Quote from: Abyssal Maw;498532They made a game for you. It's called Gurps.

Wait, do they still make that?

GURPS website says they do. But I guess it's just a conspiracy to bring down Teh 4th.

I think the AC will stay in 5th edition - it's pretty much a core concept, from the beginnings of time.

Quote from: Spinachcat;498336I like the multiple defense of 4e, offers different dimensions to combat. I hope they stay for 5e, but 5e won't matter. The hobby is too far fractured with Crapfinder, 4e, RPGA and the OSR to put back together into a cohesive "D&D" with a unified fanbase...unless a new fanbase is created via an online game table experience.

Ever since S&W:WB came out, I've ditched the old style saves of D&D and our game has only improved.

Crapfinder???  Is that what you stooges from DF call Pathfinder these days???   What happened to TETINTBN or whatever you all use.    How old are you???

Quote from: Spinachcat;498336I hope they stay for 5e, but 5e won't matter. The hobby is too far fractured with Crapfinder, 4e, RPGA and the OSR to put back together into a cohesive "D&D" with a unified fanbase...unless a new fanbase is created via an online game table experience.

I actually don't think it would be that hard to reunite the various factions for 5e.  The vitriol online comes from a small, vocal minority.  Most doing it for the sake of doing it.  Those that play, are happy playing whatever is in front of them at the time.

The OSR might act like they hold the original text as the final word, yet they are buying up any house rule variation put to print in the name of support.

The 3e players complained that they didn't want to buy all of their books over again, yet they are doing exactly that with Pathfinder.

Most of the 4e players are enjoying the innovations and simplifications that newer editions bring.  They know what is wrong with the current game, but (understandably) won't give an inch to people that have been trying to tell them that have been doing it wrong the whole time and should be ashamed for enjoying it.

Then there is the actual majority of the hobby that don't spend time on forums, but actually play when they can and will give it a look.

If it's a good game, it will be supported.

I think that's exactly right.

You know the thing is, I like all of the other versions too, I don't see the issues. They are all a little different.

Quote from: Rum Cove;498598I actually don't think it would be that hard to reunite the various factions for 5e.  The vitriol online comes from a small, vocal minority.  Most doing it for the sake of doing it.  Those that play, are happy playing whatever is in front of them at the time.

The OSR might act like they hold the original text as the final word, yet they are buying up any house rule variation put to print in the name of support.

The 3e players complained that they didn't want to buy all of their books over again, yet they are doing exactly that with Pathfinder.

Most of the 4e players are enjoying the innovations and simplifications that newer editions bring.  They know what is wrong with the current game, but (understandably) won't give an inch to people that have been trying to tell them that have been doing it wrong the whole time and should be ashamed for enjoying it.

Then there is the actual majority of the hobby that don't spend time on forums, but actually play when they can and will give it a look.

If it's a good game, it will be supported.

Well said...

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;498221In previous editions of D&D a saving throw was something that happened after you were already screwed.. usually already dead. The saving throw in that way was a last chance.

(...) Spell.. unless you save. (...)

By the time 3e rolls around, saves have been fully recast as a sort of defense. For example, if you encounter an Entangle spell you roll a save to avoid being entangled.

I really think 4e brought them closer back to their original intent

Let me see if I can sum this up:

In AD&D, if someone cast entangle on you and you made your save, you moved at 50% of your speed instead of being held fast. This was "a last chance"...

... and totally different than 3E where, if someone cast entangle on you and you made your save, you move at half your speed instead of being held fast. This was "a sort of defense"...

... which is totally different than 4E where entangle is gone and not a single ability in the PHB which creates the restrained condition actually allows for a saving throw. 'Cause that's exactly like AD&D.

...

No offense, but that's a load of nonsense.

With that being said, I think 4E opened up an interesting design space by exploring "save end" abilities in a way that previous editions really hadn't. I've done some interesting stuff in my home campaign with back-tracking that design space into an environment where the individual strengths and weaknesses of characters still affect saving throws.

