# The roots of 4e exposed?



## Ancalagon (Jun 28, 2018)

This is part of a series about the history of D&D and how 4e was designed to "save" the game

http://dmdavid.com/tag/why-fourth-edition-seemed-like-the-savior-dungeons-dragons-needed/

There are some *doozies* in there.  For instance, the rules were very precise so a computer could run it, to drive subscription to online play... 

Is there any truth to this?


----------



## Ancalagon (Jun 28, 2018)

The follow up article speaks about what went wrong http://dmdavid.com/tag/why-fouth-edition-never-saved-dungeons-dragons/


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 28, 2018)

If only this were the other forum I was on...where conspiracy theories were banned.

And your presentation of the article makes it seem far worse than the article actually is.


----------



## Shasarak (Jun 28, 2018)

I think Steve Winter said it best:



> Fourth Edition was a glorious experiment that succeeded technically.


----------



## Echohawk (Jun 28, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> The follow up article speaks about what went wrong http://dmdavid.com/tag/why-fouth-edition-never-saved-dungeons-dragons/



I enjoyed both of those articles -- a great summary of the design thinking leading up to and during 4th Edition with plenty of supporting quotes. I'm looking forward to the next installment.

I've run long-term campaigns for most editions of D&D. My personal experience with 4th Edition was that it allowed me to introduce RPGs to a whole group of fanatical board gamers. I'm not sure a less MMO-like version would have been as effective. They wanted to play 4th Edition *because* it was so much like a complex tactical board game. However, over the course of an extended campaign (75 games, spanning levels 1-30!) they came to enjoy the story-telling and role-playing aspects as much as the tactics and numerous options. Now that we've moved on to 5th Edition, the consensus all round is that 4th Edition (particularly using Essentials) is a fun enough system to _have_ played, but not one that we'd ever want to go back to.


----------



## masteraleph (Jun 28, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> This is part of a series about the history of D&D and how 4e was designed to "save" the game
> 
> http://dmdavid.com/tag/why-fourth-edition-seemed-like-the-savior-dungeons-dragons-needed/
> 
> ...




You’re misreading the article, though it took me a few rereads to get it, so I totally understand why. The article isn’t saying that they expected a computer to run games. Rather, it’s so that a computer can adjudicate combat- so that if you’re playing in a virtual tabletop (think something like roll20), that when you use power X, the vtt could automatically apply the correct damage and effects to the correct creatures. The idea was that facilitating online play would draw people in who couldn’t find local dms or parties, and would allow people to dm with minimal thought applied to setting up combats.


----------



## Ancalagon (Jun 28, 2018)

masteraleph said:


> You’re misreading the article, though it took me a few rereads to get it, so I totally understand why. The article isn’t saying that they expected a computer to run games. Rather, it’s so that a computer can adjudicate combat- so that if you’re playing in a virtual tabletop (think something like roll20), that when you use power X, the vtt could automatically apply the correct damage and effects to the correct creatures. The idea was that facilitating online play would draw people in who couldn’t find local dms or parties, and would allow people to dm with minimal thought applied to setting up combats.




You've said it clearer than I did initially, sorry about that.  

To me the real striking thing was that this was all designed to drive people to pay for a subscription fee - revenue generation was baked into the design.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 28, 2018)

Thank you for finding and sharing both articles. Even as someone who enjoyed 4e, that was enlightening. 

This also makes me curious about several other possible "what if scenarios." What if 4e had been more similar to 13th Age? And now, what if 4e had been more akin to what we are seeing with Pathfinder 2e?


----------



## Sadras (Jun 28, 2018)

Thank you for the links [MENTION=23]Ancalagon[/MENTION], they were great.


----------



## Ted Serious (Jun 28, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Thank you for finding and sharing both articles. Even as someone who enjoyed 4e, that was enlightening.
> 
> This also makes me curious about several other possible "what if scenarios." What if 4e had been more similar to 13th Age? And now, what if 4e had been more akin to what we are seeing with Pathfinder 2e?



 Pathfinder 2 is still taking shape.  It seems truer to the direction D&D was going than 4e was.  It would have been less controversial and done better.   5e would not have been needed.


----------



## Jester David (Jun 28, 2018)

It's a great series of very well researched articles that has some good interview elements with designers. 



Ancalagon said:


> To me the real striking thing was that this was all designed to drive people to pay for a subscription fee - revenue generation was baked into the design.



They were kinda over a barrel at that point. They needed D&D to be generating more money per year than it had ever generated before or be shelved. And one way to do that was seen as subscriptions, that would provide a steady and sustained income. And likely microtransactions for things like miniatures and online elements. 

While, I was critical of the need of virtual tabletops at the time, the success and usefulness of Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds have proved me very, very wrong.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 28, 2018)

Ted Serious said:


> Pathfinder 2 is still taking shape.  It seems *truer* to the direction D&D was going than 4e was.  It would have been less controversial and done better.   5e would not have been needed.



I would be hestitant to use this language. You can't be truer than what happened, and 4e did evolve out of the late 3e materials. But right now we are seeing multitude of reactions to the Pathfinder 2 preview materials akin to "that looks like 4e," and "that looks like 5e," with other fans noting "that was already in late PF1 so this still looks like PF." So it does seem that 3.X d20 system remains the backbone for Pathfinder, 4e, and 5e.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 28, 2018)

Maybe it’s just because I pay a lot of attention to the development of games I like, but I feel like none of that was new information. I guess it was nice to see it all presented in such a neat and tidy series of articles. Very clear and concise summary of what we already knew about the behind-the-scenes of 4e.

I do still wish I could see what might have developed out of Essentials had 4e not already poisoned the well of entrenched fans.


----------



## Ancalagon (Jun 28, 2018)

I really thought that the point about late 3.5 was interesting.   It made me realize that I really  don't know much about the 3.5 "late game" and I find this a bit disconcerting.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 28, 2018)

Hm... one thing that was left out:  He did mention that in 2005-7, Hasbro had that big-income 'core brand' policy, that forced D&D to go the DDI/VTT subscription-income route in a desperate bid to bring in more money than the entire RPG industry had ever done before ($ 50 million accordning to Dancey - hint, the industry has doubled in size the last few years, and is up to 35m, yeah, as great as 5e is doing, had 4e done as well, it'd've still failed).  He did not mention that between the demise of 4e/Essentials and the launch of 5e, that policy went away.  So what really saved D&D was the same cynical big corporation objective shuffling that had nearly killed it twice before. 

Heck, if Hasbro gets a new set of execs with a new set of objectives and management fad KPI's, D&D could be on the chopping block again.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 28, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> I really thought that the point about late 3.5 was interesting.   It made me realize that I really  don't know much about the 3.5 "late game" and I find this a bit disconcerting.




It’s a reoccurring pattern with D&D. In the later publications of pretty much every edition, you can see the designers experimenting with ideas that would eventually form the basis of the following edition. And it’s not just D&D. Lots of RPGs do it. Look at Pathfinder Unchained and how some of its innovations were incorporated into Starfinder and now PF2. Or The RPG Formally Known As New World of Darkness and how most of the optional rules hacks from Danae Macabre became core to 2e. Usually when a game starts really experimenting and pushing the boundaries of its system, it’s a sure sign that the designers are getting bored with the current ruleset and a new edition is likely not far off.


----------



## Ancalagon (Jun 28, 2018)

Star wars Saga contained a lot of interesting mechanisms...

Skills and powers was essentially 2.5e, but it was perhaps less influential? Although it's been a while!


----------



## Les Moore (Jun 28, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> I really thought that the point about late 3.5 was interesting.   It made me realize that I really  don't know much about the 3.5 "late game" and I find this a bit disconcerting.




I approached 4e with an open mind. I was fully unaware that WoTC was leading us, like cattle down a chute, toward online play. Nobody else I knew was
aware the game was set up almost solely for online play, either. So, when we plonked down the money for a 4e PHB, it looked, for all the world.  like a 
locked in, cookie-cutter version of the TTRPG, set up solely to sell miniatures, and introduce new players to a watered down version of the game.

PERHAPS, if WoTC  had let the TTRPG crowd in on the little "online play" secret, INSTEAD OF PATRONIZING US, AND TREATING US LIKE A BUNCH OF
MINDLESS THREE-YEAR-OLDS, AND TRYING TO LEAD US AROUND, BY THE NOSE,  they would have done better with their highly touted, long awaited
release, of the new version of the game.


Does What-See want to lose a couple hundred million more in revenues? GO AHEAD, treat us like we're all a bunch of idiots, again.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 28, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> I really thought that the point about late 3.5 was interesting.   It made me realize that I really  don't know much about the 3.5 "late game" and I find this a bit disconcerting.




Yeah, we never got to the point of all the books beyond the first wave of splats.  So all the PHB2, BO9S, etc are alien to me.


----------



## Ancalagon (Jun 29, 2018)

For those who enjoyed the article:  http://dmdavid.com/tag/the-grand-ca...and-other-reactions-from-the-comment-section/

Scroll down for further comments on this series of articles and a bit more "intel" about the business situation.


----------



## ccs (Jun 29, 2018)

Les Moore said:


> PERHAPS, if WoTC  had let the TTRPG crowd in on the little "online play" secret, INSTEAD OF PATRONIZING US, AND TREATING US LIKE A BUNCH OF
> MINDLESS THREE-YEAR-OLDS, AND TRYING TO LEAD US AROUND, BY THE NOSE,  they would have done better with their highly touted, long awaited
> release, of the new version of the game.




I doubt it.  The vast majority who passed/bailed on 4e did so because it mechanically just wasn't a version of the game they wanted to play.
What WoTCs customers _wanted_ was to spend $ on an improved 3x.  Or in some cases an improved AD&D.  What we GOT was a 3/4 baked board game designed to be played on a computer that was niether.


----------



## Ted Serious (Jun 29, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> I would be hestitant to use this language. You can't be truer than what happened, and 4e did evolve out of the late 3e materials. But right now we are seeing multitude of reactions to the Pathfinder 2 preview materials akin to "that looks like 4e," and "that looks like 5e," with other fans noting "that was already in late PF1 so this still looks like PF." So it does seem that 3.X d20 system remains the backbone for Pathfinder, 4e, and 5e.



 Truer to the direction established by 3.0 and 3.5.  4e was a radical change.  The article did make sense though.  That established direction would not have brought in the desired subscription revenue in the short term.

It might have by now that the technology has arrived be doing better than 5e is.  No way to know.  The editions since 3.5 seem to be performing based on marketing and trends, not content.


----------



## Ancalagon (Jun 29, 2018)

Ted Serious said:


> The editions since 3.5 seem to be performing based on marketing and trends, not content.




Now trends and marketing counts for a lot yes... but is may just be possible that people who play 5e *genuinely* like it you know...


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 29, 2018)

Ted Serious said:


> Truer to the direction established by 3.0 and 3.5.  *4e was a radical change. * The article did make sense though.  That established direction would not have brought in the desired subscription revenue in the short term.
> 
> It might have by now that the technology has arrived be doing better than 5e is.  No way to know.  The editions since 3.5 seem to be performing based on marketing and trends, not content.



As per the article and my own experience? Not so much. If you only picked up the 3.0 and 3.5 PHB? I could definitely see that. But in the context of the post-3.5 PHB publishing cycle? You could definitely see the trend towards 4e, and there was already a call for portions of the design philosophy of 4e. And though Pathfinder fans would loathe to admit it, such voices were still prominent in their own community, because PF1 did not somehow magically erase the core weaknesses of 3e. 

This is again one reason why I find a lot of the "recent" d20 D&D-derived systems fascinating -- e.g., 13th Age, Pathfinder 2, 5e D&D, Shadow of the Demon Lord, etc.* -- because many now seem to exist within a continuum between 3e and 4e. You can see design elements of both and many have designers from one or both systems, though these elements from 4e tend to be more muted or subtle. 

* Though not properly the d20 system, Numenera/Cypher System arguably belongs in this category as well, especially given the role of designer Monte Cook and a few other D&D 3e era names at MCG: Bruce Cordell, Sean K Reynolds, etc.


----------



## Raith5 (Jun 29, 2018)

ccs said:


> I doubt it.  The vast majority who passed/bailed on 4e did so because it mechanically just wasn't a version of the game they wanted to play.
> What WoTCs customers _wanted_ was to spend $ on an improved 3x.  Or in some cases an improved AD&D.  What we GOT was a 3/4 baked board game designed to be played on a computer that was niether.




The other thing that struck me about early 4e was how poor some of the early adventures were. It just seemed that even the designers didnt seem to know how the game was meant to work.

But I really appreciate 4e as a game. We played as a proper roleplaying game and it worked as well as previous editions or 5th - we didnt get so hooked that we "dwelled on the grid" as the article noted. It was a complicated game but I liked giving everyone powers and it changed my expectations of what I want to see in martial characters and monsters in particular.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 29, 2018)

*Folks,

Legitimate criticism of a game is fine.  But I'm seeing things that look more like caged vitriol. So, here's the one warning the thread will get:  Keep that up, and the discussion will end very quickly.  Mudslinging is not critique, and patience for ugliness of the past will be in short supply now.

If you like 3.Xe, got play it (or Pathfinder).  If you like 4e, go play it.  If you like 5e, play it.  But stop beating dead horses.  Keep it to cool analysis.  Keep the emotionally charged language and colorful hyperbole out of this thread. 

I hope that's clear.*


----------



## Ted Serious (Jun 29, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> As per the article and my own experience? Not so much. If you only picked up the 3.0 and 3.5 PHB? I could definitely see that. But in the context of the post-3.5 PHB publishing cycle? You could definitely see the trend towards 4e, and there was already a call for portions of the design philosophy of 4e. And though Pathfinder fans would loathe to admit it, such voices were still prominent in their own community, because PF1 did not somehow magically erase the core weaknesses of 3e.
> 
> This is again one reason why I find a lot of the "recent" d20 D&D-derived systems fascinating -- e.g., 13th Age, Pathfinder 2, 5e D&D, Shadow of the Demon Lord, etc.* -- because many now seem to exist within a continuum between 3e and 4e. You can see design elements of both and many have designers from one or both systems, though these elements from 4e tend to be more muted or subtle.
> 
> * Though not properly the d20 system, Numenera/Cypher System arguably belongs in this category as well, especially given the role of designer Monte Cook and a few other D&D 3e era names at MCG: Bruce Cordell, Sean K Reynolds, etc.



 You're saying 4e was far ahead of its time.  

I'm saying it was an aberration. 

If some future edition is just like 4e, we'll know you're right.


----------



## Ted Serious (Jun 29, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> Now trends and marketing counts for a lot yes... but is may just be possible that people who play 5e *genuinely* like it you know...



 If they had started with Pathfinder or Dundeon World or even 1e reprints under exactly the same circumstances they could  feel exactly the same way.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 29, 2018)

Ted Serious said:


> You're saying 4e was far ahead of its time.
> 
> I'm saying it was an aberration.
> 
> If some future edition is just like 4e, we'll know you're right.



Have you seen the PF2 previews?


----------



## Jester David (Jun 29, 2018)

Raith5 said:


> The other thing that struck me about early 4e was how poor some of the early adventures were. It just seemed that even the designers didnt seem to know how the game was meant to work.



I blame the "delve format" for that. Even the late 3e adventures that used that were pretty terrible.

It makes sense on paper—include all the statblocks and everything needed to run the encounter—but giving each encounter area 1-4 pages was awkward. Small roleplaying rooms only needed half or a quarter of a page, so were horribly padded or you were discouraged from including them. And having all the statblocks included for combat encounters meant interesting features or descriptions were omitted.

That said, _Keep on the Shadowfell_ was weak and problematic, being written as the rules were being finalised.  (_Tyranny of Dragons_ is weak for the same reasons.) And there's some terrible encounter math in sections. _Thunderspire Labyrinth_ was weak because it was a Rich Baker adventure. Sure he's a decent dude and his mechanics are solid, but his adventures tend to be terrible: weak hooks with moving goalposts, no puzzles, and boring dungeons.


----------



## Jester David (Jun 29, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> I really thought that the point about late 3.5 was interesting.   It made me realize that I really  don't know much about the 3.5 "late game" and I find this a bit disconcerting.




There's a lot of experimentation for 4e in the late 3e books. Some people called it, others thought it was just the designers experimenting. 
You had at-will magic in _Complete Mage_, martial "spells" in _Tome of Battle_, simplified skills in _Star Wars Saga_, different attempts at magic item math in _Magic Item Compendium_, skill/ utility powers in _Complete Scoundrel_, the Delve encounter format in the _Expedition to _____ books, etc.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 29, 2018)

ccs said:


> The vast majority who passed/bailed on 4e did so because it mechanically just wasn't a version of the game they wanted to play.  What WoTCs customers _wanted_ was to spend $ on an improved 3x.




I don’t know the actual relative demographics, but that _DOES_ describe me and about a dozen other gamers I know.  

Not that  4Ed wasn’t fun or didn’t do some things right.  To this day, 4Ed’s take on the Warlock- including the AEDU power format- remains my favorite.



Jester David said:


> There's a lot of experimentation for 4e in the late 3e books. Some people called it, others thought it was just the designers experimenting.
> You had at-will magic in _Complete Mage_, martial "spells" in _Tome of Battle_, simplified skills in _Star Wars Saga_, different attempts at magic item math in _Magic Item Compendium_, skill/ utility powers in _Complete Scoundrel_, the Delve encounter format in the _Expedition to _____ books, etc.




I admit I didn’t see the writing on the wall.  I was in the “they’re experimenting “ camp.

I would have loved to see _magic of Incarnum_ get reworked for clarity.  _ToB_ I could have lived without, and had no idea about the simplified skills (which ultimately, I didn’t care for).  _ToM_ had some good ideas, but it felt...I don’t know...*rushed to market.*


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 29, 2018)

Raith5 said:


> The other thing that struck me about early 4e was how poor some of the early adventures were. It just seemed that even the designers didnt seem to know how the game was meant to work.



There's no question that KotSf was horrid.  It's telling, because Cordel wrote some great modules in the past, in particular, Heart of Nightfang Spire (yeah, I may be in a minority for thinking that's a masterpiece, but hear me out).  HoNS kicked it in 3e, it took all the things that people had started doing to wreck that game and caused them to crash and burn.  The Story Hours on here about that module were beautiful.  All-caster-scry/buff/teleporter parties getting schooled but hard.  It was punishing and brutal - if you metagamed - and a lot of it was turned up to 11.

KotSf was supposed to be an intro adventure, but it had a couple of fights that were clearly meant to be punishing, and they were made that way using the method you would've in 3e - by taking a PC type and leveling it up above the party's expected level.  Only, 'PC type' was "Elite Monster," which had defenses a bit higher than they should've by default, it was leveled up to the hairy edge making its defenses improbably high, and placed in terrain that further upped those defense.  Oops.  Maybe Cordel was already thinking that 4e players would be powergaming up really high attack bonuses?  IDK, but it badly overcompensated for whatever it was he was thinking would require an over-the-top challenge.  
The problem was repeated in the Iron Tooth fight and again in the Paldemar fight in Thunderspire (the rest of Thunderspire was pretty good).  
(And Pyramid of Shadows, though I personally enjoyed it from the player side, and it didn't have any similarly screwed up encounters, was aweful on just a story level, I admit - but it reminded me of a classic, weird/pointless dungeon, and that was enough to make it a certain kind of fun.  I guess it helped that I was playing kinda a retro character concept in it.)



> But I really appreciate 4e as a game. We played as a proper roleplaying game and it worked as well as previous editions or 5th - we didnt get so hooked that we "dwelled on the grid" as the article noted.



 The article said something about 4e "succeeded, _technically._"  That's how I've long felt about it.  Technically, as a game, 4e was a significant improvement over D&D. (Which is faint praise, indeed.)  As an edition of D&D, in every other aspect, prettymuch a trainwreck.  D&D just isn't 'just a game' to most of it's fans.



> It was a complicated game but I liked giving everyone powers and it changed my expectations of what I want to see in martial characters and monsters in particular.



D&D has always been a complex game, in spite of 3e & 4e having more material than AD&D, they were progressively less complicated, because each became more consistent, consolidating the redundant sub-systems and trimming the needless baroque flourishes of the ones before (in 4e's case, with a chainsaw).  As has come up in another thread, long experience with D&D insulates most of us from its complexity, the bits that are the same as prior eds just fly under our radar, only the new/changed bits seem to pile on 'added' complexity.  There were fewer stealth bits for 4e, more glaring changed/addded ones, because of its genocide of sacred cows.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 29, 2018)

Ted Serious said:


> You're saying 4e was far ahead of its time.
> 
> I'm saying it was an aberration.
> 
> If some future edition is just like 4e, we'll know you're right.



Not quite. I'm saying that the D&D 3e engine (i.e., the d20 System) essentially remains the core of many systems, such as D&D 4-5e, Pathfinder, 13th Age, Shadow of the Demon Lord, etc. But that core 3e skeleton has its flaws, shortcomings, and pitfalls. But how do you address those flaws? 

4e was one such response, and one underrated in its influence. Pathfinder (aka "3.75e") kept closer to 3e, but that did not make many of the problems of 3e go away. However, Paizo increasingly found the weight of those constant maintenance patches a burden, hence Pathfinder 2. And previews of Pathfinder 2 do appear to show similar solutions for similar problems within the 3e system. 

5e became another response, but it also incorporated some of the "solutions" and approaches that have their roots in 4e. Same is true for these other games that I listed, though with 13th Age as something of an intentional blend of 3e and 4e between their respective lead designers. 

I don't think this necessarily means that 4e was ahead of its time, but simply that there are common trends, patterns, and approaches for the question of "how do we fix/evolve/patch 3e?" and that 4e was simply the first, but its own idiomatic set of reactions to its strengths/shortcomings set the tone for what followed.


----------



## Jester David (Jun 30, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I admit I didn’t see the writing on the wall.  I was in the “they’re experimenting “ camp.
> 
> I would have loved to see _magic of Incarnum_ get reworked for clarity.  _ToB_ I could have lived without, and had no idea about the simplified skills (which ultimately, I didn’t care for).  _ToM_ had some good ideas, but it felt...I don’t know...*rushed to market.*



I was in denial as well. The announcement caught me by surprise. 
I thought 3e had lots of life left. And based on the 10ish years of 1e and 2e, I was expecting it to last until 2010 or 2011. Or that they might try and drag things out until 2014 and the 40th anniversary. (Or 2013 so the edition would be out and finished for the 40th.)

Which is amusing as that second guess was kind right and we did get a new edition that year.

Never got _Magic of Incarnum_. After _Unearthed Arcana_ and _Tome of Magic_, I felt I had more than enough weird magic variants. Still uncertain what the hook is. 

_Tome of Battle_ was funky. There was a lot of very magical effects that were given to fighters. Stuff that wasn’t magic more because they said so than because if felt like mundane. The classes there could do some very weird stuff and not all of it was really justified by flavour.


----------



## Ancalagon (Jun 30, 2018)

Ted Serious said:


> If they had started with Pathfinder or Dundeon World or even 1e reprints under exactly the same circumstances they could  feel exactly the same way.




I'm not sure what you are saying - this may be a reading problem on my part - do you mean that they (I assume that "they" is "people who like 5e") had started with another game, they would feel the same way... about the older game?  About 5e?  What are these "same circumstances"

I'm sure it's very clear in your head, but I can't quite parse your meaning, sorry


----------



## Ancalagon (Jun 30, 2018)

Jester David said:


> There's a lot of experimentation for 4e in the late 3e books. Some people called it, others thought it was just the designers experimenting.
> You had at-will magic in _Complete Mage_, martial "spells" in _Tome of Battle_, simplified skills in _Star Wars Saga_, different attempts at magic item math in _Magic Item Compendium_, skill/ utility powers in _Complete Scoundrel_, the Delve encounter format in the _Expedition to _____ books, etc.




It makes these discussions more difficult doesn't it?  I would have said, a week ago, that I knew 3.X pretty well (with the only obstacle being the amount of time since I last played).  Now I'm not so sure.  

... Ironically, it sounds like this "late 3.5" is more different from 3.5 that 3.5 was from 3.0 

Saga's skill system definitely has echoes in 5e, although implemented differently... a first level character could have like +13 on a skill at level 1 in Saga.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 30, 2018)

Jester David said:


> There's a lot of experimentation for 4e in the late 3e books. Some people called it, others thought it was just the designers experimenting.




Designers never "just experiment." When designers start experimenting, it's because they want to try something that the ruleset they're working with doesn't normally accommodate. It doesn't always lead to a new edition of course, but it's almost always a sign that the designers are unsatisfied with the constraints of the ruleset they're working with, and unsatisfied designers are usually a sign of impending rules changes.


----------



## Ted Serious (Jun 30, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> It makes these discussions more difficult doesn't it?  I would have said, a week ago, that I knew 3.X pretty well (with the only obstacle being the amount of time since I last played).  Now I'm not so sure.
> 
> ... Ironically, it sounds like this "late 3.5" is more different from 3.5 that 3.5 was from 3.0
> 
> Saga's skill system definitely has echoes in 5e, although implemented differently... a first level character could have like +13 on a skill at level 1 in Saga.



The at-will magic was the warlock.

The martial magic was the sword sage.  The warblade was interesting but not magical. 

And no late 3e experiment nerfed casting into the ground.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 30, 2018)

Ted Serious said:


> The at-will magic was the warlock.
> 
> The martial magic was the sword sage.  The warblade was interesting but not magical.
> 
> And no late 3e experiment nerfed casting into the ground.




I like how "the ground" is how you refer to "basically the same as non-casters."


----------



## Jester David (Jun 30, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> It makes these discussions more difficult doesn't it?  I would have said, a week ago, that I knew 3.X pretty well (with the only obstacle being the amount of time since I last played).  Now I'm not so sure.
> 
> ... Ironically, it sounds like this "late 3.5" is more different from 3.5 that 3.5 was from 3.0
> 
> Saga's skill system definitely has echoes in 5e, although implemented differently... a first level character could have like +13 on a skill at level 1 in Saga.



It was different, but still compatible and largely balanced. Much was confined to new classes or existing rule elements like feats. It was additive options rather than variant rules. 

Honestly, late 2e was likely much more different, will _Skill & Powers_ and _Combat & Tactics_, which added new elements to the foundational rules. 



Charlaquin said:


> Designers never "just experiment." When designers start experimenting, it's because they want to try something that the ruleset they're working with doesn't normally accommodate. It doesn't always lead to a new edition of course, but it's almost always a sign that the designers are unsatisfied with the constraints of the ruleset they're working with, and unsatisfied designers are usually a sign of impending rules changes.



Well, game designers design games. It’s what they do. They don’t stop just because the edition is “done”. They have house rules and tweaks and variants. It’s less being unsatisfied, and more trying to do what they love doing.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 30, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Well, game designers design games. It’s what they do. They don’t stop just because the edition is “done”. They have house rules and tweaks and variants. It’s less being unsatisfied, and more trying to do what they love doing.



Oh, sure. I just mean, when you see those house rules and variants being published, it’s never “just” (and that’s the key word) them experimenting. It’s them pushing the bounds of the system, and that usually means they’re looking forward to the next edition.


----------



## Ted Serious (Jun 30, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Oh, sure. I just mean, when you see those house rules and variants being published, it’s never “just” (and that’s the key word) them experimenting. It’s them pushing the bounds of the system, and that usually means they’re looking forward to the next edition.



Mike Mearls has already shared his initiative house rules.


----------



## Marshall (Jun 30, 2018)

Ted Serious said:


> The at-will magic was the warlock.
> 
> The martial magic was the sword sage.  The warblade was interesting but not magical.
> 
> And no late 3e experiment nerfed casting into the ground.




Then you never read ToM or MoI. Both of which are casting thats severely constrained.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 30, 2018)

Ted Serious said:


> Mike Mearls has already shared his initiative house rules.




In an Unearthed Arcana that was clearly signposted as unofficial. That’s very different than what book of nine swords was.


----------



## Ted Serious (Jun 30, 2018)

Marshall said:


> Then you never read ToM or MoI. Both of which are casting thats severely constrained.



 The Truenamer was abysmal.  

Bad mechanics.  

Not exactly a caster.

You have a good point.  I was thinking nerf in the sense of existing casters.


----------



## Jester David (Jun 30, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> In an Unearthed Arcana that was clearly signposted as unofficial. That’s very different than what book of nine swords was.



What does "official" have to do with it? 
You said yourself: 


Charlaquin said:


> Designers never "just experiment." When designers start experimenting, it's because they want to try something that the ruleset they're working with doesn't normally accommodate. It doesn't always lead to a new edition of course, but it's almost always a sign that the designers are unsatisfied with the constraints of the ruleset they're working with, and unsatisfied designers are usually a sign of impending rules changes.




But I disagree with that statemement. Sometimes, it very much is them just playing and experimenting. Seeing what works and what doesn't. Trying something new to see if it works better/faster. 

That's because, to the designers, the rules are _never _finished. They always see something they could have fixed with more time, or could have phrased differently, or could have made more clear or balanced. 
It's not tweaking to make a new edition. It's designing rules because that's literally their passion and what they do. Painters paint, singers sing, and game designers hack games. Because designing things exactly like they've designed it before with no variation is boring. They've done that before, and want to do something new and different.

Yeah, some of the late 3e elements were testing the system and gauging the fan reactions to certain new editions. But they also released the giant book of optional rules, _Unearthed Arcana_, in 2004, just a year after 3.5e released. But pretty much every splatbook added something new. Some innovation or tweak or new way of doing things. Because that's how they sold the books.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 30, 2018)

Jester David said:


> What does "official" have to do with it?
> You said yourself:



And I standby what I said. It is _abundantly_ clear that Mike Mearls is unsatisfied with the constraints of the 5e rules. He doesn’t even try to hide it, he actively talks about how much he hates bonus actions. In this case, it doesn’t mean a new edition is coming soon. But you can bet that when 6e does come, it won’t have Bonus Actions if Mearls can help it.



Jester David said:


> But I disagree with that statemement. Sometimes, it very much is them just playing and experimenting. Seeing what works and what doesn't. Trying something new to see if it works better/faster.
> 
> That's because, to the designers, the rules are _never _finished. They always see something they could have fixed with more time, or could have phrased differently, or could have made more clear or balanced.
> It's not tweaking to make a new edition. It's designing rules because that's literally their passion and what they do. Painters paint, singers sing, and game designers hack games. Because designing things exactly like they've designed it before with no variation is boring. They've done that before, and want to do something new and different.



I don’t think you’re disagreeing with what I actually said. I did not say “when designers experiment, it’s always in preparation for a new edition.” I said , “designers never JUST experiment.” Keyword being “just.” Because as you observed, the game is never finished for them. They’re always looking for ways to improve it. That’s not JUST experimenting, that’s experimenting with a purpose. As I said, it doesn’t always lead to a new edition, but it is always a sign that the designers are looking forward.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 2, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> And I standby what I said. It is _abundantly_ clear that Mike Mearls is unsatisfied with the constraints of the 5e rules. He doesn’t even try to hide it, he actively talks about how much he hates bonus actions. In this case, it doesn’t mean a new edition is coming soon. But you can bet that when 6e does come, it won’t have Bonus Actions if Mearls can help it.



I'm not sure if I would say that he "hates bonus actions," but he has voiced dissatisfaction with how they work: 







> "Bonus actions are fairly hacky, and with 3+ years running the final game under my belt it's now obvious how to live without them."






> I don’t think you’re disagreeing with what I actually said. I did not say “when designers experiment, it’s always in preparation for a new edition.” I said , “designers never JUST experiment.” Keyword being “just.” Because as you observed, the game is never finished for them. They’re always looking for ways to improve it. That’s not JUST experimenting, that’s experimenting with a purpose. As I said, it doesn’t always lead to a new edition, but it is always a sign that the designers are looking forward.



Most definitely.


----------



## fjw70 (Jul 2, 2018)

Interesting that one thing 4e people like about 4e was not planned but was done because they ran out of time (I.e. the standard power structure).

I love 4e but it could have used more development time, but every edition prior to 5e could probably say that. Coming from the 80s D&D straight to 4e (due to a break in playing) I was a little more sympathetic to a less than polished game.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 2, 2018)

fjw70 said:


> Interesting that one thing 4e people like about 4e was not planned but was done because they ran out of time (I.e. the standard power structure).



 One of those accidental breakthroughs, like penicillin, I guess...
... if the medical establishment had successfully suppressed it because it didn't conform to the miasma theory of disease, that is.


----------



## Ancalagon (Jul 5, 2018)

Another interesting read in this series:

http://dmdavid.com/tag/the-unintend...hance-of-success-but-proved-great-for-gamers/

This is about the transition that Paizo had to go through, and how WotC treated them (better than it could have been, turns out)


----------



## MwaO (Jul 5, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> This is about the transition that Paizo had to go through, and how WotC treated them (better than it could have been, turns out)




Eh, kind of. They wanted Paizo writing adventure paths for 4e. The decision to give a year's notice in that context makes perfect sense. It would have been stupid for them to make them into adversaries by giving no notice right at the launch of 4e.

Which of course makes the decision to try to force them to only write 4e material with no notice at the launch of 4e…


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 5, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> Another interesting read in this series:
> 
> http://dmdavid.com/tag/the-unintend...hance-of-success-but-proved-great-for-gamers/
> 
> This is about the transition that Paizo had to go through, and how WotC treated them (better than it could have been, turns out)



Seems to me like it could have been a lot better.

I also don't get what point the writer makes in saying there was a 'benefit' to the community.  Maybe if 4e, PF, & the OSR were all still being published, he would have a point.  Though, really, even then it'd speak more to the overweening dominance of D&D crushing diversity in the hobby - because, since 1975, we have had other games to choose from, but none of them could challenge D&D as the entry point to the hobby (Storyteller came closest in the 90s - PF may have rivaled sales of D&D w/in the industry, but it's mainstream name recognition was nil, in the mainstream Pathfinder is an SUV).  So the idea that PF was finally an alternative to D&D makes sense only if you discount the rest of the hobby & it's history out of hand.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 5, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Seems to me like it could have been a lot better.
> 
> I also don't get what point the writer makes in saying there was a 'benefit' to the community.




It's probably glass half full vs. glass half empty thing.  If you're neutral about both game systems and think it's a good thing that Paizo doesn't go out of business, then you're probably happy that a business did you a huge solid by giving you a year to plan how to avoid being dead..when their contract with you gave them the very real ability of putting you down permanently.

Bottom line: No Pathfinder and players would have gone to 4e or stayed with 3.5.  Eventually 3.5's warts would have sent more people to other games OR 4e would have fared better.  Neither of those two outcomes were as bad for WoTC as having PF1 around.

(edit: and given the stellar production quality of Paizo, I think everyone would be hard pressed to say the community didn't benefit, even if my present opinion of the Pathfinder rules system is terrible due to inelegance)

Thanks,
KB


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 5, 2018)

The irony is that I got banned out of innumerable threads for saying things that are in this article.  In fact, to this day there are people who will claim that any statement that suggested 4e took design hints from World of Warcraft is blatant nonsense and such statements have ulterior motives.

Honestly, I'm going to stop reading the article before it finishes, because it's bringing back such hard feelings about how I was treated here, that I find myself thinking of quitting EnWorld just reading it.

The real irony is that when I started saying things like this, I wasn't by and large being critical of the new design.  I was in fact actually happy with what I perceived as some of the goals of the design.  It was only later that people took up my comments about how the design was taking cues from World of Warcraft as a sign that the new design was "too video gamey" or that the design was taking queues from how the MtG team had cleaned up the rules in 6e to make them more machine readable "too much like a board game".   My core complaint against the design as it actually emerged is buried innocuously in the article at the point I stopped reading: "Ideally, it would help DMs enough to make running a bad game nearly impossible."   That idea was the one really bad idea that I feel undermined all the other ones.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 5, 2018)

Celebrim said:


> The irony is that I got banned out of innumerable threads for saying things that are in this article.  In fact, to this day there are people who will claim that any statement that suggested 4e took design hints from World of Warcraft is blatant nonsense and such statements have ulterior motives.



 There's a difference between designing a TTRPG to be accessible to potential crossover fans from MMO RPGs (or CRPGs or CCGs, for that matter), and designing a 'tabletop MMO.'  And, frankly, as MMOs /are/ still RPGs, even that's not as bad as the actual claims people had push back against:  that 4e somehow "wasn't an RPG."    

But, it was ultimately a fool's errand, I suppose.  The path just hasn't ever been mainstream > MMO > TT, it was never going to become 'all paths lead to D&D.'  Probably there's a lot more TT > CRPG > MMO than the reverse.  You discover TTRPGs, your group breaks up (or you never can find one in the first place), so you turn to a CRPG based on it, then MMOs when they come out.  If you're an MMO fan, and your MMO goes bust, there'll be another one along soon, if your guild breaks up, there are others forming all the time.  TT is just less convenient to pull together.

It'd've been great to bring in more new players from anywhere - MMO, CCG, or direct from the mainstream, since D&D has the name recognition - but that had to be tempered with remaining acceptable to the existing hard core, and I guess there just wasn't enough appeasement on that end.



> I was in fact actually happy with what I perceived as some of the goals of the design.  It was only later that people took up my comments about how the design was taking cues from World of Warcraft as a sign that the new design was "too video gamey" or that the design was taking queues from how the MtG team had cleaned up the rules in 6e to make them more machine readable "too much like a board game".



 Nod.  There's legitimate observations, and then there's h4ters running with 'em and making them out to be something they're not.  (I expect there will be folks quoting the article as 'Proof 4e was never an RPG!')  



> My core complaint against the design as it actually emerged is buried innocuously in the article at the point I stopped reading: "Ideally, it would help DMs enough to make running a bad game nearly impossible."   That idea was the one really bad idea that I feel undermined all the other ones.



 It doesn't seem, on the face of it, to be a frightful idea:  Make the game easier to run, so that when a new group does form spontaneously, the novice DM won't accidentally deliver a horrible first experience and knock himself and half-a-dozen friends out of the hobby for good.

It does seem overly ambitious:  "Easier to Run" would've been plenty, considering how challenging DMing has always been.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 6, 2018)

Celebrim said:


> The irony is that I got banned out of innumerable threads for saying things that are in this article.




All discussions take place within a context.  It has been several years, and the context has changed significantly.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 6, 2018)

> Eventually 3.5's warts would have sent more people to other games...




Maybe, maybe not.  3.5 isn’t my favorite RPG- that would be HERO- but it remains my favorite iteration of D&D.  I’m not the only one.


----------



## Raith5 (Jul 6, 2018)

fjw70 said:


> Interesting that one thing 4e people like about 4e was not planned but was done because they ran out of time (I.e. the standard power structure).
> 
> I love 4e but it could have used more development time, but every edition prior to 5e could probably say that. Coming from the 80s D&D straight to 4e (due to a break in playing) I was a little more sympathetic to a less than polished game.




I also like 4e but I think the related but bigger issue is engaging with community more. I personally liked the way that 4e took on longstanding concepts and sacred cows - I think it needed to be done. For eg, I think things like  the mechanic of rolling against static defenses is simply way better than the saving throw mechanics. In my mind it is simpler, more elegant and allows a wider range of representations of monsters and PCs. 

The problem is that I was in a minority in for being ready for this and they did not do a great job of engaging the community and explaining why they did things or providing options. Then were small things like replacing feet with square for movement. It all become too much for too many people. It is unfortunate because I think 4e could easily replicate things from previous editions - but it was buried in poor explanation.


----------



## fjw70 (Jul 6, 2018)

Raith5 said:


> I also like 4e but I think the related but bigger issue is engaging with community more. I personally liked the way that 4e took on longstanding concepts and sacred cows - I think it needed to be done. For eg, I think things like  the mechanic of rolling against static defenses is simply way better than the saving throw mechanics. In my mind it is simpler, more elegant and allows a wider range of representations of monsters and PCs.
> 
> The problem is that I was in a minority in for being ready for this and they did not do a great job of engaging the community and explaining why they did things or providing options. Then were small things like replacing feet with square for movement. It all become too much for too many people. It is unfortunate because I think 4e could easily replicate things from previous editions - but it was buried in poor explanation.




Agreed. Community buyin was a huge issue for 4e. The 4e system is very flexible.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 6, 2018)

I've often wondered what would have happened had WotC brought Paizo into the fold a little more, using them for playtesting and feedback. Or just getting an OGL out for them sooner. 

If in the spring of 2008, Paizo was handed a document for making compatible adventures under the guidelines they had to convert their AP line to 4e and could have that ready at launch, what would have happened? Would Paizo have stuck with a game system they liked more or gone with the presumable "safe bet" of 4e?
Given making their own RPG seemed like such a risk, I think they would have opted for 4e, whether they liked the system or not. 

But would that have helped 4e? Probably not much. I think as many people just went back to 3e as swapped to Pathfinder. But with better adventure writers telling different types of story and adventure for 4e, it might have helped more fans try and stretch the system.


----------



## houser2112 (Jul 6, 2018)

Jester David said:


> I've often wondered what would have happened had WotC brought Paizo into the fold a little more, using them for playtesting and feedback. Or just getting an OGL out for them sooner.
> 
> If in the spring of 2008, Paizo was handed a document for making compatible adventures under the guidelines they had to convert their AP line to 4e and could have that ready at launch, what would have happened? Would Paizo have stuck with a game system they liked more or gone with the presumable "safe bet" of 4e?
> Given making their own RPG seemed like such a risk, I think they would have opted for 4e, whether they liked the system or not.
> ...




