[5E] Is Mearls planning to snow Hasbro and the fanbase?

[ishy]

3e players tolerate quite substantial differences in to-hit bonus optimization, because battles are short enough that they don't usually notice the difference. 4e players don't, because battles are long enough that they do in fact notice the difference provided by small changes in optimization levels. And that is why 4e players whine bitch moan and complain about how overpowered something is that grants +2 to-hit instead of +1, and 3e players don't give an actual fuck.

-Username17

To hit bonuses are also worth more average dps in 4e than in 3e.
The higher your dps, the quicker the combat is over. Quicker combat means your encounter powers etc matter more.

[shadzar]

Ok, here's what's annoying me about this whole thing.

Why do we care what this guy says?

At this point it is clear that he is stalling, backpedaling, whiffling, et.al. because when the product gets realized he and the rest of the morons in the D&D department will be shown the door. Right now they have a product that no one wants to buy. If they release it and it flops someone at Hasbro is gonna notice. Whereas right now they can cost by leeching profits off the Magic team.

this is why

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/ ... hats-next/

All of these products are being developed in tandem with D&D’s core developers in an effort to create a unified whole, says Nathan Stewart, brand director for Dungeons & Dragons at Wizards of the Coast. “I think the future of Dungeons and Dragons is not the D&D Next rule set or even the tabletop RPG, but it’s this feeling that you get playing Dungeons & Dragons, no matter where you do it.”

the brand director for D&D thinks the RPG is NOT for the future of D&D.

they are all probably just waiting to be let go as they know the entire D&D RPG team will be shown the door when DDN is created, and HASBRO will take over to make more things like Kre-o, board games and such and kill the RPG. Maybe Mearls is trying to make D&D name so bad with a shitty non-working game that it destroys HASBROs chances of killing the RPG while keeping the D&D brand name.

they just have to be discreet about it, and let the idiots at HASBRO that know nothing of D&D think that it is expected to be good and well received, while they know it will bomb quicker than 4th.

[hogarth]

But in a long battle, you are statistically likely to notice the difference between having +1 to hit and not having it. In a short battle, you are not.

You're flailing around an actual point, but still missing it.

If you're trying to say that having a game ability that never occurs over the could of your campaign (or game session or whatever) is lame, you're right obviously.

But rolls per battle have nothing to do with it; saying a fight is 12 rolls long vs. three rolls long is meaningless if you have four times as many fights in the latter game. People care about the frequency of events in "player time", not "PC time".

[Drachasor]

No, you're stupid.

A +1 to hit is the same 5% absolute chance per attack no matter how long battles are. A +1 to hit when you otherwise hit half the time is the same 10% increase in DPS no matter how long battles are.

But in a long battle, you are statistically likely to notice the difference between having +1 to hit and not having it. In a short battle, you are not.

3e players tolerate quite substantial differences in to-hit bonus optimization, because battles are short enough that they don't usually notice the difference. 4e players don't, because battles are long enough that they do in fact notice the difference provided by small changes in optimization levels. And that is why 4e players whine bitch moan and complain about how overpowered something is that grants +2 to-hit instead of +1, and 3e players don't give an actual fuck.

-Username17

I think this has a lot more to do with the fact that in 3.5 there are tons of ways to get bonuses. Missing a +1 here or there is not significant when you can just get it somewhere else (often NOT at the cost of a feat). There are plenty of ways to get a sufficiently high bonus to hit effectively. 4E makes it much, much harder to get bonuses, so the ones you can get matter more. Especially when ACs are more tightly controlled so that you really need the bonuses you can get.

The more I've thought about it, the planned modularity of DDN design seems oddest to me. How often do Optional Rules actually fit seamlessly into a game? Unless they are very small in scope and effect, such rules often make the game play worse. Just consider Arcana Unearthed in 3.5 and how many systems in there would not work well out of the box.

I'm not terribly convinced that the optional rules modules will happen, for a two reasons.

1- Primarily, they still don't have any fucking clue what the basic rules actually are. For all the gibbering about 'simple fighters,' having feats, skills and whatever form of martial maneuvers they currently have seems pretty engrained into the system. Take them out and they've got fuck-all, especially the maneuvers, as taking them out guts the class and leaves them as effective as a wizard that never casts spells. Especially since the hit bonuses and other shit are apparently officially going to be +0 to +6 over 20 fucking levels.

