What makes an RPG good?

[Quertus]

It's possible to see the beauty there while simultaneously understanding many of the reasons people don't like it. Heck, it's possible to see the beauty in a game while preferring to play a newer (or older) edition of the very same game.

Except for the perception that all the powers were the same. That one doesn't make sense, since it was provable not true. It's like claiming that all AD&D or 3e or 5e spells or feats are the same. Or that the classes are all the same because they all use the same "attack roll" system. Or later on share the same resolution for skills.

The way powers were organised were the same and apparently that was enough for people. Which is weird because the no-refresh/short-rest/long-rest called problems before but put at-will/encounter/daily on the power and suddenly everything is uniform. And you can add frills but I think 5e is the first edition where spell-slots are more than a bunch of daily power pools.

I don't get it either really. I found 4th edition's combat system to be the most engaging of any of the systems. Which is more a comment on the low bar set by other editions than the quality of 4th. (5e is at second at one and a half combats.)

Sigh.

I cannot speak for others, but, for me, 4e *felt* samey. Which is not the same as "the perception that all the powers were the same" or "The way powers were organised were the same".

How did 4e *feel* samey?

Well, you know how, when you *think* you're drinking one drink, but actually drink a different one, it tastes *really weird*? Hold that image.

The buzz was, martial adepts were practice for 4e. They introduced *entirely different* refresh systems, and introduced them on top of 3e, which was already rife with plentiful new systems, like Binders and Warlocks. And, while nowhere near as chaotic as the 2e Wild Mage, the Crusader at least had a little bit of Chaos going for it.

Is that what we got? No.

We got classes that all used the same set of standardized recovery mechanics (at will / encounter / rest) to deliver their samey 2d6 + rider effect attacks.

Add to that the promise that "the math just works", when, instead, you got a system where it felt you *had* to optimize in terms of the numbers for *all* the classes in order to balance to the table.

Every single character felt the same to build and play. You engaged the exact same part of your brain, no matter which character you selected. A few of the individual notes may differ, but they all played exactly the same song - not even as different as "the Batmobile lost a wheel" or "soft Dalek, warm Dalek", the differences felt more like individual typos than actual variances.

So, think about how different in complexity - both to build, and to play - two different 3e characters can be. Think about how different the tempo and stamina of two different 3e characters can be. Now look at 4e, and tell me that it doesn't feel "samey" in comparison - *especially* when one walked in expecting innovative new increases in variance along the lines of martial adepts.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, no. Again, saying that all classes are the same because "4e powers are damage + rider" is like saying all classes that attack using d20+bonus to damage is the same, or all classes that use d20+bonus skill checks are the same.

Powers produced drastically different results in play, and having a similar but not identical mechanical structure to resolving powers didn't change that.

[Quertus]

Yeah, no. Again, saying that all classes are the same because "4e powers are damage + rider" is like saying all classes that attack using d20+bonus to damage is the same, or all classes that use d20+bonus skill checks are the same.

Powers produced drastically different results in play, and having a similar but not identical mechanical structure to resolving powers didn't change that.

But that's not what I said.

Let's try again. Here's how it *feels*:

3e

A Warlock deals 1d6 per 2 levels, at range, against touch AC, once per round… with opt-in upgrades, including AoE and rider effects (like… "on fire", maybe? Darn senility).

A Rogue deals (weapon damage plus) 1d6 per 2 levels, in melee or close range, once per attack (up to… 9 attacks per round of properly buffed)… under specified conditions, against certain opponents… with opt-in ability to trade in damage for rider effects (including "reduced movement" and "cannot talk").

An übercharger deals "you're chunky red salsa" damage (with the rider of "glass cannon" AC)

A Wizard deals damage and/or status effects, to one or more targets, AoE or targeting regular or touch AC or saves or unresisted.

4e

Everyone deals 2d6 + optional rider effect.

I'm saying that the variance between 4e classes is minimal, especially compared to 3e, they're all hitting the same notes. Thus, samey.

---And---

That is not just "damage + rider" that mantra them comparatively "samey": they also operate on very samey feeling power schedules.

3e

At will, 1/round (Warlock)

At will, 1/attack (Rogue)

Vancian (Wizard)

Vancian with substitution (Cleric, Druid)

Spell slots (Sorcerer)

Mana (spell points, Psion)

"Per encounter", aka "Mana with recovery" (Psion, martial feats)

Per encounter, with recovery (Warblade)

Random access (Crusader)

Limited use per day (Cleric turn undead, barbarian rage)

(Binder)

4e

At will (everyone)

Encounter (everyone)

Rest (everyone)

4e characters lacked this kind of "flow identity", they were all samey, marching to the same beats compared to their 3e counterparts.

