Some rules that can help: - Hardwire a phases mechanism into boss monsters, through some kind of parallel hp system. - Provide rules for piecework creatures that work well within the general framework of the edition. - Introduce rules for rewarding improvisation and using the opponent's skills against him within the framework of the edition; these rules should be particularly rewarding against boss monsters. - Provide rules for minion spawning as part of another monster. - Provide rules for hazards and traps spawning as part of another monster. - Provide numerous examples of challenges and bosses in the rules, and perhaps a random table with boss ideas.
Above all though I think the important thing is to have these rules inside the books. It's mostly a metagame thing, but I think it's important: if the rules are in the book, the players will expect them. This goes a long way to determine the mindset of players going through a boss battle. If they know improvisation is rewarded by the system, they'll improvise, for instance. If they know boss battles have all kinds of tricks, they'll be waiting for those tricks, rather than mindlessly bogging down the boss' hps one hit at a time...
This feels like computer game logic, which is something I find quite repellent in a TTRPG. For everything that's in this list, I'd replace it with:
• Do what is dramatically appropriate to enhance the story, the challenge, the characters and the spectacle. Make it memorable. I personally don't need this level of crunch.
I'm not sure it's a matter of playstyle.
Yes it most definitely is a matter of playstyle.
I'm sure you didn't intend it that way, but that sounds rather elitist and conceited. Remember you are not the only person playing this game. The hope of any new edition is new players. They do not have your, or my, experience. Dismissing them with a simple "do what's right" is rather silly. How are they supposed to know? You personally don't like a lot of crunch. Fine. I do. Why is it that your way is the "chosen most awesome" and only way? If you don't need tons of options don't use them. However do not deny others options they would like to have.
Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus.
Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.
You see slight where none is intended. I too, am expressing my opinion (which follows all the mandates of your signature, as I'm sure yours does too). You too aren't the only one playing this game (quite obvious this, no?). I'd like to encourage all players, old and new, to have rules that help them tell better stories, not become better tacticians on the battlemap. I can absolutely appreciate that there are many who think the previous sentence is the same thing: good tactical battles ARE good stories. I don't, well not in same way many here would I reckon. My way is most certainly not the "Chosen Way", nor do I believe your's is either. In truth we probably sit closer to the middle than our last two posts suggests; we both like crunch AND roleplaying - just obviously to varying degrees of importance. But in discussions like this, it's often the case that we'll polarise other's words (and perhaps even our own) to express a view that isn't safely in the middle being all things to all people. I'm not denying anyone anything, but if every time I disagree with a someone's opinion on these boards with an opinion of my own, then I am somehow denying them - then I am at a loss as to how we can disagree. It's good to disagree, agreed?
I don't have the foggiest notion of what new players want. I can only localise my experience: I know that none of my players want more battlemap crunch. If new players are anything like my players, then having more rules for adjudicating various stages of a boss battle, wouldn't be what would draw them to the system. But who knows what new players want...I'm sure WOTC would love to know.
Wanting less crunch isn't catered for on the way to more crunch, by the by. It's not usually the case that one can just ignore various bits of crunch and hope for an intact gaming system. I'd like a system that works fantastically well with as little crunch as humanly possible. And therein lies the challenge for 5e with its modules. So that the core has a little bit of crunch and then there are uber-crunch modules with crunchiest crunch for players like yourself that sit neatly tucked in a box I need never open.
The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules. -Gary Gygax
Some rules that can help: - Hardwire a phases mechanism into boss monsters, through some kind of parallel hp system. - Provide rules for piecework creatures that work well within the general framework of the edition. - Introduce rules for rewarding improvisation and using the opponent's skills against him within the framework of the edition; these rules should be particularly rewarding against boss monsters. - Provide rules for minion spawning as part of another monster. - Provide rules for hazards and traps spawning as part of another monster. - Provide numerous examples of challenges and bosses in the rules, and perhaps a random table with boss ideas.
Above all though I think the important thing is to have these rules inside the books. It's mostly a metagame thing, but I think it's important: if the rules are in the book, the players will expect them. This goes a long way to determine the mindset of players going through a boss battle. If they know improvisation is rewarded by the system, they'll improvise, for instance. If they know boss battles have all kinds of tricks, they'll be waiting for those tricks, rather than mindlessly bogging down the boss' hps one hit at a time...
