4e failed design goals

[echoVanguard]

Sorry for jumping in late on this one, but...

4e has rules guiding and promoting improvisation, that actually can be used with anything. 3.5 doesn't. Which in that alone makes 4e's environmental tactics better.

3.5 had plenty of rules for guiding and promoting improvisation. Granted, they weren't all that great, but neither are 4e's. Lastly, it's been a pretty solid trope on these boards that a rule system that punts on any aspect of gameplay can never count that as an achievement - because anyone can make up a rule, and a game that explicitly allows you to do so isn't in fact doing anything at all. Rules that help structure improvisation are better than nothing, but also worse than defined rules.

Lastly, there is both a factual untruth and a logical fallacy in your argument - the first because 3.5 did have rules to guide and promote improvisation (and, indeed, rules for the specific combat actions people have brought up), and the second because you assert that one difference intrinsically makes one option superior to another without considering similar factors in other areas.

As with many others here, I liked the ideas behind 4e, but the implementation was not very good. With giddy enthusiasm, I embraced 4e nearly the instant it came out, and immediately ran a campaign - only to quickly discover that both my players and I had a lot of very valid complaints about the system, from option removal to general sluggishness of play. Tellingly, the most common complaint was that the system just wasn't very fun, which is pretty much the ultimate indictment of any entertainment product. You can putter about and dig at the potential causes ad infinitum, but at the end of the day, that's the real problem with 4e.

echo

[rasmuswagner]

Tripping isn't suddenly unviable at 10th level or above, there are still massive amounts of foes that you can trip with ease. Statistically speaking most of the foes you're likely to encounter in 3.x are trippable since the vast majority are medium sized humanoids without the exceptional ability scores needed to render tripping ineffective.

Well here's a a total disconnect between my experience and yours. I see a lot more monsters and a lot less medium-size humanoids with unexceptional ability scores. And when I do see those guys beyond level 5 or so, they're mostly useless mooks, or casters who get one-shotted by fighty types.

I'ven even noticed a lot of theorywank on other boards, where the assumed enemy was another guy with class levels, instead of a buffet of different monsters.

[Verbannon]

Is again highlighting 4e's flaws while trying to defend it.

Thats only a flaw if you consider it a flaw, since it in no way effects balance, its not a flaw.

One, tripping is useful to non-strength builds, therefore non-strength builds should have that option, two, in terms of narrative I should be able to trip a guy and then stab him while he's down because that works in real life and it adds nothing to either gameplay or narrative to take it out, three, this:

All of that is only one.

3.5 had plenty of rules for guiding and promoting improvisation. Granted, they weren't all that great, but neither are 4e's. Lastly, it's been a pretty solid trope on these boards that a rule system that punts on any aspect of gameplay can never count that as an achievement - because anyone can make up a rule, and a game that explicitly allows you to do so isn't in fact doing anything at all. Rules that help structure improvisation are better than nothing, but also worse than defined rules.

I would disagree with that. Sure if it tells you, "Just make something up" then this statement is true.

But when it gives you a solid framework eliminating most of the guess work, thats less a punt and more just a rule that covers a lot.

In 3.5 you are doing a huge amount of guessing whenever something is brought up not in the rules. In 4e, there is very little guessing as to what to do when this happens, because the framework telling you exactly what to do is there. And what matters is the amount of guesswork involved.

Not that thee isn't any guessing, there is some, just not as much.

Lastly, there is both a factual untruth and a logical fallacy in your argument - the first because 3.5 did have rules to guide and promote improvisation (and, indeed, rules for the specific combat actions people have brought up), and the second because you assert that one difference intrinsically makes one option superior to another without considering similar factors in other areas.

This statement would only be true if I asserted that there was only one difference.