While laying aside the fact that 4E saves are basically a completely different mechanic from pre-4E saving throws, the actual evolution of old school saving throws is interesting to look at:

(1) OD&D offered an incomplete, source/type-based array of saving throws. This created a couple of problems, one of which was that many effects would actually fall into multiple categories. Did the DM simply make a ruling for which applied? Did a character always use the best-applicable saving throw? Or should they always use the worst-applicable saving throw?

(2) AD&D eliminated that problem by establishing a fairly clear hierarchy of which saving throw category should be applied first. But it didn't fix the other problem, which is that many effects which required saving throws didn't conveniently fall into any particular category. There were two possible solutions: Add a new category every time you needed one or simply arbitrarily assign a saving throw category. In general, designers and DMs did the latter. This assignation was often based on a rough approximation of "method of avoidance" (you avoid dragon breath by ducking out of the the way, this effect could be avoided by ducking out of the way, so let's make it a save vs. dragon breath) or "similarity of effect" (dragon breath is a big blast of fire, this trap is creating a big blast of fire, so let's make it a save vs. dragon breath). (These methods often overlapped.)
 
(3) D&D3 eliminated that problem by swapping to a universal system based on method-of-avoidance. In some corner-case situations, this system actually reintroduces the lack-of-hierarchy problems from OD&D ("do I duck out of the way or do I tough it out?"), but most of the time there is a clear and obvious saving throw for any given effect.

(4) 4E then took that mechanic and did two things. First, it inverted the facing of the mechanic. Instead of the defender making the saving throw roll, it's the attacker rolling against the save.

This is an interesting choice. And to understand why, let's consider the fact that they could have done the exact opposite with AC: Instead of the attacker rolling vs. AC, they could have swapped AC so that it works like old school saving throws (with the defender rolling against the attacker's static score).

It's important to understand that, in terms of mathematics and game balance, this change is completely irrelevant. It has no effect whatsoever.

In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, however, the psychological effect of this mechanic is to make the person initiating the action feel passive: They announce the action their character is taking in the game world, but they take no "action" in the real world. Instead, the target takes the real world action.

Or, to put it another way: If you roll for an attack, the emphasis of the game becomes trying to hit people with your sword. If you roll for defense, the emphasis of the game becomes trying to dodge or deflect the blows of others. (If you roll for both, no such emphasis occurs. But this becomes too swingy with D&D's d20-based mechanics.)

As a result, in 4E, you are always active on your turn and always passive on every other character's turn. In 3E, on the other hand, the differentiation between the facing of attack rolls and the facing of saving throws mixes the experience up: Spellcasters generally feel more "passive" than fighters on their turn. Meanwhile, players frequently become "active" on other characters' turns because saving throws will be called for.

Here, as with many of its design choices, 4E is flattening the game experience into something more "consistent", but also blander and less varied. No player will ever feel as if they "didn't do anything" on their turn, but the trade-off is that they literally do nothing while everyone else is taking their turn. (Theoretically this is then balanced out with the plethora of immediate actions that 4E adds. BID.)

The second major change 4E implemented, however, to basically eradicate any clear connection between the action in the game world and the save/defense being used. (For example, a cleric can use his weapon vs. AC, vs. Fort, and vs. Will. Why? Because the mechanics say so.) They embrace this dissociation of the mechanics because it allows them to give every character class the ability to target different defenses without having them actually take different types of actions.

Laying aside the general effects of dissociated mechanics for the moment, this second change has the practical effect of watering down the actual meaning of the various defense scores. When Radiant Brilliance lets you charge your weapon with divine energy and trigger an explosion by hitting your target with a vs. Reflex attack and Holy Spark lets you do basically the same thing with a vs. Will attack... what's the difference between Reflex and Will defenses? Absolutely nothing, of course. They're just arbitrary categories that we drop various powers into for an interesting mechanical mix.

When I play D&D I think I like the classic features (AC, d20 roll, 6 attributes, races, classes, vancian magic, etc). So I am in favor of retaining AC. D&D is a game I would like to see refined, but not one I want to see experiment with new directions. There are plenty of other games out there that cover new and interesting mechanical ground. But for me, D&D has always been the old standby.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;498676Let me see if I can sum this up...