---And---

The optimization frame of mind when building (and playing) them is different, too:

3e

Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave… a single level dip in Barbarian for pounce… DMM Persist Divine Power… are there any prestige classes I should be aiming for? [Optional: now, how do I not be trivially shut down, and actually deal with ranged / flying / etc?]

Eh, I'll just write "Cleric" on my character sheet, and pick spells later. And I can always convert them to healing.

Oh, I *like* healing. RSoP Diplomacer? That sounds fun. What else can I find to optimize my two tricks? And cloistered Cleric sounds right up this character's alley.

Meh, religious upbringing, chosen by the gods as their Cleric. If he decides he wants into a prestige class later, he'll just have faith that he can desperately struggle to meet the prerequisites at some point. Now, how can I best play 5d Wizard's Chess with a Cleric base? Hmmm…

4e

How do I make the numbers work?

3e had a whole orchestra of mindsets playing their songs, whereas 4e is limited to a single instrument, piping out their samey dirges.

*That's* my experience with how 4e *feels* samey *in comparison to 3e*.

-----

Now, I'm actually quite curious about this "Powers produced drastically different results in play" bit. I think that, even at 1st level, we've got…

3e

Attack

Trip

Disarm

Sneak attack

Touch attacks (Warlock, thrown flasks)

AoE (burning hands)

Cleave

TWF / rapid shot / Flurry of blows

Natural attacks

Fight defensively / all-out defense

Sleep

Color Spray

Entangle

Grease

Heal

Strike + Heal (Crusader maneuver or stance)

Strike + Heal + Heal (Crusader maneuver and stance)

Aid another

+4 AC nearby allies (stance)

Dropped marbles

Attacks by familiar / animal companion / mount / undead minions / hirelings.

Not to mention flanking, higher ground, binding wounds, fighting withdraw, running… and pretty useless options like expertise, power attack, or just spending your turn looking around.

4e

???

Conventional wisdom says 4e is "hit your limited list of buttons in time with the expected tempo". Can you explain how 4e "Powers produced drastically different results in play" that doesn't look samey compared to 3e play?

[Jason]

It must be the Godwin's Law of D&D discussion: "The longer any forum discussion of what makes an RPG good proceeds, the more the chance of someone complaining at length about how bad 4th edition D&D was approaches 100%."

I never played 4th edition long enough to develop a grounded opinion on what was bad and what was good about it. I just know that my group played one adventure, decided it wasn't for us, and played 3.5 or other non-D&D games until 5th edition came out.

I thought all the characters felt the same and the game as a whole played too much like Descent or a video game. Maybe later rules mixed things up more, but the game had already lost our attention by that point.

I wish we had done the same thing with FFG Star Wars. I had deep misgivings about the mechanics after playing the Edge of Empire intro, but our GM was anxious to run the new Star Wars, the other players were willing, and I bowed to the group decision. I spent almost two years playing a system I discovered annoyed me every time I picked up those silly dice or had to spend experience points on those lousy career trees. And gaining experience only made it worse.

[Cluedrew]

Kelly and Amanda are two of my most disparate characters (don't worry I'm going somewhere with this). Kelly was attacked by assassins and managed to get them to help him fix his jeep. Amanda assaulted someone for giving her a job offer, that they knew violated the conditions of her current job but still that's not really a reason to break someone's nose. But the funny thing is: mechanically they were almost identical. Kelly had more utility skills (and a jeep) while Amanda put those points into some more offensive abilities. Their defence was identical, their equipment almost the same and so on for everything else.

My opinion on varied mechanics is simple: The mechanics don't have to make the characters different, they just have be able to express what is different about them. And since every character (I think) has the "Say what the character would say" and "Do what the character would do" abilities you have a pretty good base. Now I have agued for more in the past so I agree you can always build off of this, but in a pinch its enough.

And mixing up the rate at which character's abilities refresh is not that extra step I'm looking for... so I don't have much issue with its absence.

Spoiler: To Friv

Show

Spoiler

Show

Quertus has said that he's just doing what his character would do, and I think we should afford him the same respect we would for a player doing that at the table.

He just seemed worried that I was going to make the same comparison as I did before. This argument has a different structure so it doesn't apply. I did try to explain why so it was clear, did that come off too strong?

Also I have a post from What if it IS what my character would do? if you want to read my thoughts on the in character side of it.

[Jason]

Not to mention flanking, higher ground, binding wounds, fighting withdraw, running… and pretty useless options like expertise, power attack, or just spending your turn looking around.