As with many others here, I liked the ideas behind 4e, but the implementation was not very good. With giddy enthusiasm, I embraced 4e nearly the instant it came out, and immediately ran a campaign - only to quickly discover that both my players and I had a lot of very valid complaints about the system, from option removal to general sluggishness of play. Tellingly, the most common complaint was that the system just wasn't very fun, which is pretty much the ultimate indictment of any entertainment product. You can putter about and dig at the potential causes ad infinitum, but at the end of the day, that's the real problem with 4e.

This is a matter of opinion, I thought 3.5 was a very, very, very dull game. All three of the campaigns I played in and the one campaign I DMed were nothing but frustration and boredom.

So lets stick with mechanics and game theory.

4es biggest failing is simply in not going formulaic enough. A nice formulaic structure for determining custom item abilities and monster powers would be nice.

As to why I am admitting there are flaws while defending it,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

Its to avoid getting dogged down defending undefendable points. Its like any strategy, To when you must broaden your objectives to as many as possible while giving up any losing cause so you can focus your forces on the breaking points.

[Chamomile]

The game is nothing but formulas. Mechanically speaking, nothing else exists except the formulas.

All of that is only one.

No, it isn't. One is a mechanics problem. The other is a narrative problem. It is possible to solve one without solving the other. It requires a trickier solution and I don't know why you would do it, but it can be done.

[Verbannon]

The game is nothing but formulas. Mechanically speaking, nothing else exists except the formulas.

I wish that was true, but they decided to make powers and item properties the exception. Unless you are talking base damage, accuracy or a basic increase in some skill or stat (And I can't figure out how they decide what is the proper limitation to get what beyond Plate armor gets the best enchantments, like how much more powerful you can make an item if its effect only happens when bloodied). Then it is without formula. I learned that the hard way, tried to make an item that mimicked the effects of quantum entanglement and ended up with this weird item whose level I couldn't place.

No, it isn't. One is a mechanics problem. The other is a narrative problem. It is possible to solve one without solving the other. It requires a trickier solution and I don't know why you would do it, but it can be done.

I suppose you have a point there.

[echoVanguard]

I would disagree with that. Sure if it tells you, "Just make something up" then this statement is true.

But when it gives you a solid framework eliminating most of the guess work, thats less a punt and more just a rule that covers a lot.

In 3.5 you are doing a huge amount of guessing whenever something is brought up not in the rules. In 4e, there is very little guessing as to what to do when this happens, because the framework telling you exactly what to do is there. And what matters is the amount of guesswork involved.

If you want to stipulate that 4e's improvisation framework was better than 3.5's, that's fine, but you're going to have to bring some data to the table. 3.5 had an entire subsystem for simulating real-world interactions which let you cobble together impressively robust solutions for ad-hoc problems - for example, knowing that a door is composed of one inch of wood, two inches of steel, and another inch of wood tells you unambiguously how many hit points it has and exactly how hard it is to break through it, in terms of both burst DCs and from just attacking the door. To my knowledge, 4e punts on this question by telling the DM to have the player make a check based on a difficulty table, which takes into account the player's average bonus and the intended difficulty of the check in tiered groups. Amusingly, 3.5 had this exact system on top of its extensive simulation rules, so I'm very curious how you expect to prove that 4e is superior in this regard. Unless you intend to make the argument that removing 7/8ths of the rules increases clarity, which would certainly be valid if slightly disingenuous.

This statement would only be true if I asserted that there was only one difference.

The statement "in that alone" stipulates that you feel the difference can stand on its own as proof. If that's not what you meant, you might have been better off with a different phrase, such as "this among other things".

This is a matter of opinion, I thought 3.5 was a very, very, very dull game. All three of the campaigns I played in and the one campaign I DMed were nothing but frustration and boredom.

You're right that this is highly subjective - I'd be very interested in hearing your reasons why you weren't entertained by 3.5. The system certainly has an awful lot of flaws from a game design perspective, but as Maxus's diagram from the last page of the thread demonstrates, 3.5 is generally regarded as "nothing if not eventful", often to the point of fault.

echo

[Chamomile]

2d12+6 is a formula. Powers and item properties are formulas. There just aren't formula-generation formulas, and while that sounds ridiculous, they are necessary.

