How to embed a video in your post
Open your youtube video on the youtube page. Then hit the share link below the video, then hit the embed link below that. copy the text in the box. Hit the post reply button on the WotC forum. hit the video film strip button on the text box. Hit the source tab then paste the text. Hit ok, then post. Usually you'll want to do this last because the video shows up as a blank box until posted.
Open your youtube video on the youtube page. Then hit the share link below the video, then hit the embed link below that. copy the text in the box. Hit the post reply button on the WotC forum. hit the video film strip button on the text box. Hit the source tab then paste the text. Hit ok, then post. Usually you'll want to do this last because the video shows up as a blank box until posted.
4th ed wasn't a bad game, not what I want from D&D though YMMV.
My favourite one though is people tranposing problems 3rd ed had like CoDzilla back to AD&D. High level wizard in AD&D being the most powerful class but you did not have CoDzilla at least like 3rd ed anyway. Clerics were kind of average, Druids could be very creative and were broken in different ways than 3rd ed.
I think this one is based on the observations of the modern character sheet featuring tons of different codified options. You really could do just about anything with any edition of D&D. Older editions just depended more on referee judgment and creating solutions at the table. I'm not saying these solutions were/are always better, but they were always there. (I would also add that, at least with 2E, you did have a host of things to add via supplements [most of which I didn't use, but, again, they were there]).
"NEXT (or non-4E) monsters are boring."
Again, equating simplicity of expression with inherent lack of interest. Memorable monsters are as much about tactical situation as the monsters themselves. Intelligent monsters are as neasty as intelligent PCs, and can and should be played that way, regardless of the inherent text. In sum, long stat blocks can be interesting to read, but interesting to read and interesting to run are two different things. Further, there's a lot of flavor text to some older monsters. Some are pretty simple, though, as written, so I can see where folks might find them ho-hum, from that standpoint.
"You can't roleplay in 4E."
Yeah, that one just never applied for my groups. 4E is not my go-to system by any means, but no D&D system can eliminate roleplaying, which is a style approach more than anything else. You can RP whole sessions, no dice thrown. If you're not rolling the dice at all, then the system input just doesn't affect the outcome.
Give you an example: my group of younger players lost a pair of party members in a very tough capstone encounter with a main adversary. All of the post-combat stuff involved how to handle the dead PCs: (1) a quest to ressurect the heir to the throne was assumed {a request on the part of the group}; (2) the second "WIld Elf" PC's body was treated with full respect by the Paladin, who found out the PC's traditions, thus earning the friendship of said people; (3) The PCs are justifiably worried about what their adversary will do next, and so sent their fast-moving wilderness types on a long, dangerous trek back to their home base to warn their people of possible attack; the remainder of the martial characetrs remained in the current basetown, a village that has lost its magical wards due to what happened in the adventure. They have remained to train the locals in the use of weaponry and to school them in tactics, just in case the bad guys are planning an attack [I actually had not considered attacking the now weakened village, but, as the PCs have something the adversary wants, threatening the entire village might be a cool thing to throw in, so I am plotting that out, based on what my players' cool actions]). NONE of this has anything to do with system. Their reactions are based on their character's experiences (the Paladin's guilt over many lost party members over the course of the campaign; the Wizard's concerns with their adversary, a former childhood acquaintance; the current "reformed" state of the Dwarf fighter, who has gone from loose cannon **** to a multi-scarred upholder of goodness and law). System can't inhibit that. Just doesn't.
"Older editions encourage imagination more than recent editions."
A creative player is a creative player, regardless of system. I haven't seen a system yet that completely discourages that. The main differece I see between older and newer editions is the ability to hardwire more of that flavor into specific effects. Even with that, not everything can be codified, nor should it. Players are, by and large, VERY creative (and VERY devious little bastards [and I mean this in a good way]).
You can roleplay just fine in 4th ed the only real downside is the amount of time combat requires IRL may result in less time spent doing other things. I understand it was mostly a problem at higher levels and we did not make it past level 7 so IDK.
Yeah, "You can't roleplay in 4E" is hyperbole. The correct criticism is "There's less time for roleplaying in 4E"
You can roleplay just fine in 4th ed the only real downside is the amount of time combat requires IRL may result in less time spent doing other things. I understand it was mostly a problem at higher levels and we did not make it past level 7 so IDK.
Yeah, "You can't roleplay in 4E" is hyperbole. The correct criticism is "There's less time for roleplaying in 4E"
And I would even say that is still not quite correct.
They system does not force you to play a certain way. A group that likes to have exploration and interaction for 90% of the time, and combat for 10% of the time isn't suddenly forced to have combat for 90% of the time in 4E.
Minions in 4E allow you to have very quick fights just like in the past in which monsters die in a single hit. The simple act of cutting standard, elite, and solo HP in half (or even more) makes them die fast too. If you want to have Fights that last only 1 or 2 rounds, you can do so in 4E very easily. What 4E does is allow you to also have very long, tactically involved fights that can last 4 or more rounds.
I think the mistake 4E made was not making it clear to the DM (in the DMG) that options exist. While it was clear to me that I could do the above, it doesn't seem to have been clear to everyone (based on the complaint).
And this is my hope for Next: that the books make the default assumption that every group plays differently, and contains built in advice for how we can make the game the best possible game for us.
They system does not force you to play a certain way. A group that likes to have exploration and interaction for 90% of the time, and combat for 10% of the time isn't suddenly forced to have combat for 90% of the time in 4E.
Well the system does force a combat to be a certain length. So if you try to tell the exact same story in 4E versus AD&D, the 4E version of the story will have much more of a percentage devoted to combat simply because combats take a lot longer.
That's about the best objective measure you can do is to run the same adventure and plot in one edition versus another. And 4E quite simply emphasises the combat end of it, and that does have everything to do with the system, because combats are longer. So when you have a finite amount of time to devote to the game session, more of that time is spent moving figures on a battle grid and less of it is spent interacting with NPCs.
They system does not force you to play a certain way. A group that likes to have exploration and interaction for 90% of the time, and combat for 10% of the time isn't suddenly forced to have combat for 90% of the time in 4E.
Well the system does force a combat to be a certain length. So if you try to tell the exact same story in 4E versus AD&D, the 4E version of the story will have much more of a percentage devoted to combat simply because combats take a lot longer.
That's about the best objective measure you can do is to run the same adventure and plot in one edition versus another. And 4E quite simply emphasises the combat end of it, and that does have everything to do with the system, because combats are longer. So when you have a finite amount of time to devote to the game session, more of that time is spent moving figures on a battle grid and less of it is spent interacting with NPCs.
Did you ignore the rest of my post on purpose or accidentally?
Give me an adventure and I can tell you how to run it in 4E with the same percentage devoted to combat.
Did you ignore the rest of my post on purpose or accidentally?
Give me an adventure and I can tell you how to run it in 4E with the same percentage devoted to combat.
If you modify the adventure, then you're just trying to work around 4E's emphasis on combat by reducing the amount of combats or making minion-only combats.
That's not an objective measuring stick because you're just covering up 4E's emphasis on combat and basically altering the numbers to make 4E look better.
Categorically false when played using all of the RAW about how to implement magic.
Class/Race/Level restrictions did in no way balance the game in AD&D
Categorically false when played using RAW, the game was much more balanced.
Magic was run-away powerful in AD&D
Categorically false when played using all of the RAW about how to implement magic.
Class/Race/Level restrictions did in no way balance the game in AD&D
Categorically false when played using RAW, the game was much more balanced.
Well the first I agree and with the second I disagree. IMO, the limits were more of a railroad than a balance. Can't see how dwarves can't be wizards balances anything. *shrug* I'd list it under likes and not a universal truth that it was balance.
You can roleplay just fine in 4th ed the only real downside is the amount of time combat requires IRL may result in less time spent doing other things. I understand it was mostly a problem at higher levels and we did not make it past level 7 so IDK.
4th ed wasn't a bad game, not what I want from D&D though YMMV.
My favourite one though is people tranposing problems 3rd ed had like CoDzilla back to AD&D. High level wizard in AD&D being the most powerful class but you did not have CoDzilla at least like 3rd ed anyway. Clerics were kind of average, Druids could be very creative and were broken in different ways than 3rd ed.
In my experience, 4e combats took up about 80% of play time and another 10% was exploration. This left very little time for interaction style stuff. It was better in the lower levels and terrible at higher with all the status effects. Very boardgame feel to it as a consequence.
In prior editions combat was about 50% of play time I think. Left a lot more room for the rest of the game. In Next our combats so far take up about 30-50% of the time. All sorts of options open up with that extra time, I greatly prefer it as a DM and player.
Chess is a very popular game. But so is diablo, where you simply click alot.
