D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

[Reverent-One]

No, really not. The fundamental difference between 3E and 4E is that 3E bases the rules on the fluff, and 4E bases the fluff on the rules (or on whatever you like, really, and it's also acceptable if there isn't any). This is the design principle, and most criticism of 4E boils down to people not liking this in an RPG. Disassociated mechanics are just a symptom; but note that if you base rules on fluff, you won't get disassociated mechanics in the first place.

Seriously? You think that's the only real difference, the only reason one might prefer one over the other? That shows a fundemantal misunderstanding of both systems.

[obryn]

The fundamental difference between 3E and 4E is that 3E bases the rules on the fluff, and 4E bases the fluff on the rules

In that case, we'd all be playing 1e or 2e, where the distinction between "fluff" and "rules text" is essentially nonexistent.

I have no doubt this was one of your issues with the game. I have no doubt that it was some others' issue, too. You're making a generalization from "me and some guys I know" to "the hobby as a whole" and that's just not justified.

It's funny - I played 3.x for 8 years - its entire run - with a few vacations for Paranoia, WFRP2, SWSE, and the like. A major bone of contention across the web was trying to decipher what's flavor text and what's rules whenever a dispute came up. (And, related, rules vs. guidelines - for example, was the CR/EL system a rule, or just a baseline for DMs to ignore or follow?)

This sort of debate led directly into (1) more precise language, particularly near the end of the edition, and (2) 4e's strict separation into mechanics and "fluff." It wasn't a change cut from whole cloth - it was a response to real, specific issues that people were having with the 3.5 rule-set.

-O

[Kurald Galain]

I have no doubt this was one of your issues with the game. I have no doubt that it was some others' issue, too. You're making a generalization from "me and some guys I know" to "the hobby as a whole" and that's just not justified.

I don't think so. The most common criticisms of 4E (e.g. "it's a video game", "daily martial powers are stupid", "skill challenges are awful" and the whole disassociated mechanics thing) do boil down to "I don't like it when the fluff is variable". And those are common criticisms; just look over any message board and you'll see.

It wasn't a change cut from whole cloth - it was a response to real, specific issues that people were having with the 3.5 rule-set.

Certainly, but being a response to these issues doesn't make it a solution to them. It was also an overreaction, based on the fact that 5E is stepping back from it (e.g. with such quotes from the designers as "skill challenges should die in a fire").

[obryn]

The problem here is that you get to rewrite your fluff. Which, for me and other people, can result in disassociation far more easily than edge case occurrence.

EDIT:
To me, this is incompatible with the sense of being "in" a world. Rather than making up whatever you feel like.

Well, "refluffing" is just another word for "reskinning."

In another thread, I mentioned that I took the mechanics for a hydra and used them for a four-armed giant sunwarped gladiator in the stable of Tyr. Bites turned into cleavers, and the head severing/regeneration mechanic was removed, but otherwise it was mechanically identical. It worked great; it felt like an extremely fast and powerful warrior able to mow down hordes of lesser combatants.

By the same token, I used the stat block for a red dragon as a Spirit of the Land horribly warped by defiling magic - basically a fiery whirlwind. Again, the mechanics were identical other than a damage type here or there.

I don't know how either of these would be "dissociative." As opposed to me just making up statblocks for new monsters - which is well in my purview as DM.

-O

[Saph]

If this sounds heated, it's because it is. The only way to design around taste is via focus grouping or "taste testing" by an elite group. The former is what we're doing right now and I, for one, dislike the nostalgic tone that a putative new game is taking. By focusing on these taste sensations, WotC is neglecting the sort of game design that will make them stand out in field for modern RPGs and sacrificing a chance to attract new Players (who appreciate a well-designed game) to cling to those who have already decided to go with Pathfinder.

I think this just sounds like the same old line: "the system is fine, the problem is the users".

Funny. I find 4e superior because it lets you customize and tailor the fluff of your abilities to your preferences. I get why folks would not like this style, but I'd be really curious to see how the same mechanics would fair in the court of public opinion under different marketing.