Given that they almost certainly expect to publish this load next year (given that they're producing real, but shitty, preview adventures for Gencon this year) , they've got to ship a final version off to the printers at some stage, probably by January/February, so they can have an actual new D&D rulebook on shelves by late spring or summer for the first time in several years.

2- I just don't see them sustaining this train wreck long enough to support optional books. As it is, a lot of basic shit that people expect out of D&D just isn't going to be in the initial Player's Handbook. So they're probably going to resort to the PH2, 3 and failure just like 4e, long before they publish a 'so you don't like feats' book

Hard to say what things will look like in a year. But I agree that I don't think people are going to be happy with the final product. I don't know anyone who even cares about DDN at the moment, and so far it just doesn't look exciting. It doesn't seem to solve any of the problems 3.X had -- well, less OP options perhaps, but they do this at the expense of the game being interesting.

However, even if they do come out with additional books that have optional rules, just how likely is it that those rules will actually work well? How many optional systems have they ever made that you could just add to the game without any trouble? Outside of new classes, I don't recall many, if any, that weren't small in scope. New systems aren't something you can just add to a game without considering how they affect anything. The idea you can "silo" such systems and have them all be optional just doesn't seem remotely realistic.

[Starmaker]

But rolls per battle have nothing to do with it; saying a fight is 12 rolls long vs. three rolls long is meaningless if you have four times as many fights in the latter game. People care about the frequency of events in "player time", not "PC time".

Rolls per battle have everything to do with it. If you don't have a tiny bonus and fight ten three-round combats along with your bonus-endowed buddy, you look better in four and worse in six. If you fight three ten-round combats, you look worse in ALL OF THEM.

[Drachasor]

But rolls per battle have nothing to do with it; saying a fight is 12 rolls long vs. three rolls long is meaningless if you have four times as many fights in the latter game. People care about the frequency of events in "player time", not "PC time".

Rolls per battle have everything to do with it. If you don't have a tiny bonus and fight ten three-round combats along with your bonus-endowed buddy, you look better in four and worse in six. If you fight three ten-round combats, you look worse in ALL OF THEM.

The probabilities are too close together for it to really work this way. Variance will add a lot of noise to that signal. Then human psychology factors in where people will tend to remember whatever facts support their preconceptions -- our neurology is not designed to statistically analyze input.

[nockermensch]

The probabilities are too close together for it to really work this way. Variance will add a lot of noise to that signal. Then human psychology factors in where people will tend to remember whatever facts support their preconceptions -- our neurology is not designed to statistically analyze input.

While this seems true, the bad feelings still remain. If a character hits 55% of the times instead of 60%, the player may not be able to pinpoint exactly what's happening, but he'll be having slightly less fun. This is kind of bad in a game where combat is just one of the things that you'll be doing in a session, and it's very bad in a game where combat is the main attraction.

[Drachasor]

The probabilities are too close together for it to really work this way. Variance will add a lot of noise to that signal. Then human psychology factors in where people will tend to remember whatever facts support their preconceptions -- our neurology is not designed to statistically analyze input.

While this seems true, the bad feelings still remain. If a character hits 55% of the times instead of 60%, the player may not be able to pinpoint exactly what's happening, but he'll be having slightly less fun. This is kind of bad in a game where combat is just one of the things that you'll be doing in a session, and it's very bad in a game where combat is the main attraction.

If it results in the party failing then perhaps. Outside of that he's not going to notice because the statistical noise makes 55% look a lot like 60% and psychologically speaking he'll just ignore/forget data that contradicts how he thought things would work.

Consider your own personal experience. What stands out in games? What do you remember? That you had a 5% better to-hit than someone else, or the strings of failures/successes? Indeed, we probably all have been in groups with someone that "rolls badly" or "rolls very well." THESE PEOPLE DO NOT EXIST (without cheating). We just forget when the person that rolls badly rolls well. We forget when the person that rolls well rolls badly. Why? Because it doesn't fit the insane theory in our heads -- even if we know it is ridiculous this is very hard to shake.