There are certainly places the way things generally worked isn't the way that they work in the mass hallucinations of people who have minimal experience with a system, and there are things that are genuinely misunderstandings about the rules that inform a lot of people's opinions about the system (for example, a lot of people think that 3.5 Wizards prepare their spells at the beginning of each day, simply because it's generally a good idea to prepare many of your spells as soon as you wake up.)
But I feel like a lot of "misunderstandings" are more "D&D doesn't guarantee a tightly defined experience, so things that some people have issues with for some reason (ranging from "willingness to exploit bugs" to "not magically knowing you're supposed to houserule that" to "aggressively bad-faithing the system" to "never actually played, but this seems like this might be an issue in theory" to "different types of people and personalities creating different dynamics" to "this is actually a problem") are sometimes things that other people do not have problems with (for reasons ranging from "players didn't notice or were unwilling to exploit bugs" to "handwaving" to "houserules" to "didn't actually play the system enough to notice" to "was twelve, didn't care" to "different types of people and personalities creating different dynamics" to "actually not a problem".)
You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Did you ignore the rest of my post on purpose or accidentally?
Give me an adventure and I can tell you how to run it in 4E with the same percentage devoted to combat.
If you modify the adventure, then you're just trying to work around 4E's emphasis on combat by reducing the amount of combats or making minion-only combats.
That's not an objective measuring stick because you're just covering up 4E's emphasis on combat and basically altering the numbers to make 4E look better.
I would just like to point out that official adventures are not the system itself. As a DM that has never used a published adventure, I can attest to that. 4e's options in combat make combat longer than the other editions, but the amount of game time that is devoted to combat depends entirely on the DM and the adventure he/she made or chose to buy and use.
I sure hope not. 4e is my favorite edition, but I absolutely loathe the "skill challenge" system it had.
Are you accounting for the changes made by the DMG 2? There was an online article that was reprinted in the DMG 2 that vastly improved skill challenges over their initial implementation.
Did you ignore the rest of my post on purpose or accidentally?
Give me an adventure and I can tell you how to run it in 4E with the same percentage devoted to combat.
If you modify the adventure, then you're just trying to work around 4E's emphasis on combat by reducing the amount of combats or making minion-only combats.
That's not an objective measuring stick because you're just covering up 4E's emphasis on combat and basically altering the numbers to make 4E look better.
Where does 4e say that using all-minion fights in order to have fast combats that end in only a few rounds is "not allowed" or somehow "not 4e"?
Yes, 4e combat could potentially be significantly more involved and complex than earlier editions, but using only minions to have a simpler fight is not somehow "not 4e". It is a perfectly valid means to create a dynamic that the DM wants; in this case, quick fights that are over in a few rounds.
5mwd was a problem. It was an incompetent DM problem if it was one.
Fighters were weak sauce relative to wizards or clerics.
Low level wasn't fun.
Like a lot of myths, this one has a seed of truth in it: at low level in pre-4th editions, it is both easier to create and integrate a new PC, and you have less of a safety net so it's easier to die in a "fair" combat (compared to higher levels).
But, unless you're playing a blatantly lethal game (Many of the famous modules are notorious killers, leading to the belief in pre-4th and ESPECIALLY pre-3rd expendability. Many of the famous modules were also designed to be 1-shot affairs for tournaments.), the frailty of starting PCs, and perhaps PCs overall, represents not as much some concept that characters should not be treated as actual characters, and more that, with the Players knowing the lethality of combat, you should perhaps think of ways to avoid it when possible.
Read an AD&D Module... maybe one of the ones that was sold as part of a boxed set in 2e, not the early 1e tournament modules. You might notice that compared to a similar 3rd or 4th edition adventure, they geature fewer unavoidable combats. My personal comparison is between a chunk of "Squaring the Circle" (AD&D 2e Planescale) and "Tower in the Ice", a mini-module Wizards released free online in the 3e days: both are modules designed for characters level 9/20. The chunk I picked out from Squaring is about equivalent in Adventuring time to the whole of Tower (1 modest dungeon). Tower expects you to have at least 7 full-on combat encounters, while Squaring the Circle, in a similar amount of actual adventuring, only challenges you with two essentially unavoidable battles: the PCs can get into more, but basically have to provoke them. Yet, I think it would take longer real time to get that far in Squaring The Circle than it would to clear the Tower in the Ice, because of the much higher focus put on interaction encounters and exploration. Certainly, it has more pages there.
What I'm trying to get at is that the Paragdim is different. Thrown up against the same challenges, the older edition characters are less survivable than their later counterparts... but they weren't expected to face the same challenges in the same way. The game we've been playing, not just the tools we've been playing it with, has changed. Which leads somewhat into my next point...
"2e Characters are dull"
2e (and older) characters are cut from a different cloth than WotC-era characters. They don't have a lot of codified options or choices at generation/on level-up (Even caster classes, when compared to their 3/4 counterparts, make a LOT fewer choices).
But characters of ANY edition are what you make of them, and are exactly as engaging as you let them be. I've played a lot of 3e characters and my favorite happens to have been a fighter. I can say with confidence that I could absolutley recreate her, every detail that was actually important to my enjoyment of the character, with the exact same (low) amount of DM assistance, out of the 2e PHB as I did out of the books I used (3e PHB, Complete Warrior, DMG, PHB2, Complete Scoundrel). Her feats were nice frills, yes, very shiny... but shiny toys are not what makes a character come alive, and they never will be. Compared to D&D characters, characters from Blizzard's RPGs (Diablo 2/3, WoW) have a lot more shiny options to choose from, and depending on when you take your snapshot a lot more choices, even meaningful choices, to make when levelling up... but for most of us, they aren't interesting the same way our D&D characters are. Not that they aren't fun, of course, but we don't tend to make them come alive the same way we do our personal PCs.
What makes a character fun, exciting, interesting as a person? It's not mechanics, not numbers or powers or shiny things. Like any cheesy children's TV special from the 1980s could tell you, it's love that makes something real. Our characters are engaging when, and because, we care about them.
Second edition characters are fine for their game. Third and Fourth edition characters are fine for their game. Neither complexity nor simplicity, at least as far as we've seen them taken, prevents you from loving and enjoying your character.
"3e is all about CoDzilla/Casters and Caddies"
There is a difference -- a very critical difference -- between Theorycrafting and Practice. In theory, casters (Especially Clerics and Druids) in 3e are categorically better than non-casters or more limited casters. In practice, you had to go out of your way to build and bring to the table a game-breaking wizard or even cleric. While hyper-optimized builds of casters (and other beyond broken builds like the Hulking Hurler, Cancer Mage, or Pun-Pun) certainly existed in some sense, most people understnad that bringing such a thing to the table is not kosher: many exploits require tissue paper DMs, and many more flagrantly ignore internal logic in the same way the infamos Bag-o-Rats fighter does.
So, in short, many of the problems with 3e's system (and they do exist) don't often make it to the table because when playing 3e as with ANY OTHER e, you're in a game with your friends and there to have fun.
"4e is a Videogame"
This has gotten quoted a lot, and shot down nearly as often, but other people have taken on the other big false complaint at 4e, so I might as well take on the other one.
The kernel of truth in this is that 4e -- especially early in the life of the edition -- had a very homogeneous system. That is, every class was functioning on roughly the same framework of powers... sort of like Diablo 3, actually. This feels a bit like there could be a machine running the show, and perhaps the proliferation of statuses to track will make the DM wish he was one sometimes, but that's another thing alltogether. And in some ways, while I don't prefer it, it's easy to see how this can be a good thing. It's less bookkeeping, or at least fewer memory issues as to what kind of bookkeeping you're supposed to be using.
The basic, negative trait of Videogames, the one that is being implied if not stated by this argument, though, is that videogames do not allow for improvision. Even the most complex, deep videogame -- something like Nethack or Dwarf Fortress -- is going to have very precise, codified ways objects can interact. The dev team may think to have the game give you a funny message in certain perishingly unlikely circumstances, but Nethack will NEVER allow you to topple the (presumably heavy) Statue of a Plains Centaur onto the (presumably squishable) Grid Bug and defeat the monster with your own improvised trap.
And that's something any edition of D&D -- including 4th with its codified powers -- would let you do trivially. The line between a Videogame and D&D in any edition is the DM: that wonderful human being with his or her wonderful, adaptable human brain that can utilize logic to adjucate the situation when the rules (which can never account for every possible circumstance) fail. This is at least as true in 4e as it is in any other e.
