Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 pretre wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Is pretre's post completely blank for anyone else?

It links to a facebook pic, so that is probably the issue.

Probably. If I hit "quote" it shows the link I just copy/pasted that.

Working for me. It looks very interesting, from what I can make out. Unless I missed it, they've removed the knowledges from skills- a good move IMO.

There were no knowledge skills in 4e either. Nature, Arcana, Religion and (the now missing) Dungeoneering cover what knowledge skills covered in 3.PF.

Pity there is no Dungeoneering as I think that one is the most characterful for reasons stated above. I'll quote here in spoilers to save you reading through a bunch of other stuff:

When I DM a game, it's easy to adjust the difficulty for the party. 4th edition was super easy for this with the monster maker, but it's not too hard to scale encounters up and down (or have the rest of the kobolds run away when their leader dies).

In my experience, player option balance is the more crucial of the two. There is nothing more disheartening for a rogue than plinking away with your 1d4 dagger while the cleric blasts away a room full of undead. As the characters level, it's important that they all improve in such a way that one character isn't one-shotting the enemies while everyone else yawns. This was my early playtest experience with 5th ed, and I really hope they remember that there WERE some really good things in 4th as far as player option balance goes.

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:

In my experience, player option balance is the more crucial of the two. There is nothing more disheartening for a rogue than plinking away with your 1d4 dagger while the cleric blasts away a room full of undead. As the characters level, it's important that they all improve in such a way that one character isn't one-shotting the enemies while everyone else yawns. This was my early playtest experience with 5th ed, and I really hope they remember that there WERE some really good things in 4th as far as player option balance goes.

In my own playing experience, the group I got most experienced with's rogue would do exactly that... however the difference is, while one or two of us were "blasting away" at the enemies, what she (the rogue) was doing whilst plinking away with 1d4 each hit was granting EVERYONE in the party combat advantage and other really useful effects. In essence, she created a gap in the armor with which we ripped their guts out of.


Part of our party's internal balance was created in part because we all talked about our character ideas before hand, and had some sort of coherent party by the end of the first session. This isn't always feasible or realistic, but will usually lead to some outstanding parties/gaming experiences.

In today’s excerpt, we take another look at the D&D Starter Set—this time at the goblin art from the adventure, Lost Mine of Phandelver:

Frome here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
When I DM a game, it's easy to adjust the difficulty for the party.

The question at issue ITT is whether the difficulty should be adjusted for the party. Third and Fourth Editions assume yes, AD&D and the Basic "family" of D&D assume no.

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
In my experience, player option balance is the more crucial of the two.

The anxiety surrounding balance among party members is rooted in the same approach to game design that gave us balanced encounters. I call this approach "determinative" because it assumes that gameplay is just a matter of executing the rules properly. This gives rise to a tendency to play a character sheet rather than a character. Balance becomes a matter of how many powers each character sheet lists and how many damage dice each power permits one to roll and how big of a bonus one then adds.*

By contrast, what I call the "interpretive" approach to game design assumes that gameplay is a matter of the DM making rulings about how PCs can attempt whatever the players imagine. In this style, a very imaginative and persuasive player will be the most effective regardless of the stats on her character sheet. Conversely, a player with very high stats who can think of nothing better than "I swing my sword" on every round of combat will not seem very effective outside of a few critical hits. In other words, interpretive rules don't care at all about balance because they are designed to facilitate roleplay rather than, to coin a phrase, ruleplay.

* That is as far as 3E made it regarding balance. But, as Ensis Ferrae deftly points out above, 4E had a more sophisticated concept where characters were not primarily balanced against one another as if for PvP purposes but rather for the purpose of creating an effective party. This is something that 3E power gamers particularly loathed about 4E and why they happily bought power gamer friendly Pathfinder products.

 Manchu wrote:
The anxiety surrounding balance among party members is rooted in the same approach to game design that gave us balanced encounters. I call this approach "determinative" because it assumes that gameplay is just a matter of executing the rules properly. This gives rise to a tendency to play a character sheet rather than a character. Balance becomes a matter of how many powers each character sheet lists and how many damage dice each power permits one to roll and how big of a bonus one then adds.*

By contrast, what I call the "interpretive" approach to game design assumes that gameplay is a matter of the DM making rulings about how PCs can attempt whatever the players imagine. In this style, a very imaginative and persuasive player will be the most effective regardless of the stats on her character sheet. Conversely, a player with very high stats who can think of nothing better than "I swing my sword" on every round of combat will not seem very effective outside of a few critical hits. In other words, interpretive rules don't care at all about balance because they are designed to facilitate roleplay rather than, to coin a phrase, ruleplay.