We do not process events statistically. We do not REMEMBER events statistically. Our memories are in fact very biased by nature. It is extremely difficult to maintain rationality/objectivity because we are literally wired to not be rational creatures.

Edit: That's not to say you wouldn't notice a large enough disparity of course. But a small one? You aren't going to notice it just because there's a slight statistical difference. Not on the statistical merit, that is.

[nockermensch]

If it results in the party failing then perhaps. Outside of that he's not going to notice because the statistical noise makes 55% look a lot like 60% and psychologically speaking he'll just ignore/forget data that contradicts how he thought things would work.

Consider your own personal experience. What stands out in games? What do you remember? That you had a 5% better to-hit than someone else, or the strings of failures/successes? Indeed, we probably all have been in groups with someone that "rolls badly" or "rolls very well." THESE PEOPLE DO NOT EXIST (without cheating). We just forget when the person that rolls badly rolls well. We forget when the person that rolls well rolls badly. Why? Because it doesn't fit the insane theory in our heads -- even if we know it is ridiculous this is very hard to shake.

We do not process events statistically. We do not REMEMBER events statistically. Our memories are in fact very biased by nature. It is extremely difficult to maintain rationality/objectivity because we are literally wired to not be rational creatures.

It's not like this. It's like some encounters eventually dragging over an extra round without any suspense (most 4e fights are foregone conclusions) and this extra time lost adding up through year long campaigns and making some people decide that their time is better spent playing MW or Fifa.

While as individuals we can't exactly experience something like the effects if a 5% miss chance, as a group of people (like the universe of people playing D&D) this kind of thing has an impact.

[Drachasor]

If it results in the party failing then perhaps. Outside of that he's not going to notice because the statistical noise makes 55% look a lot like 60% and psychologically speaking he'll just ignore/forget data that contradicts how he thought things would work.

Consider your own personal experience. What stands out in games? What do you remember? That you had a 5% better to-hit than someone else, or the strings of failures/successes? Indeed, we probably all have been in groups with someone that "rolls badly" or "rolls very well." THESE PEOPLE DO NOT EXIST (without cheating). We just forget when the person that rolls badly rolls well. We forget when the person that rolls well rolls badly. Why? Because it doesn't fit the insane theory in our heads -- even if we know it is ridiculous this is very hard to shake.

We do not process events statistically. We do not REMEMBER events statistically. Our memories are in fact very biased by nature. It is extremely difficult to maintain rationality/objectivity because we are literally wired to not be rational creatures.

It's not like this. It's like some encounters eventually dragging over an extra round without any suspense (most 4e fights are foregone conclusions) and this extra time lost adding up through year long campaigns and making some people decide that their time is better spent playing MW or Fifa.

While as individuals we can't exactly experience something like the effects if a 5% miss chance, as a group of people (like the universe of people playing D&D) this kind of thing has an impact.

Hmm, true. However, the drag-out will not be blamed on any one character, because who it is that makes the combats take another 5-10 minutes (if that's the result) will not be noticed. Further, the cause in general will probably not be noticed either.

But this does remind me of my dislike of "to-hit" mechanics in general. Not a big fan of mechanics that result in "your turn was wasted." It slows things down quite a bit and isn't interesting to boot.

Overall this effect wouldn't be what makes 4E players value bonuses so much more than 3E players, however. I still think this difference is fundamentally because 3E made it so much easier to get bonuses.

[Kaelik]

If it results in the party failing then perhaps. Outside of that he's not going to notice because the statistical noise makes 55% look a lot like 60% and psychologically speaking he'll just ignore/forget data that contradicts how he thought things would work.

No retard, it doesn't matter that people can't remember the difference between 55% and 60%, people can and do look at each individual role.

People remember every time they just barely hit, and remember that they spent a feat on +1, and remember that if they didn't have that +1 they would have missed.

If you hit because of a +1 every fight, you remember all those times, and you say, hmm, that +1 is really valuable, and you think it is even more valuable than it actually is.

If you hit because of a +1 on every 5th fight, you remember that most of the time your +1 doesn't even do anything.

