Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 11, 2020, 09:47:01 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 11, 2020, 09:07:37 PM
Only if you let it straightjacket you.

That's an intellectual copout. If I can't criticize a system for something (because I can 'bypass it'), then I can't criticize or compliment anything at all.

It's not a matter of bypassing; it's using the material as intended.

I've read a lot of interviews with the 4E devs and they chose rules lite for non-combat for basically the same reason Kevin Seimbedia did for all his Palladium games;

Basically, a tight simulationist system for those portions wasn't needed because those situations were generally less complex (at least relative to tracking everything going on in a 5 vs. 5 melee) and also more nuanced (trying to convince a king to send troops to assist isn't as binary as hitting or missing with an attack) than combat. Also, outside of traps (which they wrote to use combat stats and action economies) they also felt the immediate consequences were not so immediate life and death.

To hear it told, the only reason we had distinct skills in 4E vs. something more like his freeform backgrounds in 13th Age was too much pushback from the side that wanted more hard simulation in the system.

Combat was detailed because they felt the stakes were high enough that it needed to be and the complexity of multiple creatures acting more or less simultaneously made it harder for a rules lite approach to resolve (save-or-die was something they were explicitly trying to remove from the equation).

But you weren't expected to be engaging in combat any more often than in prior editions. Less in some ways as trash mobs like lone castle guards were intended to be handled without even going into the full combat, just a check or two to see if you can knock him cold/slit his throat without being noticed and before he alerts anyone (blows whistle/rings bell/etc.).

So we didn't. We weren't bypassing mechanics, we used them exactly as often as they were needed for the campaign.

Similarly, the point of the XP Budget was never "you can throw X threat at the party and no more." It was "if you throw X threat at the party Y is likely to occur. If you throw 2X at the party Z is likely to occur."

A DM can throw an Elder Red Dragon (level 30 solo) at a 1st level party in 4E just as easily as in any other edition; he just can't have the excuse of "I didn't know it would be that bad of a fight."

Basically, the only thing 4E takes away is a dick DM's ability to pretend the TPK they just inflicted on the party was an accident.

And for the record, we regularly met things well beyond our ability in 4E. The DM though put enough warning signs into the adventure though that we realized we should advance with caution and when we were sure we were outmatched that we should either bargain or flee.

In one case we met a Balor at level 2 and because he wanted us to suffer, he banished us all to Dark Sun. "But, Chris," you're saying, "Balor's in 4E don't have the Planeshift spell." Except they certainly can have planeshift in 4E. The DMG/MM discuss how monster combat stat blocks are just that... for combat. Outside of combat monsters can have whatever abilities the DM thinks are appropriate for it to have.

That's not bypassing, it's interacting with it as intended.

The problem was a lot of people dragged a whole lot of pre-4E assumptions into how they ran games with it (monsters are completely defined by their stat block being one of them). 4E runs horribly if you try to run it with 3e-style assumptions about encounters and needing specific rules for non-combat tasks.

You could really see it we got a DM who came into it with 4E as their first RPG system and their prep was reading the 4E material. The other DM type who did REALLY well with 4E were ones who jumped right from AD&D into 4E and skipped 3e entirely because they grokked the free form non-combat side a LOT better than the previously 3e DMs.

Now, admittedly, my experiences with 4E are anecdotal. But your criticisms are too. If 4E was played the way you experienced it, those criticisms are valid for how it was played. But that was not the only way it was played.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 12, 2020, 09:13:20 AM
It's not a matter of bypassing; it's using the material as intended.

And material, as intended, asks the GM to only use monsters in the specific listed way. Which means not bypassing the intended level brackets and not using a high-level normal monster for a 'Solo' encounter. And as intended asks the GM to keep the PC in a very specific band of power as asked by the item parcel system. Saying 'Well in my games we bypass it', is the opposite of material as intended. Your shifting goalposts.

Now before I go on: I have very many things I find admirable about D&D 4e, and in fact, I usually want to defend it when it gains criticism. And I RESPECT the ambition behind it very much. I respect 4e way more then I respect 5e, or even PF 1e or PF 2e.
But you're trying to sell a cow as a horse here. And I really like cows, but it's not a horse.

QuoteBasically, a tight simulationist system for those portions wasn't needed because those situations were generally less complex

99.9% of all Tabletop RPGs have more in-depth combat systems than they have for anything else. Because as you put it, that's when things get more high stakes and people are less willing to abstract such things. 4e is not unique with that sort of reasoning or design. But 4e is the one that gets singled and criticized for this the most.

