Discussing 4e Subsystems: POWERS!

pemerton said:

Playing your way - locking in the flavour while free-forming the mechanics - will I think give a very different experience from 4e, perhaps something closer to OD&D or early AD&D.

Click to expand...

I'm finding that I'm approaching running 4E with a completely different mindset to how I approached running 3E/3.5.

Let's say there we have a rogue with a +1 rapier, facing an orc.

The player alternatively says "I stab him with my rapier!" or "I kick him in the groin!"

In 3.5, I would have him make an attack roll with a +1 enhancement bonus, dealing 1d6+1 (+ Str) lethal damage for the rapier, or an attack roll with no enhancement bonus, dealing 1d3 (+ Str) non-lethal damage (and provoking an AoO) for the kick.

In 4E, I'll assume that the rapier is the Accessory for the power he's using (Sly Flourish, say), and I'll include the rapier's proficiency bonus and enhancement bonus in the attack roll, and he'll use d8 for [W]... for either the stab or the kick. The cinematic description is flavour; the mechanics of the power are the same either way.

Now, if the rogue doesn't have a rapier, and says "I kick him in the groin!", I won't let him use Sly Flourish, or Sneak Attack - he doesn't have a weapon to use as an Accessory for the power that meets the Light Blade requirement. With no weapon, the kick in the groin is an unarmed attack, so no proficiency bonus, no enhancement bonus, and [W] is a d4.

So the mechanics of "I kick him in the groin!" change, depending on whether or not he is holding a rapier.

I would never have run 3E that way. But if I ran a 3E game today... I'd now consider doing it like that.

As an in-game example - the Ranger PC was fighting a dinosaur, in a jungle clearing. He said "I throw my chakram up into the tree above the dinosaur, to cut loose two of the big spiky gourd-fruits, so they fall on his head."

If I'd been running this in 3.5 a year ago? I'd have accepted that there were big spiky fruits in the tree - that's cool. Then I would have assigned an AC to hit the stalks in order to drop the fruit. Assuming the attack roll hit, then I'd have had to figure out if they hit the dinosaur, and how much damage a falling spiky fruit deals. I probably would have given the dinosaur a Reflex save with an on-the-spot arbitrarily-assigned DC, and picked a damage figure that seemed reasonable.

In 4E? He rolled his Twin Strike using the chakram as the Accessory, and hit the dinosaur's AC with one attack roll and missed with the other. So one spiky fruit fell, and hit the dinosaur dealing chakram damage.

A year ago in 3.5, it wouldn't have occurred to me to assign the dinosaur's AC as the target DC for cutting a spiky fruit, or to assign the chakram's damage to the fruit. What about the range increments to the fruit? What about the size modifier? The fruit is Tiny, the dinosaur is Large! The dinosaur has a Dex modifier of +1, but the fruit is an immobile object with a Dex modifier of -5!

But if I ran the same scene in 3.5 today, I'd be tempted to do exactly that.

-Hyp.

pemerton said:

Well, it's not artificial in the real world - it's part of game balance. And it's not artificial in the gameworld - the explanation for 1x/encounter in the gameworld has nothing to do with the metagame constraints of the rules, but some ingame explanation. So provided that one keeps game and metagame separate it's not artificial.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm following you here ...

From these comments it sounds like you don't enjoy keeping game and metagame separate. So 4e probably won't work for you.

Click to expand...

Again, I don't really know what you mean by keeping game and metagame separate. I suppose we need to start by defining "metagame".

it can sometime lead to tedium

Click to expand...

4e can sometimes lead to tedium as well.

and most of all it means the player can never guarantee that the narrative turns out in such a way as to make his/her PC look cool rather than hopeless

Click to expand...

How does one guarantee this in 4e? I can still miss with my powers ... and if I miss with my encounter powers, then I'm screwed (whereas if I miss with a daily, chances are it'll still have some effect - which is, I suppose, your point).

If you are looking for a fantasy RPG which doesn't force a game/metagame separation, and which has fairly straightforward mechanics with flexible character build and action resolution, but also has some features built in to try and keep it towards the cinematic rather than the gritty end of the spectrum, you might want to take a look at HARP.

Click to expand...

I've already found the perfect RPG system for me. It's called the Star Wars Roleplaying Game Saga Edition. All I have to do is convert those mechanics to a fantasy setting (a la The Gneech's Sword & Sorcery Saga conversion), and I'll be a happy chappy indeed. However, at the moment, I'm taking a much-needed break from GMing all together.

