Fantasy Heart Breakers - mechanics that break the heart

[Talakeal]

I give up, what's TETSNBN?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I give up, what's TETSNBN?

The Edition That Shall Not Be Named. AKA 3e D&D.

Why it's called that....I'm not sure.

[Max_Killjoy]

I dunno. It didn't draw in a new generation of players like 5e does, which is a huge failing in any roleplaying game, since that's where all the players and sales really are. Gotta hook them kids while they're in high school and college. So on that front, it wasn't anything resembling a success.

But I found it was wildly popular among experienced gamers, especially those who wanted to play in pickup games. It was only die-hard grognards that seemed to hate 4e. The same way a previous generation of die-hards hated TETSNBN ... erm, excuse me, 3e. The kind of people that take their own personal dislikes and biases, then assume they are truth and/or their views are universal.

The thing was, most of the experienced gamers I knew played both 4e AND Pathfinder. That drove sales for both at local stores. To generalize, 4e was the game of choice for pickup / official play games. In my case that included access to several dozen games a weekend hosted out of people's homes via a mailing list. Or for one-shots, by which I mean any game series expected to end in up to say three months or so. Whereas Pathfinder tended to be the game of choice for a home game of close personal friends that was ongoing. Similarly, my local game stores had no more than two (on-going) pathfinder tables a week, whereas they could easily have a half-dozen 4e pick-up / official play tables.

Personal anecdote / experience, and in a major U.S. metropolis. YMMHV etc etc

My experience was that 4e didn't go over well. On one side, most fans of D&D-like systems were not pleased with the fundamental departures. On the other side, most who didn't care for D&D-likes didn't see any changes to the things that pushed them away from those systems. And overall, many were less than fond of the way every class felt like a skin over the same mechanics, with different fluff. It didn't meet "gamist" needs for crunch and rules depth and differentiation, didn't meet "sim" needs for rules to reflect the "fiction" / setting facts, and didn't meet "nar" needs for mechanics tied into narrative cooperation / joint storytelling.

To me, it felt like an attempt to bring a lot of MMO sensibilities to the tabletop / pencil-and-paper, and it just fell flat.

On an unrelated note, I'd like to thank several posters for giving me the push to finally catch up on perusing Exalted 2 rules. I'd previously been turned off my constant storytelling this and storytelling that.

My second impression: for a game that has constant references to storytelling and motivation etc etc, it sure is a complex and rules-heavy game. But IMX that's not uncommon. Edit: I just checked, and it's published by White Wolf. Hah! And no wonder I thought the dots and TN 7 system seemed familiar.

WW's constant snotty references to "storytelling", juxtaposed against systems designed (intentionally or not) to award cheesing builds, intense rule manipulation, and leveraging blatantly broken powers (see, most of the all-or-nothing Discipline effects in Vampire), was one of the triggers that lead to the Forge, and all the good and bad and toxin that came out of that.

[Malifice]

I dunno. It didn't draw in a new generation of players like 5e does, which is a huge failing in any roleplaying game, since that's where all the players and sales really are. Gotta hook them kids while they're in high school and college. So on that front, it wasn't anything resembling a success.

But I found it was wildly popular among experienced gamers, especially those who wanted to play in pickup games. It was only die-hard grognards that seemed to hate 4e. The same way a previous generation of die-hards hated TETSNBN ... erm, excuse me, 3e. The kind of people that take their own personal dislikes and biases, then assume they are truth and/or their views are universal.

The thing was, most of the experienced gamers I knew played both 4e AND Pathfinder. That drove sales for both at local stores. To generalize, 4e was the game of choice for pickup / official play games. In my case that included access to several dozen games a weekend hosted out of people's homes via a mailing list. Or for one-shots, by which I mean any game series expected to end in up to say three months or so. Whereas Pathfinder tended to be the game of choice for a home game of close personal friends that was ongoing. Similarly, my local game stores had no more than two (on-going) pathfinder tables a week, whereas they could easily have a half-dozen 4e pick-up / official play tables.

