizo came along with Pathfinder, a supported, modified 3e clone which came out before 4e, which means those who wanted to continue to play the older editions found that they could!  Then this heartbreaker movement known as the OSR came along, once they realized that the OGL allowed them to do exactly what Paizo did.

Online forums are self-selected for a tiny sliver of the most vocal, passionate fans of a product. They are in no way representative of the customer base as a whole.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;965551Online forums are self-selected for a tiny sliver of the most vocal, passionate fans of a product. They are in no way representative of the customer base as a whole.

This cannot be stressed enough.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;965551Online forums are self-selected for a tiny sliver of the most vocal, passionate fans of a product. They are in no way representative of the customer base as a whole.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;965555This cannot be stressed enough.

So when you meet weenies like this in Real Life, you know that the bullshit Has Gone Too Far.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;965541Then this heartbreaker movement known as the OSR came along, once they realized that the OGL allowed them to do exactly what Paizo did.

The OSR predates Pathfinder by three years. You can view the Hoard and Hordes timeline here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LUFmadXbg67pp9dEu_KsLc2-2Gf-0t5mVOvzetAqdFw/edit#gid=0).

Now if you said this.

QuoteWhat I meant by 'choice' was that Troll Lord Games came along with Castles and Crusades, a supported, modified 3e clone which came out before 4e, which means those who wanted to continue to use the older edition adventures found that they could! Then this heartbreaker movement known as the OSR came along, once they realized that the OGL allowed them to do exactly what Troll Lords Games did.

That would be accurate.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;965541Here's the thing, you are completely correct, and you always have a bunch of people who have the epiphany that just cuz the old edition isn't officially supported doesn't mean it's 'dead'.  But on the most part, most gamers will go for the 'new thing' because they want to feel 'relevant'.  Also, it adds common ground for discussion if everyone is playing the same game, yeah?



You didn't hear/read the bashing of editions when a new one was rumoured/confirmed to come out?  2e to 3e was all about how 3e was going to become a Diablo styled video game in a book.  People bashed 4e for being an MMO on paper.  And I vaguely remember some bashing about 2e when it cam out in the various hobby stores at the time.  As for 5e, some of the complaints I heard were how WoTC was selling out to the older generations by bringing back the 'old crap'.



Some hold outs don't make the majority, I'm afraid, and to a lot of folks, if the game isn't 'supported' it's 'dead' and it's time to move on, whether or not you want to.  What I meant by 'choice' was that Paizo came along with Pathfinder, a supported, modified 3e clone which came out before 4e, which means those who wanted to continue to play the older editions found that they could!  Then this heartbreaker movement known as the OSR came along, once they realized that the OGL allowed them to do exactly what Paizo did.

I believed OSRIC was 2005.
4e 2008
PATHFINDER 2009

Quote from: CRKrueger;965440Yeah...people screamed, wailed and gnashed their teeth at going from 4th to 5th...err wait, or were they enraptured like the second coming?  I forget. :D

Of course you're 100% correct. Though one thing was VASTLY different this time around: WotC got the player's input. The year and a half play-testing and surveys and online arguments and forum disagreements over the "right" way to play is largely why so many people got on board with 5e. They knew what they were getting into about 3/4 of the way through. I remember the first couple of play tests with pre-generated characters and BOY was it bad. It took loads of feedback. From what feats were supposed to do to people not wanting feats at all to no "powers" to use Maneuvers from the Tome of battle to more racial powers to exclude everything from CORE that wasn't Tolkien based, etc.

As the game molded, shifted, and changed organically AND people saw the process which they were now apart of it helped them form an opinion well before the game's release date. No one was surprised in what they saw Day 1 of the Core Books being sold. No one was surprised that Paladin's weren't required to be Lawful Good or that Rangers were forced to have spells or that Concentration was a huge balancing mechanic in keeping spellcasters in check. People weren't blindsided. This is another one of 4e's huge release problems, that it promised SO much in terms of being better than previous editions and (while I agree with it) it wasn't better, just different. People expected a 3.75 version with tacked on mechanics from the Tome of Battle and Star Wars: Saga. They expected Skill-based powers and abilities while keeping the d20/OGL Style of Saves and Base Attack Bonuses. They expected to keep rules like Standard Attack and Full-Action Attack and probably expected better spell system that was still loosely based on 3e. They got none of that really.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;965541Here's the thing, you are completely correct, and you always have a bunch of people who have the epiphany that just cuz the old edition isn't officially supported doesn't mean it's 'dead'.  But on the most part, most gamers will go for the 'new thing' because they want to feel 'relevant'.  Also, it adds common ground for discussion if everyone is playing the same game, yeah?

Sure, that makes sense to me.

QuoteYou didn't hear/read the bashing of editions when a new one was rumoured/confirmed to come out?  2e to 3e was all about how 3e was going to become a Diablo styled video game in a book.  People bashed 4e for being an MMO on paper.  And I vaguely remember some bashing about 2e when it cam out in the various hobby stores at the time.  As for 5e, some of the complaints I heard were how WoTC was selling out to the older generations by bringing back the 'old crap'.

I definitely heard the 4E/MMO stuff (and felt that some of that was valid--it had a similar feel to me, FWIW). Never heard this part. I thought bringing back the old crap was a good thing?

QuoteSome hold outs don't make the majority, I'm afraid, and to a lot of folks, if the game isn't 'supported' it's 'dead' and it's time to move on, whether or not you want to.  What I meant by 'choice' was that Paizo came along with Pathfinder, a supported, modified 3e clone which came out before 4e, which means those who wanted to continue to play the older editions found that they could!  Then this heartbreaker movement known as the OSR came along, once they realized that the OGL allowed them to do exactly what Paizo did.

True, there have been a LOT more choices now, making it much easier to stay away from D&D in its entirety, if one wanted. My main jab in this whole thing was I didn't think it was simply hatred of change that drove gamers away from 4E. It seemed like there were an awful lot of folks giving it a shot, otherwise, how would we have so many detailed criticisms?

Speaking of that, all those discussions of "well, if you do this, this and this, it runs fine" pretty much serve as the big, red, flag for me concerning whether I'll bring something to the table long term. You hear a lot of that with 3E, regarding various combos and such, and definitely with 4E, regards HP values, especially. I know every person has their system tweaks. By the time I got through figuring out what would make 4E "work," I just went, "well, fuck this, I'll just play something with less tweakage," and that's what I did. That, of course, is where your choice argument comes in, and, admittedly, there are TONS of choices now, thanks to the OGL. Even so, I don't think I'm to the point where I'd be over-grumpified about change. But it takes something to get my money these days, and most of that something comes from the OGL hacks and such. In embracing all that, I feel like I am embracing some amount of newness and change, even if there is a wiff (or more) of the familiar in all that. Further, given how so many of us play so many different systems, I'd say we're not as resistant to the new stuff as it would appear from out complaints concerning children and our lawns.:-) The online community is just more vocal about their lawn (as has already been noted many times).

No one hates "change." They hate having their expectations unfulfilled. As I am fond of pointing out, most of the things people said they hated about 4e are in 5e, and people love 5e. People expect D&D to "feel" like D&D. Problem is customers are terrible at articulating just what it is they want and just why it is they're unhappy, which is why letting customers tell you what to do is full pitfalls. In fact, 4e was in many ways a response to customer complains about 3.x. Problem is it upended basic expectations.

Really, I don't think people want a lot more than for there to be a big list of spells, a pyramid-shaped list of spell slots, and hit dice.

Quote from: cranebump;965571Speaking of that, all those discussions of "well, if you do this, this and this, it runs fine" pretty much serve as the big, red, flag for me concerning whether I'll bring something to the table long term. You hear a lot of that with 3E, regarding various combos and such, and definitely with 4E, regards HP values, especially.

Yeah, 4e is like some old British vintage car like my dad's old Jaguar. Getting it tuned, patched up, repaired so it actually works is either a labour of love, or not worth the hassle. 5e is a (pre-2000) Toyota - it just works.

Quote from: S'mon;965621Yeah, 4e is like some old British vintage car like my dad's old Jaguar. Getting it tuned, patched up, repaired so it actually works is either a labour of love, or not worth the hassle.

Plus you find out that "Old Jaguar" is a Yugo. :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;965623Plus you find out that "Old Jaguar" is a Yugo. :D

Well, I like 4e! :p

As I've noted before. 4e D&D GW I think showed what 4e could do to a degree retooled to be more RPG and less board game. But even players I showed it to who were unaware of 4e still noted that the combat system played like a board game or skirmish game. Its fairly streamlined and easy to pick up. Though the layout of the rules was really scattershot.

Quote from: Omega;965660As I've noted before. 4e D&D GW I think showed what 4e could do to a degree retooled to be more RPG and less board game. But even players I showed it to who were unaware of 4e still noted that the combat system played like a board game or skirmish game. Its fairly streamlined and easy to pick up. Though the layout of the rules was really scattershot.

Keep in mind that the focus of miniatures and grids were FAR in place with 3e and it's vast array of congo-line Flanking and Attacks of Opportunities and spells that gave extra actions and movement, etc. It wasn't worded as such but it was definitely ingrained into the system. Miniatures and grids were pretty much used exclusively in the PHB to depict what combat looked like.

Quote from: jeff37923;965487I disagree. There seemed to be a lot of people associated with WotC's Organized Play in Real Life that were encouraged by WotC to schill for the game and use their advertising message that if you did not like D&D 4E then you were playing substandard games out of nostalgia.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you as I don't see how that relates to my statement that what you hear on the net, especially via forums, is not representative of people in general or gamers in particular.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;965551Online forums are self-selected for a tiny sliver of the most vocal, passionate fans of a product. They are in no way representative of the customer base as a whole.

This is what I was trying to say, thanks.

Quote from: Batman;965666Keep in mind that the focus of miniatures and grids were FAR in place with 3e and it's vast array of congo-line Flanking and Attacks of Opportunities and spells that gave extra actions and movement, etc. It wasn't worded as such but it was definitely ingrained into the system. Miniatures and grids were pretty much used exclusively in the PHB to depict what combat looked like.

I thought the pogs and maps were a 3e thing and that 4e just focused on it?

Quote from: Omega;965723I thought the pogs and maps were a 3e thing and that 4e just focused on it?

That's certainly what it seemed like to me. I know I didn't bother with pogs before 4E.

Oh god, having flashbacks to 4e multiple stacking effects to keep track of. Some poor models were starting to develop their own rainbow wafer pedestal! The only saving grace was marks couldn't stack!

Quote from: Opaopajr;965738Oh god, having flashbacks to 4e multiple stacking effects to keep track of. Some poor models were starting to develop their own rainbow wafer pedestal! The only saving grace was marks couldn't stack!

Both 3.x and 4e suffered from the designers failing to understand that DMs are not computers.

Quote from: Voros;965717Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you as I don't see how that relates to my statement that what you hear on the net, especially via forums, is not representative of people in general or gamers in particular.

In the case of 4E, I was meeting rabid proponents in Real Life when I went to my FLGS and when I would look in on open table games. The vast majority of these weenies were part of WotC's Organized Play effort and went about their proselytizing with a vengeance.

Ah, got it. I can't imagine anyone being as rude in RL as they are on the net. I would expect it to end in fisticuffs or a face-stabbing.

Quote from: Voros;965753Ah, got it. I can't imagine anyone being as rude in RL as they are on the net. I would expect it to end in fisticuffs or a face-stabbing.

Believe it or not, if it is just over a game, I tend to just walk away and go do my own thing like an adult.

The only time Real Life 4rons became even remotely important beyond annoyances was at my FLGS. They were having a 50% off sale on all their 3.x stuff, I had just been paid, so I picked out about $200 worth of books (only $100!) and went up to the counter. The slug at the counter, instead of just ringing up my sale, began a tirade about how inferior any game except 4E was and how all other games were just played out of a sense of nostalgia. I tried to just be cool and say that I was there to simply make this purchase, the guy just ignored me and kept insulting my taste in games. So I waited until he had rung everything up and I walked out of the store and away from the sale.

Bizarre. I've met some very socially awkward clerks at my FLGS but nothing like that.