ProfessorCirno said:

Only it's not his problem, and no matter how deep your fingers can go into your ears (Mine can hardly scratch the surface), it doesn't change that the problem is the dearth in explanations. You can rant until you're blue in the face and bring up your hilarious relationship tidbits as much as you want - the problem is with the lack of explanations, not with someone asking FOR an explanation.

Click to expand...

Thanks.



EDIT: I just wanted to comment on my first ever game of 4e as a player (rather than the DM). I won't say that I didn't enjoy the experience overall. My barbarian dealt the killing blow against the white dragon we were fighting, so that of course was very satisfying. But I will say that I had a bit of difficulty remembering all the little bits and pieces in the heat of the moment. I have a bloodclaw weapon and I kept forgetting to use it, for instance. I also forgot to use some of my built-in barbarian features from time to time. There's a lot to remember. I don't recall having this much difficulty with my SWSE character. SWSE's a lot simpler. I guess maybe what I'm getting at is that having more options in combat is not necessarily a good thing - at least for me. And, unfortunately, it is not possible to play a simple character in 4e (unless, of course, you choose not to use any of your powers and just stick with your basic attacks, as one of my group's former players did). Everyone's essentially a spellcaster, with all the added complexity and extra bookkeeping that that entails.

pukunui said:

I don't really know what you mean by keeping game and metagame separate.

Click to expand...

Simple example - in 3E or 4e character creation, I as a player make certain choices in accordance with the rules (what race to be, what sex to be, etc) which do not in any way correlate to actions by my PC in the gameworld (except in certain games of Lamaist reincarnation, people in the gameworld don't get to choose race or sex). This is a clear separation between game (the PC in the gameworld) and metagame (the player's choices according to the game rules, which are motivated by the player's desires and not the PC's desires) which is not controversial for most players. Note that a game like Runequest or Classic Traveller does not have such a distinction - character generation in those games (roughly) simulates certain sociological phenomena within the gameworld.

Whereas most players are comfortable with game/metagame separation in character creation, many don't like it in character development (and so eg will object to multiclassing without a long ingame training period) and even more don't like it in action resolution - whereas 4e virtually requires it in action resolution (eg Come and Get It really only makes sense if my purposes and decision in using it as a player are explicitly understood as not representing purposes and decisions of my PC - they are purely metagame purposes).

pukunui said:

I can still miss with my powers ... and if I miss with my encounter powers, then I'm screwed (whereas if I miss with a daily, chances are it'll still have some effect - which is, I suppose, your point).

Click to expand...

There are effets, like you say. And even when I don't do damage I don't have to narrate it as my character being ineffectual - for example, because of the greater flexibility in hit-point interpretation, I can say (for example) that my player hits and wounds the foe, but that this just makes the foe more angry (and thus no hit points are lost as no resolve is undermined).

Hypersmurf said:

I'm finding that I'm approaching running 4E with a completely different mindset to how I approached running 3E/3.5.

<snip examples of interaction between colour and mechanics>

Click to expand...

All that you say makes sense. But I'm not sure that that is what Bagger245 had in mind - s/he seemed to be talking about keeping the flavour of powers constant but changing the mechanics, whereas all your examples depend upon varying the flavour of powers radically, so that a given power can stand in for many different ingame events.

The funny thing is, "the spamming" of a specific special manoeuver (spiked chain tripper FTW) I always found harder to conceptualize than the once per encounter or once per day mechanic.

In fiction, I always found it more likely that the protoganist would pull off their special manoeuver/trick once per combat. Not endlessly repeat it as if they're fighting against a straw dummy.

Then again, the fact that in fiction, a special move/trick will either end the fight immediately or will fail and the opponent kills the initiator doesn't work well with the HP model of D&D.

The closest I found to this was the Tactical feats but tactical feats have their own problem (really hard to balance what is a good or poor tactical feat).

AllisterH said:

The funny thing is, "the spamming" of a specific special manoeuver (spiked chain tripper FTW) I always found harder to conceptualize than the once per encounter or once per day mechanic.

In fiction, I always found it more likely that the protoganist would pull off their special manoeuver/trick once per combat. Not endlessly repeat it as if they're fighting against a straw dummy.

Then again, the fact that in fiction, a special move/trick will either end the fight immediately or will fail and the opponent kills the initiator doesn't work well with the HP model of D&D.

The closest I found to this was the Tactical feats but tactical feats have their own problem (really hard to balance what is a good or poor tactical feat).

Click to expand...

The problem is D&D isn't fiction. It is not some predestined story where the author decides what happens. The DM doesn't just tell a story to a grou of people and call them players to just watch the action.

In a real combat situation you can and sometimes do use the same "trick" over and over when it is found to be effective on the opponent.