From what I understand, Paizo built up a lot of goodwill with their adventure paths, and this might have caused people dependent on modules to convert to 4E over staying with 3.5. This wouldn't affect the decisions of homebrewers or people who disliked 4E on its own merits, though. I also don't think that Pathfinder found the success it did because it was "Paizo's RPG", but rather because it was "3.75".


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 6, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> From what I understand, Paizo built up a lot of goodwill with their adventure paths, and this might have caused people dependent on modules to convert to 4E over staying with 3.5. This wouldn't affect the decisions of homebrewers or people who disliked 4E on its own merits, though. I also don't think that Pathfinder found the success it did because it was "Paizo's RPG", but rather because it was "3.75".



 If 4e had been open source from the beginning the way 3.0 was, it could have greatly aided adoption on the 3pp side, which would have been helpful to sales, anyway.  (It also would have probably enabled some awesome d20 games, too, since the core system implied by 4e is more suitable for other genres in addition to fantasy - for exactly the reasons it "doesn't feel like D&D" really.)  

However, nothing can change the nature of the established fanbase, one segment was still chafing against 3e for not being enough like the TSR era, so the OSR would have happened anyway, even had there been no 4e, and the current come-back would still demand a more traditional, DM-focused, system for the 40th-aniversary edition.


----------



## MwaO (Jul 6, 2018)

I think a lot of issues 4e had go directly to the murder-suicide by their lead developer on DDI. Relatively small team and *that* happens?

This is not to say 4e didn't have resolvable issues, but I think if that hadn't happened, they would have noticed the larger problems earlier and fixed them. And a lot of that was simply skill challenges+really bad adventures+going to Paizo and saying, "How do we make this work for you?"


----------



## Joshua Randall (Jul 6, 2018)

And yet despite all the messes, 4e still gave us the best monster design ever, and the two best monster books ever. (As actual game books to use in play, and not just collector's items to show off on your coffee table.)

Late 4e adventure design, as seen in LFR and a few standout published adventures (Gardmore Abbey for example), can hold its own alongside any good adventure design from any edition. The lesson here seems to be that it takes everyone, including the publisher, several years to learn how to use their own game. Unfortunately, you have to launch with some adventures... and when they are subpar (like Keep on the Shadowfell) they can taint the entire perception of your game.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 6, 2018)

MwaO said:


> I think a lot of issues 4e had go directly to the murder-suicide by their lead developer on DDI. Relatively small team and *that* happens?
> 
> This is not to say 4e didn't have resolvable issues, but I think if that hadn't happened, they would have noticed the larger problems earlier and fixed them. And a lot of that was simply skill challenges+really bad adventures+going to Paizo and saying, "How do we make this work for you?"




The real problem with 4e is that it is just too slow.

I just dont see how blaming the community or lack of decent adventures or lack of DDI is going to solve the real fundamental problem with the rules.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Jul 7, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> The real problem with 4e is that it is just too slow.
> 
> I just dont see how blaming the community or lack of decent adventures or lack of DDI is going to solve the real fundamental problem with the rules.




If the game had had a robust VTT--e.g. something like Roll20, but with all powers, feats, etc. pre-coded in just like the CB--that wouldn't have been an issue.

IMO, 4e suffered from five major problems, only one of which was truly system-based.
1. The presentation was bad. It needed another year, and a much more "aesthetic" touch. Even if powers had stayed exactly the same, subtle changes in the graphic design of the books (I'm including "how powers are laid out" in that) would have made it feel more familiar, which people really wanted. The design team took too much to heart the idea that 4e needed to be fresh and new--yes, it needed to be fresh and new _under the hood_, but the exterior needed to be instantly recognizable, and it frankly wasn't.
2. The rules were, unfortunately, a little too fiddly for players. While I absolutely loathe 5e turning 99% of bonuses/penalties into Ad/Dis (the end-of-the-line has become the weapon of first resort, and thus the game leaves DMs high and dry for giving further (dis)advantages to players who already have (Dis)Advantage), 4e did go overboard with them. It also went overboard with number of powers, number of feats...it wasn't a LOT overboard, but it was ENOUGH. It's worth noting, though, that a robust VTT would've taken care of all of this by itself, making system fiddly-ness invisible.
3. The digital tools team took a huge blow from the murder-suicide involving its lead DDI guy, and from what industry people (including Dancey) have said, the team never recovered. The digital tools had already been behind schedule; losing the team lead (and, as far as I can tell, never _properly_ replacing him) made it impossible to catch up, and was a major factor in WotC eventually dropping the price of the DDI subscription.
4. The adventure-writing was ABSOLUTELY AWFUL. The first and third "introductory" adventures (Keep on the Shadowfell and Pyramid of Shadows) are widely reviled as some of the worst adventures made for 4e, and arguably D&D generally. Rather than published adventures drawing new players in and showing off what the new system could do, they were bland, dry, grindy affairs that front-loaded literally every clunky thing you could find about the system ON TOP OF railroady, terrible narrative design.
5. The initial lack of a new license, and subsequently the EXTREMELY anti-3PP replacement (the GSL), drove any 3PP support 4e might've enjoyed out to the furthest edges, and it took years for non-WotC developers to provide anything. That, coupled with the near-impossibility of bringing non-WotC rules into the official tools, meant WotC directly created a great deal of competition.

Imagine, if you will, an alternate universe. In this universe, the rules of 4e are almost perfectly identical, apart from putting out (say) about 1/3 as much splat content, cutting out all the crappy, rarely-used powers, feats, etc. and somewhat reducing the amount of bonus bloat. Further, extreme caution was taken with the presentation, such that people don't know whether to heap higher praise on the *game* design or the *graphic* design. In this universe, the 2007 economic downturn doesn't cause closures of major bookstores. Unlike our universe, 4e launches with a fully-integrated digital tools suite: a virtual tabletop, monster and character builders, even that silly "character visualizer" (with, naturally, a link to a WotC-owned or -licensed miniature-making company). Said VTT is better than Roll20 is now, and comes pre-built to use unofficial/3rd party rules content if coded in the right form (and with a tool for DMs to write their own powers/feats and package them up as "mods"). WotC keeps the OGL, and instead of cutting ties with Paizo, asks *them* to write the introductory adventures for 4th edition. A little ways down the line, Kingmaker launches as a deluxe digital adventure path, complete with voice acting from well-known figures like Mark Hamill and Ali Hillis (though purely pen-and-paper versions are also produced).

In this alternate universe, it's hard to imagine Pathfinder ever comes into existence, and debatable as to whether Roll20 does either. Especially if WotC had been open to providing its VTT space to non-D&D rulesets (or even just allowing prior editions on it as well as 4e).

I'm not saying even the sum total of this would have made 4e definitely so successful that Hasbro wouldn't still can it for failing to meet Core Brand standards (which may have been impossible even if 110% of everything 4e did was INSANELY successful for a TTRPG). But I am saying that the combination of *relatively subtle* changes to the books themselves (whether in rules or in presentation) plus 4e not having _literally_ every venture attempting to improve the line (cutting ties with Paizo, dropping the OGL, pushing digital tools) blow up in its face...well, I don't think 5e would be four years old if that were the case. I'm not even sure we'd have 5e at all.


----------



## MwaO (Jul 7, 2018)

EzekielRaiden said:


> But I am saying that the combination of *relatively subtle* changes to the books themselves (whether in rules or in presentation) plus 4e not having _literally_ every venture attempting to improve the line (cutting ties with Paizo, dropping the OGL, pushing digital tools) blow up in its face...well, I don't think 5e would be four years old if that were the case. I'm not even sure we'd have 5e at all.




Right. I think if the 4e team makes the presentation that Mearls did for the 5e team — have a playtest for a couple of years, do surveys, etc...

They end up with a simple Fighter, a simple Rogue, simple Barbarian and MM3 math. I'd bet they'd end up with inherent bonuses and the current rarity system. And the presence of a simple strikers makes for both a faster game and makes a certain group of players a lot happier.

This is btw, essentially what they did for 5e. Implemented the above and used 4e/2 math throughout the system. And killed transparency so people wouldn't recognize what they had done.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Jul 7, 2018)

MwaO said:


> Right. I think if the 4e team makes the presentation that Mearls did for the 5e team — have a playtest for a couple of years, do surveys, etc...
> 
> They end up with a simple Fighter, a simple Rogue, simple Barbarian and MM3 math. I'd bet they'd end up with inherent bonuses and the current rarity system. And the presence of a simple strikers makes for both a faster game and makes a certain group of players a lot happier.
> 
> This is btw, essentially what they did for 5e. Implemented the above and used 4e/2 math throughout the system. And killed transparency so people wouldn't recognize what they had done.




The only tweaks I would have with this are:
1. I think it was actually very good that 4e offered a complex Fighter. They just should've offered a simple Fighter much sooner than they did (ideally, one complex build and one simple build in the PHB1) and a simple caster (a la the Elementalist) very early.
2. Killing transparency? No, I don't really think that's wise. Being less _aggressively_ transparent, maybe I can grant you. Leave the information there, just don't connect the dots. People who aren't interested in that stuff won't see it, and the ones who are interested will almost certainly approve.


----------



## ccs (Jul 7, 2018)

EzekielRaiden said:


> If the game had had a robust VTT--e.g. something like Roll20, but with all powers, feats, etc. pre-coded in just like the CB--that wouldn't have been an issue.
> 
> IMO, 4e suffered from five major problems, only one of which was truly system-based.
> 1. The presentation was bad. It needed another year, and a much more "aesthetic" touch. Even if powers had stayed exactly the same, subtle changes in the graphic design of the books (I'm including "how powers are laid out" in that) would have made it feel more familiar, which people really wanted. The design team took too much to heart the idea that 4e needed to be fresh and new--yes, it needed to be fresh and new _under the hood_, but the exterior needed to be instantly recognizable, and it frankly wasn't.
> ...




Wow, that's some imagination you have.


----------



## ccs (Jul 7, 2018)

Celebrim said:


> The irony is that I got banned out of innumerable threads for saying things that are in this article.  In fact, to this day there are people who will claim that any statement that suggested 4e took design hints from World of Warcraft is blatant nonsense and such statements have ulterior motives.
> 
> Honestly, I'm going to stop reading the article before it finishes, because it's bringing back such hard feelings about how I was treated here, that I find myself thinking of quitting EnWorld just reading it.
> 
> The real irony is that when I started saying things like this, I wasn't by and large being critical of the new design.  I was in fact actually happy with what I perceived as some of the goals of the design.  It was only later that people took up my comments about how the design was taking cues from World of Warcraft as a sign that the new design was "too video gamey" or that the design was taking queues from how the MtG team had cleaned up the rules in 6e to make them more machine readable "too much like a board game".   My core complaint against the design as it actually emerged is buried innocuously in the article at the point I stopped reading: *"Ideally, it would help DMs enough to make running a bad game nearly impossible." *  That idea was the one really bad idea that I feel undermined all the other ones.




Wouldn't you love to get your hands on some of whatever they were smoking when they had that thought?


----------



## amethal (Jul 9, 2018)

Marshall said:


> Then you never read ToM or MoI. Both of which are casting thats severely constrained.



Playing a Binder was a lot of fun. But I'd rather play an Adept than a Shadowcaster, and from what I remember the True Namer (or whatever it was called) was a really bad fit for the game, since it was based around the skill system and easy to abuse.

I never bothered with Magic of Incarnum so I can't comment on that.


----------



## amethal (Jul 9, 2018)

Raith5 said:


> The problem is that I was in a minority in for being ready for this and they did not do a great job of engaging the community and explaining why they did things or providing options.



I was very much not ready for a new edition.

The cancellation of Dungeon and Dragon felt very much like a betrayal, and I signed up for Paizo's new adventure paths sight unseen. When I found out the reason all the licenses had been brought in-house - to create a new edition I didn't want and didn't like - it only made things worse. Even at the time I knew it was an emotional reaction rather than a logical one, and I am much more relaxed about it now, but for me it turned Dungeons and Dragons into just another game. I'm happy to play it (any edition), and I'm happy to play something else instead. It turned me from a fan into a consumer.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 9, 2018)

There is a popular series of articles on these boards that stats up mythic figures (Achilles, Jean D'Arc, Lancelot, etc) for 5e. Those statblocks are almost entirely combat-oriented. They don't contain Ideals, Bonds or Flaws, despite these being a core 5e mechanic for expressing character personalities.

The 5e skill system is very similar to the 4e one, but lacks a coherent resolution method.

The notion that 4e is in some way distinctive among versions of D&D for making combat, and the mechanical resolution of mechanic, one important focus of play is one I find hard to take seriously. It's differences lie elsewhere: the lack of asymmetrical resource suites across different classes of PCs is a main one, and that - together with other mechanical features like short rests and healing surges - means that the notion of the "adventuring day" curated by the GM as a type of resource management game no longer has much relevance to play. From this flow further consequences for adventure design, encounter design, action resolution, adjudication of individual actions, etc.

None of those features seem to be very popular among the market for D&D as a RPG.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 9, 2018)

Ted Serious said:


> You're saying 4e was far ahead of its time.
> 
> I'm saying it was an aberration.
> 
> If some future edition is just like 4e, we'll know you're right.




No new edition will be 'just like 4e' but one could go FAR BEYOND 4e in the directions it took, which would be incredibly awesome in my book. In fact, that is probably the only game WotC could publish at this time which would get me to pay money for it.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 9, 2018)

fjw70 said:


> Interesting that one thing 4e people like about 4e was not planned but was done because they ran out of time (I.e. the standard power structure).
> 
> I love 4e but it could have used more development time, but every edition prior to 5e could probably say that. Coming from the 80s D&D straight to 4e (due to a break in playing) I was a little more sympathetic to a less than polished game.




I'm very very very skeptical about that whole standard power structure thing. It may be true that ONE GUY saw it that way. However, it took a LOT of work to construct coherent sets of powers for 8 classes using AEDU structure. It would have been vastly easier and quicker to simply relax the constraints. Look at the e-classes. You're telling me it was easier to simply use AEDU and make 90+ powers for PHB1 Fighter (weapon master) than to simply make the Knight or Slayer? I don't think so. This statement doesn't even pass a basic smell test.

People like to blame what they perceive to be their failures on external forces, which is exactly what this kind of statement is.

OTOH many of us take AEDU as one of the great strengths of 4e, and I'm SURE many of the designers felt the same way. They certainly leveraged it a whole lot.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 9, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> The real problem with 4e is that it is just too slow.
> 
> I just dont see how blaming the community or lack of decent adventures or lack of DDI is going to solve the real fundamental problem with the rules.




That may have been *A* problem with 4e, but it had problems far more fundamental than that. The main one is, I think, badly misreading their market and producing the wrong game for the majority of it. Basically, it's a New Coke problem - they were producing solutions to problems that weren't inherent to most of their customers. Like Coca-Cola producing New Coke in an effort to be more competitive within the Pepsi-drinking community and in taste-tests (which their Coke-drinking customers at the time didn't care about), WotC was responding to company-driven needs to woo MMORPG players and make the game more online-friendly more than their customers' needs at the time.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 9, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> OTOH many of us take AEDU as one of the great strengths of 4e, and I'm SURE many of the designers felt the same way. They certainly leveraged it a whole lot.




The lead designer said that he never wanted to use "the exact same power structure for every class".

But I guess many of the other designers could have felt differently.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 9, 2018)

fjw70 said:


> Interesting that one thing 4e people like about 4e was not planned but was done because they ran out of time (I.e. the standard power structure)..




Eh, _some_ “4e people” like it. I think it’s probably even fair to say most of us. But there is definitely a significant portion of us who don’t, and we’re greatful when the PHB 3 and Essentials broke that mold. Personally, that was my second biggest gripe with what I think is otherwise the best version of D&D yet (right after the magic item treadmill).


----------



## pemerton (Jul 9, 2018)

Is 4e too slow in play? That is a design problem (although obviously to some extent at least relative to taste).

Is 4e too different from AD&D and 3E, and hence not popular with that market? That is not a design problem; it's a commercial problem, but doesn't tell us anything about the qualities of 4e as a game. (It's not inherent in the notion of _game_, or even _good game_, that it be commercially popular.)

There is a tendency to conflate these too different sorts of analysis. I think that the first sort is interesting, and something that discussion boards are good for. The second is empirical speculation, and without access to the marketing information that only WotC has access to does not seem all that worthwhile.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 9, 2018)

billd91 said:


> That may have been *A* problem with 4e, but it had problems far more fundamental than that. The main one is, I think, badly misreading their market and producing the wrong game for the majority of it. Basically, it's a New Coke problem - they were producing solutions to problems that weren't inherent to most of their customers. Like Coca-Cola producing New Coke in an effort to be more competitive within the Pepsi-drinking community and in taste-tests (which their Coke-drinking customers at the time didn't care about), WotC was responding to company-driven needs to woo MMORPG players and make the game more online-friendly more than their customers' needs at the time.



The key problem with New Coke was that- despite it beating out Pepsi (its intended target) AND the original Coca-Cola formula in *numerous* taste tests- Coke thought that their market data indicated they needed to _replace_ the original with the New.  Thing was, most Coke drinkers- even those who chose New Coke in the taste tests- didn’t want a replacement.  They’d have been happy with the New product...but only as a _supplement_ to the original.  Replacing a _popular_ product with another risks hard feelings.  Not rational opposition, emotional opposition.

When I personally raised the spectre of a repeat of the New Coke outcome as I saw more and more 4Ed mechanics in the buildup to its release, I made that precise point.  3.X was incredibly popular.  Even in decline, a replacement product faced a daunting task.  4Ed could be a good or even great game, but I worried that many 3.X fans wouldn’t accept it as a _replacement_- myself included.


----------



## houser2112 (Jul 9, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Is 4e too slow in play? That is a design problem (although obviously to some extent at least relative to taste).
> 
> Is 4e too different from AD&D and 3E, and hence not popular with that market? That is not a design problem; it's a commercial problem, but doesn't tell us anything about the qualities of 4e as a game. (It's not inherent in the notion of _game_, or even _good game_, that it be commercially popular.)
> 
> There is a tendency to conflate these too different sorts of analysis. I think that the first sort is interesting, and something that discussion boards are good for. The second is empirical speculation, and without access to the marketing information that only WotC has access to does not seem all that worthwhile.




I fail to see the distinction in your second comparison. The design of 4E was too different than past editions, making it unpopular. It, by design, fixed problems that many didn't feel existed. Now, these articles explain the reasons for those design decisions being made were to satisfy the unrealistic expectations of business (commercial reasons). It's not really speculation (now, after reading these articles) that commercial concerns drove the particular design of 4E, but those reasons weren't explicit at the time (even if they were somewhat apparent to the astute observer). The only concrete thing we had to go on was the design of the game, and this was the proximate cause of its downfall.


----------



## Les Moore (Jul 9, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The key problem with New Coke was that- despite it beating out Pepsi (its intended target) AND the original Coca-Cola formula in *numerous* taste tests- Coke thought that their market data indicated they needed to _replace_ the original with the New.  Thing was, most Coke drinkers- even those who chose New Coke in the taste tests- didn’t want a replacement.  They’d have been happy with the New product...but only as a _supplement_ to the original.  Replacing a _popular_ product with another risks hard feelings.  Not rational opposition, emotional opposition.
> 
> When I personally raised the spectre of a repeat of the New Coke outcome as I saw more and more 4Ed mechanics in the buildup to its release, I made that precise point.  3.X was incredibly popular.  Even in decline, a replacement product faced a daunting task.  4Ed could be a good or even great game, but I worried that many 3.X fans wouldn’t accept it as a _replacement_- myself included.




The REAL problem with replacing original Coke was that Coca-Cola is what everybody uses in mixed drinks. When's the last time somebody asked for a 
Pepsi & Bourbon? Or Pepsi and Rum?


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 9, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> I fail to see the distinction in your second comparison. The design of 4E was too different than past editions, making it unpopular. It, by design, fixed problems that many didn't feel existed. Now, these articles explain the reasons for those design decisions being made were to satisfy the unrealistic expectations of business (commercial reasons). It's not really speculation (now, after reading these articles) that commercial concerns drove the particular design of 4E, but those reasons weren't explicit at the time (even if they were somewhat apparent to the astute observer). The only concrete thing we had to go on was the design of the game, and this was the proximate cause of its downfall.




Being "ahead of the curve" is one thing.  Being "too far ahead of the curve" is another.

The major issue in my opinion with the 4e game and release was that it was too much change across too many lines, too fast.  New game mechanics.. ok.  Kick Paizo in the teeth.. ok.   Go VTT.. ok.. doing everything all at once.. bad idea.

I give WoTC all the credit in the world for having the will to do these things all at once, but the market generally isn't firehose-ready.  From my point of view it's a shame, because we had a lot of fun with 4e once we all decided not to gripe about the changes.

(Granted that took me constantly recruiting over the course of a year and asking people to leave that wouldn't stop. - But that's more to do with not wanting to be around negative people generally and less to do with how good or bad the game was.  I find a lot of gamers complain by default about a lot of things, not just their games, and finding the optimists is difficult.)

2c
KB


----------



## Les Moore (Jul 9, 2018)

IMO, for what it's worth, (not that it's for sale) WoTC didn't do a bad job with 4E as an edition, where they screwed up was with the promotion.
If you're going to make it an online game, then SAY that, and DO that. Don't hawk all new, expensive PHBs and miniatures, and short-stroke
all of your loyal TTRPG fans, just to make a fast buck.  WoTC had a good thing going, until they decided to abuse customer's trust for money.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 9, 2018)

Les Moore said:


> The REAL problem with replacing original Coke was that Coca-Cola is what everybody uses in mixed drinks. When's the last time somebody asked for a
> Pepsi & Bourbon? Or Pepsi and Rum?




Now I want a Cuba Libre.  _DAMN YOU!!!_


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 9, 2018)

Les Moore said:


> IMO, for what it's worth, (not that it's for sale) WoTC didn't do a bad job with 4E as an edition, where they screwed up was with the promotion.
> If you're going to make it an online game, then SAY that, and DO that. Don't hawk all new, expensive PHBs and miniatures, and short-stroke
> all of your loyal TTRPG fans, just to make a fast buck.  WoTC had a good thing going, until they decided to abuse customer's trust for money.




Well said, but I think I remember it a bit differently.

1. The VTT was intended to enable and expand play not replace pure tabletop.
2. WoTC never said that it was going to replace the pure in person tabletop experience or replace the dead tree book line.
3. They did get really hosed by their lead designer of VTT going postal.  Honestly, if I had that rolling over my brand's PR, I'd cancel that designers project too.  Scary threat to the entire firm.

So while it's certainly on the person abused to determine whether or not they actually were; I don't think WoTC's intention was ever to do so.  Where I'll agree with you is that the requirement for minis opened up a new profit line.  (It's also the my supporting reason for why VTT wasn't ever intended to replace the pure tabletop experience.)

Thanks,
KB


----------



## Les Moore (Jul 9, 2018)

Respectfully, I'm going to somewhat disagree with you here, a little, Kobold Boots. They merchandised and promoted an online game to TT
gamers, and whored out all the manuals and miniatures. After all, if it's an ONLINE version, don't you want the manuals to be PDFs or IRLs?
And what do you need miniatures for, at all? 

IMO, they were far more interested in maximizing their profits with the new version, than respecting their customer base. In the ensuing confusion, 
they lost a lot of people to Pathfinder, outright, and tarnished their image to many others, like me. They gave themselves this black eye, by trying
to exploit the situation for profit, at the cost of not only the version, but also their loyal TT gamers. There are a couple things they could have done. One was hold the release date till the VTT was better. The other was to provide the TT gamers with a less half-baked version, which initially came off as a well polished, abbreviated children's version.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 9, 2018)

Les Moore said:


> Respectfully, I'm going to somewhat disagree with you here, a little, Kobold Boots. They merchandised and promoted an online game to TT
> gamers, and whored out all the manuals and miniatures. After all, if it's an ONLINE version, don't you want the manuals to be PDFs or IRLs?
> And what do you need miniatures for, at all?
> 
> ...




No need to worry about disagreeing if you're being civil.  That's the best kind of disagreement 

On my end, I was one of the folks that happily embraced 3x because I was happier with 1e than 2e.  By the time 4e was on the horizon I was saturated with 3x and wanted it to be over, then played the ever living heck out of 4e.  I was pretty sad when I saw what 5e became, simply because I'd still rather play 1e than 5e and would happily consume more content for either 1e or 4e.  (and being honest, I'm working on a hybrid system now, just figuring out the appropriate licenses for what will and won't fly though I doubt I'd ever try to sell it.)

So I expect my feelings to be different than yours from the way you portray the matter.  That's entirely cool.  

Be well
KB


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 9, 2018)

Les Moore said:


> Respectfully, I'm going to somewhat disagree with you here, a little, Kobold Boots. They merchandised and promoted an online game to TT
> gamers, and whored out all the manuals and miniatures. After all, if it's an ONLINE version, don't you want the manuals to be PDFs or IRLs?
> And what do you need miniatures for, at all?
> 
> ...



To be fair, WotC didn’t really have much choice but to try to maximize profits in any and all ways possible. The alternative was to have D&D shut down, and I don’t think 3e fans would have been any happier with that outcome. A lot of the blame for 4e’s marketing missteps falls to unrealistic expectations set by Hasbro pushing WotC into an unwinnable scenario.



Les Moore said:


> The other was to provide the TT gamers with a less half-baked version, which initially came off as a well polished, abbreviated children's version.



Could we not with this? “4e was rushed out too soon” is a fair and respectful critique. “4e was half-baked” is not. “4e was too streamlined for my taste” is a reasonable opinion, respectfully stated. “4e was an abbreviated children’s version of D&D” is not.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 9, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Could we not with this? “4e was rushed out too soon” is a fair and respectful critique. “4e was half-baked” is not. “4e was too streamlined for my taste” is a reasonable opinion, respectfully stated. “4e was an abbreviated children’s version of D&D” is not.




I think I'd put it like this while trying to keep the opinion neutral on any particular thing.

1e was the standard that everyone was playing.  Love it or not, it was what was.
2e polished it up but introduced the world to the concept of "a lot of content, isn't always a good thing."
3e introduced the world to "why does this run so slow?"  and the concept of "a lot of options, isn't always a good thing"
4e introduced the world to a "world without D&D" for many.  The concept of "videogames are not tabletop games" or "a lot of visuals, isn't always a good thing".
5e apologized to the world, and brought back the concept of "love it or not, it is what it is."

I'm happiest in between 4th and 5th I think, or just give me 1.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 9, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> I fail to see the distinction in your second comparison.



The distinction is between qualities of the product, vs reactions of the marketplace.

That D&D is 'too slow' to play is subjective - I've happilly put in 6 or 8 hr sessions of D&D, even 12+ back in the day,  and thoroughly enjoyed it; but I've know people who, having seen how long we spent playing it, couldn't fathom holding interest in such a thing for so long.  

But how long it takes to play D&D is something you can time with a stop watch if you wanted to.



Kobold Boots said:


> 1e was the standard that everyone was playing.  Love it or not, it was what was.



 Except no one played to that standard, everyone played some variant or sub-set or whatnot of it.  

2e slowly started to change that, as it got more and more elaborate.

But, with 3.0, it really /did/ become a standard.  The 3e community was obsessed with RAW, and with the chargen/level-up 'build' meta-game that required a commonly-accepted RaW as a foundation.  

4e's crime against gaming was to do a little too good a job in fixing up that standard and making it readily accessible to new player and even (horrors) somewhat balanced.  While that didn't eliminate the CharOp meta-game, or make it impossible to run a wide variety of different campaigns, it did change things for both.  The former got a much lower pay-off, and the latter became more about players re-skinning to get what they wanted, than about DMs re-writing rules.



> 5e brought back the concept of "love it or not, it is what it is."



 5e brought back the idea that it was just a 'starting point,' so fix it up how you like.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 9, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> The distinction is between qualities of the product, vs reactions of the marketplace.
> 
> That D&D is 'too slow' to play is subjective - I've happilly put in 6 or 8 hr sessions of D&D, even 12+ back in the day,  and thoroughly enjoyed it; but I've know people who, having seen how long we spent playing it, couldn't fathom holding interest in such a thing for so long.
> 
> But how long it takes to play D&D is something you can time with a stop watch if you wanted to.




The more I read Tony's stuff the more I wonder if we've ever been in the same group.  (I know we havent, it's just fun to see similar experiences.)

I think one of the major drawbacks of the game is that often, content in published material doesn't pace well against how the game actually plays for the majority of groups.

During 4e, I went out of my way to use the published modules.  More because we were all in our 30s or 40s, all had full time jobs and families and we wanted to get together twice a month and get to max level eventually.    This meant it could take us 3 months to get through a module if we averaged 3 main encounters a session while using those modules.  How long did it usually take us to get through those three encounters, plus roleplay, plus side things that make D&D the game we want to play.. about 8 hours.  That's right,  Keep on the Shadowfell, was about two months.  Thunderspire was about three.  Same with Pyramid of Shadows.

I imagine that many folks never got through the modules and many that did, made serious changes to them.  We also played through Zeitgeist, and that was a much better experience due to how sandboxey it was from the start (kudos to Wickett and co.)

Anyway, a good rule of thumb should be that a session of D&D should never have to be longer than 4 hours in order to split a good module up into between 2-3 sessions to play to finish on average.  If the game plays slower than that.. tune it up.   

Be well, 
KB


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 9, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> The more I read Tony's stuff the more I wonder if we've ever been in the same group.  (I know we havent, it's just fun to see similar experiences.)



 It's my actual name, so, yeah, you'd know.     I wouldn't.



> I think one of the major drawbacks of the game is that often, content in published material doesn't pace well against how the game actually plays for the majority of groups.



 IDK about the 'majority' that's tricky.  I'd guess that the material presented by 1e didn't play at all well for the vast majority of groups - but the DMs in question just ignored the bits that didn't work so well, or changed them, or their styles were twisted around what was presented to make it work for them....



> During 4e, I went out of my way to use the published modules.  More because we were all in our 30s or 40s, all had full time jobs and families and we wanted to get together twice a month and get to max level eventually.    This meant it could take us 3 months to get through a module if we averaged 3 main encounters a session while using those modules.  How long did it usually take us to get through those three encounters, plus roleplay, plus side things that make D&D the game we want to play.. about 8 hours.  That's right,  Keep on the Shadowfell, was about two months.  Thunderspire was about three.  Same with Pyramid of Shadows.



 That doesn't sound too different from my old group (my current ones play much shorter sessions).  We played 3.x the full run, 8 years, campaigns running up to 13th or 14th level.  In that time, we had 8-hr sessions and got in about 3 combats per sessions (3.5 - I actually had records and took an average).  4e came out and we still had about 3 combats per session, closer to 3, exactly, in fact (a little higher if you counted skill challenges as combats), but our schedules had changed and we only had 6 hrs to devote to each session.  

FWIW.



> I imagine that many folks never got through the modules and many that did, made serious changes to them.  We also played through Zeitgeist, and that was a much better experience due to how sandboxey it was from the start (kudos to Wickett and co.)



 We had two campaigns going, alternating DMs.  One of them was all modules strung together (including some goofy ones like Scepter Tower of Spellgaurd and Pyramid of Shadows), the other started with KotS, did better with Thunderspire, and stayed away from modules therafter.  



> Anyway, a good rule of thumb should be that a session of D&D should never have to be longer than 4 hours



 Personally, I still enjoy long sessions, 6+ hrs (the campaign I get to play in is once or twice a month, for about 6 hrs).   Time to really get into it. IMHO.  But, I run weekly 2-hrs sessions, myself, most of the time, due to time constraints - have been doing so for the campaign I'm currently finishing out it's whole run, from the end of 2011 to present.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 9, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> It's my actual name, so, yeah, you'd know.




We haven't.  I'm not fond of hiding behind a nom de guerre online; but I opted to do it at the time because I was going through quite a bit health wise and had a short fuse.  While I'm much better now than I was then, I can still be prickly on occasion (as my infraction for calling someone a jerk will attest to in my profile).

Regardless, while I'd like to say I was protecting my professional image (which is true) it's more because I was compensating as a just in case for bad behavior.  Though being fair, any of the admins would know exactly who I am any time they felt like it by looking up my email address 

Good on you for being up front.  Wish more people did it.

Be well
KB


----------



## Les Moore (Jul 9, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Could we not with this? “4e was rushed out too soon” is a fair and respectful critique. “4e was half-baked” is not. “4e was too streamlined for my taste” is a reasonable opinion, respectfully stated. “4e was an abbreviated children’s version of D&D” is not.




Well, I don't know how to describe it, otherwise? It had a beautiful layout, incredible art, well synopted general explanations of the overall game, at the front,
and the back end just was hard to describe in it's incomplete complexity.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 10, 2018)

Jester David said:


> I've often wondered what would have happened had WotC brought Paizo into the fold a little more, using them for playtesting and feedback. Or just getting an OGL out for them sooner.
> 
> If in the spring of 2008, Paizo was handed a document for making compatible adventures under the guidelines they had to convert their AP line to 4e and could have that ready at launch, what would have happened? Would Paizo have stuck with a game system they liked more or gone with the presumable "safe bet" of 4e?
> Given making their own RPG seemed like such a risk, I think they would have opted for 4e, whether they liked the system or not.
> ...




TBH the big if here is whether or not Paizo could have written good enough 4e adventures. Frankly the APs I've read and played in do NOT have very well-designed encounters, so I'm skeptical. It would have been a question of whether not they could have grasped the essential 'story first' nature of 4e and created some sort of alternative structure to oppose that of the 2008 vintage HPE stuff (which is not all completely bad, but none of it actually plays to 4e's real strengths). 

We will never know. Had they produced such adventures of high quality then its quite possible 4e would have just continued. WotC could have lived with that. I mean, as long as the 3.5e players were still buying their products, and there's no reason they couldn't have kept some of them in print, then why not?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 10, 2018)

Les Moore said:


> IMO, they were far more interested in maximizing their profits with the new version, than respecting their customer base.



WotC is a commercial publisher - it is always trying to maximise profits!

Every time posters on these boards celebrate the commercial success of fifth edition, they are celebrating WotC's maximisation of its profits.

As far as respect for customer base is concerned - I'm not 100% sure what that means, but 4e did not contain dangerous components, or involve any sort of fraudulent representations. Prior to its release there were a range of explanatory and reflective comments posted from WotC which explained, reasonably accurately, how the game would run. _Worlds & Monsters_ explained how the setting was being reconceived, and how it would work in play, and that was all true.

Offering something for sale that some people don't want to buy might be a commercial mistake, but it's not disrespect.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 10, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> To be fair, WotC didn’t really have much choice but to try to maximize profits in any and all ways possible. The alternative was to have D&D shut down, and I don’t think 3e fans would have been any happier with that outcome. A lot of the blame for 4e’s marketing missteps falls to unrealistic expectations set by Hasbro pushing WotC into an unwinnable scenario.




It turns out that the other alternative to DnD getting shut down was to cut down the staff to a couple of guys who put out a couple of books a year.  No magazines, no VTT, no novels but DnD is still going.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 10, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> However, nothing can change the nature of the established fanbase, one segment was still chafing against 3e for not being enough like the TSR era, so the OSR would have happened anyway, even had there been no 4e, and the current come-back would still demand a more traditional, DM-focused, system for the 40th-aniversary edition.




The OSR happened long before 4e became a thing, and wasn't a reaction to it.  Honestly I think 'OSR' is overrated anyway as a market force. I have yet to encounter people that actually are in any sense militant about, or even prefer, to play such games. Beyond that there was ALWAYS a certain core of people who thought the 3 1974 LBBs were the last word in RPG design. The term 'Grognard' is NOT new, it was current in at least the 90's and probably the 80's. Anyway, I was playing since the mid 70's and I can tell you that the day 1e hit the shelves there were people who hated on it.

So I don't think OSR actually matters. I don't think it appreciably shaped 5e as a distinct movement (maybe the structure of a few options was tweaked to make a more old school type of play a little easier, but 5e is hardly catering to OSR fans anyway). 

Frankly I think 3.x just wasn't dead yet, and WotC tried to put a stake in it, and the beast just wasn't going to go down. It was also a sort of natural down cycle of D&D, much like the late 80's and the late 90's (note the roughly 10 year cycle). 3.x was getting long in the tooth, but not THAT long. Paizo was created by WotC basically, and it bit them. The market shrank, 'old Coke' was still able to capture almost 50% of it given the marketing and business mistakes that were made, etc. A lack of desire on the part of a decent chunk of people to move on from a game they weren't tired of (but had already bought all their books for) was a big thing, but WotC both created and walked into their own perfect storm.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 10, 2018)

> Frankly I think 3.x just wasn't dead yet, and WotC tried to put a stake in it, and the beast just wasn't going to go down. It was also a sort of natural down cycle of D&D, much like the late 80's and the late 90's (note the roughly 10 year cycle). 3.x was getting long in the tooth, but not THAT long. Paizo was created by WotC basically, and it bit them. The market shrank, 'old Coke' was still able to capture almost 50% of it given the marketing and business mistakes that were made, etc. A lack of desire on the part of a decent chunk of people to move on from a game they weren't tired of (but had already bought all their books for) was a big thing, but WotC both created and walked into their own perfect storm.




Yep.

Personally, I think the efforts the designers put into adhering to _some_ but not all of D&D’s sacred cows was harmful to its potential.  I genuinely like certain elements of its engine, and think it could have been turbocharged by ditching classes.  Ditch alignment completely (or just Good-Unaligned-Evil) instead of the approach they took.  Perhaps even the 4 roles could have been ignored.  No need for hybrids or multiclassing- just build your PCs using the feats & powers you want.

As an essentially toolboxy, genre-neutral type system, that form of 4Ed might have been a second hit for WotC while 3.X trundled along to its natural conclusion, whatever that may ultimately be.

I could even imagine _that_ version of the system still being a market presence today.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 10, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> it could have been turbocharged by ditching classes.  Ditch alignment completely (or just Good-Unaligned-Evil) instead of the approach they took.  Perhaps even the 4 roles could have been ignored.  No need for hybrids or multiclassing- just build your PCs using the feats & powers you want.



Classes and roles are fundamental to 4e PC building - much more so than in 3E or 5e.

To get rid of them would be to rebuild from the ground up.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 10, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> The real problem with 4e is that it is just too slow.
> 
> I just dont see how blaming the community or lack of decent adventures or lack of DDI is going to solve the real fundamental problem with the rules.




4e is too slow *when you play it like Mike Mearls. *My game isn't slow at all! It is filled with action and excitement at every turn. When a combat lasted 2 hours it was because everyone was having a total blast. Some of them lasted 5 minutes (ok, not so many of the combat rules got used in that one, but it was a fight). This is the problem, the game that Mike and co thought they had written might be slow. The game that poor old James Wyatt wrote a DMG for that he couldn't quite figure out, might have been slow, but the actual 4e that was the ideal game that was created, that wasn't slow at all. 

You just had to find that game. I think some of the people that worked on it did understand. I don't think that game was just some sort of 'accident'. Just a lot of people couldn't envisage what it could be, they lacked the insight or the guts to go ahead and just do it. 

And then they wrote 5e. Chicken poops.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 10, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> 4e is too slow *when you play it like Mike Mearls. *My game isn't slow at all! It is filled with action and excitement at every turn. When a combat lasted 2 hours it was because everyone was having a total blast. Some of them lasted 5 minutes (ok, not so many of the combat rules got used in that one, but it was a fight). This is the problem, the game that Mike and co thought they had written might be slow. The game that poor old James Wyatt wrote a DMG for that he couldn't quite figure out, might have been slow, but the actual 4e that was the ideal game that was created, that wasn't slow at all.
> 
> You just had to find that game. I think some of the people that worked on it did understand. I don't think that game was just some sort of 'accident'. Just a lot of people couldn't envisage what it could be, they lacked the insight or the guts to go ahead and just do it.
> 
> And then they wrote 5e. Chicken poops.




Wow, the arrogance is breathtaking. I may not like the game that James Wyatt and company created, but I won't stoop so low as to actually insult them over it.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 10, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> TBH the big if here is whether or not Paizo could have written good enough 4e adventures. Frankly the APs I've read and played in do NOT have very well-designed encounters, so I'm skeptical. It would have been a question of whether not they could have grasped the essential 'story first' nature of 4e and created some sort of alternative structure to oppose that of the 2008 vintage HPE stuff (which is not all completely bad, but none of it actually plays to 4e's real strengths).
> 
> We will never know. Had they produced such adventures of high quality then its quite possible 4e would have just continued. WotC could have lived with that. I mean, as long as the 3.5e players were still buying their products, and there's no reason they couldn't have kept some of them in print, then why not?




I think you are right.  It seems doubtful that Paizo would have realised that 4e was a "story first" game and been able to create an adventure path to play to 4e's strengths.  That would have been asking for a real hail mary shot to pull that off for sure.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 10, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> It turns out that the other alternative to DnD getting shut down was to cut down the staff to a couple of guys who put out a couple of books a year.  No magazines, no VTT, no novels but DnD is still going.