Expertise and Power Attack were "useless optiins"?

[Max_Killjoy]

I gave someone the copy of the 4E PHB that I ended up with, because they needed one and I was never going to use it.

Evidently I should have kept it so that I could give examples of where different abilities were just skins on the same +XdY dice added damage, or the same resistance, or the same bonus, or same applied penalty to another character, etc.

[Tanarii]

I gave someone the copy of the 4E PHB that I ended up with, because they needed one and I was never going to use it.

Evidently I should have kept it so that I could give examples of where different abilities were just skins on the same +XdY dice added damage, or the same resistance, or the same bonus, or same applied penalty to another character, etc.

You just described three entirely different effects, which impact play in a different way.

The idea that powers were "the same" because they often, but not always, inflicted damage + some effect, is massive reductionism.

[kyoryu]

You just described three entirely different effects, which impact play in a different way.

The idea that powers were "the same" because they often, but not always, inflicted damage + some effect, is massive reductionism.

Things that are true:

1) All characters (prior to Essentials) were built on the same power gain chassis
2) Almost all powers were some level of "damage + effect".
3) All characters (prior to Essentials) had the same recharge mechanics - At-Will/Short Rest/Long Rest

In play they often played very differently, especially after the first few levels. Even different builds in the same class could play pretty differently. So it really matters where you're looking for differentiation:

1) What you're doing on a turn-by-turn basis, and what effect you can have on the battlefield?
2) How does this class gain abilities?
3) What resource management does this class do?

4E has a lot of differentiation for the first. It has very little on the second and third (a bit more post-Essentials).

Essentials had a lot of goodness. One of the funny things is how much people said "oh stances are so much better for Fighters!" They were, for nearly all practical purposes, the same thing with a minor presentation pass. Which just shows how much presentation matters

[Tanarii]

In play they often played very differently, especially after the first few levels. Even different builds in the same class could play pretty differently. So it really matters where you're looking for differentiation:

1) What you're doing on a turn-by-turn basis, and what effect you can have on the battlefield?
2) How does this class gain abilities?
3) What resource management does this class do?

Of these three, only the first and third are valid for the difference in how something feels, as opposed to how something reads on a scan of the rule book. (Edit: or as opposed to people who spend a lot of time character building for entertainment and not much playing.)

And the first absolutely dominates compared to the third. Because the third is really a subset of the first.

[kyoryu]

Of these three, only the first and third are valid for the difference in how something feels, as opposed to how something reads on a scan of the rule book. (Edit: or as opposed to people who spend a lot of time character building for entertainment and not much playing.)

And the first absolutely dominates compared to the third. Because the third is really a subset of the first.

I'd argue that.

For the second, "building characters" is really a lot of the game for some people. Feeling like it's all the same building process can suck some of the fun out of the game.

For the third, I think it's different from the first. Like, imagine two characters, One had a system of points that they had to use and manage with various abilities to keep their powers going - all their abillities had riders that changed these internal pools. Another character has a series of slots that they can use to fire off abilities that recharge on some schedule. Now, assume that both of these classes had abilities that, apart from their recharge/resource management did the exact same things to the battlefield and their targets.

By the first classification, they'd be the same. By the third, they'd be different. This is the inverse of 4e, but I think it illustrates why I think the 1st and 3rd categories aren't the same

I mean, don't get me wrong, I like 4e and I don't care for 3.x. But I think for the people that find 4e "samey" they're mostly looking at the latter two categories... which don't really matter to me, which is probably why I don't fine 4e "samey".

I also do think that the "everything does damage!" threw some people off, even though in many cases the damage is truly nominal.

To be clear - I absolutely personally agree that "what you do on a turn to turn basis, and how that impacts combat" is far and away the most relevant part of the game. But I do think there are people for whom that's just not true. And from that POV, yeah, 4e classes do look pretty similar. It can even be hard to see how the effects play out until you do it.

[Tanarii]

For the third, I think it's different from the first. Like, imagine two characters, One had a system of points that they had to use and manage with various abilities to keep their powers going - all their abillities had riders that changed these internal pools. Another character has a series of slots that they can use to fire off abilities that recharge on some schedule. Now, assume that both of these classes had abilities that, apart from their recharge/resource management did the exact same things to the battlefield and their targets.

By the first classification, they'd be the same. By the third, they'd be different. This is the inverse of 4e, but I think it illustrates why I think the 1st and 3rd categories aren't the same

Except they won't be the same. Because the resource use differences will affect player decisions on when to use them, on a turn-by-turn basis. Like I said, the third is a subset of the first.