This feels like computer game logic, which is something I find quite repellent in a TTRPG. For everything that's in this list, I'd replace it with:
• Do what is dramatically appropriate to enhance the story, the challenge, the characters and the spectacle. Make it memorable. I personally don't need this level of crunch.
I'm not sure it's a matter of playstyle.
Yes it most definitely is a matter of playstyle.
I'm sure you didn't intend it that way, but that sounds rather elitist and conceited. Remember you are not the only person playing this game. The hope of any new edition is new players. They do not have your, or my, experience. Dismissing them with a simple "do what's right" is rather silly. How are they supposed to know? You personally don't like a lot of crunch. Fine. I do. Why is it that your way is the "chosen most awesome" and only way? If you don't need tons of options don't use them. However do not deny others options they would like to have.
Damn right.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )
Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotesShow
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
@Garthanos, Kalnaur, DoctorBadWolf, and Leichenreiter: I think we just have different play styles. That's cool. If you think 4e is the most awesome thing ever, that's sweet. It 'was' technically a masterpiece of combat rules and such. Very balanced. I can really appreciate some of the nifty innovations in the game.
Okay, here's the 'however'. I just happen to have a slightly different play style (I think). I'm not saying mine is better, in fact, yours probably is. It sounds like you love the game for what it is, and I think that's epic. I like my games for the 'story'. Maybe I'm weird and crazy and the only person on earth who thinks that. However, if WotC 'is' looking for the advice of players such as myself, it's just to please include the 'story' elements for those of us who really do play the game for those elements.
I'd even be happy with two versions of 5e. One for those who like the 'crunchy' stuff and one for the 'insane storyteller whackos' (me). If that's not an option, I'll gracefully accept it. WotC will do what they must do. There will be many, many people happy with the new edition. I hope I'm one of them. If I'm not, I'll just keep playing the way I enjoy (maybe keep working on my own RPG, Challenger, which is free) and then we can all have fun gaming the way we want to. What's better than that?
I enjoy the balance of 4e because it makes the storytelling easier and more satisfying for me and my group, and allows for more varied and unique characters than any previous edition, yet doesn't require nearly as much work on the DM's part to keep everyting in line.
I'm not sure it's a matter of playstyle.
Yes, it is. I, who care littlle about combat and nothing about balance, feel much more free in storytelling in a game that is not obsessed with balance. I just can do what I want. All I need to do is to agree with my players if I'm the master, or with master and players if I'm a player, to see what kind of adventur is going to be. Mor combat centered? Then I'll have an optimized character. Is the adventure more focused on storytelling? I'll take my cool bard, or some other pg I love, care little about all the balance and character optimization stuff, maybe even play a under par character, but I'll have even more fun. As a dm, I just do not care what sort of pg I have. They are not optimized? I'll go with the story. They are all powerfull? I'll go with the story and I'll be an evil dm. Some are optimized and some not? Than I have no problem, I'll trhow in whatever I feel like and try not to hit too much the unoptimized one. I once played an unoptimized bard in a team with overpowered character. Did it harm my fun? Not at all. Sure, I was useless in fighting, but it became the funny, ridiculos moment, when I laughed all the time. So yes, it is a matter of playstyle.
Absolutely!
I played in a group where one player actually demanded another player changed characters because they felt the group was suffering. No one else had a problem, they just accepted the character the player wanted. This particular sod was adamant. Eventually the group brought him around to cease his whining.
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production.
You see slight where none is intended. I too, am expressing my opinion (which follows all the mandates of your signature, as I'm sure yours does too). You too aren't the only one playing this game (quite obvious this, no?). I'd like to encourage all players, old and new, to have rules that help them tell better stories, not become better tacticians on the battlemap. I can absolutely appreciate that there are many who think the previous sentence is the same thing: good tactical battles ARE good stories. I don't, well not in same way many here would I reckon. My way is most certainly not the "Chosen Way", nor do I believe your's is either. In truth we probably sit closer to the middle than our last two posts suggests; we both like crunch AND roleplaying - just obviously to varying degrees of importance. But in discussions like this, it's often the case that we'll polarise other's words (and perhaps even our own) to express a view that isn't safely in the middle being all things to all people. I'm not denying anyone anything, but if every time I disagree with a someone's opinion on these boards with an opinion of my own, then I am somehow denying them - then I am at a loss as to how we can disagree. It's good to disagree, agreed?