Personal anecdote / experience, and in a major U.S. metropolis. YMMHV etc etc

-----------

On an unrelated note, I'd like to thank several posters for giving me the push to finally catch up on perusing Exalted 2 rules. I'd previously been turned off my constant storytelling this and storytelling that.

My second impression: for a game that has constant references to storytelling and motivation etc etc, it sure is a complex and rules-heavy game. But IMX that's not uncommon. Edit: I just checked, and it's published by White Wolf. Hah! And no wonder I thought the dots and TN 7 system seemed familiar.

I dont want to edition war here, but I liked 4E from a mechanical viewpoint (they tried something different) even though it wasnt the game for me.

Where it fell down for mine, was it wasnt 'DnD'.

Like most groups you reach a point of 'DnD saturation' where you suffer burnout and turn to other systems and genres. Back in the AD&D heydays of the mid 80's, we turned to Rolemaster and Spacemaster, WEG D6, Shadowrun, WHFRP, and other games to mix it up and keep the gaming fresh.

Then every now and then, someone would get motivated and the old PHB, DMG, Unearthed Arcana and so forth would be whipped out and it would be a familiar groove you'd get back into again. Dungeon crawling, Clerics, Fighters, Rangers, Cavaliers, Magic Users, Thieves and so forth, Weapon specialisation, THACO, Alignment, AC and HP.

It was comforting in a beer and pretzels kind of way. You knew what you were getting and it kept it fresh.

4E for mine just kind of strayed too far from that feeling. It was a decent enough game on its own, but it just didnt feel like DnD anymore, more of a MMORPG or highly detailed board game. It just kind of... missed the mark. I was one of those that lept over to Pathfinder (a game I now actually hate) to keep that feeling alive and well.

5E's success is that it feels like DnD again. Its simple, yet complex in its own way, its familiar and works. Its my favorite edition to date. Plus it avoids Pathfinders insanely convoluted complexity and fiddly bits (do we really need so many traits that grant a +1, thousands of feats, alternate racial spat, archetypes and trap options?) and avoids that systems loathsome metagame or game within the game of 'character optimisation' which takes precedence over playing the actual game at most tables, or actually in most cases subsumes and subverts the whole game itself.

Thats only my own personal subjective take on it. 4th is the only edition I largely skipped and I've been playing for 35 years now. I didnt buy a single book (read a few and played it a few times, but it never jumped out at me) and thats from a guy that has owned every single book from BECMI boxed sets, to AD&D through to Combat and Tactics of '2.5 edition' to 3rd and 3.5 (and now 5th).

It wasnt just angry grognard. It just kind of didnt feel the same that iteration. It was a bold new direction, but just not one I really could get into.

[Quertus]

It was the stunning new tactical board game no one knew they wanted because... almost no one actually wanted it.

If that makes it a fantasy heart breaker, I guess it is.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant by 4e being a set of mechanics that break the heart. Yes, rather the opposite of how "fantasy heartbreaker" is usually used IME, but it seemed to fit with this thread.

Quertus, speaking of Generalist Wizards, how would you feel about the following rough outline (numbers pulled from thin air):

Assume that we've identified a broad set of themes of various degrees of specificity, nested hierarchically. So you might have Specialty/sub-specialty (like modern physicists--my degree was in quantum chemistry, more specifically low-energy atomic and molecular scattering theory).

In this hypothetical system, Specialists can learn any spell of levels 0-2 (universal spells), spells from their broader specialty of levels 3-6, and spells from their sub-specialty only of levels 7-9.

Universalists can learn any spell of levels 0-6, but can never learn a spell of levels 7-9. They may be able to use those slots to up-cast (strengthen) a lower-level spell, but will never get to learn wish-equivalent spells.