4e had a ludicrous amount of marketing. It was the most marketed and most advertised RPG in the gaming industry, not just for a little while but for years. There are indie game designers that would kill to get 1% of the marketing budget 4e got. I suppose blaming the marketers is more reasonable than blaming the users, but really?

[obryn]

The most common criticisms of 4E (e.g. "it's a video game", "daily martial powers are stupid", "skill challenges are awful" and the whole disassociated mechanics thing) do boil down to "I don't like it when the fluff is variable". And those are common criticisms; just look over any message board and you'll see.

Er... no? Those are all criticisms, but they do not boil down to "refluffing." That's insanely reductionist. It's like you're pretending you're a college sophomore and telling your philosophy class how all human behavior is really just self-interest.

Certainly, but being a response to these issues doesn't make it a solution to them. It was also an overreaction, based on the fact that 5E is stepping back from it (e.g. with such quotes from the designers as "skill challenges should die in a fire").

Skill challenges as written in the first DMG do, indeed, need to die in a fire. But it's not because "immobilize is a weird condition."

-O

[Seerow]

4e had a ludicrous amount of marketing. It was the most marketed and most advertised RPG in the gaming industry, not just for a little while but for years. There are indie game designers that would kill to get 1% of the marketing budget 4e got. I suppose blaming the marketers is more reasonable than blaming the users, but really?

Tons of marketing is not the same as good marketing. A lot of the advertising campaign for 4e specifically turned off players of older editions, by basically telling them they had been playing wrong all along. The fact that the marketing campaign saying this was so widespread and prevalent only serves to make the effect of it worse, not better.

[Fatebreaker]

No, really not. The fundamental difference between 3E and 4E is that 3E bases the rules on the fluff, and 4E bases the fluff on the rules (or on whatever you like, really, and it's also acceptable if there isn't any).

See, I don't buy that. 4e has a distinctive set of fluff (the Nentir Vale setting) which isn't mechanics-dependent. Meanwhile, 3.x had no default setting, though various bits and pieces of it tried to associate fluff with a particular class or monster without actually committing to anything. Here are some examples I used in the previous 5e thread, spoiler'd for length:

Spoiler

Show

One of the really jarring bits about 3.x was how little fluff it had. That's not necessarily a bad thing, except for two further points: first, how the meager fluff it provided was usually disconnected from most of the other bits of fluff it provided, and second, how the fluff was really disconnected from the mechanics.

An example of the first was prestige classes that had some sort of associated organization. A fair number of those would describe something exciting -- an order of paladins, a guild of religious assassins, a guild of mercenaries, a wizard's academy -- and then not connect them to anything in particular. The Purple Dragon Knights in Complete Warrior are the Purple Dragon Knights of Cormyr in literally all but name, but the Cormyrian version fits into its world while the Complete Warrior version is noticeably lacking in details. Reading the PDK fluff is a surreal exercise, because the fluff tells you nothing about where they come from, who their friends are, who they fight, or anything. It's just this ephemeral group of knights from nowhere in particular who fight unspecified battles against undescribed foes for no particular goal. For any individual example that's okay, because it makes it nice and modular, but taken together it makes for a world suspiciously absent of nouns.

An example of the second was magic. While some bits of fluff claimed that magic was difficult to learn and took a long time, a level of wizard was no harder to earn than a level in any other class. Pretending that mastering wizard spells was hard flew in the face of "I trade [x] experience points for a level; amongst all of these equal-cost choices, I choose wizard." In other games, magic might actually be harder to learn, or have dire consequences, but in 3.x, the fluff told you one thing that didn't follow through mechanically.

The whole thing tried so hard to make fluff that was so noncommittal and modular that there wasn't any weight to it. You ended up with fluff that told you next to nothing and which wasn't represented in the mechanics anyway. It was very weird.

Spoiler

Show

The Purple Dragon Knights (Complete Warrior) opens with this:

"The famous Purple Dragons are regarded across the land as exemplars of disciplined, skilled, loyal soldiers. Their reputation is deserved partly because of the heroic actions of their leaders, the Purple Dragon knights."
- Complete Warrior, pg 70.

