Justice and Rule
Hero
Alright, so the rest of my day was rough and I didn't manage to get my previous post in before things happened in the thread. So I'm just going to use this post to create clarity around points given how they have been twisted in the argument.
First off, I didn't think the whole "Marking" thing would become a complete fustercluck, but here we are. I want to go back to my original point: that Marking is meant to create a real tactical consideration that is very hard to actually do in turn-based systems. The main argument against it is obviously about suspension of disbelief with possible artifacts of the game, though I find these split into two categories: overall realism and edge cases. The latter to me doesn't really matter that much: that oozes can be marked just isn't a big deal and these sorts of things can be found in any game. I don't find them to be deal breakers.
I find the realism argument to be a bit more pertinent, but also flawed: turn-based combat already has a bunch of problems that make asking for full simulationism impossible, and thus I find trying to get the general "feel" to be much more important. My example would be something my group has termed the "empty space" problem. I'm going to use some pictures because I think it's way easier to show rather than explain through text.
So here we have 8 characters in a small box. Now let's move one guy across to the open square.
Boom. No problem. Now let's start doing a few more moves.
So maybe you see where I'm going with this, maybe you don't. But let's say I continue the full cycle with all 8 guys. In the rules, there should be no problems. However, there's a very real problem with this: you have 8 people cycling through a 5 foot square in 6 seconds in a frankly impossible way. That action would be difficult (if not impossible) for a professional dance team, let alone a bunch of D&D mooks. But this is totally possible to do in the game because in a game, you either in a space or you are not; there's no "beaten path" where someone is currently moving through where they could potentially collide like football players.
Now, am I proposing we starting using impulse rules or some other fix? Hell no, because you're just not going to fix that problem in a turn-based system (without a Phoenix Command-level of rules and detail). You kind of have to deal with people being able to spontaneously move through areas like they were an elite SWAT team stacking and breaching a door. While you can (rather easily) create unrealistic artifacts in the system, it's outweighed because you can keep the general feel of combat correct with turn-based movement and a few additions.
I have a similar view of marking. It's trying to solve a complicated problem that D&D generally does not deal with but I think is interesting: the idea of threat and interference. It's really easy for GMs (even ones who are trying to be favorable to players) to ignore fighters in favor of hammering easier targets. You can just run past them and, outside a possible AoO, you can hammer that mage without problem.
Marking creates something closer to real life, where someone could actively threaten/distract/interfere/occupy someone in a way that makes it difficult to just immediately choose the easy target. The idea of a "defender" suddenly works in a way that it just didn't previously, and you create interesting situations that have verisimilitude with what we associate with combat: if a mage is in trouble, a Fighter can run in, hit a guy, and suddenly occupy that guy in a way that he just can't in other editions. It's only for 6 seconds (as @EzekielRaiden pointed out), so if you run away it's only a temporary thing. But if you stay and continue marking someone, it gives this idea of a Fighter really locking into combat with someone in a way that doesn't happen in other editions. And while people can complain about the idea of "distracting" an ooze, I think the second half of that equation (being able to respond to attacks) to absolutely be something characterful and realistic.
To move to a second point, I wanted to make clear something on mechanics and hidden complexity, because I feel that it got completely twisted and strawman'd in a way that my actual line of argumentation was lost. I want to say that I do think that 4E is the more complex of the two games; unequivocally, it has more moving parts, more modifiers, and it wants you engaging with that complexity to succeed.
The complexity of 5E, though, is more frustrating because it's more on the backend. While there might be fewer rules, having fewer rules doesn't mean that there are fewer rules interactions, and what 5E has done is largely individualize most things about the game: there are few universal systems governing the creation of classes, spells, monster effects, etc. Obviously there is some level of unified structure, but not in the way of 4E or even a Pathfinder 2. What happens is that there are a lot more interactions between things that are not really accounted for, and thus the GM has to deal with them.