Here you're trading depth for breadth. And that's a real trade-off in the scientific world. Those who wish to reach the bleeding edge of physics are concentrated very deeply on one tiny little sub-sub-sub-sub specialty and only have graduate-student (at best) knowledge of the rest of physics. Back when I was fresh out of grad school, I could tell you lots about the details of my field. A smaller amount about the rest of quantum chemistry, and only fragments of the rest of physics (of which there is a lot). I went to a talk by a high-energy guy (doing even sort-of related work with scattering, just at unimaginably higher energies) and understood about 5% of what he was talking about. Being a generalist stunts your growth when you're approaching the bleeding edge of knowledge.

So, we're playing a one-shot, at 12th level - the Generalist sacrifices nothing. Or we're playing a one-shot at 40th level - the Generalist is limited to 6th level spells. Or we're playing a one-shot with nothing but zombie red dragons, (3.0) iron golems, and traps as challenges - the Enchanter, Pyromancer, DPS Rogue (who did not take trap finding skills), Diplomacer, and melee-only Fighter are useless. These are the game- and character-design issues I'm seeing (with 3e in general, and exacerbated by your proposed modifications).

That said, a) I'm running an existing character, even in a one-shot, so I personally care about the whole 1-40 experience; b) yes, I would play a generalist in such a system, relying on Rituals to try to have enough "oomph" at epic levels (although, tbh, if everyone could use "Ritual of Teleport" / "Ritual of Plane Shift", Quertus, my signature tactically inept academia mage, for whom this account is named, would finally be worthless to his party, and they'd likely kick him to the curb (which isn't a horrible thing, IMO, to have to up my game to keep playing, it just means that Quertus can't get by on utility (which was the only thing he reliably brought the party) any more)).

My experience was that 4e didn't go over well. On one side, most fans of D&D-like systems were not pleased with the fundamental departures. On the other side, most who didn't care for D&D-likes didn't see any changes to the things that pushed them away from those systems. And overall, many were less than fond of the way every class felt like a skin over the same mechanics, with different fluff. It didn't meet "gamist" needs for crunch and rules depth and differentiation, didn't meet "sim" needs for rules to reflect the "fiction" / setting facts, and didn't meet "nar" needs for mechanics tied into narrative cooperation / joint storytelling.

To me, it felt like an attempt to bring a lot of MMO sensibilities to the tabletop / pencil-and-paper, and it just fell flat.

Heartily agree, especially with the bolded bit.

WW's constant snotty references to "storytelling", juxtaposed against systems designed (intentionally or not) to award cheesing builds, intense rule manipulation, and leveraging blatantly broken powers (see, most of the all-or-nothing Discipline effects in Vampire), was one of the triggers that lead to the Forge, and all the good and bad and toxin that came out of that.

I always thought that it was intentional - this game is X. Here's lots of mechanics that do X, Y, and Z. It's really easy to see what kind of player someone is, and have them telegraph what they care about, what kind of game they want. Oh, but we're actually X, so anyone actually choosing Y or Z is having BadWrongFun.

[2D8HP]

...The kind of people that take their own personal dislikes and biases, then assume they are truth and/or their views are universal....

Is there another way?

[Malifice]

Is there another way?

Nope. Only my way.

Which is the universal truth.

[Ignimortis]

On an unrelated note, I'd like to thank several posters for giving me the push to finally catch up on perusing Exalted 2 rules. I'd previously been turned off my constant storytelling this and storytelling that.

My second impression: for a game that has constant references to storytelling and motivation etc etc, it sure is a complex and rules-heavy game. But IMX that's not uncommon. Edit: I just checked, and it's published by White Wolf. Hah! And no wonder I thought the dots and TN 7 system seemed familiar.

To be honest, Exalted 2e was to me a prime example of "I want to play this so badly but the rules are such hot garbage". However, I got the 3e corebook in December...it seems decent enough. Of course, it's still WW garbage base mechanics with "oh no you can only have 7 HP and maybe 3 more if you're building for it" in a game where a weapon can do 20 damage out of chargen, but at least it's easy to understand and actually play.