Thanks for this post, by the way. It's productive and useful.

Quote from: B.T.;498217How about we ignore 4e's defenses and return to saving throws?

Because making players roll their attacks is more engaging than waiting for the DM to tell you whether or not your spell worked.

Besides, savings throws as an effect duration tracker was one of the good ideas that 4E had.

Instead, why don't we get rid of "until the start of your next turn" effects and simply end things on a save.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;498765Because making players roll their attacks is more engaging than waiting for the DM to tell you whether or not your spell worked.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Resolving spell attacks in exactly the same way as physical attacks makes them feel like physical attacks in play.

It genericizes things, which I find tends to result in a detachment, rather than an engagement.

I like variety, which I think the saving throw system of TSR editions, although flawed, did provide.

Quote from: Kaldric;498773I'm not sure I agree with this. Resolving spell attacks in exactly the same way as physical attacks makes them feel like physical attacks in play.

It genericizes things, which I find tends to result in a detachment, rather than an engagement.

I like variety, which I think the saving throw system of TSR editions, although flawed, did provide.

Personally, I wish we'd go a step further in the other direction and differentiate weapon damage types a la Fantasy Craft to make things more engaging. Or maybe come up with an alternate system for rogue-like characters to interact with.

I'm surprised there's no big contingent on the internet pushing for a return to 3.x era rules, but with more of slowly building semi-sim immersive crunch that built up throughout all of D&D's earlier editions. I hardly think late 2e, 3e and especially not 4e is the limit of crunchy detail that D&D can support.

Quote from: Kaldric;498773I'm not sure I agree with this. Resolving spell attacks in exactly the same way as physical attacks makes them feel like physical attacks in play.

It genericizes things, which I find tends to result in a detachment, rather than an engagement.

I like variety, which I think the saving throw system of TSR editions, although flawed, did provide.

You resolve attacks in D&D (latter) by rolling a d20 + mods vs. target number, the very same way that you resolve a diplomacy or knowledge check. Do skill rolls feel like physical attacks in play?

The procedure might be the same, but the end result is what matters. That is where your variety should come from, rather than disparate and counter-intuitive procedures.

Quote from: Pedantic;498790I'm surprised there's no big contingent on the internet pushing for a return to 3.x era rules, but with more of slowly building semi-sim immersive crunch that built up throughout all of D&D's earlier editions. I hardly think late 2e, 3e and especially not 4e is the limit of crunchy detail that D&D can support.

I'm not at all surprised, actually. The majority of gamers out there are casual fans who play once or maybe twice a week, and then put the books and dice out of their minds until the next game night. These people don't want to have to navigate arcane and labyrinthine rule systems in order to play a game with friends. Really, the only people who actually want that level of crunch are a relatively small contingent of soulless, number-fellating, aspie bureaucrat psychos who are choking up the forums. These are the type of people whom, if it weren't for arbitrarily complicated rpg rules, would find their outlet circle jerking eachother over a stack of tax law books. These are the last people that D&D should be catering to.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;498814I'm not at all surprised, actually. The majority of gamers out there are casual fans who play once or maybe twice a week, and then put the books and dice out of their minds until the next game night. These people don't want to have to navigate arcane and labyrinthine rule systems in order to play a game with friends. Really, the only people who actually want that level of crunch are a relatively small contingent of soulless, number-fellating, aspie bureaucrat psychos who are choking up the forums. These are the type of people whom, if it weren't for arbitrarily complicated rpg rules, would find their outlet circle jerking eachother over a stack of tax law books. These are the last people that D&D should be catering to.

Well, my soul is probably gone, but I can say I'd rather fellate men than stacks of d12s, and have had some small success in doing so. Speaking for my personal preferences, I cringe whenever I run across someone going on a rant for "simple character creation" or "cutting down the rules bloat."

That out of the way, I'm not sure the position is that worthy of snide dismissal. Consider the progress of D&D pre 3e. Gamers were inundated with more and more rules in modular subsystems to model more and more content in increasingly exhaustive detail. The drive for simplification in games is a pretty recent trend, and, I think, tied less to the supposed complexity of modern games, than to their base assumptions.