Quote from: jeff37923;965762Believe it or not, if it is just over a game, I tend to just walk away and go do my own thing like an adult.

The only time Real Life 4rons became even remotely important beyond annoyances was at my FLGS. They were having a 50% off sale on all their 3.x stuff, I had just been paid, so I picked out about $200 worth of books (only $100!) and went up to the counter. The slug at the counter, instead of just ringing up my sale, began a tirade about how inferior any game except 4E was and how all other games were just played out of a sense of nostalgia. I tried to just be cool and say that I was there to simply make this purchase, the guy just ignored me and kept insulting my taste in games. So I waited until he had rung everything up and I walked out of the store and away from the sale.

I'm going to assume that he wasn't the owner and just worked there.

At some FLGSs (though maybe remove the 'F' for them) some employees do seem to think that because it's a game store it's not a real job so they don't have to act professionally.  They basically just want to be paid to hang out at a game store and occasionally ring people up.  (Not that the owners aren't at fault for letting them do so.)

Quote from: Voros;965765Bizarre. I've met some very socially awkward clerks at my FLGS but nothing like that.

The guy at my local FLGS pretty much reps the newest version of Dungeons and Dragons while bashing edition that came before, even though he promoted the edition before....very strange. I had not one but two instances at a nearby Half-Price Books store where I was perusing the RPG books isle and while looking through some 4e books the guy standing nearby just started going off on how bad the edition was and that I was better off picking up the few Pathfinder Adventures there. Like I give two fucks about what his opinion is. I said that I played ALL the editions and was looking to finish the collection among the usefulness of some of the 4e books that I didn't already own. Basically there are shit-stains no matter where you go.

For every time when I agree that the stereotype of gamers (or nerds in general) as socially maladjusted arrested development cases should be retired, someone goes and proves it true. :-|
Admittedly, those times when it happens stand out in our memories, so we are cherry picking.

To their credit, neither of the owners of the FLGS's I frequented before my purchasing went online (Don Valentine of Little Tin Soldier and Neil Cauley of Phoenix Games) ever hired anyone that they didn't think would well represent their store. They both knew the value of a good customer experience. I think some of the clerks definitely took the jobs to delay getting 'real adult jobs' or whatever, but they were all capable, competent, and polite.

Quote from: Voros;965765Bizarre. I've met some very socially awkward clerks at my FLGS but nothing like that.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;965768I'm going to assume that he wasn't the owner and just worked there.

At some FLGSs (though maybe remove the 'F' for them) some employees do seem to think that because it's a game store it's not a real job so they don't have to act professionally.  They basically just want to be paid to hang out at a game store and occasionally ring people up.  (Not that the owners aren't at fault for letting them do so.)

I know he wasn't the owner, just an employee. However, you'd think that anyone working there would have enough presence of mind to not talk a customer out of a sale.

Quote from: jeff37923;965762Believe it or not, if it is just over a game, I tend to just walk away and go do my own thing like an adult.

The only time Real Life 4rons became even remotely important beyond annoyances was at my FLGS. They were having a 50% off sale on all their 3.x stuff, I had just been paid, so I picked out about $200 worth of books (only $100!) and went up to the counter. The slug at the counter, instead of just ringing up my sale, began a tirade about how inferior any game except 4E was and how all other games were just played out of a sense of nostalgia. I tried to just be cool and say that I was there to simply make this purchase, the guy just ignored me and kept insulting my taste in games. So I waited until he had rung everything up and I walked out of the store and away from the sale.

One of the clerks at a FLGS near where I used to live was like that, except with Pathfinder. "Oh yes, 4e was fun IF YOU LIKED VIDEO GAMES. Buying 5e stuff? It's a great game IF YOU HATE STRATEGY AND DEPTH."

Quote from: fearsomepirate;965786One of the clerks at a FLGS near where I used to live was like that, except with Pathfinder. "Oh yes, 4e was fun IF YOU LIKED VIDEO GAMES. Buying 5e stuff? It's a great game IF YOU HATE STRATEGY AND DEPTH."

Was the clerk part of the Pathfinder Society? I ask because I swear that Organized Play programs breed that kind of behavior.

Quote from: jeff37923;965773I know he wasn't the owner, just an employee. However, you'd think that anyone working there would have enough presence of mind to not talk a customer out of a sale.

I would have got the manager/owner over there and told him this employee just cost him over a hundred bucks in sales because he thought it was more important to tell the customer how stupid his taste in games is, and ask the manager/owner if he thinks I'm the first customer this knucklehead has driven off.

Quote from: CRKrueger;965795I would have got the manager/owner over there and told him this employee just cost him over a hundred bucks in sales because he thought it was more important to tell the customer how stupid his taste in games is, and ask the manager/owner if he thinks I'm the first customer this knucklehead has driven off.

I honestly thought about that, but decided that it would be overkill.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;965407The mixed fan reception of 4e has really disillusioned me with the D&D fanbase, and to a lesser extent with people in general.

Quote from: Voros;965436You're mixing up loudmouths on the net with not only the fanbase but 'people in general.'

I've run into negativity toward 4e often enough in real life to think that it's not solely a phenomenon among internet blowhards, and reactionary attitudes toward anything more than glacial change appears often enough in non-gaming life that I think it's more than a unique trend of the D&D fanbase.

Quote from: Batman;965567Of course you're 100% correct. Though one thing was VASTLY different this time around: WotC got the player's input. The year and a half play-testing and surveys and online arguments and forum disagreements over the "right" way to play is largely why so many people got on board with 5e. They knew what they were getting into about 3/4 of the way through. I remember the first couple of play tests with pre-generated characters and BOY was it bad. It took loads of feedback. From what feats were supposed to do to people not wanting feats at all to no "powers" to use Maneuvers from the Tome of battle to more racial powers to exclude everything from CORE that wasn't Tolkien based, etc.

I will note that the 5e playtesting and surveys assumed that the fanbase was already onboard with the goal of rediscovering the feels of D&D. I.e., it by nature weeded out the opinions of fans who the dev team doesn't care about. After the first survey full of "Does this feel like D&D? What about this? Or that?..." I realized 5e would be a waste of money for me, and turned my attention back to 4e. Other skeptical fans kept playtesting and filling out those surveys in an effort to make their opinions known, but with the surveys designed to short-circuit those opinions, 5e was destined to be the back-to-your-mom's-basement compromise edition that it is, regardless of dissenting opinions. Which for those of us with different priorities, made the dev process very disingenuous -- the dev team had already decided on the edition's overall direction, and the result is essentially "Here's the game you wanted" that we don't want at all.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;965847I will note that the 5e playtesting and surveys assumed that the fanbase was already onboard with the goal of rediscovering the feels of D&D. I.e., it by nature weeded out the opinions of fans who the dev team doesn't care about. After the first survey full of "Does this feel like D&D? What about this? Or that?..." I realized 5e would be a waste of money for me, and turned my attention back to 4e. Other skeptical fans kept playtesting and filling out those surveys in an effort to make their opinions known, but with the surveys designed to short-circuit those opinions, 5e was destined to be the back-to-your-mom's-basement compromise edition that it is, regardless of dissenting opinions. Which for those of us with different priorities, made the dev process very disingenuous -- the dev team had already decided on the edition's overall direction, and the result is essentially "Here's the game you wanted" that we don't want at all.

I'm going to respectfully disagree, mostly with how the surveys changed the ways in which the game design started to shift. First point of contention was DoaM (otherwise known as "Damage on a Miss") which sparked HUGE arguements, got people banned, and threads closed back when WotC had messageboards. This mechanic lasted a LONG time into the playtest, to the point that I thought it would make it into the published version in some fashion. This mechanic was something "4e" did and people who hated 4e mostly hated this mechanic.

Second part was Alignment and its impact on the game. The first round of playtest that saw the Paladin and Monk forced Lawful on them, because oaths and discipline apparently require a rigid set of laws(?). The fighting over it was crazy. From why it's dumb to talking about the game's past and why it's Good to people bringing up Paizo's Pathfinder as a reason why it should stay, etc. It lasted a for about 1/2 a month before being re-released without the Alignment requirement. Even though the current game has examples of being altruistic and good, it doesn't force it.

Third would probably be non-magical healing. Early on the playtests there wasn't much in the way of healing besides spells and natural rest (pretty much what we saw prior to 4e) and Mearls making some dumb-ass comments about Warlord shouting hands back onto people (as if removing limbs was ever something prevalent in your average D&D game) and while there was so back and forth to allowing some instance of non-magical healing, people were opposed to it, often saying it removes the need for the Cleric class despite it's amazing abilities to fight the Undead. So in the end we didn't get a Warlord but we did get Hit Die healing and later the Purple Dragon Knight with it's ability to heal people AND the Fighter's Second Wind feature.  

I guess the point is that even when the devs started the roll out of the edition through playtests you knew that the direction of the game wasn't something you were going to waste your time on. The hype and all that was plain as day to see in the form of free material. You had the option to argue for or against certain things and there was some give and take in that regard. I wish there was a Damage on a Miss for Reaper-style characters and I'm sure there are people who wish Paladins were required to be Lawful Good by default. Neither side got exactly what they wanted but I think the majority feel it's close enough.

I look at 5e and all I see is 4e-Lite. So much of this particular edition does 4e in a more simplistic way with touches from 3e and a 2e/1e Backdrop. My wizards aren't spamming crossbows because I'm desperately holding onto those 2 spells all day long. My Clerics are healing AND attack in the same turn without min/maxing my character. My Fighter is making multiple attacks and moving through enemies spaces without needing 5 feats. Paladins are smiting enemy golems and Monks are actually working as intended. Maybe it's not the best or my personal favorite but it's alright by my book. I'd play it if someone was running a game, unlike AD&D.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;965843I've run into negativity toward 4e often enough in real life to think that it's not solely a phenomenon among internet blowhards, and reactionary attitudes toward anything more than glacial change appears often enough in non-gaming life that I think it's more than a unique trend of the D&D fanbase.

Once a brand is established, you really can't change it too much, or you fail to fulfill basic consumer expectations

Quote from: jeff37923;965792Was the clerk part of the Pathfinder Society? I ask because I swear that Organized Play programs breed that kind of behavior.

Really?  With a few exceptions the ones I've run into were pretty cool.  I mean sure - they tend to prefer Pathfinder - but I can't remember any of them being jerks/pretentious about it.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;965847I will note that the 5e playtesting and surveys assumed that the fanbase was already onboard with the goal of rediscovering the feels of D&D. I.e., it by nature weeded out the opinions of fans who the dev team doesn't care about .

That seems like common sense. You can't start design without clear idea of what you want to achieve. You'd use surveying to track how successful you are in achieving that goal but to try and design a game based purely on player feedback would be a fool's errand as the amount of signal to noise and people claiming they want things they don't actually want, etc would produce a trainwreck of a game.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;965903Really?  With a few exceptions the ones I've run into were pretty cool.  I mean sure - they tend to prefer Pathfinder - but I can't remember any of them being jerks/pretentious about it.

The guys behind both the Pathfinder Society and the Adventurer's Guild are total jerks to anyone not in their Organized Play groups around where I live.

Quote from: jeff37923;965915The guys behind both the Pathfinder Society and the Adventurer's Guild are total jerks to anyone not in their Organized Play groups around where I live.

That sucks.  Though I mostly interact with them at Cons.  Plus - I think that a store owner is heavily involved around here - so he has reasons to keep people happy.  Or it could just be classic 'Midwestern Nice' :D.

Quote from: jeff37923;965773I know he wasn't the owner, just an employee. However, you'd think that anyone working there would have enough presence of mind to not talk a customer out of a sale.

Ypu'd be VERY surprised how often this happens across the board. Art, media, games, retail, you name it theres at least one jerk out there who has to ruin things.

The thing to keep in mind is that these slugs are a rarity. Sometimes it REALLY doesnt feel that way. But they are overall the exception, not the norm.

Quilting store? check (by the owner.)
Knitting store? check (by the owner.)
Book store? check (by the owner.)
Department store? check twice.
Restaurant? check.
Movie store? check (by the owner.)
Artists? check, check, check, check ad nausium.
Publishers? check and check

and so on. That is though over a span of decades and several states.