In other words, agreed that resource management was similar (but not identical due to Psionics) for most 4e classes. And varying that would increase the difference/variations in turn-by-turn decisions.

But the turn-by-turn decision making already varied between classes due to the huge difference in power use (criteria, success rate, targets, and effect).

[Telok]

For my group D&D 4e became bad because the combats, which was most of D&D 4e anyways, kept getting slower and slower as hp outpaced damage and there were no win conditions except hp damage.

For me it was boring & samey game play in addition tobeing slow that turned me off. I played... warlock, beastform only druid, and a bard. The decision tree in combat was exactly the same for all of them* and all their powers were damage+rider or "let an ally spend a heal". Even the rituals never got used except once, a sort of darklight torch thing that enabled the human rogue to scout.

Wait, I recall the bard did have extra complexity. The powers used melee weapons and ranged weapons and an implement, and I think there was a shield. So a memorable number of wasted turns switching gear. Plus the hilarity of getting to say "bob shoots the jelly charismatically with a bow for X damage and <something rider>".

So, bad game for our group. We gave the system nearly a full year too before ditching it.

My personal metrics of good/bad have been informed by the experiences of the games I've played. That's probably the same for everyone. But I try to recognize the possible sources of bias in my experiences. D&D 4e may have been a good game by the end, after the different power formats, with the online character builder, after they finally fixed all the math errors, etc. But my experience covered the first year and a half, using only physical books. And it quickly became boring.

In a similar vein I keep reminding myself that all my D&D 5e experiences were with inexperienced DMs. That they couldn't make the system work out of the books dosen't make it a bad system for everyone or everything. Just that I shouldn't play 5e with a DM who hasn't made & learned from all the same mistakes I did when I was learning to DM AD&D. And in Champions it's always been with good, experienced DMs who would build characters for new players and have an intro set of trimmed rules to start with.

I think the only games I've played that I've never heard someone say (seriously) that they were bad systems are Paranoia and Pendragon. Some people don't enjoy them though.

* Seriously -> move? clump of enemies? use daily? use encounter? which at will? move? roll attack(s) & damage. That was it, all the decisions. Attempts to use anything but an on-sheet power were basically punished by using an off stat and not getting the bonuses that kept you relevant.

[Jason]

I think the only games I've played that I've never heard someone say (seriously) that they were bad systems are Paranoia and Pendragon. Some people don't enjoy them though.

Paranoia is a good example of a niche game. It's a very good game, and even just reading the rulebooks can be entertaining (at least, for the 2nd and XP editions, which I'm most familiar with). But it really only does its one genre, and it isn't much good for anything else. An excellent game for when you want "comedy backstabbing in a dystopia" in other words.

It also has an edition that everybody hated. The so-called 5th Edition, which the XP edition, in true Paranoia style, declared an unproduct.

[Friv]

I think the only games I've played that I've never heard someone say (seriously) that they were bad systems are Paranoia and Pendragon. Some people don't enjoy them though.

I will be the guy!

Nearly every edition of Paranoia has bad systems. They tend to have much too fiddly damage systems given the goal, there's a lot of weird edge cases that you'll never use, and there's a weirdly detailed level of bean-counting.

All of this is mitigated by the fact that Paranoia almost demands that the GM constantly ignore the rules when doing so will screw over the characters in a way that amuses the players, which means that the fact that the game system is bad doesn't tend to matter as much as it would in a game in which the players were expecting reliable results from their actions.

(The newest Paranoia leans into that with a much more chaotic and wacky game system which is more fun, but exports a lot of control from the GM to the system itself to make things feel a bit less aggressively antagonistic. YMMV.)

[Quertus]

Expertise and Power Attack were "useless optiins"?

At first level, which was the context of that statement, they were "pretty useless", yeah.

Things that are true:

1) All characters (prior to Essentials) were built on the same power gain chassis
2) Almost all powers were some level of "damage + effect".
3) All characters (prior to Essentials) had the same recharge mechanics - At-Will/Short Rest/Long Rest

In play they often played very differently, especially after the first few levels. Even different builds in the same class could play pretty differently. So it really matters where you're looking for differentiation:

1) What you're doing on a turn-by-turn basis, and what effect you can have on the battlefield?
2) How does this class gain abilities?
3) What resource management does this class do?

4E has a lot of differentiation for the first. It has very little on the second and third (a bit more post-Essentials).

Essentials had a lot of goodness. One of the funny things is how much people said "oh stances are so much better for Fighters!" They were, for nearly all practical purposes, the same thing with a minor presentation pass. Which just shows how much presentation matters

Of note, my 4e experience was almost exclusively very early on.