The entire point is that because people can't tell the difference between 55% and 60% in play, that +1 will either be treated as vastly more valuable or vastly less valuable than it is, and the determining factor is how often it comes up not per roll, but per discrete unit of time that people actually think in, which is either battle or session.

[Drachasor]

If it results in the party failing then perhaps. Outside of that he's not going to notice because the statistical noise makes 55% look a lot like 60% and psychologically speaking he'll just ignore/forget data that contradicts how he thought things would work.

No retard, it doesn't matter that people can't remember the difference between 55% and 60%, people can and do look at each individual role.

People remember every time they just barely hit, and remember that they spent a feat on +1, and remember that if they didn't have that +1 they would have missed.

If you hit because of a +1 every fight, you remember all those times, and you say, hmm, that +1 is really valuable, and you think it is even more valuable than it actually is.

If you hit because of a +1 on every 5th fight, you remember that most of the time your +1 doesn't even do anything.

The entire point is that because people can't tell the difference between 55% and 60% in play, that +1 will either be treated as vastly more valuable or vastly less valuable than it is, and the determining factor is how often it comes up not per roll, but per discrete unit of time that people actually think in, which is either battle or session.

Name-calling is beneath you I hope. Let's at least try to be civil. No harm in that, right?

Your argument that people will judge the value of something based on how often it comes up has a very serious flaw. Evaluating that accurately requires they actually can remember that in a statistical sense. Memory, however, does not work that way. People do not have a statistical history of their rolls, and what has weight in their memory will rely on luck and preconceptions more than a small difference in to-hit bonus -- because it will be the context of the roll that will matter and how it affected the game -- and even a string of such memories is not viewed statistically, and ones that do not fit the preconceived pattern shall be given lower weight in one's memory, distorting the picture even more.

This is how some players can thing bad builds and bad ideas work. Because they do not remember all the failures such things bring. This applies to more than just gaming, of course.

Further, a close miss/hit happens just as often if you have a 50% chance to hit, 55% chance to hit, or 60% chance to hit. And people look at their total modifier when attacking. They don't add each little bit one at a time, so an extra +1 is no different than a +1 from any other source. Unless, of course, it is hard to get additional bonuses, as it is in 4E.

Further, the argument here is questionable even from a statistical sense. 4E has far fewer attacks per round at mid levels and later, due to a lack of iterative attacks. Going on for a longer amount of time is something it would have to do just to make up for that.

[hogarth]

But rolls per battle have nothing to do with it; saying a fight is 12 rolls long vs. three rolls long is meaningless if you have four times as many fights in the latter game. People care about the frequency of events in "player time", not "PC time".

Rolls per battle have everything to do with it. If you don't have a tiny bonus and fight ten three-round combats along with your bonus-endowed buddy, you look better in four and worse in six. If you fight three ten-round combats, you look worse in ALL OF THEM.

Really? Are you seriously such a dope that could fool yourself into thinking a bonus is either good or bad depending on whether you took a short breather between fight scenes or not?

That reminds me of the joke where the moron goes to a pizza place and they ask him whether he wants his pizza cut into 6 slices or 8 slices, and he says "Six, because I'm not hungry enough to eat 8 pieces of pizza!". Hyuck, hyuck, hyuck!

[Username17]

hogarth, are you such a contrarion idiot that you are actually coming out and saying the law of large numbers is false?

-Username17

[TarkisFlux]

Name-calling is beneath you I hope. Let's at least try to be civil. No harm in that, right?

Oh, that's so precious. You have no idea what the culture here is like, do you?

[Ravengm]

Name-calling is beneath you I hope. Let's at least try to be civil. No harm in that, right?

"Psst, hey fella! Over here!"

The harsh whisper comes from a man cloaked in ratty rags peeking out from around the corner of an alleyway. He glances left and right before beckoning you closer, urgency in his demeanor. You approach, cautious as to what this strange man might do. He opens his mouth to speak, and a horrid stench of Cheetohs and Mountain Dew wafts out from between his crooked, yellowed teeth.

"That there's The Den. You want my advice, you gotta have thick skin to roll in there. People there will take your arguments, rip them apart for no more reason than incurable nerdrage and a twisted desire to help fix things, tell you to suck a whole barrel of cocks, and worst of all..."