And a little secret. Ever notice how in some game shops the floor staff REALLY push Warhammer? And yet all but ignore older players? That is a company policy and the staff has to be in your face pushing the product or they risk losing their job. (They will lose it anyhow but they dont know that. The other company policy is to come up with an excuse to get rid of staff before they have worked a certain amount of time. joy huh?)

They arent being rude on purpose (usally). They are just under the GW gun.

Quote from: cranebump;965727That's certainly what it seemed like to me. I know I didn't bother with pogs before 4E.

My first D&D thing was that Easy to Master Black Box with Zanzer Tem's dungeon. Had some minis and whatever you call those paper minis that you fold into triangles. I used minis to a point in 2nd Edition (had a collection of I think Ral Partha minis), but didn't really get into them until 3rd Edition what with the pre-painted stuff. Now I got plastic bins brimming with them and Dwarven Forge tiles because my kids just love them.

Quote from: antiochcow;965942My first D&D thing was that Easy to Master Black Box with Zanzer Tem's dungeon. Had some minis and whatever you call those paper minis that you fold into triangles. I used minis to a point in 2nd Edition (had a collection of I think Ral Partha minis), but didn't really get into them until 3rd Edition what with the pre-painted stuff. Now I got plastic bins brimming with them and Dwarven Forge tiles because my kids just love them.

My players like the visuals, so we use some form of them. But I just won't buy a ton of the actuals because I'm neither a painter, nor collector of such things (and have pared down a great deal on "stuff" of late). I now just use beads and buttons and other tokens, so much so that I started introducing each session as another installment of "Button Quest.":-)

Quote from: Batman;965865I guess the point is that even when the devs started the roll out of the edition through playtests you knew that the direction of the game wasn't something you were going to waste your time on. The hype and all that was plain as day to see in the form of free material. You had the option to argue for or against certain things and there was some give and take in that regard. I wish there was a Damage on a Miss for Reaper-style characters and I'm sure there are people who wish Paladins were required to be Lawful Good by default. Neither side got exactly what they wanted but I think the majority feel it's close enough.

I'm not convinced that's true, but it's also beside my point. Which is simply that the big compromise that is 5e didn't involve some of us in the negotiations in any meaningful sense. Which is fine, but it also means that "at least we knew what we were getting" is worth less than nothing to us, when free intro pdfs are possible with or without public playtesting.

Quote from: Voros;965909That seems like common sense. You can't start design without clear idea of what you want to achieve. You'd use surveying to track how successful you are in achieving that goal but to try and design a game based purely on player feedback would be a fool's errand as the amount of signal to noise and people claiming they want things they don't actually want, etc would produce a trainwreck of a game.

Oh, I wouldn't argue that any game should be designed by public forum; in fact that's kinda my point. This contrast between 4e's 100% dev-directed development and 5e's pseudo-democratic development often comes up in these sorts of threads, and while it seems to be a great marketing strategy to get fans engaged and excited about the eventual product, it's also a meaningless contrast for the purpose of a game's general form. From where I'm sitting I'd rather have a crack dev team give us a new and refined 4e, or a carefully rethought 3e, than an edition that has nothing that interests me, no matter how much public input may have made it into the dev process.

After all, no edition had much if any public playtesting until 5e, and surely that doesn't change much at all about how fans feel about them.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;965880Once a brand is established, you really can't change it too much, or you fail to fulfill basic consumer expectations

True, and I'll add an important detail: Once a brand is established, you really can't change it too much at one time, or you fail to fulfill basic consumer expectations.

We see this in games, and in other aspects of life, though it's hard to quantify: People in general have a desire for the familiar, obviously varying from person to person, so we tend not to like dramatic change all at once. (Unless self-interest is involved, of course.) But we also want novelty, so we can accept a lot of change over a sufficiently long period of time. See Apple, with all of its iThis and iThat, how Coke went from a health tonic to a paint-stripping treat, and how various aspects of D&D have changed dramatically from OD&D to 5e. If D&D is still around in for its 100th birthday, it may look very much like 4e and be universally accepted as 'what D&D is,' for all we know.

More likely it'll be an actual [VR] MMORPG by then, though. ;)

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;966065Oh, I wouldn't argue that any game should be designed by public forum; in fact that's kinda my point. This contrast between 4e's 100% dev-directed development and 5e's pseudo-democratic development often comes up in these sorts of threads, and while it seems to be a great marketing strategy to get fans engaged and excited about the eventual product, it's also a meaningless contrast for the purpose of a game's general form. From where I'm sitting I'd rather have a crack dev team give us a new and refined 4e, or a carefully rethought 3e, than an edition that has nothing that interests me, no matter how much public input may have made it into the dev process.

I'm not sure a carefully rethought 3e would look much different from 5e. The good ideas from 3e are still there; the bad ideas are mostly gone.

QuoteAfter all, no edition had much if any public playtesting until 5e, and surely that doesn't change much at all about how fans feel about them.

AD&D 1e had incomprehensible systems in it. 2e was laden down with ill-thought, almost completely untested ideas, especially as the supplements expanded. 3rd edition was riddled with game-breaking problems because so few people had tested the game. Somehow, in the development of 4e, they'd managed to overlook what might happen if you don't have all damn day to play a game, and somehow missed that its design would shock and horrify half the potential customers.  Comprehensive testing & refinement is an essential part of good product design, and it really shows with 5e.

As cool as some of the stuff in the old editions is, it's really hard for me to go play anything except 0e or Basic. 4e's only game-killing design problem is everything takes too friggin' long, which can be fixed with quick hacks to monster HP and damage. But I wouldn't run it. I'd gladly run BECMI.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;966123As cool as some of the stuff in the old editions is, it's really hard for me to go play anything except 0e or Basic. 4e's only game-killing design problem is everything takes too friggin' long, which can be fixed with quick hacks to monster HP and damage. But I wouldn't run it. I'd gladly run BECMI.

I found that most of our 4e combats takes about as long as our 3e combats. We're currently running Anauroch: Empire of Shade, a 3.5 adventure, and the party is approx. 15th level (two 16 lv. chars and 2 14 lv. chars) yet combat runs about 30 to 45 min depending on what they're facing. This past week they were able to fight through just 2 1/2 encounters. Now the enemies were Beholders and Phaerimms (floating conical magical monsters who cast spells) but still, in a game that was about 4 hours long it makes it feel that combat took up the majority of the time. 4e's combats take us roughly the same time. 5e, by contrast, doesn't take as much time but I haven't had the opportunity to play in higher level games except for a Tomb of Horror's 5e game where the PCs were 10th level.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;966065From where I'm sitting I'd rather have a crack dev team give us a new and refined 4e

This is a very valid point. What would 4e evolve into if they were to refine it? What changes would you like to see, aside from better math that is? Personally I'd love to see more variations on classes. Instead of pegging them each into a single-defined role I thought it would be far better to change their role based on in-class options provided. For example a Paladin in 4e is simply a Defender that can kinda branch into a Leader or Striker role but they're always a Defender. I'd love to have it so they could fit either of those 3 roles better and simply lose the Defender roll altogether. Same with the Wizard, which is almost always a "Controller" in D&D but I'd love to have a sort of Abjurer-style Wizard who wears mage armor and "defends" like a Fighter.

Roles have always been prevalent in D&D, even without being defined with specific features that 4e did. But I've always found that to be rather inflexible as a system. 4e, as it's very much power based, would be an excellent platform to allow more variation in terms of what each class can do to provide different play styles.  

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;966065a carefully rethought 3e

Isn't that what Pathfinder is? :rolleyes: But again I agree. 3e is pretty bloated with loads of issues that can't simply be patched. I give credit to Paizo for trying but their house ruled 3.5 isn't much better mechanically speaking. Having played 5e though I think that's the best we can get from a "rethought" 3e honestly. It has all the tell-tale signs of 3e such as how multiclassing works and lower numbers earlier on (3e unfortuanatley ramps those numbers up exponentially to ridiculous heights) and has a lot of leeway when it comes to character creation and customization (class skills, backgrounds, feats, sub-paths for classes). When looking at them side-by-side I really can't see what 3e does "better" than 5e? Prestige Classes were just different options players picked to give their character more mechanical depth and power, usually with little regard to the setting as a whole. It doesn't matter that Greyhawk doesn't have Red Wizards or Harpers because *poof* now they're there! By doing away with most of these options, it kept players from being ridiculous power-wise.

Isn't the "refined 4E" 13th AGE?

Quote from: cranebump;966146Isn't the "refined 4E" 13th AGE?

   Nah, it's more of a hybrid of 3E, 4E, gonzo 1E, and narrative gaming. Heinsoo was the driving force of 4E, but Tweet doesn't seem to care for it, so while the system has recognizable 4E DNA, it's not a direct successor.

   I stand by my opinion that 4E was a generally good game that a) needed a bit more polishing and playtesting, b) suffered from the fact that even key members of the design team didn't quite 'get' it or were trying to make it something it wasn't, and c) went too far afield from traditional D&D and generally zigged where the market and the broader environment zagged.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;9661232e was laden down with ill-thought, almost completely untested ideas, especially as the supplements expanded.

I found the core rules of 2e quite solid. What was ill-thought out?

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;966152Nah, it's more of a hybrid of 3E, 4E, gonzo 1E, and narrative gaming. Heinsoo was the driving force of 4E, but Tweet doesn't seem to care for it, so while the system has recognizable 4E DNA, it's not a direct successor.

I haven't played 13A yet but I've heard good things. It's a system that I think my group wouldn't mind delving into if there's enough likeness to D&D in terms of mechanics.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;966152I stand by my opinion that 4E was a generally good game that a) needed a bit more polishing and playtesting, b) suffered from the fact that even key members of the design team didn't quite 'get' it or were trying to make it something it wasn't, and c) went too far afield from traditional D&D and generally zigged where the market and the broader environment zagged.

Oh definitely. I think had they thought of the Essentials line FIRST with martials getting just Encounter-based abilities and then later, introducing Martials with Daily powers and making Rituals more accessible in Combat and better maths....I dunno I think the game might have been better received. That and not messing with the Forgotten Realms so much. The changes were overly unnecessary.

In looking at this, I wonder whether 4E could stand in for the old Heroquest game, maybe using the first tier. The set piece nature of it, including using Skill Challenges, would make for interesting "board campaigns" (for lack of a better word).

Quote from: cranebump;966308In looking at this, I wonder whether 4E could stand in for the old Heroquest game, maybe using the first tier. The set piece nature of it, including using Skill Challenges, would make for interesting "board campaigns" (for lack of a better word).

The way it is set up, 4E would be ideal for a sports based fantasy skirmish game like Blood Bowl.

Quote from: cranebump;966308In looking at this, I wonder whether 4E could stand in for the old Heroquest game, maybe using the first tier. The set piece nature of it, including using Skill Challenges, would make for interesting "board campaigns" (for lack of a better word).

Which is funny as WOTC switched HeroScape to D&D. HeroScape uses some of the mechanics from HeroQuest. Same designer.

Quote from: Batman;966130This is a very valid point. What would 4e evolve into if they were to refine it? What changes would you like to see, aside from better math that is?

Hm, I'm not sure exactly what a refined 4e would look like. Obviously build those expertise, improved defenses, and masterwork armor bonuses into the math this time around, as you say. There are a couple of fan projects floating around the internet, one of which I'm excited to try!

I'd also like a return to pure AEDU design, with a module/variant/option to replace EDU powers with super-simple passive features. The E-classes always seemed like an answer in search of a problem to me, but 4e fans have mixed opinions about that. And for all that I think the complexity complaints about 4e are overblown, I'd like to see niggly little conditional widgets removed from default positions. Like the ranger's Prime Shot, that sort of fiddly advantage ought to be a feat -- obviously buffed, to make it worth its conditional nature.