Who are the Purple Dragons? Why are they famous? What is "the land" and who lives there? Who are they loyal to? What heroic actions did the Purple Dragon Knights do to earn their reputation?

Who do they fight? Where are they based? How do they fight? Who founded them? What is their history? What are their goals? What is their chain of command? Are they a national army? Transnational knightly order? Mercenary company? Where do they get their supplies? How are they organized? What do they fight for? Gold? Artifacts? Justice? The culmination of secret prophecies known only to them?

It goes on in much the same vein, lots of words to say very little, and mentions the "War Wizards, an elite brigade of fighting spellcasters allied with the Purple Dragons," but it never says who they are, either.

Now, the real PDK are the Purple Dragon Knights of Cormyr, from the Forgotten Realms. They have a history, goals, and details aplenty. They fit into their world. But the Complete Warrior PDK? There's so much left unanswered. It's just weird. The fluff says nothing of value.

Once you start piling up a bunch of prestige classes like this, you run into all these famous and powerful organizations that are never described as interacting, have no history, and aren't working towards anything. It's very surreal.

The claim that 3.x was fluff-based mechanics while 4e was mechanics-based fluff... that doesn't really hold weight.

The problem here is that you get to rewrite your fluff. Which, for me and other people, can result in disassociation far more easily than edge case occurrence.

EDIT:
To me, this is incompatible with the sense of being "in" a world. Rather than making up whatever you feel like.

Well, obryn already offered up an excellent reply to this. The only bit I'd add is that being able to write your own fluff is not a problem.

Heck, I'd even go so far to say that it's one of the major draws of a roleplaying game over other forms of entertainment!

4e had a ludicrous amount of marketing. It was the most marketed and most advertised RPG in the gaming industry, not just for a little while but for years. There are indie game designers that would kill to get 1% of the marketing budget 4e got. I suppose blaming the marketers is more reasonable than blaming the users, but really?

The amount of marketing is not the issue. There are two key issues at play here:

(#1) What kind of marketing? For example, there are some grumbly 3.x players on this very board who complain about how WotC talked down to them and "fired them as customers" and such. Disrespecting your own product (and the people who enjoyed it) strikes me as a terrible decision, and not at all a good means of winning over those same players to your new product.

(#2) Once you have the core books in hand, how well does the system explain itself to you? In particular, how well did it explain that fluff was in your control, and that you had free license to let your imagination run wild? The explanation is in there, but it could (and should!) have been better.

In other words, when players accept disassociated mechanics from one edition but not another, that strikes me as an sign that the actual issue isn't association vs. disassociation. So, taking the exact same mechanics, presented in different ways, would you run into the same accusations? Or would you get back different results?

Just an interesting thing to wonder, y'know?

[Saph]

Tons of marketing is not the same as good marketing. A lot of the advertising campaign for 4e specifically turned off players of older editions, by basically telling them they had been playing wrong all along. The fact that the marketing campaign saying this was so widespread and prevalent only serves to make the effect of it worse, not better.

That's true, but I doubt it was a major contributing factor in the long run. A minority of people might have been annoyed by the way 4e was presented, but they still tried it anyway, because the system was distributed on such a massive scale that it was basically impossible to be a PnP gamer and not run into 4th edition one way or another.

In other words, when players accept disassociated mechanics from one edition but not another, that strikes me as an sign that the actual issue isn't association vs. disassociation.

Or perhaps it's a sign that you're missing something in your classification?

I mean, if your reasoning tells you that the 3.X players have no problem with dissociation and should be jumping on 4e with cries of joy, and yet they keep complaining about the dissociation that according to you doesn't exist/hasn't increased . . . then isn't it worth considering that you might be missing something? Just a thought.

[obryn]

4e had a ludicrous amount of marketing. It was the most marketed and most advertised RPG in the gaming industry, not just for a little while but for years. There are indie game designers that would kill to get 1% of the marketing budget 4e got. I suppose blaming the marketers is more reasonable than blaming the users, but really?