Which one of these is 5th shaping up to be?

 Manchu wrote:

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
When I DM a game, it's easy to adjust the difficulty for the party.

The question at issue ITT is whether the difficulty should be adjusted for the party. Third and Fourth Editions assume yes, AD&D and the Basic "family" of D&D assume no.

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
In my experience, player option balance is the more crucial of the two.

The anxiety surrounding balance among party members is rooted in the same approach to game design that gave us balanced encounters. I call this approach "determinative" because it assumes that gameplay is just a matter of executing the rules properly. This gives rise to a tendency to play a character sheet rather than a character. Balance becomes a matter of how many powers each character sheet lists and how many damage dice each power permits one to roll and how big of a bonus one then adds.*

By contrast, what I call the "interpretive" approach to game design assumes that gameplay is a matter of the DM making rulings about how PCs can attempt whatever the players imagine. In this style, a very imaginative and persuasive player will be the most effective regardless of the stats on her character sheet. Conversely, a player with very high stats who can think of nothing better than "I swing my sword" on every round of combat will not seem very effective outside of a few critical hits. In other words, interpretive rules don't care at all about balance because they are designed to facilitate roleplay rather than, to coin a phrase, ruleplay.

* That is as far as 3E made it regarding balance. But, as Ensis Ferrae deftly points out above, 4E had a more sophisticated concept where characters were not primarily balanced against one another as if for PvP purposes but rather for the purpose of creating an effective party. This is something that 3E power gamers particularly loathed about 4E and why they happily bought power gamer friendly Pathfinder products.

Exalted!

That really does seem to be the major difference between RPGs 'then' (maybe up through AD&D 2E) and 'now' (3.X+).

At least, it is for me!

 Breotan wrote:
Which one of these is 5th shaping up to be?

I'm really not sure. There are a lot of "interpretive" vibes coming from Mearls and Thompson and the product previews inasmuch as they are clearly evoking an "old school" look. Whether it will be an "old school" game is another matter altogether and probably best judged with at least the Starter Set in hand. But yes, that question is exactly why I am engaging in this kind of discussion of balance in this thread rather than starting another one. If 5E comes out and isn't a purely "determinative" rule set, many younger gamers will be quite shocked and maybe think it is broken or "unbalanced."

 Alpharius wrote:
That really does seem to be the major difference between RPGs 'then' (maybe up through AD&D 2E) and 'now' (3.X+).

I have a lot more research to do on this theory before I can really give an accurate historical account but my hypothesis is these different tracks of development start in 1977, when AD&D and Basic were both released. Now, AD&D is certainly an interpretive game but all of its minutiae established the precedent of a world described by rules. We also saw the development of modern power gaming throughout 2E. As with any historical thing, it is sometimes difficult to know exactly where the roots end and the trunk begins.

 Manchu wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Which one of these is 5th shaping up to be?

I'm really not sure. There are a lot of "interpretive" vibes coming from Mearls and Thompson and the product previews inasmuch as they are clearly evoking an "old school" look. Whether it will be an "old school" game is another matter altogether and probably best judged with at least the Starter Set in hand. But yes, that question is exactly why I am engaging in this kind of discussion of balance in this thread rather than starting another one. If 5E comes out and isn't a purely "determinative" rule set, many younger gamers will be quite shocked and maybe think it is broken or "unbalanced."

 Alpharius wrote:
That really does seem to be the major difference between RPGs 'then' (maybe up through AD&D 2E) and 'now' (3.X+).

I have a lot more research to do on this theory before I can really give an accurate historical account but my hypothesis is these different tracks of development start in 1977, when AD&D and Basic were both released. Now, AD&D is certainly an interpretive game but all of its minutiae established the precedent of a world described by rules. We also saw the development of modern power gaming throughout 2E. As with any historical thing, it is sometimes difficult to know exactly where the roots end and the trunk begins.

To a large degree I think that we're going to see a mirror of what is going on in Table Top Gaming: it's not so long ago that no one really seemed to care all that much about the lack of balance in GW products, because there simply were not balanced rules on the market.

Put another way, the existence of WM/H and other more rigorously balanced rules sets creates an awareness in the gaming public of the flaws in GW's current line, even if the balance isn't appreciably worse then it ever was. It's simply that people are more aware of the elements that were always there.

This will be especially interesting to observe in the context of 5e D&D, because it's not going to be a rival product that 5 will be unfavorably compared to, but it's own earlier version.

