|
friendlyfire posted:I realize that chart is just a norm to base things around, but I really like the idea of the math being more "spikey" at certain levels than others, of this monster's super-dangerous attacks being balanced by its very poor defenses, of players really kicking rear end at 5th level because fireball rule until you start fighting encounters at 7th level. I dunno. Things being so mathematically predictable feels bland and un-magical to me. I realize this triggers goons' asperger's, but it's how I feel. But that's not what the MATHS argument is about. It's about the fact that it's probably more useful to a broader range of gaming styles to have more predictable encounter outcomes. Then if you personally like the idea of more swing in your results, you can vary the levels of your monsters a little more or whatever, and the people that like a tighter experience can also enjoy the game.
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:28 |
|
|
There's nothing magical about random spikes in difficulty that arise because of designer incompetence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:But that's not what the MATHS argument is about. It's about the fact that it's probably more useful to a broader range of gaming styles to have more predictable encounter outcomes. Then if you personally like the idea of more swing in your results, you can vary the levels of your monsters a little more or whatever, and the people that like a tighter experience can also enjoy the game. If you had a predictable baseline, you could also offer a "module" in the DMG to customize monsters in a way that would make them more swingy, if that's the kind of game you wanted to run.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Thing is, you can HAVE wildly swingy fights in a strong maths system. If you want a fight that swings against the PCs, go over budget or over level or both. If you want a fight that swings in their favour, go under budget or under level. if you want a fight that's on tenterhooks, that takes a little more effort as the DM, but you can plan for it and do the DM work to make it work. In a bad maths system, the problem is that you *can't ever plan* using just the system. In one system, you can do both playstyles, in the other you can only do one, if that. That's the problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
quote:It's just that each time someone says "Uh, from what I can tell, from the work I've done, I just can't fix the CR system into something that builds encounters which are actually informative and instructive to the DM using it." We've got someone jumping in to say "NOT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE 4E. WHY CAN'T WE TALK ABOUT 5E WITHOUT PEOPLE HATING ALL OVER IT."
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
S.J. posted:There's nothing magical about random spikes in difficulty that arise because of designer incompetence. There certainly is! A lot of the fun in older editions of the game happened when the rules broke down or in areas the rules did not cover too well. It seems like the designers did not rely exclusively on math when designing monsters, which is all well and good if it mostly works. There are some obvious areas where it doesn't, but I don't expect or demand perfection in my elfgames and I hope you don't, either. Edit thespaceinvader posted:Thing is, you can HAVE wildly swingy fights in a strong maths system. If you want a fight that swings against the PCs, go over budget or over level or both. If you want a fight that swings in their favour, go under budget or under level. if you want a fight that's on tenterhooks, that takes a little more effort as the DM, but you can plan for it and do the DM work to make it work. I don't just want swingy fights. I want the game to feel different at some levels than others. Adhering or even trending to a strict mathematical progression is contrary to this preference. I realize this may not be a preference shared by the majority or even many, though. In a related matter, I wouldn't be surprised if low-level fights in 5e are deliberately more swingy. In 2e and earlier there was a very high mortality rate among lower-level characters. You'd play a wizard with literally two hit points and literally two spells, and pray that you didn't get hit until fourth level. I don't think that's great game design, but I could see Mearls et al trying to evoke something of that feeling. friendlyfire fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
moths posted:I'd be interested in hearing why people are so hell-bent on polishing this turd. Is it seriously just brand loyalty? Grog vindication? Mearls fanboy-ism? Yeah, this is a pretty cool, reasonable place full of people genuinely interested in having a conversation. I'm sorry, everyone. I've learned something important here today: words matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:There certainly is! A lot of the fun in older editions of the game happened when the rules broke down or in areas the rules did not cover too well. It seems like the designers did not rely exclusively on math when designing monsters, which is all well and good if it mostly works. There are some obvious areas where it doesn't, but I don't expect or demand perfection in my elfgames and I hope you don't, either. Are you kidding me? No, that's not where the magic comes from at all. It's good that your group managed to handle it well instead of thinking the reasonable thing, 'what the gently caress were the people who made this game thinking, and why did we spend money on it,' but any 'magic' or whatever you want to call it that came out of this situation came entirely from the people at the table at that point, not the product they were playing. 