![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexandraerinI've heard people saying that 5E completely scrapped everything that 4E did, and when I read the basic guide and then the PHB, I really couldn't believe that this was the general impression. Yeah, the presentation is more old school, but they've incorporated so much of 4E's overall sensibilities and ideas.
And the other day, I think I hit upon the word that sums up the real big difference between 4E and 5E, and I think it's the word that is the substance at the heart of a lot of the grumbling about 4E being "video gamey" or "non-immersive".
The word is interface.
4E, in its quest to standardize information and make sure you always had your options at your fingerprints, created a much more obvious, visible, and tangible interface between the players and their characters, between the players and the world.
When I talk about this, I'm not talking about the computerization of the game. Or even the physical props like cards and tokens that they were pushing. I'm talking about the system itself, and the assumptions it made about how the players would interact with the game.
And it was meant to simplify things, but it was often confusing. Because players didn't just need to understand the game, they needed to understand the interface. They need to internalize what the colors on the colorful cards/stat blocks mean, what the things encoded in the keywords mean, et cetera.
And the interface has always been there... dice and character sheets and sometimes maps and sometimes maps and minis, use of game-specific or hobby-specific standardized notations, et cetera.
At times it's been klunkier and more cumbersome than others (looking at you, 2nd Edition AD&D), but it's always had a relatively low profile. Then 4E came along and made the interface a huge part of the game.
And it worked for me. It worked for a lot of people. I had the mental connection that the interface was not the game, and the interface didn't get in the way of the game for me. But in retrospect and when I compare it to 5E, I can see how the interface had the ability to distract from the game, to slow the game, to slow the learning process for people who weren't getting the interface.
While there's a lot to be said about the way 5E is written towards newbies versus the way that 4E was presented (essentially, like a puzzle with no edge pieces... if you don't already know what the picture is supposed to be, how would you even know where to start?), I think that shifting the focus back away from the interface made a big difference in making this newbie-friendliness possible.
It's something to keep in mind with my own game design experiments. I spent a lot of time emulating the interface of 4E because I saw it as an integral part of the ideas it supported. I was already re-examining that assumption before I gave 5E a proper hearing, but now I think it can be completely laid to rest.
And the other day, I think I hit upon the word that sums up the real big difference between 4E and 5E, and I think it's the word that is the substance at the heart of a lot of the grumbling about 4E being "video gamey" or "non-immersive".
The word is interface.
4E, in its quest to standardize information and make sure you always had your options at your fingerprints, created a much more obvious, visible, and tangible interface between the players and their characters, between the players and the world.
When I talk about this, I'm not talking about the computerization of the game. Or even the physical props like cards and tokens that they were pushing. I'm talking about the system itself, and the assumptions it made about how the players would interact with the game.
And it was meant to simplify things, but it was often confusing. Because players didn't just need to understand the game, they needed to understand the interface. They need to internalize what the colors on the colorful cards/stat blocks mean, what the things encoded in the keywords mean, et cetera.
And the interface has always been there... dice and character sheets and sometimes maps and sometimes maps and minis, use of game-specific or hobby-specific standardized notations, et cetera.
At times it's been klunkier and more cumbersome than others (looking at you, 2nd Edition AD&D), but it's always had a relatively low profile. Then 4E came along and made the interface a huge part of the game.
And it worked for me. It worked for a lot of people. I had the mental connection that the interface was not the game, and the interface didn't get in the way of the game for me. But in retrospect and when I compare it to 5E, I can see how the interface had the ability to distract from the game, to slow the game, to slow the learning process for people who weren't getting the interface.
While there's a lot to be said about the way 5E is written towards newbies versus the way that 4E was presented (essentially, like a puzzle with no edge pieces... if you don't already know what the picture is supposed to be, how would you even know where to start?), I think that shifting the focus back away from the interface made a big difference in making this newbie-friendliness possible.
It's something to keep in mind with my own game design experiments. I spent a lot of time emulating the interface of 4E because I saw it as an integral part of the ideas it supported. I was already re-examining that assumption before I gave 5E a proper hearing, but now I think it can be completely laid to rest.