This is what I mean by "unintended crunch". You have to learn a whole lot more individualized information because there's really no assurances that any two things will work on the same principles. This is big in spells, but perhaps most important in character-building, where there are big trap options (subclasses and arguably a class or two) as well as powerful combinations. If you're a GM, you have to be aware of how these combinations are going to work, and (as I did) work with players who really want to try something with a class that is not exactly great (I'm sure people can figure out which one that is). And it's alright to do that, but I find having to do that to be more of a failing of the game rather than representing a strength.
This is where creating more rules can paradoxically cut down on complexity. Giving more guidelines, creating systems that standardize certain effects or rules can be very helpful in creating that upfront complexity that reduces the backend complexity that generally happens "in the moment" and can slow down a game. For example, 4E's power system means that every player is going to know how all classes function: their individual roles and powers will be the different, but they'll understand how to play powers, the value of Encounter and Daily Powers, and how to build a character.
Let me be clear: I don't think it's badwrongfun to have the sort of backend complexity of 5E. I just disagree with people who talk about a "lack of complexity": rather, I find that it's more that 5E just doesn't actively shine a light on it.
As a related matter, I find that giving structure can be helpful to players and GM. You don't have to put out a bunch of hard rules for everything, but having clear guidelines for judging how to give things can be helpful. One of the first things I found was problematic for my players was them just not knowing what their skills could really do. I ended up copying the 4E skill usages, and that was useful for giving them an idea of what they could do with their skills instead of asking me all the time if they could do something. It's good that an open system can work for some, but I like not having to some set skill usages instead of having to litigate everything.
And I know I got accused of this, but I'd like to say I don't hate 5E. I enjoyed it for quite a while, but I've found it more tiring over the last few years more than anything. It's a fine game, but I find that it's got a lot of flaws that are glossed over (even by myself, as I know I argued with @EzekielRaiden and @Neonchameleon on other boards about it) when brought up. I'm not really a super 4E fan, either, as I have very limited experience with it (though I might be getting my first long-term game of it off the ground; I'll know in a few weeks). It still has a lot of classes I find to be very cool and interesting, even if they have some really notable flops in there.
First off, I didn't think the whole "Marking" thing would become a complete fustercluck, but here we are. I want to go back to my original point: that Marking is meant to create a real tactical consideration that is very hard to actually do in turn-based systems. The main argument against it is obviously about suspension of disbelief with possible artifacts of the game, though I find these split into two categories: overall realism and edge cases. The latter to me doesn't really matter that much: that oozes can be marked just isn't a big deal and these sorts of things can be found in any game. I don't find them to be deal breakers.
I find the realism argument to be a bit more pertinent, but also flawed: turn-based combat already has a bunch of problems that make asking for full simulationism impossible, and thus I find trying to get the general "feel" to be much more important. My example would be something my group has termed the "empty space" problem. I'm going to use some pictures because I think it's way easier to show rather than explain through text.
So here we have 8 characters in a small box. Now let's move one guy across to the open square.
Boom. No problem. Now let's start doing a few more moves.
So maybe you see where I'm going with this, maybe you don't. But let's say I continue the full cycle with all 8 guys. In the rules, there should be no problems. However, there's a very real problem with this: you have 8 people cycling through a 5 foot square in 6 seconds in a frankly impossible way. That action would be difficult (if not impossible) for a professional dance team, let alone a bunch of D&D mooks. But this is totally possible to do in the game because in a game, you either in a space or you are not; there's no "beaten path" where someone is currently moving through where they could potentially collide like football players.
Now, am I proposing we starting using impulse rules or some other fix? Hell no, because you're just not going to fix that problem in a turn-based system (without a Phoenix Command-level of rules and detail). You kind of have to deal with people being able to spontaneously move through areas like they were an elite SWAT team stacking and breaching a door. While you can (rather easily) create unrealistic artifacts in the system, it's outweighed because you can keep the general feel of combat correct with turn-based movement and a few additions.
