I agree that it goes against simulationism. I also agree that Gamist wants balance. I do struggle with that because in some ways, not everyone is equally good at things. One of the ways that I’m looking at DND/PF and RPGs in general is from ShadowRun. All of the groups are a group of special forces with certain skills they bring. In that regard, there is cross over and they don’t have as big of a gap in skills. There is a gap in abilities, in terms of what the fighter can do v the wizard, but not basic things like Stealth or Perception, which all adventurers need.
4E did try to do this and for a while, for me, they succeeded. It was PH2, I think, where they changed it too much for me. I think there was a martial controller, and in my mind that’s the spellcaster. I do appreciate and still use a lot of ideas from 4E.
Heck, PF2 is 4E done right, as someone said. It’s funny because Paizo rejected 4E to do PF1 but PF2 looks a lot like 4E. It was probably more the GSL/OGL of 4E that pushed Paizo to PF1.
Definitely. And, when WotC announced 4E, they also revoked Paizo’s license to print Dragon and Dungeon magazines (and to provide licensed D&D content), which had been the core of Paizo’s original business model. Paizo had originally been created as a spin-off from WotC, when Hasbro decided that they didn’t want to be in the magazine-publishing business.
So, Paizo had to do something different in order to keep going as a business; it wasn’t so much that Paizo “rejected” doing 4E content, but that they probably couldn’t do so. Ultimately, that “something different” turned out to be “attract the 3.5 fans who don’t like the direction that WotC took in 4E.” It wasn’t
4E took a lot of big swings that didn’t all connect, but it was a really cool system that didn’t get a fair shake from a lot of people.
The whole “it’s just an MMO!” thing was incredibly silly, as if game design isn’t just an endless cycle of games iterating on the same things over and over. Of course the roles in 4e were informed by MMO class roles, and of course MMO class roles were informed by the games that came before it, all the way back to text-based MUDs that were informed by tabletop games.
Also, the [power source][role] setup was truly inspired; I was able to help an awful lot of newbies quickly pin down exactly what class appealed to them.
I’ve been in a PF2 (Revised) game for about the last year and, while I’ve never played 4e, it doesn’t feel like it shares much with what criticisms I’ve heard about 4e or how it supposedly operates. Are they actually similar? I thought it felt more like an attempted 5e streamlining of the old system but not quite as rules-lite.
I miss the print Dragon and Dungeon magazines. I know WotC did them for a while after they took it back from Paizo, maybe still does them, but I trailed off following them when they went online. It’s not the same.
I liked a lot of things from 4E. I thought it was brilliant to give me a monster stat block that only contains what I will need. That’s in comparison to what a 3.X/PF1 stat block could be. It wasn’t completely back to 1E because it gave ability scores and some skills. I liked persistent damage. I like the bloodied condition. It’s a big list. I did think that the [power source][role] went in a direction I didn’t want.
In the end, probably not that close. I say that because 4E has keywords and PF2 uses those a lot. I’m sure there are other mechanics that are similar, like the flat checks and ongoing damage. It didn’t have three action economy. It was one action (and a move and minor) and that one action wasn’t three attacks but one Power. (Or switched down to a move or minor) Monster stat blocks are about what they can do, not treating them like a character as PF1 does. Looking back, 4E might be less complicated than 5E!
I think 5E was doing what a lot of OSR games do which is wrap 1E around a modern design. Games like Shadowdark can be deadly like 1E but 5E wants to appeal to more. Therefore, the first few levels come quick and it’s tougher to die.
D&D has always had healers and tanks. In fact an OD&D PC back in the day was named “Sherman.”
Now yes, early D&D tanks didnt have a mechanism to make the bad guys attack just them, but sine early D&D was dungeon focused, just being in the first rank was pretty much all that was needed.
I agree. My only issue with 4e was that trying to play it with paper and pencil only was difficult. However, we only tried to do that once.
I loved the classes- I played an Invoker, which was really fun. He was a revenant, also fun.