So we’re just going to ignore the context these editions exist in, then? The fact that Hasbro’s demands for D&D’s performance shifted, or the rise of streaming campaigns?


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 10, 2018)

Les Moore said:


> Well, I don't know how to describe it, otherwise? It had a beautiful layout, incredible art, well synopted general explanations of the overall game, at the front,
> and the back end just was hard to describe in it's incomplete complexity.




I gave you an example of how to re-word the same things more respectfully right in the post you just quoted. It’s not that hard to express distaste for something without demeaning those who do like it. “I dislike thing” instead of “thong sucks.” “I found thing too minimalist” instead of “thong is dumbed down.”


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 10, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Classes and roles are fundamental to 4e PC building - much more so than in 3E or 5e.
> 
> To get rid of them would be to rebuild from the ground up.




I played 4Ed, I know how PC building worked.  I’m saying that it is possible- and IMHO, probable- that a classless, toolbox version of the mechanics could have resulted in a (different but) more popular game.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> 4e is too slow *when you play it like Mike Mearls. *




I have zero idea of how Mearls plays, or how anyone outside of our group did, for that matter.

The main reasons _we_ experienced slow play were:

1) the near absence of iterative attacks.  If your attack roll resulted in a miss, you were basically done for the round.

2) too many short duration and/or small value modifiers.  That meant a lot of tracking +1s & +2s from a variety of sources, of  various durations.  You were almost never attacking with the same attack or damage bonuses as the previous round, which meant doing math every turn.

3) some of our less-experienced players struggled with choosing powers, and often were not settled on a course of action when their turn rolled around.  I _suspect _those players would have done better with Essentials classes, but those were not available until after our campaign concluded.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 10, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> So we’re just going to ignore the context these editions exist in, then? The fact that Hasbro’s demands for D&D’s performance shifted, or the rise of streaming campaigns?




No, we are going to observe that predictions of DnDs demise were greatly exaggerated. 

I mean they even got enough funding to have a two year playtest.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 10, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> 4e is too slow *when you play it like Mike Mearls. *My game isn't slow at all! It is filled with action and excitement at every turn. When a combat lasted 2 hours it was because everyone was having a total blast. Some of them lasted 5 minutes (ok, not so many of the combat rules got used in that one, but it was a fight). This is the problem, the game that Mike and co thought they had written might be slow. The game that poor old James Wyatt wrote a DMG for that he couldn't quite figure out, might have been slow, but the actual 4e that was the ideal game that was created, that wasn't slow at all.
> 
> You just had to find that game. I think some of the people that worked on it did understand. I don't think that game was just some sort of 'accident'. Just a lot of people couldn't envisage what it could be, they lacked the insight or the guts to go ahead and just do it.
> 
> And then they wrote 5e. Chicken poops.




Honestly I am not sure how Mike plays.

In any case we just followed the rules as presented and even from level one it was slooowww.  Players turns were slow, monsters felt like big spongy bags of hit points that just did not want to go down and off turn reactions made things even slower as well as contributing to the extra added initiative confusion.


----------



## Echohawk (Jul 10, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> In any case we just followed the rules as presented and even from level one it was slooowww.  Players turns were slow, monsters felt like big spongy bags of hit points that just did not want to go down and off turn reactions made things even slower as well as contributing to the extra added initiative confusion.



My experience was that this got much worse for high-level play. Most of our level 25+ games consisted of just one or two set-piece battles. And, to be fair, 4e does that sort of huge battle very well, if a bit slowly. High level play in 4e felt more epic to me than it did in 1e, 2e, or 3e. But 4e  doesn't work so well for quick, easy "side" encounters. I'm not complaining (much), just observing that we actually changed our play style to match what 4e does best. With 5e (and low-level play again), our games have far more encounters per game, as well as a wider variety of easy/medium/hard combats in one game. In those combats, we're not missing 4e's more complex action economy and initiative systems at all.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 10, 2018)

My impression is that both 2e and 4e came at a time when a large number of players felt the game needed to be fixed, and would generally welcome a new edition.  These people had developed some theories about what was wrong and had expectations about what would be fixed by the new edition.  However, both groups were largely surprised by the actual changes that came about.  1e players for example didn't really want to get rid of Paladins, Barbarians, and the like.  They didn't want a change of content or a reboot of content.  They wanted new cleaner rules for running the long established games and game worlds that they already had.  Instead they got an edition that seemed to be throwing out things they were comfortable with and fiddling with areas they were comfortable with, while not making a enough changes to overhaul areas that had been persistent irritants.   

2e was fine if you were introduced to it, but it was still a rather old fashioned clunky system and it frequently felt like it was telling you how to play rather than giving you the tools to play how you wanted.  For 1e players it didn't modernize the game enough, while at the same time not supporting fully the game you were already playing.

I honestly feel 3e was successful because it was the version of the game that the 1e players had wanted to see.  It modernized the game while at the same time supporting the game's sacred cows, and I think it largely correctly identified the sacred cows of the game.

By late 3.5 era, whether you came into 3e from 1e or whether 3e was your system, it was clear the system needed some tweaks and that the RAW was increasingly in trouble because of poor play testing of the glut of content that had been produced.  I for one was ready for a new edition, just like I had been in the late 80's/early 90's.  But just like before, I had some expectations about what would be fixed and what would be retained, and  when 4e came along it had a few ideas that I thought were pretty cool, but by and large it changed things I was comfortable with while not necessarily dealing with actual problems that I had with the system.  This was heavily reinforced by the marketing of 4e which was mostly about running down 3e as this terrible system.  I tried to like 4e, but fundamentally it was not the game I wanted, and what I thought it would be good at it turned out in practice to impose a huge mental burden on actual design that was just not fun compared to the normal way I prepped for a game. Maybe it did make running set piece battles awesome, but it didn't make turning what was in my imagination into set piece battles that worked within the system easier.  Rather, kind of encouraged you to come at the problem in the other direction - what would make a great set piece battle, and in turn make your imagination conform to that.

4e succeeded for certain groups, but not for the core D&D player base.  If you were looking for deep tactical complexity and tactical interplay it was the system for you.  If you wanted a light weight rules engine to support the Nar version of D&D you always wanted, you could with a bit of imagination make it that game, while still having a big portion of the game support the aesthetic concerns of the most gamist player in your group.  At that 3e came out, I said it was a game partially inspired by Fallout 1 & 2, and when 4e came out, I said it was a game partially inspired by Diablo 1 & 2.   I enjoyed both video games, but the game I played at my table was more like Fallout than it was like Diablo.  

I had one 'encounter' with 4e during its run.  I had two new players in my group and they were super excited about playing, so much so that they would have happily met several times a week I think.  Anyway, after a while it came out that they were 'cheating' on me with another DM who ran a 4e table.  And after a few months of that it came out that they'd quit his table, so I asked them about there experiences and one of them said, "The game felt kind of video-gamey."  I didn't in any way prompt that, it was just an impression that they'd picked up on their own.

Again, I think 5e is successful because it's the game that 3e players expected from 4e, whereas 4e is a classic example of what happens when you market a product to customers that don't like your existing product.


----------



## houser2112 (Jul 10, 2018)

Celebrim said:


> Again, I think 5e is successful because it's the game that 3e players expected from 4e




I was with you until this. 5E is successful, cannot deny that, but to attribute that success to 3E players giving it their blessing couldn't be less true. People who like 3E like it for the density of its rules, and the depth and breadth of its character building options. 5E's rules system is extremely streamlined compared to 3E's, and 5E's character building options are downright anemic. 5E's success is in spite of 3E adherents, not because of it.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 10, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> The OSR happened long before 4e became a thing, and wasn't a reaction to it.  Honestly I think 'OSR' is overrated anyway as a market force. I have yet to encounter people that actually are in any sense militant about, or even prefer, to play such games.



 Nod.  I thought the point I was making was that it would have happened in the absence of a 4e, anyway.  

Didn't it really take off in 2009, though?



> Beyond that there was ALWAYS a certain core of people who thought the 3 1974 LBBs were the last word in RPG design. The term 'Grognard' is NOT new, it was current in at least the 90's and probably the 80's. Anyway, I was playing since the mid 70's and I can tell you that the day 1e hit the shelves there were people who hated on it.
> 
> So I don't think OSR actually matters. I don't think it appreciably shaped 5e as a distinct movement (maybe the structure of a few options was tweaked to make a more old school type of play a little easier, but 5e is hardly catering to OSR fans anyway).



 Were you paying attention to the playtest, MM was constantly going on about evoking the 'classic game.'  Playtest adventures were call-backs to ancient modules.  Heck, Essentials had gone there in a big way, too, with the 'Red Box' and game day character sheets in goldenrod.   IDK if it was because of the OSR, or just because MM is a 1e grognard, himself, but it sure seemed like a thing.



> Frankly I think 3.x just wasn't dead yet, and WotC tried to put a stake in it, and the beast just wasn't going to go down.



 Honestly, that's how I felt about it, myself.  3.x had only had 8 years, 1e had had 13, and 2e, counting coasting after TSR folded 10, it just seemed too early.  I get that 3.5's blistering pace of development had bloated the game like a corpse in a hot climate, but, even so, it was just too early.  Plus, with the SRD/OSG, there was a d20 genie that wasn't ever going back in the bottle, so for the first time ever (and the only so far), the prior version of D&D could be cloned, outright, to compete with the new, without getting sued like Arduin was.




Dannyalcatraz said:


> I think the efforts the designers put into adhering to _some_ but not all of D&D’s sacred cows was harmful to its potential.  I genuinely like certain elements of its engine, and think it could have been turbocharged by ditching classes.  Ditch alignment completely (or just Good-Unaligned-Evil) instead of the approach they took.  Perhaps even the 4 roles could have been ignored.  No need for hybrids or multiclassing- just build your PCs using the feats & powers you want.



 There are so many things about D&D that are terrible game design, that there's almost no limit to how much of it you could change before you started making it worse instead of better.  But the game(npi)-changing, revolitionary 'RPG better than D&D' has been arround virtually since the 2nd (maybe 4th?) RPG was created later in the 70s, one after another, almost without pause, and has had 0 impact on the dominance of D&D.  

4e was enough better than, and different from, D&D to be warred against by the old gaurd, as it was, making it more so would only have further marginalized it - as long as it had the D&D logo.  Without the logo, it'd've just been the _nth_ game to come out, be hands-down strictly superior to D&D in every way, maybe win an award or two, and never be heard from again.



> As an essentially toolboxy, genre-neutral type system, that form of 4Ed might have been a second hit for WotC while 3.X trundled along to its natural conclusion, whatever that may ultimately be.
> 
> I could even imagine _that_ version of the system still being a market presence today.



 I couldn't.  The two-prong approach may have worked for the original game, in the fad years, but I doubt even the come-back zietgiest of today could have overcome the confusion of having two or more versions of the game.  To stage a come-back, a brand needs more unity of identity than that.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> 4e is too slow *when you play it like Mike Mearls. *My game isn't slow at all! It is filled with action and excitement at every turn. When a combat lasted 2 hours it was because everyone was having a total blast.



 I can't agree with the rest of that, but I did find that, while a 4e combat could take more rounds than a 3e combat, or more table time than a 1e or 5e combat, it was time spent with more of the players engaged in the entire experience.  

When I did see problems with turns 'taking too long' it was the players who were disengaged when it wasn't their turns - not even all of them, the old 'wake me when the fight starts' type players slipped off into their usual comas - were the ones that complained.  That kind of player really needs to be dominant, the center of attention, to be engaged, at all, when someone else is having their moment, they shut down.  The most destructive spiral is when you get a player like that, and he gets the idea of 'leading by example' (because he's accustomed to dominating play) and taking really /fast/ turns, which exacerbates his frustration.

4e was a good game, but it was being played by D&Ders, some of whom had decades of bad habbits to overcome before they could take full advantage of it.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> 1) the near absence of iterative attacks.  If your attack roll resulted in a miss, you were basically done for the round.



 Doesn't that speed up play?

[qute]2) too many short duration and/or small value modifiers.  That meant a lot of tracking +1s & +2s from a variety of sources, of  various durations.  You were almost never attacking with the same attack or damage bonuses as the previous round, which meant doing math every turn.[/quote] "Did you remember the +2 I gave you?"  Yeah, there was a lot of that.  It wasn't any worse than 3e itterative attacks & myriad modifiers. Combat advantage was the main situational modifier, so it consolidated a lot of that, much of the rest was probably under the players' control.  You could take feats that gave you a constant befit or more situational ones, your leader type could pick fiddly buffs or straightforward healing.  That kind of thing.



> some of our less-experienced players struggled with choosing powers, and often were not settled on a course of action when their turn rolled around.  I _suspect _those players would have done better with Essentials classes, but those were not available until after our campaign concluded.



Pregens are a good way to go with new players, and starting at 1st, where the issue is minimized, did not bring with it the problem of the characters being overly fragile.  Compared to playing an essentials or other-ed caster, though, 4e classes were fairly streamlined with easy choices among just a few powers, and the choice not being as critical (most rounds you could just use an at will and be fine) vs many, more critical, decisions among spells.  

Essentials classes theoretically should have helped returning players who had the expectation that starting with a fighter would be 'simple,' but returning players had been thoroughly turned off by then.  



Echohawk said:


> My experience was that this got much worse for high-level play. Most of our level 25+ games consisted of just one or two set-piece battles. And, to be fair, 4e does that sort of huge battle very well, if a bit slowly. High level play in 4e felt more epic to me than it did in 1e, 2e, or 3e. But 4e  doesn't work so well for quick, easy "side" encounters.



 Acutally, it does handle it simply enough, you just get a quick/easy side encounter, which, compared to a 4e set-piece is hardly worth it (and might well be worth no xp by the guidelines).  It's not any worse than it is in another edition, it just seems pointless by comparison.  Arguably, it is pointless, in any edition - but other eds were so dependent on multiple encounters/day to siphon off even an odd low-level slot here or there, that it was worth it for the DM to keep the 'wandering monster' and rooms with a few spiders and whatnot coming.  

When I did want to get an many-little-encounter crawl going, I'd put it together as a skill challenge, with the 'wandering damage' mini-encounters coming on each failed check.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 10, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> I was with you until this. 5E is successful, cannot deny that, but to attribute that success to 3E players giving it their blessing couldn't be less true. People who like 3E like it for the density of its rules, and the depth and breadth of its character building options. 5E's rules system is extremely streamlined compared to 3E's, and 5E's character building options are downright anemic. 5E's success is in spite of 3E adherents, not because of it.




Obviously, there are still some die hard players that prefer 3e in some form.  Add them all up, and I think they are probably the second largest block of D&D players.

But I think it is also true that 5e one over a lot of 3e players, precisely because there was a block of 3e players that like 3e but found it way too fiddly and dense and wanted a streamlined more balanced 3e.

I'm sort of halfway in both boats, since the version of 3e I play is streamlined in a lot of ways (no PrC's and resembles core 3.0e in a lot of ways, for example) and has a lot of balance compared to 3.5e, but while I despise a lot of the bloat of 3.5e, I find 5e a bit too streamlined.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 10, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> I was with you until this. 5E is successful, cannot deny that, but to attribute that success to 3E players giving it their blessing couldn't be less true. People who like 3E like it for the density of its rules, and the depth and breadth of its character building options. 5E's rules system is extremely streamlined compared to 3E's, and 5E's character building options are downright anemic. 5E's success is in spite of 3E adherents, not because of it.



5e didn't enrage 3e adherents like 4e did.  And it's system is not streamlined compared to 5e, it's actually /very/ similar, right down to Feats & MCing, it's just, as you rightly point out, that the number of options within that system are anemic by comparison.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 10, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> 5e didn't enrage 3e adherents like 4e did.  And it's system is not streamlined compared to 5e, it's actually /very/ similar, right down to Feats & MCing, it's just, as you rightly point out, that the number of options within that system are anemic by comparison.




I think it's important to note that there's a big difference between a game not supporting options and a game simply not having them.  While 3e and others have a metric ton of supported class options and classes, that's not to say that a DM can't do the same for his or her own world under 5e.

All it does mean is that the people who complain about options need to create more and bitch less.  To me, that's the big difference between generations of players.   If we compare a 20 something DM from 1987 with a 20 something DM from 2017, that 1987 guy is probably rocking a small encyclopedia of custom crap.  The 2017 guy is probably running closer to RAW.

(edit - and for what it's worth, I remember buying 1e UA when it hit the store shelves.  The impact on my group was immediate.  It was must have and the content inside it was campaign changing.  I understand the desire for folks to have extra game content for character generation and builds, but at the same time it's not like my DM didn't have 10 custom classes and his own way of doing things before UA.)


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 10, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> No, we are going to observe that predictions of DnDs demise were greatly exaggerated.
> 
> I mean they even got enough funding to have a two year playtest.




Because Hasbro’s demands changed. Had they not, D&D absolutely would have folded.


----------



## houser2112 (Jul 10, 2018)

Celebrim said:


> Obviously, there are still some die hard players that prefer 3e in some form.  Add them all up, and I think they are probably the second largest block of D&D players.




Considering the vast majority of them probably switched to Pathfinder, and how Pathfinder is the main competitor to 5E for the mantle of "most popular edition of D&D right now", you're absolutely right.



> But I think it is also true that 5e one over a lot of 3e players, precisely because there was a block of 3e players that like 3e but found it way too fiddly and dense and wanted a streamlined more balanced 3e.




Maybe it did. I can't dispute that, except to say it didn't "win over" this 3E diehard. 



Tony Vargas said:


> 5e didn't enrage 3e adherents like 4e did.




3E adherents were enraged by 4E because they didn't have Pathfinder yet, and they were worried about losing support for their game. They have Pathfinder now, so they don't need D&D anymore.



> And it's system is not streamlined compared to 5e, it's actually /very/ similar, right down to Feats & MCing, it's just, as you rightly point out, that the number of options within that system are anemic by comparison.




It's similar since it retains the d20 resolution mechanic, but it massively changed the skill and proficiency system. Feats and multiclassing are probably the biggest departure in 5E, though. Ability score requirements (from the initial class, no less) to even think about taking another class, not getting all of the features from the additional class, feats being a class feature instead of a character feature, and feats sharing a "character building resource" with ASIs being huge changes to those systems.

I was calling the character building system anemic because there are so few ways to differentiate a character mechanically, not because WotC hasn't published enough crunch. The latter can be fixed with more content being published (whether that be 1st or 3rd party).


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 10, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> If we compare a 20 something DM from 1987 with a 20 something DM from 2017, that 1987 guy is probably rocking a small encyclopedia of custom crap.




1982 here.  600+ pages of house rules, just of the ones that are written down.  

That said, I understand if rules smithing isn't everyone's thing.  

For me the real difference is how much of the rules are assumed to be player driven compared to how much the rules are DM driven, which is to say how much of the rules are flavor driven compared to mechanics driven.  Goblins, hobgoblins, sidhe, changlings, pixies, orine and idreth are PC races because they are in my setting, and not because there was a player demand to get a race with a particular combination of bonuses to enable a build they wanted.  Ironically, I'm a bit of an 'old school' outlier here, as my impression is that most of the 3e diehards like 3e precisely because its chargen is so player driven.

When I considered running a game in 4e, I notice that a lot of the work was front loaded.  That is to say, the designers of the game had done a lot to make it easy to use their stuff, but in doing so they'd also increased the amount of work required to extend the system.  Creating a new class for 4e was no light piece of work, and even creating a new interesting monster could be a daunting challenge owing to the complexity of the stat block and the need to make that monster mechanically interesting in 4e's tactical framework.  By comparison, creating new content in 1e was owing to the lack of framework a simple exercise in natural language, where creating new content in 3e could be tedious but only for reasons of rote accounting.   Now, if you weren't a rules smith, this probably was a welcome change.  But if you came at the game as something you were going to customize to your taste and setting, imposing both new mechanics and new rules on your existing setting (and tying the two together strongly) was not something you wanted.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 10, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> I was with you until this. 5E is successful, cannot deny that, but to attribute that success to 3E players giving it their blessing couldn't be less true. People who like 3E like it for the density of its rules, and the depth and breadth of its character building options. 5E's rules system is extremely streamlined compared to 3E's, and 5E's character building options are downright anemic. 5E's success is in spite of 3E adherents, not because of it.




That depends on what constitutes a "3e adherent". Do you mean someone who stuck to the 3e family (including PF) rather than play 4e? Or do you mean someone who will pretty much never stop playing 3e until something with even more options comes along? Or do you mean people who like the options of the 3e family for when they want to scratch that particular itch, but are willing to play other games? Those are, in essence, three different groups of "3e adherents", two of which will likely have no inherent problem adopting 5e if they like the game.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 10, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> 3E adherents were enraged by 4E because they didn't have Pathfinder yet, and they were worried about losing support for their game. They have Pathfinder now, so they don't need D&D anymore.



 They didn't stop fighting the edition war in 2009.  

And it's not like there was a plausible chance that every 3pp was going to abandon the 3.0 & 3.5 SRDs...  the potential for continuous, legal support for 3.5 was there in 2008 and remains, today.  That can't ever be changed.  



> It's similar since it retains the d20 resolution mechanic, but it massively changed the skill and proficiency system. Feats and multiclassing are probably the biggest departure in 5E, though. Ability score requirements (from the initial class, no less) to even think about taking another class, not getting all of the features from the additional class, feats being a class feature instead of a character feature, and feats sharing a "character building resource" with ASIs being huge changes to those systems.



 ASI's and 'bigger' feats seem like a modest sort of change.  They retain the innate flexiblity & customization of feats, if with less granularity and far fewer options.  



> I was calling the character building system anemic because there are so few ways to differentiate a character mechanically, not because WotC hasn't published enough crunch.



5e has Class & sub-class, background & personality traits, race &sub-race, and optionally Feats & MCing to differentiate characters.  3.5 has race & templates, class, multiclassing & PrCs, and Feats.  

But for the vast gulf in sheer number of options under each of those headings, 5e is not particularly behind 3.x in build complexity or amenability customization.  That vast gulf is, well, vast, though, so it's not like I'm arguing the end result with you.  Just structure (which is very 3.x-like) vs volume of support (which is anemic compared to either 3.5 or PF, even considered separately).


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 10, 2018)

Celebrim said:


> 1982 here.  600+ pages of house rules, just of the ones that are written down.
> 
> That said, I understand if rules smithing isn't everyone's thing.
> 
> ...




Kindred spirit on this Celebrim as I've actually written/edited table drafts of the three main 1e rulebooks that had our campaign specific errata and Gary-isms removed or cleaned up.  Granted that was a long time ago, and my English grades improved dramatically due to doing it.

When I jumped into 4e, experience told me it was not to be touched or modified casually so I didn't do it and didn't convert my homebrew world to it.  It annoyed me but now I see it as a blessing because walking away from it for a decade made me go back and critique things like I never would have otherwise.

Rules smithing isn't everyone's cup of tea, but if you're going to critique a system because it doesn't have all the bells and whistles, as a DM I expect folks to go make some.

2c
KB


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 10, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Because Hasbro’s demands changed. Had they not, D&D absolutely would have folded.



At worst been shelved - until the 50th anniversary, perhaps.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 10, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> There are so many things about D&D that are terrible game design, that there's almost no limit to how much of it you could change before you started making it worse instead of better. But the game(npi)-changing, revolitionary 'RPG better than D&D' has been arround virtually since the 2nd (maybe 4th?) RPG was created later in the 70s, one after another, almost without pause, and has had 0 impact on the dominance of D&D.




I found my “better than” in HERO, but 3.X has held steady as my #2.  I’m really digging Cypher right noe, but haven’t gotten to give it an in-play shakedown cruise.

But one of the major reasons for D&D’s market dominance is a simple thing: it was first to the market.  Being first is the single biggest factor in predicting any product’s success- as I recall, @67% of successful products were first to market.  

_Continued_ success, though, means you can’t just rest on your laurels.  You have to react- ideally proactively- to market forces.  In the RPG market, the biggest manifestation of that is new editions.



> 4e was enough better than, and different from, D&D to be warred against by the old gaurd, as it was, making it more so would only have further marginalized it - as long as it had the D&D logo. Without the logo, it'd've just been the nth game to come out, be hands-down strictly superior to D&D in every way, maybe win an award or two, and never be heard from again.




I disagree.  If ever there was a company in a position to launch a second big RPG title, it was WotC at that time.

The fact that it was labeled D&D was a roadblock to acceptance precisely because it was so different.  That label meant it was automatically going to be compared to what was not only the _original_ RPG, but also the most popular game on the market...as a _replacement_. That’s the New Coke trap to a T; a big part of why people like me said it didn’t feel right.



> > 1) the near absence of iterative attacks. If your attack roll resulted in a miss, you were basically done for the round.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't that speed up play?



Nope.

Multiple attacks, whether from a single source (iterative attacks, a spell) or massed attackers ganging up boosts DPR or the odds that a side effect will trigger, thus dropping foes more quickly. 

Heck, look at some of the more highly regarded 4Ed powers, especially for strikers.  Many give an actual second (or more!) attack or let you replace one (presumably failed) roll with the results of a reroll.  The conjuror/summoners & pet users can also get this benefit by having minions or powers increase the number of operant effects hitting enemies.

Those all increase statistical odds of success, and that translates into quicker combats.



> > 2) too many short duration and/or small value modifiers.  That meant a lot of tracking +1s & +2s from a variety of sources, of  various durations.  You were almost never attacking with the same attack or damage bonuses as the previous round, which meant doing math every turn.
> 
> 
> 
> "Did you remember the +2 I gave you?"  Yeah, there was a lot of that.  It wasn't any worse than 3e itterative attacks & myriad modifiers.




I beg to differ.  

3.X boosters tended to be larger and longer lasting- several rounds at least, if not a whole combat, hours or days of campaign world.  The fiddliest modifiers in 3.X were “next roll” (like True Strike) or AoE effects (like the auras of Paladin, Marshalls & Dragon Shamans).

The net effect in 3.X is that- usually- your modifiers changed between combats or game sessions, not between rounds.  That’s a LOT less bookkeeping.



> > some of our less-experienced players struggled with choosing powers, and often were not settled on a course of action when their turn rolled around. I suspect those players would have done better with Essentials classes, but those were not available until after our campaign concluded.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Nobody in our group was a noob, but we did have experience gaps of decades and some were much more casual than others.  Had Essentials been part of the initial release, its streamlined class design would have been a HUGE boon to some of them.

However, my understanding of the origins of Essentials was the feedback WotC got after 4Ed’s release, sooooo that was basically impossible. 



> > As an essentially toolboxy, genre-neutral type system, that form of 4Ed might have been a second hit for WotC while 3.X trundled along to its natural conclusion, whatever that may ultimately be.
> >
> > I could even imagine that version of the system still being a market presence today.
> 
> ...




You’re still looking at it as D&D.  I’m looking at it as WotC’s HERO or GURPS.

They _tried_ that to a certain extent with 3.X, with _Modern_ and _Future_, but 3.X isn’t as suited to being toolboxy as the bones of 4Ed.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 10, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> At worst been shelved - until the 50th anniversary, perhaps.




Sure. My point is, you can’t blame WotC for trying to monetize the crap out of 4e when Hasbro was pressuring them to meet an unreasonably high bottom line. It was anti-consumer for sure, but it was Hasbro’s fault, not WotCs. We’re seeing the same thing in the AAA video game industry right now, with gamers losing all of their goodwill towards developers who are resorting to unsavory monetization schemes like loot boxes, when it’s the publishers who are pressuring them to do so.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 10, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Kindred spirit on this Celebrim as I've actually written/edited table drafts of the three main 1e rulebooks that had our campaign specific errata and Gary-isms removed or cleaned up.




I'm inclined to think a large part of the OSR community is driven by this desire to fix up the old game based on the lessons learned since they first started playing it.  For a while there I was greatly tempted to write Celebrim's 1e AD&D rules to make the game I wish I had been playing back in the day, but then I realized that the game would be just a cut down version of 3e with a bunch of nostalgic flourishes that I'd probably never really run.

Still, I occasionally engage in that impulse, such as the rewrite of the rules for 1e AD&D dragons that I engaged in as an exercise a few months back.  Sometime I should do the rewritten 1e Thief as well as a long time fan of the class that had a love/hate relationship with one of AD&D's most iconic and yet most unplayable class.



> When I jumped into 4e, experience told me it was not to be touched or modified casually...




Back when we had a 3e house rule forum, I spent most of the time telling would be rules smiths to hesitate more before modifying the rules.  



> It annoyed me but now I see it as a blessing because walking away from it for a decade made me go back and critique things like I never would have otherwise.




By pushing 1st level characters to have more than 1 HD, 4e actually did introduce one major change in my house rules for the exact same reason - and one I've been very happy with.  Granted, the change I made was conceptually very different than what 4e did, but it was certainly 4e inspired and had some of the same effects on the procedures of play (more rounds per combat, for example).


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 10, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Nope.
> 
> Multiple attacks, whether from a single source (iterative attacks, a spell) or massed attackers ganging up boosts DPR or the odds that a side effect will trigger, thus dropping foes more quickly



 But, they take more time to resolve, especially when each is at a different attack bonus. 



> Heck, look at some of the more highly regarded 4Ed powers, especially for strikers.  Many give an actual second (or more!) attack or let you replace one (presumably failed) roll with the results of a reroll.  The conjuror/summoners & pet users can also get this benefit by having minions or powers increase the number of operant effects hitting enemies.



 Those are also called out as slowing the game down, though.  They are good powers, of course.



> Those all increase statistical odds of success, and that translates into quicker combats.



 In terms of rounds, sure, I can see that.  In terms of how long it takes to resolve the turn where that success happens, though, slower, no?



> I beg to differ.



 Permission granted!



> 3.X boosters tended to be larger and longer lasting- several rounds at least, if not a whole combat, hours or days of campaign world.  The fiddliest modifiers in 3.X were “next roll” (like True Strike) or AoE effects (like the auras of Paladin, Marshalls & Dragon Shamans).



That's reasonbly fiddly.  3e also had situational modifiers, even that old stand-by, higher ground, that could change every round.  And at higher level, those longer-durration bonuses from spells could get targeted-dispelled one round and re-applied later... 

... then there were the self-inflicted ones, like power attack & expertise & the various combat options...  

I played a fighter in a 3.0/5 campaign that went the whole run, from 2000 until well after 4e had come out in 2008.  Modifiers changing every round was routine.   Of course, I brought much of that on myself - I liked swapping weapons, using maneuvers, applying Expertise some rounds, etc...
...but the same was true in 4e, you could make a character  (or party) with lot of fiddly modifiers, or not.  When I did pregen characters for cons, for instance, I'd pick feats with static effects, items with properties, etc, that could just be figured in, so the player wouldn't have to worry about them.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 10, 2018)

Celebrim said:


> By pushing 1st level characters to have more than 1 HD, 4e actually did introduce one major change in my house rules for the exact same reason - and one I've been very happy with.  Granted, the change I made was conceptually very different than what 4e did, but it was certainly 4e inspired and had some of the same effects on the procedures of play (more rounds per combat, for example).




Very cool.  On my end I recently realized that the reason why 1e was so deadly was because it was intended to be played by players running more than one character and in most cases multiple - through the retainer rules.  We never played it that way the first time around and tbh it's given me the perspective necessary to play that game with the balance intended.

I'd never had a problem killing PCs with any version of the game, but this is likely going to dramatically affect how I concept games going forward, even if it doesn't change my style otherwise.

KB


----------



## houser2112 (Jul 10, 2018)

billd91 said:


> That depends on what constitutes a "3e adherent". Do you mean someone who stuck to the 3e family (including PF) rather than play 4e? Or do you mean someone who will pretty much never stop playing 3e until something with even more options comes along? Or do you mean people who like the options of the 3e family for when they want to scratch that particular itch, but are willing to play other games? Those are, in essence, three different groups of "3e adherents", two of which will likely have no inherent problem adopting 5e if they like the game.




Groups 1 and 2 seem like the same group of players, since Pathfinder IS that "something with even more options", and I dispute the notion that 5E belongs in the 3.PF family. Group 3, in their willingness to play games other than 3.PF, to me fail to live up to the definition of "adherent". 3.PF is just one of many games they like to play.



Tony Vargas said:


> They didn't stop fighting the edition war in 2009.
> 
> And it's not like there was a plausible chance that every 3pp was going to abandon the 3.0 & 3.5 SRDs...  the potential for continuous, legal support for 3.5 was there in 2008 and remains, today.  That can't ever be changed.




Unfortunately true. I was mollified by Pathfinder, though.



> ASI's and 'bigger' feats seem like a modest sort of change. They retain the innate flexiblity & customization of feats, if with less granularity and far fewer options.




Combining them into one class-based "resource" is not a modest change. 



> 5e has Class & sub-class, background & personality traits, race &sub-race, and optionally Feats & MCing to differentiate characters.  3.5 has race & templates, class, multiclassing & PrCs, and Feats.
> 
> But for the vast gulf in sheer number of options under each of those headings, 5e is not particularly behind 3.x in build complexity or amenability customization.




Subclass is a decision made once, no later than 3rd level; background, 1st level; personality traits are too fluffy to include in this discussion; (sub)race, 1st level.

If you're not a spellcaster, feats and multiclassing are all you have after 3rd level at the latest. Your skill proficiencies are locked at 1st level (unless you multiclass into one of the _two_ classes that explicitily grant them or spend a precious feat), and they're all at the same proficiency level relative to each other forever. ASIs/feats sharing a resource changes the "which feat should I take?" question by kicking it up a level into "should I take a feat at all?". Making that resource class-based makes the decision whether to multiclass (which dilutes your power already) harder than it was.

All of this together makes the character builder in me sad.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 10, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> Unfortunately true. I was mollified by Pathfinder, though.



 Probably why I don't recognize your handle, even though you've been here since 2002.  And kudos to you, sir, for taking the high road.



> Combining them into one class-based "resource" is not a modest change.



 I admit the shell game 5e played with some mechanics was a little odd.  Taking caster advancement it making it based on character level instead of class level (an improvement over 3.x, IMHO), but then taking Extra Attack & basing it on class level instead of BAB(character level), for instance.  Taking spell scaling from caster level to slot, but then taking DCs from slot scaling to character level.  It's ... inconsistent.

Making allownaces for that perplexing tendency, the oddity of consolidating Feats and Stat increases yet also basing them on class level (even though their virtually universal), instead of character level doesn't seem that extreme a change.  



> Subclass is a decision made once, no later than 3rd level; background, 1st level; personality traits are too fluffy to include in this discussion; (sub)race, 1st level.



 Sure.  In 3e I'd plan my whole build before the character had a single point of xp, so I don't see that as a major downside.  



> If you're not a spellcaster, feats and multiclassing are all you have after 3rd level at the latest. Your skill proficiencies are locked at 1st level (unless you multiclass into one of the _two_ classes that explicitily grant them or spend a precious feat), and they're all at the same proficiency level relative to each other forever.



 Yes, we don't have fiddly skill ranks anymore.  On balance, I think that has to be a positive, since anything less than maxxing a skill (essentially picking a skill at first level, and keeping it the same level relative to eachother) in 3e resulted in it rapidly becoming useless, the net effect is the same in 3e & 5e, just with less bookkeeping to get there, and less potential for abuse.



> ASIs/feats sharing a resource changes the "which feat should I take?" question by kicking it up a level into "should I take a feat at all?". Making that resource class-based makes the decision whether to multiclass (which dilutes your power already) harder than it was.
> All of this together makes the character builder in me sad.



 I can't disagree with your bottom line.  I just feel like it's due lack of material, more than structural deficiency, but I don't feel the excitement towards character creation when contemplating a possible 5e character that I did with 3e & 4e.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 10, 2018)

> But, they take more time to resolve, especially when each is at a different attack bonus.




Not in my experience, and here’s why: most of your math- even the variable stuff- could be figured out ahead of time.  Those modifiers tended to be constant from round to round.  A player with a Fighter with iterative attacks knows that each one will be 5 lower than the previous, unless it was an additional attack at the highest BAB.  The modifiers were written on your character sheet.

Regardless inoffensive edition, a 3Ed Bull’s Strength will last an entire combat, if not hours.  Especially if metamagically Extended.

In contrast, ifnyounlooked a my big chessex battle maps from when we played 4th, and almost every player’s spot had combat mods written on the margins, varying from round to round.

As an additional complication, nearly every 4Ed class had powers that granted situational bonuses, not just the magic using classes as in 3.X.  I’m not talking the tactical maneuver stuff common to both- like flanking.  I’m talking about all those little conditional mods from powers and abilities.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 10, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Because Hasbro’s demands changed. Had they not, D&D absolutely would have folded.




Brands under 50 million had to stand on their own merits.  Brands over 50 million got extra support from Hasbro.

There is no evidence that DnD would have folded as long as it could have retained an income that supported its expenses.  Which is exactly what we have now: a couple of guys making a couple of books a year.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 10, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> That's reasonbly fiddly.  3e also had situational modifiers, even that old stand-by, higher ground, that could change every round.  And at higher level, those longer-durration bonuses from spells could get targeted-dispelled one round and re-applied later...
> 
> ... then there were the self-inflicted ones, like power attack & expertise & the various combat options...
> 
> ...




Part of the problem with the fiddly 4e modifiers was they weren't always self-inflicted. The self-inflicted ones were easier to track because you had planned for them yourself - the ones coming from another PC were, by 17th level, godawful.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 10, 2018)

billd91 said:


> Part of the problem with the fiddly 4e modifiers was they weren't always self-inflicted. The self-inflicted ones were easier to track because you had planned for them yourself - the ones coming from another PC were, by 17th level, godawful.



 I have to consider allies' buffs as self-inflicted, too.  

You should at least have a safe word worked out with your 'leader...'

"... I cast Mordenkainen's Multifaceted Munificence on Barg the Battl-"
"er? ... flumph... _FLUMP!_"


----------



## pemerton (Jul 11, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> you can’t blame WotC for trying to monetize the crap out of 4e when Hasbro was pressuring them to meet an unreasonably high bottom line. It was anti-consumer for sure, but it was Hasbro’s fault, not WotCs. We’re seeing the same thing in the AAA video game industry right now, with gamers losing all of their goodwill towards developers who are resorting to unsavory monetization schemes like loot boxes, when it’s the publishers who are pressuring them to do so.



I don't know anything about video games, but I think I missed the unsavoury monetisation schemes of 4e. I bought the books I wanted, but not the ones I didn't (Draconomicons, Eberron, most of the adventures); I didn't buy any miniatures (which in any event were being sold well before 4e was released); I paid for a couple of months subscription to DDI around 2011 to download all the Dragons and Dungeons.

I think the last thing I bought from WotC was Into the Unknown.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 11, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> The more I read Tony's stuff the more I wonder if we've ever been in the same group.  (I know we havent, it's just fun to see similar experiences.)
> 
> I think one of the major drawbacks of the game is that often, content in published material doesn't pace well against how the game actually plays for the majority of groups.
> 
> ...




Right, and here's the key thing. I'm as busy as the next guy, and I think in my first campaign we were lucky to play for more than maybe 5 hours at a stretch. I VERY quickly discovered that with 4e you wanted to make things fast-paced and follow the advice to 'cut to the chase'. I never was a module guy really, and I pretty much abandoned 'writing an adventure' after the first year or so of 4e. Things went fast and happy after that. Whenever it threated to get slow, something HAPPENED. 

This was the problem with the play you are describing, it was driven by the modules, not inherent to the rule system. A lot of people simply (I guess) never tried to actually move away from basically the standard approach at all and simply kept throwing 'monsters in room' with minor variations at parties until they pulled their hair out.

I'm not accusing them of being stupid either, the game only unevenly explained how to avoid that and it required a close reading and some playing around with it. If you didn't hit the golden formula then you might just go on thinking it was slow, or that it needed to be hacked. It didn't really.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 11, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yep.
> 
> Personally, I think the efforts the designers put into adhering to _some_ but not all of D&D’s sacred cows was harmful to its potential.  I genuinely like certain elements of its engine, and think it could have been turbocharged by ditching classes.  Ditch alignment completely (or just Good-Unaligned-Evil) instead of the approach they took.  Perhaps even the 4 roles could have been ignored.  No need for hybrids or multiclassing- just build your PCs using the feats & powers you want.
> 
> ...




PERSONALLY, I'd have handled alignment as Law, Neutrality, and Chaos. You can call that harking back to the origins of the game, which is entirely true, AND it meshes quite well with the Gods vs Primordials 'world axis' cosmological architecture of 4e. I suspect they did the 5-point alignment as sort of a compromise between the two. You get an 'evil' to bin devils in, a 'good' to bin elves in, and then LG and CE fill the bill for the law chaos axis as well as good evil. Seems like it was a compromise, and thus a mistake.

A more disassembled 'kit like' 4e would be OK. I think actually 4e IS in a lot of respects a very 'kit' kind of a system. All the numbers are written write on the front of it, and each subsystem is quite modular and all held together basically by a couple of 'glue' concepts, keywords, the d20-based check, and AEDU. I'd even consider AEDU a bit secondary to the other 2.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 11, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I think you are right.  It seems doubtful that Paizo would have realised that 4e was a "story first" game and been able to create an adventure path to play to 4e's strengths.  That would have been asking for a real hail mary shot to pull that off for sure.