'Oops, TPK guys, what magic, what fun!' is nonsense. It really would be one thing if the designers had intentionally designed difficulty spikes at various points, but they didn't. Now all they've done is made the game more difficult to run for no benefit. friendlyfire posted:I don't just want swingy fights. I want the game to feel different at some levels than others. Adhering or even trending to a strict mathematical progression is contrary to this preference. I realize this may not be a preference shared by the majority or even many, though. No, it isn't contrary to that preference. That doesn't even make any sense. Do you realize what you're saying? You're saying that design incompetence is what makes the game feel different at some levels than at others. But it actually makes every level feel the same: unreliable, random, swingy, obviously poorly made. Even 4e did not adhere to strict mathematical progressions: the math was a baseline for you to use so that you could understand how the changes you made in the monsters would affect gameplay at the table without doing tons of prep work or research. Deviating from the mathematical baseline was an expectation in 4e, and it allowed you to create fantastic situations that could be either threatening or trifling as the GM saw fit very easily. A lack of design competence only works against what you want out of the game, not for. S.J. fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:There certainly is! A lot of the fun in older editions of the game happened when the rules broke down or in areas the rules did not cover too well. It seems like the designers did not rely exclusively on math when designing monsters, which is all well and good if it mostly works. There are some obvious areas where it doesn't, but I don't expect or demand perfection in my elfgames and I hope you don't, either. I disagree. The source of fun in these games was and still is the natural humor that comes out of playing pretend with your friends. I don't see how swingy combats change anything there. quote:I don't just want swingy fights. I want the game to feel different at some levels than others. Adhering or even trending to a strict mathematical progression is contrary to this preference. I realize this may not be a preference shared by the majority or even many, though. Yes, but levels do feel different, even with solid math. (In theory) everyone gets more, cooler abilities, and the monsters can do more. I would guess that most of the people wanting stricter combat rules are DM's. As a DM, I can always adjust encounters up and down for swinginess and new, interesting things at separate levels. Hell, most campaigns will pass through multiple places in their world, so even if you don't level up at all (like if you're running E6 in 3.5, which I highly recommend), your fights still never get stale. It just really sucks when you planned for an encounter to go really well for your players and it turns out that two of them die instantly because for some reason, at CR6 the damage per attack jumps from 20 to 160.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:those arent strange abilities its just straight up being a ninja wizard. No, it really isn't obvious, unless the obvious answer you aiming for was "it's always been done a certain way" If the only way to do supernatural stuff is with "magic", then yeah, sure, the only way for a Fighter to ever compete with the Wizard is if you also give the Fighter the ability to perform magic. But that's because of a fundamental disconnect that what many other games consider "ability" or "power" has to be "magic" when it comes to D&D. moths posted:I'd be interested in hearing why people are so hell-bent on polishing this turd. Is it seriously just brand loyalty? Grog vindication? Mearls fanboy-ism? I really do not like skill and feat mechanisms and all the cruft from AD&D onwards. Basic is extremely my poo poo, and 5E feels like it could be something that's nearly as streamlined while also adding more class and ability options. That's my "at least neutral" take on the game. It's just that you throw on the 150 USD pricetag on it as well and there's always Swords and Wizardry or TAAC or 13th Age or Dungeon World. I mean, if I'm going to convince my friends to go along with a bunch of houserules either way then I might as well convince them that there's more to the hobby than D&D too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Are you kidding me? No, that's not where the magic comes from at all. It's good that your group managed to handle it well instead of thinking the reasonable thing, 'what the gently caress were the people who made this game thinking, and why did we spend money on it,' but any 'magic' or whatever you want to call it that came out of this situation came entirely from the people at the table at that point, not the product they were playing. 'Oops, TPK guys, what magic, what fun!' is nonsense. It really would be one thing if the designers had intentionally designed difficulty spikes at various points, but they didn't. Now all they've done is made the game more difficult to run for no benefit. We have a good time regardless of the whims of dice or poorly-assigned challenge ratings. I haven't played much 5e so I cannot speak with authority about whether there are too many unexpected problems with overly tough encounters. There might well be, but I don't think a poorly-designed intellect devourer and some unfortunate design decisions about shadows will torpedo the entire edition or how that edition approaches monsters. You're going to hate this view, but the more I think about it, the more I think having interesting monsters and having mathematically predictable encounters are inherently oppositional. S.J. posted:No, it isn't contrary to that preference. That doesn't even make any sense. Do you realize what you're saying? You're saying that design incompetence is what makes the game feel different at some levels than at others. But it actually makes every level feel the same: unreliable, random, swingy, obviously poorly made. Even 4e did not adhere to strict mathematical progressions: the math was a baseline for you to use so that you could understand how the changes you made in the monsters would affect gameplay at the table without doing tons of prep work or research. Deviating from the mathematical baseline was an expectation in 4e, and it allowed you to create fantastic situations that could be either threatening or trifling as the GM saw fit very easily. A lack of design competence only works against what you want out of the game, not for. Some of the stuff that is being ascribed to incompetence is probably by design, and vice-versa. I haven't seen anything in the new monster manual that is such a deal breaker that it turns me off the entire system. I'm surprised that you are hyperventilating about it. friendlyfire fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