I'd argue that.

For the second, "building characters" is really a lot of the game for some people. Feeling like it's all the same building process can suck some of the fun out of the game.

For the third, I think it's different from the first. Like, imagine two characters, One had a system of points that they had to use and manage with various abilities to keep their powers going - all their abillities had riders that changed these internal pools. Another character has a series of slots that they can use to fire off abilities that recharge on some schedule. Now, assume that both of these classes had abilities that, apart from their recharge/resource management did the exact same things to the battlefield and their targets.

By the first classification, they'd be the same. By the third, they'd be different. This is the inverse of 4e, but I think it illustrates why I think the 1st and 3rd categories aren't the same

I mean, don't get me wrong, I like 4e and I don't care for 3.x. But I think for the people that find 4e "samey" they're mostly looking at the latter two categories... which don't really matter to me, which is probably why I don't fine 4e "samey".

I also do think that the "everything does damage!" threw some people off, even though in many cases the damage is truly nominal.

To be clear - I absolutely personally agree that "what you do on a turn to turn basis, and how that impacts combat" is far and away the most relevant part of the game. But I do think there are people for whom that's just not true. And from that POV, yeah, 4e classes do look pretty similar. It can even be hard to see how the effects play out until you do it.

I'm glad that you can see that the build minigame feels samey. Now, it sounds like you disagree with my assessment of the characters in play. Do you disagree on the notes, the tempo, or the instruments portion of my assessment? Or do you not find the notes / tempo / instruments division meaningful (or even understandable)?

EDIT: and do you feel that a core-only 1st level 4e party has anywhere near the list of valid options that I listed for 3e? (Which, apples to apples, you'd need to remove "Strike + Heal (Crusader maneuver or stance)" and "Strike + Heal + Heal (Crusader maneuver and stance)" (and likely add in lots of things I missed).)

For my group D&D 4e became bad because the combats, which was most of D&D 4e anyways, kept getting slower and slower as hp outpaced damage and there were no win conditions except hp damage.

For me it was boring & samey game play in addition tobeing slow that turned me off. I played... warlock, beastform only druid, and a bard. The decision tree in combat was exactly the same for all of them* and all their powers were damage+rider or "let an ally spend a heal". Even the rituals never got used except once, a sort of darklight torch thing that enabled the human rogue to scout.

Wait, I recall the bard did have extra complexity. The powers used melee weapons and ranged weapons and an implement, and I think there was a shield. So a memorable number of wasted turns switching gear. Plus the hilarity of getting to say "bob shoots the jelly charismatically with a bow for X damage and <something rider>".

So, bad game for our group. We gave the system nearly a full year too before ditching it.

My personal metrics of good/bad have been informed by the experiences of the games I've played. That's probably the same for everyone. But I try to recognize the possible sources of bias in my experiences. D&D 4e may have been a good game by the end, after the different power formats, with the online character builder, after they finally fixed all the math errors, etc. But my experience covered the first year and a half, using only physical books. And it quickly became boring.

* Seriously -> move? clump of enemies? use daily? use encounter? which at will? move? roll attack(s) & damage. That was it, all the decisions. Attempts to use anything but an on-sheet power were basically punished by using an off stat and not getting the bonuses that kept you relevant.

This… very much sounds like my experience with and response to 4e.

[Cluedrew]

1) What you're doing on a turn-by-turn basis, and what effect you can have on the battlefield?

Yes, because as we all know, no system has ever differentiated characters off the battlefield.

"A mercenary, a naïve mystic and a reality TV show host (with camera crew) walk into a bar." There is no punchline except for, that was the actual start of the campaign. I supposed I could add "They were later joined by a wildlife photographer and a local pilot." to round out the party. D&D only one has character concept: fighter. The fighter might get angry, be sneaky, use a bow and arrow, have some divine power or swap out there abilities every day but in the end, the fighter fights.*

And yes its a flexible and broad archetype. You can write stories where all the main characters are some variety of fighter, and I have. But disagreements about the breadth of characters in D&D always seem so weird because even is the broadest of D&D editions is a pretty specialised system in terms of the breath of character concepts. Now depth of that concept, that is pretty good I will give you that.

Â… I feel I'm missing something to tie this all together but I got to go.

* OK except for the one fighter that does everything.

[Tanarii]

Yes, because as we all know, no system has ever differentiated characters off the battlefield.

The context was 4e. And while it did provide some powers that affected out of combat, and had a skills system, and the first edition of D&D that had an non-combat rules 'structure' since BECMI, the reality IMX was most of the game was combat focused. Certainly for official play it was.