At the time, yes. NOW I think it is crystal clear. I certainly have no problem with the conclusions Paizo drew in 2008 based on what people were doing and how the game seemed to play to them. This is again the same old story though, had WotC given them a year to mess with it, and a year for them to understand what they did and for a DMG to be written which matched that, then it would have perhaps been a different story.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 11, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I played 4Ed, I know how PC building worked.  I’m saying that it is possible- and IMHO, probable- that a classless, toolbox version of the mechanics could have resulted in a (different but) more popular game.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well, I don't think people really missed a huge amount in practice. I mean, AD&D lacked anything like multi-attacks either, and to-hits were a lot lower, yet it was never called the reason for slow combats (though IME it was no faster than 4e).

2 and 3 are true. The way I found to combat it was to simply turn the game into a crazy action fest where every round of combat presented some unique opportunity or risk and instead of agonizing over the way to use your at-will for the 4th time you were instead leaping onto the moving train or something and lobbing some shot at someone along the way to maybe push them out of the way or knock them back out the window, or something. 

That killed off 3 mostly, though I agree that 2 required getting people to be organized and not worrying about it too much. This is a point where some of 5e's design works, though I think it can be done better in some points.


----------



## Les Moore (Jul 11, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Sure. My point is, you can’t blame WotC for trying to monetize the crap out of 4e when Hasbro was pressuring them to meet an unreasonably high bottom line. It was anti-consumer for sure, but it was Hasbro’s fault, not WotCs. We’re seeing the same thing in the AAA video game industry right now, with gamers losing all of their goodwill towards developers who are resorting to unsavory monetization schemes like loot boxes, when it’s the publishers who are pressuring them to do so.




It's not about placing blame, here. It's about what got done, why and how it was done, and what we wound up with as a result. IMO, Hasbro and WoTC
(not that it matters, now) could have handled things differently, been a little more forthcoming about the(then) new edition, (4e) and not only would
we have been willing to approach the platform with more realistic expectations, the PHBs and 4e pubs wouldn't be tanking, at 5$ a pop online.


----------



## houser2112 (Jul 11, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I admit the shell game 5e played with some mechanics was a little odd.  Taking caster advancement it making it based on character level instead of class level (an improvement over 3.x, IMHO), but then taking Extra Attack & basing it on class level instead of BAB(character level), for instance.  Taking spell scaling from caster level to slot, but then taking DCs from slot scaling to character level.  It's ... inconsistent.




With the exception of Concentration (the Highlander-ification part, not the get-hit-make-a-save part), I like the changes that 5E made to the spellcasting system as a whole. The paleovancian sacred cow was finally slaughtered, and if you squint the upcasting mechanic kind of looks like a step in the direction of 3.PF psionics, which is the perfect system (especially if you include Dreamscarred Press' work).



> Making allownaces for that perplexing tendency, the oddity of consolidating Feats and Stat increases yet also basing them on class level (even though their virtually universal), instead of character level doesn't seem that extreme a change.




Eh, maybe. Still not a good idea. 



> In 3e I'd plan my whole build before the character had a single point of xp, so I don't see that as a major downside.




There were people that didn't do this? oO



> Yes, we don't have fiddly skill ranks anymore.  On balance, I think that has to be a positive, since anything less than maxxing a skill (essentially picking a skill at first level, and keeping it the same level relative to eachother) in 3e resulted in it rapidly becoming useless, the net effect is the same in 3e & 5e, just with less bookkeeping to get there, and less potential for abuse.




Fiddliness obviously doesn't bother me, especially when it allows you to pick up skills later in your character's life without waiting potentially 4 levels and using a very precious resource to do so.



> I can't disagree with your bottom line.  I just feel like it's due lack of material, more than structural deficiency, but I don't feel the excitement towards character creation when contemplating a possible 5e character that I did with 3e & 4e.




i don't either. I've been in the middle of our 5E session and noticed that I hadn't updated my character sheet with a new level, and it used to be the first thing I did when I got home.


----------



## houser2112 (Jul 11, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> AD&D lacked anything like multi-attacks either




I'm not sure what you're talking about. 2E had multi-attacks, and the schedule of when they happened was accelerated if you specialized. I'm pretty sure this rule went as far back as 1E, as well.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 11, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> I was with you until this. 5E is successful, cannot deny that, but to attribute that success to 3E players giving it their blessing couldn't be less true. People who like 3E like it for the density of its rules, and the depth and breadth of its character building options. 5E's rules system is extremely streamlined compared to 3E's, and 5E's character building options are downright anemic. 5E's success is in spite of 3E adherents, not because of it.




As someone who loved 3e, I'm going to disagree with you here.  3e was fantastic in that it added a better skill system, feats, class abilities, and so on.  However, it really did start to become cumbersome and break down towards the end with how many options there were and having as many rules as it did.  I can't begin to tell you how many fights or even social encounters were disrupted as we had to pour over books to find this rule or that so we could get the wording.  The insanely high bonuses to rolls was also an issue.  5e has gone back to that, but in a much more streamlined way.  

You are correct that the building options are anemic compared to 3e, and I would like to see more options than we have been given, but it still needs to be a lot less than 3e gave us.  WotC has a history of overreacting to issues, though.  You can see it in 5e with the over reduced options being put out, and in bounded accuracy, which while needed, has been bounded too much.  People like a feeling of advancement and bonuses provided a clearer view of that.  I think +10 over 20 levels would have been a better way to go.


----------



## houser2112 (Jul 11, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> As someone who loved 3e, I'm going to disagree with you here.  3e was fantastic in that it added a better skill system, feats, class abilities, and so on.  However, it really did start to become cumbersome and break down towards the end with how many options there were and having as many rules as it did.  I can't begin to tell you how many fights or even social encounters were disrupted as we had to pour over books to find this rule or that so we could get the wording.




I won't dispute your (and many others') experience regarding high-level play, although I will say that I had a blast playing a sorcerer to level 30 (yeah, the epic level rules sucked, but they were all we had!). That group had 12 (!) people, so even the low-level combat was tedious, so it's hard for me to separate system issues from just having a cumbersome group to begin with. I've never been part of a group since that was able to avoid disintegrating long enough to get that high again.



> The insanely high bonuses to rolls was also an issue.  5e has gone back to that, but in a much more streamlined way.




Are we talking about the same game? 5E has very low bonuses to die rolls. How you can say this and then in the next paragraph talk about Bounded Accuracy (5E's answer to the high bonuses) escapes me.



> You are correct that the building options are anemic compared to 3e, and I would like to see more options than we have been given, but it still needs to be a lot less than 3e gave us.  WotC has a history of overreacting to issues, though.  You can see it in 5e with the over reduced options being put out, and in bounded accuracy, which while needed, has been bounded too much.  People like a feeling of advancement and bonuses provided a clearer view of that.  I think +10 over 20 levels would have been a better way to go.




As I've said above, the problem I have with 5E is the variety of "hooks" for character building in the system, not the number of options using those hooks. The latter problem can be fixed by either not allowing books if you feel there are too many, or making your own if you feel there are too few. The former problem can only be fixed by tweaking the system itself, a much more daunting task.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 11, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> But, they take more time to resolve, especially when each is at a different attack bonus.




Seconds only.  I had the bonuses written down on my sheet as something like +12, +7, +2.  It doesn't take more than a few seconds of time to roll another 20 sided and add the next number to it.  So in a group like that, you'd have the fighter with his 3 attacks, the paladin with his 3 attacks, the cleric with his 2 attacks OR a nasty spell that as effective as 3 or 4(or more) attacks at destroying monsters, and the wizard with his spell that's as nasty as 2-4(or more) attacks at destroying monsters.  That will save time in the long run over each person gets one attack that might miss and do nothing.  Addition rounds of combat add a lot more time than the extra seconds that the extra attacks added to 3e.


----------



## houser2112 (Jul 11, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I had the bonuses written down on my sheet as something like +12, +7, +2.  It doesn't take more than a few seconds of time to roll another 20 sided and add the next number to it.




i went even further, baking all the bonuses that would go into rolling attacks into the final number (BAB, Weapon Focus, magic weapon bonus, ability bonus, etc). I had a table with a row for each weapon, and multiple rows if I was a ranged specialist for Rapid Shot and the like.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 11, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> I won't dispute your (and many others') experience regarding high-level play, although I will say that I had a blast playing a sorcerer to level 30 (yeah, the epic level rules sucked, but they were all we had!). That group had 12 (!) people, so even the low-level combat was tedious, so it's hard for me to separate system issues from just having a cumbersome group to begin with. I've never been part of a group since that was able to avoid disintegrating long enough to get that high again.




A large group will definitely color game play.  We played with 4-5 players and a DM.



> Are we talking about the same game? 5E has very low bonuses to die rolls. How you can say this and then in the next paragraph talk about Bounded Accuracy (5E's answer to the high bonuses) escapes me.




Yes we are.  As I said, 3e went waaaaaay too high with bonuses.  5e goes too low, but the bonuses really needed(in my opinion) to be lowered from where 3e and 4e took them.



> As I've said above, the problem I have with 5E is the variety of "hooks" for character building in the system, not the number of options using those hooks. The latter problem can be fixed by either not allowing books if you feel there are too many, or making your own if you feel there are too few. The former problem can only be fixed by tweaking the system itself, a much more daunting task.



Unless the book was broken, like Nine Swords, I had trouble not allowing books.  Players like different books and to arbitrarily ax this book, but not that one usually ended up making one player unhappy.  The alternative of axing all extra books to be fair just ended up reducing the options too much.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 11, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> i went even further, baking all the bonuses that would go into rolling attacks into the final number (BAB, Weapon Focus, magic weapon bonus, ability bonus, etc). I had a table with a row for each weapon, and multiple rows if I was a ranged specialist for Rapid Shot and the like.




I did, too.  I just threw out arbitrary numbers there, which after seeing your response, looks like it was just the base attack.  I added them all in with the exception of spell bonuses, which varied from combat to combat.  Most of those came before combat began, though, and it was easy enough to just add +5 to my attack and damage numbers, and write the final number on a piece of scratch paper if bull's strength or that cleric spell(can't remember the name) that gave +3, +3 and an extra attack was cast.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 11, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> There were people that didn't do this? oO
> 
> .




.. and there were DM's that specifically found ways to kill the characters of the players who did this, and told them about it ..

Nothing says "kill me" like telling a DM that you're going to be something before you earn it.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 11, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, I don't think people really missed a huge amount in practice. I mean, AD&D lacked anything like multi-attacks either, and to-hits were a lot lower, yet it was never called the reason for slow combats (though IME it was no faster than 4e).




AD&D had multiple attacks - all the way back to 1e - they were just limited to the fighter types. In fact, they got a significant boost from specialization when it was introduced in Unearthed Arcana in the middle of 1e's run. And while to-hit bonuses might have been lower, the ability to hit certainly wasn't lacking. ACs were largely confined to a 20 point range overall, and most fell within a 10 point range. Add in the lack of a constitution bonus for monsters (much less one driven higher for larger creatures) and combats were a heck of a lot faster.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 11, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> With the exception of Concentration (the Highlander-ification part, not the get-hit-make-a-save part),



 I thought I was a total Highlander fan, but I do not get the analogy...?



> I like the changes that 5E made to the spellcasting system as a whole



 To me, relative to 3.5, it was a rearranging deck chairs exercise, but one that did leave a less obstructed path to the life boats.  



> . The paleovancian sacred cow was finally slaughtered, and if you squint the upcasting mechanic



 To be fair, 5e killed no sacred cows, it was 4e that engaged in alien cattle mutilator level sacred cow slaughter.

5e just revivified the dead Vancian sacred cow as the neo-Vancian fast-zombie sacred cow.

And, upcasting seems a natural development from 3e metamagic, and is consistent with the even greater flexibility of neo-Vancian.



> Fiddliness obviously doesn't bother me, especially when it allows you to pick up skills later in your character's life without waiting potentially 4 levels and using a very precious resource to do so.



 Scaling only with ranks didn't really let you do that, though, because of the need to max ranks to keep up.  If you switched from maintaining one skill to building up another, you ended up capable in neither.  

5e proficiency is actually a step up from that, though a smaller step than 4e 1/2 level & training....


----------



## houser2112 (Jul 11, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> houser2112 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!



			
				Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> To be fair, 5e killed no sacred cows, it was 4e that engaged in alien cattle mutilator level sacred cow slaughter. 5e just revivified the dead Vancian sacred cow as the neo-Vancian fast-zombie sacred cow.




I certainly won't argue that 4E elevated the slaughter to war crime levels.



			
				Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> And, upcasting seems a natural development from 3e metamagic, and is consistent with the even greater flexibility of neo-Vancian.




I see it as being afraid to go full psionic, but I'll take it nonetheless.


----------



## MwaO (Jul 11, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> When I did see problems with turns 'taking too long' it was the players who were disengaged when it wasn't their turns - not even all of them, the old 'wake me when the fight starts' type players slipped off into their usual comas - were the ones that complained.  That kind of player really needs to be dominant, the center of attention, to be engaged, at all, when someone else is having their moment, they shut down.  The most destructive spiral is when you get a player like that, and he gets the idea of 'leading by example' (because he's accustomed to dominating play) and taking really /fast/ turns, which exacerbates his frustration.




Right. Now throw one of those guys into most home games and you quickly end up with the problem that 4e ended up having.

Namely, that guy said, "Hey, I hate 4e, PF seems good, why don't we play that instead? Or else I might stop showing up and then there's no game..."


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 11, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!



 Tenuous.  

I don't see how the alternative:  concentrate on multiple spells, check to see which drop when you're hit, would make a lot if sense.

Frankly I prefer old-school concentration (no roll, just ruined on taking damage, required on all casting, with loss of slot when iterrupted) or 4e Sustain (took an action every turn) as either would be a more meaningful limitation.



> I certainly won't argue that 4E elevated the slaughter to war crime levels.



 We really shouldn't dilute the impact of horrific, RL wrongs like genocide or (edition) war crimes by using them as analogies for rule changes to our silly little magic elf game - no matter how apt they may be.

But, clearly, there was not enough salt sown in the Vancian fields. (I figure its been long enough since Carthage.)


----------



## MwaO (Jul 11, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> But, clearly, there was not enough salt sown in the Vancian field. (I figure its been long enough since Carthage.)




Animate Dead Bovine apparently can be cast multiple times per edition…


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 11, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> .. and there were DM's that specifically found ways to kill the characters of the players who did this, and told them about it ..
> 
> Nothing says "kill me" like telling a DM that you're going to be something before you earn it.




Meh, then just make exactly the same character and do it again  and again and again.

Really rub that DMs face in it.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 11, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Meh, then just make exactly the same character and do it again  and again and again.
> 
> Really rub that DMs face in it.




This thought process has a significant declining return.
1. You'll get killed again and again if irrational thought prevails.
2. Smart DM will ask you to leave if it really bothers him.  So you're only messing with yourself.

Signing off
KB


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 11, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> This thought process has a significant declining return.
> 1. You'll get killed again and again if irrational thought prevails.
> 2. Smart DM will ask you to leave if it really bothers him.  So you're only messing with yourself.
> 
> ...




Number 2 does not apply because a smart DM would not kill a character just because a Player plans out their character arc.

In reality people have a idea of what they want to be and then go out and do it all the time.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 11, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> So you're only messing with yourself.



 It's a hypothetical he's not actually doing it just talking about it:  he's only messing with _you_.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 11, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Number 2 does not apply because a smart DM would not kill a character just because a Player plans out their character arc.
> 
> In reality people have a idea of what they want to be and then go out and do it all the time.




Lets' not get into "what happens in reality" unless it happens at the table during a game.  It's a classic crutch used by folks all the time and it doesn't ever end well.

I think the term "smart" is relative so I'm sorry I introduced it.  Opened up the floor to the "reality" comment.

Simply put.  If you know your DM prefers players to organically grow their character based on what happens to it during play; don't go letting him know that you built out 20 levels of awesome because it really shows the DM that you don't care about sharing the experience as much as you do playing your cool build.  Desire the cool build, and if the DM does nothing to give you other cool options by all means play it.

(Breaking my request about "reality" to make a point)

Because "in reality", people who wanted to be astronauts grow up to man a fryolator all the time.  Reality has a way of making kids who want to be doctors into lawyers too.  Reality is that you're not in a bubble when you play at a table with other people and the cool build at level 1 isn't going to work if you stick with the same game til level 20, never does.  

So you know my bias, I had to learn that lesson the hard way.  

KB


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 12, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Lets' not get into "what happens in reality" unless it happens at the table during a game.  It's a classic crutch used by folks all the time and it doesn't ever end well.
> 
> I think the term "smart" is relative so I'm sorry I introduced it.  Opened up the floor to the "reality" comment.
> 
> ...




You know I would love to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Just give me one reasonable excuse for a DM to go out of their way to cheat and kill a PC just because the Player is excited enough to try and plan out their character build.

I mean the PC still has to adventure to earn XP to level up so it is not as if the Player is trying to some how cheat the system.  They still earn their levels the normal way.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 12, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> I'm not sure what you're talking about. 2E had multi-attacks, and the schedule of when they happened was accelerated if you specialized. I'm pretty sure this rule went as far back as 1E, as well.




I wouldn't classify them as like what he was talking about. Anyway, they were so simple that it wasn't an issue. AD&D fighter attack bonus was pretty much a fixed number, all the time. It might be slightly different for a different weapon, but it was easy to just write the bonus on the line for that weapon. 

Honestly though, I think the amount of variance in attack bonuses in 4e is being exaggerated a bit.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 12, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> As someone who loved 3e, I'm going to disagree with you here.  3e was fantastic in that it added a better skill system, feats, class abilities, and so on.  However, it really did start to become cumbersome and break down towards the end with how many options there were and having as many rules as it did.  I can't begin to tell you how many fights or even social encounters were disrupted as we had to pour over books to find this rule or that so we could get the wording.  The insanely high bonuses to rolls was also an issue.  5e has gone back to that, but in a much more streamlined way.
> 
> You are correct that the building options are anemic compared to 3e, and I would like to see more options than we have been given, but it still needs to be a lot less than 3e gave us.  WotC has a history of overreacting to issues, though.  You can see it in 5e with the over reduced options being put out, and in bounded accuracy, which while needed, has been bounded too much.  People like a feeling of advancement and bonuses provided a clearer view of that.  I think +10 over 20 levels would have been a better way to go.




3.x just has a HUGE problem with casters being gods and everyone else being irrelevant. There are very few real limitations on casting and those are easily overcome if your DM actually tries to make an issue of them in practice. When the best you can be as a non-caster is tier 3, no matter what you do build-wise short of being handed something like 5 of the best items in the book, its pretty ridiculous. Even then you won't approach the versatility of a tier 1 caster, not even close.

PF doesn't help this at all really. There were options that might do so in 3.5 books, IF you stopped using the PHB classes, but that was not a very viable option for most tables.

The skill system is also kind of a bummer, and MCing is rather crazy. The idea that it is only because of 'too many options' IMHO doesn't cut it either, 3.0 PHB already has all the issues of 3e, ready made on day one. It just IS cumbersome. Its hard to run monsters, etc. etc. etc. It may be fun to play for various reasons, and late 2e was WORSE, but the reason 4e came out was purely that 3e cannot be fixed, its problems are inherent.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 12, 2018)

billd91 said:


> AD&D had multiple attacks - all the way back to 1e - they were just limited to the fighter types. In fact, they got a significant boost from specialization when it was introduced in Unearthed Arcana in the middle of 1e's run. And while to-hit bonuses might have been lower, the ability to hit certainly wasn't lacking. ACs were largely confined to a 20 point range overall, and most fell within a 10 point range. Add in the lack of a constitution bonus for monsters (much less one driven higher for larger creatures) and combats were a heck of a lot faster.




I didn't actually find combats to be any faster in AD&D, particularly 2e, than in 4e. If the fight was pretty much not worth fighting and low level, then yeah, but why bother? This is why 4e just tells you to skip that stuff. Call it out as a scene "you run into 2 hall guards, you kill them before they can so much as take a step." 

Meaty AD&D fights still take an hour or more.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 12, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> I certainly won't argue that 4E elevated the slaughter to war crime levels.




Never had a better burger in my life


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 12, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> 3.x just has a HUGE problem with casters being gods and everyone else being irrelevant. There are very few real limitations on casting and those are easily overcome if your DM actually tries to make an issue of them in practice. When the best you can be as a non-caster is tier 3, no matter what you do build-wise short of being handed something like 5 of the best items in the book, its pretty ridiculous. Even then you won't approach the versatility of a tier 1 caster, not even close.




This only really matters if you care about that sort of thing, though.  The tier 3 classes were plenty good enough to stomp through the game.  Also, if the DM was like me and controlled magic items, then the spellcasters wouldn't be running around getting tomes and headbands of increase stat of choice.  The DCs didn't really spiral out of control unless the casters were raising their prime stat with items.  My groups happily played with casters and melee combatants.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> 3.x just has a HUGE problem with casters being gods and everyone else being irrelevant. There are very few real limitations on casting and those are easily overcome if your DM actually tries to make an issue of them in practice. When the best you can be as a non-caster is tier 3, no matter what you do build-wise short of being handed something like 5 of the best items in the book, its pretty ridiculous. Even then you won't approach the versatility of a tier 1 caster, not even close.
> 
> PF doesn't help this at all really. There were options that might do so in 3.5 books, IF you stopped using the PHB classes, but that was not a very viable option for most tables.
> 
> The skill system is also kind of a bummer, and MCing is rather crazy. The idea that it is only because of 'too many options' IMHO doesn't cut it either, 3.0 PHB already has all the issues of 3e, ready made on day one. It just IS cumbersome. Its hard to run monsters, etc. etc. etc. It may be fun to play for various reasons, and late 2e was WORSE, but the reason 4e came out was purely that 3e cannot be fixed, its problems are inherent.



Where you see bugs, others have seen features.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 12, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> This only really matters if you care about that sort of thing, though.  The tier 3 classes were plenty good enough to stomp through the game.  Also, if the DM was like me and controlled magic items, then the spellcasters wouldn't be running around getting tomes and headbands of increase stat of choice.  The DCs didn't really spiral out of control unless the casters were raising their prime stat with items.  My groups happily played with casters and melee combatants.






Dannyalcatraz said:


> Where you see bugs, others have seen features.




The flaw here is that this is not something DESIGNERS can work with. When they are relegated to making every single non-full-casting class basically irrelevant in most play, that is a huge roadblock to doing all sorts of things with the game. This is the fundamental aspect of 3.x which basically demanded the creation of a new edition at some point. The 3e paradigm is simply not suited to vast swaths of fantasy, even within what D&D could do in principle. If you're going to gut the whole thing anyway, then you might as well tinker... 

I mean, there's no specific reason why d20, as it was envisaged in the 3e era, cannot form the basis of a perfectly good FRPG, but its HARD to do because 3e is already sucking up that air. D20 Modern was reasonably successful, because it did exactly that, it tossed casting and did away with most of the problematic class mechanics. Things like Iron Heroes worked OK, but just can't compete with D&D. PF hit on what was obviously a solid middle ground, they didn't fix the issues, but they did rework a lot of the details enough to make a game that was both 3.x and at the same time not QUITE 3.x. It is interesting to see however that PF2 is going down the 4e path, because sooner or later designers just get tired of what they can't do on the 3e chassis.

And I totally disagree with you Max. It has very little to do with caster stats and some certain items. Nobody is going to deliberately run dumb casters in 3.x. So any limitations put in place by below 16 on a prime stat is meaningless, and most people who are going to seriously play a wizard will give him an 18 INT right off. That's all it really takes. One feat to get rid of interruptions of casting, and a couple other modest tweaks, and you're gold. Even without those you're still tier 1 and the non-casters are starting out behind you at level 1 and getting further behind with every level. Fighter types terrible save progression is just icing on the cake! 

This is the nature of 3e, it just is.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2018)

> Nobody is going to deliberately run dumb casters in 3.x.




Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

(And yes, it WAS an Int-based casting class).

FWIW, I’ve also played low-STR martial PCs, too.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 12, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> The flaw here is that this is not something DESIGNERS can work with. When they are relegated to making every single non-full-casting class basically irrelevant in most play, that is a huge roadblock to doing all sorts of things with the game. This is the fundamental aspect of 3.x which basically demanded the creation of a new edition at some point. The 3e paradigm is simply not suited to vast swaths of fantasy, even within what D&D could do in principle. If you're going to gut the whole thing anyway, then you might as well tinker...
> 
> I mean, there's no specific reason why d20, as it was envisaged in the 3e era, cannot form the basis of a perfectly good FRPG, but its HARD to do because 3e is already sucking up that air. D20 Modern was reasonably successful, because it did exactly that, it tossed casting and did away with most of the problematic class mechanics. Things like Iron Heroes worked OK, but just can't compete with D&D. PF hit on what was obviously a solid middle ground, they didn't fix the issues, but they did rework a lot of the details enough to make a game that was both 3.x and at the same time not QUITE 3.x. It is interesting to see however that PF2 is going down the 4e path, because sooner or later designers just get tired of what they can't do on the 3e chassis.
> 
> ...




You can say that, and you can disagree with me, but you can't change the facts.  The fact is that I was never irrelevant, whether I played a caster or non-caster.  Nobody in a game I ran was irrelevant, caster or non-caster.  Sure the power imbalance doesn't itself render anyone relevant or irrelevant.  Only way a person will be relevant or irrelevant is through his perceptions of that imbalance.   You perceive yourself to be irrelevant as a non-caster, so you are.  I don't, so I am not.


----------



## houser2112 (Jul 12, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> .. and there were DM's that specifically found ways to kill the characters of the players who did this, and told them about it .. Nothing says "kill me" like telling a DM that you're going to be something before you earn it.




Man, I've played with dick DMs before, I wouldn't wish that on anyone.



Shasarak said:


> Meh, then just make exactly the same character and do it again  and again and again. Really rub that DMs face in it.




Just claim you're like the guy from my high school games, who played a human male sword-and-board fighter in every single campaign.



Kobold Boots said:


> If you know your DM prefers players to organically grow their character based on what happens to it during play; don't go letting him know that you built out 20 levels of awesome because it really shows the DM that you don't care about sharing the experience as much as you do playing your cool build.  Desire the cool build, and if the DM does nothing to give you other cool options by all means play it.




I agree that you should hide your audacity to plan a character ahead of time. The only problem with this is that often the road to even the most obvious PrCs involve somewhat unintuitive build choices to get into them before the campaign ends. Again, playing with dick DMs sucks.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I wouldn't classify them as like what he was talking about. Anyway, they were so simple that it wasn't an issue. AD&D fighter attack bonus was pretty much a fixed number, all the time. It might be slightly different for a different weapon, but it was easy to just write the bonus on the line for that weapon.
> 
> Honestly though, I think the amount of variance in attack bonuses in 4e is being exaggerated a bit.




Hey, I was just refuting your statement that multi-attack didn't exist before 3, not making any value judgements.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 12, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> You know I would love to give you the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> Just give me one reasonable excuse for a DM to go out of their way to cheat and kill a PC just because the Player is excited enough to try and plan out their character build.
> 
> I mean the PC still has to adventure to earn XP to level up so it is not as if the Player is trying to some how cheat the system.  They still earn their levels the normal way.




Thanks for the consideration.

I don't see this as being something that necessarily requires an excuse.  I'm also not trying to defend anyone who acts this way.  I simply see it as a matter of courtesy and a learning methodology.  As I've said before in other places; it's impossible for the DM to "cheat" due to Rule 0 so I'm removing that as a condition to this answer completely.  

When it happened to me, builds weren't even a thing yet.  I was playing 1e and laid designs on getting to name level, starting a stronghold and becoming a lord of the area around a town called Haven.  (because every campaign had a town called Haven back in the day it seems).  Nevermind that I started at 0 level and had a DM that was big on story who wanted folks to develop their characters based on events that happened in the game in a more organic way.  I wanted what I wanted, and didn't bother to ask the group what they were playing or what their goals were.

First time I died it was because the rogue in the group was being paid to protect the interests of the lords of the town.  
Second time I died it was because my interests ran contrary to the religious powers who were entrenched in the town.
.. this started getting expensive ..

End of the day, my ranger ended up being a rogue/fighter because that was the best combination that allowed for success given what I wanted to be doing.  I wouldn't even consider building a character to level 20 ahead of time when playing 3rd ed, because I wouldn't expect to live to see it.  Wasted time and effort.  

Point being: What you want to be often isn't what will work best given the world, the story at hand and the players at the table with you.  I get that there's a portion of the player community that focuses heavily on optimizing things for their own reasons.. but I don't see the point based on my experiences.  If yours are different, all the power in the world to you.

Be well,
KB


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 12, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> When it happened to me, builds weren't even a thing yet.  I was playing 1e and laid designs on getting to name level, starting a stronghold and becoming a lord of the area around a town called Haven.




I first encountered the concept of builds playing 1e AD&D in the late '80's.  Builds weren't a thing in AD&D if and only if the group consensus on ability scores was to keep them fairly low.   If the group used ability score generation methodologies that consistently generated above average ability scores, or if they tolerated cheating of some sort in ability score generation (rolling up characters until you got what you wanted, or fudging results, which are really the same thing), then builds were very much a thing in 1e.   They were relatively straight forward compared to what you'd see develop as almost its own separate 'charop' game in 3e, but they existed and involved system mastery and could vastly outperform groups that built characters based on other whims than manipulating the rules into creating the most powerful character possible.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 12, 2018)

Celebrim said:


> If the group used ability score generation methodologies that consistently generated above average ability scores, or if they tolerated cheating of some sort in ability score generation, then builds were very much a thing in 1e.   They were relatively straight forward...



 That's a build the way a dugout canoe is the Titanic.  Primitive & much less elaborate, also unlikely to be sunk by an iceberg in the middle of the North Atlantic.


----------



## Henry (Jul 12, 2018)

Ted Serious said:


> Pathfinder 2 is still taking shape.  It seems truer to the direction D&D was going than 4e was.  It would have been less controversial and done better.   5e would not have been needed.




What a difference ten years makes. So many of the changes that 4e made have similarities in changes to PF2 (skill ranks by level instead of points; attacks, AC, and saves driven by level instead of charts; much tighter math for both PCs and monster creation rules) as have some ideas that we saw in 5e (such as a version of the "Groovian" magic system) . A large number of Pathfinder players are pretty happy with these changes (I'm not going to say "most", because I can't say with certainty). O do know that in addition to a lot of people online, that my home group is pretty stoked about all they've read so far.

I think it proved, if anything, that a lot of people just weren't ready for a change back then, and the way the change was handled was more of the problem than the changes themselves.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 13, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I didn't actually find combats to be any faster in AD&D, particularly 2e, than in 4e. If the fight was pretty much not worth fighting and low level, then yeah, but why bother? This is why 4e just tells you to skip that stuff. Call it out as a scene "you run into 2 hall guards, you kill them before they can so much as take a step."
> 
> Meaty AD&D fights still take an hour or more.




I agree that you can have long fights in any DnD system.

The main problem for me with 4e fights was that *every** fight was a long fight.



*OK so we did have one fast fight where the Rogue went first and hit and killed every minion with an AoE.  But I guess that would be an equivalent to the 2 guards example above.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 13, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Thanks for the consideration.
> 
> I don't see this as being something that necessarily requires an excuse.  I'm also not trying to defend anyone who acts this way.  I simply see it as a matter of courtesy and a learning methodology.  As I've said before in other places; it's impossible for the DM to "cheat" due to Rule 0 so I'm removing that as a condition to this answer completely.




I dont buy the excuse that having a rule saying that you can cheat means you can not cheat.  Sure you can have a party walk into a room of 50 Orcs and every single Orc pulls out their javelin and throws at the one guy.  I have seen the comic too:




If that happened to my character and then DM started bragging about it then I would not turn up with another character.



> When it happened to me, builds weren't even a thing yet.  I was playing 1e and laid designs on getting to name level, starting a stronghold and becoming a lord of the area around a town called Haven.  (because every campaign had a town called Haven back in the day it seems).  Nevermind that I started at 0 level and had a DM that was big on story who wanted folks to develop their characters based on events that happened in the game in a more organic way.  I wanted what I wanted, and didn't bother to ask the group what they were playing or what their goals were.
> 
> First time I died it was because the rogue in the group was being paid to protect the interests of the lords of the town.
> Second time I died it was because my interests ran contrary to the religious powers who were entrenched in the town.
> ...




I am sorry to hear about your bad experiences.  It really sucks when the DM railroads your character like that.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 13, 2018)

Henry said:


> What a difference ten years makes. So many of the changes that 4e made have similarities in changes to PF2 (skill ranks by level instead of points; attacks, AC, and saves driven by level instead of charts; much tighter math for both PCs and monster creation rules) as have some ideas that we saw in 5e (such as a version of the "Groovian" magic system) . A large number of Pathfinder players are pretty happy with these changes (I'm not going to say "most", because I can't say with certainty). O do know that in addition to a lot of people online, that my home group is pretty stoked about all they've read so far.
> 
> I think it proved, if anything, that a lot of people just weren't ready for a change back then, and the way the change was handled was more of the problem than the changes themselves.




So true. As a 4e fan, PF2 is really feeling like a lot of the ideas I loved from that game are getting a second chance. I really hope it catches on. I think it would be delightfully ironic if PF2 became the game 4e fans spurned by 5e adopt.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 13, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> So true. As a 4e fan, PF2 is really feeling like a lot of the ideas I loved from that game are getting a second chance. I really hope it catches on. I think it would be delightfully ironic if PF2 became the game 4e fans spurned by 5e adopt.




I can't say I'm see'n the resemblance.

PF was an outright, perfectly legal SRD/OGL clone of 3.5, fans who felt spurned got back exactly what they felt they had lost.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 13, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I can't say I'm see'n the resemblance.
> 
> PF was an outright, perfectly legal SRD/OGL clone of 3.5, fans who felt spurned got back exactly what they felt they had lost.




It's not 1:1 but it's still an amusing parallel. 4e spurned 3e fans, they turned to PF1. 5e spurned 4e fans, they may end up turning to PF2.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 13, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> If that happened to my character and then DM started bragging about it then I would not turn up with another character.




Sure.  That's usually what I append to my "DM can't cheat" argument.  The players have a choice as to where they spend their time.



> I am sorry to hear about your bad experiences.  It really sucks when the DM railroads your character like that.




Thank you for the well wishes.  

I think it's important to let you know though that at the time I didn't see it as a bad experience.  I still don't.   Guy was a better friend to me than I was to him and now that I'm the guy that has all of his campaign notes whatever I didn't understand fully I do now.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 13, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> It's not 1:1 but it's still an amusing parallel. 4e spurned 3e fans, they turned to PF1. 5e spurned 4e fans, they may end up turning to PF2.




That's unlikely.  3e fans turned to Pathfinder, because it was essentially 3e.  Pathfinder 2 is being billed as similar, even compatible with Pathfinder, which means that it is not essentially 4e, so it's not really something that 4e fans would turn to.  More likely they will just go to a new system altogether or continue playing 4e.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 13, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Sure.  That's usually what I append to my "DM can't cheat" argument.  The players have a choice as to where they spend their time.




Absolutely.  The DM cannot cheat, but if he abuses his power he will soon find himself without players.


----------



## houser2112 (Jul 13, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> As a 4e fan, PF2 is really feeling like a lot of the ideas I loved from that game are getting a second chance. I really hope it catches on. I think it would be delightfully ironic if PF2 became the game 4e fans spurned by 5e adopt.




While there may be a lot of ideas from 4E going into PF2, I don't think its enough to make a 4E fan give up that edition. PF2 lacks AEDU, which I see as the mechanic that defines 4E, the reason to play or not play that game.


----------



## Ted Serious (Jul 13, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> So true. As a 4e fan, PF2 is really feeling like a lot of the ideas I loved from that game are getting a second chance. I really hope it catches on. I think it would be delightfully ironic if PF2 became the game 4e fans spurned by 5e adopt.



4e failed for want of fans. Even if they all feel spurned by 5e that would be a bad market to sell too.

There may be some convergent evolution.  Pathfinder 2 is evolving directly from Pathfinder.  Pathfinder evolved from D&D.

4e was a sterile hybrid of D&D and Wow that went extinct and 5e is devolving back towards AD&D.  

But sharing some traits is inevitable.  They're all still closely related.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 13, 2018)

Ted Serious said:


> 4e failed for want of fans. Even if they all feel spurned by 5e that would be a bad market to sell too.



 4e failed to hit a revenue goal set by Hasbro that even the entire industry, today, would still be failing to meet.



houser2112 said:


> While there may be a lot of ideas from 4E going into PF2, I don't think its enough to make a 4E fan give up that edition. PF2 lacks AEDU, which I see as the mechanic that defines 4E, the reason to play or not play that game.



 OTOH, total lack of support for the last 6 years goes a fair way towards getting you to give up an edition. 

And AEDU isn't so much the core/essence of 4e, as the consistency with which it was applied.  It could have been AED or ADU or LMNOP, or , IDK, everyone getting feats like a 3.0 fighter and all you abilities coming from them...

...hey, that last is maybe just a bit like PF2, afterall.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 13, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> 4e failed to hit a revenue goal set by Hasbro that even the entire industry, today, would still be failing to meet.
> 
> OTOH, total lack of support for the last 6 years goes a fair way towards getting you to give up an edition.
> 
> ...




I still play and like first edition   Granted with the advent of 5e, there's more and more 1e love coming out; but I think it was pretty bleak in terms of real support for a while there. 

Agreed otherwise.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 13, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> That's unlikely.  3e fans turned to Pathfinder, because it was essentially 3e.  Pathfinder 2 is being billed as similar, even compatible with Pathfinder, which means that it is not essentially 4e, so it's not really something that 4e fans would turn to.  More likely they will just go to a new system altogether or continue playing 4e.





houser2112 said:


> While there may be a lot of ideas from 4E going into PF2, I don't think its enough to make a 4E fan give up that edition. PF2 lacks AEDU, which I see as the mechanic that defines 4E, the reason to play or not play that game.



I _am_ a 4e fan seriously considering turning to PF2, so it can’t be that remote a possibility. Even if it’s not a 4e clone, it has a lot of elements of 4e that I love, along with some new ideas that I like such as the 3-Action economy and Bulk. And one very important thing that 4e doesn’t have - active support.

AEDU isn’t really that core to 4e’s identity to me. PF2 already adopted the part of AEDU I liked the most, which was the clear, concise, and consistent presentation of powers and abilities. I get the impression that people who don’t like 4e grossly misunderstand what the people who do like it like about it. That’s also why I’m seeing tons of 4e fans comparing PF2 to 4e, and tons of non-4e fans saying they don’t see the similarity.



Ted Serious said:


> 4e failed for want of fans. Even if they all feel spurned by 5e that would be a bad market to sell too.



What Tony Vargas said.



Ted Serious said:


> There may be some convergent evolution.  Pathfinder 2 is evolving directly from Pathfinder.  Pathfinder evolved from D&D.



Of course there is. I’m not saying PF2 is directly trying to appeal to 4e fans. I’m saying it’s design appeals to 4e fans for similar reasons 4e does, and might offer us an actively supporter game that suits our tastes.



Ted Serious said:


> 4e was a sterile hybrid of D&D and Wow that went extinct and 5e is devolving back towards AD&D.



Woah there, shots fired. Let’s not try to start an Edition war here.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 13, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> . And one very important thing that 4e doesn’t have - active support.



 True.  3.5 fans have had active support the whole time, but for maybe a year between the end of 3.5 and release of PF.  4e fans have been without active support since 2012.  



> AEDU isn’t really that core to 4e’s identity to me. PF2 already adopted the part of AEDU I liked the most, which was the clear, concise, and consistent presentation of powers and abilities.



 Maybe I need to look at it more carefully, but it seemed like casters were still basically Vancian, for instance.  Avoiding dead levels is something PF was already doing, and even 5e does, sorta.  So IDK...



> I get the impression that people who don’t like 4e grossly misunderstand what the people who do like it like about it. That’s also why I’m seeing tons of 4e fans comparing PF2 to 4e, and tons of non-4e fans saying they don’t see the similarity.



 I don't see the similarity.  Exception that proves the rule, I guess. ;|



> Of course there is. I’m not saying PF2 is directly trying to appeal to 4e fans. I’m saying it’s design appeals to 4e fans for similar reasons 4e does, and might offer us an actively supporter game that suits our tastes.



 I can't imagine a game even half as balanced as 4e could pass muster with 3.5/PF fans.



> Woah there, shots fired. Let’s not try to start an Edition war here.



Better not to quote that stuff.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 13, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> 4e failed to hit a revenue goal set by Hasbro that even the entire industry, today, would still be failing to meet.




If that were more a factor in 4e's failure than Ted Serious's want of fans, then 5e would never have been green-lit. There's no real prospect of 5e meeting that standard either, but there was the real prospect that it would do significantly better than 4e and that's a function of bringing in more fans - old and new - than 4e.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 13, 2018)

billd91 said:


> ...then 5e would never have been green-lit. There's no real prospect of 5e meeting that standard either....