I will confess that as 5 approaches retail, whatever cautious optimism I had for it to be an evolution that would take the elements of 4e that I found evolutionary and revolutionary and improve on them... well, let's just say I'm not so optimistic anymore. To the extent that 5 looks like it intends to bring the elements of 1-2ish editions to the fore and relegate 4e elements to "modules", it's going to be quite the culture shock for many players.

The most interesting thing for me will be what company takes up the task of producing a 4e style game. Obviously it will have to be different from Pathfinder, which exists as it does for very case specific reasons, but the core of 4, of balance baked into the bricks (so to speak) is scarcely protect-able.

I stopped playing around 3rd because it moved away from being a story or movie that you make up with friends and became a pen and paper video game before there were many video game RPGs.

 Breotan wrote:
I stopped playing around 3rd because it moved away from being a story or movie that you make up with friends and became a pen and paper video game before there were many video game RPGs.

That's actually a great example of what I was talking about: I have collected since the original red box days, but in 2-3rd, didn't play very much. Precisely because it felt less like a game and more like a "movie that you make up with friends".

The thing was, I knew that those editions of D&D weren't quite what I wanted, but if you asked me what was wrong, I would have been hard pressed to verbalize it. I simply never thought about balance and player roles in those terms. Again, much as I never really thought about these terms when I thought about 40k when I first started playing.

But I do now, and can no more go back to "beer and pretzels" RPGs then TTGs.

It's weird to call editions other than 4E beer & pretzels roleplaying games ... unless you mean that the roleplaying part of the game is what's beer & pretzels. It's also weird to protest that 5E isn't 4E-esque enough considering 4E was an unmitigated disaster as a product line.

The comparison to WM/H is apt. Matt Wilson fairly reeks of turn of the century WotC. Not only did he do art for MtG but Iron Kingdoms began as a d20 RPG. This is why the main factions line up with the 3E elemental damage types, for example.

Beer and Pretzels is almost completely meaningless these days.

I've been thinking that 4th edition might make a decent skirmish game- both players pick forces out of the monster manuals to a set points value and have at it on a battle map. Could be a lot of fun as a competitive game.

I did find that my 4th edition group didn't really roleplay as much as my older groups, but I think that was down the the composition of the party more than anything else.

Manchu: If you liked 4th, I don't think it's weird to protest that 5th didn't keep the good bits, at all. And there are good bits to 4th edition. There's good bits to all the editions.

 Da Boss wrote:
Beer and Pretzels is almost completely meaningless these days.

It's always been meaningless in the sense that it has no objective meaning. In this case, it seems to connote a lack of mechanical depth/seriousness.

 Da Boss wrote:
Manchu: If you liked 4th, I don't think it's weird to protest that 5th didn't keep the good bits, at all. And there are good bits to 4th edition. There's good bits to all the editions.

I have often sung the praises of 4E on this very board (even on this very page). But I also understand it did relatively terrible business and lost the brand name's market leader status. The phrase "like in 4E" is not a great selling point. TBH 5E does contain elements of 4E (e.g., healing surges) and Mearls has said more of that will be available in the DMG for those who want it. Not that it will stop folks from saying 5E is not X enough or not Y enough.

"Healing Surges" always felt a bit ridiculous to me.

How is that mechanic explained in the background/flavor text - blessings from the Gods?

 Alpharius wrote:
"Healing Surges" always felt a bit ridiculous to me.

How is that mechanic explained in the background/flavor text - blessings from the Gods?

I hesitate to use the word "cinematic" on DakkaDakka but ...

In other news:

Somebody summarized the changes between the playtest and the final product as gleaned from the Starter Box pregen fighter. Here's the one generating anxiety among old schoolers:

Second Wind: A first-level fighter now regains 1d10+level hit points rather than gaining 1d6+level temporary hit points.

Note, it's not the change that generates the anxiety but just the notion of something like a "second wind" which smacks of 4E.

Oh and here's a blank character sheet:

http://community.wizards.com/sites/mtgcommunity/files/DD5_blank_sheet_fillable.pdf

Oh, now that is useful.

 Da Boss wrote:
Beer and Pretzels is almost completely meaningless these days.

I've been thinking that 4th edition might make a decent skirmish game- both players pick forces out of the monster manuals to a set points value and have at it on a battle map. Could be a lot of fun as a competitive game.

I did find that my 4th edition group didn't really roleplay as much as my older groups, but I think that was down the the composition of the party more than anything else.