I don't have the foggiest notion of what new players want. I can only localise my experience: I know that none of my players want more battlemap crunch. If new players are anything like my players, then having more rules for adjudicating various stages of a boss battle, wouldn't be what would draw them to the system. But who knows what new players want...I'm sure WOTC would love to know.
Wanting less crunch isn't catered for on the way to more crunch, by the by. It's not usually the case that one can just ignore various bits of crunch and hope for an intact gaming system. I'd like a system that works fantastically well with as little crunch as humanly possible. And therein lies the challenge for 5e with its modules. So that the core has a little bit of crunch and then there are uber-crunch modules with crunchiest crunch for players like yourself that sit neatly tucked in a box I need never open.
Most all of that is certainly true. I also can't say that new players would want lots of crunch. However I find it hard to believe that many new players could get by with what you originally said.
Do what is dramatically appropriate to enhance the story, the challenge, the characters and the spectacle. Make it memorable.
That is where I feel new players would gain the benefit of additional crunch. That seems to me to be how to do what you say. I don't think every creature in the Monster Manuals needs every bit suggested by TheMormegil however I think the DMG should have more on increasing encounter difficulty than the 4E one does. Two monster manuals, or versions of each creature (one crunch heavy and one crunch light) seems excessive to me and I'm not sure its necessary. I guess it really just depends on how difficult it is to add on, or take it off.
I most definitely want WOTC to live up to its stated design goal of letting everyone play the way they want. And for Next edition to be adaptable to all styles. Yours as well as mine.
Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus.
Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.
The Whole Overpowered Wizard Issue: Yes, wizards were overpowered and now they're not and I think everyone agrees that's a good thing. No-one is arguing for an unbalanced game (or if they are, I disagree). Like everyone keeps saying though, we'd rather have an imbalanced fun game than a balanced game which wasn't fun.
And this is where things get weird. I think you're absolutely right that people don't generally want an unbalanced game; after all, you don't see a lot of people going around proposing house rules with the explicit purpose of making a game less balanced, whereas you do see people house ruling or calling for errata to correct perceived imbalances. And yet there's this prevailing notion that a game can be "too balanced," or that trying to design a balanced system somehow makes it less fun than a system which is designed as unbalanced (whether deliberately or not). In my opinion, it's more of a case that some, but not all, methods of balancing a game make it less fun, but that a more balanced system is not in and of itself less fun (I would argue that, all other things being equal, a balanced system is more fun than an unbalanced system, which is why I'm such a proponent of aiming for balance). I can see where people dislike the route 4e took to balance the classes, but there seems to be a lot of conflating balance with unfun due to 4e being the most balanced edition of D&D and also being one that many people consider to not be fun.
Yes, it is. I, who care littlle about combat and nothing about balance, feel much more free in storytelling in a game that is not obsessed with balance. I just can do what I want. All I need to do is to agree with my players if I'm the master, or with master and players if I'm a player, to see what kind of adventur is going to be. Mor combat centered? Then I'll have an optimized character. Is the adventure more focused on storytelling? I'll take my cool bard, or some other pg I love, care little about all the balance and character optimization stuff, maybe even play a under par character, but I'll have even more fun. ...So yes, it is a matter of playstyle.
No, it isn't. If you don't care about combat, it matters not one iota whether combat is balanced or not because you don't care about it by definition. You aren't "constrained" by combat balance in any way, shape or form because it isn't applicable either way.
@Garthanos, Kalnaur, DoctorBadWolf, and Leichenreiter: I think we just have different play styles. That's cool. If you think 4e is the most awesome thing ever, that's sweet. It 'was' technically a masterpiece of combat rules and such. Very balanced. I can really appreciate some of the nifty innovations in the game.
Okay, here's the 'however'. I just happen to have a slightly different play style (I think). I'm not saying mine is better, in fact, yours probably is. It sounds like you love the game for what it is, and I think that's epic. I like my games for the 'story'. Maybe I'm weird and crazy and the only person on earth who thinks that. However, if WotC 'is' looking for the advice of players such as myself, it's just to please include the 'story' elements for those of us who really do play the game for those elements.
I'd even be happy with two versions of 5e. One for those who like the 'crunchy' stuff and one for the 'insane storyteller whackos' (me). If that's not an option, I'll gracefully accept it. WotC will do what they must do. There will be many, many people happy with the new edition. I hope I'm one of them. If I'm not, I'll just keep playing the way I enjoy (maybe keep working on my own RPG, Challenger, which is free) and then we can all have fun gaming the way we want to. What's better than that?