[Cluedrew]

On D&D 4e: I actually don't like 4e myself. Although oddly enough because it is "even more D&D" in most of the ways I don't like D&D. Which seems to be the opposite problem everyone else has with it. If you offered me to play a game of D&D any edition, it might be my last choice.

But that is as a player. As a designer (who is very slowly chipping away at a system) though it is a different story. Healing surges were a good solution to scaling healing. Temporary HP as an alternate "pre-heal", I am interested. Enemy roles help very things up, especially minions to make battling swarms less of a slog and more climatic. The united resource mechanic for powers: martials get cool options, everyone is one the same times and switching classes requires less work. Good, good, good.

It had its flaws as well. Length of combat was often even worse for one. But its prime failing that keeps me from it: It forgot to be a role-playing game.

[Morty]

To be honest, Exalted 2e was to me a prime example of "I want to play this so badly but the rules are such hot garbage". However, I got the 3e corebook in December...it seems decent enough. Of course, it's still WW garbage base mechanics with "oh no you can only have 7 HP and maybe 3 more if you're building for it" in a game where a weapon can do 20 damage out of chargen, but at least it's easy to understand and actually play.

Except this time there's a combat system designed to prevent exactly that.

Ironically enough, Exalted 3E sorcery is actually Vancian in that it evokes the writing of Jack Vance, despite not having spell slots. Which is to say, it's powerful, mysterious and dangerous even to Exalted and gods and requires a dedicated focus.

[Ignimortis]

Except this time there's a combat system designed to prevent exactly that.

Yeah, I could see Dissidia Final Fantasy (which they credited) all over it, and it's a pretty good fit for cinematic 1x1 combat. Still, you can lose initiative (Bravery) very quickly against heavy weapons, and getting hit with 40 dice of initiative after a round or two is still gonna hurt more than you can afford to tank.

[Morty]

1v1 duels are explicitly not what the combat system is designed for, and part of the dynamic is making sure to knock any enemy combatant who's picking up Initiative too quickly down a peg. Besides, from my own experience playing the system, picking up 40 initiative in two rounds just isn't likely to happen unless you're a Dawn Caste Solar beating up a single brigand.

[Grod_The_Giant]

To be honest, Exalted 2e was to me a prime example of "I want to play this so badly but the rules are such hot garbage". However, I got the 3e corebook in December...it seems decent enough. Of course, it's still WW garbage base mechanics with "oh no you can only have 7 HP and maybe 3 more if you're building for it" in a game where a weapon can do 20 damage out of chargen, but at least it's easy to understand and actually play.

Except this time there's a combat system designed to prevent exactly that.

Pretty much this. I played a short 3e campaign and was pleasantly surprised. I mean, you can still get smushed if you're talking about a combat specialist vs someone who didn't invest in it, but that's kind of the case for everything in Exalted. (Delightfully, it's also easy to fine-tune on the GM side-- you can have your NPCs make decisive attacks at low initiative counts, when they'll just barely injure the Eclipse, or you can have them save up for a round or two to overwhelm the Dawn)

[Ignimortis]

1v1 duels are explicitly not what the combat system is designed for, and part of the dynamic is making sure to knock any enemy combatant who's picking up Initiative too quickly down a peg. Besides, from my own experience playing the system, picking up 40 initiative in two rounds just isn't likely to happen unless you're a Dawn Caste Solar beating up a single brigand.

Pretty much this. I played a short 3e campaign and was pleasantly surprised. I mean, you can still get smushed if you're talking about a combat specialist vs someone who didn't invest in it, but that's kind of the case for everything in Exalted. (Delightfully, it's also easy to fine-tune on the GM side-- you can have your NPCs make decisive attacks at low initiative counts, when they'll just barely injure the Eclipse, or you can have them save up for a round or two to overwhelm the Dawn)

That sounds good. Time to find someone who's willing to run that for me, then - I've been craving to play someone who can slaughter whole armies in a matter of minutes for a very, very, very long time. That, by the way, is a very rare system assumption and I don't know why.