[Verbannon]

If you want to stipulate that 4e's improvisation framework was better than 3.5's, that's fine, but you're going to have to bring some data to the table. 3.5 had an entire subsystem for simulating real-world interactions which let you cobble together impressively robust solutions for ad-hoc problems - for example, knowing that a door is composed of one inch of wood, two inches of steel, and another inch of wood tells you unambiguously how many hit points it has and exactly how hard it is to break through it, in terms of both burst DCs and from just attacking the door. To my knowledge, 4e punts on this question by telling the DM to have the player make a check based on a difficulty table, which takes into account the player's average bonus and the intended difficulty of the check in tiered groups. Amusingly, 3.5 had this exact system on top of its extensive simulation rules, so I'm very curious how you expect to prove that 4e is superior in this regard. Unless you intend to make the argument that removing 7/8ths of the rules increases clarity, which would certainly be valid if slightly disingenuous.

Well for the door thing, neither need to improv that because both have explicit rules detailing that exact situation.

Anyway, I didn't see the exact system in 3.5, but then again, maybe its just not in core or its hidden under something else, if thats the case then the simplicity card is likely all I have left. But assuming its not, lets see what I can do.

First off, 4e's improvisational rules are explicit

"This is what you do when you encounter the unexpected."

3.5's rules are implicit, which means you kind of have to figure it out using all the rules in the books.

Now I'm pretty sure this is true because a quick search through all the DMGs of 3.5, looking for the words, "Unexpected, improvise, improvising, improvisation, easy and hard" came up dry. And I do not remember seeing those rules when I read through the books when I DMed my 3.5 campaign.

Basically in 4e, you always know what to do, in 3.5 you have to figure it out. And that is why 4e's is better then 3.5 in my opinion.

The statement "in that alone" stipulates that you feel the difference can stand on its own as proof. If that's not what you meant, you might have been better off with a different phrase, such as "this among other things".

Yes I should have used better words, but the fact I had other things there means I didn't mean for it to stand on its own.

You're right that this is highly subjective - I'd be very interested in hearing your reasons why you weren't entertained by 3.5. The system certainly has an awful lot of flaws from a game design perspective, but as Maxus's diagram from the last page of the thread demonstrates, 3.5 is generally regarded as "nothing if not eventful", often to the point of fault.

I don't want to really sound like I'm ranting, but I will say three (four if you look at the last as two) things I didn't like that stand out and try to paraphrase them.

I didn't like the limited options, lack of improv support and the very, very linear character development and limited creation choices.

If you want me to go into much deeper detail, PM me.

[Blicero]

I didn't like the limited options, lack of improv support and the very, very linear character development and limited creation choices.

What? Like, seriously, did you actually play 3.x with anything other than Core? And did you play as anything other than singleclass Fighters?

[Verbannon]

My first game I played up to level 8 as a cleric that prestiged into a combat medic. My opinion still stands.

But I don't want to go into it in this thread. Thats too far off-topic for mme to be comfortable with.

[Winnah]

3.5's rules are implicit, which means you kind of have to figure it out using all the rules in the books.

Now I'm pretty sure this is true because a quick search through all the DMGs of 3.5, looking for the words, "Unexpected, improvise, improvising, improvisation, easy and hard" came up dry. And I do not remember seeing those rules when I read through the books when I DMed my 3.5 campaign.

Page 6. DMG. In the 'running the game' chapter.

[Verbannon]

Those are still implicit (Except DMs little helper). Find a similar situation or house rule, still leaves you trying to figure it out.

[IGTN]

Anyway, I didn't see the exact system in 3.5, but then again, maybe its just not in core or its hidden under something else, if thats the case then the simplicity card is likely all I have left.

I'm going to pull out the SRD instead of getting exact page number citations (oh, hey! That's another advantage for 3.5, the core books are online)

From the opening of the skills chapter they have a table of what difficulty classes mean in terms of actual difficulty. This is in the beginning of chapter 4 of the player's handbook.

