D&D 4E D&D4e Social interactions, the Sweet Spot and Advancement

Hope the game went well yesterday. I REALLY wish I was there instead of at work. I worked 9:30 to 6:30 then 10:30 to 1 a.m. This really sucks.

I have been browsing the 4e tidbits and I was in that press conference at Gen Con and so far I have yet to be blown away by what I am hearing, mechanics wise. It might be the hottest game since sliced bread but the thought of abandoning 3.5e puts me in a foul mood in a way that 1st to 2nd never did nor did 2nd to 3e.

I basically considered both of those to be moves from very flawed games to better games. This seems more like fixing something that isn't very broken.

But a few things I have been reading this morning have me intrigued. Intrigued enough to spend $100 on new rule books? Not yet. But intrigued still.

Social interaction (quotes pulled from the 4e news part of ENWorld)

"Rules for non-combat encounters. The example given was social interaction. Unlike 3E, where negotiation amounts to a single Diplomacy check, it's treated almost like a combat in 4E. Ari Marmell's blog -- "Social encounters. For those who don't just want to RP such things without some mechanical impact, the game has rules for non-combat encounters. The example given was social interaction. Unlike 3E, where negotiation amounts to a single Diplomacy check, it's treated almost like a combat in 4E. I make a skill check, but I also tell the DM what/how I'm doing. The opponent responds with behavior (and a check) of his own. I counter with a new check, and new words. And so forth.""

The sweet spot

They seem to have recognized that there is a range of levels where the game is actually really fun to play and other levels where it just isn't. From 1st to 6th you basically suck, unable to really fill your given roles and from 15th to 20th you basically are either too powerful or not powerful enough (depending on your character type and build.) So there is a "sweet spot" between levels 7 through 14 where the monsters are challenging and combat exciting without being too hard or too easy.

Their plan is to extend that "sweet spot" across the entire range of character advancement, so an encounter at level 1 is as exciting as an encounter at level 30. Sounds interesting to me.

Advancement

It sounds like they have realized that there are periods in the character advancement where you go up a level and nothing really happens. You don't get a feat, and your class gets no special ability, so you just add some skill points and hit points, move up your saves and then you are done. They appear to be fixing that, so that something cool happens every time you level up.

I am on the fence with the whole thing as well.

Interesting on the social "combat" stuff. I had that same idea for the Conan game, but Mongoose didn't care much for it.

InzeladunMaster said:

Interesting on the social "combat" stuff. I had that same idea for the Conan game, but Mongoose didn't care much for it.

Click to expand...

I have been reading through the Paragons book for Mutants and Masterminds I picked up at Gen Con and they have a really interesting section on "Paradigm Shifts." The idea is that superpowered people will end up changing the world. And it applies a game mechanic to how that can be accomplished.

It is an interesting concept that instead of spending experience to improve your character, you can spend it to change the SETTING in some way. Making major changes to the setting are extremely expensive but characters can pool their resources to try.

thormagni said:

I have been reading through the Paragons book for Mutants and Masterminds I picked up at Gen Con and they have a really interesting section on "Paradigm Shifts." The idea is that superpowered people will end up changing the world. And it applies a game mechanic to how that can be accomplished.

It is an interesting concept that instead of spending experience to improve your character, you can spend it to change the SETTING in some way. Making major changes to the setting are extremely expensive but characters can pool their resources to try.

Click to expand...

I find this somewhat redundant. Isn't this what characters do when they play in a world? Don't they change it through their deeds and successes? I hardly would feel right using a "mechanic" to change the world I was playing in. If I can't do it through actual play, then I wouldn't want to do it at all. I really get my feathers ruffled when I hear of a new rule that seems to reward incompetence. We all have our strengths as gamers. Do we really need rules that level the entire playing field? Sorry, but I am a Nietzschan in this respect. Will to power and all that. If you haven't got the will, you don't get the power. If you can't change the world through your actions as a player/character in the game, then tough melons.

Grrr.

Grimhelm said:

I hardly would feel right using a "mechanic" to change the world I was playing in. If I can't do it through actual play, then I wouldn't want to do it at all.

Click to expand...