And that's because it's the MOST combat lopsided, and the least developed on the everything else scale in ratio of what exists. It is the MOST like a videogame where your options in 'combat' exist on a separate reality than your options outside of combat. In a videogame, you may be the lord of all elemental magic, but it manifests as just a '+100 dmg bonus to fire spells'. You may be a master illusionist but it manifests as a '+25% confusion chance for your light mana' spells'. You may be a ninja, but that grants you a '+55% crit chance with the dagger weapon class'.

Your elemental lord can't just dispel the flames around the keep of the lost one (because you need to get the key of zazerkin at the end of the dungeon)
Your illusionist can't trick the hostage exchange by disguising your warrior as the oracle maiden of sunrovia (because the story isn't designed that way)
And your Ninja can't just sneak into the pirate ship and take the research notes you need and bypass the boss fight (because they programmed that dungeon damnit).

4e might be slightly less extreme than that (the Ninja can sneak I guess), but it's still applicable. You may be a paragon of Illusions, but you can make a Illusionary wall once every day (At like level . Unless of course, you play mother may I with the GM that suddenly stops existing the second combat starts (Again like videogame logic).

QuoteBut you weren't expected to be engaging in combat any more often than in prior editions. Less in some ways as trash mobs like lone castle guards were intended to be handled without even going into the full combat, just a check or two to see if you can knock him cold/slit his throat without being noticed and before he alerts anyone (blows whistle/rings bell/etc.).

Then they utterly botched this implication in ANY of their published adventures, which were combat gauntlets, with monsters that purely existed within the listed power bands.

All the things you listed as 'unique design goals' for 4e are not elements unique to itself. It's not that people 'didn't get it' or 'brought the wrong assumptions'. All D&D editions very much expected a sort of improv approach to the use of your abilities, with specifics mainly for combat.

4e just has the most ridgid combat abilities, with the loosest and least helpful suggestions for improv for anything else. With such a lopsided framing, its 4es fault for discouraging improv. With an extended GM book for handling combat, not improv.

Compare 4e to say...Godbound. It's very specific with the uses of your powers in combat and pretty loose with everything else (to the point of dispensing with skills altogether in favor of backgrounds). But it makes use of those 'out of combat' abilities much more organic, and places having them at all on a pedestal similar in value to combat abilities.

Godbound also doesn't waste space. 4e has 3/4ths its pages dedicated to lists of very similar combat powers and abilities that could be condensed into a 'make your own' system with 3 pages.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 12, 2020, 01:07:42 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 12, 2020, 09:13:20 AM
It's not a matter of bypassing; it's using the material as intended.

And material, as intended, asks the GM to only use monsters in the specific listed way. Which means not bypassing the intended level brackets and not using a high-level normal monster for a 'Solo' encounter. And as intended asks the GM to keep the PC in a very specific band of power as asked by the item parcel system. Saying 'Well in my games we bypass it', is the opposite of material as intended. Your shifting goalposts.

Now before I go on: I have very many things I find admirable about D&D 4e, and in fact, I usually want to defend it when it gains criticism. And I RESPECT the ambition behind it very much. I respect 4e way more then I respect 5e, or even PF 1e or PF 2e.
But you're trying to sell a cow as a horse here. And I really like cows, but it's not a horse.

QuoteBasically, a tight simulationist system for those portions wasn't needed because those situations were generally less complex

99.9% of all Tabletop RPGs have more in-depth combat systems than they have for anything else. Because as you put it, that's when things get more high stakes and people are less willing to abstract such things. 4e is not unique with that sort of reasoning or design. But 4e is the one that gets singled and criticized for this the most.

And that's because it's the MOST combat lopsided, and the least developed on the everything else scale in ratio of what exists. It is the MOST like a videogame where your options in 'combat' exist on a separate reality than your options outside of combat. In a videogame, you may be the lord of all elemental magic, but it manifests as just a '+100 dmg bonus to fire spells'. You may be a master illusionist but it manifests as a '+25% confusion chance for your light mana' spells'. You may be a ninja, but that grants you a '+55% crit chance with the dagger weapon class'.

Your elemental lord can't just dispel the flames around the keep of the lost one (because you need to get the key of zazerkin at the end of the dungeon)
Your illusionist can't trick the hostage exchange by disguising your warrior as the oracle maiden of sunrovia (because the story isn't designed that way)
And your Ninja can't just sneak into the pirate ship and take the research notes you need and bypass the boss fight (because they programmed that dungeon damnit).