Converting a difficulty class to a chance of success just means knowing what's on people's character sheets.

As for the specific rules for the hit points of a layered door, that's in the DMG, I think in chapter 3. With the other rules for breaking things.

[Verbannon]

I'm going to pull out the SRD instead of getting exact page number citations (oh, hey! That's another advantage for 3.5, the core books are online)

From the opening of the skills chapter they have a table of what difficulty classes mean in terms of actual difficulty. This is in the beginning of chapter 4 of the player's handbook.

Converting a difficulty class to a chance of success just means knowing what's on people's character sheets.

Thats not the exact system, its kind of close looking, but its not really. Considering that 3.5 and 4e have very different design philosophies regarding how skills work, its not really.

In 4e someone is is both trained and physically inclined towards will succeed on something easy 90-100% of the time, something moderately difficult, 65-75% of the time and something very difficult 40-50% of the time. With additional modifiers boosting those numbers higher.

This applies across all levels, with a slight drop in success rates at paragon and epic tiers.

With 3.5, its for the most part a steady curve upwards, thats supposed to represent the character's steadily increasing abilities. Assuming max training, easy DCs start off with a 100% chance of success, average, 75%, tough 50%, challenging 25%, Formidable 0%, with a 5% increase in success rate with each level, and any other modifiers applying.

Just looking at these two very different design philosophies shows why its not the same. Then also account for the fact that the examples help only in the slightest in determining where something fits on the DC chart.

Its easy to tell its not explicit. You still have to guess, because when it comes down to it, the difference between tough, formidable, challenging and heroic is quite the matter of opinion.

Thats not all, but I think its enough. Back to my original statement on this current improv topic, a solid framework for improvisation should not require guesswork, it should be clear, concise, explicit and I suppose intuitive. Though don't quote me on that one.

[Chamomile]

Allowing for one style of play instead of multiple is objectively a flaw in 4e. If I wanted to play a D&D 3.5 campaign where it's level six forever I can do that.

[Previn]

Well here's a a total disconnect between my experience and yours. I see a lot more monsters and a lot less medium-size humanoids with unexceptional ability scores. And when I do see those guys beyond level 5 or so, they're mostly useless mooks, or casters who get one-shotted by fighty types.

The problem is, statistically you're wrong. Grab a published adventure, say Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil and go through and count how many things you have a chance of tripping in there. Effectively untripable monsters are in the minority. Grab a Dungeon and count up how many tripable dudes are in 'Evil Cult of the Dunegon #8373' most of whom are medium sized. Now realize that anywhere you have a 5' wide corridor, you are pretty much by necessity going to have medium or smaller creatures.

Heck, grab the MM1 and look through it, for someone with on par strength, and nothing else, almost 68% of the MM1 is routinely tripable. Yes, it's probably pointless to trip a lot of it because it doesn't make a difference, but that's not the point.

I'ven even noticed a lot of theorywank on other boards, where the assumed enemy was another guy with class levels, instead of a buffet of different monsters.

Medium sized or small, and "humanoid" as in 2 legs pretty much means trip bait. That's a ton of monsters. For instance...

Critter - Trip modifier (using str or dex which is better)
Astrial Deva +6
Planetier +11 as a large creature
Solar +13 as a large creature
Hound Archon +2
Avoral +6
Azer +1
Barghesr +7, even with 4 legs
Bodak +2
Bralani +4
Bugbear +2
Chaos Beast +2 or +6
Choker -1
Cocktrice -1
Babau +5
Dretch -2
Hezrou +9 as a large creature
Succubus +1
Vrock +10 as a large creature
Destrachan +8 as a large creature

That's 19 out of the first 52 creatures in the SRD (roughly 1/3 looking at mainly humanoid or medium). A fighter with Improved Trip and a +3 strength mod (16 in the stat) is at +7 to trip. For reference that means a SOLAR is at a piddly +5 bonus to avoid being tripped by a 1st level fighter.