 Apparently, the whole "Core Brand" concept that called for such an unrealistic goal was just dropped.  If it had been dropped a couple years earlier, 4e may not have gotten the desperate Essentials-redesign... a few years before that, might not have existed at all.

Business.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 13, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> True.  3.5 fans have had active support the whole time, but for maybe a year between the end of 3.5 and release of PF.  4e fans have been without active support since 2012.



Precisely. It’s the reason I settle for 5e when I would really rather be playing 4e.



Tony Vargas said:


> Maybe I need to look at it more carefully, but it seemed like casters were still basically Vancian, for instance.  Avoiding dead levels is something PF was already doing, and even 5e does, sorta.  So IDK...



Yeah, casting is definitely still Vancian, and that’s something I imagine a lot of other 4e fans would have to get past before they’d adopt PF2. I’m ok with it, personally, but I know the potential for martial/caster disparity is very much there and will be a huge sticking point for the majority of 4e fans. Personally, I’m one of the odd ones who’s ok with different classes having different resource games. At any rate, I appreciate that spells and non-spell actions alike have very clear, consistent presentation. The little ability, spell, and item blocks are right out of 4e, and I love how easy it makes it to tell exactly what something does. I also like the way every character not only gets _something_ at every level, but gets a _choice_ at every level, and that everyone will have interesting choices to make every turn as well. Those are probably the two most important things to me.



Tony Vargas said:


> I don't see the similarity.  Exception that proves the rule, I guess. ;|



I’m sure you’re not the only one who feels that way. I’ve also heard from folks who see both the similarities and some dealbreaking differences (Vancian magic and martial/caster disparity, again, being chief among them.)



Tony Vargas said:


> I can't imagine a game even half as balanced as 4e could pass muster with 3.5/PF fans.



Very true. And if 4e’s balance is one of its most important features to you, I don’t foresee PF2 being your game. I think I have a different outlook on game balance than the typical 4e fan, so this may be skewing my perception of PF2 as an evolution of 4e ideas.



Tony Vargas said:


> Better not to quote that stuff.



It probably is, but I have a hard time not calling it out.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 13, 2018)

billd91 said:


> If that were more a factor in 4e's failure than Ted Serious's want of fans, then 5e would never have been green-lit.



5e _would_ never have been green-lit had Hasbro not changed its policies.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 13, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> 5e _would_ never have been green-lit had Hasbro not changed its policies.



  The future of D&D was look'n pretty grim there for minute.

But, had that been the case, and D&D been shelved for the last six years, we still might be seeing the come-back, just with the OSR & PF (mabye a more 5e-like TSR-era-evoking PF2 or Advanced PathFinder or something) reaping the rewards and Hasbro not noticing/caring.



Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, casting is definitely still Vancian, and that’s something I imagine a lot of other 4e fans would have to get past before they’d adopt PF2. I’m ok with it, personally, but I know the potential for martial/caster disparity is very much there and will be a huge sticking point for the majority of 4e fans. ...At any rate, I appreciate that spells and non-spell actions alike have very clear, consistent presentation.



  See, to me, when I read: 


Charlaquin said:


> PF2 already adopted the part of AEDU I liked the most, which was the clear, concise, and consistent presentation of powers and abilities.



 I nod in agreement, but also think:  The /consistent/ part needs to include a consistent structure.  If there are going to be resource mixes dictated to the player, at all, they need to be comparable across classes (or any other build choices).  Clear is good, and concise is nice to have, but consistent means the game has a chance of being comparatively robust, thus more of the options it presents will be real (viable), and it can present more options with less risk of breaking.  Given PF's record when it comes to adding options, it could do with being a lot more robust.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 13, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> The future of D&D was look'n pretty grim there for minute.
> 
> But, had that been the case, and D&D been shelved for the last six years, we still might be seeing the come-back, just with the OSR & PF (mabye a more 5e-like TSR-era-evoking PF2 or Advanced PathFinder or something) reaping the rewards and Hasbro not noticing/caring.



Indeed. Things would definitely have gone differently. 



Tony Vargas said:


> See, to me, when I read:
> I nod in agreement, but also think:  The /consistent/ part needs to include a consistent structure.  If there are going to be resource mixes dictated to the player, at all, they need to be comparable across classes (or any other build choices).  Clear is good, and concise is nice to have, but consistent means the game has a chance of being comparatively robust, thus more of the options it presents will be real (viable), and it can present more options with less risk of breaking.  Given PF's record when it comes to adding options, it could do with being a lot more robust.



That’s totally fair, and I think a significant portion of the 4e fandom would aree with you, perhaps even the majority. Personally, I’m fine with different classes having different resource games, and it’s one of the things I actually preferred about Essentials. I appreciate the advantages that a unified resource structure provides, but it’s not a necessary feature for me personally. Like I said, I’m aware it makes me the odd one out among 4e fans, but it is what it is.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 13, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I _am_ a 4e fan seriously considering turning to PF2, so it can’t be that remote a possibility. Even if it’s not a 4e clone, it has a lot of elements of 4e that I love, along with some new ideas that I like such as the 3-Action economy and Bulk. And one very important thing that 4e doesn’t have - active support.
> 
> AEDU isn’t really that core to 4e’s identity to me. PF2 already adopted the part of AEDU I liked the most, which was the clear, concise, and consistent presentation of powers and abilities. I get the impression that people who don’t like 4e grossly misunderstand what the people who do like it like about it. That’s also why I’m seeing tons of 4e fans comparing PF2 to 4e, and tons of non-4e fans saying they don’t see the similarity.




People from 3e went to 4e, but the mass exodus to Pathfinder was because Pathfinder was actually 3e 2.0.  Pathfinder 2 is not 4e 2.0, even if there are some similarities.  Note, I never said nobody from 4e would make the switch.  I was saying that you aren't going to see the mass exodus to Pathfinder 2, because it just isn't 4e 2.0.   You considering(you haven't even committed yet  ) the switch doesn't change that.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 13, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> That’s totally fair, and I think a significant portion of the 4e fandom would aree with you, perhaps even the majority. Personally, I’m fine with different classes having different resource games, and it’s one of the things I actually preferred about Essentials. I appreciate the advantages that a unified resource structure provides, but it’s not a necessary feature for me personally. Like I said, I’m aware it makes me the odd one out among 4e fans, but it is what it is.



   4e had some sterling qualities, balance among them, and, as you point out, clarity & consistency.  But it's hard (and perhaps pointless) to point at one of them and say "most fans of this ed must like this specific thing."  We just don't have the statistics to back it up.  Maybe 4e fans will like PF2 if it's clear but not balanced, or balanced but not consistent, or maybe not.  

If what 4e fans liked mattered, we'd still have 4e.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 13, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> People from 3e went to 4e, but the mass exodus to Pathfinder was because Pathfinder was actually 3e 2.0.  Pathfinder 2 is not 4e 2.0, even if there are some similarities.  Note, I never said nobody from 4e would make the switch.  I was saying that you aren't going to see the mass exodus to Pathfinder 2, because it just isn't 4e 2.0.   You considering(you haven't even committed yet  ) the switch doesn't change that.



I feel like you’re arguing against a point I’m not trying to make. I’m not saying PF2 is 4e 2.0. I’m not saying there will be a mass exodus of 4e fans from 5e to PF2 (are there even that many 4e fans playing 5e?). I’m saying there are a lot of 4e fans who don’t like 5e, and PF2 looks like it may appeal to 4e fans - it does to me, as a 4e fan. And I will find it amusing if a not insignificant number of 4e fans adopt it in leu of other systems, because Paizo very much made their brand on the promise of being a haven from 4e.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 13, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I feel like you’re arguing against a point I’m not trying to make. I’m not saying PF2 is 4e 2.0. I’m not saying there will be a mass exodus of 4e fans from 5e to PF2 (are there even that many 4e fans playing 5e?). I’m saying there are a lot of 4e fans who don’t like 5e, and PF2 looks like it may appeal to 4e fans - it does to me, as a 4e fan. And I will find it amusing if a not insignificant number of 4e fans adopt it in leu of other systems, because Paizo very much made their brand on the promise of being a haven from 4e.




Fair enough.  I guess I misunderstood you.  It sounded to me like you were saying that it was going to be to 4e, what Pathfinder was to 3e.  I hope you enjoy it.  For my group, we're starting to really dig 5e.  It took us this long to begin playing it.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 13, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> I think it's important to let you know though that at the time I didn't see it as a bad experience.  I still don't.   Guy was a better friend to me than I was to him and now that I'm the guy that has all of his campaign notes whatever I didn't understand fully I do now.




I think that you can be a good friend and a bad DM at the same time.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 13, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Fair enough.  I guess I misunderstood you.  It sounded to me like you were saying that it was going to be to 4e, what Pathfinder was to 3e.  I hope you enjoy it.  For my group, we're starting to really dig 5e.  It took us this long to begin playing it.



For sure. Yeah, it’s definitely not to 4e as PF1 is to 3e. More like, both PF2 and 4e are evolutions of 3e design, and there are naturally going to be some ways in which they converge and others in which they diverge. But for me at least (and I suspect I’m far from alone in this), that’s a lot more appealing than 5e, which is in many ways a whole different branch, though still sharing a common ancestor in 2e.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 14, 2018)

> The future of D&D was look'n pretty grim there for minute.




The future of DnD was looking grim but not for the reason that you may be thinking.

When the pendulum of DnD swings right to the extreme edge of the DnD axis then either it shoots off the edge and fails or it comes back into the larger DnD tent.  Say what you will about 5e but it at least succeeded in returning to a more normal DnD base line.


----------



## houser2112 (Jul 14, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> The future of D&D was look'n pretty grim there for minute.
> 
> But, had that been the case, and D&D been shelved for the last six years, we still might be seeing the come-back, just with the OSR & PF (mabye a more 5e-like TSR-era-evoking PF2 or Advanced PathFinder or something) reaping the rewards and Hasbro not noticing/caring.




If we take Paizo at their word, that PF2 has been in development longer than 5E has been out in the wild, then I doubt PF2 would be all that "5e-like TSR-era-evoking".


----------



## Imaro (Jul 14, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> 5e _would_ never have been green-lit had Hasbro not changed its policies.




I have seen this stated on the forum a couple of times by 4e fans but I'm wondering where did this information (D&D no longer needing to be a core brand and 4e being ended because it didn't make core brand money) come from?  And if 4e was doing good to great why not just keep it rolling if D&D no longer needed to make core brand profits?  Or at least iterate on the design with the next edition since the pressure was no longer there.  In other words while the above may be true I don't see how that rules out something like 4e not having enough fans to be sustainable... and if it did...why such a radical departure in design?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 14, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> If what 4e fans liked mattered, we'd still have 4e.




I think you paint it too black and white - that either what 4e fans likes was everything, or completely ignored.  There is a middle ground - what they liked mattered, but not enough to have 5e be a clear evolution of the 4e ruleset.  In the long analysis, the 4e-style fans are probably not sufficient in number to support the main flagship of the brand, such that the design couldn't cater to them very strongly.  And the market simply isn't large enough for WotC to have much more than the flagship of the brand.  

If one sets aside the anger and partisanship that colors analysis though, one can see places where some things that 4e fans liked did get translated over.  For example - the at-will/encounter/daily structure still exists, in cantrip/short rest/long rest.  There are others.  But they had to be recast in ways that fit the more classic framework that apparently appeals to the larger audience.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 14, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
> 
> (And yes, it WAS an Int-based casting class).
> 
> FWIW, I’ve also played low-STR martial PCs, too.




OK, so someone did it once, someone ran a 12 STR fighter in 4e once too, no doubt. It isn't the way either game envisages characters being built and it isn't even remotely close to the norm. So is it really that relevant to a discussion of the game? I mean, yes, it is, if we're talking about how each game handles edge cases etc. In terms of how they normally play though? I'm not guessing the 3e or 4e designers were losing sleep over that.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 14, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> You can say that, and you can disagree with me, but you can't change the facts.  The fact is that I was never irrelevant, whether I played a caster or non-caster.  Nobody in a game I ran was irrelevant, caster or non-caster.  Sure the power imbalance doesn't itself render anyone relevant or irrelevant.  Only way a person will be relevant or irrelevant is through his perceptions of that imbalance.   You perceive yourself to be irrelevant as a non-caster, so you are.  I don't, so I am not.




You don't seem to want to hear it, but there's nothing you can say to deny it. Sure, you can say that you had fun in particular game X, Y, and/or Z. That is STILL NOT THE SAME THING as when I as an RPG designer sit down and try to do things with 3.x. I HAVE to confront and deal with the fact that casters are simply utterly dominant to a level where playing a non-caster past 5th level is actively contrary to the notion of being effective in play. Thus ONLY notions under which non-casters are not effective (except at the lowest levels) doesn't fly in 3.x! This isn't disputable Max. It is iron clad fact of the system.

And a REALLY large part of what made 4e so great for many of us was the opening up of this space in both story terms and mechanical terms. 30th level fighters that hang toe-to-toe with their wizard bretheren and can look them in the eye and honestly say they pull equal weight, that is a really big thing. Big enough that, in the end, it spelled the doom of all the 3.x based systems.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 14, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I agree that you can have long fights in any DnD system.
> 
> The main problem for me with 4e fights was that *every** fight was a long fight.
> 
> ...




What I find is the issue with 4e is that once you stop making the scenes very dynamic, then its pretty easy to get into a scenario where someone has a long turn, probably because they're standing face-to-face with some elite soldier trying to beat it down and scraping out every extra thingy they can lard onto their turn (APs, every magic item they can think of, etc.) and then everyone else is bored and wanders off and can't remember what is going on when their turn finally comes around, at which point THAT gets slow too, and then it drags on and on.

That can happen in AD&D as well, but if you have the typical party with a cleric full of heals (he ain't taking long, heal or bash something once with a mace), a wizard (the possibly long turn), a rogue (no length there), a fighter (another quicky unless he's got goblins to beat on), and a ranger (well, his might take a while, but less than the wizard). So basically you have 1.5 characters that are ever likely to really eat time. So it will get slow when you have lots of ranged attacks (multiple attacks), or some unclear situation (all too common in AD&D), or you're blessed with 3 or 4 casters (which can happen, particularly with elf-happy groups). Once the wizard takes 10 minutes figuring out his awesome spell fest, then it starts to slog from there on out. 

As I said, 4e does really well in dynamic situations, but it is admittedly a horrible game for running "steel cage death match" type room by room fights.


----------



## Gilladian (Jul 14, 2018)

I still play and run variants on 3.5e. It can work, with some house rules. My current campaign is Tier2 and lower - no wizards, no clerics. The pure fighter is the strongest PC by far, and the ranger is close behind. The henchman healer and sorcerer are 2 levels behind the PCs, and can’t hold a candle to them. The 4 pcs are 10th level; this is literally the highest level vampaign Ive run in years, since my normal mode is E6.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 14, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> It's not 1:1 but it's still an amusing parallel. 4e spurned 3e fans, they turned to PF1. 5e spurned 4e fans, they may end up turning to PF2.




The irony certainly is there. I don't think PF2 is nearly as far afield from 3.PF as 4e is though. At least not from what I can see so far. It still has basically a Vancian casting system with full-casters, half-casters, and non-casters, with each following entirely different resource rules and using completely different 'power' mechanics. It doesn't seem, so far, to have any real hints of provision for a story first kind of play, though I don't think that is entirely determinable at this point. It does have a 4e-like skill system, which helps. I do find the inclusion of things like Craft and Perform and the notions of 'downtime activities' to be at odds with 'Story Now' kind of concepts. 

There are also things about the PRESENTATION of 4e that I liked. It was clear, and it pretty much insured that the players would know what they were getting. I'm doubting PF is going to adopt that sort of presentation, universal keywording, explicit universal exception-based design, and extreme transparency.

Anyway, I'm certainly not prejudging it. There is also every chance it might break new ground in directions I haven't thought of yet.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 14, 2018)

billd91 said:


> If that were more a factor in 4e's failure than Ted Serious's want of fans, then 5e would never have been green-lit. There's no real prospect of 5e meeting that standard either, but there was the real prospect that it would do significantly better than 4e and that's a function of bringing in more fans - old and new - than 4e.




I would actually interpret 5e as what you get when Hasbro pulls the plug on D&D because of that failure and WotC says "Yeah, OK, we'll just call it another toy/game brand and put 3 guys on it and see if we can make some money." That's basically what happened. They have maybe 1/5 of the staff of 4e at its peak, and 1/8th of the product. Now, maybe the ROI on that is better, it would seem so, so good for them. Neither 4e nor 5e was ever going to hit that $50 million mark though, and trying surely lead to a lot of grasping at revenue straws which were best left ungrasped. It certainly was A factor. 

Nor did I actually perceive some vast lack of fans. I found tons of people to play with and packed tables in stores all the time. The business model was a little crazy though. ALL of the people that were players in my games just bought a couple of core books and then one person at each table got a DDI subscription and filled out everyone's sheets. It is EASY to see how that could halve your book sales right off the top, and that's all it took. The same group that had 2 4e PHBs now has 4 5e PHBs and several people have copies of the DMG and some of the newer books. With 4e NOBODY but me bought supplements, nobody, not one.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 14, 2018)

Gilladian said:


> I still play and run variants on 3.5e. It can work, with some house rules. My current campaign is Tier2 and lower - no wizards, no clerics. The pure fighter is the strongest PC by far, and the ranger is close behind. The henchman healer and sorcerer are 2 levels behind the PCs, and can’t hold a candle to them. The 4 pcs are 10th level; this is literally the highest level vampaign Ive run in years, since my normal mode is E6.




Right, and E6 basically exists to deal with 3.x's problems in a different way that appeals to fans of lower level play. I would have found it frustrating to be stuck with lower-level powers forever myself (I don't think I was in one of your 3.5 games long enough to get to that point). The 5e game we did was fun, and didn't break down at any point, which is a point in 5e's favor IMHO.

Maybe you should take a look at PF2!  I know though that you guys say you're just happy with what you have and don't want to change anymore. I feel the same way about 4e basically. 5e is not some bad game, nor probably is PF2, but 4e is the one I enjoy now.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 14, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> OK, so someone did it once, someone ran a 12 STR fighter in 4e once too, no doubt. It isn't the way either game envisages characters being built and it isn't even remotely close to the norm. So is it really that relevant to a discussion of the game? I mean, yes, it is, if we're talking about how each game handles edge cases etc. In terms of how they normally play though? I'm not guessing the 3e or 4e designers were losing sleep over that.





Well, more than once, if I’m honest.  “Edgelord” character players are like roaches- if there’s one, there are more.  

It’s not an issue designers are going to “lose sleep over”, but it is part of a peripheral concern about how robust a system is.  How many playstyle variants it can support.  The more flexible the system is in that regard, the more replayability it has.  Part of WHY I play characters like that is because I’ve been playing D&D since 1977.  I’ve played most of the archetypal characters, so playing something different- sometimes _radically_ so- helps keep me interested.  Furthermore, my doing so demonstrates broader possibilities to players who haven’t seen the outside of the box.  It is not an exaggeration to say I’ve had other experienced gamers ask me about my character design processes.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 14, 2018)

Imaro said:


> I have seen this stated on the forum a couple of times by 4e fans but I'm wondering where did this information (D&D no longer needing to be a core brand and 4e being ended because it didn't make core brand money) come from?



It’s not that D&D no longer needed to be a core brand, it’s that Hasbro changed its policies regarding core brands and what is required of them. And I believe the information came from WotC.



Imaro said:


> And if 4e was doing good to great why not just keep it rolling if D&D no longer needed to make core brand profits?  Or at least iterate on the design with the next edition since the pressure was no longer there.  In other words while the above may be true I don't see how that rules out something like 4e not having enough fans to be sustainable... and if it did...why such a radical departure in design?



Because while 4e did have its fan base, it did not grow the brand as much as would have been expected given the coinciding rise of geekdom in the mainstream. So they went back to the drawing board in hopes of devising an edition that would be more approachable to the mainstream geek audience, as well as to win back the long-time DMs (who unfortunately are too often needed as a way to bring new players in). And it worked. Very well.


----------



## Zeromaru X (Jul 14, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Nor did I actually perceive some vast lack of fans. I found tons of people to play with and packed tables in stores all the time. The business model was a little crazy though. ALL of the people that were players in my games just bought a couple of core books and then one person at each table got a DDI subscription and filled out everyone's sheets. It is EASY to see how that could halve your book sales right off the top, and that's all it took. The same group that had 2 4e PHBs now has 4 5e PHBs and several people have copies of the DMG and some of the newer books. With 4e NOBODY but me bought supplements, nobody, not one.




In my table, I was the guy with the DDI account. And the only one who bought suplements, as well. The other people playing in the store I used to play at the time, they only had the first DMG, PHB and MM. They relied on me for any other book. 

Anyways, PF2 seems intriging, but I'm also one of those who enjoys playing 4e over other editions/systems. I mean I tried playing 5e (and not only once; I genuinely tried to give 5e a chance), but it doesn't work for me.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 14, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> You don't seem to want to hear it, but there's nothing you can say to deny it. Sure, you can say that you had fun in particular game X, Y, and/or Z. That is STILL NOT THE SAME THING as when I as an RPG designer sit down and try to do things with 3.x. I HAVE to confront and deal with the fact that casters are simply utterly dominant to a level where playing a non-caster past 5th level is actively contrary to the notion of being effective in play. Thus ONLY notions under which non-casters are not effective (except at the lowest levels) doesn't fly in 3.x! This isn't disputable Max. It is iron clad fact of the system.




You are the one that doesn't seem to want to hear.  These are the facts about 3e with regard to caster vs. non-caster, at least with regards to this discussion.  1. there is a significant power disparity between the two in favor of casters.  2. casters are more effective than non-casters.  That's it.  Them's the facts.  There is no objective point at which non-casters become ineffective.  That idea is purely subjective and if you feel that non-casters are ineffective, that's your personal issue, not mine.  I've played 3e non-casters to 20th level and not once was I ever ineffective.  Depending on the build I was more or less effective, but never ineffective.  Nothing you say can change that.  It's a simple fact that I wasn't ineffective.

I also reject your Appeal to Authority.  Your being a game designer doesn't suddenly make my PCs ineffective.  



> And a REALLY large part of what made 4e so great for many of us was the opening up of this space in both story terms and mechanical terms. 30th level fighters that hang toe-to-toe with their wizard bretheren and can look them in the eye and honestly say they pull equal weight, that is a really big thing. Big enough that, in the end, it spelled the doom of all the 3.x based systems.



Yes.  I absolutely get that the power disparity shrank with 4e.  It did not, however, spell the doom of 3.x based systems.  Pathfinder did very well as a 3.x based system.


----------



## Henry (Jul 14, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> If we take Paizo at their word, that PF2 has been in development longer than 5E has been out in the wild, then I doubt PF2 would be all that "5e-like TSR-era-evoking".



Actually, they didn’t - in one of the Paizocon seminars, either Erik Mona or Jason Buhlman said it had been in active development for about two to two and a half years.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 14, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I feel like you’re arguing against a point I’m not trying to make. I’m not saying PF2 is 4e 2.0. I’m not saying there will be a mass exodus of 4e fans from 5e to PF2 (are there even that many 4e fans playing 5e?). I’m saying there are a lot of 4e fans who don’t like 5e, and PF2 looks like it may appeal to 4e fans - it does to me, as a 4e fan. And I will find it amusing if a not insignificant number of 4e fans adopt it in leu of other systems, because Paizo very much made their brand on the promise of being a haven from 4e.




Frankly, if PF2 succeeds in appealing to 4e fans,  it's more or less doomed.

The level of h4ter bigotry in the community is that overwhelming.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 14, 2018)

Zeromaru X said:


> In my table, I was the guy with the DDI account. And the only one who bought suplements, as well. The other people playing in the store I used to play at the time, they only had the first DMG, PHB and MM. They relied on me for any other book.




FWIW, we had one guy with a DDI account- the DM.  I, OTOH, was sort of my usual “Mr. Library” self...”sort of” being the key.  I bought the core 3 books, but decided quickly I’d never run 4Ed.  But I bought all of the books that presented options for PCs.

Nobody else bought a thing.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 14, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> It’s not that D&D no longer needed to be a core brand, it’s that Hasbro changed its policies regarding core brands and what is required of them. And I believe the information came from WotC.




Ryan Dancey predicted what would happen to DnD back in 2012 and it looks like things have played out almost exactly as he thought.



> It would have been very easy for Goldner et al to tell Wizards "you're done with D&D, put it on a shelf and we'll bring it back 10 years from now as a multi-media property managed from Rhode Island". There's no way that the D&D business circa 2006 could have supported the kind of staff and overhead that it was used to. Best case would have been a very small staff dedicated to just managing the brand and maybe handling some freelance pool doing minimal adventure content. So this was an existential issue (like "do we exist or not") for the part of Wizards that was connected to D&D. That's something between 50 and 75 people.


----------



## Gilladian (Jul 14, 2018)

My biggest objection to 4e was that I COULD NOT follow how to create a PC in the players handbook. I never figured out where and how some bonuses came from. I just trusted the chargen program.


----------



## Gilladian (Jul 14, 2018)

We will do the PF2 playtest, yes. Will we switch long term? I sort of doubt it. I don’t want to have to completely rebuild my collection of DMing databases still yet again...


----------



## Imaro (Jul 14, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> It’s not that D&D no longer needed to be a core brand, it’s that Hasbro changed its policies regarding core brands and what is required of them. And I believe the information came from WotC.




I'd love to read when and why this happened.  If you happen to remember an article or link to a site where it's explained feel free to shoot it to me in a pm or in this thread.





Charlaquin said:


> Because while 4e did have its fan base, it did not grow the brand as much as would have been expected given the coinciding rise of geekdom in the mainstream. So they went back to the drawing board in hopes of devising an edition that would be more approachable to the mainstream geek audience, as well as to win back the long-time DMs (who unfortunately are too often needed as a way to bring new players in). And it worked. Very well.




Well I don't think anyone is disputing whether 4e had fans or not... but it does seems like you are stating the same thing posted earlier, mainly that it didn't garner enough fan support, a large enough customer base, etc for 4e to be considered successful enough to continue being the main rules that would be iterated on for future versions of D&D.  I mean given some of the evidence we have, like the Orr Group quarterly report, that shows 4e falling not only behind 5e, but both Pathfinder, and 3.5 (along with a few non D&D games like Shadowrun and Star wars) I don't  think it's all that far fetched to think either 4e didn't have a very large fanbase or it's fanbase was made up of people who didn't have a strong attachment to 4e per se.


----------



## Ted Serious (Jul 14, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> 4e failed to hit a revenue goal set by Hasbro that even the entire industry, today, would still be failing to meet.
> 
> OTOH, total lack of support for the last 6 years goes a fair way towards getting you to give up an edition.
> 
> ...




In other threads I've heard the whole industry is up to 45 million revenue.

With 15 million people playing D&D.

I've also heard a claim that the goal was 50 million.  Between D&D and Pathfinder, we are pretty close to that goal.

And, no Pathfinder 2 is nothing like 4e.  It does not want to drive its fans away.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 14, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I think that you can be a good friend and a bad DM at the same time.




Certainly possible, but he wasn't a bad DM in the opinions of the people at the table at the time and regardless of how many times we lost characters; we enjoyed the game.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 15, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, more than once, if I’m honest.  “Edgelord” character players are like roaches- if there’s one, there are more.
> 
> It’s not an issue designers are going to “lose sleep over”, but it is part of a peripheral concern about how robust a system is.  How many playstyle variants it can support.  The more flexible the system is in that regard, the more replayability it has.  Part of WHY I play characters like that is because I’ve been playing D&D since 1977.  I’ve played most of the archetypal characters, so playing something different- sometimes _radically_ so- helps keep me interested.  Furthermore, my doing so demonstrates broader possibilities to players who haven’t seen the outside of the box.  It is not an exaggeration to say I’ve had other experienced gamers ask me about my character design processes.




Yeah, actually I agree with you that a game SHOULD hopefully accommodate such play, letting you do things with your (hopefully) higher non-primary stats that result in an equally good but different character. And I certainly identify with the "I've played every possible sane AD&D character build, now I'm going to start on the downright weirdo crazy ones." I mean, I DID start playing a good while before the debut of 1e... 

Now, with 4e at least, the game's answer, IMHO is "don't actually play the 12 STR fighter as a fighter." You would probably play it as something else, a bard, a rogue, a ranger, maybe something completely different even. Then you would skin your build to scan narratively as "Boris the 12 STR fighter." This CAN work really well, but it means putting in some extra effort up front and not being chronically hung up on "everything must be exactly described as some guy wrote it in the book" (a bizarre notion IMHO but an amazing number of posters here are about to jump on and tell me that this is absolutely rigidly how D&D MUST be run!).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 15, 2018)

Zeromaru X said:


> In my table, I was the guy with the DDI account. And the only one who bought suplements, as well. The other people playing in the store I used to play at the time, they only had the first DMG, PHB and MM. They relied on me for any other book.
> 
> Anyways, PF2 seems intriging, but I'm also one of those who enjoys playing 4e over other editions/systems. I mean I tried playing 5e (and not only once; I genuinely tried to give 5e a chance), but it doesn't work for me.




I didn't find 5e to be disgusting or unplayable or anything like that. It WORKS, within a certain set of parameters that includes doing more work as a DM than I really care for. It is also prone to a lot of DM foibles I suspect, though the one DM that ran it for us is not going to fall into too many bad habits. Anyway, it has some good design points too, just they would excite me if they were in the context of a refined 4e. I already played AD&D for 20 years, I just don't NEED a game which goes back there, even if it cleans up the mechanics a LOT.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 15, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I’m saying there are a lot of 4e fans who don’t like 5e, and PF2 looks like it may appeal to 4e fans - it does to me, as a 4e fan.



 As I've said, I'm suspicious of appeals to popularity in any form.  On top of that, consider what it meant to be a 4e fan.  It meant you gave the new ed a fair chance, even when negative reviews cane out, even as the edition war heated up, and misinformation became common wisdom.  They gave it enough if a chance to come to understand and appreciate a very different game.  

4e fans may be disappointed in 5e in some ways, but, past behavior indicates they'll've given it every chance. And, while it's not the best or most ambitious D&D ever, it is studiedly, the most conventional and least offensive, and it is not at all hard to come to understand and appreciate. If you doubt that 4e fans are OK with 5e, I offer the lack of edition warring against 5e as evidence - the harshest critics if 5e are 3.5/PF fans.

If an alternative that was kinda maybe a bit like 4e were to appeal more, 13A was out before 5e, anyway.  So I would not expect disgruntled former 4e fans to be anxious to move to PF2, for, like 13A or 5e, being maybe a bit like 4e.



> And I will find it amusing if a not insignificant number of 4e fans adopt it in leu of other systems, because Paizo very much made their brand on the promise of being a haven from 4e.



 It would be deeply ironic.  



Umbran said:


> I think you paint it too black and white - that either what 4e fans likes was everything, or completely ignored



  I was being a little too terse in pursuit of pithy, there, I guess.

Fans of the classic game have, and had even when 4e was the current ed, significant support in the OSR.  Fans of 3.5 have, and had even when 4e was the current ed, significant support in the form of 3pp product,  most lavishly, Pathfinder.

4e fans do not now, and have not had since 2012, that luxury.  It may be just an artifact of WotCs business missteps leaving the system in a legal mess, but it does mean that what 4e fans want: 4e, simply does not matter.
Because they're not going to get it.



> they had to be recast in ways that fit the more classic framework that apparently appeals to the larger audience.



 This oft-repeated appeal to popularity is, as I have alluded to, not something I find useful. There's no telling what might appeal to a larger audience, because only that classic framework has ever had meaningful access to potential new players.  TTRPGs that aren't D&D are virtually invisible to the mainstream, and the most deviant version of D&D was subjected to such a torrent of misinformation, that it's remarkable anyone sought it out, at all.

"Gatekeeping" came up in another thread, and, though it may be (outside the edition war) more coincidence than volition, ours is a gate-kept community.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> ... being chronically hung up on "everything must be exactly described as some guy wrote it in the book" (a bizarre notion IMHO but an amazing number of posters here are about to jump on and tell me that this is absolutely rigidly how D&D MUST be run!).




You keep a hobbyist pursuit relatively isolated and basically unchanged for 25 years, folks're gonna get set in their ways.  And the trickle of new folks joining it will learn those ways....


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 15, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> As I've said, I'm suspicious of appeals to popularity in any form.



I’m not sure what part of my post you think is an appeal to popularity...



Tony Vargas said:


> On top of that, consider what it meant to be a 4e fan.  It meant you gave the new ed a fair chance, even when negative reviews cane out, even as the edition war heated up, and misinformation became common wisdom.  They gave it enough if a chance to come to understand and appreciate a very different game.
> 
> 4e fans may be disappointed in 5e in some ways, but, past behavior indicates they'll've given it every chance. And, while it's not the best or most ambitious D&D ever, it is studiedly, the most conventional and least offensive, and it is not at all hard to come to understand and appreciate. If you doubt that 4e fans are OK with 5e, I offer the lack of edition warring against 5e as evidence - the harshest critics if 5e are 3.5/PF fans.



You seem to keep forgetting that I _am_ a 4e fan. I know very well what it meant, and what it still means. And yes, I, like many other 4e fans, gave 5e its fair shake, and came to understand and appreciate it for what it is. Heck, I’ve probably run more 5e than I have 4e at this point. But that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t leap at the promise of a game that continues to improve on the innovations 4e made instead of throwing them out with the bathwater. And I don’t think I’m alone in that.



Tony Vargas said:


> If an alternative that was kinda maybe a bit like 4e were to appeal more, 13A was out before 5e, anyway.  So I would not expect disgruntled former 4e fans to be anxious to move to PF2, for, like 13A or 5e, being maybe a bit like 4e.



Lots of 4e fans did adopt 13th age. I would consider that evidence that many 4e fans are eager for a game that builds on 4e’s best ideas. 13th age just didn’t happen to be that game for me. The ways in which it is like 4e we’re not the ways that are important to me. PF2 is looking like it might resemble 4e in ways that do matter to me.



Tony Vargas said:


> It would be deeply ironic.



That’s all I’m saying. That’s all I’ve been saying. That’s all I originally said. I don’t know why it had to turn into an argument, when so far everyone who has argued the point with me has agreed with it once they finally listened to what I actually said.

Actually, yes I do.  Because it’s about 4e. With any luck, that will be another thing PF2 has that 4e doesn’t. The ability to mention it without starting an argument.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 15, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I’m not sure what part of my post you think is an appeal to popularity...



 The "lots of..." I keep hearing in these discussions.



> yes, I, like many other 4e fans, gave 5e its fair shake, and came to understand and appreciate it for what it is. Heck, I’ve probably run more 5e than I have 4e at this point. But that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t leap at the promise of a game that continues to improve on the innovations 4e made instead of throwing them out with the bathwater.



 I see no indications of PF2 being that game in any sense... certainly 13A was closer, and it wasn't close, at all.




> And I don’t think I’m alone in that.



 You'd be in good company, but little if it.  D&D is just the easiest game to pull a groupbtigether around.   Want to play something better, there's no shortage of games, the problem is finding a few other former-D&Ders who've found the same something better.



> Lots of 4e fans did adopt 13th age. I would consider that evidence that many 4e fans are eager for a game that builds on 4e’s best ideas



 I do not consider "lots of" evidence,  since it's just a turn of phrase, not any kind of statistic, let alone a valid one.



> That’s all I’m saying. That’s all I’ve been saying. That’s all I originally said.



 I like me some irony, too...


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 15, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> As I've said, I'm suspicious of appeals to popularity in any form.  On top of that, consider what it meant to be a 4e fan.  It meant you gave the new ed a fair chance, even when negative reviews cane out, even as the edition war heated up, and misinformation became common wisdom.  They gave it enough if a chance to come to understand and appreciate a very different game.
> 
> 4e fans may be disappointed in 5e in some ways, but, past behavior indicates they'll've given it every chance. And, while it's not the best or most ambitious D&D ever, it is studiedly, the most conventional and least offensive, and it is not at all hard to come to understand and appreciate. If you doubt that 4e fans are OK with 5e, I offer the lack of edition warring against 5e as evidence - the harshest critics if 5e are 3.5/PF fans.



Yup


> If an alternative that was kinda maybe a bit like 4e were to appeal more, 13A was out before 5e, anyway.  So I would not expect disgruntled former 4e fans to be anxious to move to PF2, for, like 13A or 5e, being maybe a bit like 4e.




Well, I wasn't one who thought 13A did any scratching of my 4e itches. I honestly think it is much closer in nature to 5e than to 4e.



> Fans of the classic game have, and had even when 4e was the current ed, significant support in the OSR.  Fans of 3.5 have, and had even when 4e was the current ed, significant support in the form of 3pp product,  most lavishly, Pathfinder.



Sure would be nice if we could get it!



> 4e fans do not now, and have not had since 2012, that luxury.  It may be just an artifact of WotCs business missteps leaving the system in a legal mess, but it does mean that what 4e fans want: 4e, simply does not matter.
> Because they're not going to get it.



What 'legal mess' would that be? There's no legal mess, WotC owns 4e just as free and clear as they own 1e and 2e (neither of which BTW is covered by the OGL). They can reprint, issue PDFs, create new material, anything they like. Any lack of support for 4e, or lack of interest in it, is purely a choice made by WotC. Now, I expect that it is mostly just ignored as being a fairly recently replaced version of the game. They didn't provide any 2e 'stuff' until recently either, so its not actually any big mystery. 



> You keep a hobbyist pursuit relatively isolated and basically unchanged for 25 years, folks're gonna get set in their ways.  And the trickle of new folks joining it will learn those ways....




I don't think it is that. It is just there is this weird, and apparently quite prevalent in this day and age, strain of thought which goes around that the contents of the books are to be taken literally, so that if it says "short sword" in the weapons table you cannot, should not, and are to be condemned for, being a player who pretends the short sword mechanics apply to a 'tomahawk' or something. 

I mean, like I got drummed clean out of a bunch of threads on that one back in the day. By people whom I believe are still actively posting.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 15, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> The "lots of..." I keep hearing in these discussions.



Im not appealing to popularity there. I’m using the term to describe a nonspecific plurality, and to specifically avoid using terms like “most,” which I would have no way of knowing.



Tony Vargas said:


> I see no indications of PF2 being that game in any sense... certainly 13A was closer, and it wasn't close, at all.



Did your eyes just gloss over the “for me” part? I’m not trying to make any claims about PF2 being some kind of great 4e revival or anything. I just see in it a lot of what I personally liked in 4e. I’ve heard from other 4e fans who have said the same (there, I dropped the word “lots” since that seemed to bother you). I’ve heard from other 4e fans who have said otherwise too. Doesn’t stop me from being excited to see those mechanics in a popular game again, or from being amused at the fact that it’s Pathfinder of all things I’m seeing them in.



Tony Vargas said:


> You'd be in good company, but little if it.  D&D is just the easiest game to pull a groupbtigether around.   Want to play something better, there's no shortage of games, the problem is finding a few other former-D&Ders who've found the same something better.



Yes, which is why I currently run and play 5e. Fortunately, Pathfinder is also pretty popular. That’s another part of the reason I’m excited to see it adopting 4e-isms I care about.



Tony Vargas said:


> I do not consider "lots of" evidence,  since it's just a turn of phrase, not any kind of statistic, let alone a valid one.



[edit] Huh, I guess I did use the word “evidence” there. Poor choice of words on my part. I should have said, “that suggests to me.” I’m not trying to present a case about the preponderance of 4e fans just waiting in line to jump on the PF2 band wagon. I’m saying, in my personal experience, I and some of the other 4e fans I’ve spoken to about it, think PF2 looks pretty neat, and I appreciate the irony in the possibility that I and a not insignificant number of other 4e fans might stop playing D&D and start playing Pathfinder. Is that phrasing precise enough for you?[/edit]



Tony Vargas said:


> I like me some irony, too...



Then, in spite of all of your attempts to prove wrong a point I’ve never been making, we are in agreement.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 15, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, I wasn't one who thought 13A did any scratching of my 4e itches. I honestly think it is much closer in nature to 5e than to 4e.



 In objectives, for instance, it's quite similar.  13A  & 5e are both compromise takes on D&D, harkening back to the classic game; both intent on enabling TotM by default, both trying to balance classes with different resource mixes, and both deflating bonuses...



> What 'legal mess' would that be?



 The GSL. 4e can't be cloned.



> I don't think it is that. It is just there is this weird, and apparently quite prevalent in this day and age, strain of thought which goes around that the contents of the books are to be taken literally, so that if it says "short sword" in the weapons table you cannot, should not, and are to be condemned for, being a player who pretends the short sword mechanics apply to a 'tomahawk' or something.
> 
> I mean, like I got drummed clean out of a bunch of threads on that one back in the day. By people whom I believe are still actively posting.



 3e & 4e were both pretty explicit that players could describe their characters' gear as they like...


----------



## Garthanos (Jul 15, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> 4e fans do not now, and have not had since 2012, that luxury.  It may be just an artifact of WotCs business missteps leaving the system in a legal mess, but it does mean that what 4e fans want: 4e, simply does not matter.
> Because they're not going to get it.