I think he was referring to how 4e's marketing seemed almost specifically designed to alienate big portions of the fanbase - not a lack of marketing. But I'm not him. :)

I personally think the 4e launch was a disaster for many, many reasons, marketing being one of the smallest of them. The lack of promised online tools, for one, no matter the tragedy that caused the setback. And I wish something as polished as the Essentials books had been the first release, instead of way down at the tail end of the edition. And that it had been playtested better to nuke the very real (and obvious!) problems with condition warfare, grind, and broken, silly skill challenges. And that it had a better adventure than KotS which showcased the edition's strengths instead of shining a spotlight on its weaknesses - you know, by following the DMG's very good suggestions instead of ignoring them. And that it had a more open (not OGL-open, but more-open and less-risky) license available before publishing. And and and... Anyone who thinks the 4e launch was handled perfectly well is just plain nuts. And yes, I do think that the very real and very big problems at launch echoed throughout the edition's lifetime, contributed to portions of the fanbase leaving WotC D&D, created extra competition, and overall hamstrung 4e out of the gate far more than "dissociative mechanics" ever did.

-O

[Fatebreaker]

I think he was referring to how 4e's marketing seemed almost specifically designed to alienate big portions of the fanbase - not a lack of marketing. But I'm not him. :)

Well, I am him, and you are correct. See above for a more verbose bit on the subject.

I personally think the 4e launch was a disaster for many, many reasons [...] and I do think that the very real and very big problems at launch echoed throughout the edition's lifetime, contributed to portions of the fanbase leaving WotC D&D, created extra competition, and overall hamstrung 4e out of the gate far more than "dissociative mechanics" ever did.

Very well said! This feels much closer to the truth than the "disassociated" charge, at least in terms of the wider hobby, even if specific hobbyists felt that their impression of disassociation was the deal-breaker.

[jseah]

Well, obryn already offered up an excellent reply to this. The only bit I'd add is that being able to write your own fluff is not a problem.

Heck, I'd even go so far to say that it's one of the major draws of a roleplaying game over other forms of entertainment!

Well, "refluffing" is just another word for "reskinning."
<...>
I don't know how either of these would be "dissociative." As opposed to me just making up statblocks for new monsters - which is well in my purview as DM.

It is basically a fundamentally different way of playing the game. To me, the rules model an in-universe reality.

When I, as GM, make up something new, I make new rules for it, cut from whole cloth.
When I, as player, want to make up something new, I ask the GM, who then makes me new rules.
These rules can, obviously, draw their inspiration from existing ones and by-and-large should do so for similar in-universe-description abilities. Fire is fire.

...
I bet this *will* turn into the flame-hair thread inside of a page because of this.

[Reverent-One]

And I wish something as polished as the Essentials books had been the first release, instead of way down at the tail end of the edition.

Apologies for the tangent, but out of curiousity, what did you find so polished about the Essentials books? I made a character with them once, and found them poorly organized and formatted (padded with too much redundency if I remember correctly).

[lesser_minion]

The real problem is how to design around this, since everyone's "verisimilitude," "mechanical variety," and "disassociated mechanics" is different. I mean, nobody cared about HP, AC, XP or any of the dozens of basic "disassociated mechanics" before 4e came out -- it was only after that these terms came into vogue and somehow were never applied to previous editions.

The reason 4th edition is getting flak for dissociated mechanics is because it exacerbated the problem, not because anyone thinks it created it.

It is exceedingly unlikely that "nobody cared" about hit points and the like. People might not have been bitching about such things on the internet recently, but if you know where to look, you'll find plenty of evidence that people did in the past.

The reason people didn't bitch about it so much during the 3e years is most likely to do with them being jaded from being loudly ignored for 30 years.

[Siegel]

I think (based only on my perceptions) that the 3e SRD and OGL worked fine for it's intended purpose: increasing D20 market share, and thus D&D's overall sales and influence. If Wizards/Hasbro had stuck with the concept, it might still be benefittting them (and almost certainly Paizo would still be making D&D products, rarher than it's own OGL game).
The business problem with the OGL/SRD is that it limited future options. In particular, it meant that if D&D evolved in a direction that a significant portion of its fans (and content producers) didn't like, they had much less reason to follow along.

It was horrible for Game Design since everybody just did D20. It was a huge actor against creativity.