A 12th level fighter with Improved Trip, a a strength of 20 and a +6 str item is at +12 to trip, which puts everything listed above, except the SOLAR at a disadvantage, in fact it's almost an automatic success against some on level CRs. An Adult Red Dragon, a minimum CR of 15, more if you know about the issues with CR has a +23 bonus against trip attacks, or a +10 bonus compared to the 12th level fighter. If you enlarge the fighter, the dragon has a +6 bonus. That's firmly in "I can trip this" range.

How about our 12th level fighter vs a Balor? The Balor has +16 total, or +3 more than the 12th level fighter. Enlarge the fighter and the Balor is at -1.

CAn said fighter trip a 5 feet in diameter, 80 feet long 40,000 pound Purple Wurm? No. CAn he trip the vast majority of stuff comes across? Oh yes.

Tripping in 3.x has a decent chance against all but the most absurd things.

[Verbannon]

Allowing for one style of play instead of multiple is objectively a flaw in 4e. If I wanted to play a D&D 3.5 campaign where it's level six forever I can do that.

You mean just freeze XP and throw only level 6 battles at the party forever?

Obviously thats not what you mean since 4e can do that.

I suppose you are referencing horizontal development?

Could you explain this more?

[Psychic Robot]

what he's referring to is how power grows exponentially in 3e and it does not in 4e. in 4e, you get an additional [W] on your at-wills and a few more powers that do what you've already been doing for the past 30 levels

[Chamomile]

Allowing for one style of play instead of multiple is objectively a flaw in 4e. If I wanted to play a D&D 3.5 campaign where it's level six forever I can do that.

You mean just freeze XP and throw only level 6 battles at the party forever?

Obviously thats not what you mean since 4e can do that.

I suppose you are referencing horizontal development?

Could you explain this more?

Not only can 4e do that, 4e can do nothing but that. The game does not change as you level up.

[Verbannon]

I would disagree, there is definitely a change of feel as you go up in tiers imo.

[CapnTthePirateG]

Isn't that intentional with all this "eternal sweet spot" nonsense?

[Chamomile]

I would disagree, there is definitely a change of feel as you go up in tiers imo.

In 4e someone is is both trained and physically inclined towards will succeed on something easy 90-100% of the time, something moderately difficult, 65-75% of the time and something very difficult 40-50% of the time. With additional modifiers boosting those numbers higher.

This applies across all levels, with a slight drop in success rates at paragon and epic tiers.

In the second quoted post, you then go on to elaborate about how this is a fundamental design difference between 3.5 and 4e. You contradict yourself.

[Verbannon]

Its not a contradiction. I am struggling not to sound pretentious, but there are more factors to the feel of one's character, game and development then raw numerical power.

[fectin]

Is again highlighting 4e's flaws while trying to defend it.

Thats only a flaw if you consider it a flaw, since it in no way effects balance, its not a flaw.

like this ?

I'm bleeding, making me the victor.

In 3.5 you are doing a huge amount of guessing whenever something is brought up not in the rules. In 4e, there is very little guessing as to what to do when this happens, because the framework telling you exactly what to do is there. And what matters is the amount of guesswork involved.

That's a little disingenuous, since 4e tells you exactly to make shit up.

[Verbannon]

It then gives you a damage table, DC table, skill table, and a couple other tables, each with three options to pick from.

So getting winged by a ballista, falling into a brazier of flame, falling down a set of stairs, having a predictable bolt of lightning hit you, being forced to listening to chemical romance CDs, being shut into an iron maiden, falling into a pit of flesh eating hamsters.

All of that is going to have the the same 3 damage rolls against you made, the same 3 DCs to avoid, with the only guesswork being in any additional effects you want to add beyond plain damage if any and which skill to roll.

This means there is no interruption in gameplay when a DM has something unexpected occur.