In development Forerunner an OGL derivation of 4e concepts and core functionality without IP or copyright issues.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 15, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> In objectives, for instance, it's quite similar.  13A  & 5e are both compromise takes on D&D, harkening back to the classic game; both intent on enabling TotM by default, both trying to balance classes with different resource mixes, and both deflating bonuses...



Well, I didn't see in 13A the things that were mechanically characteristic of 4e in contrast to 5e. Like 5e it has a mix of different resource models and class implementation mechanics. It lacks a power/role classification structure, even implicitly, etc. It lost the explicit resource framework of short and long rest refresh cadence as well, though not entirely. It does have a pretty story focused feel to it, which is a respect in which it is more like 4e. 



> The GSL. 4e can't be cloned.



Yeah, but my understanding of what you said was it was an implication that there was some sort of impediment to support, which isn't really the case. I mean, people have basically cloned 1e without much trouble and it lacks anything even as permissive as GSL! WotC could certainly provide some support. Anyway, in the industry, it is widely understood that 4e is basically a flavor of d20 and thus OGL can be leveraged to support it in most respects, as long as you're not putting any 4e compatibility graphics on your product. That's how 1e was cloned. Beyond that, with PF, and now PF2, and 13A, and Radiance RPG, etc. etc. etc. all out there under the OGL I think we can safely say its applicability has become pretty darn broad. I think you can 'clone' 4e fairly closely. I would avoid exact replication of things like stat blocks and power formats, but you can certainly design a game which is numerically 4e compatible and no more than reasonably tweaked rules-wise. You'd need to generate new power lists with different names, probably a slightly different mix of powers, perhaps change a few terms. I wouldn't sweat it. In fact if you go over to rpg.net in the d20 forums you will find that said game exists! It is more of a 'toolbox' which you would flesh out with 4e material to play 4e itself, or supply other sets of content to create other '4e-based' or '4e-like' games. Anyway, it cleans up and repackages a lot of the rules in a fairly nice way too.



> 3e & 4e were both pretty explicit that players could describe their characters' gear as they like...




You're preaching to the choir on that one my friend. There are still a very substantial section of the D&D community who consider that to be anathema. Any suggestion that this was a feature of 4e back in the heyday of the Edition Wars was literally drummed off the forums. EnWorld is relatively well policed and you could almost discuss it here, but it definitely required a whole bunch of ignore list! On the WotC D&D forums it was absolutely impossible, any thread containing a suggestion of all but the most trivial reflavoring would get 100 hate posts per hour until it was locked. Some of the responses were pretty eye popping.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 15, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> You're preaching to the choir on that one my friend. There are still a very substantial section of the D&D community who consider that to be anathema. Any suggestion that this was a feature of 4e back in the heyday of the Edition Wars was literally drummed off the forums. EnWorld is relatively well policed and you could almost discuss it here, but it definitely required a whole bunch of ignore list! On the WotC D&D forums it was absolutely impossible, any thread containing a suggestion of all but the most trivial reflavoring would get 100 hate posts per hour until it was locked. Some of the responses were pretty eye popping.



Ahh yes, the Edition Cold War, when the Coastal Wizard Nations declared an Edition Ceasefire while they negotiated the Next Treaty, and the Edition Soldiers began to employ euphemism as a way to fight proxy Edition Battles. “Simulationism” became the stand-in for 3e and “gameism” and “narrativism” for 4e. Dark times indeed.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 15, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Ahh yes, the Edition Cold War, when the Coastal Wizard Nations declared an Edition Ceasefire while they negotiated the Next Treaty, and the Edition Soldiers began to employ euphemism as a way to fight proxy Edition Battles. “Simulationism” became the stand-in for 3e and “gameism” and “narrativism” for 4e. Dark times indeed.




Dogs and cats began living together.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 15, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, but my understanding of what you said was it was an implication that there was some sort of impediment to support, which isn't really the case



 The GSL, compared to the OGL is an impediment to 3pp support.   And, of course, the threat of renewed edition-war hostilities (it's not like they've really stopped, just tapered off), is an impediment to WotC.







> I mean, people have basically cloned 1e without much trouble and it lacks anything even as permissive as GSL! WotC could certainly provide some support. Anyway, in the industry, it is widely understood that 4e is basically a flavor of d20 and thus OGL can be leveraged to support it in most respects, as long as you're not putting any 4e compatibility graphics on your product. That's how 1e was cloned.



  I thought OSRIC got some kind of permission? I've glanced at it, bits look to be virtually verbatim.



> . I think you can 'clone' 4e fairly closely. I would avoid exact replication of things like stat blocks and power formats, but you can certainly design a game which is numerically 4e compatible and no more than reasonably tweaked rules-wise. You'd need to generate new power lists with different names, probably a slightly different mix of powers, perhaps change a few terms



 There's hundreds of powers - per class - compared to yoinking the srd and having a game ready to go. 



> I wouldn't sweat it. In fact if you go over to rpg.net in the d20 forums you will find that said game exists! It is more of a 'toolbox' which you would flesh out with 4e material to play 4e itself, or supply other sets of content to create other '4e-based' or '4e-like' games. Anyway, it cleans up and repackages a lot of the rules in a fairly nice way too.



 I checked that boy and found a thread bombed by "nononono NO nothing will ever come of this"

Direct link to the thing itself?



> . There are still a very substantial section of the D&D community who consider that to be anathema. Any suggestion that this was a feature of 4e back in the heyday of the Edition Wars was literally drummed off the forums. EnWorld is relatively well policed and you could almost discuss it here, but it definitely required a whole bunch of ignore list! On the WotC D&D forums it was absolutely impossible, any thread containing a suggestion of all but the most trivial reflavoring would get 100 hate posts per hour until it was locked. Some of the responses were pretty eye popping.



 I think that attitude must have shifted.  Suggestions for reskinning 5e around here go further than 4e ever did:  Valor Bard for Warlord, GOO Warlock for Psion.  Not without resistance from those that want the thing, naturally.  Similarly, the only resistance to 3.x re-skinning of weapons I recall was bastard sword for katana - and quite a resistance it was!


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 15, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I think that attitude must have shifted.  Suggestions for reskinning 5e around here go further than 4e ever did:  Valor Bard for Warlord, GOO Warlock for Psion.  Not without resistance from those that want the thing, naturally.  Similarly, the only resistance to 3.x re-skinning of weapons I recall was bastard sword for katana - and quite a resistance it was!



Rather, the need to pretend the arguments had anything to do with reskinning disappeared. 4e’s support of reskinning was never really the issue, it was just a justification for people to present their dislike of 4e as based on something objective. Now that 4e is dead, its detractors don’t have to pretend they had a problem with reskinning any more.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 15, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> . “Simulationism” became the stand-in for 3e and “gameism” and “narrativism” for 4e. Dark times indeed.



 To be fair, The Forge had come up with those terms years before, a continuation of the Three-fold Theory that arose out of the edition-war-like (actually Storyteller v D&D) Role v Roll debate.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 15, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> . “Simulationism” became the stand-in for 3e and “gameism” and “narrativism” for 4e. Dark times indeed.



 To be fair, The Forge had come up with those terms years before, a continuation of the Three-fold Theory that arose out of the edition-war-like (actually Storyteller v D&D) Role v Roll debate.  



Charlaquin said:


> Rather, the need to pretend the arguments had anything to do with reskinning disappeared. 4e’s support of reskinning was never really the issue, it was just a justification for people to present their dislike of 4e as based on something objective. Now that 4e is dead, its detractors don’t have to pretend they had a problem with reskinning any more.




And plenty of that, too, sure.

".... first casualty of war" and all that.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 15, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> To be fair, The Forge had come up with those terms years before, a continuation of the Three-fold Theory that arose out of the edition-war-like (actually Storyteller v D&D) Role v Roll debate.




Of course, nobody actually uses those Forgite terms accurately anyway. 

When people call 4E "gamist", for example, I can't help but laugh and roll my eyes. 4E is probably the version of DnD least suited to a Step On Up creative agenda. Meanwhile it maps to "simulationism" pretty cleanly with its fidelity to heroic fantasy genre emulation.

All of which ignores the fact that Forgite creative agendas refer to gameplay table experiences and not to actual game systems.

What a joke!


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 15, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> To be fair, The Forge had come up with those terms years before, a continuation of the Three-fold Theory that arose out of the edition-war-like (actually Storyteller v D&D) Role v Roll debate.



Oh, absolutely. I didn’t mean to suggest that GNS and Threefold were invented _for_ the purpose they were used for in the Edition war. They were preexisting concepts that got co-opted as euphemisms to disguise edition warring from the powers that be.

It is very funny to me now to look back on the d20 vs Storyteller/Roll vs. Role wars, as Storyteller falls _far_ on what would be considered the Roll side these days.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 15, 2018)

heretic888 said:


> Of course, nobody actually uses those Forgite terms accurately anyway.




AFAICT from the way they get used, they mean something like:

Simulationism:  An irrational, uncompromising, preference not for an actual simulation (like, say civil war re-enactment), but for bad games that are bad in the ways a game would have to become if it were adapted to function as a simulation, instead - even though the games in question simulate nothing.

Narrativism:  the Role half if the Role not Roll debate, fanatically dedicated to the proposition that bad rules make good games, and that it is impossible to RP if you touch dice.  If you must touch dice, their relationship to the all-important narrative should be as abstract & non-deterministic as possible.

Gameism: the Roll opposite of Narrativism, gameists are shunned and reviled for their bizarre expectation that any RPG, by virtue of the G, could in any way be held up to any  standards of what makes a game any good at all. (And, if I could squeeze any more any's into that, I would.)


Obviously,  I don't put much stock in the Forge, creative agendas, GNS, Threefold theory, or Roll v Role.


----------



## Zeromaru X (Jul 16, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I didn't find 5e to be disgusting or unplayable or anything like that. It WORKS, within a certain set of parameters that includes doing more work as a DM than I really care for. It is also prone to a lot of DM foibles I suspect, though the one DM that ran it for us is not going to fall into too many bad habits. Anyway, it has some good design points too, just they would excite me if they were in the context of a refined 4e. I already played AD&D for 20 years, I just don't NEED a game which goes back there, even if it cleans up the mechanics a LOT.




Not that I find 5e unplayable, but it doesn't suit my tastes. I like tactical game, so 4e is perfect in that regard. Games such as 13th Age are better suited for me than turning 5e playstyle to a tactical one. Is way too much work.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 16, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> You're preaching to the choir on that one my friend. There are still a very substantial section of the D&D community who consider that to be anathema. Any suggestion that this was a feature of 4e back in the heyday of the Edition Wars was literally drummed off the forums. EnWorld is relatively well policed and you could almost discuss it here, but it definitely required a whole bunch of ignore list! On the WotC D&D forums it was absolutely impossible, any thread containing a suggestion of all but the most trivial reflavoring would get 100 hate posts per hour until it was locked. Some of the responses were pretty eye popping.




I never really saw any real problem with reflavouring during the 4e era.  I mean there are a few edge cases which could be abusive if a Player wanted to push it.

The latest edition of Gamma World used reflavouring even more then 4e did.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> AFAICT from the way they get used, they mean something like:
> 
> Simulationism:  An irrational, uncompromising, preference not for an actual simulation (like, say civil war re-enactment), but for bad games that are bad in the ways a game would have to become if it were adapted to function as a simulation, instead - even though the games in question simulate nothing.
> 
> ...




Heh, nice. Here are the actual definitions courtesy of the Big Model wiki:

Gamism/Step On Up: http://big-model.info/w/index.php?title=Step_On_Up&redirect=no

Narrativism/Story Now: http://big-model.info/wiki/Story_now

Simulationism/Right To Dream: http://big-model.info/wiki/The_Right_To_Dream

Basically, in a nutshell, "Gamism" is about overcoming challenges and doing strategic play in a risk/reward style of game; "Narrativism" is about eschewing any kind of predetermined plot (think of it as the polar opposite of Railroading) and focusing play on visceral human issues like emotions, relationships, and moral dilemmas; and "Simulationism" is about exploring the features and themes of a setting or genre.

By these criteria, 4E is fairly difficult to do Gamist play compared to other versions of DnD because of its focus on encounter-based design and little in the way of long-term strategic planning (although there were modifications such as those of the Fourthcore communities that tried to focus the game more on Step On Up play); 4E can be tilted to Narrativist play with fairly little work through its reward cycles (Quest XP and Skill Challenge XP specifically), explicit allowance of player-authored content and "reskinning", and broader conflict resolution mechanics compared to other versions of DnD; and 4E is generally pretty well suited to Simulationist play with the explicit understanding that what it is attempting to "simulate" is the heroic fantasy genre, especially as represented through cinema.

Hilariously, this is the OPPOSITE of understanding of 4E in most of the internet, with the understanding that it is super-Gamist and anti-Simulationist. The irony of this is truly astounding and speaks to the general ignorance and misinformation inherent to such discussions.

Interestingly, in his most recent Phenomenology series Ron Edwards has actually dropped Right To Dream as a creative agenda (presumably because setting exploration is something that happens in ALL roleplaying games, regardless of creative agenda) and only currently recognizes Step On Up and Story Now.



Tony Vargas said:


> Obviously,  I don't put much stock in the Forge, creative agendas, GNS, Threefold theory, or Roll v Role.




Sure, but the way the terms get bandied about has very little if anything to do with "the Forge, creative agendas, GNS, Threefold theory". 

As one really good example of what I'm talking about, most of what gets passed off as "story-focused" or "story-oriented" play around these parts, and would probably get labelled as "narrativism" as a result, is pretty much GM-authored railroading plot --- and therefore the complete and polar opposite of Story Now play. So, for example, when the developers of 5E went around claiming it was more a more "story-focused game" or that "it was hard to find the story in 4E" they meant, respectively, that 5E is more amenable to railroaded GM plot and 4E made it more difficult to play in this way. What generally passes for "story" or "narrative" in popular RPG discussion is the GM's plot.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 16, 2018)

heretic888 said:


> Heh, nice. Here are the actual definitions courtesy of the Big Model wiki:
> 
> Gamism/Step On Up: http://big-model.info/w/index.php?title=Step_On_Up&redirect=no
> 
> ...




It seems to be common for terms to change and even to take on an opposite meaning then the original term.

My favourite example is the term Decimate which originally meant to kill one out of ten soldiers  but now is used as a description of killing a large proportion (maybe even 9 out of 10?) of people. 



> Sure, but the way the terms get bandied about has very little if anything to do with "the Forge, creative agendas, GNS, Threefold theory".
> 
> As one really good example of what I'm talking about, most of what gets passed off as "story-focused" or "story-oriented" play around these parts, and would probably get labelled as "narrativism" as a result, is pretty much GM-authored railroading plot --- and therefore the complete and polar opposite of Story Now play. So, for example, when the developers of 5E went around claiming it was more a more "story-focused game" or that "it was hard to find the story in 4E" they meant, respectively, that 5E is more amenable to railroaded GM plot and 4E made it more difficult to play in this way. What generally passes for "story" or "narrative" in popular RPG discussion is the GM's plot.




Are you able to describe what makes 4e more or less railroady then other DnD games?  I am just having trouble imagining how a 4e DM is less able to railroad (or not) then using other rules.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 16, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> It seems to be common for terms to change and even to take on an opposite meaning then the original term.




True, but in this case it seems to owe to willful ignorance moreso than linguistic evolution.  



Shasarak said:


> Are you able to describe what makes 4e more or less railroady then other DnD games?  I am just having trouble imagining how a 4e DM is less able to railroad (or not) then using other rules.




Its mostly the elements of 4E that make it amenable to Story Now play in general, although GMs are free to ignore much of these elements (and clearly quite a few did). I actually think the Skill Challenge framework is important here and how much it gets utilized by a 4E table (as well as how it gets used) is probably a pretty good indication of how much Story Now play is happening there. The MM math and Rule 42 also makes improvisational, non-scripted play much easier to pull off compared to typical DnD structural elements. The length and complexity of 4E encounters makes meaningful Stakes as well as alternatives to victory other than Kill All The Orcs pretty important to successful play. Player-authored Quests (which feed into the game's reward cycles) and other player-chosen fictional tags (themes, paragon paths, epic destinies) are other ways to emphasize Story Now play as well.

Of course, tables can ignore or de-emphasize all these elements (a popular example is the milestone-based leveling, which in my opinion minimizes player contributions and actions in regards to the game pacing schedule) and stick to wholly GM-authored outcomes. 4E just makes it a tinsy bit harder to do that if you follow the advice in the DMG1 and especially the DMG2.

I should qualify this however that a good deal of what gets passed off as "not being railroady" is still 100% GM-authored outcomes and isn't really Play To Find Out What Happens in my opinion.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 16, 2018)

heretic888 said:


> Its mostly the elements of 4E that make it amenable to Story Now play in general, although GMs are free to ignore much of these elements (and clearly quite a few did). I actually think the Skill Challenge framework is important here and how much it gets utilized by a 4E table (as well as how it gets used) is probably a pretty good indication of how much Story Now play is happening there. The MM math and Rule 42 also makes improvisational, non-scripted play much easier to pull off compared to typical DnD structural elements. The length and complexity of 4E encounters makes meaningful Stakes as well as alternatives to victory other than Kill All The Orcs pretty important to successful play. Player-authored Quests (which feed into the game's reward cycles) and other player-chosen fictional tags (themes, paragon paths, epic destinies) are other ways to emphasize Story Now play as well.
> 
> Of course, tables can ignore or de-emphasize all these elements (a popular example is the milestone-based leveling, which in my opinion minimizes player contributions and actions in regards to the game pacing schedule) and stick to wholly GM-authored outcomes. 4E just makes it a tinsy bit harder to do that if you follow the advice in the DMG1 and especially the DMG2.
> 
> I should qualify this however that a good deal of what gets passed off as "not being railroady" is still 100% GM-authored outcomes and isn't really Play To Find Out What Happens in my opinion.




This is giving the DM who isn't going to railroad more tools to play the game.  A DM who is going to railroad in one system, is probably going to railroad in all of them.  Who he is isn't going to change just because more tools are given to him.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 16, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> This is giving the DM who isn't going to railroad more tools to play the game.  A DM who is going to railroad in one system, is probably going to railroad in all of them.  Who he is isn't going to change just because more tools are given to him.




Right, not sure you're really disagreeing with what I've said here though. 

My larger point is 4E will be an exceedingly unsatisfactory experience when railroaded because of its encounter-based design whereas in my experience railroaded games in certain other systems will produce more enjoyable play experiences. I believe this is a feature and not a bug, as 4E definitely has an anti-railroad design philosophy underlining a lot of its features.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> The GSL, compared to the OGL is an impediment to 3pp support.   And, of course, the threat of renewed edition-war hostilities (it's not like they've really stopped, just tapered off), is an impediment to WotC.  I thought OSRIC got some kind of permission? I've glanced at it, bits look to be virtually verbatim.



Well, there may be plenty of business reasons, or at least political ones, for WotC to shun 4e. I mean, TBH, given that they were producing a new edition, there's nothing specifically amazing about the amount support or non-support that they've given 4e really. I mean, its not like 3.x got much. They HAVE IIRC issued a couple of fancy cover 3.5 core books? That was part of the 40th Anniversary stuff as I recall. I wouldn't really have expected some sort of active support of 4e. DDI is actually STILL functional, if you had an account before 5e launched. They'll still take your money and the tools all work fine.



> There's hundreds of powers - per class - compared to yoinking the srd and having a game ready to go.



How many do you ACTUALLY need though? I mean, there's no point in simply cloning verbatim what is already there, 4e books are everywhere and DDI still works. Nobody needs reprints of what they already have. OTOH if you want to make different classes, or other content, then what stops you? You simply cannot call it out as being '4e compatible'. Simply put out your new material and don't worry about it. Put an OGL license in the back and follow its rules. 



> I checked that boy and found a thread bombed by "nononono NO nothing will ever come of this"
> 
> Direct link to the thing itself?



https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?807149-4E-Actual-Faithful-Retro-Clone-Project


> I think that attitude must have shifted.  Suggestions for reskinning 5e around here go further than 4e ever did:  Valor Bard for Warlord, GOO Warlock for Psion.  Not without resistance from those that want the thing, naturally.  Similarly, the only resistance to 3.x re-skinning of weapons I recall was bastard sword for katana - and quite a resistance it was!




OK, well, anyway, that's my suggestion to anyone with issues like "I can't make a 12 STR fighter" or "I can't make a fighter that uses a bow" or other similar 'issues'. Take a class that does what you want (assuming you can't just hybrid to get it, which you often can) and call it 'fighter' or whatever it is you want your character to be called.

Honestly, with classes particularly, I never saw what the issue was at all. Its not like 'fighter' is what some NPC would call you, it would be your office, your title, your occupation, something like that. Just because the "Captain of the Royal Guard" is actually a member of the 'rogue' class instead of the 'fighter' class, so what? Who said that wasn't OK? Yet there ARE people who seem grumpy about it. At least they sure did as recently as 4 years ago.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 16, 2018)

heretic888 said:


> Basically, in a nutshell, "Gamism" is about overcoming challenges and doing strategic play in a risk/reward style of game; "Narrativism" is about eschewing any kind of predetermined plot (think of it as the polar opposite of Railroading) and focusing play on visceral human issues like emotions, relationships, and moral dilemmas; and "Simulationism" is about exploring the features and themes of a setting or genre.
> 
> By these criteria, 4E is fairly difficult to do Gamist play compared to other versions of DnD because of its focus on encounter-based design and little in the way of long-term strategic planning (although there were modifications such as those of the Fourthcore communities that tried to focus the game more on Step On Up play); 4E can be tilted to Narrativist play with fairly little work through its reward cycles (Quest XP and Skill Challenge XP specifically), explicit allowance of player-authored content and "reskinning", and broader conflict resolution mechanics compared to other versions of DnD; and 4E is generally pretty well suited to Simulationist play with the explicit understanding that what it is attempting to "simulate" is the heroic fantasy genre, especially as represented through cinema.
> 
> Hilariously, this is the OPPOSITE of understanding of 4E in most of the internet, with the understanding that it is super-Gamist and anti-Simulationist. The irony of this is truly astounding and speaks to the general ignorance and misinformation inherent to such discussions.




Opposite? Sure, that's because the internet decided to hijack the GNS terms and use them in a manner that's actually intuitable with respect to rule structures rather than the obfuscating crap they were. And as such, they're much more useful.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 16, 2018)

heretic888 said:


> My larger point is 4E will be an exceedingly unsatisfactory experience when railroaded because of its encounter-based design whereas in my experience railroaded games in certain other systems will produce more enjoyable play experiences. I believe this is a feature and not a bug, as 4E definitely has an anti-railroad design philosophy underlining a lot of its features.




I believe that railroading is an exceedingly unsatisfactory experience in any edition of pretty much any RPG.  I only say "pretty much any RPG," because I suppose there might be one out there I don't know enough where you're supposed to railroad and it's fun.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 16, 2018)

billd91 said:


> Opposite? Sure, that's because the internet decided to hijack the GNS terms and use them in a manner that's actually intuitable with respect to rule structures rather than the obfuscating crap they were. And as such, they're much more useful.




Yep. As Tony pointed out earlier in the thread, Edition Warriors hijacked the jargon in order to demonize game systems they didn't like (in what context has "gamism" ever been used as anything other than a pejorative around these parts?). As opposed to the original intent of creative agendas, which was to talk about people's actual experiences at the table rather than dragging rules systems through the mud.

They're certainly more "useful" for the purpose of edition warring rather than understanding game theory, if that's what you mean.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 16, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I believe that railroading is an exceedingly unsatisfactory experience in any edition of pretty much any RPG.  I only say "pretty much any RPG," because I suppose there might be one out there I don't know enough where you're supposed to railroad and it's fun.




Well, as I said before, I consider railroading to be much more common than most would probably be willing to accept. And it can be good fun with the right group and the right GM, so there's nothing inherently "wrong" with it.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 16, 2018)

heretic888 said:


> Well, as I said before, I consider railroading to be much more common than most would probably be willing to accept. And it can be good fun with the right group and the right GM, so there's nothing inherently "wrong" with it.




I agree.  Years ago on the D&D forum a DM was asking about railroading, because his players wanted to play in a "Quantum Leap" campaign where they just hopped from one place to another and couldn't leave until they fixed the problem that brought them there.  That's a fine way to do a railroading scenario.  If the players are on board, have at it.

By and large, though, it's a DM with an issue and the players are having a miserable time.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 16, 2018)

heretic888 said:


> Yep. As Tony pointed out earlier in the thread, Edition Warriors hijacked the jargon in order to demonize game systems they didn't like (in what context has "gamism" ever been used as anything other than a pejorative around these parts?). As opposed to the original intent of creative agendas, which was to talk about people's actual experiences at the table rather than dragging rules systems through the mud.
> 
> They're certainly more "useful" for the purpose of edition warring rather than understanding game theory, if that's what you mean.




No, and I don't think they were hijacked by edition warriors than anyone else - they were hijacked by people who thought that the GNS approach was convoluted and, ultimately, useless. Simulationist, gamist, and narrativist work far better and more easily among gamers to describe rules and the various tensions they exhibit between simulating some process, making it more playable but more abstract, and reflecting a story-telling element manipulated by the player more than the character in the system.

But go ahead and continue trying to stoke more edition warring. That's what you seem to want.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 16, 2018)

billd91 said:


> No, and I don't think they were hijacked by edition warriors than anyone else - they were hijacked by people who thought that the GNS approach was convoluted and, ultimately, useless. Simulationist, gamist, and narrativist work far better and more easily among gamers to describe rules and the various tensions they exhibit between simulating some process, making it more playable but more abstract, and reflecting a story-telling element manipulated by the player more than the character in the system.




We'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 16, 2018)

heretic888 said:


> True, but in this case it seems to owe to willful ignorance moreso than linguistic evolution.




Mmmhmm, I am not sure I would put it down to willful ignorance.  There are definitions of Games, Narrative and Simulation already that do not seems to match 100% with your definitions.



> Its mostly the elements of 4E that make it amenable to Story Now play in general, although GMs are free to ignore much of these elements (and clearly quite a few did). I actually think the Skill Challenge framework is important here and how much it gets utilized by a 4E table (as well as how it gets used) is probably a pretty good indication of how much Story Now play is happening there. The MM math and Rule 42 also makes improvisational, non-scripted play much easier to pull off compared to typical DnD structural elements. The length and complexity of 4E encounters makes meaningful Stakes as well as alternatives to victory other than Kill All The Orcs pretty important to successful play. Player-authored Quests (which feed into the game's reward cycles) and other player-chosen fictional tags (themes, paragon paths, epic destinies) are other ways to emphasize Story Now play as well.
> 
> Of course, tables can ignore or de-emphasize all these elements (a popular example is the milestone-based leveling, which in my opinion minimizes player contributions and actions in regards to the game pacing schedule) and stick to wholly GM-authored outcomes. 4E just makes it a tinsy bit harder to do that if you follow the advice in the DMG1 and especially the DMG2.
> 
> I should qualify this however that a good deal of what gets passed off as "not being railroady" is still 100% GM-authored outcomes and isn't really Play To Find Out What Happens in my opinion.




Thank you for taking the time to explain.  I can certainly see how some of those features framed in a different context can look the way you say.  Certainly looking at some of the encounters that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] has created gives me more appreciation of the type of thing that you can do with a well crafted encounter.

From my perspective, the fact that 4e plays so well to this type of set piece encounter means that it would play much better in a railroad type adventure where every encounter is well crafted in advance.  The 3 room Delve format of adventures for example rather then a free form Cave of Chaos adventure.

I know that in my group the skill challenge mechanic felt more like using your skills to solve a puzzle rather then using them in a Narrative sense, which is why I would have classified it as a Gameist mechanic rather then a Narrative one.  I know that in my experience there was very much a feeling of looking through your Skills to find the best one and then trying to somehow fit that to the situation, very much the opposite of eschewing any kind of predetermined plot.

In any case it is very interesting to try and look at these situations from a different angle.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 16, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I believe that railroading is an exceedingly unsatisfactory experience in any edition of pretty much any RPG.  I only say "pretty much any RPG," because I suppose there might be one out there I don't know enough where you're supposed to railroad and it's fun.




There are definitely degrees of Railroading.  Honestly I dont see anything wrong with the DM saying that they have brought this Adventure path and who wants to jump on the Adventure train.  There is still plenty of Player agency within the concept to have fun as long as you are not bringing a Paladin to a Pirate fight.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 16, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Thank you for taking the time to explain.  I can certainly see how some of those features framed in a different context can look the way you say.  Certainly looking at some of the encounters that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] has created gives me more appreciation of the type of thing that you can do with a well crafted encounter.
> 
> From my perspective, the fact that 4e plays so well to this type of set piece encounter means that it would play much better in a railroad type adventure where every encounter is well crafted in advance.  The 3 room Delve format of adventures for example rather then a free form Cave of Chaos adventure.




Yes, but I should note that Story Now doesn't mean No Prep At All. You can certainly prepare potential encounters the PCs may face. However, in a Story Now context what you would also do is a) allow for multiple pathways for "defeating" the encounter, b) make sure each encounter is meaningful to the shared fiction, c) do not pre-prepare outcomes for any given encounter, and d) do not assume the PCs will ever face your encounter.

I would also add I think 4E does not do the "dungeon delve" format of adventure very well at all and that most 4E adventures are poor examples of what to do with the system (with the possible exceptions of Reavers of Harkenworld and Madness at Guardmore Abbey). 



Shasarak said:


> I know that in my group the skill challenge mechanic felt more like using your skills to solve a puzzle rather then using them in a Narrative sense, which is why I would have classified it as a Gameist mechanic rather then a Narrative one.  I know that in my experience there was very much a feeling of looking through your Skills to find the best one and then trying to somehow fit that to the situation, very much the opposite of eschewing any kind of predetermined plot.




I think the key here is to begin and end with the fiction during each "turn" of the skill challenge and also to move the scene forward especially during failed rolls.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 16, 2018)

heretic888 said:


> Yes, but I should note that Story Now doesn't mean No Prep At All. You can certainly prepare potential encounters the PCs may face. However, in a Story Now context what you would also do is a) allow for multiple pathways for "defeating" the encounter, b) make sure each encounter is meaningful to the shared fiction, c) do not pre-prepare outcomes for any given encounter, and d) do not assume the PCs will ever face your encounter.
> 
> I would also add I think 4E does not do the "dungeon delve" format of adventure very well at all and that most 4E adventures are poor examples of what to do with the system (with the possible exceptions of Reavers of Harkenworld and Madness at Guardmore Abbey).




Ha, well that could explain the problems that I had trying to use that Screw Driver as a Hammer then. ;0)

Guardmore Abbey was far too late for me,  I had stopped buying official adventures before then.



> I think the key here is to begin and end with the fiction during each "turn" of the skill challenge and also to move the scene forward especially during failed rolls.




I have seen a lot of advice re: Skill Challenges and seen a few videos I think Matt Colvile did one or two.  Honestly I am not sure what the set structure brings to the table that makes it better then just playing out the Narrative as it comes. 

I think that the advice about failing forward is helpful though like for example instead of being stuck at a closed door on a failed roll you instead open it really loudly alerting everyone on the other side.  Especially if you frame it so that the Players know what the stakes are before hand you can get a lot of Player buy in without the feeling that they are being screwed over by a capricious DM.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> AFAICT from the way they get used, they mean something like:
> 
> Simulationism:  An irrational, uncompromising, preference not for an actual simulation (like, say civil war re-enactment), but for bad games that are bad in the ways a game would have to become if it were adapted to function as a simulation, instead - even though the games in question simulate nothing.
> 
> ...




Well, someone might have meant them this way, but it would be a caricature of how many of us use these terms, whether they're used in some sort of 'correct' way according to some place called 'The Forge' where I have neither ever posted nor ever read anything much. 

I mean, you're being sarcastic, but these can be useful terms. I agree they were often just tossed about by those wanting to tar something as something though.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 16, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I never really saw any real problem with reflavouring during the 4e era.  I mean there are a few edge cases which could be abusive if a Player wanted to push it.
> 
> The latest edition of Gamma World used reflavouring even more then 4e did.




Welllllllllll, if the player actually literally is true to the reflavoring in the sense that NOTHING in the mechanics is impacted at all, then there should be no effect. At least in terms of the mechanical inputs to the game. As for the FICTIONAL inputs, and the implications in terms of fictional positioning, there's clearly an impact there. I am not sure it is proper to call it out as 'abusive', but I'm not sure what the abuse you are referring to is, actually, so I'm not positive. That is to say, I guess I could hypothesize that a player could start reflavoring things in order to undermine some GM devised story, but that would imply the game was already on rails, wouldn't it? I mean, it all starts to get a bit loopy once you get to that point.

I'd say then that "yes the story will be different" but many stories should have already been possible, so what's the issue?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 16, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Are you able to describe what makes 4e more or less railroady then other DnD games?  I am just having trouble imagining how a 4e DM is less able to railroad (or not) then using other rules.




Not 'less able' in the absolute sense, but 4e militates against, or at the very least facilitates the divergence from, railroaded GM-driven scripts. You can do Story Now with 4e, quite easily. Even in more traditional play the game has the character that players are much less reliant on GM interpretation of the situation for fictional positioning and such. So GMs have a lot less leverage to simply dictate how things will go, at least without it becoming hilariously obvious that the 'game' part of the game is a joke.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 16, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Welllllllllll, if the player actually literally is true to the reflavoring in the sense that NOTHING in the mechanics is impacted at all, then there should be no effect. At least in terms of the mechanical inputs to the game. As for the FICTIONAL inputs, and the implications in terms of fictional positioning, there's clearly an impact there. I am not sure it is proper to call it out as 'abusive', but I'm not sure what the abuse you are referring to is, actually, so I'm not positive. That is to say, I guess I could hypothesize that a player could start reflavoring things in order to undermine some GM devised story, but that would imply the game was already on rails, wouldn't it? I mean, it all starts to get a bit loopy once you get to that point.
> 
> I'd say then that "yes the story will be different" but many stories should have already been possible, so what's the issue?




By abusive I mean things like re-flavouring your Adamantine sword as being retractable Adamantine claws that can pop out of your hand.  The mechanics are obviously exactly the same attack, damage etc but the flavour is very different.  And now you get questions like, if everyone else is disarmed then do you get dis "armed" or is it just your luck that you sneak your weapon inside?  I could see a lot of DMs freaking out about something like that.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 16, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Not 'less able' in the absolute sense, but 4e militates against, or at the very least facilitates the divergence from, railroaded GM-driven scripts. You can do Story Now with 4e, quite easily. Even in more traditional play the game has the character that players are much less reliant on GM interpretation of the situation for fictional positioning and such. So GMs have a lot less leverage to simply dictate how things will go, at least without it becoming hilariously obvious that the 'game' part of the game is a joke.




I dont remember coming across the Story Now term.  This article seems to have a very comprehensive description of it though so I will have to take the time to look at it in more depth.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> To be fair, The Forge had come up with those terms years before, a continuation of the Three-fold Theory that arose out of the edition-war-like (actually Storyteller v D&D) Role v Roll debate.



Just as a point of intellectual history: you do realise, don't you, that The Forge is quite hostile to White Wolf/Storyteller, and largely indifferent to D&D but with a mild sympathy for its classic/OSR version.



Tony Vargas said:


> Obviously, I don't put much stock in the Forge, creative agendas, GNS, Threefold theory, or Roll v Role.



For someone who gets worked up about what you see as falsehoods by critics of 4e, though, you don't hold back in posting nonsense about The Forge and the "threefold model".



Tony Vargas said:


> Simulationism:  An irrational, uncompromising, preference not for an actual simulation (like, say civil war re-enactment), but for bad games that are bad in the ways a game would have to become if it were adapted to function as a simulation, instead - even though the games in question simulate nothing.



From "Simulationism: the Right to Dream":

However, contrary to some accusations, [simulationism is] not autistic or schizophrenic, being just as social and group-Premise as any other role-playing. The key issues are shared love of the source material and sincerity. Simulationism is sort of like Virtual Reality, but with the emphasis on the "V," because it clearly covers so many subjects. Perhaps it could be called V-Whatever rather than V-Reality. If the Whatever is a fine, cool thing, then it's fun to see fellow players imagine what you are imagining, and vice versa. (By "you" in that sentence, I am referring to anyone at the table, GM or player.) To the dedicated practitioner, such play is sincere to a degree that's lacking in heavy-metagame play, and that sincerity is the quality that I'm focusing on throughout this essay. . . .

Pound for pound, Basic Role-Playing from The Chaosium is perhaps the most important system, publishing tradition, and intellectual engine in the hobby - yes, even more than D&D. It represents the first and arguably the most lasting, influential form of uncompromising Simulationist design.​


Tony Vargas said:


> Gameism: the Roll opposite of Narrativism, gameists are shunned and reviled for their bizarre expectation that any RPG, by virtue of the G, could in any way be held up to any standards of what makes a game any good at all.



From "Gamism: Step on Up":

References to Gamism tend to be dismissive, superficial, and often backhanded ("except for the Gamists," "my inner Gamist," etc). . . .

[T]he first step is to renounce a judgmental and dismissive approach about "those awful Gamists." The second is to renounce the less-judgmental but equally-dismissive "those Gamists" attitude, which might be called the NIMBY view. And then, finally, to renounce the sort of guilty-liberal, halting, apologetic defensive line as well. . . .

Gamist play, socially speaking, demands _performance with risk_, conducted and perceived by the people at the table. What's actually at risk can vary - for this level, though, it must be a social, real-people thing, usually a minor amount of recognition or esteem. The commitment to, or willingness to accept this risk is the key . . . This is the whole core of the essay, that such a commitment is fun and perfectly viable for role-playing, just as it's viable for nearly any other sphere of human activity.​


Tony Vargas said:


> Narrativism:  the Role half if the Role not Roll debate, fanatically dedicated to the proposition that bad rules make good games, and that it is impossible to RP if you touch dice.  If you must touch dice, their relationship to the all-important narrative should be as abstract & non-deterministic as possible.



From Narrativism: Story Now:

There cannot be any "_the _story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s). Story Now has a great deal in common with Step On Up, particularly in the social expectation to contribute, but in this case the real people's attention is directed toward one another's insights toward the issue, rather than toward strategy and guts. . . .

A protagonist is not "some guy," but rather "_the _guy who thinks THIS, and does something accordingly when he encounters adversity." Stories are not created by running some kind of linear-cause program, but rather are brutally judgmental statements upon the THIS, as an idea or a way of being. That judgment is enacted or exemplified in the resolution of the conflict, and a conviction that is proved to _us _ . . . constitutes theme. Even if we (the audience) disagree with it, we at least must have been moved to do so at an emotional level. .  .

Fortune-in-the-Middle as the basis for resolving conflict facilitates Narrativist play in a number of ways.

* It preserves the desired image of player-characters specific to the moment. Given a failed roll, they don't have to look like incompetent goofs; conversely, if you want your guy to suffer the effects of cruel fate, or just not be good enough, you can do that too.

* It permits tension to be managed from conflict to conflict and from scene to scene. So a "roll to hit" in Scene A is the same as in Scene B in terms of whether the target takes damage, but it's not the same in terms of the acting character's motions, intentions, and experience of the action.

* It retains the key role of constraint on in-game events. The dice (or whatever) are collaborators, acting as a springboard for what happens in tandem with the real-people statements.​


heretic888 said:


> Of course, nobody actually uses those Forgite terms accurately anyway.
> 
> When people call 4E "gamist", for example, I can't help but laugh and roll my eyes. 4E is probably the version of DnD least suited to a Step On Up creative agenda. Meanwhile it maps to "simulationism" pretty cleanly with its fidelity to heroic fantasy genre emulation.
> 
> ...



I agree re 4e and gamism - though   [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] on these boards articluated a coherent gamist version of 4e which is nothing like Gygaxian "skilled play" but rather is quite "light", and is about showing off your schtick in a given encounter.

   [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] used to argue that 4e is a type of high concept simulationism as you suggest - I tend to agree with   [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION], that it is best suited to "story now" instead. Not that it couldn't be done in a high concept fashion, but I think that would tend to make for more tedious play because the "heaviness" of the mechanics would still be there, but they wouldn't be giving as much payoff (with the outcomes pre-settled) as they do with a more "story now" focus. And I think it's pretty obvious how many 4e mechanics exhibit the features of FitM resolution that Edwards calls out in the passage I just quoted.

EDIT: Just saw this follow-up post:



heretic888 said:


> most of what gets passed off as "story-focused" or "story-oriented" play around these parts, and would probably get labelled as "narrativism" as a result, is pretty much GM-authored railroading plot --- and therefore the complete and polar opposite of Story Now play. So, for example, when the developers of 5E went around claiming it was more a more "story-focused game" or that "it was hard to find the story in 4E" they meant, respectively, that 5E is more amenable to railroaded GM plot and 4E made it more difficult to play in this way. What generally passes for "story" or "narrative" in popular RPG discussion is the GM's plot.



Absolutely! There is a very frequent assumption, in posting on these boards, that the only reliable way to get "story" in RPGing is through GM-railroading.

We recently had a big thread about it.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 16, 2018)

Ted Serious said:


> Pathfinder 2 is nothing like 4e.  It does not want to drive its fans away.