The basic, negative trait of Videogames, the one that is being implied if not stated by this argument, though, is that videogames do not allow for improvision. Even the most complex, deep videogame -- something like Nethack or Dwarf Fortress -- is going to have very precise, codified ways objects can interact. The dev team may think to have the game give you a funny message in certain perishingly unlikely circumstances, but Nethack will NEVER allow you to topple the (presumably heavy) Statue of a Plains Centaur onto the (presumably squishable) Grid Bug and defeat the monster with your own improvised trap.
And that's something any edition of D&D -- including 4th with its codified powers -- would let you do trivially. The line between a Videogame and D&D in any edition is the DM: that wonderful human being with his or her wonderful, adaptable human brain that can utilize logic to adjucate the situation when the rules (which can never account for every possible circumstance) fail. This is at least as true in 4e as it is in any other e.
This has made me realize... There should be a kind of Turing Test for DMs. If your DM can't be easily distinguished from a computer program, it's time to find a new DM lol.
Big misconceptions that people had with 1e/2e/3e...
5mwd was a problem. It was an incompetent DM problem if it was one.
Fighters were weak sauce relative to wizards or clerics.
Low level wasn't fun.
Third one is subjective.
Second one is fact (in 3.0/3.5 at least), and denial won't change that.
First one is either way.
Big misconceptions that people had with 1e/2e/3e...
5mwd was a problem. It was an incompetent DM problem if it was one.
Fighters were weak sauce relative to wizards or clerics.
Low level wasn't fun.
Third one is subjective.
Second one is fact (in 3.0/3.5 at least), and denial won't change that.
First one is either way.
And yet, thousands of campaigns are played every week with fighters that shine just fine. Maybe thats a DM issue too. Not sure. It definitely wasn't a problem in any of my 3e games.
Big misconceptions that people had with 1e/2e/3e...
5mwd was a problem. It was an incompetent DM problem if it was one.
Fighters were weak sauce relative to wizards or clerics.
Low level wasn't fun.
Third one is subjective.
Second one is fact (in 3.0/3.5 at least), and denial won't change that.
First one is either way.
And yet, thousands of campaigns are played every week with fighters that shine just fine. Maybe thats a DM issue too. Not sure. It definitely wasn't a problem in any of my 3e games.
I'm not sure how you DM'ed your games, but if you built everyones characters I'd probably be against that.
And of course there's thousands more where Wizards, CoDzilla roam free, and unlike the anecdoctal methods used for proving fighter superiority there's actual mechanical fact proving it within the game system itself that casters are just better in every, single, way. Though thanks to some actual helpful players, I've learned 2E had far better checks and balances for Casters, so I will make sure to properly address when I'm talking about overpowered casters, I'm speaking of 3E/3.5.
Big misconceptions that people had with 1e/2e/3e...
5mwd was a problem. It was an incompetent DM problem if it was one.
Fighters were weak sauce relative to wizards or clerics.
Low level wasn't fun.
Third one is subjective.
Second one is fact (in 3.0/3.5 at least), and denial won't change that.
First one is either way.
And yet, thousands of campaigns are played every week with fighters that shine just fine. Maybe thats a DM issue too. Not sure. It definitely wasn't a problem in any of my 3e games.
Meh, not all players are interested in character optimization. It sounds like you had a great group who played well together, and was presumably not terribly interested in munchkining out their characters. But it is a fact that in 3.5 an optimized wizard or cleric is always going to be better than an optimized fighter. Due to the highly subjective nature of the game, there will always be goups who never experienced this, or did experience it but didn't see it as a problem. But the math tells us objectively that wizards and clerics (as well as druids, sorcerers, and other heavy spellcasting classes) had the potential to be more effective in and out of combat than fighters had the potential to be. At least as far as hard coded rules go. There's really no accounting for improvisation.
For example AD&D is usually run a dungeon crawling game and in my personal experiance this has always been very true. Its often said to be very DM fiaty and that's also a very accurate in my own experiance. Its got the reputation of being very deadly and that has been my experiance, characters often die instantly on a single die roll, so it was very swingy.
4th edition is known as story light and very tactical combat oriented and this too has been my personal experiance with the game. I found the characters in 4th edition to be very epic and super heroic, which is the repuation 4th edition has and I found that the large majority of combats where extremly long. Anything under an hour was rare. After 7-8th combats typically ran 1.5 to 2.5 hours. So its repuation as a tactical combat RPG I think is quite accurate.
Of all the editions of the game I have found that 3rd edition got the most versitale treatment and I think that can be attributed to the generous license arrangement. Their was a tremendous amount of 3rd party material and each 3rd publisher had their own take on how 3rd edition was used. 3rd edition sometimes got extremly tactical combat treatment, often a dungeon crawling game but there was also tremendous amount of content for it as a purely narrative game and pretty much everything inbetween. It all depended on who wrote the material you where using. As such 3rd edition had the most stereotypes but I found them all kind of inaccurate. I mean I ran a 4 month campaign in which we never had a single combat and I have run campaigns that where almost entirely combat. Under 3rd edition I think I have played and run the largest variety of playstyles.
I don't think these stereo types however are fully accurate in the sense that I think they could all be broken through DM/player effort. But I do think that typically the stereotypes matched how most people used said system. For the most part I attribute this to the style in which adventures for said systems where written.
For example AD&D is usually run a dungeon crawling game and in my personal experiance this has always been very true.
Not for me, since I started DMing in in 1987, dungeon crawls have never really entered into it (small forays, a tomb, etc, but that's about it).
Not sure what point this thread has, re: D&D Next. The question is not, and never has been, the defense of anyone's "perceptions" of any particular edition. It's which version of that element fits best with DDN's goals. For example, the designers have determined, thus far, that 4e's mechanized three-tries-or-you're-out skill-challenge approach to role playing, and its emphasis on combat, do not fit with the new design. Case is closed. Move on.
Its to put to rest a lot of the misunderstandings that start arguments based on X edition and to help us get to the mechanics that we can use to make 5E a game we can all play...
Big misconceptions that people had with 1e/2e/3e...
5mwd was a problem. It was an incompetent DM problem if it was one.
Fighters were weak sauce relative to wizards or clerics.
Low level wasn't fun.
It was possible to have a 5MWD problem in those editions, just like it was in 4e. Some didn't have that problem because they artificially inhibited it through storytelling.
So your half right. For some it was not a problem at all. For others who didn't restrict their games in some ways it was a problem...
Not sure what point this thread has, re: D&D Next. The question is not, and never has been, the defense of anyone's "perceptions" of any particular edition. It's which version of that element fits best with DDN's goals. For example, the designers have determined, thus far, that 4e's mechanized three-tries-or-you're-out skill-challenge approach to role playing, and its emphasis on combat, do not fit with the new design. Case is closed. Move on.
Its to put to rest a lot of the misunderstandings that start arguments based on X edition and to help us get to the mechanics that we can use to make 5E a game we can all play...
What specific mechanics, aside from AEDU classes, do you really dig?
Not sure what point this thread has, re: D&D Next. The question is not, and never has been, the defense of anyone's "perceptions" of any particular edition. It's which version of that element fits best with DDN's goals. For example, the designers have determined, thus far, that 4e's mechanized three-tries-or-you're-out skill-challenge approach to role playing, and its emphasis on combat, do not fit with the new design. Case is closed. Move on.
Its to put to rest a lot of the misunderstandings that start arguments based on X edition and to help us get to the mechanics that we can use to make 5E a game we can all play...
What specific mechanics, aside from AEDU classes, do you really dig?
I don't 'dig' AEDU at all really. I 'dig' what it allowed me and my group to do, which is to tell high fantasy high heroice adventures with each player being engaged with interesting options from round to round with the ability to make tactical decisions to change the outcome of encounters (combat or otherwise). Any system that meets those requirements will work for me...
Not sure what point this thread has, re: D&D Next. The question is not, and never has been, the defense of anyone's "perceptions" of any particular edition. It's which version of that element fits best with DDN's goals. For example, the designers have determined, thus far, that 4e's mechanized three-tries-or-you're-out skill-challenge approach to role playing, and its emphasis on combat, do not fit with the new design. Case is closed. Move on.
Its to put to rest a lot of the misunderstandings that start arguments based on X edition and to help us get to the mechanics that we can use to make 5E a game we can all play...
What specific mechanics, aside from AEDU classes, do you really dig?
I don't 'dig' AEDU at all really. I 'dig' what it allowed me and my group to do, which is to tell high fantasy high heroice adventures with each player being engaged with interesting options from round to round with the ability to make tactical decisions to change the outcome of encounters (combat or otherwise). Any system that meets those requirements will work for me...
So, what specific mechanics do you want to see from 4th Ed?
And in all editions you have had interesting options and been able to make tactical decisions to change the outcome of encounters, that is not exclusive to 4th Ed.