[obryn]

It is basically a fundamentally different way of playing the game. To me, the rules model an in-universe reality.

Fair enough. This is not important to me - I'm way more focused on the game itself - but it's a valid position. I don't think that D&D is in any way the best game for that goal, but I'm likewise certain it's not the worst. The thing is, that philosophy is still not at all incompatible with reskinning monsters and abilities.

When I, as GM, make up something new, I make new rules for it, cut from whole cloth.

Here's where you lose me... A monster is, in game terms, (1) a stat block, and (2) the "everything else" - appearance, habitat, habits, diet, etc.

Why make a stat block from scratch if you can copy an existing one, and then finesse it to make it a better match for the "everything else"? For my hydra/gladiator, that was my process. (1) Figure out the basics of what I want - that is, a gladiator who's a credible threat to the whole party. (2) Find a good stat block to match my intent, and change my original idea subtly if necessary. (3) Go back and change some mechanics to better match the story description (like removing the severing/regenerating heads bit), and (4) work on the rest of the story bits appropriately - in this case, I can see that he'd be a brutal warrior against hordes of lesser combatants, but never get to the top of the charts because he's less capable against more powerful (higher level) gladiators. He'd be a fight for them, but he'd be largely worthless against something 4-6 levels or so higher.

From there, I have a working monster that fills a great role in my game, and who I can work into the story of Tyr's gladiatorial pit and the rebellion as I wish.

I honestly don't know why building him from scratch would have been somehow "real-er" or more interesting.

-O

[Talakeal]

People in this thread are misusing the term disassociated mechanics rather frequently. A disassociated mechanic is NOT an abstraction or a break in realism / verisimilitude.

A disassociated mechanic is a player decision which is made out of character rather than in character, something that is narratively driven. For example Trip is an associated power; the character makes a decision to trip the enemy, and then makes the attempt.

A narrative control modifier which says once per encounter the enemy gets unlucky and trips on their own is a disassociated mechanic. It is made purely on the part of the player with no in character thought.

[Fatebreaker]

I honestly don't know why building him from scratch would have been somehow "real-er" or more interesting.

Especially because you could (unlikely, but still possible) create the exact same stat-block from scratch, but with a different appearance. How is that different from reskinning or refluffing?

Put another way, a single mechanical outcome can be expressed through a wide variety of fluff.

[obryn]

Apologies for the tangent, but out of curiousity, what did you find so polished about the Essentials books? I made a character with them once, and found them poorly organized and formatted (padded with too much redundency if I remember correctly).

Well, the main feature for me was the sliding scale of complexity from dirt simple to ... well, Wizard. It cut out a lot of the system's excesses with marks/quarries/challenges/etc and numerous, frequent conditions. It more or less zeroed in on the core of a classic D&D game, but did it 4e-style. It clearly described all the rules and gave players everything they needed in a single book.

With that said, I think the class descriptions were a bit redundant, yeah. I think the headers are particularly obnoxious and the double flavor text is kind of off-putting. But it was at least clearly presented what you do each level. Many people missed the class table in the 4e PHB, and this was the response.

In the "plus" column: The language had finally reached a good level of precision, and there was abundant, good-quality flavor text for each of the classes. The Rules Compendium is awesome. The adventures in the DM Kit and so on are actually stellar. The Monster Vault in particular is a wonderful book with well-designed creatures and abundant information on ecology/habits/etc. along with an awesome collection of counters.

You see, the plain and sad fact is that WotC had no idea how 4e really worked when they released it. Surprising, I know, but it was clearly not very well-playtested. Stuff like V-shaped classes (paladins, clerics, warlocks), the need for high attack attributes, math issues at higher levels, the annoyance of tons of counters and conditions, and so on was stuff they should have caught pretty much right away. It wasn't until PHB2 that their class design started becoming routinely polished, AV2 when magic items started looking decent (and arguably MME) and it wasn't until MM3 that they fixed monsters and started to eliminate combat grind.

The Essentials releases incorporate all the patches and fixes it took the designers 3 years to figure out, basically. :)

-O

[Knaight]

It was horrible for Game Design since everybody just did D20. It was a huge actor against creativity.