Quote from: Batman;966130Personally I'd love to see more variations on classes. Instead of pegging them each into a single-defined role I thought it would be far better to change their role based on in-class options provided. For example a Paladin in 4e is simply a Defender that can kinda branch into a Leader or Striker role but they're always a Defender. I'd love to have it so they could fit either of those 3 roles better and simply lose the Defender roll altogether. Same with the Wizard, which is almost always a "Controller" in D&D but I'd love to have a sort of Abjurer-style Wizard who wears mage armor and "defends" like a Fighter.

Roles have always been prevalent in D&D, even without being defined with specific features that 4e did. But I've always found that to be rather inflexible as a system. 4e, as it's very much power based, would be an excellent platform to allow more variation in terms of what each class can do to provide different play styles.

Personally I don't have any objection to 4e's clearly defined roles; in fact I'd like the controller to be better defined. Going with your paladin example, by my way of thinking, a non-defender paladin is just a paladin by another name -- cleric, avenger, or invoker. The exception where I can agree with your desires are those classes that got rolled into one power source or other -- usually arcane -- but probably should have had their own power source. Like the warlock -- using powers granted by eldritch entities seems more divine than arcane, but not so much that I want it to actually be divine -- and the artificer -- I feel like it's this lone steampunk class, locked into the leader role. With those sort of classes, yeah, I'd like to see build options that present clear variation in primary roles...or separate classes of that power source, each one of a different role.

Quote from: Batman;966130Isn't that what Pathfinder is? :rolleyes: But again I agree. 3e is pretty bloated with loads of issues that can't simply be patched. I give credit to Paizo for trying but their house ruled 3.5 isn't much better mechanically speaking. Having played 5e though I think that's the best we can get from a "rethought" 3e honestly. It has all the tell-tale signs of 3e such as how multiclassing works and lower numbers earlier on (3e unfortuanatley ramps those numbers up exponentially to ridiculous heights) and has a lot of leeway when it comes to character creation and customization (class skills, backgrounds, feats, sub-paths for classes). When looking at them side-by-side I really can't see what 3e does "better" than 5e? Prestige Classes were just different options players picked to give their character more mechanical depth and power, usually with little regard to the setting as a whole. It doesn't matter that Greyhawk doesn't have Red Wizards or Harpers because *poof* now they're there! By doing away with most of these options, it kept players from being ridiculous power-wise.

Lol yeah, I love Paizo as a company but their edition is more "carefully marketed" than "carefully rethought." By the end of my 3.5 days, I had a collection of house rules that I mostly like better than the system tweaks that Paizo has made.

Maybe 5e is a rethought 3e; if I ever play it maybe it'll take 3e's place as my second fave D&D. But there're some pretty specific things I'd like to see in a carefully rethought 3e, the really big one of which you happened to touch upon here. :) I don't think the D&D brand name will ever give it to us, so I'm tinkering with a heartbreaker edition, where each level of each class is a neat little brick and 3e-style multiclassing just works, without XP penalties, favored classes, partial-1st-level-bennies, prime requisites, or other special-exception rules. I really like the idea of a game where Beer n' Pretzels Joe can write 'Fighter 3' on his sheet, grab a weapon, and be ready to adventure 5 minutes later; and Backstory Actor Arty can spend an hour crafting his fighter/wizard/priest...and nobody has to worry that one of them will deeply regret their chargen decisions. This is kind of a holy grail for me. :)

Can't remember if I posted this already:
http://legrumph.org/Terrier/?Jeux-de-role/D%26amp%3BD-4E-Gamma-Edition
French language fantasy take on GW 4e, while I'd hardly play 4e I may one day be convinced to play this.

Add some of the stuff from here:
http://boldpueblo.com/dazed/blog/tag/gamma-world/
(Uber level characters, rules for designing monsters...)
And you've got a pretty cool game IMHO.

Quote from: Voros;966237I found the core rules of 2e quite solid. What was ill-thought out?

The core rules of 2e were, for the most part, the core rules of 1e. The Player's Option books were mostly bad. In the core, weapon proficiency system was just a bad idea. NWPs are incoherent. The updated reaction table is significantly more complicated without really being any better. With the exceptions of initiative and THAC0, just about every difference I've found from 1e makes the game worse, not better.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;966443The core rules of 2e were, for the most part, the core rules of 1e. The Player's Option books were mostly bad. In the core, weapon proficiency system was just a bad idea. NWPs are incoherent. The updated reaction table is significantly more complicated without really being any better. With the exceptions of initiative and THAC0, just about every difference I've found from 1e makes the game worse, not better.

Certainly at first glance 2e looks like 1e with some of the expansion rules like proficiencies and weapon specialization rolled in, 'simplifications' like ThAC0 and new initiative rules, and then specific/superficial stuff like recasting rangers and rebuilding bards.  

I can kind of agree with both you and Voros, in that I feel 2e was solid, but also ill-thought out. Ill thought out in that they didn't seem to know what they were trying to do. If they were just trying to make a better-edited, less confusing 1e, then it would have ended up looking more like OSRIC. Instead, they tried to do something different, but it isn't clear what. If the change from gp=xp default is any indication, they were recognizing that there was a movement away from a "go to the dungeon and haul out all the loot" method of playing. But if that is the case, why make that change, and not do more to facilitate the style of gameplay they thought was becoming prominent? And why not make more changes to the rules to acknowledge changing playstyles? For instance, it's oft said that people didn't want to turn their fighters into lords at name level and continue on as a leader of armies, but instead keep adventuring and fighting more and more advanced enemies. They certainly toned down the rules on what to do with followers and build castles (except for a specific splatbook). But they still balanced name-level spellcasters and martials with the martials getting more usable followers and expected roles. It makes it look like they clearly understood a disconnect between the game and audience--and then did nothing about it. It's more perplexing than anything. That's my overall take on 2e--it's a perfectly fine game that I don't understand why it exists as it does.

Quote from: Batman;966130This is a very valid point. What would 4e evolve into if they were to refine it?

I don't think there is any thing wrong with 4th edition in regards to high fantasy. What would be interesting is taking it the design apply it to other sub genres. It will take a lot of work because of the exception based design but one keep the fundamental including the frequency of when powers can be invoked but by redoing the effects and flavor text, impart a completely different feel to the system.

Also don't focus on combat as much.

QuoteIt's more perplexing than anything. That's my overall take on 2e--it's a perfectly fine game that I don't understand why it exists as it does.

It seems like it mostly came down to Lorraine Williams not having a goddamned clue about the game business. First, you had this enormous drain of talent with Gygax & the original crew leaving. I'm not a Gygax cultist, but the fact is that with Gygax, Mentzer, Kask, and Moldvay gone, most of the people with developmental knowledge and experience of D&D were gone. It is really hard for any design-focused company to recover from that kind of loss. Doesn't matter if you're making drive shafts or board games. Personally, I think that if I were to hire anyone in a lead design/editing role for AD&D 2e based on what I've read of the pre-Williams stuff, it would be Frank Mentzer.

But the secondary thing is that it doesn't matter who your talent is if your management sucks. Sure, TSR lost a ton of core talent, but I don't think Cook, Winter, and Pickens had bad credentials. What they did have was a mandate to maintain backward compatibility with AD&D and a testing budget of $0.00. With those kinds of constraints, I'm not sure anyone would have done much better with AD&D 2e.

I'm not going to disagree with any of that. However, I feel it still doesn't really explain why we got what we got. There is a theoretical alternate version of 2e that I think would be what they would have made if they simply got an order from on high from an incompetent boss to make and update and make back-compatible. I think it would be 1e with some of the UA-type expansion material rolled in, removing 'evil' stuff (devils, demons, assassins and half-orcs) to appease the moral guardians, and updating the organization, etc.  It is where 2e deviates from that that interests me. As I said, the axing of assumed gp=xp and moving keeps, castles and armies to the background makes it look like they knew about emerging trends in the way people played, but then why stop exactly there?

How much further can you realistically go if you have to stay compatible with 1e and can't test your ideas at work?

Quote from: Batman;966130This is a very valid point. What would 4e evolve into if they were to refine it? What changes would you like to see, aside from better math that is?

The biggest change that needs to be made is the concept of the DM as pink, squishy server for a multiplayer co-op game. Nearly everything a PC does should be something the player tracks & computes on his own turn. Auras, marks, ongoing damage, etc are great ideas...for a game where a computer tracks all that crap. The basic AEDU system is fine.

I'd also like to see qualitative changes as you level up. Low-level 4e daily is "you can do 3[W] and maybe a rider." High-level 4e daily is "you can do 3[W] and like 3 different riders while having a stance active plus a zone effect." Meanwhile, you still don't do enough damage to fell a low-level enemy in one hit.

Basically 4e went from LFQW to Linear Everybody; I'd prefer to see Quadratic Everybody. So much like a Traditional D&D Wizard gets the ability to flat-out nuke a group of 3-HD monsters once or twice a day around level 5, rather than nerfing the crap out of Fireball like 4e did, I'd like to see the Fighter get a nuke-quality power. Powers at even higher levels should be mechanically simple, but involve tremendous heroics like smashing enemies through walls, instilling terror in a whole group of foes before tearing through them in a flash, etc,

Quote from: fearsomepirate;966479The biggest change that needs to be made is the concept of the DM as pink, squishy server for a multiplayer co-op game. Nearly everything a PC does should be something the player tracks & computes on his own turn. Auras, marks, ongoing damage, etc are great ideas...for a game where a computer tracks all that crap. The basic AEDU system is fine.

Agreed. Especially having played the D&D Neverwinter MMO, which is based on 4E.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;966479The biggest change that needs to be made is the concept of the DM as pink, squishy server for a multiplayer co-op game. Nearly everything a PC does should be something the player tracks & computes on his own turn. Auras, marks, ongoing damage, etc are great ideas...for a game where a computer tracks all that crap. The basic AEDU system is fine.

I dunno, my players didn't have too much trouble tracking who was marked and who did what on theirs, or others, turns. Coming from a predominantly 3e/3.5 background it was very similar in terms of who was affected by what spells and effects. Keeping track of statuses of abilities, spell duration, immunities, mid-battle Skill Check DC's (like when the party's cleric wants to identify the spell a bad-guy is casting), etc. all take time too. I expect my players to know when certain stuff goes into effect, certain pluses/minuses are applied, and if they're missed....oh well. There were times in our 4e games a party's Fighter will forget to use their feature because of Marking or adding in a bonus here or there and I just say "Well, next time remember" and move on.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;966479I'd also like to see qualitative changes as you level up. Low-level 4e daily is "you can do 3[W] and maybe a rider." High-level 4e daily is "you can do 3[W] and like 3 different riders while having a stance active plus a zone effect." Meanwhile, you still don't do enough damage to fell a low-level enemy in one hit.

I get what you're saying. This largely plays in part to the poor math early on where low-level monsters had FAR too many Hit Points. Monster Vault: Threats to Nentir Vale was a LOT better supplement in terms of common monsters that were re-done with appropriate-level Hit Points and Math. A high-leveled Daily (we'll say a 15th level one) should be able to completely destroy a 1st level Standard monster. Unfortunately that's not the case in 4e. Cone of Cold (15th level Wizard daily) sadly deals 3d8 + Int damage and assuming an Intelligence of 24, with +3 implement and maybe a feat to boost cold damage (another +2) will only result in approximately 25 or so damage while a Dire Rat (level 1 Brute) has 38 Hit Points. So on that note I completely agree. Riders and effects like being frozen in place are cool and fun but the disparity between a mid-level daily and a lv. 1 Brute is simply FAR too little.  

Quote from: fearsomepirate;966479Basically 4e went from LFQW to Linear Everybody; I'd prefer to see Quadratic Everybody. So much like a Traditional D&D Wizard gets the ability to flat-out nuke a group of 3-HD monsters once or twice a day around level 5, rather than nerfing the crap out of Fireball like 4e did, I'd like to see the Fighter get a nuke-quality power. Powers at even higher levels should be mechanically simple, but involve tremendous heroics like smashing enemies through walls, instilling terror in a whole group of foes before tearing through them in a flash, etc,

Oh I agree. That's a great place to start. The problem I see though is that there's a notion that Fighter's (and other non-magical types) don't need or shouldn't have this sort of power. Look at Pathfinder and 3.5 and you'll see that these characters largely don't possess such amazing abilities. They can do some moderate amount of damage but knocking monsters through walls, jumping high and attacking a winged monsters, etc. are considered "super-heroic" and deemed only fitting for people of magical talent. Of course this runs counter to all myths and legends of warriors of renowned skill and heroism yet people still play D&D like it's Real Life + Magic...