Basically, exactly the same as 3e before it and 5e after it, except neither had we a non-combat rules 'structure'.

[Cluedrew]

The things that occurred to me right after I left - to tie it all together - was actually related to that. Which is basically, as long as everyone realises we are talking about within the bounds of combat, which is actually one of many areas a character could be defined over and not the entire thing, then its fine. You can like a focused game but I ask that you remember that stuff outside of that exists. I want to try Lancer and that is very combat focused. But it also seems to recognise that more, or maybe that's just my heading.

[Telok]

The context was 4e. And while it did provide some powers that affected out of combat, and had a skills system, and the first edition of D&D that had an non-combat rules 'structure' since BECMI, the reality IMX was most of the game was combat focused. Certainly for official play it was.

Basically, exactly the same as 3e before it and 5e after it, except neither had we a non-combat rules 'structure'.

Now that's interesting. What do you consider a non-combat rules structure? Not the AD&D assassination rules or the post-10th doman rules? Not the D&D 3e skill use rules? I'm sure the Pendragon winter court and family rules count, or ShadowRun's matrix/hacking system. What about D&D 5e chase rules? How about Call of Cthulhu/BRP? I think the only general difference in that system between combat and non-combat is a turn order structure and movement limits, otherwise nothing changes.

[Jason]

Now that's interesting. What do you consider a non-combat rules structure? Not the AD&D assassination rules or the post-10th doman rules? Not the D&D 3e skill use rules? I'm sure the Pendragon winter court and family rules count, or ShadowRun's matrix/hacking system. What about D&D 5e chase rules? How about Call of Cthulhu/BRP? I think the only general difference in that system between combat and non-combat is a turn order structure and movement limits, otherwise nothing changes.

He said "the first edition of D&D that had an non-combat rules 'structure' since BECMI," so other RPGs are irrelevant to his criticism.
I thought 2nd ed AD&D had quite a few out-of-combat rules, forming what might be called a "non-combat rules structure", but I'm also interested in what he thought BECMI's non-combat rules structure was. The domain rules? The quest for immortality? Some of the Gazeteer stuff like the merchant class or the proficiency rules?

[Tanarii]

BECMI had a structure for dungeon exploration, wilderness exploration, and running domains.

I don't recall 2e having anything like it in the base rules. Certainly Birthright had a very complex structure for domain management though.

[Friv]

Now that's interesting. What do you consider a non-combat rules structure? Not the AD&D assassination rules or the post-10th doman rules? Not the D&D 3e skill use rules? I'm sure the Pendragon winter court and family rules count, or ShadowRun's matrix/hacking system. What about D&D 5e chase rules? How about Call of Cthulhu/BRP? I think the only general difference in that system between combat and non-combat is a turn order structure and movement limits, otherwise nothing changes.

I would make an argument that while D&D 3.x has a non-combat rules structure, it's not very good at differentiating characters within it. You have a set of 35 skills, some of which are critical to specific classes and some of which are niche. Most classes have barely enough skill points to take the skills that are critical to them. All resolution is d20 + Your Skill Number, with next to no feats (and only one I can think of in Core) that modify your skills or how your actions are able to play out.

The result is that everyone with a given skill does things the same way, and most characters of a given class will have nearly the same skills, so differentiation between them is quite difficult. Compare to some of the other systems you've listed, where skills are a bigger part of the game, and people's unique abilities are much more likely to tie directly into them, or even to 5e with many of its Feats providing narrative permissions to use skills in odd ways, mixed with broader general Skill access and Backgrounds making it easier to take skills that aren't part of your core role.

[kyoryu]

Yes, because as we all know, no system has ever differentiated characters off the battlefield.

A bit of a strawman, since the conversation has mostly been around battlefield stuff.

Except they won't be the same. Because the resource use differences will affect player decisions on when to use them, on a turn-by-turn basis. Like I said, the third is a subset of the first.

In other words, agreed that resource management was similar (but not identical due to Psionics) for most 4e classes. And varying that would increase the difference/variations in turn-by-turn decisions.

But the turn-by-turn decision making already varied between classes due to the huge difference in power use (criteria, success rate, targets, and effect).

I think you're kinda sidestepping the issue. Again, I said imagine a hypothetical situation where the effect was actually the same.

But that's not what I said.

Let's try again. Here's how it *feels*:

3e

A Warlock deals 1d6 per 2 levels, at range, against touch AC, once per round… with opt-in upgrades, including AoE and rider effects (like… "on fire", maybe? Darn senility).