And 4e/WotC did?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 16, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I think that the advice about failing forward is helpful though like for example instead of being stuck at a closed door on a failed roll you instead open it really loudly alerting everyone on the other side.



I think the idea of "being stuck at a closed door" is mostly a feature of GM-driven/railroad play. In "story now" play, the story just _is_ that the PCs didn't go through that door, so some other thing happened.



Shasarak said:


> I have seen a lot of advice re: Skill Challenges and seen a few videos I think Matt Colvile did one or two.  Honestly I am not sure what the set structure brings to the table that makes it better then just playing out the Narrative as it comes.



I don't know what Matt Colville has to say about it, but the structure of a skill challenge serves the same purpose as the structure of combat resolution: it establishes a mechanical finality which means that the outcomes are driven by player actions declarations and their resolution, rather than the GM's opinion as to where the fiction should go next.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 16, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I think the idea of "being stuck at a closed door" is mostly a feature of GM-driven/railroad play. In "story now" play, the story just _is_ that the PCs didn't go through that door, so some other thing happened.




Being stuck at a door has nothing inherently to do with railroading.  You might as well say parrots are a feature of railroad play, since DMs can railroad you with a parrot.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 16, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Being stuck at a door has nothing inherently to do with railroading.  You might as well say parrots are a feature of railroad play, since DMs can railroad you with a parrot.



You may be more fixated on his use of "railroad" here - likely due to its pejorative connotation - but keep in mind that the "/" designates "and or," with the first element in that phrase being "GM-driven play" and I would personally place greater emphasis in what pemerton said on that than "railroad." I would estimate that a lot of GM-driven play does entail "being stuck at a door," because it derives from a sort of board or puzzle game mentality that may not even apply to your sandbox approach. The GM is driving the campaign and the PCs into a particular direction: e.g., campaign arrows point to the dungeon. A frequent feature in GM-driven play in such scenarios is that a given room has to be "solved" to progress to the next room. There is one locked door. You are stuck. There are often set solutions that the GM or adventure writer has devised. These solutions may be self-contained in the room itself or require that the PCs have found, or must find, the "keys" elsewhere. In games that adopt more proactive player-driven play, there may not be a preset solution for getting into the figurative "door." The players may just look for and then successfully roll to find/create a secret door.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 16, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Just as a point of intellectual history: you do realise, don't you, that The Forge is quite hostile to White Wolf/Storyteller, and largely indifferent to D&D but with a mild sympathy for its classic/OSR version.



 It seems reasonably hostile to D&D, too, describing both as "incoherent."



> you don't hold back in posting nonsense about The Forge and the "threefold model".



 In this particular instance I was posting my impressions of how the boards tend to (miss)use Forge terminology.  And, no, I have made a small effort, but never found much sense in the Forge.  The Threefold Model made a little sense to me back in the day, but it still mainly came off as intellectualizing the essentially bogus Role v Roll 'debate.'



> "Pound for pound, Basic Role-Playing from The Chaosium is perhaps the most important system, publishing tradition, and intellectual engine in the hobby - yes, even more than D&D. It represents the first and arguably the most lasting, influential form of uncompromising Simulationist design."



 RQ was notably more Realistic than its contemporaries, owing to the authors participation in the SCA giving them significantly more clue than EGG's perusing of museum polearms or whatever got him so fixated on 'em.  

I consider RQ influencial in being such an early 'skill-based' system, and BRP for being the first formal 'core system,' where the consumer was giving a copy of the core bits.  An innovation d20 would be notable for 20 years later.



> From "Gamism: Step on Up":
> 
> References to Gamism tend to be dismissive, superficial, and often backhanded ("except for the Gamists," "my inner Gamist," etc). . . .
> 
> [T]he first step is to renounce a judgmental and dismissive approach about "those awful Gamists." The second is to renounce the less-judgmental but equally-dismissive "those Gamists" attitude, which might be called the NIMBY view. And then, finally, to renounce the sort of guilty-liberal, halting, apologetic defensive line as well. . . .​



Y'know what'd also help with that?  Not making a 'Gamist' box and sticking folks in it, in the first place.  



> Absolutely! There is a very frequent assumption, in posting on these boards, that the only reliable way to get "story" in RPGing is through GM-railroading.
> 
> We recently had a big thread about it.



 'Railroading' or linear play is a reliable way of getting a specific story out on the table, in which the GM takes most of the responsibility for coming up with and 'telling' the story.  In D&D, which as the gateway to the hobby is also it's de-facto gatekeeper, the game has generally (TSR era & 5e) relied heavily on the DM to make /everything/ work, so, of course, it's natural if you want a focus on story, to expect the DM to make that happen.




Maxperson said:


> Being stuck at a door has nothing inherently to do with railroading.



 It kinda is.  In a 'sandbox' you're free to just go somewhere else, maybe come back to that door later (and not just in the sense of go scour the rest of the dungeon for the right key).  In a linear adventure, the next step is behind that door, so until you get through it (just break out the ax, dude), you're 'stuck.'  In a 'fail forward' paradigm, not being able to open the door gets you (with some added difficulty/consequence) to where getting through the door would have (for instance, while you're unsuccessfully tyring to open the door, an enemy patrol you were hoping to avoid comes through it, and you have to silence them quickly or the jig is up).​


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I think that attitude must have shifted.  Suggestions for reskinning 5e around here go further than 4e ever did:  Valor Bard for Warlord, GOO Warlock for Psion.  Not without resistance from those that want the thing, naturally.  Similarly, the only resistance to 3.x re-skinning of weapons I recall was bastard sword for katana - and quite a resistance it was!




The difference:

When the publisher puts out a game that is perceived to be hard to skin - people get bent.
When the publisher puts out a game that is perceived to be easy to skin - people skin.

My opinion is that folks got so hung up on losing system mastery gained over the years when playing 4e that it colored everything that 4e had to offer.
My experience from being someone that's forced to retrain myself every three years at my own expense (because I work in tech) is that I was hardwired to be 4e's core audience just because of the way things went.

KB


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 16, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> The difference:
> 
> When the publisher puts out a game that is perceived to be hard to skin - people get bent.
> When the publisher puts out a game that is perceived to be easy to skin - people skin.
> ...



 That's certainly a thing that can happen.  3.x was big on rewarding system mastery, and 4e both invalidated that mastery and greatly reduced the relative rewards for gaining & applying mastery of it.  

I got less bent out of shape by that than I did when the 6th ed of Hero did the same sorta thing - though, to be fair, the challenge of acquiring system mastery was greater (and quite different), and the reward lesser, than in 3e.



> My experience from being someone that's forced to retrain myself every three years at my own expense (because I work in tech) is that I was hardwired to be 4e's core audience just because of the way things went.



 Not sure I follow?




AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, someone might have meant them this way, but it would be a caricature of how many of us use these terms, whether they're used in some sort of 'correct' way according to some place called 'The Forge' where I have neither ever posted nor ever read anything much.



 permerton's always providing helpful links. 


> I mean, you're being sarcastic, but these can be useful terms. I agree *they were often just tossed about by those wanting to tar something as something* though.



 For me, enough of that has happened that any usefulness (which I'm doubtful of in the firstplace) has been thoroughly undermined.  Now, I am sarcastic (& bitter & cynical) on my best day, but I do feel that each new set of terms that gets rolled(npi) out (and GNS is at least a full generation back in the ongoing process of obfuscation), is just refining/recapitulating/reimaging/disguising the basic us-vs-'em false dichotomy of Role v Roll.  
Which I was sick of w/in minutes back on UseNet.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Welllllllllll, if the player actually literally is true to the reflavoring in the sense that NOTHING in the mechanics is impacted at all, then there should be no effect. At least in terms of the mechanical inputs to the game. As for the FICTIONAL inputs, and the implications in terms of fictional positioning, there's clearly an impact there. I am not sure it is proper to call it out as 'abusive', but I'm not sure what the abuse you are referring to is, actually, so I'm not positive.



 The one potential abuse I've seen with reskinning or reflavoring was in the early days of Champions!, which went much further than any ed of D&D in giving players licence to describe their powers however they wanted, was to come up with a 'special effect' (description of a power) that concealed what it really was, so that your victims would be less likely to pull out a viable counter for it.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> That's certainly a thing that can happen.  3.x was big on rewarding system mastery, and 4e both invalidated that mastery and greatly reduced the relative rewards for gaining & applying mastery of it.
> 
> I got less bent out of shape by that than I did when the 6th ed of Hero did the same sorta thing - though, to be fair, the challenge of acquiring system mastery was greater (and quite different), and the reward lesser, than in 3e.
> 
> Not sure I follow?




1. I hear you regarding HERO System.  
2. Since my profession pretty much makes anything you learned three years ago almost obsolete or irrelevant, the need to pick up new things in order to be relevant and marketable helped me avoid group thinking that the switch from 3e to 4e was anything less than completely normative.  Granted, that's a really foreign line of thinking to most folks.

KB


----------



## Garthanos (Jul 16, 2018)

pemerton;7463878  said:
			
		

> For someone who gets worked up about what you see as falsehoods by critics of 4e, though, you don't hold back in posting nonsense about The Forge and the "threefold model".




Pretty sure it was clear that he was echoing things he knew were nonsense... but which seem to be "common use/understanding". 
It seems he also didn't get much out of them either but that seems different. (I kind of found Forge to be fun mental exercise of modelling those who model - LOL)


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 16, 2018)

Garthanos said:


> Pretty sure it was clear that he was echoing things he knew were nonsense... but which seem to be "common understanding".



 I was trying to hold up a darkly sarcastic mirror to the (miss)use of those terms, yes.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 16, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I think the idea of "being stuck at a closed door" is mostly a feature of GM-driven/railroad play. In "story now" play, the story just _is_ that the PCs didn't go through that door, so some other thing happened.




I dont know if I would agree with DM driven play other then the DM making a "mistake" during his map creation phase and/or expecting the Party to know the Elven word for "Friend" to get through the door perhaps.

I guess in a sandbox game having a door that you can not get through is not really a problem in that there are other things to do.



> I don't know what Matt Colville has to say about it, but the structure of a skill challenge serves the same purpose as the structure of combat resolution: it establishes a mechanical finality which means that the outcomes are driven by player actions declarations and their resolution, rather than the GM's opinion as to where the fiction should go next.




I dont really see that the DM picking an arbitary number of successes before the narrative begins has any relation to the outcome excpet by adding an extra level of gamification to the narrative.  The Players actions are going to drive the narrative in any case and the DMs opinion is always going to be a factor.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 17, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I dont really see that the DM picking an arbitary number of successes before the narrative begins has any relation to the outcome excpet by adding an extra level of gamification to the narrative.  The Players actions are going to drive the narrative in any case and the DMs opinion is always going to be a factor.



Do you think this is true of combat also - that it makes no difference adjudicating combat as hp attrition, or adjudicating combat via a GM's freeform opinion of when the players have done enough to defeat their enemies?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 17, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> In a 'fail forward' paradigm, not being able to open the door gets you (with some added difficulty/consequence) to where getting through the door would have (for instance, while you're unsuccessfully tyring to open the door, an enemy patrol you were hoping to avoid comes through it, and you have to silence them quickly or the jig is up).



This is another example of terminology drift.

"Fail forward" is a technique that was championed by certain indie designers. The 13th Age rulebook (p 42) describes it thus:

A simple but powerful improvement you can make to your game is to redefine failure as “things go wrong” instead of “the PC isn’t good enough.” Ron Edwards, Luke Crane, and other indie RPG designers have championed this idea, and they’re exactly right. You can call it “fail forward” or “no whiffing."​
In Luke Crane's Burning Wheel ruleset, it is elaborated in this way (Gold edition, pp 31-32):

When the dice are rolled and don’t produce enough successes to meet the obstacle, the character fails. What does this mean? It means the [player's] stated intent does not come to pass. . . .

When a test is failed, the GM introduces a complication. . . .

Try not to present flat negative results - "You don’t pick the lock." Strive to introduce complications through failure as much as possible.​
As Luke Crane presents it, the _forward_ in "fail forward" is not _that the PC gets to go forward in the desired direction_. It's that _the events of play_ keep going forward, although in some way that is at odds with the player's intent in having declared the action.

In the 13th Age rulebook, the description of "fail forward" goes on:

A more constructive way to interpret failure is as a near-success or event that happens to carry unwanted consequences or side effects. The character probably still fails to achieve the desired goal, but that’s because something happens on the way to the goal rather than because nothing happens.​
The idea of "fail forward" as "near-success", or "success with complications", has become increasingly common. In this variant usage, the _forward_ is precisely that the PC gets to proceed in the direction the player hoped. Whereas the Luke Crane-type "fail forward" is a technique that is intended to support player-driven RPGing, by substituting _dramatic outcomes of player-delcared checks_ for a GM pre-authored storyline. But the more recent, and increasingly common, "success with complications" notion of "fail forward" is a technique for facilitating GM pre-authored storylines, by ensuring that no "unpassable" obstacles get in their way.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 17, 2018)

pemerton said:


> As Luke Crane presents it, the _forward_ in "fail forward" is not _that the PC gets to go forward in the desired direction_. It's that _the events of play_ keep going forward, although in some way that is at odds with the player's intent in having declared the action.



 In a linear adventure, where there is no adventure but through the door, /forward/ would be more litteral.  But, sure, more broadly, point taken.



> In the 13th Age rulebook, the description of "fail forward" goes on:
> A more constructive way to interpret failure is as a near-success or event that happens to carry unwanted consequences or side effects. The character probably still fails to achieve the desired goal, but that’s because something happens on the way to the goal rather than because nothing happens.​



 I rather like that one.  



> But the more recent, and increasingly common, "success with complications" notion of "fail forward" is a technique for facilitating GM pre-authored storylines, by ensuring that no "unpassable" obstacles get in their way.



 I suppose that, with 5e, the penduulum has swung back to more DM-directed styles...


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 17, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Mmmhmm, I am not sure I would put it down to willful ignorance.  There are definitions of Games, Narrative and Simulation already that do not seems to match 100% with your definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yeah, obviously a lot of people fell into that trap with SCs. OTOH if you took it to the other extreme, where the situation was highly dynamic and the choice of skill was a real decision between different approaches, which lead to different fictional positioning going forward, etc. that could be very gamist as well (in [MENTION=60326]heretic888[/MENTION]'s Big Three sense of gamist), allowing for a lot of thought and preparation. DMG2 said a few things about this that should have been in DMG1's presentation, like "SCs should span some significant amount of plot" (liberal paraphrase). 

I think that IMHO though COMBAT was much better in non-setpiece style. I didn't plan encounters much at all by the end of my last 4e campaign. I just ran them almost ad-lib. I'd go through what I thought was likely to happen and pick out stat blocks that would probably work in situations I imagined coming up, but often they didn't and I'd just use something else. One thing that did demand was a lot of familiarity with the MMs, but it worked well. As I've said before, they were so highly dynamic that there was little to worry about in terms of a given encounter coming 'unraveled'. Again, the DMGs failed to come up with this approach, which was sad.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 17, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> In a linear adventure, where there is no adventure but through the door, /forward/ would be more litteral.  But, sure, more broadly, point taken.




That's not precisely true.  A linear adventure is one where you have to go from say A to Z.  There's nothing that says that B can't also have a B1, B2, and B3, where the door to B3 is locked and where B3 has no exit.  The players can get "stuck" at that door, and still go back to B and progress to C.  Perhaps C has a C1, C2, C3, and C4 where C4 comes re-enters the line at E, allowing the group to progress linearly to Z, but skip D.  It doesn't require one way in and one way out at all times in order to be linear.  So yes, there can be adventure outside of through the door in a linear game.  Not a whole heck of a lot, and it generally pushes the part forward down the line anyway, but it can and often does exist.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 17, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> There are definitely degrees of Railroading.  Honestly I dont see anything wrong with the DM saying that they have brought this Adventure path and who wants to jump on the Adventure train.  There is still plenty of Player agency within the concept to have fun as long as you are not bringing a Paladin to a Pirate fight.




Oh, I'll go further. People are foolish to criticize others for simply wanting to play a certain game. Beyond that there's nothing wrong with a 'railroad'. I think its best to do it explicitly and consciously as a means of play, and not accidentally and covertly, but I'd say the same about any mode of play if I thought about it for a second. I mean, 'player agency' doesn't really factor in, nor any other 'theoretical' consideration when it comes to what you WANT to do. Heck, with the right parameters I'd play in a game where player choice is largely irrelevant.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 17, 2018)

For me, "linear adventures"/railroading are fun when the characters are fairly vibrant (and so there is fun to be had bringing my character to life as part of play, given the other main bit of play - making choices that shape the fiction - is not really happening) and the GM/module is providing an engaging story that the vibrant characters fit into well.

I've enjoyed CoC played in this style, and also Pendragon - using pregens to ensure vibrant characters that fit into the story. I personally don't like it so much for "rootless wanderer"-type D&D, as the story in that sort of RPGing tends to be pretty thin.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 17, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I have seen a lot of advice re: Skill Challenges and seen a few videos I think Matt Colvile did one or two.  Honestly I am not sure what the set structure brings to the table that makes it better then just playing out the Narrative as it comes.




My feeling is that it affords the players with an assurance that they are getting a result and that the stakes are controllable. In other words, in 3e/5e style play with unstructured use of skills there are no guarantees at all. Any particular effort you make may be enough to accomplish the goal, or it may be an almost meaninglessly insignificant increment towards the goal. It may not even be clear what the goal IS, or that one exists. In 4e you do know, its a complexity 1 SC, it will last between 3 and 6 skill checks and each one will produce an identical increment of mechanical progress. 

It also helps the GM by simply showing him when enough is enough. In the unstructured case the GM is left to simply guess, to 'play it by ear', which often leads to inconsistent and sub-optimal results. Instead, as the GM, I know that the complexity 1 challenge is fulfilled at a certain exit condition. I can plan accordingly and not be in doubt that I've done enough, and not too much. Without that structure I could call for an unending series of skill checks, etc. 

IME it also helps in terms of planning. Situations become manageable chunks of content that the GM can become familiar with handling.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 17, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> By abusive I mean things like re-flavouring your Adamantine sword as being retractable Adamantine claws that can pop out of your hand.  The mechanics are obviously exactly the same attack, damage etc but the flavour is very different.  And now you get questions like, if everyone else is disarmed then do you get dis "armed" or is it just your luck that you sneak your weapon inside?  I could see a lot of DMs freaking out about something like that.




Well, see, with 4e at least, the mechanics are pretty clear. So I would consider this to be a mechanically significant change, and thus a little beyond reflavoring. I mean, you could argue for instance that an ability to hide your sword is on par with many feats, or many magical item properties. It could be a grey area in other games that are less precise, and I'd consider it a fairly minor perk that I might just say "oh, yeah, whatever, OK. You can do that." I mean, it will be useful once or twice, or never maybe, in most games. As a feat it probably wouldn't be considered worth taking by most people.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 17, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Do you think this is true of combat also - that it makes no difference adjudicating combat as hp attrition, or adjudicating combat via a GM's freeform opinion of when the players have done enough to defeat their enemies?




If I had designed an encounter in a room that had a certain number of Orcs guarding a certain number of Pies and I had determined that the only way to win was for the Party to hit the Orcs X number of times before the Orcs hit them Y number of times then I would agree that does look a lot like a Skill Challenge.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 17, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> If I had designed an encounter in a room that had a certain number of Orcs guarding a certain number of Pies and I had determined that the only way to win was for the Party to hit the Orcs X number of times before the Orcs hit them Y number of times then I would agree that does look a lot like a Skill Challenge.



There are two things here - _I had determined that the only way_ and _hit the Orcs X times before the Orcs hit the PCs Y times_.

The latter is, more-or-less, what D&D combat looks like (where X and Y equals hit points divided by damage per hit).

The former is about establishing stakes and modes of approach. There is nothing about a skill challenge as a mode of resolution that says that the _GM_ must, or should, establish the stakes and the modes of approach (although it is likely that the GM will play some role in relation to this simply because, 4e being a fairly traditional game in its allocation of player and GM roles, the GM has a preeminent role as adjudicator of fictional positioning and the broader "logic" of the fiction).

Here's a concrete example, from actual play, that shows that the two things are separate:



pemerton said:


> The scenario I ran yesterday (from the Eden Odyssesy d20 book called "Wonders Out of Time") called for a Large bear.
> 
> I wasn't sure exactly how many 10th level PCs would be facing it at once, and so in prepping I placed a single elite level 13 dire bear, rather than a lower level solo bear (a level 7 or 8 solo would be a rough XP equivalent), because I thought the slightly swingier high level elite would produce a more interesting range of outcomes across a wider range of possible PC party size.
> 
> ...



This example did provoke some discussion when first posted. Here is the main point and reply (I agree with the latter):



Raven Crowking said:


> in a "fiction-first" system, the players could attempt to avoid a combat because that offered their best chance of success.  If you design the challenge of avoiding said combat "To keep the XP and pacing about the same as I'd planned", then you undo the value of that choice.





Victim said:


> I strongly disagree.  Wide variance in difficulty or rewards based on player strategy doesn't preserve the value and meaning of player choice, it destroys that value - essentially, you create a single correct choice.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 17, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, see, with 4e at least, the mechanics are pretty clear. So I would consider this to be a mechanically significant change, and thus a little beyond reflavoring. I mean, you could argue for instance that an ability to hide your sword is on par with many feats, or many magical item properties. It could be a grey area in other games that are less precise, and I'd consider it a fairly minor perk that I might just say "oh, yeah, whatever, OK. You can do that." I mean, it will be useful once or twice, or never maybe, in most games. As a feat it probably wouldn't be considered worth taking by most people.




That is exactly why some DMs are wary of Reflavouring and really all the Player wants to do is get cool Wolverine claws.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 17, 2018)

A follow-on from the previous post: skill challenges, like similar resolution systems in other (mostly indie) RPGs, work on the premises (1) that the GM is responsible for framing scenes, but (2) that the _players_ are responsible for the choices that will determine how those scenes turn out.

The significance of (2) is that it makes the scene, or encounter, the focus of play. There is no "_the_ adventure" or "_the_ story", because until a scene/encounter is resolved no one (player or GM) knows what the state of the fiction will be, and hence no one knows what the elements of subsequent scenes will be. 4e is very distinctive among editions of D&D in facilitating this sort of play because it doesn't rely on "the adventuring day" or a similar concept to balance asymmetric resource suites, attrition of resources, etc.

The significance of (1) is (at least) twofold. First, the players aren't framing scenes. This is different from Gygaxian dungeoncrawling or "sandboxing", which generally assumes that the players (via some form of GM narration) are confronted with a menu of options for their PCs to engage, and choose from that menu.

Second, it puts pressure on the GM to frame interesting scenes! Ron Edwards made some good comments about this back when The Forge was a thing, in reply to a poster who was complaining that his players kept wanting to avoid the scenes he was framing, rather than engage with them:

If, for example, we are playing a game in which I, alone, have full situational [=scene-framing] authority, and if everyone is confident that I will use that authority to get to stuff they want (for example, taking suggestions), then all is well. . . .

It's not the distributed or not-distributed aspect of situational authority you're concerned with, it's your trust at the table, as a group, that your situations in the S[hared] I[maginary] S[pace] are worth anyone's time. Bluntly, you guys ought to work on that.​
In other words, skill challenges will suck if the GM isn't establishing exciting, compelling situations that the players want to engage via their PCs.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 17, 2018)

pemerton said:


> There are two things here - _I had determined that the only way_ and _hit the Orcs X times before the Orcs hit the PCs Y times_.
> 
> The latter is, more-or-less, what D&D combat looks like (where X and Y equals hit points divided by damage per hit).
> 
> ...




Now this is very interesting.  So you decided to go for 6 successes and you have detailed 3 of them, did the Players know they had to keep going for 3 more successes and how did you change the scenario, if at all, as they were going through? 

Did anything happen after the bear was being soothed and subdued?  As I understand it the Ranger can not just keep using his Nature skill and if there are any other PCs in the party do they also have to do something to contribute?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 17, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Now this is very interesting.  So you decided to go for 6 successes and you have detailed 3 of them, did the Players know they had to keep going for 3 more successes and how did you change the scenario, if at all, as they were going through?
> 
> Did anything happen after the bear was being soothed and subdued?  As I understand it the Ranger can not just keep using his Nature skill and if there are any other PCs in the party do they also have to do something to contribute?



To be honest I don't remember any of that - it was a while ago now! I know that the paladin did stuff, as his player was the one who initiated the idea of taming rather than killing the bear. The fighter must have done something too, but I don't remember what that was: I have a vague memory of the bear being hostile to him, and him doing something in response (but I can't remember what, or whether or not it was successful). I do have a memory that, even once tamed, the bear was not friendly to the fighter! Which maybe suggests that whatever the fighter tried failed.

As far as successes and failures are concerned, I don't know what I did in that scenario. It was before I learned [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s technique of using dice, laid out clearly on the table, to represent successes and failures.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 17, 2018)

pemerton said:


> A follow-on from the previous post: skill challenges, like similar resolution systems in other (mostly indie) RPGs, work on the premises (1) that the GM is responsible for framing scenes, but (2) that the _players_ are responsible for the choices that will determine how those scenes turn out.
> 
> The significance of (2) is that it makes the scene, or encounter, the focus of play. There is no "_the_ adventure" or "_the_ story", because until a scene/encounter is resolved no one (player or GM) knows what the state of the fiction will be, and hence no one knows what the elements of subsequent scenes will be. 4e is very distinctive among editions of D&D in facilitating this sort of play because it doesn't rely on "the adventuring day" or a similar concept to balance asymmetric resource suites, attrition of resources, etc.




I really dont see that 4e does not rely on the adventuring day.  Everyone has Daily abilities, they all get a certain number of Healing surges per day with Action points that reset every day and items that also have Daily abilities.  At high levels you get abiltiies like: "Once per day, when you die....".  4e is full of the normal DnD resources that need to be carefully hoarded and preserved.  It kind of detracts from your main points to be honest.



> The significance of (1) is (at least) twofold. First, the players aren't framing scenes. This is different from Gygaxian dungeoncrawling or "sandboxing", which generally assumes that the players (via some form of GM narration) are confronted with a menu of options for their PCs to engage, and choose from that menu.
> 
> Second, it puts pressure on the GM to frame interesting scenes! Ron Edwards made some good comments about this back when The Forge was a thing, in reply to a poster who was complaining that his players kept wanting to avoid the scenes he was framing, rather than engage with them:
> 
> ...




If the DM is presenting or "framing" a room in a Gygaxian dungeon, and I must admit that some of those rooms can be very interesting indeed, how is that not meeting your first premise? 

And then if the Players engage with that scenario then that must meet your second requirement as well.

Sorry I am still having trouble differentiating exactly what you mean.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 17, 2018)

pemerton said:


> The idea of "fail forward" as "near-success", or "success with complications", has become increasingly common. In this variant usage, the _forward_ is precisely that the PC gets to proceed in the direction the player hoped. Whereas the Luke Crane-type "fail forward" is a technique that is intended to support player-driven RPGing, by substituting _dramatic outcomes of player-delcared checks_ for a GM pre-authored storyline. But the more recent, and increasingly common, "success with complications" notion of "fail forward" is a technique for facilitating GM pre-authored storylines, by ensuring that no "unpassable" obstacles get in their way.



Incidentally, I don't think that "fail forward," "near success," or "success-at-a-cost" are contradictory in play, as one could implement all methods within the same game. "Success-at-a-cost," for example, is often a player-facing choice where the player decides that success is necessary and worth the risk of the cost. "Fail forward" is a GM-facing technique about interpreting the failure of die results. And incorporating both could open a lot of exciting gameplay opportunities.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 17, 2018)

pemerton said:


> To be honest I don't remember any of that - it was a while ago now! I know that the paladin did stuff, as his player was the one who initiated the idea of taming rather than killing the bear. The fighter must have done something too, but I don't remember what that was: I have a vague memory of the bear being hostile to him, and him doing something in response (but I can't remember what, or whether or not it was successful). I do have a memory that, even once tamed, the bear was not friendly to the fighter! Which maybe suggests that whatever the fighter tried failed.
> 
> As far as successes and failures are concerned, I don't know what I did in that scenario. It was before I learned [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s technique of using dice, laid out clearly on the table, to represent successes and failures.




Ok, thats alright.  I have found that in most scenarios it is hard to fit one or two of the PCs in like maybe the Fighter in this Bear scenario, while the Ranger is in his element.  Obviously it depends on your character abilities so maybe the Sorcerer can pull off Intimidate but if the Wizard had to do it then it would be basically an impossible roll.

I was asking about about whether you let the Players know they are in a Skill Challenge with number of successes or not because for me it always seems to make it into a kind of mini game.  It feels very much like when Combat starts and the Minis come out and now the real game is on hold while we resolve this seperate part.  I have seen a few people suggesting to not let the Players know and others who take the opposite tact.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 17, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I was asking about about whether you let the Players know they are in a Skill Challenge with number of successes or not because for me it always seems to make it into a kind of mini game.  It feels very much like when Combat starts and the Minis come out and now the real game is on hold while we resolve this seperate part.  I have seen a few people suggesting to not let the Players know and others who take the opposite tact.



I think players need to know they're in a skill challenge if they're going to make reasoned choices about what resources to use (eg powers, action points, equipment, etc). In that respect I think the comparison to combat is apt.

I don't see resolution as something separate from the "real" game.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 17, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I really dont see that 4e does not rely on the adventuring day.  Everyone has Daily abilities, they all get a certain number of Healing surges per day with Action points that reset every day and items that also have Daily abilities.  At high levels you get abiltiies like: "Once per day, when you die....".  4e is full of the normal DnD resources that need to be carefully hoarded and preserved.  It kind of detracts from your main points to be honest.



Those daily abilities don't have to be hoarded/preserved., though. The "adventuring day" might involve one encounter, or a dozen, and it makes no difference to game balance. If the players all nova in the first encounter of the day, this doesn't allow wizards to outshine fighters. It's purely about pacing.

Whereas other editions (and 13th Age) depend for balance upon an "adventuring day" that has enough encounters, or the threat of them, to balance wizards and other casters against fighters and thieves/rogues. 13th Age formalises this into a rule of "one full rest after four encounters". 5e relies on the GM ensuring an "adventuring day" of the right length. Which then generates a pressure towards GM managed ficiton and story, rather than playing more spontaneously from one encounter to the next.

The lack of asymmetric resource suites makes a huge difference in this respect.



Shasarak said:


> If the DM is presenting or "framing" a room in a Gygaxian dungeon, and I must admit that some of those rooms can be very interesting indeed, how is that not meeting your first premise?



Well, in classic dungeoneering the players scout out the dungeon and choose which room they engage. So the GM provides the "menu", but the players choose from it.



Shasarak said:


> And then if the Players engage with that scenario then that must meet your second requirement as well.



It certainly helps if the rooms on the menu are interesting! But players are also expected to bring their own desire for gold and magic loot, and their planning and decisions about how to tackle the rooms are meant to provide a significant part of the play experience.

It's a different dynamic from scene-framed play.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 17, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Here's a concrete example, from actual play, that shows that the two things are separate:
> 
> "The ranger and the wizard made Nature checks. *The ranger was adjacent, so reached out to the bear.* The wizard, however, was at range, giving rise to the question - how does he actually calm the bear? Answer: *he used Ghost Sound to make soothing noises and Mage Hand to stroke it*.* The sorcerer wanted* (i) to back away so as not to get slammed in case the bear remained angry, and (ii) to* try and intimidate the bear into submission.* I (as GM) asked the player how, exactly, the PC was being intimidating while backing up? His answer: he is expending Spark Form (a lightning-based encounter power) to create a show of magical power arcing between his staff and his dagger, that would scare the bear. A successful Intimidate roll confirmed that the light show did indeed tend to subdue rather than enrage the bear."




So your example of a party working together in a skill challenge is a party working at odds with itself?  You have two players trying to calm the bear and one trying to intimidate the bear, which regardless of success, isn't calming.  The sorcerer is negating the efforts of the first two PCs.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 17, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> So your example of a party working together in a skill challenge is a party working at odds with itself?  You have two players trying to calm the bear and one trying to intimidate the bear, which regardless of success, isn't calming.  The sorcerer is negating the efforts of the first two PCs.



If you want to have that discussion, you can necro the thread and respond to the posts there.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 17, 2018)

pemerton said:


> If you want to have that discussion, you can necro the thread and respond to the posts there.




Threads wander and you brought it up as an example of a skill challenge.  That makes it fair game for discussion here, but okay...   I'm not going to bother looking up the thread to necro it.


----------



## cmad1977 (Jul 17, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> In a linear adventure, where there is no adventure but through the door, /forward/ would be more litteral.  But, sure, more broadly, point taken.
> 
> I rather like that one.
> 
> I suppose that, with 5e, the penduulum has swung back to more DM-directed styles...




That’s a less ‘linear’ adventure and more simply a bad one.  

‘Can’t get through the door? Game over guys!’


----------



## Manbearcat (Jul 17, 2018)

Quite the thread! Surprised I didn’t notice it before.

Just a few quick thoughts in relation to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] ‘s post on player-facing Skill Challenges .

I’ve long been an advocate of transparency (including making everything player-facing) in mechanical archetecture of scene-based games.

While 4e is a fiction-first RPG like Apocalypse World, it is not a free form RPG like AW. It’s more kindred with Dogs, Fate, Cortex+ in that (a) the resolution of scenes gets cemented in mechanically and (b) an aspect of the mental overhead that players must assimilate is how their action declarations map to the mechanics and how the fiction and the scene’s resolution (both current and the finality) orbit around those declared actions and attendant mechanics.

Without all the relevant information that a player would have in scene-based resolution games, they’re not able to manage the game part of the game. That negatively impacts (a) their ability to positively impact the fiction in the way that they wish and (b) it just slows play by increasing table handling time of each action declaration (as more conversation is required to resolve the interface between action:mechanics) and the total cognitive workload for the GM. I’m not a fan of either of those results.


----------



## MwaO (Jul 17, 2018)

Manbearcat said:


> While 4e is a fiction-first RPG like Apocalypse World, it is not a free form RPG like AW. It’s more kindred with Dogs, Fate, Cortex+ in that (a) the resolution of scenes gets cemented in mechanically and (b) an aspect of the mental overhead that players must assimilate is how their action declarations map to the mechanics and how the fiction and the scene’s resolution (both current and the finality) orbit around those declared actions and attendant mechanics.
> 
> Without all the relevant information that a player would have in scene-based resolution games, they’re not able to manage the game part of the game. That negatively impacts (a) their ability to positively impact the fiction in the way that they wish and (b) it just slows play by increasing table handling time of each action declaration (as more conversation is required to resolve the interface between action:mechanics) and the total cognitive workload for the GM. I’m not a fan of either of those results.




That's really dependent on the DM. Some skill challenges are in essence a combat — get past X somehow or fail. But others can be more open ended and have multiple success or failure options.

Really, skill challenges are just about the DM figuring out beforehand, what they view as some possible outcomes of expected roleplaying encounters that have both the use of skills and meaningful impacts on the campaign. Want to meet the Duke? Who are the possible nobles that could introduce the PCs? What do they want? What can the PCs do to help them get that? What happens if the PCs fail? Do they still get to meet the Duke or not? None of those questions have to have specific answers. Just the DM should think about it so the rewards of roleplaying feels earned and not arbitrary.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jul 17, 2018)

@_*MwaO*_

I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing with in my post. Can you hone in on the aspect you’re disagreeing with?

Are you saying that you don’t believe there are inherent advantages to having closed scene resolution machinery player-facing or there aren’t inherent disadvantages to making the situation only GM facing?

If you feel that way, could you maybe talk about other scene-based games that you’ve played and break down how the paradigm of play would change (or not) if the mechanics went from player-facing to opaque or GM-facing only.

For instance, what happens in Marvel Heroic? How do players build their dice pools and choose to use them, interact with obstacles, make decisions about dealing with various threats (based on their die size)?

4e has similar analogs with choosing to:

-augment with secondary skills (and how mechanically)

- deploy Encounter Powers

- deploy a Ritual, maybe spend a Daily/Surges/$ = 1/10 of-level magic item

- if the situation is dire and they want to pull out the stops for a “story win”

-  if Advantages are available and when/how to deploy them (based on where they are in the, let’s call it, “dramatic track” of Successes and Failures - more similar to Fate’s Stress Track).

Without knowledge of the level of the obstacle and where they are in the “dramatic track”, without knowledge of what is at stake, without knowledge of what type and how many metagame resources are available...player tactical overhead, opportunity cost evals, “story imperative evals” all become muted (to a degree) or at least a lot of noise or insecurity in their decision-making is introduced.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 17, 2018)

MwaO said:


> Want to meet the Duke? Who are the possible nobles that could introduce the PCs? What do they want? What can the PCs do to help them get that? What happens if the PCs fail? Do they still get to meet the Duke or not? None of those questions have to have specific answers. Just the DM should think about it so the rewards of roleplaying feels earned and not arbitrary.



 I ran one like that:  the point of the challenge wasn't to convince an important NPC to help (she'd be downright committed to solving the problem the moment she got wind of it), it was just to get past all her handlers trying to preserve her privacy and interested third parties & conspirators trying to keep her in the dark.  One thing I did a little differently was having several named NPCs that had 'powers' in their monster-block write-ups that could tamper with the Skill Challenge.


----------



## MwaO (Jul 17, 2018)

Manbearcat said:


> @_*MwaO*_
> 
> I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing with in my post. Can you hone in on the aspect you’re disagreeing with?






Manbearcat said:


> 4e...more kindred with Dogs, Fate, Cortex+ in that (a) the resolution of scenes gets cemented in mechanically and (b) an aspect of the mental overhead that players must assimilate is how their action declarations map to the mechanics and how the fiction and the scene’s resolution (both current and the finality) orbit around those declared actions and attendant mechanics.




Scenes do not necessarily have to be cemented in mechanically. I wrote in a no-mechanics role-playing encounter into a 4e LFR mod where the PCs talked with various NPCs, there were no relevant skill rolls or powers to use, and the outcome of the player decisions drove the LFR campaign direction for year 5. And players were really invested in their decisions, too.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jul 17, 2018)

MwaO said:


> Scenes do not necessarily have to be cemented in mechanically.




I definitely agree.

Take Blades in the Dark, for example. It’s has 3 phases of play:

Free Play
Score
Downtime

Each of those are effectively “scenes” or multiple scenes. However, only in certain cases (eg the GM deployment of a Clock or Opposing Clocks - very much kindred to 4e) will scene resolution be cemented in mechanically (rather than “organically”).

But we’re talking about 4e D&D noncombat conflict resolution whereby mechanical architecture is used (as it is in Cortex+, Fate, Dogs, or Blades when a GM uses Opposing Clocks) to determine (a) the dramatic pacing of a scene (while allowing players considerable agency in the mechanical goings-on of the evolving narrative...thereby considerable agency in that emergent fiction and in the manifestation of their PC archetype) and (b) when finality of resolution occurs (rather than GM discretion or table consensus).


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 17, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I think players need to know they're in a skill challenge if they're going to make reasoned choices about what resources to use (eg powers, action points, equipment, etc). In that respect I think the comparison to combat is apt.
> 
> I don't see resolution as something separate from the "real" game.




I guess in the real game you dont need to know you are in a Skill Challenge to have your character make reasoned choices about what resources to use.  Like in the Dire Bear example, do I need to know that I am in a skill challenge to recognise that the Ranger using Nature skill is probably the optimal strategy to use?

Your approach definitely makes sense if you are jumping the game from Scene to Scene though.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 18, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Those daily abilities don't have to be hoarded/preserved., though. The "adventuring day" might involve one encounter, or a dozen, and it makes no difference to game balance. If the players all nova in the first encounter of the day, this doesn't allow wizards to outshine fighters. It's purely about pacing.




So again, how is that any different from any version of DnD other then making Fighters use the exact same mechanics as Wizards?  How is everyone novaing on the first (and only) encounter of the day not going to affect game balance?  How is that not going to affect pacing?



> Whereas other editions (and 13th Age) depend for balance upon an "adventuring day" that has enough encounters, or the threat of them, to balance wizards and other casters against fighters and thieves/rogues. 13th Age formalises this into a rule of "one full rest after four encounters". 5e relies on the GM ensuring an "adventuring day" of the right length. Which then generates a pressure towards GM managed ficiton and story, rather than playing more spontaneously from one encounter to the next.
> 
> The lack of asymmetric resource suites makes a huge difference in this respect.




I dont really know enough about 13th age to be able to comment on how much like DnD it is.  Basing the recharge system on four encounters seems pretty arbitrary to me but I guess some people must enjoy it.



> Well, in classic dungeoneering the players scout out the dungeon and choose which room they engage. So the GM provides the "menu", but the players choose from it.
> 
> It certainly helps if the rooms on the menu are interesting! But players are also expected to bring their own desire for gold and magic loot, and their planning and decisions about how to tackle the rooms are meant to provide a significant part of the play experience.
> 
> It's a different dynamic from scene-framed play.