The definition of a tank in 2008 MMORPG circles was a little different than the definition among TTRPGers in 1988. Back in the old days, a tank, also commonly known as a brick, was just a big tough character who could take and dish out a lot of damage. In 2008 the definition of tank was revised to a character who managed aggro by being the one who got punched in the face with damage being a secondary role.
I want that too, except that what I will need from a monster is, I suspect, a lot more information than you’re thinking of. A lot of the things that I need from monster statblocks hasn’t been seen since 2nd edition, like how groups of the monsters organize themselves and what they eat. Of course, 2nd edition monster statblocks didn’t include minor details like, oh, their saving throws, so shrug.
Are you talking about the Ecology Of articles from back in the day? Or the Organization, Activity Cycle, and Diet from the 2E stat block?
This is one of those things that tripped me up back in 2E days. I’m not saying it tripped up @Chronos, just me. I need the type, such as animal or beast, as that tells me if it’s smart or not. I admit, I infer animals will attack for food, and that’s enough for me. Okay, a morale rating would be nice. Equally, I’m bad at reading new RPGs in a cover to cover way. I glance at what I need to run the game. In this case, if there is a description that says animals will try and run if they are bloodied, I haven’t found it.
I think that’s why PF2 turned me off for a while because the stat blocks weren’t enough to run a monster, I had to know and understand the keywords. Keywords can create strange situations. There is the keyword Flourish in PF2. It is defined as an action that takes just enough extra effort that it can’t be done more than once a round. Yet it is put on many single action feats. In this case, it seems to me that changing such feats to two action ones, solves that and simplifies the system and keywords. It would even work in the case of Haste which only allows an extra stride or strike, which is a single action.
I think what caused a lot of mental confusion, or gymnastics, back in the day was the fiction v the game mechanics. They never matched. The story would talk about fighters “holding the line” and not letting any enemies past them but there were no game mechanics to do so. That’s an example of a “rules v rulings” that can cause problems. Maybe a group does enact something that allows it but no other group has to accept that rule.
As I bring up that example, I can’t remember what 3E or 4E did for that. I thought it was a feat that if the fighter hit the character trying to move past them, it reduced their movement to zero. I know in 5E the sentinel feat does that but combine it with polearm master and it’s a nightmare.
The 2E monster manual was fabulous. I probably aggregated a dozen cover-to-cover reads over several years of flipping through it.
This was in the stat block. Every monster had an intelligence rating, and animals got “animal (1)” or “non (0),” though I never understood why some animals got the latter when it otherwise seemed to be reserved for things like mindless constructs. Morale was there too.
Admittedly, plenty of the stat blocks just had “variable, see below” for important info and forced you to read through the entries anyway.
I mean, sure, I know that a carnivorous animal will attack if it’s hungry. But what does a flumph eat? What motivates it to attack? I can’t fall back on my real-life knowledge of flumphs, because I don’t have any real-life knowledge of flumphs.
I remember that i was an environmental sciences major and I tried to design an ecology for the first couple of levels of my dungeon. Then I found out that the players didnt give a rats ass- even tho the rats were a significant part of the ecology.
If you aren’t willing to go see flumphs in their native habitat, or at least a zoo, I can’t help you.
On only a slightly more serious note, the original entry for them in the FF has them as Lawful Good. How often were heroes going to come into conflict with them?
On a less serious note, the entry tries to make them plausible by having them float by sucking in air and expelling it under themselves. Then it has a water attack. These are obviously jellyfish someone put into the air. I wouldn’t have known enough about jellyfish back in the 80s (maybe not now, either) but I’m pretty sure these should be in water, eating algae or other small creatures that fit inside them. At that point, I would assume each DM would figure it out, as had to be done back then, and then remain consistent on it.
Even then, there is no reason to every worry about, attack, speak to, or interact with a flumph unless it was a witness to a crime. At that point, the person talking to them has to know the old Lawful Good alignment tongue and even then, “flumphs have a limited vocabulary.” They have no treasure, no lair, no listed native habitat, and while they can inflict acid damage, the shunning attack seems more powerful overall.
I mean, let’s face it. This was written by an author under deadline who needed to make a word count and saw or heard David Attenborough talking about oceanic life!