A Rogue deals (weapon damage plus) 1d6 per 2 levels, in melee or close range, once per attack (up to… 9 attacks per round of properly buffed)… under specified conditions, against certain opponents… with opt-in ability to trade in damage for rider effects (including "reduced movement" and "cannot talk").

An übercharger deals "you're chunky red salsa" damage (with the rider of "glass cannon" AC)

A Wizard deals damage and/or status effects, to one or more targets, AoE or targeting regular or touch AC or saves or unresisted.

4e

Everyone deals 2d6 + optional rider effect.

This is flat out wrong. Flat out.

First off, classes do different damage than each other, and often between various abilities.

What's also interesting is that so many people focus on "damage + rider". When really, 3e just has three options: "damage, damage + rider, rider". 4e just added damage to all of the rider stuff.

And "let an ally heal themselves" is the same thing as "heal an ally" so I don't see why it's an issue.

I mean, presentation, and presentation matters. But practically, no.

I'm saying that the variance between 4e classes is minimal, especially compared to 3e, they're all hitting the same notes. Thus, samey.

You seem to prefer that not everything does damage. Focus on the "riders". "Give yourself temporary hit points" is not the same as "create a flaming orb on the battlefield that you can control".

That is not just "damage + rider" that mantra them comparatively "samey": they also operate on very samey feeling power schedules.
...
4e characters lacked this kind of "flow identity", they were all samey, marching to the same beats compared to their 3e counterparts.

Yes, the resource management games are very similar. No arguing that. As I said, if that's where you're looking for differentiation, 4e will disappoint.

The optimization frame of mind when building (and playing) them is different, too:

3e

Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave… a single level dip in Barbarian for pounce… DMM Persist Divine Power… are there any prestige classes I should be aiming for? [Optional: now, how do I not be trivially shut down, and actually deal with ranged / flying / etc?]

Eh, I'll just write "Cleric" on my character sheet, and pick spells later. And I can always convert them to healing.

Oh, I *like* healing. RSoP Diplomacer? That sounds fun. What else can I find to optimize my two tricks? And cloistered Cleric sounds right up this character's alley.

Meh, religious upbringing, chosen by the gods as their Cleric. If he decides he wants into a prestige class later, he'll just have faith that he can desperately struggle to meet the prerequisites at some point. Now, how can I best play 5d Wizard's Chess with a Cleric base? Hmmm…

4e

How do I make the numbers work?

While you're correct about 3.x (and whether people see that as a positive or negative is a subject of opinion), you're really mischaracterizing it. In 4e, mostly what you're looking for is how powers complement each other and combine with each other... most in terms of how the "riders" interact with each other. That's where the optimization and build stuff occurs in 4e.

Now, I'm actually quite curious about this "Powers produced drastically different results in play" bit. I think that, even at 1st level, we've got…

3e

Attack

Trip

Disarm

Sneak attack

Touch attacks (Warlock, thrown flasks)

AoE (burning hands)

Cleave

TWF / rapid shot / Flurry of blows

Natural attacks

Fight defensively / all-out defense

Sleep

Color Spray

Entangle

Grease

Heal

Strike + Heal (Crusader maneuver or stance)

Strike + Heal + Heal (Crusader maneuver and stance)

Aid another

+4 AC nearby allies (stance)

Dropped marbles

Attacks by familiar / animal companion / mount / undead minions / hirelings.

Not to mention flanking, higher ground, binding wounds, fighting withdraw, running… and pretty useless options like expertise, power attack, or just spending your turn looking around.

4e

???

Conventional wisdom says 4e is "hit your limited list of buttons in time with the expected tempo". Can you explain how 4e "Powers produced drastically different results in play" that doesn't look samey compared to 3e play?

I mean, if your benchmark is "can you do anything in 4e you could in 3e" then probably not, but I don't think that means that "any set of options less inclusive than 3.x equals samey".

It's been a while since I've played 4e, but I recall a ton of options based on the class - damage, creating zones of control (that had effects in them), self buffs in various ways (healing, creation of temporary hit points), moving enemies in various ways, teleports, blah blah blah. If I get time I'll grab some of my books later.

He said "the first edition of D&D that had an non-combat rules 'structure' since BECMI," so other RPGs are irrelevant to his criticism.
I thought 2nd ed AD&D had quite a few out-of-combat rules, forming what might be called a "non-combat rules structure", but I'm also interested in what he thought BECMI's non-combat rules structure was. The domain rules? The quest for immortality? Some of the Gazeteer stuff like the merchant class or the proficiency rules?

BECMI had a structure for dungeon exploration, wilderness exploration, and running domains.