There are non d20 OGL games, and certain mechanics that have benefited hugely from the OGL. For instance, see the spread of Aspects, the spread of a few consistent step die systems, and the use of consistent terminology between games when applicable, none of which would have happened without the OGL. I'd call it a good thing, d20 aside.

[obryn]

A disassociated mechanic is a player decision which is made out of character rather than in character, something that is narratively driven.

It's been there, just a few pages back. It's where we got into discussions about whether or not hit points or decisions made based on your current HPs are dissociated, dissociated XP and leveling, and so on. This is another, related discussion.

Honestly, I prefer the term "metagame mechanics" for this because (1) that's a term that's identical in meaning and has been used for years, and (2) "dissociated" sounds so grumpy, and it's inextricably tied to Mr. Alexander's position that many games which are manifestly RPGs are not, in fact, RPGs.

I think the most telling response to this argument is that there are games which are clearly RPGs that rely on "dissociated mechanics" all the time. Look at any FATE-based game like Spirit of the Century or Dresden Files, any Burning Wheel-style game, and basically anything from the Indie movement.

In historical terms, Earthdawn and Marvel Superheroes (FASERIP) both have metagame Karma points. Heck; Eberron 3.5 has action points. So does the 3e PHB with daily powers like the Rogue's evasive roll.

But does 4e have more of these metagame mechanics than any D&D edition to date? Yep. Whether or not it's a problem is YMMV.

-O

[jseah]

I honestly don't know why building him from scratch would have been somehow "real-er" or more interesting.

In this particular case, the PC class rules I took to imply that humanoid characters have some particular development paths and limits.

Humans wielding an axe do not get 10 attacks per round (I presume that is what you wanted out of the hydra stat block), unless you modify the rules so that it is possible for humans wielding an axe to get 10 attacks per round.

Unfortunately, we are never going to agree on this. You only have to look at the flame hair thread. Please, please, do go look at it; the fluff/crunch thing was hashed into bits so small you can't see them anymore.

[Craft (Cheese)]

More importantly, just consider the d20 games that came out under the OGL. How many of those games would still have been made without the OGL? Practically none of them. Say what you will about the quality of these products but I refuse to believe that more games being made is a bad thing. Really, the only legitimate complaint you can make about the d20 OGL is that the development of a poor quality d20 product got in the way of the development of a high quality non-d20 product, which I have never once seen someone make a serious effort of claiming.

[Ashdate]

I think (based only on my perceptions) that the 3e SRD and OGL worked fine for it's intended purpose: increasing D20 market share, and thus D&D's overall sales and influence. If Wizards/Hasbro had stuck with the concept, it might still be benefittting them (and almost certainly Paizo would still be making D&D products, rarher than it's own OGL game).
The business problem with the OGL/SRD is that it limited future options. In particular, it meant that if D&D evolved in a direction that a significant portion of its fans (and content producers) didn't like, they had much less reason to follow along.

I remember that d20 had a lot of issues (when it was first released) with the market becoming flooded with unofficial material using the d20 stuff that was, honestly, junk. Granted, that was over 10 years ago, so I would welcome a second opinion. Regardless, I don't really remember ever wanting to use a third-party book; why would I, when Wizards was pushing out plenty of their own material? I remember people furrowing their brow at their decision to go Open License.

Of course, then the Internet got a lot better, and people could stop caring about the junk piling up at their local comic book store.

I mean, let's be honest here: 3e was the first new edition in about a decade. Dungeons and Dragons would represent a plurality - maybe even a majority (likely, I haven't looked at sales figures) -of the RPG market SRD or not.

Without things like the d20srd, a company (like Paizo) would have either had to have put a lot of work into developing their own system which they couldn't call "Dungeons and Dragons" (although noting whimsically that is always referred to as "3.5" instead on their website), and likely would have had to have purchased the rights to publish something like Pathfinder from Wizards. With the d20 system free to develop for, it ultimately meant that "Pathfinder" ended up competing with 4th Edition, and Wizards didn't make a cent off of it, despite the system being their original work.