ascendance posted:But seriously, the majority did not like 4e, which is why Pathfinder supplanted it, and they had to put out 5e. That's not actually true. 4e outsold PF on Amazon right up until a few months after Wizards announced 5e. There's no verifiable, non-anecdotal evidence that PF outsold 4e while 4e was still being actively supported. They had to put out 5e when they did for the same reason that they put out 4e too early in its development cycle and the same reason that they put out 3.5e: Hasbro wants money and they want it now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:That's not actually true. 4e outsold PF on Amazon right up until a few months after Wizards announced 5e. There's no verifiable, non-anecdotal evidence that PF outsold 4e while 4e was still being actively supported. They had to put out 5e when they did for the same reason that they put out 4e too early in its development cycle and the same reason that they put out 3.5e: Hasbro wants money and they want it now. It is clear that Wizards chose to pursue a new edition that is decidedly unlike 4e. I am at a loss to explain this decision, unless it is that they felt that too many people were escaping to Pathfinder and other retro-clones. PF may or may not have outsold 4e, but it is obvious that it did well enough to threaten it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
I don't understand the idea of predictability being undesirable. As the person running the game, I want to be able to construct a mechanically reliable encounter to engage my players. If I set up what should be a fair fight and the players able to clear it without taking a scratch, or are promptly murdered, I don't think that's fun for anyone. Any game that uses multiple die-rolls already has a massive amount of variance built-in. You can influence but never control a huge number of factors. What distinguishes a game like Dungeons and Dragons from Yahtzee is the idea that you can build toward greater efficacy and anticipate core mechanics. When I run games, I make my rolls out in the open. If the system can't take that, then I'm not sure why I'm pretending like the roll of the die is meaningful in the first place. I enjoyed the few games of 4E I participated in and I was impressed by how easy it was to run. My biggest obstacle in running any new game is learning the system and building encounters for the players, and I feel like it's a problem that I have to read the games subforum of an internet comedy site in order to know that certain monsters are more powerful than the rules state and that certain systems work in counter-intuitive ways. I'd be down to run or play in a game of Next, but it seems like there's no reason to pay full price for the necessary books now when it isn't exactly a finished product.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:We have a good time regardless of the whims of dice or poorly-assigned challenge ratings. I haven't played much 5e so I cannot speak with authority about whether there are too many unexpected problems with overly tough encounters. There might well be, but I don't think a poorly-designed intellect devourer and some unfortunate design decisions about shadows will torpedo the entire edition or how that edition approaches monsters. You're going to hate this view, but the more I think about it, the more I think having interesting monsters and having mathematically predictable encounters are inherently oppositional. You're wrong. Not, like, as an opinion. You are factually wrong. I'm sorry you don't understand how math and games intersect. I'm glad that you guys can have fun with anything, but then that still prompts the question of why you aren't playing a game that works well regardless of the whims of dice or challenge ratings. quote:Some of the stuff that is being ascribed to incompetence is probably by design, and vice-versa. I haven't seen anything in the new monster manual that is such a deal breaker that it turns me off the entire system. I'm surprised that you are hyperventilating about it. Are you kidding me? Pointing out how you're wrong is not hyperventilating, try to come to terms with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:That's not actually true. 4e outsold PF on Amazon right up until a few months after Wizards announced 5e. There's no verifiable, non-anecdotal evidence that PF outsold 4e while 4e was still being actively supported. They had to put out 5e when they did for the same reason that they put out 4e too early in its development cycle and the same reason that they put out 3.5e: Hasbro wants money and they want it now. Of course, it's common wisdom on other boards that 4e was a flop, because it was too much of a radical change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
ascendance posted:I found some very interesting figures on web searches, which I will post later. It analyses Google searches for 3.5 vs 4th edition, and Pathfinder. Basically, other than a short spike around release time, 3.5 searches have always been dominant, until eventually supplanted by Pathfinder searches. Its not exactly sales, but they are interesting figures which might provide more insight into what people were actually playing. Pathfinder also has the ruleset and almost all of the material available for free on the internet. That probably increases the searches a fair bit (assuming they are at all accurate).
