D&D 4E What Aspects of 4E Made It into 5E?

[The Crimson Binome]

Oh no, my DM is letting me do cool things! I feel so abused!

It's a waste of my time. I don't play an RPG to be pandered to. I play an RPG so I can role-play.

Whatever happened to honesty and integrity in DMing?

 

[Caliban]

It's a waste of my time. I don't play an RPG to be pandered to. I play an RPG so I can role-play.

Whatever happened to honesty and integrity in DMing?

Except it's NOT a waste of your time, because you aren't playing in their game. They aren't your DM.

Whatever happened to letting other people play their D&D game their way?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Except it's NOT a waste of your time, because you aren't playing in their game. They aren't your DM.

Whatever happened to letting other people play their D&D game their way?

Teaching DMs to lie to their players, or allowing it to happen without calling it out, is bad for the community. That's how you end up with paranoid players who can't trust their DMs, and then you can't play the game anymore because the entire game concept hinges on that trust.

 

[Caliban]

Teaching DMs to lie to their players, or allowing it to happen without calling it out, is bad for the community. That's how you end up with paranoid players who can't trust their DMs, and then you can't play the game anymore because the entire game concept hinges on that trust.

And you are the self appointed judge of how to properly play D&D, and what constitutes "Teaching DM's to lie to their players".

Personally, I don't think your opinion of the "correct way to play D&D" is as widespread as you seem to assume. It's simply your preferred way of playing the game, not the standard everyone else needs to adhere too.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And you are the self appointed judge of how to properly play D&D, and what constitutes "Teaching DM's to lie to their players".

If anyone is seriously advocating for teaching people to lie, by my best judgment in determination, then I can't exactly trust their opinion. That much should be self-evident.

By all means, think for yourself, and use your own judgment. I still wouldn't recommend believing anyone who openly advocates for deception.

 

[Caliban]

If anyone is seriously advocating for teaching people to lie, by my best judgment in determination, then I can't exactly trust their opinion. That much should be self-evident.

By all means, think for yourself, and use your own judgment. I still wouldn't recommend believing anyone who openly advocates for deception.

And it seems your opinion is the only one that counts. Especially when it comes to telling other people how they are playing D&D wrong.

Sorry, I simply can't trust your opinion when it is so obviously biased. I just didn't want to let it pass without calling it out - because that would be bad for the community.

 

[pemerton]

I am sure that the level of ambiguity that Theatre of the Mind can create annoys some players and DMs to no end. However, it can be advantageous to dramatic action. If a player has an whacky and exciting plan involving a chicken, a banister, and a cooking pot, the details about how far away each of those items might be can be easily molded if their location hasn't already been pinned down.

<snip>

Instead of asking, "How far away is that chicken, and what's the distance between the chicken and the banister?" They should say, "I have this plan involving a chicken, a banister, and a cooking pot. It goes something like this, . . . . . and the pot with the chicken ends up here! Is that possible?" The first set of questions restricts what might happen later. The second set allows the DM to simply say "yes" to a fun scene and only at that point decide the exact locations of said chicken, banister, and pot.

Nod. That shades into the 'story now' theories that spawn huge threads, but yeah, a good DM (or player) can leverage ambiguity.

I'd be lying if I didn't read Bradley Hindman's post and think about establishing certain details of the fiction as an outcome of action resolution rather than a constraining input.

There's a separate question of when one should say "yes" as opposed to call for a check. Hopefully many action declarations are amusing and/or imaginative.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'd be lying if I didn't read Bradley Hindman's post and think about establishing certain details of the fiction as an outcome of action resolution rather than a constraining input.

Are you talking about things like "I, as DM, didn't think about or establish whether or not there's a chandelier in this room. Therefore, when the player asked if there was one to swing from, I decided there was because it was cooler"?

If so, I agree. If there's a detail I hadn't already specified--at least in my own head, if not out loud--and it makes even a bit of sense, I'll usually try to incorporate it if the players' actions warrant.

If that's not what you meant, could you clarify?

 

[pemerton]

As soon as the first party member ran out of surges, you simply stopped adventuring for the day. Why would you ever move on gimped of perhaps your most powerful ability (the ability to recover from damage).

If a group are travelling, fighting etc together, and one of them is exhausted (physically, emotinally, or both), it doesn't seem that artificial that the group stops so that person can recover - assuming conditions are propitious for stopping (which is a separate matter).

The squishy skulkers (warlocks, rangers & co) must now emerge to take on a few hits. Why? To spread the damage evenly among all party members. This also felt utterly artificial.

Again, if one of a group who are fighting together is being relentlessly pressured by foes, it doesn't seem that artifical that comrades should try to relieve some of that pressure.

the spell Healing Word

Mechanically there is a resemblance, but I think the flavour has to be quite different. 4e Healing Word allows a character to draw on his/her own reserves to keep going. The flavour text in the 4e PHB refers to "a brief prayer . . . divine light washes over your target, helping to mend its wounds"; personally I prefer to think of it as a divinely-inspired rousing word. But however one thinks of it, given its reliance on healing surge expenditure it has to be about allowing the target to draw on his/her own reserves. Whereas the 5e version is a Cure Wounds variant: an external magical force restores the target's wellbeing.

Lots of games are considered successes. Some of which are even obscure and definitely not in WotC's financial league. MERP. WEG Star Wars. Delta Green. [[Add your own example here]].

4E isn't one of them.

<snip>

4E failed as a rpg, which is *the* one job a rpg cannot be allowed to fail at. It really is that simple.

The only sense in which 4e failed is commercial. Though not as badly as MERP - ICE did go broke, after all, as a result of its (mis-)handling of the Middle Earth licence.

As a RPG 4e was popular with a pretty large number of people. On any measure, one of the more popular RPGs ever made!

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Teaching DMs to lie to their players, or allowing it to happen without calling it out, is bad for the community. That's how you end up with paranoid players who can't trust their DMs, and then you can't play the game anymore because the entire game concept hinges on that trust.

The entire game is predicated on a group of people agreeing to lie to each other. When I say, "Vallard the Valiant stabs the goblin", not one word of that sentence is true.