4e might be slightly less extreme than that (the Ninja can sneak I guess), but it's still applicable. You may be a paragon of Illusions, but you can make a Illusionary wall once every day (At like level . Unless of course, you play mother may I with the GM that suddenly stops existing the second combat starts (Again like videogame logic).

QuoteBut you weren't expected to be engaging in combat any more often than in prior editions. Less in some ways as trash mobs like lone castle guards were intended to be handled without even going into the full combat, just a check or two to see if you can knock him cold/slit his throat without being noticed and before he alerts anyone (blows whistle/rings bell/etc.).

Then they utterly botched this implication in ANY of their published adventures, which were combat gauntlets, with monsters that purely existed within the listed power bands.

All the things you listed as 'unique design goals' for 4e are not elements unique to itself. It's not that people 'didn't get it' or 'brought the wrong assumptions'. All D&D editions very much expected a sort of improv approach to the use of your abilities, with specifics mainly for combat.

4e just has the most ridgid combat abilities, with the loosest and least helpful suggestions for improv for anything else. With such a lopsided framing, its 4es fault for discouraging improv. With an extended GM book for handling combat, not improv.

Compare 4e to say...Godbound. It's very specific with the uses of your powers in combat and pretty loose with everything else (to the point of dispensing with skills altogether in favor of backgrounds). But it makes use of those 'out of combat' abilities much more organic, and places having them at all on a pedestal similar in value to combat abilities.

Godbound also doesn't waste space. 4e has 3/4ths its pages dedicated to lists of very similar combat powers and abilities that could be condensed into a 'make your own' system with 5 pages.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on December 11, 2020, 04:09:09 PM
... So long as Hasbro doesn't drop the ball again (4e), it's unlikely that another TTRPG will knock them off of their fantasy RPG throne.

I agree, it would take a WOTC own goal of serious proportions to give a competitor another chance to bring D&D down a peg or two.

For what it's worth, I do think that WOTC will find the 50th anniversary of D&D an absolutely irresistible opportunity to do something to the game.

And given their current woke directives, I don't think it will be good for them.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on December 11, 2020, 04:09:09 PM
But just because D&D is #1 doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of market share to slice off.

In the past yes. D&D was the 800lb Gorilla of the hobby, but there was table space to spare.

In post OGL 5e era though: D&D is the 80,000lb King Kong of the hobby and everyone else scrambles for the scraps that fall off the table.

Quote from: TJS on December 11, 2020, 04:44:03 PM
Eh.  5E is cleaned but vastly oversimplified and with little variation in what you can do.  Every 5E cleric I've seen has relied on a few spells - Bless, Spirit Guardians, and Spiritual Hammer, while the poor Eldritch Knight who is meant to be a magical fighter just spams shield.
...

I would call 5e a solid mid crunch game. Far from oversimplified. In fact it has lots of fiddly bits if you are actually trying to play RAW, and not in the new handwavium Mercer style.

The lack of variation IMHO is due to the way that "subclasses" work in the game. Once you hit 3rd level in 5e you get an array of choices. But his is a choice that is only made once.

The advancement track is then on rails from that point on. they could have taken a different rout with the class abilities. Made their selection more freeform at the various levels, and had Classes that a player can play without being the same every time.

Quote from: TJS on December 11, 2020, 04:44:03 PM
...The other thing they needed was good online character building and encounter building support.  GM prep was always the bug bear of 3.5 and while it's a lot easier in 5e by desgin 5e also has the huge advantage of the availabilty of software to make it even easier.  (At least they have the SRD - this is one big reason why Pathfinder has survived and no one plays 4E anymore.  It's too hard to play 4e without all the rules elements in one place somewhere on the net).
...

I've always viewed the need for an app or other software to make a game 'playable' at the table, to be an indication of overcomplication and bad design.

Quote from: Jaeger link=topic=42997.msg1156535#msg1156535
I would call 5e a solid mid crunch game. Far from oversimplified. In fact it has lots of fiddly bits if you are actually trying to play RAW, and not in the new handwavium Mercer style.

The lack of variation IMHO is due to the way that "subclasses" work in the game. Once you hit 3rd level in 5e you get an array of choices. But his is a choice that is only made once.

The advancement track is then on rails from that point on. they could have taken a different rout with the class abilities. Made their selection more freeform at the various levels, and had Classes that a player can play without being the same every time.

It's both mid cruch AND oversimplified.  The two are not mutually exclusive.  For a game with the amount of crunch that it has, it's oversimplified.  It's also weirdly inconsistent in that regard (Charge was removed presumably to make TOTM easier but spells with precise dimensions remain).  And yes, the straightjacket of subclasses is a big part of the problem, as is the ubiquity of certain spells and options.