[Arbane]

That sounds good. Time to find someone who's willing to run that for me, then - I've been craving to play someone who can slaughter whole armies in a matter of minutes for a very, very, very long time. That, by the way, is a very rare system assumption and I don't know why.

Most RPGs still have serious problems with high-powered characters.
You might want to take a look at Godbound, as well. It's Exalted if it was based on Basic D&D instead of Vampire.

[Tanarii]

I give up, what's TETSNBN?

The Edition That Shall Not Be Named. AKA 3e D&D.

Why it's called that....I'm not sure.

Because naming it would cause dragonsfoot forums threads to explode in a feeding frenzy of frothing rage and hatred.

[Morty]

That sounds good. Time to find someone who's willing to run that for me, then - I've been craving to play someone who can slaughter whole armies in a matter of minutes for a very, very, very long time. That, by the way, is a very rare system assumption and I don't know why.

Slaughtering armies is pretty routine for a combat-focused Solar. Too routine if you ask me, but that's a whole other discussion.

[Malifice]

Most RPGs still have serious problems with high-powered characters.
You might want to take a look at Godbound, as well. It's Exalted if it was based on Basic D&D instead of Vampire.

I actually find DM inexperience is what causes the problems.

Most DnD DMs are familiar with low and mid level play, but start to lose control of the game when the players get to high level, because they dont have the same level of experience dealing with high level enemies, threats and abilities.

The game comes to a screeching halt when the DM 'burns out' or rage quits after the PCs use a new and unforseen method to overcome an adventure (using spells and class featyres the DM has never ran before).

This of course only compounds the problem.

IME its why more games stop at around 11th level. DMs lose control and lack experience.

My advice to Dms is to power on to 20th if you've made it that far (in 5E its helped on account of the XP progression speeding up past 11th level, where they start to advance in level every 2nd or 3rd session, instead of every 5th and 6th session).

You need to gain valuable experience in the kinds of things high level PCs get up to. It'll probably be a train wreck the first time you do it, but it gets better with experience.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Most RPGs still have serious problems with high-powered characters.
You might want to take a look at Godbound, as well. It's Exalted if it was based on Basic D&D instead of Vampire.

I've also had decent success using Mutants and Masterminds rules to play Exalts, though you lose out on almost all the non-combat stuff that's also a hallmark of the system, in my mind.

(on an unrelated note, man do I want to play Exalted right now. Grumble)

[LibraryOgre]

Because naming it would cause dragonsfoot forums threads to explode in a feeding frenzy of frothing rage and hatred.

It was really something to behold.

However, on 4e, I didn't particularly LIKE it, but it was fun and it had some good ideas. I've said several times that I really liked Bloodied as a concept; it distilled the abstract nature of HP to a descriptor that let you know where you stood WITHOUT necessarily saying "It has X HP, you have now down Y damage, leaving it with X-Y HP."

I also liked Healing Surges. I might have gone with a different ratio (1/5 instead of 1/4), but they adequately conveyed they abstract nature of HP and healing.

As for what I didn't like, some of it was the constant rebuilding of characters, half your powers coming from your gear, and, though I liked the general CONCEPT of their multi-classing system, I did not like the fact that some classes were locked into specific skills, making them less attractive multiclasses ("I'm already a wizard; multiclassing into Cleric is better than Multiclassing into Warlock because Cleric will ALSO give me a new skill, whereas Warlock will only give me a new ability.")

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've said several times that I really liked Bloodied as a concept; it distilled the abstract nature of HP to a descriptor that let you know where you stood WITHOUT necessarily saying "It has X HP, you have now down Y damage, leaving it with X-Y HP."

Bloodied is one of my favorites. I've liberated it wholesale for my 5e games. I'll even tie tactics changes or new abilities to being bloodied for enemies. I tend to do 4 levels: Unhurt, hit, bloodied, almost dead.

[LibraryOgre]

Bloodied is one of my favorites. I've liberated it wholesale for my 5e games. I'll even tie tactics changes or new abilities to being bloodied for enemies. I tend to do 4 levels: Unhurt, hit, bloodied, almost dead.