Not sure what point this thread has, re: D&D Next. The question is not, and never has been, the defense of anyone's "perceptions" of any particular edition. It's which version of that element fits best with DDN's goals. For example, the designers have determined, thus far, that 4e's mechanized three-tries-or-you're-out skill-challenge approach to role playing, and its emphasis on combat, do not fit with the new design. Case is closed. Move on.
Its to put to rest a lot of the misunderstandings that start arguments based on X edition and to help us get to the mechanics that we can use to make 5E a game we can all play...
What specific mechanics, aside from AEDU classes, do you really dig?
I don't 'dig' AEDU at all really. I 'dig' what it allowed me and my group to do, which is to tell high fantasy high heroice adventures with each player being engaged with interesting options from round to round with the ability to make tactical decisions to change the outcome of encounters (combat or otherwise). Any system that meets those requirements will work for me...
So, what specific mechanics do you want to see from 4th Ed?
And in all editions you have had interesting options and been able to make tactical decisions to change the outcome of encounters, that is not exclusive to 4th Ed.
Not really. Yes you had some tactical options in previous edtions but 4E was all about tactical play. Of course this is all off-topic, how about you start a thread about it...
Not sure what point this thread has, re: D&D Next. The question is not, and never has been, the defense of anyone's "perceptions" of any particular edition. It's which version of that element fits best with DDN's goals. For example, the designers have determined, thus far, that 4e's mechanized three-tries-or-you're-out skill-challenge approach to role playing, and its emphasis on combat, do not fit with the new design. Case is closed. Move on.
Its to put to rest a lot of the misunderstandings that start arguments based on X edition and to help us get to the mechanics that we can use to make 5E a game we can all play...
What specific mechanics, aside from AEDU classes, do you really dig?
I don't 'dig' AEDU at all really. I 'dig' what it allowed me and my group to do, which is to tell high fantasy high heroice adventures with each player being engaged with interesting options from round to round with the ability to make tactical decisions to change the outcome of encounters (combat or otherwise). Any system that meets those requirements will work for me...
So, what specific mechanics do you want to see from 4th Ed?
And in all editions you have had interesting options and been able to make tactical decisions to change the outcome of encounters, that is not exclusive to 4th Ed.
Not really.
Totally really, any choice your character makes (run away, hide, throw a carrot, etc) has a tactical impact.
You seem to be avoiding my question: What mechanics, specifically, do you dig in 4th Ed, and want to see in 5th Ed.
The options in 4th seemed to have a bigger impact.
A daily power could change what looked like a losing situation in a winning one.
As one of the players in out group who is a math probebility buffsaid it.
in AdnD 2nd I could predict with 90% accuracy who would win a fight based on the stats if no spellcasters where involved.
but in 4th using the right power at the right time could totaly change the tithe of battle.
It no longer is a game where if 2 fighterd do a duel the one with the batter stats almost automaticly wins.
You seem to be avoiding my question: What mechanics, specifically, do you dig in 4th Ed, and want to see in 5th Ed.
The options in 4th seemed to have a bigger impact.
A daily power could change what looked like a losing situation in a winning one.
I never see that so much (and certainly not impact), just that a Daily might do 4 [W] instead of 2 [W], though, I do see what you mean with conditions maybe being more persistent (or more powerful conditions: like stunned).
Magic was run-away powerful in AD&D
Categorically false when played using all of the RAW about how to implement magic.
Class/Race/Level restrictions did in no way balance the game in AD&D
Categorically false when played using RAW, the game was much more balanced.
Well, Wish spells and all could sort of be problems. But it was true that used strictly, having to buy and carry the spell components and all... well, it really could severely hamstring someone playing a Magic-User.
But racial class restrictions balanced the game?
How exactly does giving elves the very best racial abilities, the widest selection of any classes, exclusive access to the "bladesinger" class, access to the best metals allowing them to wear chain armor while casting spells.... while a Halfling gets racial abilities that are basically never useful and can't be anything but a Thief and a Fighter and aren't able to take Thief (or worse, if you play a Hobgoblin your racial abilities are worse than nothing and you aren't able to be any class but Fighter and are capped at level 9) in any way, shape or form a "balance" on the game? It was flagrantly the opposite of any definition of the word "balance".
Granted, I guess the whole idea of giving humans the ability to just randomly start or stop any classes, including Super Classes like Ranger and Paladin that just greatly exceed the abilities of any other and are exclusive to only them and Half-Elves, and basically capable of adventuring forever collecting as many abilities as they like from all classes rather than giving them abilities that attempt to be as good as the demi-human abilities at level 1 is sort of less controversial. But then, if your adventure wasn't going from level 12 to level 50, it was also sort of a pointless ability.
Still, some could argue that there were sort of benefits in some way to racial class level limits (or the racial abilities at all), but if one comes to conclusion that they had anything to do with balance at all, then I got to think that person both never actually looked at the book or never actually played the game or they just can't do math... or... more likely... they think "balance" means "my favorite fetish race gets all the best stuff and is simply better than any alternative and that other one I don't care for over there sucks at everything always."
"...I am praying for murderous mist..."
"...not in my world..."
A long as it's upfront, and the DM explains a control on magic, if he/she says it's a free-for-all, well, we reap what we sow.
Where does 4e say that using all-minion fights in order to have fast combats that end in only a few rounds is "not allowed" or somehow "not 4e"?
Yes, 4e combat could potentially be significantly more involved and complex than earlier editions, but using only minions to have a simpler fight is not somehow "not 4e". It is a perfectly valid means to create a dynamic that the DM wants; in this case, quick fights that are over in a few rounds.
I never sait it wasn't 4E, I said it would be unfairly biasing the yardstick to measure 4E.
You can't for instance, run an advneture in 3E and 4E and take a 3E encounter that's supposed to be reasonably challenging and replace it with a cakewalk 4E encounter. That would be an unfair test to measure combat time.
And quite simply it's just straight up accepted that 4E combats take longer, and therefore there's more of an emphasis on combat because of that. Now, whether your group enjoys that emphasis on combat or not is entirely subjective, but it's certainly there.
Big misconceptions that people had with 1e/2e/3e...
5mwd was a problem. It was an incompetent DM problem if it was one.
5MWD was a problem for many groups. It limited the amount of stories you could tell and most published modules didn't even account for it, because there was no time limit or workaround for 5MWD. Apparently the designers of most modules were incompetent? It wasn't simply a problem with homebrew quests, but many official modules as well (including some for D&DN).
I'd go as far as to say "5MWD wasn't a real problem" as being a misconception that deserves to be added to the list.
Fighters were weak sauce relative to wizards or clerics.
Arguable in AD&D, since that had some degree of counterbalance for fighters. It was rogues who were the weaksauce in AD&D.
3E however, was a total caster edition, especially at high levels. That was numerically provable. Hell a polymorphed wizard or cleric could literally be a better *fighter* than a high level fighter. And after that he still got spells on top of it.
Low level wasn't fun.
That's not a misconception, that's just an opinion.
Removing the 1/2 level deal has worked out nicely.
Not really. Yes you had some tactical options in previous edtions but 4E was all about tactical play. Of course this is all off-topic, how about you start a thread about it...
Hmm 4e made the players of characters all classes able to participate in the tactical and strategic elements to approximately the same degree...
That dosnt make the game all about tactical play.
The feat options for the 3.x fighter made them the most diverse complex class in the game. And frighteningly pathfinder took that a step farther. I have nightmares thinking of feat combinations because there were so many possibilities.
Uh no. While there might be a lot of feat combos for the class as a whole, any individual fighter was pathetically simple. In 3E, you basically spammed your one gimmick that you spent feats to specialize in. So you'd have a trip fighter, or an ubercharger or whatevever gimmick you sank all your feats into and you basically did nothing else other than that.
Also most of the feats totally sucked, so there were only a few that people actually took.
The feat options for the 3.x fighter made them the most diverse complex class in the game. And frighteningly pathfinder took that a step farther. I have nightmares thinking of feat combinations because there were so many possibilities.
Uh no. While there might be a lot of feat combos for the class as a whole, any individual fighter was pathetically simple. In 3E, you basically spammed your one gimmick that you spent feats to specialize in. So you'd have a trip fighter, or an ubercharger or whatevever gimmick you sank all your feats into and you basically did nothing else other than that.
You have to admit somebody who wants to could do some similar in 4e and if you were eeking out every last drop it wouldnt hurt
Hilariously, 3.x was much more ripe for powergaming than 4e ever was(I can't think of anything 4e CharOp board came up with that could ever come close to Pun-Pun, much less CoDzilla as a whole)
I'd say that both editions were about equal. The 3E power gamed stuff was ridiculously more powerful, becuase 3E was less balanced, but both had an emphasis on character optimization, given they both used the system of mass produced splatbooks full of new feats, new powers and new spells. They specifically marketed the game with the assumption you'd buy all these new books specifically to power game your character.