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Pathfinder also has the ruleset and almost all of the material available for free on the internet. That probably increases the searches a fair bit (assuming they are at all accurate).
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
ascendance posted:I found some very interesting figures on web searches, which I will post later. It analyses Google searches for 3.5 vs 4th edition, and Pathfinder. Basically, other than a short spike around release time, 3.5 searches have always been dominant, until eventually supplanted by Pathfinder searches. Its not exactly sales, but they are interesting figures which might provide more insight into what people were actually playing. "Game that requires the most Google searches" could be a dubious honor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
S.J. posted:You're wrong. Not, like, as an opinion. You are factually wrong. I'm sorry you don't understand how math and games intersect. I'm glad that you guys can have fun with anything, but then that still prompts the question of why you aren't playing a game that works well regardless of the whims of dice or challenge ratings. Your posts in this thread are a real drag. I wish you would stop being such a hater about everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:I don't just want swingy fights. I want the game to feel different at some levels than others. Adhering or even trending to a strict mathematical progression is contrary to this preference. I realize this may not be a preference shared by the majority or even many, though. Again, you can have this in a mathematically robust system. Level 1 feels wildly different to level 15 to level 30 in 4e, but it's (reasonably) balanced at all of them. At 1 PCs are saying 'gently caress you' to orcs. At 30 they're saying 'gently caress you' to gods, and doing it in MUCH more impressive ways. You can have wildly different feel at different levels and still have strong maths. Wanting something to have weak maths and poor balance is something I've never seen a logical argument for. Because you can usually replicate the feel of weak maths in a strong system, but you can;t replicate balance in a lovely system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
ascendance posted:So did 3.5. Free is a big help in creating and cementing market share. 4e should really have published more of their basic rules for free. Being free also helps getting new people to the hobby. My first game was a game of pathfinder using the free rules, I probably would never have started if I had to buy something (or lend a physical book from a friend). The free/basic version of Next also seems really half-assed because of how limited it is. It's a fairly big contrast to Pathfinder where literally almost everything is available for free (major stuff on the official srd, the rest on d20pfsrd). It's just really convenient.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
ascendance posted:So did 3.5. Free is a big help in creating and cementing market share. 4e should really have published more of their basic rules for free. friendlyfire posted:It is clear that Wizards chose to pursue a new edition that is decidedly unlike 4e. I am at a loss to explain this decision, unless it is that they felt that too many people were escaping to Pathfinder and other retro-clones. PF may or may not have outsold 4e, but it is obvious that it did well enough to threaten it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Again, you can have this in a mathematically robust system. Level 1 feels wildly different to level 15 to level 30 in 4e, but it's (reasonably) balanced at all of them. At 1 PCs are saying 'gently caress you' to orcs. At 30 they're saying 'gently caress you' to gods, and doing it in MUCH more impressive ways. While I see room for improvement in 5e's encounter design system, I don't think it's as bad as all that. I think the CR maths are generally robust enough that it gives me some idea of how tough most monsters are. I, as DM, can take it from there. I like things fuzzier than 4e's (in my view) rather rigorous adherence to level-appropriate attack/defense. I think it's possible to be shy of that and not be "lovely".