I'm not suggesting that 4e would have been "drastically" more successful without Pathfinder on the market, but I'm sure it would have helped if they weren't shooting themselves in the foot.

in regards to some of the other conversation recently, I just wants to chime in that Obryn is bang on.

[Talakeal]

It's been there, just a few pages back. It's where we got into discussions about whether or not hit points or decisions made based on your current HPs are dissociated, dissociated XP and leveling, and so on. This is another, related discussion.

Honestly, I prefer the term "metagame mechanics" for this because (1) that's a term that's identical in meaning and has been used for years, and (2) "dissociated" sounds so grumpy, and it's inextricably tied to Mr. Alexander's position that many games which are manifestly RPGs are not, in fact, RPGs.

I think the most telling response to this argument is that there are games which are clearly RPGs that rely on "dissociated mechanics" all the time. Look at any FATE-based game like Spirit of the Century or Dresden Files, any Burning Wheel-style game, and basically anything from the Indie movement.

In historical terms, Earthdawn and Marvel Superheroes (FASERIP) both have metagame Karma points. Heck; Eberron 3.5 has action points. So does the 3e PHB with daily powers like the Rogue's evasive roll.

But does 4e have more of these metagame mechanics than any D&D edition to date? Yep. Whether or not it's a problem is YMMV.

-O

I will say that personally playing both 4E and FATE based systems do not feel anything like the traditional RPG experiance, and do not hold my interest. There IS a fundamental difference between a "story telling" driven game and a "getting into your character's head" game, and many people are turned off by one of the styles and not the other. Whether or not they both classify as an "RPG" is just semantics, there is a noticeable difference between the two game styles and it is strong enough that people will notice it and potentially drop the game because of it.

[obryn]

In this particular case, the PC class rules I took to imply that humanoid characters have some particular development paths and limits.

Humans wielding an axe do not get 10 attacks per round (I presume that is what you wanted out of the hydra stat block), unless you modify the rules so that it is possible for humans wielding an axe to get 10 attacks per round.

I'm not using those because he's a four-armed sunwarped half-giant. :) But in fairness, I wouldn't use them anyway - I'm extremely effects-oriented, which is why the 4e monster rules are ideal for me. Long years of DMing 3.5 (particularly variants like Arcana Evolved) convinced me that it's a waste of my time to build a monster like a PC. In this case my goals were (1) a challenge for the whole party, and (2) fun encounter that feels like a skilled, brutal gladiator able to conceivably take on a full party.

Unfortunately, we are never going to agree on this. You only have to look at the flame hair thread. Please, please, do go look at it; the fluff/crunch thing was hashed into bits so small you can't see them anymore.

That's fine; I really don't want to go back and read a frustrating old thread. I'd rather read a frustrating new one. And we probably are at an impasse, so I'm fine leaving this here.

-O

[jseah]

I'm extremely effects-oriented, which is why the 4e monster rules are ideal for me.

And yeah, this disconnects me from the game very very quickly.
Working backwards from the effect to the fluff is opposite from how I do things. And is exactly how 4E does it, while 3.5 did it alot less (I still dislike evasion btw).

In particular, the way I structure my games and plots, they have a tendency to break when a major refluff occurs (while they are resilient to characters doing weird things IC).
If the campaign involves a birdmen tribe, a player asking to play a birdman with legs is going to be turned down with a "sorry, I can't work that into the plot". (because their poor ground mobility and claws will be involved in the plot in some way) He plays a birdman as they exist in the game world, or plays something else that is not a birdman.
EDIT: also, half giants do not have 4 arms in my settings. Usually. =)

So in some ways, my description of the fireball spell is coloured by that tendency to explain everything in clear terms. Hence,

Objection #1: Constricting Fluff

doesn't matter to me at all. I do that as a matter of setting creation, during which I do not feel constrained to follow the rules since I am GM and can rewrite them before I have anything plotwise to break.

[obryn]

I still dislike evasion btw

As in, "How can a rogue evade all damage from a fireball while standing in the middle of it, not dropping prone, with no cover in sight?" I can't believe that hasn't come up here, yet.