That was equally true of 3E and 4E.
So in fairness I mean 3.5. vs 4th (I haven't really played earlier editions, or at least much and remember it), but the argument going either way. I play those editions back to back and they are more similar than different on a lot of levels. People who argue one edition isn't D&D or is horrible and the other is awesome is simply showing their true goal of avoiding being objective in any way. All editions have their strong points and weak points... and I've hit the sweet spot in both 3.5. and 4th edition where they are simply amazing.
Hilariously, 3.x was much more ripe for powergaming than 4e ever was(I can't think of anything 4e CharOp board came up with that could ever come close to Pun-Pun, much less CoDzilla as a whole)
I'd say that both editions were about equal. The 3E power gamed stuff was ridiculously more powerful, becuase 3E was less balanced, but both had an emphasis on character optimization, given they both used the system of mass produced splatbooks full of new feats, new powers and new spells. They specifically marketed the game with the assumption you'd buy all these new books specifically to power game your character.
That was equally true of 3E and 4E.
I'd agree. 3.x had more game breaking combos, but both are great for powergaming. 3.x didn't have a base framework in which to expand well, so it had to invent new frameworks with a lot of the new books... this often left characters feeling under or overpowered but hard to hit that center mark. 4th, like you said, they tried to balance and that was an actual objective and I think it paid off in allowing you to powergame but be less game breaking.. you had overpowered and underpowered characters, but to far less extremes and far less often.
I loved 4e for the balance and everyone feeling powerful and full of options
I loved 3.x for all of the crazy new systems introduced with splat books, mixing and maxing with the flexibility of multiclassing allowed you to truly create something unique... I think 4e missed the mark on that (though not completely due to the level of options for each class)
+1 to this.
Especially to the 5mwd. Not a problem.
Ironically I saw it.. but it was not considered a problem just good strategy, though I would say you have to stick head in sand to think that means it wasnt a problem for other people.
To the degree that this sort of thing was a common problem, I think that usually stemmed from either house-rules that broke the system, or later editions that officially broke the system in the same way.
Wandering monsters, exploration speed, encumbrance, torch duration, rations, overland travel encounters. All of those are reasons to not risk going nova and then napping for 8 hours, and they're also rules that are commonly ignored or have been removed/nerfed in later editions.
+1 to this.
Especially to the 5mwd. Not a problem.
Ironically I saw it.. but it was not considered a problem just good strategy, though I would say you have to stick head in sand to think that means it wasnt a problem for other people.
To the degree that this sort of thing was a common problem, I think that usually stemmed from either house-rules that broke the system, or later editions that officially broke the system in the same way.
Wandering monsters, exploration speed, encumbrance, torch duration, rations, overland travel encounters. All of those are reasons to not risk going nova and then napping for 8 hours, and they're also rules that are commonly ignored or have been removed/nerfed in later editions.
2E admittedly was much better for the 5MWD than 3E, mainly because rope trick didn't last long enough to sleep in and teleport was risky. So up until you got to 15th level or so where you got teleport without error, it was much more difficult to dodge wandering encounters in AD&D.
3E just sent all that to hell when you could extended rope trick at 5th level, and where teleporting errors were a minor inconvience, as opposed to the minimum 1% chance of TPK each time the spell is cast. 5MWD was a huge 3E problem. Your only way of stopping it was mandatory quest timers, and constantly giving them a ridiculously short time limit.
Wel most played a more free form roleplay, totaly ignoring most of the combat rules given in ADnD 2nd.
But if you would play AdnD 2nd as it is written it is a very restrictive game.
take the example of trowing a person of balance and knocking them to the ground
rules wise the only option is the punching and wreastling table and hope you roll the right result.
Or hoping the DM thinks it is cool and lets you do it, discarding the rules.
Yah, no, I'm not letting this stand unchallenged. The whole edition was built around 'here are the basic rules and guidelines, and here's how to adjudicate everything else'. That isn't 'discarding the rules', and has precisely jack to do with 'if the DM thinks its cool'. That may be how some DM's did it, but that was not the -system-. There are even sidebars giving examples of adjudicated odd actions. When a game devotes space to giving examples of how to adjudicate various actions, you don't get to say that's 'ignoring the rules', just as I don't get to say that using the infamous Page 42 is 'ignoring the rules'.
Very very well said!
Wel most played a more free form roleplay, totaly ignoring most of the combat rules given in ADnD 2nd.
But if you would play AdnD 2nd as it is written it is a very restrictive game.
take the example of trowing a person of balance and knocking them to the ground
rules wise the only option is the punching and wreastling table and hope you roll the right result.
Or hoping the DM thinks it is cool and lets you do it, discarding the rules.
Yah, no, I'm not letting this stand unchallenged. The whole edition was built around 'here are the basic rules and guidelines, and here's how to adjudicate everything else'. That isn't 'discarding the rules', and has precisely jack to do with 'if the DM thinks its cool'. That may be how some DM's did it, but that was not the -system-. There are even sidebars giving examples of adjudicated odd actions. When a game devotes space to giving examples of how to adjudicate various actions, you don't get to say that's 'ignoring the rules', just as I don't get to say that using the infamous Page 42 is 'ignoring the rules'.
Well please show me these side bars on how to handel non standard combat actions.
I have my AdnD 2nd handbook in front of me.
The side bars in the combat section are : weapon type vs. Armor modifyers, group initiative, individual initative,weapon speed and initative,parrying.
Reading trough it again and flipping trough the DMG i think there is actualy less guidence about resolving non standard actions as there was in 3.X and 4th.
And there being so little guidence led to big difrenced from one group of players to the next.
And that doesen't have to be a problem, but it did become a problem when they started to promote in store pickup games, where it comes important that there is bigger consistancy from one Dm to the next.
+1 to this.
Especially to the 5mwd. Not a problem.
Ironically I saw it.. but it was not considered a problem just good strategy, though I would say you have to stick head in sand to think that means it wasnt a problem for other people.
To the degree that this sort of thing was a common problem, I think that usually stemmed from either house-rules that broke the system, or later editions that officially broke the system in the same way.
Wandering monsters, exploration speed, encumbrance, torch duration, rations, overland travel encounters. All of those are reasons to not risk going nova and then napping for 8 hours, and they're also rules that are commonly ignored or have been removed/nerfed in later editions.
2E admittedly was much better for the 5MWD than 3E, mainly because rope trick didn't last long enough to sleep in and teleport was risky. So up until you got to 15th level or so where you got teleport without error, it was much more difficult to dodge wandering encounters in AD&D.
3E just sent all that to hell when you could extended rope trick at 5th level, and where teleporting errors were a minor inconvience, as opposed to the minimum 1% chance of TPK each time the spell is cast. 5MWD was a huge 3E problem. Your only way of stopping it was mandatory quest timers, and constantly giving them a ridiculously short time limit.
well if I recal 2e had a nasty random encounter table for the ethreal plane. Needless to say, it's not really a good idea to hide in an extra dimentional space for too long...
Well please show me these side bars on how to handel non standard combat actions.
I have my AdnD 2nd handbook in front of me.
Pull out your 2e DMG.
Show
Creating Vivid Combat Scenes
Creating Vivid Combat Scenes
Since this isn't a combat game, the rules are not ultra-detailed, defining the exact effect of every blow, the subtle differences between obscure weapons, the location of every piece of armor on the body, or the horrifying results of an actual sword fight. Too many rules slow down play (taking away from the real adventure) and restrict imagination. How much fun is it when a character, ready to try an amazing and heroic deed, is told, "You can't do that because it's against the rules."
Players should be allowed to try whatever they want--especially if what they want will add to the spirit of adventure and excitement. Just remember that there is a difference between trying and succeeding.
To have the most fun playing the AD&D game, don't rely only on the rules. Like so much in a good role-playing adventure, combat is a drama, a staged play. The DM is both the playwright and the director, creating a theatrical combat. If a character wants to try wrestling a storm giant to the ground, let him. And a character who tries leaping from a second floor window onto the back of a passing orc is adding to everyone's fun.
The trick to making combat vivid is to be less concerned with the rules than with what is happening at each instant of play. If combat is only "I hit. I miss. I hit again," then something is missing. Combats should be more like, "One orc ducks under the table jabbing at your legs with his sword. The other tries to make a flying tackle, but misses and sprawls to the floor in the middle of the party!" This takes description, timing, strategy, humor, and--perhaps most important of all--knowing when to use the rules and when to bend them.
Well please show me these side bars on how to handel non standard combat actions.
I have my AdnD 2nd handbook in front of me.
Pull out your 2e DMG.