I enjoy the balance of 4e because it makes the storytelling easier and more satisfying for me and my group, and allows for more varied and unique characters than any previous edition, yet doesn't require nearly as much work on the DM's part to keep everyting in line.
I'm not sure it's a matter of playstyle.
Yes, it is. I, who care littlle about combat and nothing about balance, feel much more free in storytelling in a game that is not obsessed with balance. I just can do what I want. All I need to do is to agree with my players if I'm the master, or with master and players if I'm a player, to see what kind of adventur is going to be. Mor combat centered? Then I'll have an optimized character. Is the adventure more focused on storytelling? I'll take my cool bard, or some other pg I love, care little about all the balance and character optimization stuff, maybe even play a under par character, but I'll have even more fun. As a dm, I just do not care what sort of pg I have. They are not optimized? I'll go with the story. They are all powerfull? I'll go with the story and I'll be an evil dm. Some are optimized and some not? Than I have no problem, I'll trhow in whatever I feel like and try not to hit too much the unoptimized one. I once played an unoptimized bard in a team with overpowered character. Did it harm my fun? Not at all. Sure, I was useless in fighting, but it became the funny, ridiculos moment, when I laughed all the time. So yes, it is a matter of playstyle.
Right. Things strike me the opposite way. I don't really care exactly how the rules work beyond that they get out of the way and provide tools I can use however I want to. None of the people I typically play with care about optimization and I could care less what sort of challenges they can take as long as it is fun. They do all want to be able to build their characters up in whatever way they want though. In the old days when the game got to 9th or 12th level all the non-casters would start to get bored. The implications of the way classes worked were pretty constraining on story stuff too. I mean even the stupidly powerful relatively mundane monstes like the tarrasque were a joke really for any moderately resourceful caster.
4e suites us well. We can fight, RP, and make up any old crazy stuff we ever could in the old days. There are less fixed expections based on things like specific crafting rules and crud that doesn't really work well in previous editions either.
It isn't really so much about "everyone has to be equal" as it is about "when some classes are drastically unequal that puts a crimp in my style." I also appreciate the way the 4e designers thought through various PC abilities and implemented them in a way that is plot friendly. I've never in 4e had to have an 'anti-magic zone' or other awkward handwaving just to make things work in the face of magic gone rampant.
Right. Things strike me the opposite way. I don't really care exactly how the rules work beyond that they get out of the way and provide tools I can use however I want to. None of the people I typically play with care about optimization and I could care less what sort of challenges they can take as long as it is fun. They do all want to be able to build their characters up in whatever way they want though. In the old days when the game got to 9th or 12th level all the non-casters would start to get bored. The implications of the way classes worked were pretty constraining on story stuff too. I mean even the stupidly powerful relatively mundane monstes like the tarrasque were a joke really for any moderately resourceful caster.
4e suites us well. We can fight, RP, and make up any old crazy stuff we ever could in the old days. There are less fixed expections based on things like specific crafting rules and crud that doesn't really work well in previous editions either.
It isn't really so much about "everyone has to be equal" as it is about "when some classes are drastically unequal that puts a crimp in my style." I also appreciate the way the 4e designers thought through various PC abilities and implemented them in a way that is plot friendly. I've never in 4e had to have an 'anti-magic zone' or other awkward handwaving just to make things work in the face of magic gone rampant.
I can’t speak to the first part, but on your second points I agree completely. I was able to put together a complex political intrigue campaign to convince my wife to play, And was able to spend 10 minutes on a essentials char sheet and start playing DnD with my 6 year old son, who had never played before. Having simple straightforward skills made it easy for them to know what skills were necessary so it never go in the way of interacting with NPCs. The combat was simple enough that my son was able to narrate his actions and resolve the dice in a reasonable time frame (around 45sec-1min). My wife, playing a psionicist, was taking around 1 - 2 minutes to resolve her turn which I think is reasonable.
I have the same opinion about class equality, However, I have a different experience with magic gone rampant. In LFR I have runepriest with ritual casting (not strong by any stretch). Towards the end of heroic tier when there more disposable income and I could get improved ritual casting, I started to be able bypass a number of the skill challenges that came up. I only had a few rituals that I got for my concept, but I could easily had a better class choices and purchased additional rituals, that where rules legal, to have it running even more rampant. The difference is the plot power is accessible to everyone in 4e.