Quote from: estar;966463I don't think there is any thing wrong with 4th edition in regards to high fantasy. What would be interesting is taking it the design apply it to other sub genres. It will take a lot of work because of the exception based design but one keep the fundamental including the frequency of when powers can be invoked but by redoing the effects and flavor text, impart a completely different feel to the system.

This can largely be done currently by messing with a few things:

• Rate of Rest: While the assumed norm is at-will, encounter, and daily there's nothing stopping someone from changing it to encounter (formerly at-will), Daily (formerly encounter), and Weekly (formerly daily) and maintain the ritual-based powers as-is. What you have to ensure is that monster's HP is drastically reduced to fit the model. I'd say 1/3 of their overall Hit Points but keep the distinction of Role. So our Dire Rat (level 1 Brute) normally has 38 Hit Points but under this system it'd have only 12 (rounded up to the nearest even number) and bloodied at 6. Additionally, I'd beef up monster AC by a point or two AND probably only add 1/2 ability mod to damage rolls. That way a Fighter using a greatsword (1d10) with a Str of the normalized 18 (+4 mod) isn't 1-shot killing monsters at this level that should normally take 2 solid hits to kill.

• Healing Surges: I'd cut these down by 1/2, based on class. Keep the 1/4 healing that you get from it but only recover 1/2 of them, like in 5e, during a long rest. I'd require 24-hr bed rest to recover all your Healing Surges.

• Apply the disease track more often AND perhaps add in the possibility of losing limbs. Something that 4e does well are the disease you can contract and the fight to remove them slowly. Unfortunately this system isn't used very often but it should be. Also loss of limb was always something that was terrifying when added into the Critical Hit aspect. Maybe some sort of installment of that could make it seem more gritty or help to change the sub-genre.

• Require the necessary things the power says it needs: This is something that I already do in my games. If a Rogue's power says "Sand in the eyes" then I'm going to require sand or something similar to a fine, but gritty substance, to throw into someone's face. Just because the power says this is what you do does't necessarily mean you can do that when you're depraved of said material. This should be applied to all spells for components and probably other things too.

Quote from: estar;966463Also don't focus on combat as much.

Downtime rules, background info and things that 5e did for your character's ideals, flaws, bonds, etc. are all excellent avenues to add into the game. Not entirely sure what else should be added that doesn't just sound like more mechanical constructs to promote the system-as-reality that 3e did?

Quote from: Batman;966485Oh I agree. That's a great place to start. The problem I see though is that there's a notion that Fighter's (and other non-magical types) don't need or shouldn't have this sort of power. Look at Pathfinder and 3.5 and you'll see that these characters largely don't possess such amazing abilities. They can do some moderate amount of damage but knocking monsters through walls, jumping high and attacking a winged monsters, etc. are considered "super-heroic" and deemed only fitting for people of magical talent. Of course this runs counter to all myths and legends of warriors of renowned skill and heroism yet people still play D&D like it's Real Life + Magic...

I think if we're talking about improving 4e, we're already taking for granted that anyone who thinks the 3.PF fighter, with his I Can Do A Bit of Extra Damage and I'm Not So Useless at Tripping abilities, is as powerful as a martial class should ever be is not going to be in the target audience. That ship already sailed when fighters got daily powers.

Quote from: Batman;966490This can largely be done currently by messing with a few things:

Good points but in the end it is a exception based design. Means you can keep how things work but change the feel by revamping the exceptions. The difference between the different sets of Magic the Gathering is an example of that and how they kept the game fresh over the years. With D&D 4e, they came out with high fantasy and stuck with it throughout active publication of the line.

Quote from: Batman;966490Require the necessary things the power says it needs: This is something that I already do in my games. If a Rogue's power says "Sand in the eyes" then I'm going to require sand or something similar to a fine, but gritty substance, to throw into someone's face. Just because the power says this is what you do does't necessarily mean you can do that when you're depraved of said material. This should be applied to all spells for components and probably other things too.

I did this as well when I ran 4e. Help make it feel a little more grounded. But still was high fantasy 24/7.

Quote from: Batman;966490Downtime rules, background info and things that 5e did for your character's ideals, flaws, bonds, etc. are all excellent avenues to add into the game. Not entirely sure what else should be added that doesn't just sound like more mechanical constructs to promote the system-as-reality that 3e did?

I am talking about class powers that have nothing to do with combat. The stuff above is certainly useful but list of stuff that a character class can do shouldn't be solely focused on combat like 4e is.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;966338Hm, I'm not sure exactly what a refined 4e would look like. Obviously build those expertise, improved defenses, and masterwork armor bonuses into the math this time around, as you say. There are a couple of fan projects floating around the internet, one of which I'm excited to try!

Speaking as someone working on one such project (though likely not one you've heard of) my fix for the expertise/defenses/masterwork bits was to institute much flatter math (which also helps with the mass combat rules) where attack bonuses cap at +10 for the most twinked out build at max level but is more typically in 6-8 range for weapon attacks and where AC caps at 20 with 15-19 being more typical for adventurers equipped with armor or magic (non-combat NPC's could be as low as 9). Instead its "hit points" (which are renamed to make it clear they are skill/fatigue/morale and not meat) and damage (i.e. how much work a target has to do to avoid having the attack deal debilitating damage to them) that scales with level. When a 0-level soldier has 2 hp and deals about 2 damage even the starting PC warrior is a "veteran" who could take on several of them at once with a good chance of winning by comparison, but even the toughest warrior with a hundred hit points can be worn down by sufficient weight of mooks thrown against them.

This is one of the areas I think that 5E got right in theory, but bollixed up in execution because it wasn't quite flat enough (indeed the gap between a good and a bad save in 5e is as bad as it was in 3e).

QuoteI'd also like a return to pure AEDU design, with a module/variant/option to replace EDU powers with super-simple passive features.

To avoid Hasbro lawyers coming after you (they don't have to be right, they just have to outlast your legal budget), I recommend against overt AEDU design if you plan to take a fan project commercial. I think so long as the resource system is universal across all the classes you can get close to the 4E feel even if its not a direct clone. My solution was for two additional resource pools; one short term and regained with just a minute or two to catch your breath (so 'encounter' like) and a long term pool that functions like a combination of healing surges and action points and recover a point or two (depending on your CON score) for every hour of rest (during which you take penalties to Perception and defenses as you're off your guard).

To avoid power spam (common to many mana pool systems), you get a significant bonus to your attack check the first time you use each attack that burns a short or long term resource during an encounter. If you wanna spam the same one again and again you can, but you'll be more effective if you switch up your maneuvers so the enemy can't adapt to them.

QuotePersonally I don't have any objection to 4e's clearly defined roles; in fact I'd like the controller to be better defined.

I'd agree here too. My solution for the roles was to tie them into specific minor actions available to each class (and remove the ability to spend your move action to take another minor action). The striker's extra damage, the defender's marking, the leader's buffing/healing and the controller's AoE's and improved control come from their minor actions. Multi-classing gives you additional minor action options, but since you can only expend your main or minor action to use them you either have to stop performing your main role or give up your main attack in order to use that alternate ability.

QuoteGoing with your paladin example, by my way of thinking, a non-defender paladin is just a paladin by another name -- cleric, avenger, or invoker.

You'd be amazed the degree of difficulty I have had during both 4E and early on in my playtesting that people had letting go of concepts they associated with the older D&D names. The example of the guy wanting to play a Bow-using Fighter being told to make a 4E Ranger and insisting "No, I want a FIGHTER" is not a myth. I've encountered it first hand. They spent a ton of effort trying to fight the system because to them it is the NAME of the class (and the innate fluff associated with it in past editions) that is more important that its actual mechanics and then are unsatisfied when the result isn't nearly as effective as the guy who just made a 4E ranger with the archery build.

I had similar problems, even with 4E players when I started play-testing because they kept associating the concepts of what a 1e-3e or 4E fighter could do to the class I had named the fighter (or the rogue or the wizard).

As a result I ended up killing the classic names (at least at the class level... Barbarian and Monastic are backgrounds; Wizard and Sorcerer are paths of arcane magic). The "Skilled" classes are things like Captains, Defenders, Ravagers, Sharpshooters and so forth. Spellcasters include Abjurers, Benedictors, Interdictors, Maledictors, Summoners and so forth. Now depending on what you want to do with it; the "bow fighter" would be either a Sentinel, Sharpshooter, Skirmisher or Captain.

It doesn't hurt either that most of the fluff is tied to your background, classes are purely about how you fight... so D&D Fighter fluff is the Military Background, D&D Ranger fluff is the Barbarian background and D&D Rogue fluff is the Outlaw background. But they could all be Skirmishers who make extra attacks with their minor actions using light weapons (short swords, hand axes, short bows, etc.).

Being able to say "There are no fighters" or "Barbarian is a background not a class" or "Okay, but what TYPE of wizard do you want to be?" has stopped virtually all of the fighting against the system to fit ingrained preconceptions; at least in my experience.

Quote from: Batman;966485I get what you're saying. This largely plays in part to the poor math early on where low-level monsters had FAR too many Hit Points. Monster Vault: Threats to Nentir Vale was a LOT better supplement in terms of common monsters that were re-done with appropriate-level Hit Points and Math. A high-leveled Daily (we'll say a 15th level one) should be able to completely destroy a 1st level Standard monster. Unfortunately that's not the case in 4e. Cone of Cold (15th level Wizard daily) sadly deals 3d8 + Int damage and assuming an Intelligence of 24, with +3 implement and maybe a feat to boost cold damage (another +2) will only result in approximately 25 or so damage while a Dire Rat (level 1 Brute) has 38 Hit Points. So on that note I completely agree. Riders and effects like being frozen in place are cool and fun but the disparity between a mid-level daily and a lv. 1 Brute is simply FAR too little.  

The game REALLY REALLY does not want you running fights between level 15 PCs and level 1 standard Brutes. Standard monsters are supposed to be PC near-peer threats. If they're more than 3-4 levels below the PCs they should be replaced with Minions, 5-8 levels higher than the standard monster stats.

For my game I gave minions 1/4 the hp of a standard monster, and I use those as the "normal" foes, the ones noticeably weaker than the PCs. So I'd convert a Brute-1 standard into a Brute-6 minion with 88/4=22 hit points*. Which could indeed be taken out by a Cone of Cold. Standard monsters work best as enemy leaders & champions, or en mass as rival squads of adventurers, elite troops & such.

*This has proven extremely popular with my players. 4e players IME hate fighting 1 hp cardboard minions, but they love taking out some guy with 12 hp with a single blow. Or frying six of them with a Burst-2.

Quote from: Chris24601;966502To avoid Hasbro lawyers coming after you (they don't have to be right, they just have to outlast your legal budget), I recommend against overt AEDU design if you plan to take a fan project commercial.

I am confident that Hasbro lawyers are not interested in monopolising AEDU (and game rules per se are explicitly excluded from copyrightability). They generally only care about Trade Marks, and to a much lesser extent direct copying of literary & artistic works.

Quote from: S'mon;966528I am confident that Hasbro lawyers are not interested in monopolising AEDU (and game rules per se are explicitly excluded from copyrightability). They generally only care about Trade Marks, and to a much lesser extent direct copying of literary & artistic works.

First, a point of clarification; Are speaking about some fan-made rules thrown up on the internet with no profits involved -or- are you speaking about a commercial product sold at a profit?

Because if you're only speaking about the former, you're right. They don't bother with people who aren't trying to make any money. But if you're trying to make money off the project, let me ask you... at $200 per hour in lawyer fees, just how many hours of legal representation can you afford if you're wrong when testing that theory?

They don't have to be right. They just have to outlast your ability to pay a lawyer to represent you in the venue of their choosing and have a reason to make an example of you.