Creating Vivid Combat ScenesSince this isn't a combat game, the rules are not ultra-detailed, defining the exact effect of every blow, the subtle differences between obscure weapons, the location of every piece of armor on the body, or the horrifying results of an actual sword fight. Too many rules slow down play (taking away from the real adventure) and restrict imagination. How much fun is it when a character, ready to try an amazing and heroic deed, is told, "You can't do that because it's against the rules."
Players should be allowed to try whatever they want--especially if what they want will add to the spirit of adventure and excitement. Just remember that there is a difference between trying and succeeding.
To have the most fun playing the AD&D game, don't rely only on the rules. Like so much in a good role-playing adventure, combat is a drama, a staged play. The DM is both the playwright and the director, creating a theatrical combat. If a character wants to try wrestling a storm giant to the ground, let him. And a character who tries leaping from a second floor window onto the back of a passing orc is adding to everyone's fun.
The trick to making combat vivid is to be less concerned with the rules than with what is happening at each instant of play. If combat is only "I hit. I miss. I hit again," then something is missing. Combats should be more like, "One orc ducks under the table jabbing at your legs with his sword. The other tries to make a flying tackle, but misses and sprawls to the floor in the middle of the party!" This takes description, timing, strategy, humor, and--perhaps most important of all--knowing when to use the rules and when to bend them.
well that sais you should alouw them.
I was asking about the side bars that give guidence on how to resolve non standard actions.
I just realized I screwed up that last post. See above.
The feat options for the 3.x fighter made them the most diverse complex class in the game. And frighteningly pathfinder took that a step farther. I have nightmares thinking of feat combinations because there were so many possibilities.
Uh no. While there might be a lot of feat combos for the class as a whole, any individual fighter was pathetically simple. In 3E, you basically spammed your one gimmick that you spent feats to specialize in. So you'd have a trip fighter, or an ubercharger or whatevever gimmick you sank all your feats into and you basically did nothing else other than that.
Also most of the feats totally sucked, so there were only a few that people actually took.
It was more than one. You weren’t just a tripper. You were a dual wielding tripper with stealth, tumbling, a specialization in a certain weapon, and your happy prestige class feat. There were about five somewhat useful focuses out of decent size pool. what you are talking about sounds more like 5e though its moving away from the one trick stuff.
I've felt that 4E allowed for a lot of improvization when it deals with things that aren't codified. There are also many ways to accomplish this, from a Strength-based ability check vs. their Fortitude defense (sort of like escaping a grab) means that bigger, stronger creatures are much harder to effect. I'd also say that any creatuer one size category larger than you cannot be knocked prone by attempting this. You could also mak an attack roll with a weapon vs. AC but instead of damage, the target is knocked prone but with the same restrictions due to size. Codified powers that knock down stuff have a bit of an edge and that is a good thing, it means that a players choice is more significant than something everyone can attempt with better payoffs. I'd still put the size limit on things such as knocking down an Elder Dragon, codified power or not but that also applies to spells like Grease (sorry no, grease in a 20' radius does NOT make a dragon fall down like some ridiculous 80's cartoon).
Everything you just mentioned has always existed in every edition of the game. Adjucation is part of every edition of the game and always has been. The difference between 4th editions version and every other is that its a requirement of the game to maintain a presedence and as a DM be incredibly knowledgable about every power in the game to ensure that when you adjucate a scene you aren't stepping on the toes of a power that already exits. Because like every role-playing game, anytime the DM says "this is how it works", it becomes a presedence and players expect it to work the same way next time they try it assuming the same circumstances. If you aren't well versed in all the powers in the game, you are very likely to make errors, stepping on the toes of powers. This was by far the biggest issue I had as a DM and its why I believe that 4th edition is the most unwieldy and difficult system to use as a DM IF you step outside of the rules, hence you're really discouraged from doing it.
Its easier in every other edition to do this sort of thing because their is a core mechanic, rather than a "power" driven mechanic so you know that knocking someone down is a rule in the game that applies to everyone to use an example, not the 30 different powers that have knocking down defined differently with different side effects. Hence if a player narrates something that warrents a knock down in your opinion, you have to make sure that if he doesn't actually have a knock down power (for example using a regular at will attack) that the effect is lesser than the 30 powers out there in the various classes that do. If you fail, and make the narrated version better, you have not only set a presedence but effectively made other, lesser versions of knocking down someone useless by comparison.
More to it then that however is that every type of power in 4th edition already has an effect that's balanced, hence you can't just tack on narrated actions without throwing off the balance of the powers. So if someone narrates something using an at-will power and you decide because of the situation it warrents an extra effect, you have again set a presedence and now that player can and should expect that at-will powers effect given the same set of circumstances to work the same in the future. More then that, as if it wasn't already confusing enough, other players see this and will want to know how they can "improve" their regular at will powers through narration.
Its a slippery slope, its difficult to keep track of and in the end its just better not to do it at all because the system is already difficult to run straight up with countless effects, attributes, damage types, defense types.. so on and so forth.
In classic AD&D for example, fighters had melee attacks. Which where defined by the narration of the player using it. If you decided that someone got knocked down as a result of a narrated action, you didn't have to worry that something else in the system would be adversly affected. It was the same in 3rd edition, though in 3rd edition you had defined rules for pretty much every concievable action you could take that worked the same for everyone. So if you wanted to knock someone down, their was a rule that covered it and their where feats, attributes and skills that could impact that action. Hell of a lot easier if you ask me, in fact I would say that 3rd edition was the easiest of any system to narrate because you also had a shorter time frame (6 seconds) so players had a much better understanding of what they could or couldn't logically do in that time. More then that, most action where given a "time" they took to perform, so things like pulling out a weapon, or readying a shield.. they where all defined by rules that governed their usage including how much time they took.
The difference between 4th editions version and every other is that its a requirement of the game to maintain a presedence and as a DM be incredibly knowledgable about every power in the game to ensure that when you adjucate a scene you aren't stepping on the toes of a power that already exits.
I really have to say that what you mention is an artificial restriction that you are placing on improvization. There is no real reason why you can't improvise to do the exact same thing as tide of iron.
I really have to say that what you mention is an artificial restriction that you are placing on improvization. There is no real reason why you can't improvise to do the exact same thing as tide of iron.
Sure there is. I mean, yes, you could do it, but then why did the fighter take Tide of Iron and not something else? His choice, his role, is now invalidated. When the main thing that makes a Fighter different from a Thief or Wizard or Cleric is the selection of powers, letting somebody else fake it isn't cool. It's a function of niche protection, and it's been important from the start.
I, for one, am glad that D&D took the direction it did instead of maintaining the paranoia-driven DM vs. Player death-match mindset. If you want to play the game as DM vs. Player (which is quite unfair, considering that the DM can set your butt up for failure without even really trying), you can do so by re-implementing brutal no-save death-traps, gotcha situations, and slaughterhouse adventures (4th Core did a great job of that, IMO), but I really feel the basic goal of the game shoul be a shared storytelling experience, not a you vs. me match to the death.
And yet, Gygax had a group of high level PCs in his campaign. I agree that overused these things can be very bad. But if just another monster that has a chance of appearing, thats fine. They are rare so it won't be most doors.
I think a lot of "good" DM's have a killer DM reputation but when you actually count party deaths they aren't really all that high. They just make their PC's cautious and afraid which increases game tension and for me the fun.
Nothing wrong with a killer game. Except when you build an entire edition around it. I mean you should have the option of playing a killer game, but it shouldn't be forced on anyone like it is with 5E...
I, for one, am glad that D&D took the direction it did instead of maintaining the paranoia-driven DM vs. Player death-match mindset. If you want to play the game as DM vs. Player (which is quite unfair, considering that the DM can set your butt up for failure without even really trying), you can do so by re-implementing brutal no-save death-traps, gotcha situations, and slaughterhouse adventures (4th Core did a great job of that, IMO), but I really feel the basic goal of the game shoul be a shared storytelling experience, not a you vs. me match to the death.
And yet, Gygax had a group of high level PCs in his campaign. I agree that overused these things can be very bad. But if just another monster that has a chance of appearing, thats fine. They are rare so it won't be most doors.
I think a lot of "good" DM's have a killer DM reputation but when you actually count party deaths they aren't really all that high. They just make their PC's cautious and afraid which increases game tension and for me the fun.
Nothing wrong with a killer game. Except when you build an entire edition around it. I mean you should have the option of playing a killer game, but it shouldn't be forced on anyone ...
I agree.
like it is with 5E
As 5e has not yet been released, this is not yet the case. A playtest is for, you know, tweaking problems like high death rates.
I really have to say that what you mention is an artificial restriction that you are placing on improvization. There is no real reason why you can't improvise to do the exact same thing as tide of iron.