I have a similar view of marking. It's trying to solve a complicated problem that D&D generally does not deal with but I think is interesting: the idea of threat and interference. It's really easy for GMs (even ones who are trying to be favorable to players) to ignore fighters in favor of hammering easier targets. You can just run past them and, outside a possible AoO, you can hammer that mage without problem.
Marking creates something closer to real life, where someone could actively threaten/distract/interfere/occupy someone in a way that makes it difficult to just immediately choose the easy target. The idea of a "defender" suddenly works in a way that it just didn't previously, and you create interesting situations that have verisimilitude with what we associate with combat: if a mage is in trouble, a Fighter can run in, hit a guy, and suddenly occupy that guy in a way that he just can't in other editions. It's only for 6 seconds (as @EzekielRaiden pointed out), so if you run away it's only a temporary thing. But if you stay and continue marking someone, it gives this idea of a Fighter really locking into combat with someone in a way that doesn't happen in other editions. And while people can complain about the idea of "distracting" an ooze, I think the second half of that equation (being able to respond to attacks) to absolutely be something characterful and realistic.
To move to a second point, I wanted to make clear something on mechanics and hidden complexity, because I feel that it got completely twisted and strawman'd in a way that my actual line of argumentation was lost. I want to say that I do think that 4E is the more complex of the two games; unequivocally, it has more moving parts, more modifiers, and it wants you engaging with that complexity to succeed.
The complexity of 5E, though, is more frustrating because it's more on the backend. While there might be fewer rules, having fewer rules doesn't mean that there are fewer rules interactions, and what 5E has done is largely individualize most things about the game: there are few universal systems governing the creation of classes, spells, monster effects, etc. Obviously there is some level of unified structure, but not in the way of 4E or even a Pathfinder 2. What happens is that there are a lot more interactions between things that are not really accounted for, and thus the GM has to deal with them.
This is what I mean by "unintended crunch". You have to learn a whole lot more individualized information because there's really no assurances that any two things will work on the same principles. This is big in spells, but perhaps most important in character-building, where there are big trap options (subclasses and arguably a class or two) as well as powerful combinations. If you're a GM, you have to be aware of how these combinations are going to work, and (as I did) work with players who really want to try something with a class that is not exactly great (I'm sure people can figure out which one that is). And it's alright to do that, but I find having to do that to be more of a failing of the game rather than representing a strength.
This is where creating more rules can paradoxically cut down on complexity. Giving more guidelines, creating systems that standardize certain effects or rules can be very helpful in creating that upfront complexity that reduces the backend complexity that generally happens "in the moment" and can slow down a game. For example, 4E's power system means that every player is going to know how all classes function: their individual roles and powers will be the different, but they'll understand how to play powers, the value of Encounter and Daily Powers, and how to build a character.
Let me be clear: I don't think it's badwrongfun to have the sort of backend complexity of 5E. I just disagree with people who talk about a "lack of complexity": rather, I find that it's more that 5E just doesn't actively shine a light on it.
As a related matter, I find that giving structure can be helpful to players and GM. You don't have to put out a bunch of hard rules for everything, but having clear guidelines for judging how to give things can be helpful. One of the first things I found was problematic for my players was them just not knowing what their skills could really do. I ended up copying the 4E skill usages, and that was useful for giving them an idea of what they could do with their skills instead of asking me all the time if they could do something. It's good that an open system can work for some, but I like not having to some set skill usages instead of having to litigate everything.
And I know I got accused of this, but I'd like to say I don't hate 5E. I enjoyed it for quite a while, but I've found it more tiring over the last few years more than anything. It's a fine game, but I find that it's got a lot of flaws that are glossed over (even by myself, as I know I argued with @EzekielRaiden and @Neonchameleon on other boards about it) when brought up. I'm not really a super 4E fan, either, as I have very limited experience with it (though I might be getting my first long-term game of it off the ground; I'll know in a few weeks). It still has a lot of classes I find to be very cool and interesting, even if they have some really notable flops in there.
Last edited:
