DISCLAIMER: I'm a huge fan of 4E, have purchased every 4E product released thus far, and have preordered everything that hasn't been released.
I think I’ve finally figured out why “4E doesn’t feel like D&D”.
Here’s a recent quote from Bart Caroll:
"First Edition, in many ways, placed the power of the game in the hands of the DM. “Can I do this…?” and “What happens if I…” were essentially questions posited by the players to be answered by the DM. Not quite sure how a rule worked? Wondering what actions your character can perform? In the First (and largely Second) Edition campaigns I played, these were all questions that often needed answers from the DM. That was the relationship. You tell the DM what you want to do, the DM tells you if you can, you roll some dice, and the DM provides the result... Third Edition shifted this relationship, in my opinion, into the players’ hands. The DM still ran the game and mediated the story. But as far as the rules went, the players had much greater power in how they built their characters and what they could pull off. Pun-Pun is an example taken to the extreme, but min-maxing characters was commonplace, often limited only by the players themselves. In several campaigns, I witnessed the tension this caused between experienced players looking to build the most powerful character they could, and newer players using the character they were most comfortable with—usually, a simpler, less tricked-out character."
4E does a very good job, as mentioned by Jezred in another thread, of creating a balance in power between the players and DM. It did this by codifying every player action into pre-written powers, with all powers conforming to an unwritten baseline power level. This is where, I think, all of the complaints of “4E isn’t real D&D” or “4E feels too video –gamey” or “4E plays like a boardgame” come from. It does play like a video game. The players are given a finite set of inputs/powers to choose from. The players choose from those inputs, roll some dice, and the CPU/DM processes that information and spits out a result.
Therein lies the problem with 4E. Every power and ritual describes a detailed, concrete result with no room for deviation. Ever since 1E, new editions have been “closing loopholes”, trying to prevent the players from abusing spells and powers or using them in any way other than intended. Now, in 4E, all of a PCs powers read like magic cards. They’re clear, concise, and leave no room for interpretation. This has the unfortunate side-effect of discouraging player creativity. The open-endedness that is the one true advantage of table-top role-playing has been suppressed by an effort to quash loophole abuse. “Can I do this…?” and “What happens if I…?” are no longer common at the gaming table.
To be fair, I don’t think 4E or its designers are to blame for any of it. 3E really rewarded system mastery and rules-lawyering, and the internet made information readily available to everyone. Every system flaw was exposed for all to see and “RAW” became the mantra of the power-gamer. Even though all of that garbage could be so easily kept in check by the DM, that didn’t stop people from whining incessantly about “balance” on every message board and in every chat room. In response, 4E was designed to be a “balanced” system with no loopholes. As soon as people discovered that Blade Cascade was “broken”, WotC errated it.
The bottom line is that we as a gaming community are to blame. All of the people who complained that 3E was “broken” or that 3E spellcasters were overpowered or that Blade Cascade could kill Orcus in a round or that smugly point out the Oberoni fallacy are to blame.
The good news is that all is not lost. There is still room for creativity no matter what edition we play. It’s easy to rely on the system to present choices, but it doesn’t have to be like that. The example from an early playtest where a PC kicked the table out from under some kobolds is a perfect example. Not every action, combat or otherwise, has to be spelled out in the Player’s Handbook. 4E only plays like a video game if you choose to play it that way. 3E spellcasters are only overpowered if you play them that way.
Hopefully, the next edition of D&D will take the training wheels off and encourage players to think for themselves. Hopefully, 5E will combine the openness of 1E with the streamlined mathematics of 4E, and what a system that would be!
Excellent post. I think you would really enjoy a visit to Knights and Knaves. You obviously think deeply about the philosophy behind the game, and that is a popular activity on the forums there. You may find some interesting posts about the real nature of D&D there. Just be sure to read the forum guidelines before posting. It is a community with some very particular rules.
DISCLAIMER: I'm a huge fan of 4E, have purchased every 4E product released thus far, and have preordered everything that hasn't been released.
I think I’ve finally figured out why “4E doesn’t feel like D&D”.
Here’s a recent quote from Bart Caroll:
"First Edition, in many ways, placed the power of the game in the hands of the DM. “Can I do this…?” and “What happens if I…” were essentially questions posited by the players to be answered by the DM. Not quite sure how a rule worked? Wondering what actions your character can perform? In the First (and largely Second) Edition campaigns I played, these were all questions that often needed answers from the DM. That was the relationship. You tell the DM what you want to do, the DM tells you if you can, you roll some dice, and the DM provides the result... Third Edition shifted this relationship, in my opinion, into the players’ hands. The DM still ran the game and mediated the story. But as far as the rules went, the players had much greater power in how they built their characters and what they could pull off. Pun-Pun is an example taken to the extreme, but min-maxing characters was commonplace, often limited only by the players themselves. In several campaigns, I witnessed the tension this caused between experienced players looking to build the most powerful character they could, and newer players using the character they were most comfortable with—usually, a simpler, less tricked-out character."4E does a very good job, as mentioned by Jezred in another thread, of creating a balance in power between the players and DM. It did this by codifying every player action into pre-written powers, with all powers conforming to an unwritten baseline power level. This is where, I think, all of the complaints of “4E isn’t real D&D” or “4E feels too video –gamey” or “4E plays like a boardgame” come from. It does play like a video game. The players are given a finite set of inputs/powers to choose from. The players choose from those inputs, roll some dice, and the CPU/DM...
I gotto say, I cannot see your point with 4E!!! Its true in each edition the definitions of what a player could do became increasingly set down, restricting the player.....IF YOU ARE A ROBOT!!!!
I encouraged players to say what they wanted their character to do 'I want to run along the stairs bannister, jump onto the table and attack the guy at the end of the table' for which I would give a reply 'right you need a balance check DC 15 for bannister, jump check DC 10 and it counts as a charge attack.
4E has each class getting almost feat like and very individual abilities at each level but it's still up to the DM to step up and say 'ok does anyone want to do something impressive and or crazy during the combat?'.
Ultimately it means more work for the DM giving DC's for skill uses, Ability uses or combat variations but now the player can pipe up saying that he has a power that encompasses some of what he is trying to accomplish so some checks may be unnecessary.
The limits are between the player and DM, not between the covers of the PHB, DMG or MM. I see the players roleplaying their power, describing what their trying to do ( and unlike previously actually having a reasonable chance to do it).
very well stated. i was a 1e dm for a very long time. i had creative friends who presented me with alot of actions that were not covered by rules. i usually adjudicated against them. (which i hated doing, but, i did it anyway, because 1e, was dm vs player. no mater how much you try to argue against it, that was the way it was)
i for the most part skipped 2e. i didnt like thac0. on to 3/3.5. my first real encounted with it was with power gamers (kill the monster, take his treasure, kill next monster) with min/maxed characters. i hated it. i felt as a dm that i had no real point to be there. they didnt like story, they just wanted to purchase their way up to the most powerful beings that they could be. they didnt like description, they just wanted to know where the monster was. they didnt even like mapped out rooms. put the monster in the center of the map, we will get to him.
my latest group is story, characterization, description, fun, and switching to 4e. unfortunatly, i moved. so i dont play with that group anymore.
balance. balance is more than just a 1st level anything surviving a fight against higher level monsters. its more than just the power difference between player and dm.
its about fun. its about providing the most fun between everybody. the wizard isnt going to have more fun than the fighter, the fighter is not going to have more fun then the rogue, and the dm is not going to have more fun than the players. and nobody is going to have more fun than orcus.
*awesome stuff*
I loved your post, and thanks for mentioning my other post. I agree with you for the most part. I agree with one exception. I would say that the new rules set "easily creates the perception that" everything is codified and rigid. I think a lot of the perceptions of 4E are just that: perceptions. The rules are clear and well laid out, which is nice change from prior editions and other RPGs. But don't let the rigidity of the core rules discourage improvisation. PCs can still do zany things that aren’t clearly spelled out in the rules. The DMG encourages us DMs to “reward the player’s creativity”. You can still assign a DC and let them roll for it, or just rule that whatever they are attempting are within the realm of their ability and let it happen. And just because there are skill challenges with fixed goals and DCs doesn’t mean you can’t cut the PCs a break if they role-play the scene well.
It may feel like WoW, but you can still play it on a “RP server”. (Like I do.) :)
|
The limits are between the player and DM, not between the covers of the PHB, DMG or MM. I see the players roleplaying their power, describing what their trying to do ( and unlike previously actually having a reasonable chance to do it).
But that holds true for every edition of D&D and even every RPG!
Years ago I even had a few games without any rulebooks and it worked!The rules of a game give the DM and the Players the framework to work with.
Sure, experienced DMs and players will be able to "wing it" and make on the spot decisions.
But this Framework helps new DMs and players to get an idea how things are supposed to work.
The limits are between the player and DM, not between the covers of the PHB, DMG or MM. I see the players roleplaying their power, describing what their trying to do ( and unlike previously actually having a reasonable chance to do it).But that holds true for every edition of D&D and even every RPG!
Years ago I even had a few games without any rulebooks and it worked!
The rules of a game give the DM and the Players the framework to work with.
Sure, experienced DMs and players will be able to "wing it" and make on the spot decisions.
But this Framework helps new DMs and players to get an idea how things are supposed to work.
I think the fact that unlike the 'Old' editions there are so many rules it's assumed that there are rules for everything. I've generally told people in my game's that any time the rules are uncertain rather than hunting around or not doing the task, I will adjudicate the rule regardless of what happens and continuity is more important than scanning the books for 10 mins.
In 3.5 games I started using Reflex saves to represent a PC trying to run around a corner( which is against the rules). I've done american football and a variety of other sports( which I daresay we all have) and I know for certain I can cut in between people whilst running.
It means at later levels the heavy armoured fighter will be outstripped by the limber theif. And why not. Running for his life is the thiefs only chance to survive.
Faced by the rule books I normally say 'well that's dull so I'll make a rule ok?'. Make the rules work for you, not the other way round.
|
|
I think these are all really good ideas - the system itself does work great with creativity and creative actions, but the real trick is getting players into the mindset of using them, and removing the fear of the DM saying no.
It is also important to make creative ideas valid choices compared to the powers a PC can use.
Your example above: Why should I do the stunt with the devil if I have a power that does more damage with a higher chance of hitting?But on the other hand these stunts should not overshadow the normal powers.
I would say that the new rules set "easily creates the perception that" everything is codified and rigid. I think a lot of the perceptions of 4E are just that: perceptions. The rules are clear and well laid out, which is nice change from prior editions and other RPGs. But don't let the rigidity of the core rules discourage improvisation. PCs can still do zany things that aren’t clearly spelled out in the rules. The DMG encourages us DMs to “reward the player’s creativity”. You can still assign a DC and let them roll for it, or just rule that whatever they are attempting are within the realm of their ability and let it happen. And just because there are skill challenges with fixed goals and DCs doesn’t mean you can’t cut the PCs a break if they role-play the scene well.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Good stuff.
That's pretty close. I think the older rules were a lot more open-ended, almost inviting the players to see what they could come up with. Adventures seemed to be designed to challenge the players' creativity and problem-solving ability.
It is also important to make creative ideas valid choices compared to the powers a PC can use.
Your example above: Why should I do the stunt with the devil if I have a power that does more damage with a higher chance of hitting?
But on the other hand these stunts should not overshadow the normal powers.
I *strongly* disagree with that last part. IMHO, a player who comes up with a 'stunt', that stunt should ALWAYS overshadow the normal powers. If they don't, you go right back to the "Why bother?" mindset.
As soon as a player starts to believe that 'no matter what he does', just using his Uber-Stab attack for 3d10 will always be better...he'll give up trying to be creative/imaginative. It becomes "I could grab the heavy iron poker, throw it at the oil-filled lamps overhead of the orc and light him up for 1d10, if I hit, with no bonuses other than level and dex...or I could just hit him at +9 for 2d10+6 with my sword".
I'd rather have creative players who liven up the entire game session than players who simply min/max their listed powers and bore the hell out of me.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
|
|
I *strongly* disagree with that last part. IMHO, a player who comes up with a 'stunt', that stunt should ALWAYS overshadow the normal powers. If they don't, you go right back to the "Why bother?" mindset.
As soon as a player starts to believe that 'no matter what he does', just using his Uber-Stab attack for 3d10 will always be better...he'll give up trying to be creative/imaginative. It becomes "I could grab the heavy iron poker, throw it at the oil-filled lamps overhead of the orc and light him up for 1d10, if I hit, with no bonuses other than level and dex...or I could just hit him at +9 for 2d10+6 with my sword".
I'd rather have creative players who liven up the entire game session than players who simply min/max their listed powers and bore the hell out of me.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
I think you misunderstood me. What I wanted to say: if one action, be it a stunt or a normal power clearly overshadows (in terms of average damage output) the other actions or powers, this action or power is too good. Players will want to use it always.
Therefore, as Matthew posted above, it is a thin line to walk to make a stunt worthwhile but not so good that you use it every encounter.Your above example is a good one for a once off stunt. This is cool and IMO should do a lot of damage if it succeeds.
On the other hand, if a PC lights oild rags on his warhammer to get another d6 fire damage, as DM I would come up with some ideas that discourages the every encounter use. The warhammer gets brittle and breaks easy or so.
Just wanted to say that in general I think this has been a great thread. Many of the others quickly degenerate into a slinging match while not saying anything constructive. Gladdens me alot that there a still adult minded people having adult conversations about the hobby rather than getting all bent out of shape because things are changing.
I play 3.5 but I'm glad 4E is here because variety makes us think about how we want to play etc. It doesn't bother me that some people want to play other iterations of DnD because I can do whatever I want. Got invited to a 4E game for next week and I'm way keen to see what it's like. Still, even if I don't like it, I'll happily stick to what I like. Rock on 4E. As long as ppl are RPGing and having fun, the hobby of Pen and Paper gaming will move forwards.
It may be that the intent of 4E is to encourage DMs to concentrate on that creativity, and that is facilitated through letting the rules take care of themselves. Not a bad approach, really, if you want that.Good stuff.That's pretty close. I think the older rules were a lot more open-ended, almost inviting the players to see what they could come up with. Adventures seemed to be designed to challenge the players' creativity and problem-solving ability.
I started reading the PHB and before reading was influenced by the 'nay' sayers so was very dubious about the game. I thought it was iffy after reading it(still very influenced by 'nay' sayers), and a little lacking in some area's for my tastes.
The one section on Alignment etc was excellent. I read the details on building personality of the Character, which went very deeply into, idea's, attitude of the character, his\hers reactions to certain situations and lots more. It became about putting real values into PC instead of Alignment. This alone started to sway me.I then start reading the DMG which unlike previous versions contains lots of things about using interaction skills including a great set of examples of how to run a non combat challenge, which skills to use, how to use lots of skills to effect the encounter that brings more players into interaction encounters and finally the result.
It was a fantastic example of roleplaying( even shows bad skill choices, one player tries to INTIMIDATE the NPC Duke who reacts very badly!!). At this point I started to see the game as a Roleplaying game not the WOW tabletop simulator that people were complaining about.
I think it's up to the players to inject the Roleplaying into the character, a rogue slides 2 squares before attacking, the player says ' I duck left, sideways roll and stab for the guys exposed ribs' and this same attack can be envisioned many other ways. Its just the fact that all character classes have 'specialised attack forms now'. The AT WILL powers may be a little cloney at the moment but this can be expanded on in later books.
Hopefully, the next edition of D&D will take the training wheels off and encourage players to think for themselves. Hopefully, 5E will combine the openness of 1E with the streamlined mathematics of 4E, and what a system that would be!
Excellent post! You've very accurately described precisely each edition and how they're perceived. You've effectively written what I've felt about 3e and 4e since they were released.
And you know, 1+4 is 5 after all.... ;-)