He sighs deeply. You can tell that he's had personal experience with the matter. As he pauses for dramatic effect, he habitually reaches to scratch his neckbeard.

"...They'll say mean things about you on the internet."

Staring off into the distance at nothing in particular, he grows reminiscent.

"I remember my first few posts. Started a flamewar that spread throughout three different threads and two subforums. All completely unintentional. I just asked a simple question about why everyone thought 4E was so bad, because I played it with some friends and had a good time. I managed to get out with not much more than a solid Kaeliking, but that was enough. I was changed. Now, I ain't good for much more than yelling at strangers about obscure tabletop mechanics."

He suddenly seems to come back to the present, shaking off the thousand-mile stare. He eyes you up and down.

"I think you still got potential, though, kid. You've got the makings of logic in your posts. Don't lose sight of that and turn into a Troll. Just let the insults roll off you. You gotta stay sane. Safe. Not like me."

The man looks like he spots something over your shoulder and gets a wide-eyed look of fear. You turn around to see what could frighten him, but don't spy anything out of the ordinary. When you turn back around, the man is gone, leaving you alone to ponder the veracity of his words.

[Whatever]

I think you'll find that very little is beneath Kaelik. Except, perhaps, your mother.

[Drachasor]

Name-calling is beneath you I hope. Let's at least try to be civil. No harm in that, right?

Oh, that's so precious. You have no idea what the culture here is like, do you?

I've noticed that at times it's a bit sweltering now and then, but I've only looked at it for a few days. That doesn't mean I can't try to keep things a little cooler or sink down to the lowest common denominator. Though if I find the culture inimical to reasoned discourse then I'm unlikely to remain here long.

Typically when people start hurling insults people are more likely to forget about little things like facts or logic. They'll dig in and hold their position. So it would be nice if I could avoid having to deal with that more than necessary. We shall see.

Edit: It's not like I didn't think about responding in kind. There were multiple vectors of attack that post left open. I just don't see the point in such behavior.

[Whatever]

Just to recap, your argument is that 4E didn't have enough fiddly +1 bonuses?

[nockermensch]

Name-calling is beneath you I hope. Let's at least try to be civil. No harm in that, right?

PotM.

[Drachasor]

Just to recap, your argument is that 4E didn't have enough fiddly +1 bonuses?

More that because bonuses are rare and hard to get in 4E, each one is valued more. You have so few ways to get them, that everyone points out those ways and says "this matters" because it is that bonus or nothing.

In 3.X you have dozens of ways to get attack bonuses or otherwise make things easier to hit. Why would anyone make a huge deal out of any +1 or even +2 bonus when there are so many alternatives? Maybe if one was exceptionally easy to get compared to the others (such as some Cleric Buffs, especially with the right feats), but otherwise? No big deal in isolation. Getting bonuses matter. How you get them? Not so much.

As with many things, scarcity can enhance value.

[Maxus]

Ravengm, you, sir, win the Internet.

Edit: Also, do I need to repost the Difference between 3e and 4e? Because I will if I have to.

3e, for all its flaws, was crazy and eventful and tried to have rules to cover the whole damn world. Doors and walls have hardness and hitpoints, in case you ever want to break through them.

4e was pretty explicitly telling the players, "Get back in the dungeon!" in much the same tone of a misogynist douchebag going "Get back in the kitchen!"

[Drachasor]

Name-calling is beneath you I hope. Let's at least try to be civil. No harm in that, right?

"Psst, hey fella! Over here!"

I do appreciate the concern (and your post was very amusing). I wouldn't worry too much about me as I do have a relatively thick skin. I was just trying to be diplomatic and hoping to encourage a more civil tone. That said, my diplomacy skill isn't very high.

Ravengm, you, sir, win the Internet.

Edit: Also, do I need to repost the Difference between 3e and 4e? Because I will if I have to.

3e, for all its flaws, was crazy and eventful and tried to have rules to cover the whole damn world. Doors and walls have hardness and hitpoints, in case you ever want to break through them.

4e was pretty explicitly telling the players, "Get back in the dungeon!" in much the same tone of a misogynist douchebag going "Get back in the kitchen!"