Manchu: If you liked 4th, I don't think it's weird to protest that 5th didn't keep the good bits, at all. And there are good bits to 4th edition. There's good bits to all the editions.

Heh, it's funny, Manchu says "It's weird to call editions other than 4E beer & pretzels roleplaying games ...", while I find it weird to describe them in any way but that. In this way I find the edition wars are a fascinating Rorschach test: to the extent that 4e might be thought 'a purely "determinative[sic]" rule set,' and of course a rule set designed to be tight in terms of balance, I simply find it a better game.

This gets to the other thing that Manchu mentions, that 4e was a "unmitigated disaster": I would quarrel with that characterization, but there is no need. As Manchu mentions earlier "If 5E comes out and isn't a purely "determinative" rule set, many younger gamers will be quite shocked and maybe think it is broken or "unbalanced." " (I would quibble with younger... but heck, I'll take the compliment )

There is no need to quarrel with how successful 4e was because... well, who cares? It like saying that Star Wars Miniatures is discontinued, so why would anyone drive to Delaware for a tournament. Not that I ever did that...

As I was writing this Manchu posted this which is exemplary;

 Manchu wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Beer and Pretzels is almost completely meaningless these days.

It's always been meaningless in the sense that it has no objective meaning. In this case, it seems to connote a lack of mechanical depth/seriousness.

 Da Boss wrote:
Manchu: If you liked 4th, I don't think it's weird to protest that 5th didn't keep the good bits, at all. And there are good bits to 4th edition. There's good bits to all the editions.

I have often sung the praises of 4E on this very board (even on this very page). But I also understand it did relatively terrible business and lost the brand name's market leader status. The phrase "like in 4E" is not a great selling point. TBH 5E does contain elements of 4E (e.g., healing surges) and Mearls has said more of that will be available in the DMG for those who want it. Not that it will stop folks from saying 5E is not X enough or not Y enough.

This is an excellent example of what 4e boosters talk about when they talk about the 5e team (and boosters) not quite getting what 4e lovers actually love about 4e. The idea that 5e is made more like 4e with the inclusion of healing surges is like the idea that 40k would be more like WM/H by incorporating some form of the focus-allocation system.

Would it share characteristics of WM? Yeah. Would it be meaningfully like WM/H? Not so much.

4e is no more a collection of certain specific elements (like healing surges, or at-will powers or whatnot) then WM/H is the focus/fury mechanic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
"Healing Surges" always felt a bit ridiculous to me.

How is that mechanic explained in the background/flavor text - blessings from the Gods?

I hesitate to use the word "cinematic" on DakkaDakka but ...

In other news:

Somebody summarized the changes between the playtest and the final product as gleaned from the Starter Box pregen fighter. Here's the one generating anxiety among old schoolers:

Second Wind: A first-level fighter now regains 1d10+level hit points rather than gaining 1d6+level temporary hit points.

Note, it's not the change that generates the anxiety but just the notion of something like a "second wind" which smacks of 4E.

Oh and here's a blank character sheet:

http://community.wizards.com/sites/mtgcommunity/files/DD5_blank_sheet_fillable.pdf

This is a great example of what I believe is the unsolvable problem of 5e: there is a group of players that finds anything, no matter how trivial (and that is pretty trivial) that "smacks of 4E" to be abhorrent, and then there are the people that want 4.5e.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
There is no need to quarrel with how successful 4e was because... well, who cares?

Wizards of the Coast, Hasbro, Paizo, etc. Thus 5E, rather than 4.5E.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
4e is no more a collection of certain specific elements (like healing surges, or at-will powers or whatnot) then WM/H is the focus/fury mechanic.

I didn't claim that 5E is 4E, just that it incorporates elements of 4E.

4 did some damage to the D&D 'brand' though, right?

I'd brace for more disappointment if anyone's looking for more 4 in 5, maybe?

People looking for 4E in 5E will be disappointed if what they think that means is 5E will be 4.5E, a.k.a. 4E all over again. People who think 4E had some good ideas that should carry on will probably not be disappointed.

 Manchu wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
There is no need to quarrel with how successful 4e was because... well, who cares?

Wizards of the Coast, Hasbro, Paizo, etc. Thus 5E, rather than 4.5E.

Notice who's conspicuously missing from that list? Me. Or, to be more broad, people, like me, that consider 4e the best edition and wanted a 4.5e. My whole point (which you seem to be missing) is that a subset of the current (4e) player base is not going (based on everything that has been said and seen so far) to be willing to become supporters of 5. They (we) are gone. One can ask where, but, again, it's irrelevant: it doesn't matter if my money goes to video games or 13th Age, all WotC knows or cares about is that it is not going to 5e.