Someone weak against a left hook, why only use it once? That is what the powers are truly representing is a limit on effectiveness to be able to use a tactic that works, and limit what tactics you can do.

Say someone wants to play D&D to start and doesn't understand the rules? That person wants to club someone over the head with a hammer because the opponent appears to have weak defenses to that region of the body.

Well they get one use of the Crushing Blow feat. Now the next time they try it, they get little to nothing for the effort.

No the first hit to the top of the head did enough to cause a status effect, but somehow it prevents any further bad things happening when getting hit on the head with a hammer, and from that point on all possible effort put into adding to the previous injury is rendered moot or less effective while the opponent can still NOT defend that region of his body?

If the powers are trying to imitate a novel, then there is a major flaw in them, because people don't play novels, and a set of rules for a game, should not be made to write novels.

The more times you hit someone in the head with a hammer, the more damage will be done each time, not less.

ProfessorCirno said:

Only it's not his problem, and no matter how deep your fingers can go into your ears (Mine can hardly scratch the surface), it doesn't change that the problem is the dearth in explanations. You can rant until you're blue in the face and bring up your hilarious relationship tidbits as much as you want - the problem is with the lack of explanations, not with someone asking FOR an explanation.

Click to expand...

Detailed explanations and examples of how the power use limitations can be handled in game is sticking your fingers in your ears? Curious...

Pointing out that people trying to rationalize the power limits should look forward (what situation am I in, what can I do?) instead of backwards (why can't i do that again) is irrational ranting? Curiouser still...

Considering the 4e crowd doesn't have a problem with it, and doesn't generally have a need to rationalize it, which is easy to do if you do have a need, yeah, I'll stick to saying its not a problem of the design or system, but of an individual with a shortcoming in the area of imagination, a central component of the hobby. Such rationalizations have always been a part of playing the game in your head. That you suddenly find a line where you can't seem to will yourself past it is your problem, not anyone else's. "I shouldn't have to" is exactly contrary to the very nature of RPGs. You should. You either can or your can't. If you can't, find something else to play.

Yeah. Having to disregard or justify various logical incongruities is simply par for the course in role-play gaming. Or in reading fiction. Or watching movies. If you pay critical attention to every possible "why did/didn't THAT happen there?" moment in every film, book, video game, or tabletop RPG session, there's no way to immerse yourself into the story, because EVERY game and story I've ever seen is FULL, on a constant basis, of slightly to extremely silly or unbelievable contrivances for the sake of drama.

How many movies or books have you seen where the protagonist was clearly capable of doing some very effective thing to solve an immediate problem, but didn't do so, for seeming no reason at all?

"Oh my god, Clark, you have the power to move so fast that it's as though time itself had stopped! Why are you standing there trying to talk down the crazy bad guy? Just zoom over there and knock the gun out of his hand in the billionth of a second it would take you, before he or anyone else could twitch a muscle!"

Apparently it's an encounter power.

Taking it down a different road, how about watching boxing, or martial arts tournaments, or even professional sports of any kind? You see the fighters/athletes do some pretty awesome stuff sometimes. Amazing moves that they've spent so much time practicing and training, and when they do them, it has a major impact on the match/game, and that moment gets played over and over again on highlight reels.

Why don't they just do that EVERY ROUND? I mean, seriously.

"That wicked awesome ducking leg sweep followed by jumping spin kick to the head combo was hella cool, man! You should totally do that all the time! Why are you messing around with all of these boring little jabs and such? If you know how to do that sweet move, you should just ALWAYS use that!"

Apparently, it's an encounter power.

"Nice touchdown! The way you jumped up in the air amid three defenders, snatched the ball out of a sea of hands, pulled it in tight to your body and then weaved through countless attempted tackles as you hurtled down the field in an amazing display of speed and agility, zig-zagging back and forth, stiff-arming, rolling, and jumping your way down 80 yards of field for an incredible score . . . that was great! So, you should clearly do that every time you get the ball. Get to it!"

Apparently, that one's a daily power.

I've seen Tiger Woods hit a hole-in-one before, in extremely poor visibility, after a very long day of golfing. It was pretty awesome. I wonder why he doesn't do that every time? It must be the sinister 4th Edition ruleset keeping him down! I can't even watch the PGA Tour anymore without my suspension of disbelief being ruined....

Seriously though, there are endless examples of times I've watched a show, or read a story, and thought, "What the hell, protagonist? Why don't you just do X?" Or, "There's no way that THAT would happen. X would clearly prevent it, based on the reality of the world as it's been presented to us." But in order to enjoy the fiction, we have to learn to ignore a lot of those seeming contradictions, and to accept the oft-times feeble and contrived justifications we are given to explain them (or invent our own!).