I ran a 4E game for a while. As a DM I felt a major part of this problem was how the PHB was written. It stated explicitly what you could do, with very little indication that doing something creative was even an option. Despite having veteran players, they all got the idea that if they didn't have a special ability that let them do something, then it could not be done.

It was so bad that I even gave them all a once per encounter power to do anything thematic appropriate for their character. They could make it up on the spot and I'd use the page 42 DMG guidelines to handle it. It was a free ability above and beyond anything they already had. Even then it was difficult to encourage them to go beyond the apparent walls 4E set up for them. More than a bit frustrating.

That said, there were some aspects of 4E I really liked as a DM. The monster and minion rules generally were exceptional for combat purposes. It was easy to whip things up that were new and interesting with just the tiniest bit of work. Far, far easier than 3.X. It would have been nice if the Monster Entries also remembered that out-of-combat stats mattered too, but overall I feel the pluses there outweighed the negatives.

[DSMatticus]

Stuff

Almost everyone here will let vitriol drip into their posts at some point, because trying to tell people they're being wrong on the internet gets frustrating. I haven't actually seen any TTRPG forums that handled it better. Every place that has standards of civility doesn't actually start enforcing those standards of civility until it's way too late and the thread is a shitstorm, and then mods show up and decide who they want to ban based on who they like least and grab justifications from the several pages of e-rage they let happen right under their nose. It almost always ends up being moderation by popularity contest and has nothing to do with civility at all, so what the fuck?

That said, there aren't a lot of long-standing grudges around here (Frank, PL, let's talk about diplomacy mechanics). Kaelik in particular is known for having a short fuse. I don't think anyone's figured out why. Is it an emotionless formality? Weird fetish? His idea of playful repartee? Baiting people into arguing with him? Or is he seriously just the real-life incarnation of ANGRY FAIC, hammering violently at his keyboard equipped with naught but his wit and a frown too large for his own face?

[Kaelik]

Your argument that people will judge the value of something based on how often it comes up has a very serious flaw. Evaluating that accurately requires they actually can remember that in a statistical sense.

You are an idiot and you need to learn how to read. I say that not because I am the Archdemon of Rage, but because it is actually impossible to have a reasoned conversation with someone who doesn't fucking understand anything said to them.

My argument is not that people will judge the value of something based off of how often it comes up. That is strictly the fucking opposite of what I am arguing. I am arguing that they will value a +1 bonus, which definitionally comes up exactly as often, based on other circumstances that are not how often it comes up.

This is precisely what I told you the first time. I told you that people not having statistical memory is the reason that two different people will have drastically different interpretations of how often it comes up.

From there, my contention is that people's interpretation of the value of a feat will be based on how often they subjectively feel like it is used.

Your allegation that no one will remember that person Y has a higher bonus because rolls vary is both stupid and irrelevant. Person Y will remember that they have the feat, and will have some opinion on it's value.

From there, my point is merely that someone who makes 20 attack rolls each fight will see the feat as helping them in every fight, while someone who makes one attack roll in every fight will see the feat as helping them in one out of every 20 fights.

Why statistically, those are equally as useful, the perception created in the person with the feat will be different.

Further, a close miss/hit happens just as often if you have a 50% chance to hit, 55% chance to hit, or 60% chance to hit. And people look at their total modifier when attacking. They don't add each little bit one at a time, so an extra +1 is no different than a +1 from any other source. Unless, of course, it is hard to get additional bonuses, as it is in 4E.

It doesn't matter that they get +1 from choosing fighter over Cleric as a class, or from taking a feat, or both. The fact of the matter is that if they hit the exact number once per fight they will then value each and every +1 more than they would if they hit the exact number one out of every 20. In 4e, even though attributes provide the same bonuses, people value the bonus more, and that isn't because there are fewer bonuses, in many cases there are the same number of bonuses, it is because they see the difference of their atrribute every other fight instead of once every 20.

Further, the argument here is questionable even from a statistical sense. 4E has far fewer attacks per round at mid levels and later, due to a lack of iterative attacks. Going on for a longer amount of time is something it would have to do just to make up for that.

If you haven't actually played 3e, you can just say that.