Call me risk averse if you want, but if some tweaks here and there help make it obviously not a direct clone for a project where I'm putting up real money to minimize the risks of a bored Hasbro lawyer deciding its worth spending 5 minutes to throw a boilerplate cease and desist order my way and cause me all manner of headaches, I'll consider it effort well spent.

One of the problems is that there's a pretty fine line between 'game rules' and 'presentation of game rules' in terms of copyright and trademark. They may not be able to copyright the process of rolling damage and inflicting a condition on a hit, but they can copyright the specific expressions used such as "Hit: Deal 4d10+Intelligence modifier psychic damage and the target is stunned until the end of their next turn" and claim the use of powers with different colored bars to represent usage as part of 4E's product identity. If they decide to make an example of you for whatever reason it can get pretty ugly.

So to me its worth it to have some pretty obvious and significant differences between the project I'm working on and 4E. Thankfully there's quite a bit of 4E that's covered by the 3.5SRD and OGL, even the use of spell attack rolls vs. static Fort, Reflex and Will defenses and the basic concepts for Action Points are in the variant rules section. Even most of the conditions are in the SRD or else are so self-evident that they can't be covered (slowed for example). Others are close enough to stand in for 4E conditions pretty nicely (using "flat-footed" instead of "grants combat advantage" for example).

Frankly, just doing the same sort "question everything/sacred cow slaughter" on 4E that the developers of 4E claimed to have done on past editions of D&D probably separated my project enough from 4E to be safe (I use a different mechanic than 'save ends' for duration tracking and have short/long recovery "mana" points with a carrot for not spamming the same one instead of AED powers). I believe the changes that I implemented make my system a BETTER game than 4E, not just a different one.

Throw in math flatter than 5e for combat (which makes for better sandbox campaigns), shit-canning feats and utility powers for a background layer separate from class that provides your skills and non-combat abilities, replacing the '8-20' ability scores with a '-1 to 5' range (i.e. the mods directly which are all 4E uses for anything of relevance anyway) and a much more codified skill system (with set DC's for specific tasks/obstacles and no difficulty scales with level and skill challenges) and it IS a very different system from 4E on paper even though the playtests feel pretty close to 4E's tactical combat.

That said, I'm not planning on marketing the game as a 4E retroclone. At most I might put a 'inspired by the 4th Edition of the World's Most Popular RPG' line on the back cover and referring to it as a "Tactical Role Playing Game" on the front cover. Beyond that my planned draw is a post apocalyptic schizo-Magitech setting in the spirit of Thundarr the Barbarian with everything from sprites to beastmen to actual dragons to the shadows of murdered children available as PCs (not to mention the usual suspects, though with twists like the steampunk cyborg dwarves) and the heroes are the champions of civilization, clearing out monster filled ruins and uncovering lost treasures to strengthen the fragile realms that have grown from the ruins of the past age.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;966460Instead, they tried to do something different, but it isn't clear what. If the change from gp=xp default is any indication, they were recognizing that there was a movement away from a "go to the dungeon and haul out all the loot" method of playing.

It's more perplexing than anything. That's my overall take on 2e--it's a perfectly fine game that I don't understand why it exists as it does.

1: Removing gold for EXP was more likely an attempt to slow down levelling. No one was thinking about facilitating anything.

2: TSR had just ousted Gygax and the then partially complete or nearly complete 2e was unusable and they scrambled to come up with a replacement. They cut-n-pasted text from revised AD&D whole cloth. In a way 2e feels more like Revised.5. Dave Cook has a fair amount to say on the whole mess.

Quote from: S'mon;966526The game REALLY REALLY does not want you running fights between level 15 PCs and level 1 standard Brutes. Standard monsters are supposed to be PC near-peer threats. If they're more than 3-4 levels below the PCs they should be replaced with Minions, 5-8 levels higher than the standard monster stats.

For my game I gave minions 1/4 the hp of a standard monster, and I use those as the "normal" foes, the ones noticeably weaker than the PCs. So I'd convert a Brute-1 standard into a Brute-6 minion with 88/4=22 hit points*. Which could indeed be taken out by a Cone of Cold. Standard monsters work best as enemy leaders & champions, or en mass as rival squads of adventurers, elite troops & such.

*This has proven extremely popular with my players. 4e players IME hate fighting 1 hp cardboard minions, but they love taking out some guy with 12 hp with a single blow. Or frying six of them with a Burst-2.

What I don't like about minions is they feel contrived. I kind of wore out on how every 4e monster was customized, so you never really knew what you're fighting. I actually find it a bit refreshing to be back in a context where, for example, an orc just is 2d8+6. Players can reasonably expect that two solid weapon hits will take one out, unless they see one that I specifically point out as being extra burly and mean.

Quote from: Omega;9665711: Removing gold for EXP was more likely an attempt to slow down levelling. No one was thinking about facilitating anything.

2: TSR had just ousted Gygax and the then partially complete or nearly complete 2e was unusable and they scrambled to come up with a replacement. They cut-n-pasted text from revised AD&D whole cloth. In a way 2e feels more like Revised.5. Dave Cook has a fair amount to say on the whole mess.

Cooks talks about working to deadline and making compromises due to player expectations (hence why they kept the pointless decending AC) but does not say anything like what you suggest here. He seems rightly proud of most of his 2e rework and has good reasons for his decisions like removing the monk, assasin, improving thieves and bards, etc.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;966443The core rules of 2e were, for the most part, the core rules of 1e. The Player's Option books were mostly bad. In the core, weapon proficiency system was just a bad idea. NWPs are incoherent. The updated reaction table is significantly more complicated without really being any better. With the exceptions of initiative and THAC0, just about every difference I've found from 1e makes the game worse, not better.

I disagree. Player Options is so late in 2e's development I never even saw them as I dropped out of D&D with the arrival of 3e. Fail to see what the issue is with weapon proficiency, as I recall it is optional and fiddly like most optional rules, did you find it unbalancing? NWP are character flavour those who obsess on them as a mechanic are missing the point. Don't even remember the reaction table, never used them as I figure it is up to the DM and PC to RP those reactions.

Thieves, bards and monks were significantly improved, the bard actually rendered playable. Priest spheres was a huge improvment on the generic cleric. Not to mention the rules were much more clearly written, laid out, referenceble at the table  and encouraged you to pick and choose what you wanted for your game.

Quote from: Chris24601;966559First, a point of clarification; Are speaking about some fan-made rules thrown up on the internet with no profits involved -or- are you speaking about a commercial product sold at a profit?

Because if you're only speaking about the former, you're right. They don't bother with people who aren't trying to make any money. But if you're trying to make money off the project, let me ask you... at $200 per hour in lawyer fees, just how many hours of legal representation can you afford if you're wrong when testing that theory?

They don't have to be right. They just have to outlast your ability to pay a lawyer to represent you in the venue of their choosing and have a reason to make an example of you.

Call me risk averse if you want, but if some tweaks here and there help make it obviously not a direct clone for a project where I'm putting up real money to minimize the risks of a bored Hasbro lawyer deciding its worth spending 5 minutes to throw a boilerplate cease and desist order my way and cause me all manner of headaches, I'll consider it effort well spent.

One of the problems is that there's a pretty fine line between 'game rules' and 'presentation of game rules' in terms of copyright and trademark. They may not be able to copyright the process of rolling damage and inflicting a condition on a hit, but they can copyright the specific expressions used such as "Hit: Deal 4d10+Intelligence modifier psychic damage and the target is stunned until the end of their next turn" and claim the use of powers with different colored bars to represent usage as part of 4E's product identity. If they decide to make an example of you for whatever reason it can get pretty ugly.

So to me its worth it to have some pretty obvious and significant differences between the project I'm working on and 4E. Thankfully there's quite a bit of 4E that's covered by the 3.5SRD and OGL, even the use of spell attack rolls vs. static Fort, Reflex and Will defenses and the basic concepts for Action Points are in the variant rules section. Even most of the conditions are in the SRD or else are so self-evident that they can't be covered (slowed for example). Others are close enough to stand in for 4E conditions pretty nicely (using "flat-footed" instead of "grants combat advantage" for example).

Frankly, just doing the same sort "question everything/sacred cow slaughter" on 4E that the developers of 4E claimed to have done on past editions of D&D probably separated my project enough from 4E to be safe (I use a different mechanic than 'save ends' for duration tracking and have short/long recovery "mana" points with a carrot for not spamming the same one instead of AED powers). I believe the changes that I implemented make my system a BETTER game than 4E, not just a different one.

Throw in math flatter than 5e for combat (which makes for better sandbox campaigns), shit-canning feats and utility powers for a background layer separate from class that provides your skills and non-combat abilities, replacing the '8-20' ability scores with a '-1 to 5' range (i.e. the mods directly which are all 4E uses for anything of relevance anyway) and a much more codified skill system (with set DC's for specific tasks/obstacles and no difficulty scales with level and skill challenges) and it IS a very different system from 4E on paper even though the playtests feel pretty close to 4E's tactical combat.

That said, I'm not planning on marketing the game as a 4E retroclone. At most I might put a 'inspired by the 4th Edition of the World's Most Popular RPG' line on the back cover and referring to it as a "Tactical Role Playing Game" on the front cover. Beyond that my planned draw is a post apocalyptic schizo-Magitech setting in the spirit of Thundarr the Barbarian with everything from sprites to beastmen to actual dragons to the shadows of murdered children available as PCs (not to mention the usual suspects, though with twists like the steampunk cyborg dwarves) and the heroes are the champions of civilization, clearing out monster filled ruins and uncovering lost treasures to strengthen the fragile realms that have grown from the ruins of the past age.

I was talking about commercial works.
"Product Identity" is not a legal concept or form of Intellectual Property, it only has meaning within the OGL licence.
Be as legally defensive as you like. But from looking at past Hasbro legal behaviour, I don't think what you are discussing is at credible risk even of a cease & desist letter. Where you will get a C&D is use of trademarked terms and copyrighted images, including monsters they claim to own. I don't think your advice reflects how they actually behave.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;966582What I don't like about minions is they feel contrived. I kind of wore out on how every 4e monster was customized, so you never really knew what you're fighting. I actually find it a bit refreshing to be back in a context where, for example, an orc just is 2d8+6. Players can reasonably expect that two solid weapon hits will take one out, unless they see one that I specifically point out as being extra burly and mean.

I agree, it can definitely be an issue with 4e and an advantage of 5e and other versions. I generally try to avoid mucking around with the levels of non-minion foes at least. 4e does assume a variety of Minion levels, eg there are umpteen different versions of ghouls up to level 26 Abyssal Horde Ghouls for PCs to fight across their entire careers. But most minions stay within a Tier, eg you have orc minions at level 4 and level 9, hobgoblin minions at level 3 & 8, human minions at level 2 & 7.

Quote from: Omega;9665711: Removing gold for EXP was more likely an attempt to slow down levelling. No one was thinking about facilitating anything.

I got the 2e DMG pdf recently in the drivethru sale and been reading the XP section. The advice on levelling seems to assume a similar rate to 1e AD&D and BX, nothing like the "at least 10 sessions to level" stuff I had been hearing about on the Internet. It actually says:

An average pace in an AD&D game campaign is considered to
be three to six adventures per level, with more time per level as
the characters reach higher levels. However, it is possible to
advance as quickly as one level per adventure or as slowly as 10
or more adventures per level.

Which is good advice. Except unfortunately some people thought 'adventure' here meant 'published module' (eg Temple of Elemental Evil) not 'session'.

Quote from: Voros;966602I disagree. Player Options is so late in 2e's development I never even saw them as I dropped out of D&D with the arrival of 3e. Fail to see what the issue is with weapon proficiency, as I recall it is optional and fiddly like most optional rules, did you find it unbalancing? NWP are character flavour those who obsess on them as a mechanic are missing the point. Don't even remember the reaction table, never used them as I figure it is up to the DM and PC to RP those reactions.

Thieves, bards and monks were significantly improved, the bard actually rendered playable. Priest spheres was a huge improvment on the generic cleric. Not to mention the rules were much more clearly written, laid out, referenceble at the table  and encouraged you to pick and choose what you wanted for your game.