If the campaign involves a birdmen tribe, a player asking to play a birdman with legs is going to be turned down with a "sorry, I can't work that into the plot". (because their poor ground mobility and claws will be involved in the plot in some way) He plays a birdman as they exist in the game world, or plays something else that is not a birdman.

I wouldn't necessarily, either, fwiw, but that's because I got thoroughly disabused of the "monsters make perfectly good PCs" concept in 3.5, too. Again, I can respect this, but it's just not what I'm looking for in my D&D nowadays.

EDIT: also, half giants do not have 4 arms in my settings. Usually. =)

Sunwarped mutant half-giant. He was also purple. And his great speed and ability to make numerous attacks was partly due to his precognitive wild talent.

-O

[kyoryu]

A disassociated mechanic is a player decision which is made out of character rather than in character, something that is narratively driven. For example Trip is an associated power; the character makes a decision to trip the enemy, and then makes the attempt.

And the other definition of dissociated, and I have no idea of where 4E has dissociated powers by this definition.

A truly dissociated power, by that logic, would be something that relied on information outside of the game world - such as the real world time of day, like a power that only worked between 3 and 4, am or pm.

Daily martial powers? Associated. Why? Because any warrior worth his sword will notice that certain things can be done once a day, no matter how hard he tries to do them more. Period. It's the physics of the game world, and can't be broken.

There might be insufficient fluff for it, or you might not care for how it's fluffed, but the character is not asked to rely upon knowledge outside of the game world to make a decision. The question "can I use x ability" is answered by the simple question "have I rested 8 hours since the last time I used this ability?" All of those factors are known to the character.

(even in the clock example, the character could try, and notice there's a 1 in 12 chance of success. So it's probably more correct to say that the player has information to use that the character does not, if we want to be really, really precise.)

I will say that personally playing both 4E and FATE based systems do not feel anything like the traditional RPG experiance, and do not hold my interest. There IS a fundamental difference between a "story telling" driven game and a "getting into your character's head" game, and many people are turned off by one of the styles and not the other. Whether or not they both classify as an "RPG" is just semantics, there is a noticeable difference between the two game styles and it is strong enough that people will notice it and potentially drop the game because of it.

Of course there is. And this is the heart of GNS theory, and the thing of value in it, flawed (horribly biased and broken?) though it may be. People play RPGs for different reasons and have different things they look for. Some of that is just "things to work the way I expect them to". Some of it is a particular outcome. And those are all fine reasons to like or dislike a game, without having to "prove" that a game is inherently flawed simply because you don't like it for whatever reason.

I suspect a big part of the reason 4e doesn't bug me is because I left D&D years and years ago. When I came back to D&D, I decided to just roll with silliness like increasing hit points and the fact that people could laugh off greatsword blows or fireballs or falls from very high. Because I had already suspended my disbelief (if I wanted a realistic system, I'd play one) in favor of streamlined game play, some of the harder-to-explain things in 4e just didn't bug me the way that they bug a lot of people.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I think this just sounds like the same old line: "the system is fine, the problem is the users".

If that's what it sounds like to you, then there isn't much I can say to convince you otherwise, is there

The short is this: you can't design a game around concepts which have no consistent definition.

The Long

Spoiler

Show

It is impossible for an architect to design a building that "feels new" unless the buyer explains what "new" means to him. Trying to design buildings that "feel new" to everyone is a good way to drive an architect mad. The same is true for amorphous terms like "verisimilitude" and "disassociated mechanics" -- what is disassociated for some is clearly not disassociated for others.

If your argument is (as I take it) that WotC needs to design the game with more "associated" and "verisimilitudeness" mechanics to be good then I posit that the only way a designer can comply is by copying whatever fit that bill in the past. At worst this creates a shameless copy -- a loss to everyone who wanted a better, different game -- and at best WotC does its best to please whomever they can get surveys from without any attempt at coherent design. IMHO this is not just a missed opportunity, but pining for a ship that has long since sailed: the market for RPGs is materially different from 2000 or even 2008.

To survive a franchise needs to draw in new people, not simply keep fishing for former Players who have found something else.