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:4e was making money and it was good. Then they looked over and saw someone else making money, and they were like, "but, but, that should be our money. They stole our fans! How do we get them back?" And now we have DnDNext to steal the 3.5 fans back from Pathfinder. It wasn't making enough money, QED. Maybe it inherently cannot because of the way the RPG market works, but I don't think it's unreasonable or wrong for a marketing suit at Hasbro to view all of Paizo's sales as being capturable, and to try to make a d&d edition that would do that. I think that if Mearls or someone like him could go back in time and re-make 4e, they could have made something that included a lot of the 4e improvements without alienating so many 3e players.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:It wasn't making enough money, QED. Maybe it inherently cannot because of the way the RPG market works, but I don't think it's unreasonable or wrong for a marketing suit at Hasbro to view all of Paizo's sales as being capturable, and to try to make a d&d edition that would do that. I think that if Mearls or someone like him could go back in time and re-make 4e, they could have made something that included a lot of the 4e improvements without alienating so many 3e players. You should probably go back and catch up on some of the past conversations in the thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:It is clear that Wizards chose to pursue a new edition that is decidedly unlike 4e. I am at a loss to explain this decision, unless it is that they felt that too many people were escaping to Pathfinder and other retro-clones. PF may or may not have outsold 4e, but it is obvious that it did well enough to threaten it. Mike Mearls took over 4e and he decided it was time for a change and got it approved. That's probably the long and the short of it. As far as the maths arguments are concerned, it's easier to unbalance balanced stats than to balance unbalanced ones. Starting with a stable foundation allows it to be nudged by people who (presumably) know what they're doing into getting a wider range of results, while providing a narrower one for GMs first running the game or those without enough experience to nudge numbers without accidentally TPKing the party. friendlyfire posted:I realize that chart is just a norm to base things around, but I really like the idea of the math being more "spikey" at certain levels than others, of this monster's super-dangerous attacks being balanced by its very poor defenses, of players really kicking rear end at 5th level because fireball rule until you start fighting encounters at 7th level. I dunno. Things being so mathematically predictable feels bland and un-magical to me. I realize this triggers goons' asperger's, but it's how I feel. This very much sounds like an argument for trying to have a game just like the one you had when you were 12. Alternatively, it's a case where you and your group are of the type that don't actually care what's going on as long as there's lots of big explosions and ridiculous outcomes occurring.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:While I see room for improvement in 5e's encounter design system, I don't think it's as bad as all that. I think the CR maths are generally robust enough that it gives me some idea of how tough most monsters are. I, as DM, can take it from there. I like things fuzzier than 4e's (in my view) rather rigorous adherence to level-appropriate attack/defense. I think it's possible to be shy of that and not be "lovely". Do you DM often? Because if you do, I don't see why you'd see a less predictable system as a good thing. I do think there's some room between what we have and 4E's system for decent system. However, (as a DM) after following the Dead in Thay PbP and the multiple descriptions of HotDQ, it's clear that the system is too swingy, and it's not a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:It is clear that Wizards chose to pursue a new edition that is decidedly unlike 4e. I am at a loss to explain this decision, unless it is that they felt that too many people were escaping to Pathfinder and other retro-clones. PF may or may not have outsold 4e, but it is obvious that it did well enough to threaten it. In one of his design interviews, Rob Heinsoo describes how he had to continually fight against parts of the team to break from tradition in creating 4e. It seems to me at least that those more conservative members were the ones that are still with WotC for whatever reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:Another possible explanation is that the remaining designers on the D&D team just didn't like or understand it anymore. It's been pointed out numerous times in the thread, but all the supplements Mearls was the lead on are widely regarded as some of the worst bits of 4e by fans of the edition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
S.J. posted:You should probably go back and catch up on some of the past conversations in the thread. I've read quite a bit of this thread over time, but the constant echo-chamber of negativity makes back-reading unpleasant. Forgive me if I am re-trodding something that has been beat to death. If there's something in particular that you feel is enlightening, please PM it to me. Xelkelvos posted:As far as the maths arguments are concerned, it's easier to unbalance balanced stats than to balance unbalanced ones. Starting with a stable foundation allows it to be nudged by people who (presumably) know what they're doing into getting a wider range of results, while providing a narrower one for GMs first running the game or those without enough experience to nudge numbers without accidentally TPKing the party. This is all true. But 5e's system is not so bad as to be unusable, despite some clear rough spots. quote:This very much sounds like an argument for trying to have a game just like the one you had when you were 12. Alternatively, it's a case where you and your group are of the type that don't actually care what's going on as long as there's lots of big explosions and ridiculous outcomes occurring. You don't know anythihng about me or how my games are. Even if I just