A simple base game, without heavy concern for precise balance in the compulsive probability calculator way 4e does, with easy to apply modules for upwards complexity, drives demand for more and more of those modules allowing for more and more precise customization. Somehow, that sort of expanding ruleset has fallen completely beside the wayside after 3e.

In 4e, I'm convinced that's because fans are more concerned with keeping the numbers boring and have given up any pretense of objective world modeling or verisimilitude boosting through mechanical means.

I am curious why it's fallen by the wayside in other forms of D&D, particularly what's grown out of 3e. I suppose we see some PF alternative rulesystems (if you can dignify their piecemeal armor or armor as DR variants with that) and the OSR is obviously still doing it, but all the rhetoric is about simplicity.

Quote from: Pedantic;498828The drive for simplification in games is a pretty recent trend, and, I think, tied less to the supposed complexity of modern games, than to their base assumptions.

Not that recent. The push for rules-light systems starts to really crop up in the late '80s.

If you look at the history of mechanical design, there's actually a very clear arc:

(1) You start with games that have very specific game structure that has been placed into a wider "world simulation". (The influence from wargames is clear here.)

(2) The level of detail in the world simulation begins to grow, but is still largely contained to clear game structures. (Basically, the desire to simulate reality found within the existing wargames community began to expand as the focus of the games expanded beyond the battlefield.)

(3) Generic games appear. In seeking to provide universal rules, however, these games actually end up stripping out the game structures that still existed in RPGs. (Reading contemporary documents, it seems pretty clear that people at the time weren't really conscious of the game structures in RPGs. In fact, most gamers still aren't.)

(4) Between the universal focus and the removal of game structures, the desire for simulation metastasizes. Throughout the late '70s and early '80s, every game that came out tried to graft on more and more detail, accuracy, and specificity. (For example, look at the first edition of Paranoia: Hilarious, evocative game universe. But the rule system is completely obsessed with detailed simulation.)

(5) Around the mid-'80s, however, you start to see the backlash. A growing body of games are being designed with deliberately simpler rules because other games have gotten too complex (this is even talked about in the rulebooks themselves). (I generally point to WEG as an early instigator for this with Ghostbusters and Star Wars, but that may just be a perspective bias on my part.)

(6) The first wave of these "rules lighter" games generally just scaled back the rules while maintaining the same focus on world simulation, but by the early '90s you start seeing some designers really embrace the rules-light movement by looking at radically alternative approaches. (Amber DRPG and other diceless games are a really noticeable part of this.)

The fallout from this, IMO and IME, was that the entire spectrum of RPG system design was basically open for business: We'd explored rules heavy, bounced back to rules light (now featuring unified mechanics), and now people were basically experimenting all over the place.

If there was a major trendline in the '90s it was the boom of splatbook-universes (Torg, WoD, L5R, Deadlands, Heavy Gear, Jovian Chronicles, AD&D's campaign worlds, and a ton of wannabes). As you hit the late '90s, these product lines all burn out their supplement treadmills. Shortly thereafter you get the D20 boom and the STG revolution.

But I digress.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;498837The fallout from this, IMO and IME, was that the entire spectrum of RPG system design was basically open for business: We'd explored rules heavy, bounced back to rules light (now featuring unified mechanics), and now people were basically experimenting all over the place.

I suppose I'm really complaining about a small niche of a small niche of the D&Dverse that never went far enough in the direction I wanted and reacting to the frustrating crowd of players who seem to think 4e is a stunning, overwhelming masterpiece of rules complexity.*

I think there's potential for so much more to be done with 3e. You could, for example, cut down the obviously problematic portions of the combat system (iterative attacks tied to movement is a huge offender) and then expanded it (use something like Iron Heroes resource management and ToB style maneuvers as the baseline for martial combat).

Even if there's not a huge demographic looking for something like that, surely there's someone. Aside from me.

*There's nothing particularly compelling about combat that is funneled into repetitive hit-point ablation with forced movement slathered on top and consistent, boring percentages. Frankly, I'm amazed the system bothers with levels when they've made the math all but meaninglessly consistent.