 Manchu wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
4e is no more a collection of certain specific elements (like healing surges, or at-will powers or whatnot) then WM/H is the focus/fury mechanic.

I didn't claim that 5E is 4E, just that it incorporates elements of 4E.

So? You also said "TBH 5E does contain elements of 4E (e.g., healing surges) and Mearls has said more of that will be available in the DMG for those who want it. Not that it will stop folks from saying 5E is not X enough or not Y enough."

It seems very much like you are saying 4e people ought to be impressed, if not satisfied, by the inclusion of 4e "elements". My point is that copying and pasting individual mechanics from 4e into 5e is irrelevant. In WM/H focus and fury are important and signature mechanics, but they are only isolated mechanisms in a much larger, coherent scheme; just as healing surges (etc) are in 4e.

 Alpharius wrote:
4 did some damage to the D&D 'brand' though, right?

I'd brace for more disappointment if anyone's looking for more 4 in 5, maybe?

In a very real way, it did the ultimate damage to D&D: it illuminated everything that I disliked but couldn't articulate about pre-4th editions.

It's like driving a beater car for years and years, and then having a friend loan you his sports car for a month. If you have to go back to the beater, it's never the same, because the flaws that you had simply accepted before, that had been invisible, now can't be unseen.

There is a yawning chasm in the D&D fan base, one which I don't believe can ever be bridged.

To some people, 4e is a ridiculous affectation that plays like an MMO on paper as designed by a miniature fetishist.

To other people, 4e is the game that we wish we had started playing 20 years go.

Like Manchu says above, if your interest in 4e was a few isolated mechanics, 5e will probably work fine for you. If your interest in 4e was more philosophical, your quarrel with previous editions greater, then 5e is not going to be your game.

To that end, I think that it is entirely possible that D&D will never be able to recover and return to the prominence that it once had in the marketplace. Frankly, I think that would be a good thing: just as in the miniature hobby, I think that a marketplace of one 800 lb gorilla and a few tiny mice scurrying around is not healthy. An RPG market that has 4 or 5 (or more!) medium sized developers that cater to different play styles seems much preferable.

I see a lot of good in 4E. But it wrecked D&D. I get that some folks don't care about D&D so much as some specific edition. The diehard Pathfinder crowd is a good example. But as I see it, D&D is more than any one edition. It's an ongoing franchise. (I take bits from all over: I prefer the DMing style of Basic/AD&D, the naturalism of 3E, and the cosmology of 4E.) Any new edition will necessarily leave behind the players who refuse to try anything new.

 Alpharius wrote:
"Healing Surges" always felt a bit ridiculous to me.

How is that mechanic explained in the background/flavor text - blessings from the Gods?

I must have missed it, but did 4th edition have "healing surges"? Are we talking about the Channel Energy cleric power from Pathfinder? Something else?

Yeah, 4E had healing surges.

http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Healing_surge

I see. Carry on, then.

 Manchu wrote:
I see a lot of good in 4E. But it wrecked D&D. I get that some folks don't care about D&D so much as some specific edition. The diehard Pathfinder crowd is a good example. But as I see it, D&D is more than any one edition. It's an ongoing franchise. (I take bits from all over: I prefer the DMing style of Basic/AD&D, the naturalism of 3E, and the cosmology of 4E.) Any new edition will necessarily leave behind the players who refuse to try anything new.

This goes well to my chasm point: I wouldn't gainsay you about if 4e "wrecked" D&D, because it's quite clear we differ not only in our expectations of D&D as a product, but about its value to greater RPG marketplace.

It's a funny thing: I've played and collected D&D for going on a quarter of a century, but it's very clear that you and I have completely different emotional attachments to it.

Just like to me, it's a strange thing to say "[a]ny new edition will necessarily leave behind the players who refuse to try anything new"; the overwhelming feeling for me and my friends wasn't "this is new and I don't like it." It was "this is old, and I didn't like it when I played it in elementary school."

That's what's so crazy about all this, so amusing: I'd pretty much agree that 4e broke the player base. I'd also say that 4e is far and away my favorite edition.

Seems like you mistakenly bought D&D for decades, figured out your mistake when you started playing 4E, and can conclude that you don't really like D&D so much as 4E.

For me, I played 2E Revised and I liked that. Then I played 3E and liked that. Then I played 4E and liked it. Then I played Basic and AD&D and liked both of them. And now I am looking forward to 5E.