Sure there is. I mean, yes, you could do it, but then why did the fighter take Tide of Iron and not something else? His choice, his role, is now invalidated. When the main thing that makes a Fighter different from a Thief or Wizard or Cleric is the selection of powers, letting somebody else fake it isn't cool. It's a function of niche protection, and it's been important from the start.
Not so. The 4e fighter's niche isn't hitting stuff and moving it. A LOT of classes do that. The 4e fighter's niche is defending via the marked mechanic. Of course, I would have preferred a more WoW approach where the players could choose their niche from a list of more than one role, but that's another discussion.
I really have to say that what you mention is an artificial restriction that you are placing on improvization. There is no real reason why you can't improvise to do the exact same thing as tide of iron.
Sure there is. I mean, yes, you could do it, but then why did the fighter take Tide of Iron and not something else? His choice, his role, is now invalidated. When the main thing that makes a Fighter different from a Thief or Wizard or Cleric is the selection of powers, letting somebody else fake it isn't cool. It's a function of niche protection, and it's been important from the start.
Question:
Would you ever in any past edition allow a player to improvise an action that functions exactly like their basic attack but better?
For example, if a player wanted to improvise a weapon attack that also pushed his foe back 5 feet, would you simply allow it to happen with no penalties?
The same reasoning you give there exists for improvising a copy of "tide of iron".
Wolves fight awesome, I make a lunge at the enemy inducing a direction change pushing them off balance he leaps on there haunches to press them to the ground and she grabs there throat. Team work hurahhh. How again did that 3e fighter 5th tier fighter get his share of big hero moments?
This is what separates role-players from gamers who participate in the same hobby. Anything was possible in 3e, it was just presumed that the people playing would be role-players that allow their imaginations and the narrative define the game, not tactical table top gamers who needed their powers to define what happens in the story.
It wasn't necessary to have mechanics that cover"lunge" effects or mechanically "throw people off balance" and "presses them to the ground" while "grabbing their throat". These are narrative things that where covered by core mechanics designed to allow combat to continue to exist in the imagination and in the narrative by being simple. A simple swing of the sword could be anything, it was defined by the player and arbitrated by the DM best known as the storyteller and host.
4th edition took this away from you by replacing the narrative flexbility of storytelling with defined "powers" that had those narrative effects and made them the sole property of the owning class/race. Suddenly "pressing someone to the ground" is an encounter power only X class has, hence no one is allowed to define that in the narrative, else it diminishes the mechanical component of powers and defeats the purpose of their existence in the first place.
Nope, page 42 allowed you to emulate any power with slightly altered damage and effectiveness by rolling against a DC or defense. Not only that you didn't have wild swinginess from table to table and from DM to DM and from session to session when improvisation was done. Codification of powers does not take away improvisation.
This among many other reasons is why 4th edition has the reputation as the system that prevents role-playing and feels like a video game and like minded variations of stereotypes. I don't agree with all of them and I do believe they can be overcome if you can simply overlook "powers" as part of a narrative and just see them as effects but then again, this just completely defeats the purpose of having them.
Well then its founded on a misunderstanding because all of the stuff you describe can be done in 4E through page 42.
The AEDU system was a well thought out mechanic. Its balanced, its fair, its simple to use and with a good DM behind the wheel can make for a very challenging game. None of it however functions well in the context of a role-playing storyteller game as it constantly pulls you our of the narrative and into the mechanical format of a table top game and because combat takes so long, you spend a lot of time staring at miniatures at a table trying to figure your tactical positions, tracking your effects, choosing which powers to execute and so on.
In essence it was one of the first editions in D&D that was created more for "gamers" then role-players and in a way it makes a lot of sense since board gaming in general is having a really huge re-birth.
For many the tactical aspect wasn't a problem. However I agree that simplifying the game somewhat might make it easier for others to role play better in combat.
I firmly believe its a left brain, right brain cognitive dissonance issue. Some people have trouble using them together, like doing math and art at the same time. If this is the case then simplifying combat should solve most of that problem, especially if they go with a "as little math at the table as possible, no exceptions" kind of design rule. The other problem is page 42 needs to be in the PHB not in the DMG, or at least a whole chapter on improvisation or even just an action called 'improvise'...
Big misconceptions that people had with 1e/2e/3e...
5mwd was a problem. It was an incompetent DM problem if it was one.
Fighters were weak sauce relative to wizards or clerics.
Low level wasn't fun.
Third one is subjective.
Second one is fact (in 3.0/3.5 at least), and denial won't change that.
First one is either way.
And yet, thousands of campaigns are played every week with fighters that shine just fine. Maybe thats a DM issue too. Not sure. It definitely wasn't a problem in any of my 3e games.
I think it was a problem for those that utilized the optimization boards. If you weren't concerned with optimization of the character, and concerned instead with optimization of the campaign, the fighter/caster disparity was not a problem.
There were many reasons why it was a problem and many reasons why many people never encountered the problem.
Why it was a problem:
- Some DMs didn't want to put time limits, races (other parties), etc...etc... into their stories to counter the 5MWD
- Some Players optimized toward making it happen (stone shape, rope trick, mansion spells, teleport, continuing to try to rest until you got 8 hours uninterrupted, etc...etc...)
- Sometimes the DM couldn't come up with a story reason why it shouldn't happen.
Why some people never encountered it:
- Some DMs always put time limits, races, etc...etc... into their stories to counter the 5MWD or did it for fun, but it countered it anyway
- Some groups players' didn't optimize toward making it happen.
- Some DMs could always come up with a story reason why it shouldn't happen.
So its a misunderstanding if you state that "The five minute work day always happened" or "The five minute work day never happened". Its false that it doesn't exist or wasn't a problem in some peoples games...
I've felt that 4E allowed for a lot of improvization when it deals with things that aren't codified. There are also many ways to accomplish this, from a Strength-based ability check vs. their Fortitude defense (sort of like escaping a grab) means that bigger, stronger creatures are much harder to effect. I'd also say that any creatuer one size category larger than you cannot be knocked prone by attempting this. You could also mak an attack roll with a weapon vs. AC but instead of damage, the target is knocked prone but with the same restrictions due to size. Codified powers that knock down stuff have a bit of an edge and that is a good thing, it means that a players choice is more significant than something everyone can attempt with better payoffs. I'd still put the size limit on things such as knocking down an Elder Dragon, codified power or not but that also applies to spells like Grease (sorry no, grease in a 20' radius does NOT make a dragon fall down like some ridiculous 80's cartoon).
Everything you just mentioned has always existed in every edition of the game. Adjucation is part of every edition of the game and always has been. The difference between 4th editions version and every other is that its a requirement of the game to maintain a presedence and as a DM be incredibly knowledgable about every power in the game to ensure that when you adjucate a scene you aren't stepping on the toes of a power that already exits. Because like every role-playing game, anytime the DM says "this is how it works", it becomes a presedence and players expect it to work the same way next time they try it assuming the same circumstances. If you aren't well versed in all the powers in the game, you are very likely to make errors, stepping on the toes of powers. This was by far the biggest issue I had as a DM and its why I believe that 4th edition is the most unwieldy and difficult system to use as a DM IF you step outside of the rules, hence you're really discouraged from doing it.
Its easier in every other edition to do this sort of thing because their is a core mechanic, rather than a "power" driven mechanic so you know that knocking someone down is a rule in the game that applies to everyone to use an example, not the 30 different powers that have knocking down defined differently with different side effects. Hence if a player narrates something that warrents a knock down in your opinion, you have to make sure that if he doesn't actually have a knock down power (for example using a regular at will attack) that the effect is lesser than the 30 powers out there in the various classes that do. If you fail, and make the narrated version better, you have not only set a presedence but effectively made other, lesser versions of knocking down someone useless by comparison.
More to it then that however is that every type of power in 4th edition already has an effect that's balanced, hence you can't just tack on narrated actions without throwing off the balance of the powers. So if someone narrates something using an at-will power and you decide because of the situation it warrents an extra effect, you have again set a presedence and now that player can and should expect that at-will powers effect given the same set of circumstances to work the same in the future. More then that, as if it wasn't already confusing enough, other players see this and will want to know how they can "improve" their regular at will powers through narration.
Its a slippery slope, its difficult to keep track of and in the end its just better not to do it at all because the system is already difficult to run straight up with countless effects, attributes, damage types, defense types.. so on and so forth.