like explosions and zaniness it really is not your place to tell me I'm playing my elfgame wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:It wasn't making enough money, QED. Maybe it inherently cannot because of the way the RPG market works, but I don't think it's unreasonable or wrong for a marketing suit at Hasbro to view all of Paizo's sales as being capturable, and to try to make a d&d edition that would do that. I think that if Mearls or someone like him could go back in time and re-make 4e, they could have made something that included a lot of the 4e improvements without alienating so many 3e players. Mike Mearls hosed up 4e and that more than anything is probably why PF started outselling 4th. It wasn't until after essentials hit that I started seeing PF stuff start to get more shelf-space at local stores and heard people talk about it as anything other than a Paizo money-grab. Before that? 4th stuff was dominant and it wasn't even close.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:You don't know anythihng about me or how my games are. Even if I just like explosions and zaniness it really is not your place to tell me I'm playing my elfgame wrong. Good thing he didn't say that then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:Do you DM often? Because if you do, I don't see why you'd see a less predictable system as a good thing. I do think there's some room between what we have and 4E's system for decent system. However, (as a DM) after following the Dead in Thay PbP and the multiple descriptions of HotDQ, it's clear that the system is too swingy, and it's not a good thing. I have DM'd for a long time. I'm great at it! My DM bona fides are unimpeachable. If the encounter system is really and truly too swingy then that's very unfortunate. I can even see how that would happen given the way that the playtesting worked. But I have always shrugged off encounter design systems in favor of my own internal baseline, so I don't perceive it is a real problem. Truly green DMs will mostly be running modules, which in the future will hopefully have level-appropriate challenges regardless of the CR system. If that's not true of the modules we have thus far, I would not be surprised if some of that is a clash of expectations: 4e players would almost certainly perceive a general increase in lethality as a mistake rather than deliberate. I have only glanced over Dead In Thay, but my assumption based on the premise is that it is designed to be unusually lethal, just as a matter of format. ImpactVector posted:Another possible explanation is that the remaining designers on the D&D team just didn't like or understand it anymore. It's been pointed out numerous times in the thread, but all the supplements Mearls was the lead on are widely regarded as some of the worst bits of 4e by fans of the edition. Nerds are the most reactionary people on the planet. At least some of the problems perceived with 4e or 5e are just the clashing expectations of gamers who basically have a different culture. I think 4e would have retained more of the pathfinder players if they had pursued more incrementalism regarding the rules and spent more time sugar-coating slain sacred cows.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Power Player posted:Didn't Mearls lead the MM3 redesign though, or can the new math be attributed to someone else? Not sure if it actually means anything or if I'm just grasping for facts to back up my assertion, but Greg Bilsand seems to have been the face of the book: http://www.critical-hits.com/blog/2010/06/07/monster-manual-3-interview-with-greg-bilsland/
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:Why? They made big bucks without doing that. I'm pretty certain I wasn't the only one. I've gotten to the point where I'm basically done with monthly subscriptions for both MMOs and D&D.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:While I see room for improvement in 5e's encounter design system, I don't think it's as bad as all that. I think the CR maths are generally robust enough that it gives me some idea of how tough most monsters are. I, as DM, can take it from there. I like things fuzzier than 4e's (in my view) rather rigorous adherence to level-appropriate attack/defense. I think it's possible to be shy of that and not be "lovely". The problem is that the CR system values monsters that are at demonstrably, drastically different levels of deadliness at the same level. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "fuzzy." Do you mean that, as a DM, you want to have a vague idea of whether or not an encounter is appropriate for your group? I don't think I understand the merit of such a system. Can you explain?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:Mike Mearls hosed up 4e and that more than anything is probably why PF started outselling 4th. It wasn't until after essentials hit that I started seeing PF stuff start to get more shelf-space at local stores and heard people talk about it as anything other than a Paizo money-grab. Before that? 4th stuff was dominant and it wasn't even close. Do we know that empirically? I feel like essentials was motivated by slack sales and increasing competition from pathfinder. It's pretty likely that the suits at Wizards would be aware of that happening before our anecdotal experiences would pick up on it. S.J. posted:Good thing he didn't say that then. I responded to his implication. I'm sure he is glad that you've got his back, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
friendlyfire posted:But I have always shrugged off encounter design systems in favor of my own internal baseline, so I don't perceive it is a real problem. You're intentionally ignoring a problem and acting like it, therefore, isn't a problem, and that doesn't strike you as odd?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:28 |
|
|
friendlyfire posted:But I have always shrugged off encounter design systems in favor of my own internal baseline, so I don't perceive it is a real problem. Then why do you care if the math is solid or swingy anyway? If you're ignoring what the system tells you anyway, why would you argue for any particular system?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:00
|
|