  I think D&D getting to what looks like huge levels, woke or not, is a good thing.  Lots of people started with D&D in most of the generations of rpg players, and branched out to other games to give them a try.  I think the other games benefit from D&D being larger.  The more players created the more people who end up trying other games.  It would be nice to see a real competitor come along (GW seems fine with just lending a license out instead of getting serious about RPGs, if they decided to go all in with RPGs they would be the only competition), but I think with the digital age and access to publishing, the rpg variety is at an all time high.

Quote from: TJS on December 14, 2020, 05:08:49 AM

Quote from: Jaeger link=topic=42997.msg1156535#msg1156535
I would call 5e a solid mid crunch game. Far from oversimplified. In fact it has lots of fiddly bits if you are actually trying to play RAW, and not in the new handwavium Mercer style.

The lack of variation IMHO is due to the way that "subclasses" work in the game. Once you hit 3rd level in 5e you get an array of choices. But his is a choice that is only made once.

The advancement track is then on rails from that point on. they could have taken a different rout with the class abilities. Made their selection more freeform at the various levels, and had Classes that a player can play without being the same every time.

It's both mid cruch AND oversimplified the two are not mutually exclusive.  For a game with the amount of crunch that it has it's oversimplified.  It's also weirdly inconsistent in that regard (charge was removed presumably to make TOTM easier but spells with precise dimensions remain).  And yes, the straightjacket of subclasses is a big part of the problem, as is the ubiquity of certain spells and options.

Yeah, 5e is an odd beast in that its core components, like level progression and the way roll modifiers work (with everything riding on a Proficiency modifier that's the same for everyone and affects EVERYTHING), are vastly oversimplified. But then class structure is overblown with bloated fiddly features that you get every level, mounted on top of almost artificially distinct classes that railroad you along a predetermined path with few options, pointlessly adding to bookkeeping while allowing little flexibility at the same time. Every time I look at it I just want to strip classes and levels away and just play a straight skill-based system with a 6 level maximum (like the +6 Proficiency modifier) added to a d20, which would be tons more simple and straightforward, yet also more granular and flexible.

But instead we're struck with an oversimplified core with few meaningful options, where everyone feels the same, and a bloat of pointless class features that exist just to pad a 20 level progression in a game that would otherwise give you almost nothing per level, since you only get a +1 Proficiency modifier every 4 levels after 1st.

Well, I think it says a lot that, even in a thread dedicated to Pathfinder 2e, the discussion inevitably turns to Dungeons and Dragons...

Because Pathfinder is Dungeons and Dragons without the Branding?

Quote from: Shasarak on December 14, 2020, 08:14:08 PM
Because Pathfinder is Dungeons and Dragons without the Branding?

I also write terrible fantasy heartbreakers that don't justify publication...

Quote from: Shasarak on December 14, 2020, 08:14:08 PM
Because Pathfinder is Dungeons and Dragons without the Branding?

Exactly on edition warriors insist on wanting to making a difference between the two.

Most of the traffic on their website at least to me seems to lower than usual. Then again they jumped on the woke bandwagon and pretty much let the same woke inmates run loose so they have no one else to blame

Quote from: KingCheops on December 14, 2020, 09:33:51 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on December 14, 2020, 08:14:08 PM
Because Pathfinder is Dungeons and Dragons without the Branding?

I also write terrible fantasy heartbreakers that don't justify publication...

I bet that you also make toast.

Quote from: Shasarak on December 14, 2020, 10:17:50 PM

Quote from: KingCheops on December 14, 2020, 09:33:51 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on December 14, 2020, 08:14:08 PM
Because Pathfinder is Dungeons and Dragons without the Branding?

I also write terrible fantasy heartbreakers that don't justify publication...

I bet that you also make toast.

And he probably doesn't even put butter on it, the heathen.

Quote from: Shasarak on December 14, 2020, 08:14:08 PM
Because Pathfinder is Dungeons and Dragons without the Branding?

Yeah, just like conversations about Corvettes inevitably turn into conversations about Camaros, because they are both automobiles made by Chevrolet.

Or maybe there is some other reason...

Quote from: sureshot on December 14, 2020, 09:50:23 PM
Exactly on edition warriors insist on wanting to making a difference between the two.

So expressing a preference for certain mechanics over others is "edition warring"?  Interesting take.  So I guess saying that mechanically 1e>5e>3e>4e is a downright jihad...