I had a similar impression of 2e - I never bought a 2e DMG though, only the PHB and MM to use with my 1e DMG. NWPs are listed as optional and I never used them.

I was just looking at the 2e DMG Reaction table and it is definitely inferior IMO to the BX 2d6 Reaction table. But it's no worse than the 1e d% table. The 2d6 version is the only one I regularly use (in various games) to set initial monster disposition, because I can keep it in my head.

Quote from: Voros;966602I disagree. Player Options is so late in 2e's development I never even saw them as I dropped out of D&D with the arrival of 3e. Fail to see what the issue is with weapon proficiency, as I recall it is optional and fiddly like most optional rules, did you find it unbalancing?

The first issue is that a large bonus to one weapon is a penalty to using all others. The second issue is that the rules leave it up to the DM to decide what the categories are. The third is, of course, that swords are far more plentiful than other weapons.  The fourth is that it's too granular. A few broad categories would have been much better than what they ended up with.

QuoteNWP are character flavour those who obsess on them as a mechanic are missing the point.

The rules can't figure out whether they're supposed to be flavor or not. Some NWPs are just a nice bit of background. Other NWPs say you need them to do something. They're vague and not well-written.

QuoteThieves, bards and monks were significantly improved, the bard actually rendered playable. Priest spheres was a huge improvment on the generic cleric. Not to mention the rules were much more clearly written, laid out, referenceble at the table  and encouraged you to pick and choose what you wanted for your game.

Definitely like the bard better, and of course the organization is better.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;966658The first issue is that a large bonus to one weapon is a penalty to using all others. The second issue is that the rules leave it up to the DM to decide what the categories are. The third is, of course, that swords are far more plentiful than other weapons.  The fourth is that it's too granular. A few broad categories would have been much better than what they ended up with.

Excluding Complete Fighter's guide weapon groups, categories only existed to determine which weapons only got half-nonproficiency penalty when you were not proficient in them, but in a related weapon.

However, the overall point is very much right. Weapon either needed to be rethought, or the weapon proficiency system was problematic. Here is my take:

• Weapons were unbalanced. The same is true in 1e if you didn't use WvsAC (and even then, it was not well balanced). That's fine if there is no proficiency system. If you find a +3 war hammer (avg damage 6.5/5.5 s-m/l), you make the decision on whether the bonus to hit (and being able to hit various monsters) is worth picking it compared to your greatsword (5.5/10.5). There are no beggars or choosers with the spoils of victory. However, if you have to dedicate a proficiency ahead of time, of course you are going to pick the one with the better base stats. No one ever picked warhammer (or battle axe, or spear) except if they were going for flavor-over-benefit reasons. The best weapons in the game were longswords, greatswords, bastard swords, longbows, and for some reason longspears if you had that splatbook (plus things like daggers if the DM enforced penalties for fighting in confined spaces). The only non-flavor reason to pick otherwise was class limitations.
• Likewise, magic item distribution was unbalanced. Again, swords were king, but after that daggers, bows and staves. Despite having dozens of polearms, it made no without-DM-adjustment sense to ever be proficient in them, since once you hit fights-magic-weapon-requiring-monsters level, you would never use said proficiencies again (and again, these had worse damage). So again, forget having bec-de-corbins on the weapon list, you are still choosing between longsword, greatsword, and longbow.
• Further, every expansion added new weapons. Each Complete guide added martial arts weapons. The fighter's guide added samurai weapons, swashbuckling and pirate weapons, stone and bone weapons. Each of these was a new proficiency you needed to take separately.
• And finally, the expansions kept using wp for more things, eventually disincentivizing taking broad arrays of weapon proficiencies in favor of greater combat effectiveness with a core set. An example (using Complete Fighters): Two characters are fighting each other, or just competing to benefit the party more. One takes broad weapon groups in as many categories as possible, trying to become proficient in them all. The second spends 5 wp to become specialized in longbow and bastard sword. He then spends all the rest of his wp (plus any bonus languages his Int would provide), and spends them on two-handed fighting style, weapon and shield fighting style, ambidexterity, two weapon fighting style, one-handed fighting style (twice), and then specializes in martial arts or wrestling for the rest of his career. This character now has a 1-3 point bonus on any given modifier--to-hit, damage, speed factor, AC, or can fight with two weapons (or weapon and shield). And other than flavor-wise, is not penalized compared to the guy making sure they can fight with awl-pikes and belaying pins.

So yeah. Weapon proficiencies are a fine concept, but not with leaving the rest of the weapon system (damages, magic item charts, etc.) as is.

Quote from: S'mon;966610"Product Identity" is not a legal concept or form of Intellectual Property, it only has meaning within the OGL licence.

A correction, while yo are correct that Product Identity is a OGL term, it is a shorthand for "this is the stuff that not open content thus covered by my rights under copyright law include the right of control of its distribution.". Most open content licenses are an all or nothing affair for a single work, the OGL is a bit unique in that provides a standard method for open content and copyrighted material to be intermixed in the same work. Which reflects the fact that most RPGs products are one part rules for a game, and one part creative prose describing people, places, and things.

Quote from: estar;966710A correction, while yo are correct that Product Identity is a OGL term, it is a shorthand for "this is the stuff that not open content thus covered by my rights under copyright law include the right of control of its distribution.".

Yes, sort-of, but this is legally irrelevant - it does not matter to the OGL licence that WoTC's claim to own copyright in the Displacer Beast is false (because Coeurl). If you use a Displacer Beast in your OGL product you are still in breach of the licence because the DB is designated Product Identity.
WoTC are not just relying on their copyright claim re the Beast, a claim that would likely fail in court. They are relying on the Contract you agreed to when you incorporated the OGL in your work. The designation of Mind Flayer or Displacer Beast as PI remains valid within the terms of the licence despite the creators of those critters copying prior works, and I can't see any reason why a court would not enforce it.

Quote from: S'mon;966712Yes, sort-of, but this is legally irrelevant - it does not matter to the OGL licence that WoTC's claim to own copyright in the Displacer Beast is false (because Coeurl). If you use a Displacer Beast in your OGL product you are still in breach of the licence because the DB is designated Product Identity.
WoTC are not just relying on their copyright claim re the Beast, a claim that would likely fail in court. They are relying on the Contract you agreed to when you incorporated the OGL in your work. The designation of Mind Flayer or Displacer Beast as PI remains valid within the terms of the licence despite the creators of those critters copying prior works, and I can't see any reason why a court would not enforce it.

Except in the d20 SRD the Mind Flayer, Displacer Beast are never mentioned. In fact the entire document is declared open content. The Monster Manual doesn't have any type of license attached to it. The use of Mind Flayer or Displacer Beast by a unauthorized third party is treated as a copyright violation.

The only relevant provision in the OGL to external content is that you can't claim compatibility with any trademark without an explicit second license grant. This provision does narrow one's normal rights under copyright.

Also people are confusing the issue by doing stuff like this at the d20 SRD

QuoteQ:   Why are some monsters missing from this site?
A:   
The following monsters are considered "Product Identity" by Wizards of the Coast and are therefore not part of the SRD:

beholder
gauth
carrion crawler
displacer beast
githyanki
githzerai
kuo-toa
mind flayer
slaad
umber hulk
yuan-ti

If you look at Wizard's FAQ there not mention of any of these monsters as product identity.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/srdfaq/20040123c

To be crystal clear just because they are not declared product identity anywhere doesn't mean you can go using them.  It a problem for you as the author under copyright, not a problem for you as the author as a OGL violation.

Also note that while it was in use the d20 Trademark License carried additional restriction if you wanted to use the d20 logo on your products. But it hasn't been relevant for nearly ten years now.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;966670Excluding Complete Fighter's guide weapon groups, categories only existed to determine which weapons only got half-nonproficiency penalty when you were not proficient in them, but in a related weapon...So yeah. Weapon proficiencies are a fine concept, but not with leaving the rest of the weapon system (damages, magic item charts, etc.) as is.

Right. In the main, it's not that 2e ideas were intrinsically bad, it's that they're critically underdeveloped due to lack of any kind of comprehensive testing. The same could be said of 3rd edition. In fact, many things I dislike about 4e, like DM-as-computer and combatification of skill, are fully present in 3rd edition.

Both NWPs and weapon proficiency are good examples. In 5e, the skills and backgrounds cover NWP territory, but they're much better defined systems. Weapon proficiency and fighting style are also much more robust systems in 5e. I don't think it's just a matter of there being decades more experience, either. There were a lot of really ugly things in the early Next playtests that got refined out.

2e is the Toolboxiest toolbox there is. There's nothing that needs to be so fine-tune balanced, because it is a compilation of optional discrete systems. Take something out for your campaign and it mostly functions. This is unlike WotC where there is a singular integrated system vision that ends up with cascading effects from previous design decisions.

Looking back I *like* 2e discrete and often optional systems, like NWP or punch/wrestle table. If read, (instead of received knowledge by secondhand,) they just work faster for my table to keep the game moving. I didn't understand why they worked as they did before when younger, but now I see their logic to modularity. With less compounding unforeseen effects, I see the benefit of being separate sub-system unto itself, and more of a buffet by having more than one option provided (and 2e very much has an alternate system or three to just about everything).

Will it work swimmingly if you graft on all those little modular sub-systems simultaneously without forethought? No. But then what does? :) I think that was its biggest challenge -- people assuming expected play instead of holding strong making the game theirs. However, given Adventure League and the gradual power creep I see in 5e, I blame that 2e issue as more of a GM function trying to appease players that their table is RPGA-compliant.

When in doubt blame toxic competitiveness. :)

Quote from: estar;966716Except in the d20 SRD the Mind Flayer, Displacer Beast are never mentioned. In fact the entire document is declared open content. The Monster Manual doesn't have any type of license attached to it. The use of Mind Flayer or Displacer Beast by a unauthorized third party is treated as a copyright violation.

The only relevant provision in the OGL to external content is that you can't claim compatibility with any trademark without an explicit second license grant. This provision does narrow one's normal rights under copyright.

Also people are confusing the issue by doing stuff like this at the d20 SRD



If you look at Wizard's FAQ there not mention of any of these monsters as product identity.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/srdfaq/20040123c

To be crystal clear just because they are not declared product identity anywhere doesn't mean you can go using them.  It a problem for you as the author under copyright, not a problem for you as the author as a OGL violation.

Also note that while it was in use the d20 Trademark License carried additional restriction if you wanted to use the d20 logo on your products. But it hasn't been relevant for nearly ten years now.

OK thanks for clarification. :) For some reason I thought it listed WoTC PI in the OGL.

Quote from: S'mon;966749OK thanks for clarification. :) For some reason I thought it listed WoTC PI in the OGL.

Glad to help.

Quote from: estar;966716Legal Stuff

And this is why I, as a non-lawyer, am so gun shy about anything related to WotC created elements that is not directly derived from the 3.5 SRD. What they consider "Product Identity" isn't actually spelled out and can get you into hot water if they decide something of theirs IS product identity and they need to crack down due to "enforce it or lose it" (particularly for trade marks; which are not just the names/logos but the presentation style of an entire product... particular font/color combinations or distinctive layouts for example).

When you're the little fish your best course of survival is to not even give the big fish a reason to bother with you. The related problem is that despite the claimed lack of enforcement, its still a loaded gun laying around that could wreck your day if someone ever decided it was worth using. We don't even really know exactly how enforced it is because so few people have the resources to fight Hasbro that those they do go after will probably fold at the first cease and desist order and thus never even makes the news anywhere. It could be rare or it could not.

Now maybe if my product makes a profit for me I'd be a bit more willing to take some risks going forward, but as it is with nothing but money sunk into art resources, paper and toner for all the playtest printouts and a heap load of time sunk into producing this currently 165k word behemoth I'm not all that eager to have to either eat the losses at whatever point it comes up or throw down hundreds to thousands of dollars in legal fees because I guessed wrong on what WotC is willing to go after.