Well, again, I think we are going to continue to disagree on this subject. I think this continuing trend in rules mechanics to give players more of an ability to pull their GM along in the direction they want the game to go is a good thing. I think it is all part of the move away from the "GM is god" sort of game to a new direction, where the balance of power is shifting slightly away from the GM.

I do think that a good GM/player relationship has always allowed this sort of interaction to occur, but that is not always the case. And for many players/GMs if something isn't in the rulebook, it may never have occurred to them that this is an option.

For example, your character enters a room with bad guys on a staircase. You want a chandelier to swing on, because you think that would be fun or interesting.

The bad "GM as god" would say "No, because it isn't in my notes. I decide what is in my game world." The mediocre "GM as god" would think about it and sometimes might decide there is a chandelier and sometimes there isn't, based on their whim at the moment. The good GM would decided that if you want a chandelier, then it would probably be fun for everybody to put one in there and say "sure there is a chandelier."

The new rules paradigms would let the player decide that they want a chandelier to swing on in the room and there would be one. And since the ability to make this happen is a limited resource, the players will only be spending their resources in this way when it is REALLY important to them.

In effect, it codifies the good GM approach of letting the players have a say in what they consider to be most fun and interesting. By building something into the rules, the game designer is saying "Hey, I think this is an important part of the game."

Bad GMs are out there, I suppose. I guess I just wouldn't play with a bad GM! Ha! Of course, not everyone thinks like me...

I think it's a very valid type of rule. It really helps when people do have "bad" or inexperienced GM. There's only a handful of us lucky enough to be GM'd by Vincent Darlage where we have no need of such rules. Plus, there's a lot of other GMs out there where such rules are unecessary, but I can see many instances where they would be helpful. The thing about rules is you don't have to USE the rule just because it's in the book. That the beauty of any of these systems, even 4E. You don't HAVE to use all the rules, they're there to inspire your imagination, to help, to provide a framework for your imagination to take you places you might not have gone before.

As for 4E, I'm looking forward to seeing the final product. I like some of the tidbits I've seen so far and I find myself thinking, "OH! That's like Iron Heroes only BETTER". "Oh! That's a neat idea", etc. I'm going to reserve my decision on purchasing the new material until it comes out and I get a look at the finished product.

Grimhelm said:

I find this somewhat redundant. Isn't this what characters do when they play in a world? Don't they change it through their deeds and successes? I hardly would feel right using a "mechanic" to change the world I was playing in.

Click to expand...

It sounds to me like the mechanic allows for the "invisible" changes many GMs wouldn't think of, such as the impact such a person has on people that person has never actually met. Robert E. Howard did little in his life but write some stories that were reasonably popular, but he was hardly a household name - yet think of the impact he has had on my life, and on others. Or how a teacher inspired someone to do something - yet never knew the impact. And it doesn't even have to be direct. What about the kid who had a much better life because a teacher (or hero) inspired the parent to be a better person?

It sounds to me like the mechanic takes those kinds of things into account, creating a snowball effect throughout the campaign that GMs (myself included) may not always take into account. I think it is a good idea.

Fyrestryke said:

I like some of the tidbits I've seen so far and I find myself thinking, "OH! That's like Iron Heroes only BETTER". "Oh! That's a neat idea", etc. I'm going to reserve my decision on purchasing the new material until it comes out and I get a look at the finished product.

Click to expand...

I am worried it will be even more miniatures-reliant than the current rules.

InzeladunMaster said:

It sounds to me like the mechanic allows for the "invisible" changes many GMs wouldn't think of, such as the impact such a person has on people that person has never actually met. Robert E. Howard did little in his life but write some stories that were reasonably popular, but he was hardly a household name - yet think of the impact he has had on my life, and on others. Or how a teacher inspired someone to do something - yet never knew the impact. And it doesn't even have to be direct. What about the kid who had a much better life because a teacher (or hero) inspired the parent to be a better person?

It sounds to me like the mechanic takes those kinds of things into account, creating a snowball effect throughout the campaign that GMs (myself included) may not always take into account. I think it is a good idea.

Click to expand...

I guess. In the old days, you always seemed fairly cognizant of characters' fame and how they would affect things. I still don't know if there needs to be a rule for this sort of thing. If a character/player can think of it, does there need to be a rule for it? Not that it really matters, I guess. We ain't playing it anyway!