THIS. THIS SO HARD.
It’s not limited to ecology of creatures. Players don’t care. I can’t emphasize that enough.
PLAYERS DON’T CARE.
I have taken the time to make sure everything made sense. Timelines of where NPCs are. Who saw what. Background characters. The only thing players care about is what is in front of their characters at that moment. Then they have a choice to make.
I used to run pure sandbox games and respond to what players did. Worst. Idea. Ever. Players think they want full agency to do whatever they want but they really want three, and no more than five, choices. More than that, it’s too much and they either don’t pick or get analysis paralysis.
I don’t know that players care about plot holes. I had an NPC talk to them and then had that same NPC talk to them later in a different place but it wasn’t probable they would be there. I went out of my way to explain how the NPC got there and could do this. They brushed that off to get the information they needed to go to the next thing.
I understand this as well. I don’t play often but when I do, it’s the same for me. I don’t want a real world case. I want an L&O/Elementary/Castle style case. If my character doesn’t know the area, I want multiple choice from the DM. Having had DMs give a mystery and then sit back until we players asked for the exact thing they wanted? It’s not fun. If the path to the next clue isn’t obvious, give it to me or have me appear there.
deep breath
Okay, sorry. That got ranty there and was not aimed at @Chronos. I’m leaving this here, though, because I think it’s a good reminder.
When I mentioned it- I got a “hey that’s cool” and that’s it. They want excitement, problem solving, roleplay and loot, not necessarily in that order. Also i have learned making your own world or town with meticulous details is unnecessary, and leads to delays while you thumb thru your book looking for the name of the barkeep in the inn you didn’t expect them to go. Make shit up.
Yeah, pure sandbox can be bad. Give them choices, lots of choices but be prepared to nudge them towards one of them fairly often. Do not railroad. This is a hard path to take between sandbox and railroad- but things like strangers coming up and asking for help isnt a railroad- as long as they can say NO.
I think most players just need enough plausibility to keep going. If there’s trolls in the sewer, I assume they’re eating something. If there’s an adult dragon in a 40x40 room with a single 5’ doorway, I’ll raise an eyebrow.
Even in that case, or in the case of most plot holes or obvious railroads, I won’t say anything about it because it’s just kind of a dick move to start in on “Well, what’s it eat then, huh?” or rending apart plot threads that the GM is trying to weave in order for us to have a nice time. We’re a little more snarky about published campaigns/adventure paths because that can be a shared chuckle versus letting the GM know that his ideas are stupid and he should feel bad.
In terms of rich game worlds where you’re worked out exactly who the three siblings of the town cooper are and who each one is in a relationship with and how THOSE people get along at Sunday dinner… ain’t no one got time for that. In my own games, I just have a standing policy that if you forgot the name of the Grand Duke or the archmage who gave you the current quest, just ask me. We’re all old people working full time jobs and maintaining families, I’m not gonna punish you for not remembering that level of stuff and I know that no one is going to care if the milkmaid’s daughter has a strawberry allergy unless it’s plot-crucial.
In fact, in my attempt to do a cold war spy DND game, that completely fizzled on that aspect of it, I worked it out with the “face” of the group that instead of having code phrases:
“The sun is shining”
“But the ice is slippery”
We would do it like this:
“Code phrase 1”
“Code answer 1”
Equally, I might do this
“Code phrase 1”
“Code answer 3” or “mumble mumble”
to signify that the person doesn’t know it. As I said, it fizzled out for reasons, so we didn’t get to that specific thing, but I think we did use something like it. There are details and then there are details and one is going too far.
Thanks for the discussion! (Needed a second one for the one I missed.)
I’ve always viewed the rules and settings to exist simply to give some plausible explanation for how adventuring works. Do I care that most economies in D&D don’t make a lot of sense when you scrutinize them? No. I’m playing Dungeons & Dragons not Ledgers & Liabilities. I appreciate that the 2024 Dungeon Master’s guide is explicit. The rules are meant to provide a fun gaming experience rather than model the physics of the world. The rules aren’t intended to reflect a realistic economy.
even tho the rats were a significant part of the ecology. 