And again, there actually is a surprising amount of 4E's roots to be found in the SRD. Spell attacks vs. Static defenses is there. Action Points are there. The simple Trained/Untrained Skills option is there. Most of the conditions are there. All the stuff that carried over from 3.5 (ability scores/mods, hit points, d20 check, standard/move/swift actions, turns and rounds, attacks vs. ascending AC, damage dice + modifier for damage rolls, level based advancement and character classes, etc.) is there.

Not counting fluff, the only really iffy things you can't get out of the 3.5 SRD that 4E has are the save ends mechanic for durations, healing surges, the AED power structure and the specifics of how the 4E classes are put together (i.e. the benefit schedule of when you get what type of power or feat and how much XP it takes to get there). Those are the areas I think you'd want to be the most careful with when trying to put together a genuine 4E spiritual successor (13th Age is too much indy story game and not enough tactical combat to really qualify in my mind) while avoiding any potential legal pitfalls.

But as noted above, I'm not a lawyer, just someone whose been burned by and seen others burned by lawyers (and the utterly worthless BBB) in the past and has no desire to repeat the process unless absolutely necessary.

Quote from: estar;966710A correction, while yo are correct that Product Identity is a OGL term, it is a shorthand for "this is the stuff that not open content thus covered by my rights under copyright law include the right of control of its distribution.". Most open content licenses are an all or nothing affair for a single work, the OGL is a bit unique in that provides a standard method for open content and copyrighted material to be intermixed in the same work. Which reflects the fact that most RPGs products are one part rules for a game, and one part creative prose describing people, places, and things.

This is the part I love about OSR OGL use. The whole "I can steal your stuff whole cloth but dont you dare steal mine!"

4E Essentials is a great game, with probably the best rules, books, and supporting material for any RPG I've played.

I didn't play it until after it was discontinued, but I ran a very fun and rewarding campaign with Essentials for over a year. Everyone picked up the system quickly and had fun with the traditional-style Essentials characters. The campaign was open-ended and dealt more in intrigue and investigation than combat. And when the combat happened, it was satisfying and engaging (and this from someone who played D&D theatre of the mind for over 30 years). By Essentials they had fixed the monster math and combats didn't drag. The key was to ignore WotC's ill-suited early adventures. 4E/Essentials is a poor game for dungeon-crawling hack and slash. Combat in 4E needs to be meaningful - the climax of the adventure. We had 2-3 combats of 30-60 minutes each in a 5 hour session.

Setting aside all the anguish and chest-beating over edition wars and whether it was 'real' D&D, 4E Essentials is a very well designed game that delivers on what it promises. The Essentials books and boxed sets are excellent value, and give you everything you need to play forever. The adventure and setting books WotC released after Essentials are also some of the best ever published by TSR or WotC.

Oh, and aside from B/X, Essentials is the easiest edition of D&D to run at the table. Easier than AD&D or 5E, and far easier than 3E or Pathfinder.

Quote from: Haffrung;966940We had 2-3 combats of 30-60 minutes each in a 5 hour session.

Sounds like a Heroic Difficulty WoW Raid.

I've had 40-50 minute combats in 5E. The difference is we were just whacking away at huge sacks of hit points.

Yeah - I'm not a fan of 5e either. The difference in 4e, in this regard, is they're giving you resource-plates to spin in play. Personally I find them both to be mechanically monotonous. I don't mind punching bags of HP as long as my punches scale up to 1000lb anvils. I don't find either edition does this particularly well on an assumed 20-level curve.

Quote from: Omega;966849This is the part I love about OSR OGL use. The whole "I can steal your stuff whole cloth but dont you dare steal mine!"

You can't steal what's freely given.  There are some people who are pretty stingy with the Open Content.  I remember some Goodman Games 3e stuff that was just downright dickish.  There's also a lot that are basically a list of setting names offlimits and everything else is Open.  Sine Nomine, like in just about everything else OSR, is the gold standard.

Quote from: tenbones;966947Yeah - I'm not a fan of 5e either. The difference in 4e, in this regard, is they're giving you resource-plates to spin in play. Personally I find them both to be mechanically monotonous. I don't mind punching bags of HP as long as my punches scale up to 1000lb anvils. I don't find either edition does this particularly well on an assumed 20-level curve.

You checked out Adventures in Middle-Earth?  Fucking brilliant.

Quote from: Chris24601Speaking as someone working on one such project (though likely not one you've heard of) my fix for the expertise/defenses/masterwork bits was to institute much flatter math

I don't hang there anymore, but I remember seeing your project on 4enclave. :)

Quote from: Chris24601To avoid Hasbro lawyers coming after you (they don't have to be right, they just have to outlast your legal budget), I recommend against overt AEDU design if you plan to take a fan project commercial.

Oh yeah, I totally get why y'all 4e cloners put so much energy into changing the details. Maybe WotC would come after a clear 4e clone or descendent, maybe they wouldn't. To non-lawyers, the issue is a misty bog of legalese, if's, and's, and but's. Best to play it safe!

Quote from: Chris24601I'd agree here too. My solution for the roles was to tie them into specific minor actions available to each class (and remove the ability to spend your move action to take another minor action). The striker's extra damage, the defender's marking, the leader's buffing/healing and the controller's AoE's and improved control come from their minor actions. Multi-classing gives you additional minor action options, but since you can only expend your main or minor action to use them you either have to stop performing your main role or give up your main attack in order to use that alternate ability.

Nice! I've seen a very similar solution in another 4e project, and I'm very excited about it! ;)

Quote from: Chris24601You'd be amazed the degree of difficulty I have had during both 4E and early on in my playtesting that people had letting go of concepts they associated with the older D&D names. The example of the guy wanting to play a Bow-using Fighter being told to make a 4E Ranger and insisting "No, I want a FIGHTER" is not a myth. I've encountered it first hand. They spent a ton of effort trying to fight the system because to them it is the NAME of the class (and the innate fluff associated with it in past editions) that is more important that its actual mechanics and then are unsatisfied when the result isn't nearly as effective as the guy who just made a 4E ranger with the archery build.

It can be stunning how hung up on conventional understandings people can get. :/

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;967036Oh yeah, I totally get why y'all 4e cloners put so much energy into changing the details. Maybe WotC would come after a clear 4e clone or descendent, maybe they wouldn't. To non-lawyers, the issue is a misty bog of legalese, if's, and's, and but's. Best to play it safe!

If you are planning a commercial publication, and fear of WoTC lawyers is distorting your work that much (as it seems to be), and you don't trust random guy on Internet, I'd suggest taking legal advice from a copyright lawyer in your home jurisdiction. As far as I can see the kind of stuff discussed - taking general ideas & processes - has nothing to fear, but taking formal advice would be best. Heck you & other 4e fans could kick together to pay for it if cost is an issue. Stuart Marshall paying for legal advice re OSRIC kickstarted the OSR, so IMO the investment is worth it.  Obviously if you are using tons of D&D content you should use the OGL so you can take from the 3e or 5e SRD, but there's nothing to stop you using 4e type processes & structures such as AEDU in combination with SRD material. It sounds like you just need someone to confirm that.

Quote from: CRKrueger;967001You checked out Adventures in Middle-Earth?  Fucking brilliant.

It's on the list! You guys have all said a lot of things that I find intriguing. The unfortunate part is that the 5e line will never follow this path on its own. But I'm fine with 5e being the parting love-letter from my relationship with D&D. I'll always support it in terms of the brand. I feel my time with it as a my go-to system is behind me.

4e was the anvil on that camel's 3.x overloaded back. 5e is the sweet kiss goodbye.

Quote from: Chris24601;966801Not counting fluff, the only really iffy things you can't get out of the 3.5 SRD that 4E has are the save ends mechanic for durations, healing surges, the AED power structure

Fortunately, those can all be pulled out of the 5e SRD.

Quoteand the specifics of how the 4E classes are put together (i.e. the benefit schedule of when you get what type of power or feat and how much XP it takes to get there). Those are the areas I think you'd want to be the most careful with when trying to put together a genuine 4E spiritual successor

I thing the biggest thing to watch out for, based on what I remember of the GSL, are the mechanics and names of specific powers and feats that aren't in the 3.x or 5e SRDs.

Quote from: Omega;966849This is the part I love about OSR OGL use. The whole "I can steal your stuff whole cloth but dont you dare steal mine!"

That doesn't follow from what I said. But it is an issue with any OGL product whether OSR or Pathfinder or 5e. CKKrugeur correctly notes that some publishers are pretty much a dick when it comes to option content. As a general comment, the dick move is a variant of this declaration of open content/product identity.

QuoteEverything in this books is declared product identity except what is derived from blah System Reference Document.

The latest example of this type of declaration is Adventures in Middle Earth.

Having said that, except for special cases, expect adventures to use this. Unless they have some type of appendix with items and monster, pretty much the entire content of a adventure is textbook example of what Wizards meant by product identity when they released the OGL. The exception being the actual statistics of the monsters.

This is the one I used for Scourge of the Demon Wolf. I admit is only a hop and a skip from the above. But Scourge has little if anything in the way of rules. Plus it incorporates Judges Guild IP.  Finally I am not willing to share my Majestic Wilderlands material as open content even the Judges Guild IP wasn't an issue. That what my Blackmarsh and Points of Light stuff is for.

QuoteDesignation of Product Identity: The following items are here by designated as Product Identity in accordance
with Section 1(e) of the Open Game License, version 1.0; Any and all Judges Guild logos, identifying
marks, and trade dress; Any and all Bat in the Attic Games logos, identifying marks, and trade
dress; all artwork, maps, symbols, depictions, and illustrations; all of Underworld and Adventures is designated
Product Identity; except such items that already appear in the System Reference Document.

Designation of Open Content: Subject to the Product Identity designation above, all creature and NPC
statistic blocks are designated as Open Gaming Content, as well as all material derived from the SRD or
other open content sources.

With Majestic Wilderlands that is a little different. I strongly feel that if I am going to use open content as the foundation of a rule supplement that I should make it as open as possible. So I did this.

QuoteDesignation of Product Identity: The following items are here by designated as Product Identity in accordance with Section 1(e) of the Open Game License, version 1.0; Any and all Judges Guild logos, identifying marks, and trade dress; Any and all Bat in the Attic Games logos, identifying marks, and trade dress; all artwork, maps, symbols, depictions, and illustrations; all of Underworld and Adventures is designated Product Identity; except such items that already appear in the System Reference Document.

Designation of Open Content: Subject to the Product Identity designation above, all of Men & Magic, all of Monster & Treasure. It is the intention that any rules or items in those two sections may be used freely under the OGL. Any specifics related to Judges Guild, or the Majestic Wilderlands are Product Identity.

On one level, I plead 100% guilty to trying to cater to my audience sense of nostalgia by dividing the book into OD&D's three sections of Men & Magic, Monsters and Treasures, and Underworld and Wilderness Adventures.  But using the three part structure wasn't just about that, it also simplified my declaration of open content and product identity. The stuff you can freely use is in Men & Magic, and Monsters & Treasure, the stuff I am keeping closed is in Underworld & Wilderness Adventures.

The way to do this is to think it through, decide what YOU are comfortable with and make it abundantly clear what open and what not by the layout and by the declarations. If I have to puzzle out what is what then the author has done a poor job and certainly not following the spirit of the OGL.

For me, I generally just make things 100% open content unless they pertain to the specifics of the Majestic Wilderlands. When I want to share adventures and setting stuff as open content, I will release it as part of my Blackmarsh style stuff. However my choice is not everybody's choice. As long as I feel the other author thought it through and is not whining about the consequences then I am OK with whatever they want to do.

A final comment, given the small numbers of hobbyists and the how RPG campaigns are the textbook example of do-it-yourself. In general is very good PR to be as open as possible. While people will take your stuff, be rude about it, and use it in ways you find objectionable, in my experience that it outweighed by the goodwill generated by being known as person willing to give back. That goodwill, which is a real business concept, translate into more sales, and more opportunities to find help for the things you are weak at.

It like what I say about being a Sandbox referee, if you are not willing to let people trash your work, then you will not find it enjoyable.

Quote from: Omega;965723I thought the pogs and maps were a 3e thing and that 4e just focused on it?

It was.  It's clearly detailed in the 3e books about the 5 foot move and the like.