We tended to have "Not bloodied yet", "Bloodied", and "Really Bloodied". But, we lived in Houston, where the four seasons are "Summer, Still Summer, Not Summer, and Almost Summer"

[PhoenixPhyre]

We tended to have "Not bloodied yet", "Bloodied", and "Really Bloodied". But, we lived in Houston, where the four seasons are "Summer, Still Summer, Not Summer, and Almost Summer"

I've used that set myself =)

[Max_Killjoy]

I wonder what I could do with the seasons here, which are Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter, and Bleagh.

Bleagh is that season after the snow finally melts but before anything turns green, a time of brown, grey, mud, damp, chill.

[Florian]

My seasons apparently are pleasant spring, hot draught, less hot draught, Siberian cold. Snow? What's that?

[Quertus]

Bloodied is one of my favorites. I've liberated it wholesale for my 5e games. I'll even tie tactics changes or new abilities to being bloodied for enemies. I tend to do 4 levels: Unhurt, hit, bloodied, almost dead.

I guess I wasn't wowed by "bloodied" because a) I'd been using such terms for decades; b) it tied the terms to mechanics, so now they were less immersive (and more static) than before. Also, I'm generally not a fan of calls to mechanics that pretend to be fluff, or calls fluff that act as mechanics.

[Anonymouswizard]

Jumping in on the magic discussion, I rather like the GURPS method of limiting magic. In short cast too much magic (generally about a 7d6 Fireball for average mages) and you'll be at half Move, Dodge, and Strength, continue casting and you'll eventually have to make Will checks to do anything and lose HP for every FP you lose, continue casting sheet that and you go unconscious if the HP loss hadn't hurt you. On the other hand you get back 1FP per ten minutes of sitting down so mages aren't out of action for too long, if the party can afford to wait an hour the mage regains enough fp for a spell or two. More if they've invested in the spell that increases their FP regeneration. As GURPS is roughly equivalent to level 1-6 a 1st level D&D Wizard has a relatively equal amount of 'spell energy' but regains their spells slower (but has Cantrips to make up for it), while a 6th level Wizard has much more spell energy then his GURPS counterpart, and once per 'day' can regain 3 spell levels (arguably the GURPS wizard's entire volume, and twice their practical volume), but the GURPS Wizard can return from 0fp to full by reading a book for an hour or so (less if invested in Recover Energy).

It means that casting is less balanced by 'do I need it later' (a few fp isn't hard to recover), and more 'do I need the fp in the immediate future'.

[LibraryOgre]

Also a gem from 4e: Ritual Magic. Sure, wizards and clerics and such were BETTER at it, but that many things spells could be cast by anyone with only a minimal investment (a feat, a skill, and some cash) was a great feature that D&D had needed for a while.

[Luccan]

Also a gem from 4e: Ritual Magic. Sure, wizards and clerics and such were BETTER at it, but that many things spells could be cast by anyone with only a minimal investment (a feat, a skill, and some cash) was a great feature that D&D had needed for a while.

That was my favorite part when I read the 4e Player's Handbook. I wish they had brought it over more directly into 5e. Sure, it's still only a feat away, but it's more limited both in number of ritual spells and I don't think (admittedly, it's been years since I read it so I'm not sure) there was a restriction by class. In 5e, ritual magic feats have to be taken for individual classes, so it's 2 feats for both wizard and cleric rituals, which still doesn't cover bard, druid, or warlock ritual spells.

[Arbane]

IME its why more games stop at around 11th level. DMs lose control and lack experience.

It probably doesn't help that I don't think 3rd ed was playtested much past level 10 - IIRC, AD&D pretty much assumed the PCs would retire from active adventuring to tend their castles and such around that level. (AD&D's 'Epic-Level' adventure Queen Of the Demonweb Pits, where you go to the Abyss to kill Lolth, was for levels 10-14.)