OK so if I am understanding this correctly then in a Narrative game you do not have an Exploration aspect?  You dont have a map to explore?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 18, 2018)

pemerton said:


> For me, "linear adventures"/railroading are fun when the characters are fairly vibrant (and so there is fun to be had bringing my character to life as part of play, given the other main bit of play - making choices that shape the fiction - is not really happening) and the GM/module is providing an engaging story that the vibrant characters fit into well.
> 
> I've enjoyed CoC played in this style, and also Pendragon - using pregens to ensure vibrant characters that fit into the story. I personally don't like it so much for "rootless wanderer"-type D&D, as the story in that sort of RPGing tends to be pretty thin.




Right, I agree with you there. It can work reasonably well for CoC or other very 'tight-genre' type games where you want a specific sort of experience. I mean, CoC is pretty much the poster child since the end result is ALWAYS "you're brain was melted by horrors from beyond" or at best that you narrowly avoided the funny farm THIS time, but now that your SAN is down to 12... (yeah, I had a character with a 12 SAN once, it was pretty funny, I think I actually played all the way down to 2 SAN and then it kind of imploded).


----------



## Ted Serious (Jul 18, 2018)

pemerton said:


> And 4e/WotC did?



Yes.  They drove their fans away.  
Paizo does not want to do that with Pathfinder 2. They will not make the mistakes WotC did with 4e.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 18, 2018)

Ted Serious said:


> Yes.  They drove their fans away.
> Paizo does not want to do that with Pathfinder 2. They will not make the mistakes WotC did with 4e.




You said "Paizo isn't _trying_ to drive their fans away." WotC didn't _try_ to drive their fans away with 4e either.


----------



## Ted Serious (Jul 18, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> You said "Paizo isn't _trying_ to drive their fans away." WotC didn't _try_ to drive their fans away with 4e either.




Obviously. 

 But they succeeded.

They were trying so hard for new MMO fans they drove away the D&D fans they had.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 18, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I really dont see that 4e does not rely on the adventuring day.  Everyone has Daily abilities, they all get a certain number of Healing surges per day with Action points that reset every day and items that also have Daily abilities.  At high levels you get abiltiies like: "Once per day, when you die....".  4e is full of the normal DnD resources that need to be carefully hoarded and preserved.  It kind of detracts from your main points to be honest.



But 4e is MUCH less a per-day gated game, and much more a per-encounter gated one than other editions of D&D. 'classic D&D' doesn't really have per-encounter resources at all. The main party resource, spells, are always per-day, as are hit points (essentially). I can't think of a good example of a per-encounter resource in AD&D at all, beyond maybe "thieves can only backstab once per encounter", but even that's not a hard rule, just an expected fictional limitation.

In 4e you can certainly continue to operate, even with many resources largely depleted. You get your encounter powers back, you have milestones which allow recouping of APs, and many item powers/properties are usable on either a continuous, at-will, or encounter basis. Its true, HS puts a cap on your day, eventually, but the limit is generally high enough that its more a question of management vs continuing until its expended. 



> If the DM is presenting or "framing" a room in a Gygaxian dungeon, and I must admit that some of those rooms can be very interesting indeed, how is that not meeting your first premise?
> 
> And then if the Players engage with that scenario then that must meet your second requirement as well.
> 
> Sorry I am still having trouble differentiating exactly what you mean.




Scene framing in Story Now is a process of reacting to player cues to produce a situation which challenges their character's beliefs/interests/genre-based questions. Gygaxian dungeon encounters are puzzle/challenge elements which are, by intention, unrelated to player/character choices, which are supposed to be made as part of a 'game of skill' intended to allow the player to showcase his expertise in overcoming the GM's diabolical schemes and monsters. One HUGE difference is that, by definition, dungeon encounters are set-piece things created ahead of time, while Story Now encounters are ideally created on the fly in a sort of feedback loop with the players. Obviously neither of these ideals is usually fully realized, but they exist.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 18, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Ok, thats alright.  I have found that in most scenarios it is hard to fit one or two of the PCs in like maybe the Fighter in this Bear scenario, while the Ranger is in his element.  Obviously it depends on your character abilities so maybe the Sorcerer can pull off Intimidate but if the Wizard had to do it then it would be basically an impossible roll.
> 
> I was asking about about whether you let the Players know they are in a Skill Challenge with number of successes or not because for me it always seems to make it into a kind of mini game.  It feels very much like when Combat starts and the Minis come out and now the real game is on hold while we resolve this seperate part.  I have seen a few people suggesting to not let the Players know and others who take the opposite tact.




4e seems to be all-in for transparency in combat, though there have been discussions around things like "are minions declared as such or just described and its left to the players to figure it out" or "do you tell the players the monster's hit point totals" etc. The same question of course can be asked about SCs. My opinion is that the players are collaborators and its fruitless to keep things from them unless there's a really interesting reason to do so.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 18, 2018)

Ted Serious said:


> Obviously.
> 
> But they succeeded.
> 
> They were trying so hard for new MMO fans they drove away the D&D fans they had.




But then “not trying to drive their fans away” is not a point of distinction between them. If WotC was able to drive fans away without trying to, so might Paizo.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 18, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> 4e seems to be all-in for transparency in combat, though there have been discussions around things like "are minions declared as such or just described and its left to the players to figure it out" or "do you tell the players the monster's hit point totals" etc. The same question of course can be asked about SCs. My opinion is that the players are collaborators and its fruitless to keep things from them unless there's a really interesting reason to do so.




I was watching one Matt Colville video where he was telling the story about how he was giving the Players the job of moving the enemy pieces around the battle map as well as keeping track of hp damage and such.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 18, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> So again, how is that any different from any version of DnD other then making Fighters use the exact same mechanics as Wizards?  How is everyone novaing on the first (and only) encounter of the day not going to affect game balance?  How is that not going to affect pacing?



It won't effect game balance because there's only one resource management paradigm and all classes follow it. In classic D&D its a HUGE advantage to the wizard to have 5 minute workdays. He can expend spells with abandon and then just memorize them all again before the next day's encounter. Whereas the fighter and thief gain basically nothing, they can swing their swords all day and their effectiveness never varies, at least until they hit 0 hit points.

It will have an effect on the balance between PCs and monsters, but that's not the same thing. That is a question of favoring the party (IE smart tactics, or not). Pacing is again not related to changes in PC balance. That might be important to the story, but with its heavy use of encounter resources 4e provides plenty of wiggle room for parties to press on when it is dramatically appropriate. Its quite easy for the GM to induce this. 



> I dont really know enough about 13th age to be able to comment on how much like DnD it is.  Basing the recharge system on four encounters seems pretty arbitrary to me but I guess some people must enjoy it.



Again though, because of disparate resource management paradigms some classes benefit heavily from shorter days.



> OK so if I am understanding this correctly then in a Narrative game you do not have an Exploration aspect?  You dont have a map to explore?




Maps are usually somewhat de-emphasized in narrative play, yes. The exploration is more in terms of 'plot' and 'character', than in terms of place. Dungeon World for instance advocates a technique where the GM makes 'maps with holes in them'. In other words he establishes a loose collection of facts, but leaves many of the details fuzzy and usually only constructs some information at the scale the PCs are operating on at the moment (so maybe a basic town map with lots of blanks in it, but no regional or larger maps until those elements come into play). Often things are described in DW in response to Discern Realities moves by the players, or Spout Lore, etc. 

In a really Story Now game, there would be no maps, though the action could take place in an established milieu or some genre constraints could exist (IE in a King Arthur game Camelot is a place where the King lives and it contains a Round Table). Most things are decided on the fly as dictated by the need to challenge the PC's character traits/goals/etc. Pregenerating a map is usually considered to be unnecessary or even prejudicial to the story.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 18, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> But 4e is MUCH less a per-day gated game, and much more a per-encounter gated one than other editions of D&D. 'classic D&D' doesn't really have per-encounter resources at all. The main party resource, spells, are always per-day, as are hit points (essentially). I can't think of a good example of a per-encounter resource in AD&D at all, beyond maybe "thieves can only backstab once per encounter", but even that's not a hard rule, just an expected fictional limitation.
> 
> In 4e you can certainly continue to operate, even with many resources largely depleted. You get your encounter powers back, you have milestones which allow recouping of APs, and many item powers/properties are usable on either a continuous, at-will, or encounter basis. Its true, HS puts a cap on your day, eventually, but the limit is generally high enough that its more a question of management vs continuing until its expended.




4e is definitely designed around the Encounter.  However by giving every Daily powers then it is still not balanced around going indefinitely.  It would be like a party of martial characters, none of whom have Daily abilities, adventuring indefinitely until they ran out of Hps.  Sure you could do it in theory.



> Scene framing in Story Now is a process of reacting to player cues to produce a situation which challenges their character's beliefs/interests/genre-based questions. Gygaxian dungeon encounters are puzzle/challenge elements which are, by intention, unrelated to player/character choices, which are supposed to be made as part of a 'game of skill' intended to allow the player to showcase his expertise in overcoming the GM's diabolical schemes and monsters. One HUGE difference is that, by definition, dungeon encounters are set-piece things created ahead of time, while Story Now encounters are ideally created on the fly in a sort of feedback loop with the players. Obviously neither of these ideals is usually fully realized, but they exist.




OK, so how would this game look like in practice?  You have your Players all set ready to go and then what happens next in a Story Now game?


----------



## Moon_Goddess (Jul 18, 2018)

All this talk about subscriptions, I still pay a subscription for 4e and don't even have a game just hope that I do someday


----------



## MwaO (Jul 18, 2018)

Moon_Goddess said:


> All this talk about subscriptions, I still pay a subscription for 4e and don't even have a game just hope that I do someday




Do a search for Guild Living Campaign on roll20. Usually about 5 games a week on there, organized in the LFR format.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 18, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> in the Dire Bear example, do I need to know that I am in a skill challenge to recognise that the Ranger using Nature skill is probably the optimal strategy to use?



No. But knowing that you're in a skill challenge does help make decisions about what resources to expend (eg if I have a limited-used Nature buff, I might not use it on the first check if I'm still sussing out the fiction), and it helps you know what the payoff is for succeeding.

It also establishes a context for making choices about how to engage the fiction: if its a complexity 5 skill challenge, for example, then I know that my first few moves aren't going to win it for me, but will help lay the groundwork for later, likely more decisive, checks.



Shasarak said:


> How is everyone novaing on the first (and only) encounter of the day not going to affect game balance? How is that not going to affect pacing?



It will affect pacing, which is what I said ("It's purely about pacing"). But it won't affect game balance. Nothing comes unstuck if the players nova. No one dominates and no one gets overshadowed.

If the players choose to hoard their daily resources then the GM is free to respond to that as s/he thinks appropriate given the mood and expectations of the table, and what would be consistent with the logic of the fiction. That could range from reward/flattery by telegraphing an encounter that will allow the players to profit from the planned expenditure of their carefully conserved resources, to taunting/teasing by pushing them at every turn with adverse actions by NPCs and framings of situations that would be oh-so-easy to deal with by expending a daily, but become hard or costly (in story terms) when dealt with without such expenditure.

This sort of flexibility, and capacity for unfolding spontaneity of pacing and framing without needing to be concerned about intra-partiy balance, is (in my view, and based on my experiences) a big part of what makes 4e the most suitable version of D&D for any sort of "story now"-type RPGing.



Shasarak said:


> how is that any different from any version of DnD other then making Fighters use the exact same mechanics as Wizards?



But putting everyone on the same resource recovery suite is a _huge]/i] difference from any other version of D&D. And it removes the need to worry about balance in terms of the "adventuring day" (look how often that comes up as a topic of discussion on the 5e boards!).



Shasarak said:



			if I am understanding this correctly then in a Narrative game you do not have an Exploration aspect? You dont have a map to explore?
		
Click to expand...


The short answer to the second question is No, there's no map that the GM knows and that the players learn about through play as one of the goals of play. That's not to say that there's no map; nor even that there's no map that (at the start) only the GM knows. But learning the map isn't a goal of play. If the players don't already know it (because the GM has shared it with them), then picking it up in the course of play is a side effect of other stuff going on. Eg in the Underdark phase of my 4e game I had a rough map sketched that located some of the key features that I thought might be interesting, and I didn't show it to the players from the start. But it wasn't used as part of the adjudication of action resolution - the PCs' movement through the Underdark was a mixture of free narration and skill challenges, and the map simply acted as a sort of "aide memoire" to help me narrate appropriate flavour. When I needed to change or interpolate stuff to support the unfoding ficiton, I did so.

In my 4e game, the overland map that I used was the one from module B10 Night's Dark Terror, and I shared it with the players from the start. Likewise in my Greyhawk-located Burning Wheel game, when the PCs are moving from place to place we all look at the map to work out where they're going, and it provides a source of flavour to support narrations (eg place names; "You journey for 5 days through the desert before arriving at the foothills"; etc). The players don't "discover" it, and they doubly don't discover it by working out how it is affecting the resolution of declared actions.

As to the first question, the exploration aspect is about discovering what comes out of play, or learning in play what the implications or significance of some setting element is - not players discovering stuff that the GM has already established._


----------



## pemerton (Jul 18, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> You have your Players all set ready to go and then what happens next in a Story Now game?



Links to four actual play examples.


----------



## MwaO (Jul 18, 2018)

Manbearcat said:


> But we’re talking about 4e D&D noncombat conflict resolution whereby mechanical architecture is used (as it is in Cortex+, Fate, Dogs, or Blades when a GM uses Opposing Clocks) to determine (a) the dramatic pacing of a scene (while allowing players considerable agency in the mechanical goings-on of the evolving narrative...thereby considerable agency in that emergent fiction and in the manifestation of their PC archetype) and (b) when finality of resolution occurs (rather than GM discretion or table consensus).




Skill Challenges are just a tool and are not mandatory. Even within Skill Challenges, you can have many scenes that don't use die rolls to resolve or have it overarch an entire adventuring day or even longer.

They're just a narrative structure designed to get everyone involved and have meaningful, consistent definitions of success. There's no need for die rolls with most NPCs within a skill challenge. You talk to the librarian, she answers your questions. Don't go in the right direction in terms of questioning her, she might not give you the piece of information you're looking to get. And that might affect what direction the skill challenge goes.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 18, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> 'classic D&D' doesn't really have per-encounter resources at all. The main party resource, spells, are always per-day, as are hit points (essentially).



 hps were a per-day resource because healing spells were a per-day resource, if considered separately, it could take weeks to recover hps - it never did, it was a non-viable mode of play if any rival out there were burning spells every day.  







> I can't think of a good example of a per-encounter resource in AD&D at all, beyond maybe "thieves can only backstab once per encounter", but even that's not a hard rule, just an expected fictional limitation.



 There were the odd 1/turn magic item or special ability, and a turn (at 10 minutes) usually encompassed an encounter, with the DMG assumption that the balance of the 10 minutes not spend fighting would be spent resting, binding your wounds, and fixing up your kit so you're ready for the next fight.  So 1/turn was essentially 'encounter' back in the day, not that that counts for anything. 


> But 4e is MUCH less a per-day gated game, and much more a per-encounter gated one than other editions of D&D.



 Even so, 4e was a per-day 'gated' game, too.  And, it didn't have the weeks-to-recover-hp disconnect, since hps & surges were also daily resources.  

The main reason you could vary pacing wildly in 4e without screwing things up too bad was that the classes had comparable resources available, regardless of pacing.  So the 5MWD made that sole encounter a good deal easier, but not a caster-dominated fiasco.



> In 4e you can certainly continue to operate, even with many resources largely depleted. You get your encounter powers back, you have milestones which allow recouping of APs, and many item powers/properties are usable on either a continuous, at-will, or encounter basis. Its true, HS puts a cap on your day, eventually, but the limit is generally high enough that its more a question of management vs continuing until its expended.



 In a true "encounter based" game, you wouldn't run up against that.  A closely related example is the 7th ("D&D") edition of Gamma World, in which there were no surges, you simple recovered all your hps with every short rest.  There was one 'daily' in the whole game - probably a misprint.  



AbdulAlhazred said:


> 4e seems to be all-in for transparency in combat, though there have been discussions around things like "are minions declared as such or just described and its left to the players to figure it out" or "do you tell the players the monster's hit point totals" etc. The same question of course can be asked about SCs. My opinion is that the players are collaborators and its fruitless to keep things from them unless there's a really interesting reason to do so.



 4e certainly can work either way.  IMHO, it works more smoothly with everything open and above board. (I'll tag minions as such, and generally give away approximate level and elite or solo, too - though, the way I see it, 'elite' or 'minion' is not really something the monster /is/, it's how the monster stacks up to the party - but, I won't give hp totals up front:  I figure if the party pays attention to how much damage is accumulated and when it's bloodied, they'll have a pretty good idea, anyway.)



MwaO said:


> Skill Challenges are just a tool and are not mandatory. Even within Skill Challenges, you can have many scenes that don't use die rolls to resolve or have it overarch an entire adventuring day or even longer.
> 
> *They're just a narrative structure designed to get everyone involved and have meaningful, consistent definitions of success.* There's no need for die rolls with most NPCs within a skill challenge. You talk to the librarian, she answers your questions. Don't go in the right direction in terms of questioning her, she might not give you the piece of information you're looking to get. And that might affect what direction the skill challenge goes.



 The SC structure does seem to be very much oriented on the PCs for resolution.  It just assumes what the NPCs will be doing, whether the PCs are acting and the NPC re-acting, or vice-versa, it's the PC actions/checks that determine success or failure....


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 19, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> OK, so how would this game look like in practice?  You have your Players all set ready to go and then what happens next in a Story Now game?




The GM describes the initial scene. I mean, each system often has a specific way for this to work, but in a sort of generalized Story Now concept the players might express some sort of 'kickers', things that served as a catalyst to making them become PCs (IE heroes or whatnot vs homebodies). The GM could then frame a scene around that. Barring that sort of thing, then a judicious reading of the PC's backgrounds, build choices, etc. should provide a thread to pick up. Some games simply have pervasive genre conventions (A Cthulhu Mythos based game would start with some outre event, or perhaps some more mundane forewarning, a supers game could simply start with a villain appearing on the scene to spoil someone's day). 

You would NOT start a Story Now game with 'the PCs are in a tavern having a drink' (unless some relevant event was about to take place there). You generally avoid 'passive' situations, though I have codified them into my game as 'interludes', which are pretty handy (4e DMG2 suggests something similar).


----------



## Zeromaru X (Jul 19, 2018)

I have problems grasping this "Story Now". I mean, I like giving my players agency and whatnot, but I also like to world-build. And the more I read about it, it seems that "Story Now" and world-building are opposite concepts.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 19, 2018)

Zeromaru X said:


> I have problems grasping this "Story Now". I mean, I like giving my players agency and whatnot, but I also like to world-build. And the more I read about it, it seems that "Story Now" and world-building are opposite concepts.



_"I felt a great disturbance in the Thread, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, 'Oh Heavens, not this debate again.'"_


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 19, 2018)

Zeromaru X said:


> I have problems grasping this "Story Now". I mean, I like giving my players agency and whatnot, but I also like to world-build. And the more I read about it, it seems that "Story Now" and world-building are opposite concepts.




They aren't opposite, really.  Just very different.  If you wanted to, you could combine them into a style that is different than either one.  For instance, you could create a town, but have a rule where each player gets to create one building and 2 NPCs to give the town a different flavor from pure world building.  Or you could allow the players to each, once per session, add or remove an encounter of their choice.  The rest of the encounters would be yours.  There are many ways to mix the two styles together to create a game that might be enjoyable to all of you.  It all depends on what your preferences are.


----------



## Garthanos (Jul 19, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think some of the people that worked on it did understand. I don't think that game was just some sort of 'accident'.



Corporate amnesia..


----------



## Zeromaru X (Jul 19, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> _"I felt a great disturbance in the Thread, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, 'Oh Heavens, not this debate again.'"_




Oh, not a debate at all. I' m just trying to understand this "Story Now" concept, at it's the first time I've read about it. 



Maxperson said:


> They aren't opposite, really.  Just very different.  If you wanted to, you could combine them into a style that is different than either one.  For instance, you could create a town, but have a rule where each player gets to create one building and 2 NPCs to give the town a different flavor from pure world building.  Or you could allow the players to each, once per session, add or remove an encounter of their choice.  The rest of the encounters would be yours.  There are many ways to mix the two styles together to create a game that might be enjoyable to all of you.  It all depends on what your preferences are.




That would be an intersting idea. It would be like some sort of shared world-building.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 19, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Links to four actual play examples.




That looks great, thanks.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 20, 2018)

Zeromaru X said:


> I have problems grasping this "Story Now". I mean, I like giving my players agency and whatnot, but I also like to world-build. And the more I read about it, it seems that "Story Now" and world-building are opposite concepts.



This blog on "no myth" sets out what is probably the typical way of playing "story now". The emphasis is on characters' dramatic needs, and the framing of situations to speak to those needs and generate drama out of them. I think this is what [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] has in mind as a default or standard approach.

Here's a blog by Ron Edwards on the use of setting in "story now" play. It emphasises the setting as something that is shared across all the players at the table, and is the source of situation and theme. The way that I run 4e has hints of this, because of the role of the default cosmology, but Edwards is envisaging something a bit more involved and intricate, with Glorantha-focused HeroWars/Quest as his model.

What's central to what Edwards is envisaging is not shared authorship of the setting, but shared engagement with it as a source of theme and situation:

One concern that crops up a lot for playing this way is how expert people have to be even to get started. Although not everyone must be expert, certainly no one can be ignorant either. But people are understandably wary of game texts with extraordinary page counts concerning setting information.

In my experience, the solution begins with a single person choosing the location, at least when the group is playing the game for the first time. He or she should provide a brief but inspirational handout which summarizes the entire setting, focusing on colorful and thematic points; if the opening text of the game book provides this, a quick photocopy will do. . . .

After that point, everyone at the table may restrict his or her attention to the exact location that’s been chosen. Although the organizing person should provide more detailed handouts or photocopies as an ongoing feature of preparation, everyone else must definitely be oriented and enthusiastic concerning the prevailing thematic crises that are made concrete in setting terms. The good news is that full expertise isn’t necessary to achieve this, and in my experience, asking and answering questions about the options for the geographically-limited character creation usually generate sufficient knowledge for the first sessions of play.​
It's quite different from exploring the GM's setting in the traditional sense, but also different from "setting as mere backdrop" which is how GH works in my Burning Wheel game, or how "the universe" works in my Traveller game.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 20, 2018)

Zeromaru X said:


> I have problems grasping this "Story Now". I mean, I like giving my players agency and whatnot, but I also like to world-build. And the more I read about it, it seems that "Story Now" and world-building are opposite concepts.




I don't actually think that Story Now is necessarily opposed to some elements that are often considered 'world building' to at least a degree. Thus, for example, even fairly staunch advocates of Story Now 'Zero Myth' play would still say that you need a solid idea of the genre, and its good to understand the tone and general sort of content that will go into a game. At a slightly less far out position you could also simply take up a type of game where the fundamental questions are mostly determined by the genre conventions and similar things. 

The oft-cited Cthulhu Mythos example works well here. We all know what the primary geography is in the CM world, its an early-20th-Century Earth with certain locations which form focal points, Eastern Massachusetts and NE, certain regions in the South Pacific, remote Antarctica, the Arabian Desert, etc. What exists in these places is fairly established, as a general thing. The creatures which are likely to be encountered, Great Old Ones, Elder Gods, the Great Race of Yith, Fungi from Yuggoth, Deep Ones, shoggoths, etc. are all pretty well known quantities in terms of how they function in the milieu. So a lot of 'world' is already 'built' here. This would also be the case in a Middle Earth, a Marvel Universe, etc. 

Even if the world is less fixed by the conventions of a specific genre niche, Story Now is certainly not going to be hurt by using some pre-existing overall setting. You can do it in WoG as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has, or FR, or 4e's PoL world. The key element is that there's no fixed story. It is only 'world now' to the extent that overly specifying the world beforehand can create constraints which are then hard to break when the story would be better for it. Different people feel that there are different ideal balances. Dungeon World wants 'a map with holes in it', zero myth advocates for no map at all. 

What is unlikely to be considered Story Now is a game where you have a whole bunch of encounter areas that are already set up with pre-ordained elements which focus on things that their author wanted to have in them. The things that show up in the Story Now story are things that the players have indicated are supposed to show up, could show up, or would take the story in the direction they want if they did show up.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 20, 2018)

Zeromaru X said:


> That would be an intersting idea. It would be like some sort of shared world-building.



Think of all the different aspects that there are to world building.  Then all the different ways you could share that world building.  There's a staggering amount of variety that you could come up with.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 20, 2018)

Zeromaru X said:


> Oh, not a debate at all. I' m just trying to understand this "Story Now" concept, at it's the first time I've read about it.



I'm sorry. I misspoke in my glib. It is less a "debate" and more like a "Big Ole Can-o-Worms" that has involved many of the same people in this thread. Here is probably the most famous 250+ page leviathan: What is *Worldbuilding* For? Be careful. It gets ugly in there and diverges often from the central thread points.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 22, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> I'm sorry. I misspoke in my glib. It is less a "debate" and more like a "Big Ole Can-o-Worms" that has involved many of the same people in this thread. Here is probably the most famous 250+ page leviathan: What is *Worldbuilding* For? Be careful. It gets ugly in there and diverges often from the central thread points.




Oh, come now, it was a triumph of expostulation...


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 22, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Oh, come now, it was a triumph of expostulation...



Despite how heated many of these threads get, I have increasingly found myself drawn to many such threads in General Roleplaying Games. Because a lot of the insight on game design, game theory, and play approaches provided by you,  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION],  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION],  [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION],  [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION],  [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION],  [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION],  [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION],  [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], among many others unlisted, has been incredibly engaging for me, as it I can apply those insights and approaches to games outside of D&D.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 22, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Oh, come now, it was a triumph of expostulation...



As you know, I'm hardly one to blow my own trumpet! Still, I've overcome my modesty to point out that (at the time of posting) that thread is number 6 on the list of hottest threads by XP. (And completeness obliges me to observe that numbers 3 and 12 are also threads that I started.)


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 22, 2018)

pemerton said:


> As you know, I'm hardly one to blow my own trumpet! Still, I've overcome my modesty to point out that (at the time of posting) that thread is number 6 on the list of hottest threads by XP. (And completeness obliges me to observe that numbers 3 and 12 are also threads that I started.)



I like that they’re all divisible by 3, but you’re missing 9.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 22, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I like that they’re all divisible by 3, but you’re missing 9.




I'm sure we can fix that.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 22, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Despite how heated many of these threads get, I have increasingly found myself drawn to many such threads in General Roleplaying Games. Because a lot of the insight on game design, game theory, and play approaches provided by you,  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION],  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION],  [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION],  [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION],  [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION],  [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION],  [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION],  [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], among many others unlisted, has been incredibly engaging for me, as it I can apply those insights and approaches to games outside of D&D.




Agreed.  I love learning new things and seeing how others do things, and I sometimes test out some things from here in my games to see how they are received.  I may argue hard, but don't think that it means that I don't take things in.  Thank you for engaging in these discussions with me.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 22, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Despite how heated many of these threads get, I have increasingly found myself drawn to many such threads in General Roleplaying Games. Because a lot of the insight on game design, game theory, and play approaches provided by you,  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION],  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION],  [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION],  [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION],  [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION],  [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION],  [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION],  [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], among many others unlisted, has been incredibly engaging for me, as it I can apply those insights and approaches to games outside of D&D.



Ditto here, though my applications would be more to the games I run and play in.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> As you know, I'm hardly one to blow my own trumpet! Still, I've overcome my modesty to point out that (at the time of posting) that thread is number 6 on the list of hottest threads by XP. (And completeness obliges me to observe that numbers 3 and 12 are also threads that I started.)



In other words, you're a good firestarter...


----------



## Ted Serious (Jul 24, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> But then “not trying to drive their fans away” is not a point of distinction between them. If WotC was able to drive fans away without trying to, so might Paizo.




Paizo has Wizards terrible mistakes to learn from.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 24, 2018)

Ted Serious said:


> Paizo has Wizards terrible mistakes to learn from.




But, again, trying to drive their fans away is not a thing either company did, and therefore not a way in which PF2 is unlike 4e.


----------



## Ted Serious (Jul 25, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> But, again, trying to drive their fans away is not a thing either company did, and therefore not a way in which PF2 is unlike 4e.



4e did drive fans away.  Paizo was there for them.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 25, 2018)

Ted Serious said:


> 4e did drive fans away.  Paizo was there for them.



And again, WotC didn’t _try_ to drive their fans away, which is the way you claimed PF2 was unlike 4e. Since neither company _tried_ to drive their fans away, your assertion is false. Not _trying_ to drive their fans away is, in fact, a way in which they are similar.

If you had said, “Paizo has not driven their fans away” or, “Paizo won’t drive their fans away,” we’d be having a very different discussion.


----------



## Ted Serious (Jul 25, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> And again, WotC didn’t _try_ to drive their fans away, which is the way you claimed PF2 was unlike 4e. Since neither company _tried_ to drive their fans away, your assertion is false. Not _trying_ to drive their fans away is, in fact, a way in which they are similar.
> 
> If you had said, “Paizo has not driven their fans away” or, “Paizo won’t drive their fans away,” we’d be having a very different discussion.




Paizo won’t drive their fans away. 
 4e did.  Pathfinder 2 won't.
  Paizo has learned from wizards mistakes.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 25, 2018)

Ted Serious said:


> Paizo won’t drive their fans away.
> 4e did.  Pathfinder 2 won't.
> Paizo has learned from wizards mistakes.



Which is a very different assertion than,


Ted Serious said:


> Pathfinder 2 is nothing like 4e.  It does not want to drive its fans away.



Still not one I agree with, but not one I feel like arguing with.


----------



## houser2112 (Jul 25, 2018)

Ted Serious said:


> Paizo won’t drive their fans away.
> 4e did.  Pathfinder 2 won't.
> Paizo has learned from wizards mistakes.




By releasing Pathfinder 2 and discontinuing support for PF1, they WILL split their base at least a little. It's impossible to get everyone to follow you. I don't foresee a rift as great as the one caused by 4E, but there will be stragglers. It remains to be seen if releasing PF2 was a mistake, but at least Paizo isn't making the mistake of deriding their own previous product and the customers who like it in the process.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 25, 2018)

Ted Serious said:


> 4e did drive fans away.  Paizo was there for them.




Her point was that WoTC did not intentionally drive people away.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 25, 2018)

Ted Serious said:


> Paizo won’t drive their fans away.
> 4e did.  Pathfinder 2 won't.
> Paizo has learned from wizards mistakes.




Paizo is entirely capable of finding their way to making their own mistakes independently of WoTC.  I can see where PF2 could go too far for even the 3X diehards but I'm waiting to see the content before I make an opinion or decision beyond not playtesting actively with my group.

Their current market position was the result of capturing lightning in a bottle and being in the right place at the right time, enabled by WoTC's poor business strategy and lack of ruthlessness.  (Personally, I would have stepped on their throat and that would have been the end of them.  Not personal, but business isn't slap and tickle.  It's killshots)

Given what they've accomplished though, I admire the firm.  Their quality sets the tone for the industry and we're better off as gamers for having them around.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 25, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> (Personally, I would have stepped on their throat and that would have been the end of them.  Not personal, but business isn't slap and tickle.  It's killshots)




Maybe because the industry is small enough that they don't want to crap too much in their own pool knowing they'll be swimming in it for years to come? Honestly, I think too much overt hostility would be self-destructive.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 25, 2018)

billd91 said:


> Maybe because the industry is small enough that they don't want to crap too much in their own pool knowing they'll be swimming in it for years to come? Honestly, I think too much overt hostility would be self-destructive.




1. Industry small - market share is important.
2. Talent is important - Their best talent is likely much better than my middle performers and not making a ton more than they are.
3. Step on throat and offer best talent sugar.
4. Get rid of middle talent.  They will either get better and be my new competition (that I have tons of backstory on) or they do something else with their lives.

Either way, everyone loves winning.  All you need to do as a firm in any vertical is put out one product everyone loves and all is forgiven.  Doing this sort of thing when your product sucks is what you need to avoid.  Prior to 4e launch it would have been very wise to take down the competition and assume their top talent while getting rid of chaff.  But there's no way I'd have let Monte go.  Stupid move on their part.  When you have iconic employees that are worth their weight in marketing and PR, you do what you have to to keep them.

Overtly, even in a situation like this one, I'd not have gotten personal or directly offended anyone due to the size of the industry.  Can't control how other people take it but if I keep someone like Monte, go after someone like Mearls or Buhlmann hard and let  Bill, Tess, Derek and Mary go, in favor of folks that will playtest the hell out of something for 15 an hour. I'm better off for the next product cycle at least.

Informed in business, uninformed in the RPG industry, but assuming that one product cycle can kill a brand so I'm not looking at the long game much.  Keep quality employees, put a muzzle on the social media without making sure that there's a unified message behind everything and put out the best product.

KB


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 25, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> .. and put out the best product.



 Oops, that last one'll kill you in the RPG industry, every time.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 25, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Oops, that last one'll kill you in the RPG industry, every time.




Understood.  But that's the governing commandment of all business.  The product can not suffer.  Everything and everyone else can and will suffer (to varying degrees) to achieve that goal.


----------



## Fox Lee (Jul 28, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Think of all the different aspects that there are to world building.  Then all the different ways you could share that world building.  There's a staggering amount of variety that you could come up with.




My group does this a lot actually. I find letting my players set their own anchors into my world motivates them in a way that treasure and adventure simply do not. I've been with them for a long time, so we have fewer stumbling points than a newer group might—but either way, I have a campaign setting that's the result of collaborative effort over like 10+ years at this point, and their contributions (especially to things I'm not very interested in, like geography and engineering) have been invaluable.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 29, 2018)

I think this paragraph here explains a lot from those articles.

"But few players kept up. “If you got a 3.5 Player’s Handbook and that’s the only D&D book you have and the only one you read, and then you got the fourth edition Player’s Handbook there was a gap,” Mearls said."

 You can follow the evolution of 4E through the late 3.5 splats but there is a major problem with that. I threw thousands at 3.x and the minis line and 4E kind of felt like advanced D&D miniatures the RPG and it was also designed by the same people checking the credits in the minis rules books. I had 80 odd 3.x books but I missed a few and I suspect I bought more than most people. I did not get the Book of 9 Swords, Races of the Dragon, Tome of Magic or the Incarnum, Weapons of Legacy book mostly getting things like the PHB2, the FR material, most of the complete series, the mature books, Dragon+Dungeon things like that

 I have around 400 D&D items on my bookcase, half of that is from the 3E era (80 odd books+ Dragon and Dungeon). Basically couldn't keep up with everything.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 29, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> I think this paragraph here explaions a lot from those articles.
> 
> "But few players kept up. “If you got a 3.5 Player’s Handbook and that’s the only D&D book you have and the only one you read, and then you got the fourth edition Player’s Handbook there was a gap,” Mearls said."
> 
> ...




I think the line speaks more to the reality that regardless of whether or not you spend resources on publishing, the return on effort declines.   If anything I think that's the reason for 5e's slow pub schedule.  It's just good sense.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 29, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> I think the line speaks more to the reality that regardless of whether or not you spend resources on publishing, the return on effort declines.   If anything I think that's the reason for 5e's slow pub schedule.  It's just good sense.




It is just maximization of ROI. If every book is snapped up because its the only one coming out this year, then you will get maximum sales vs content generation investment made. Plus the books will sell at the highest price points, since people are more eager to have that one book. Furthermore, excluding 5e from anything like DDI, which could genuinely replace most of the books for a lot of people, has an obvious purpose too. 5e, like any product when you get down to brass tacks, is making the most money it can from the least investment. They simply learned that they weren't capable of executing the true 'digital strategy' they had envisaged for 4e, so they've fallen back on "sell paper books". My fear is that in the end this will become an obsolete strategy and they won't have matured their ability in the fully digital platform realm enough to compete. At least that would be my fear if I really cared what happens to WotC D&D. OGL lives. D&D will live too.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 29, 2018)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> It is just maximization of ROI. If every book is snapped up because its the only one coming out this year, then you will get maximum sales vs content generation investment made. Plus the books will sell at the highest price points, since people are more eager to have that one book. Furthermore, excluding 5e from anything like DDI, which could genuinely replace most of the books for a lot of people, has an obvious purpose too. 5e, like any product when you get down to brass tacks, is making the most money it can from the least investment. They simply learned that they weren't capable of executing the true 'digital strategy' they had envisaged for 4e, so they've fallen back on "sell paper books". My fear is that in the end this will become an obsolete strategy and they won't have matured their ability in the fully digital platform realm enough to compete. At least that would be my fear if I really cared what happens to WotC D&D. OGL lives. D&D will live too.




Isn't DnD Beyond 5e's "DDI"?

 I know I use the compendium as opposed to the books when prepping. I think the biggest difference is the subscription vs. content model but otherwise you could forego purchasing the books and be wholly reliant on DnD Beyond.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 29, 2018)

Imaro said:


> Isn't DnD Beyond 5e's "DDI"?
> 
> I know I use the compendium as opposed to the books when prepping. I think the biggest difference is the subscription vs. content model but otherwise you could forego purchasing the books and be wholly reliant on DnD Beyond.




Maybe I don't understand how it works? What I saw back when 5e debuted was not even close to Compendium, but I guess things change? I'm not sure what the 'content model' is? I mean, you pay, you get access to stuff? Presumably there's some sort of ongoing revenue stream there for WotC....


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 30, 2018)

D&D Beyond is more expensive than DDI though? I think the problem was DDI monthly subscription thing was a reaction to WoW I suppose but these days the monthly subscription thing is dead for the most part its micro transactions and loot boxes or DLC.

 DLC is a bit tough and go, loot boxes are cancer, micro transactions depends on what they're doing with them. 

 It takes 3 years to design a D&D edition, 1-2 if you're tweaking an existing one (3.5, 2E). 4E was rushed even with the PHB you could tell. Missing 5/11 classes from the 3.5 PHB did not help either so you get that DLC effect where you feel the devs hold something back that should be in the base game to sell it to you later.

 4E main problem was they designed a game no one wanted to play, it was not badly designed as such. Even had DDI and the VTT worked or been available if people don't wanna play the pen and paper version they are not gonna play online either.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 30, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> 1. Industry small - market share is important.
> 2. Talent is important - Their best talent is likely much better than my middle performers and not making a ton more than they are.
> 3. Step on throat and offer best talent sugar.
> 4. Get rid of middle talent.  They will either get better and be my new competition (that I have tons of backstory on) or they do something else with their lives.
> ...




I think something like half the PF players have tickled back to 5E, if WoTC had killed Paizo via a lawsuit they would piss off their players even more. They would not magically go and play 4E they would either stick with 3.5 or just stop playing.

 They would not have been their to playtest 5E, neither would the good will.

 So odds are they would have no D&D, 4E would have still tanked, Paizo might not exist, and I suspect a good chunk of the 200k+ playtesters would not have been active.

 They did the best thing they could- make something better than 4E and Pathfinder, seems to have paid off. I'm not a Paizo die hard, dont even use their stuff anymore but I went with them up to a point because of the good will and quality of Dungeon over the stupid things WoTC were doing. My group and 2 of my players other groups all bailed so they lost around a dozen players there and that seemed to be replicated across the nation and the USA. Playing 4E was not much of an option there were virtually no DMs for it after 2009.I'm sure they existed somewhere but locally and at the university RPG club they were gone. 

 If Paizo was not there I would have continued my house rule of 3.5 to make it play more like AD&D, the OSR stuff would still exist so if I burned out on 3.x still I would play 2E or OSR stuff now. My D&D would be ACKs, 2E and C&C. If they got rid of the OSR 3.5 and TSR D&D would still exist.

 For mass market penetration 4E was not it, you need a simpler game for the casuals who are not going to put up with hour long battles and the complexity of 4E PC's (some wargamers might casuals no). 5E may not be it either but its doing better than any of the other D&Ds since the early 80's at least.


----------



## qstor (Jul 30, 2018)

Ted Serious said:


> Pathfinder 2 is still taking shape.  It seems truer to the direction D&D was going than 4e was.




I have friends that say 4e is an interesting and fun game. But it's NOT D&D.

Thanks for posting the article. I have to agree that 4th killed too many "scared cows" for me.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 2, 2018)

I think they didnt make enough holy steak / sacred burgers - for instance feats were basically the same beasts they were in 3e and given a context with powers on the table mayhaps they shouldn't have been.


----------



## Retreater (Aug 4, 2018)

In the past few months, I've grown more nostalgic for 4e. I hadn't played a real life game since Encounters switched to Next - but then I got in a game at Origins - and I loved it! I started with AD&D at the beginning of 2nd edition and played every edition pretty extensively (admittedly less in 4e because it was out less time). 
I'm running three games of 5e and I keep running into the same issues: poorly balanced, boring combats; monsters that are sacks of hit points; weak and option-less low level play. While I am spending a lot of time trying to homebrew 5e to address these issues, 4e was ready to go out of the box. The monsters were inspired, and the character abilities scaled nicely regardless of the class or level.
The "gamist language" and design of the 4e rules makes it great to play on FG. Having tried both 4e and 5e, I can say that the default 4e system with little programming works so much better. I can code powers in there, whereas the officially purchased module for 5e has basically no mechanics in it.
So, yeah, I'm now a 4e defender.


----------