I don't recall 2e having anything like it in the base rules. Certainly Birthright had a very complex structure for domain management though.

I would make an argument that while D&D 3.x has a non-combat rules structure, it's not very good at differentiating characters within it. You have a set of 35 skills, some of which are critical to specific classes and some of which are niche. Most classes have barely enough skill points to take the skills that are critical to them. All resolution is d20 + Your Skill Number, with next to no feats (and only one I can think of in Core) that modify your skills or how your actions are able to play out.

By "rules structure", I think Tanarii means (and I certainly do) that there's a framework with pacing, specific rules, etc. Like, early D&D had two - "explore the dungeon" (which was done in turns of 10 minutes, with specific things that happened after turns were spent), and "combat". Later, "hexcrawl" was added.

D&D 4e has two - "combat" and "skill challenge".

3.x has skills, but it doesn't have any framework to put them in. It's all left open.

[Calthropstu]

An rpg is a game. Nothing more, nothing less. A good rpg understands this and creates a game you enjoy. If you don't enjoy it, then it isn't good for you.

But if it's a good game for others, then it's a good game for them.

[Jason]

I can think of at least one non-combat rules system that 3.5 has that other editions of D&D do not have. That would be the magic item crafting system, which was not present in earlier editions and is only sort of present in 5th.
It's not the "entirely different kind of game" system that the dominion rules in the Companion set are, but if you consider the wilderness rules in BECMI a "rule system" then I think 3rd edition magic item crafting qualifies too.

[Willie the Duck]

Magic Item crafting is a weird one, because there were magic item crafting rules in most versions of the game (just not as formulaic as 3e instituted, which is definitely it's own thing). oD&D had 'spend time and gold and out comes magic items' rules in the original booklets. The only issue was it had like 7 examples and expected the DM to extrapolate from there. BX and BECMI had a permutation of the same, although I don't have the specifics in front of me. AD&D and 2e had this weird thing where the DM would decide what secret recipe was needed and what reagents were required and you'd quest to get them, then cast Permanency to bind the magic together (which cost a point of Con, which was either too expensive to consider, or trivial if you did evil-mage/magic jar shenanigans).

That said, the wilderness hex generation, encounters, and travel rules in BX are a perfect case of elegant simplicity in game design. I know a lot of people just treated them as useful for random generation, but they can do an amazing amount to shape the game world and how a small group of characters would interact with it. What it doesn't do, and this is something I think D&D has struggled with the whole time, is make wilderness adventure engaging. AD&D's Wilderness Survival Guide tried, but by not adding any metrics outside encumbrance for supplies and hit points, it just ended up being a way to possibly start the wilderness combats with below-max hp.

[kyoryu]

I can think of at least one non-combat rules system that 3.5 has that other editions of D&D do not have. That would be the magic item crafting system, which was not present in earlier editions and is only sort of present in 5th.
It's not the "entirely different kind of game" system that the dominion rules in the Companion set are, but if you consider the wilderness rules in BECMI a "rule system" then I think 3rd edition magic item crafting qualifies too.

1e had magic item crafting, at least.

[PhoenixPhyre]

AD&D and 2e had this weird thing where the DM would decide what secret recipe was needed and what reagents were required and you'd quest to get them, then cast Permanency to bind the magic together (which cost a point of Con, which was either too expensive to consider, or trivial if you did evil-mage/magic jar shenanigans).

Which is, interestingly enough (to me at least), basically the same as 5e, except instead of Permanency you're paying gold and time. So a hybrid of oD&D and AD&D/2e. No CON cost, and don't even have to be a spellcaster. That's right, anyone with the right tool proficiency can create magic items. The cost and time are fixed, but the recipe and "special component" are up to the DM, although there's guidance on the estimated CR you should be up against for each rarity step of item. The recipes themselves have to be quested for/received as rewards, so the gating is up to the DM.

[Tanarii]

I think you're kinda sidestepping the issue. Again, I said imagine a hypothetical situation where the effect was actually the same.

I'm not sidestepping it. I'm saying different resource usage will affect turn-by-turn usage.

I can think of at least one non-combat rules system that 3.5 has that other editions of D&D do not have. That would be the magic item crafting system, which was not present in earlier editions and is only sort of present in 5th.
It's not the "entirely different kind of game" system that the dominion rules in the Companion set are, but if you consider the wilderness rules in BECMI a "rule system" then I think 3rd edition magic item crafting qualifies too.

I'm really thinking about a structure for resolution of play activities. Not so much downtime activities.

But fair enough, because domain management falls into the same category of "rules for how much time and cost a background thing need".