In classic AD&D for example, fighters had melee attacks. Which where defined by the narration of the player using it. If you decided that someone got knocked down as a result of a narrated action, you didn't have to worry that something else in the system would be adversly affected. It was the same in 3rd edition, though in 3rd edition you had defined rules for pretty much every concievable action you could take that worked the same for everyone. So if you wanted to knock someone down, their was a rule that covered it and their where feats, attributes and skills that could impact that action. Hell of a lot easier if you ask me, in fact I would say that 3rd edition was the easiest of any system to narrate because you also had a shorter time frame (6 seconds) so players had a much better understanding of what they could or couldn't logically do in that time. More then that, most action where given a "time" they took to perform, so things like pulling out a weapon, or readying a shield.. they where all defined by rules that governed their usage including how much time they took.
Nope again. You didn't have to know about every power because the guidelines on page 42 clearly tell you how much damage to allow by level and how hard the DCs should be. You still had to know about status effects, but that could easily be fixed in 5E...
ShowI've felt that 4E allowed for a lot of improvization when it deals with things that aren't codified. There are also many ways to accomplish this, from a Strength-based ability check vs. their Fortitude defense (sort of like escaping a grab) means that bigger, stronger creatures are much harder to effect. I'd also say that any creatuer one size category larger than you cannot be knocked prone by attempting this. You could also mak an attack roll with a weapon vs. AC but instead of damage, the target is knocked prone but with the same restrictions due to size. Codified powers that knock down stuff have a bit of an edge and that is a good thing, it means that a players choice is more significant than something everyone can attempt with better payoffs. I'd still put the size limit on things such as knocking down an Elder Dragon, codified power or not but that also applies to spells like Grease (sorry no, grease in a 20' radius does NOT make a dragon fall down like some ridiculous 80's cartoon).
Everything you just mentioned has always existed in every edition of the game. Adjucation is part of every edition of the game and always has been. The difference between 4th editions version and every other is that its a requirement of the game to maintain a presedence and as a DM be incredibly knowledgable about every power in the game to ensure that when you adjucate a scene you aren't stepping on the toes of a power that already exits. Because like every role-playing game, anytime the DM says "this is how it works", it becomes a presedence and players expect it to work the same way next time they try it assuming the same circumstances. If you aren't well versed in all the powers in the game, you are very likely to make errors, stepping on the toes of powers. This was by far the biggest issue I had as a DM and its why I believe that 4th edition is the most unwieldy and difficult system to use as a DM IF you step outside of the rules, hence you're really discouraged from doing it.
Its easier in every other edition to do this sort of thing because their is a core mechanic, rather than a "power" driven mechanic so you know that knocking someone down is a rule in the game that applies to everyone to use an example, not the 30 different powers that have knocking down defined differently with different side effects. Hence if a player narrates something that warrents a knock down in your opinion, you have to make sure that if he doesn't actually have a knock down power (for example using a regular at will attack) that the effect is lesser than the 30 powers out there in the various classes that do. If you fail, and make the narrated version better, you have not only set a presedence but effectively made other, lesser versions of knocking down someone useless by comparison.
More to it then that however is that every type of power in 4th edition already has an effect that's balanced, hence you can't just tack on narrated actions without throwing off the balance of the powers. So if someone narrates something using an at-will power and you decide because of the situation it warrents an extra effect, you have again set a presedence and now that player can and should expect that at-will powers effect given the same set of circumstances to work the same in the future. More then that, as if it wasn't already confusing enough, other players see this and will want to know how they can "improve" their regular at will powers through narration.
Its a slippery slope, its difficult to keep track of and in the end its just better not to do it at all because the system is already difficult to run straight up with countless effects, attributes, damage types, defense types.. so on and so forth.
In classic AD&D for example, fighters had melee attacks. Which where defined by the narration of the player using it. If you decided that someone got knocked down as a result of a narrated action, you didn't have to worry that something else in the system would be adversly affected. It was the same in 3rd edition, though in 3rd edition you had defined rules for pretty much every concievable action you could take that worked the same for everyone. So if you wanted to knock someone down, their was a rule that covered it and their where feats, attributes and skills that could impact that action. Hell of a lot easier if you ask me, in fact I would say that 3rd edition was the easiest of any system to narrate because you also had a shorter time frame (6 seconds) so players had a much better understanding of what they could or couldn't logically do in that time. More then that, most action where given a "time" they took to perform, so things like pulling out a weapon, or readying a shield.. they where all defined by rules that governed their usage including how much time they took.
Wolves fight awesome, I make a lunge at the enemy inducing a direction change pushing them off balance he leaps on there huanches to press them to the ground and she grabs there throat. Team work hurahhh. How again did that 3e fighter 5th tier fighter get his share of big hero moments?
This is what seperates role-players from gamers who participate in the same hobby. Anything was possible in 3e, it was just presumed that the people playing would be role-players that allow their imaginations and the narrative define the game, not tactical table top gamers who needed their powers to define what happens in the story.
your undies are showing... tell me about all the imaginative spell uses and how they are so deprived of imagination... booo hooo.
Codified abilities, strategic and tactical choices its soooooo terrible.
By the way using hit point loss to represent knocking somebody down etc... was pretty much the 1e method, and we thought it was kind of lame and failed to capture the feel
It lacked versimilitude, or was it dissassociative ... cant quite tell. Does getting up cause regeneration?
It's like a zombie apocalypse.
I use the term Fantasy Vietnam sort of matches the paranoia of Gygaxian DMing....
I think your definition of story is too rigid. Story doesn't require that you have a pre-written plot. Story just means that your game translates into a coherent narrative. This doesn't mean that the heroes are destined to survive or any of that. HP Lovecraft's stories often involved the protagonists getting killed or driven insane.
A game with a story is more about having suspension of disbelief and a gameworld that reacts to what you do. Things like PCs having backgrounds and descriptions, and where PCs have a realistic motivation for doing what they're doing.
-My- personal use of it is pretty much in line with that, DS. I was more referring to the extremes we see on the forums, and where they were talking past each other because of the multiple meanings of the word. Garthanos, among others, often refers to mechanics as to whether they are observable directly in literature. Others have asked what you do if your character dies, given that they may be 'integral' to the story. Our definitions don't cover these players, yet they're using the word 'story' just like we do.
You're both using opposing definitions of the nebulous word 'story'. It's true that Gygax mentions that the shift to a power-in-the-milieu based 'story' as the characters approached name level in the DMG, and he makes a reference that they may begin looking for connections between their various adventures and that a DM should be prepared to expand on that interest.
But that's not 'story' as in literature. It's not a 'story' that is developed from level 1, and features the characters. It's the fiction that results from the perspectives of those who have survived that long. IE, the story isn't (wasn't) made looking -forward-, the story was in looking -back-. Much like when we recount history, we are telling a story...but that story isn't Bram Stoker's Dracula.
2E would more fully turn this towards the somewhat-more focused story-looking-forward that is common today, although most tend to lay the 'blame' (subjective) on the arrival of Dragonlance. But it isn't where we came from, and some people don't like the story-looking-forward approach, primarily -because- it requires things like plot armor. Myself, I come down in the middle. I know the vague direction a 'story' could go, but I don't need to pre-ordain it and if the characters want to leave that 'story', well, they're more than welcome to. I hex'ed long enough to know what to do, after all.
The only things I really don't agree with is the assertion that story required plot armor. Story isn't the same as movie and stories can be tragedies.
That's all very important. It does not, however, change the fact that the only mechanical reward in early D&D was for killing things and taking their stuff (although preferably just taking their stuff). On top of that, starting characters could have as little as 1 HP, making for a very short and awkward story. "Three guys walk into a bar, trigger a pit trap and die. The end."
First, in 1e you didn't need to kill anything to take gold and magic items and gain exp. Second, I can't remember if it was in 1e, 2e, or both, but there were non-combat exp awards for things like the thief successfully pick-pocketing. So while those awards were very low, there was mechanical reward for non-combat situations.
People (and really, D&D itself) have a weird relationship with D&D, where it's supposed to all of these things, but it's really only good at a few.
Yeah. D&D needs a better non-combat/encounter experience system.
Dude. Deep-Immersion Storytelling is even covered in the DMG. You're flat out wrong.
Art you referring to 2e, cause I dont remember that concept being around very much during the 1e era let alone in the dmg? perhaps I am actually remembering the blue book with the Dragon on the cover, I am getting to feel like an old wizard with bouts of senile amnesia though I could be wrong.
I don't remember much of 1e at all. I'm actually referring to 3e, but given 2e's intense passion for story in its products, I wouldn't be surprised if it was in 2e as well. 2e put out the best story fluff in any edition.
Ludanto was talking more about the games origins
He was talking about D&D. When he claims "D&D", that includes every edition. The origins are irrelevant if the game has spent the vast majority of its time embracing story as well as encounters.
Yeh even AD&D was quite definitely trying to push the value of story and 0e was enjoying the flavor and trappings of fantasy (if not quite the typical story)