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl
Right. Things strike me the opposite way. I don't really care exactly how the rules work beyond that they get out of the way and provide tools I can use however I want to. None of the people I typically play with care about optimization and I could care less what sort of challenges they can take as long as it is fun. They do all want to be able to build their characters up in whatever way they want though. In the old days when the game got to 9th or 12th level all the non-casters would start to get bored. The implications of the way classes worked were pretty constraining on story stuff too. I mean even the stupidly powerful relatively mundane monstes like the tarrasque were a joke really for any moderately resourceful caster.
4e suites us well. We can fight, RP, and make up any old crazy stuff we ever could in the old days. There are less fixed expections based on things like specific crafting rules and crud that doesn't really work well in previous editions either.
It isn't really so much about "everyone has to be equal" as it is about "when some classes are drastically unequal that puts a crimp in my style." I also appreciate the way the 4e designers thought through various PC abilities and implemented them in a way that is plot friendly. I've never in 4e had to have an 'anti-magic zone' or other awkward handwaving just to make things work in the face of magic gone rampant.
I can’t speak to the first part, but on your second points I agree completely. I was able to put together a complex political intrigue campaign to convince my wife to play, And was able to spend 10 minutes on a essentials char sheet and start playing DnD with my 6 year old son, who had never played before. Having simple straightforward skills made it easy for them to know what skills were necessary so it never go in the way of interacting with NPCs. The combat was simple enough that my son was able to narrate his actions and resolve the dice in a reasonable time frame (around 45sec-1min). My wife, playing a psionicist, was taking around 1 - 2 minutes to resolve her turn which I think is reasonable.
I have the same opinion about class equality, However, I have a different experience with magic gone rampant. In LFR I have runepriest with ritual casting (not strong by any stretch). Towards the end of heroic tier when there more disposable income and I could get improved ritual casting, I started to be able bypass a number of the skill challenges that came up. I only had a few rituals that I got for my concept, but I could easily had a better class choices and purchased additional rituals, that where rules legal, to have it running even more rampant. The difference is the plot power is accessible to everyone in 4e.
There are still more limiters. You can't just strategic teleport to any old place unless the DM decides it would be fun and drops a circle there and gives you the 'coordinates' for it for instance. Now, you COULD scry that, but still the DM has to put it there. Of course there are a lot of fun ways to leverage that. A spy is inserted to build a quick circle in a storeroom somewhere, etc. You can't just 'scry and die' though. Scrying in general is expensive. Doable, but not something you are likely to try without some good expectation that it is likely to work. Worst case it at least is costly enough that the players will only do it when it is really needed.
The lack of things like alignment detecting mechanics and such things are handy too. The realization that things like invisibility, flight, etc are not really low level effects and giving you the choice of limited versions OR a ritual that costs a bunch for a longer term strategic version.
Casting wasn't always a huge problem in AD&D, but there were always those weird issues that would crop up that made something like a spying or mystery scenario tougher to do. You'd also always be wondering why anyone would need adventurers to deal with something that systematic application of low level magic would handle (IE you just use Detect Lie on everyone that could possibly be a suspect, etc). You can of course come up with reasons those things might not work, but then if they are just there to be thwarted by the DM why do they exist at all? The way this kind of thing was thought through a lot more in 4e is refreshing to me.
I too, am expressing my opinion (which follows all the mandates of your signature, as I'm sure yours does too). You too aren't the only one playing this game (quite obvious this, no?). I'd like to encourage all players, old and new, to have rules that help them tell better stories, not become better tacticians on the battlemap. I can absolutely appreciate that there are many who think the previous sentence is the same thing: good tactical battles ARE good stories. I don't, well not in same way many here would I reckon. My way is most certainly not the "Chosen Way", nor do I believe your's is either. In truth we probably sit closer to the middle than our last two posts suggests; we both like crunch AND roleplaying - just obviously to varying degrees of importance. But in discussions like this, it's often the case that we'll polarise other's words (and perhaps even our own) to express a view that isn't safely in the middle being all things to all people. I'm not denying anyone anything, but if every time I disagree with a someone's opinion on these boards with an opinion of my own, then I am somehow denying them - then I am at a loss as to how we can disagree. It's good to disagree, agreed? 