This is just the nature of indulging in imaginative fantasy, in storytelling, whether it's non-interactive fiction, or a game in which we control the heroes. Every RPG we ever play asks this of us. If you know of some game system out there which manages to perfectly model an utterly realistic (yet unreal!) world, where everything that happens always makes total sense, please point me to it.

But I don't think there is one, nor will there ever be. Any one of us could pick equally huge holes in the weaknesses of logic and verisimilitude in ANY game system. To point at one in particular (4E for example) and suggest that it is somehow unreasonably disconnected from expected "reality" compared to the rest of the genre is simply unfair -- a deliberate choice to nitpick, in my estimation.

If you can ignore or rationalize the million other ridiculous things that one needs to in order to immerse oneself in an RPG (or any fiction), you can ignore or rationalize the little fact that Joe Hero can't do his Super Cool, Practically Impossible Ultra Awesome Move any darn time he feels like it.

firesnakearies said:

"Oh my god, Clark, you have the power to move so fast that it's as though time itself had stopped! Why are you standing there trying to talk down the crazy bad guy? Just zoom over there and knock the gun out of his hand in the billionth of a second it would take you, before he or anyone else could twitch a muscle!"

Apparently it's an encounter power.

Click to expand...

"That wicked awesome ducking leg sweep followed by jumping spin kick to the head combo was hella cool, man! You should totally do that all the time! Why are you messing around with all of these boring little jabs and such? If you know how to do that sweet move, you should just ALWAYS use that!"

Apparently, it's an encounter power.

Click to expand...

I've seen Tiger Woods hit a hole-in-one before, in extremely poor visibility, after a very long day of golfing. It was pretty awesome. I wonder why he doesn't do that every time? It must be the sinister 4th Edition ruleset keeping him down! I can't even watch the PGA Tour anymore without my suspension of disbelief being ruined....

Click to expand...

Every RPG we ever play asks this of us. If you know of some game system out there which manages to perfectly model an utterly realistic (yet unreal!) world, where everything that happens always makes total sense, please point me to it.

But I don't think there is one, nor will there ever be. Any one of us could pick equally huge holes in the weaknesses of logic and verisimilitude in ANY game system. To point at one in particular (4E for example) and suggest that it is somehow unreasonably disconnected from expected "reality" compared to the rest of the genre is simply unfair -- a deliberate choice to nitpick, in my estimation.

Click to expand...

If you can ignore or rationalize the million other ridiculous things that one needs to in order to immerse oneself in an RPG (or any fiction), you can ignore or rationalize the little fact that Joe Hero can't do his Super Cool, Practically Impossible Ultra Awesome Move any darn time he feels like it.

Click to expand...

Now THAT was a rant. And a great one at that. Very nice post, sir.

And some very valid points and examples. That's easily the best response to this imaginary problem I've seen.

justanobody said:

Say someone wants to play D&D to start and doesn't understand the rules? That person wants to club someone over the head with a hammer because the opponent appears to have weak defenses to that region of the body.

Well they get one use of the Crushing Blow feat. Now the next time they try it, they get little to nothing for the effort.

Click to expand...

They can try it all they want. Crushing Blow represents that one opening and that solid hit. Other times are basic attacks, reaping strikes, less effective because the blows are partially blocked, turned aside, glanced, etc. Crushing Blow is the shot you got in when you really pulled it off.

The example above from MMA really is a good one. MMA fighters have an impressive arsenal of tools, some truly spectacular stuff - spinning heel kicks, omoplatas, flying armbars, single move mount reversals, but you don't see this stuff in every fight even from the guys who specialize in it. In a fight you act to create opportunity and you react to opportunity. You can't just run out, jump in the air, and flying armbar everyone. Everything has to be right to even have a shot, and most of the time its not going to work. A spinning heel kick is a slow move, easy to spot, easy to block, but if delivered in exactly the right situation, its a knockout for about anyone. The fighter can't just stand in the center of the ring and do it over and over again.

Encounters/dailies represent an abstraction of how often a fighter can create or respond to the fight conditions in spectacular ways. They may try some of those moves frequently, like hitting someone with an overhead hammer blow, but it rarely works in such a way that you get to do Crushing Blow or Brute Strike damage. That doesn't mean you can't swing your hammer overhead anymore.

The more times you hit someone in the head with a hammer, the more damage will be done each time, not less.

Click to expand...

D&D doesn't represent someone getting hit in the head with a warhammer over and over again. One solid, full on hit would kill just about anyone. It represents attempting to hit someone on the head over and over again with varying degrees of effect (ranging from brute strike to basic attacks).