D&D 4E More reflections on 4e and 5e.

Iosue · Oct 3, 2012

Neonchameleon said:
And for others the grid actively enhances things. It means we are automatically on almost the same page and there are far, far fewer questions we need to ask just to reach the baseline. A picture is worth a thousand words - and the battemap provides us with a blurry photograph we can all see and on which we can build.

Yes, I believe I gave this viewpoint ample acknowledgment in my post. But the question wasn't "what's good about maps and minis?", it was "Why do some people find the 4e power system too homogeneous?"

Lord Mhoram · Oct 3, 2012

Iosue said:
These days, be it Dungeon Tiles or self-made maps printed off of a computer, the action on the table seeks to create the action more and more vividly. Minis are bigger, and tokens have vivid, color art. It's all meant to whet the imagination, and for many (I'm guessing the majority of 4e fans), it does so. But for other players, it takes the place of whatever vivid picture they might have imagined in their head.

Interesting points.

I've always just use a basic map (in games that need it) on a grid, or on a dry erase board and measure distance in inches. No fancy colorful stuff, and token were pennies or small glass beads. Just whatever was at hand - we always considered the grid just a reference to where we were in relation to everyone else, and never considered it (or the markers) to be "the character", but "where the character is on the map"- that little difference in point of view has always allowed me to vividly imaging the stuff in the head, and not be put off by the grid.

Lord Mhoram · Oct 4, 2012

Neonchameleon said:
If the difference is in the effect that is fine. The difference is in the fiction. If the difference is in the resolution then that's just adding complications for the sake of complications and is objectively bad game design. (If the difference in the resolution is that you actively need to defeat something in the fiction then that's fine too).

As a HERO player, this seems a very basic concept to me. In Hero the only difference between an Arrow and Firebolt (depending on build) is that one does damage against physical defense and the other against energy. All mechanics are the same. What is in the mind and the name of the ability is what makes it special.

Heck - in 4E I played a monk within the first few weeks of the game. Played a Ranger and his weapon was "Martial arts" and went dual wield. The GM came up with a non-armor AC idea that kept pace and viola I was a hard striking monk. I just renamed and re-flavored all the powers as Ch'i and martial arts training.

But, in general, effects based game (and even previous versions of GURPS weren't effects based) are not as popular. The very fact that two different effect are exactly the same mechanically can be an issue.

And as WOTC want to hit the largest possible target audience, the smaller player bases and such of mechanically tight games, and effects based games is likely not in their best sales interest.

Hussar · Oct 4, 2012

Imaro said:
But magic is not similar to the mundane in almost all the fiction these games are based off of. Casting a bolt of energy in most fiction in no way relates to the same description or feeling as shooting a bow and arrow... In the broad sense they aren't similar fictionally so why should they be similar mechanically??
/snip

I'm not sure that's entirely true. In any fiction where magic is reliable, there really isn't a whole lot of difference. How is a Harry Potter wizard any different from a warrior swinging his sword? HP wizards wave their wands, say a word and try to hit people. Sounds pretty close. Steven Ericson's Malazan books work pretty close to this as well - the magic system doesn't really need a totally different subsystem in order to resolve. Which makes sense since Malazan is based on GURPS.

In the Black Company novels, the magic that gets used is generally on the same level as weapon use. Again excepting the big ticket stuff that takes a long time, but, then we all agree that a separate system is a good idea because it works significantly differently.

So, no, I'm thinking that there really doesn't need to be multiple systems for effects which are essentially the same.

The Little Raven · Oct 4, 2012

mlund said:
A product with a lot of unnecessary barriers to entry is a poorly designed product. Having a path to a ton of customization and complex, fixed-mechanic decision-trees does not preclude the existence of a path to simple packages and rules-light action resolutions within the same system.

The problem with your "simple option/complex option" split in this scenario is that the simple option will not help a person who refuses to read or remember it, because the problem isn't the complexity/simplicity of the options, but the effort put forth by the player.

I find the argument that "RTFM" or its RPG cousin "Read Your Frakking Character Sheet" is too high a barrier to entry to D&D to be silly beyond belief. This argument is saying that "have a pulse" should be the minimum barrier to entry, which I find an insultingly low standard for a game that is supposed to be about intellect and imagination.

Manbearcat · Oct 4, 2012

Iosue said:
Yes, I believe I gave this viewpoint ample acknowledgment in my post. But the question wasn't "what's good about maps and minis?", it was "Why do some people find the 4e power system too homogeneous?"

Assuming we are discussing my question (which seems to be when the dialogue turned - I might be wrong), its actually a little bit different than that. It is:

Manbearcat said:
Why is it that meta-game resource schemes have to be different? How is it that meta-game resource schemes interpose themselves between a player and the resulting fiction? Are they not merely extra-fiction mechanical resolution tools whereby extra-fiction participants (DM and players) can facilitate fiction-creation for the intra-fiction participants (PCs and NPCs)? If they are there for "function" and then to get out of the way so the roleplaying/creativity can advance its agenda, and they then perform that function coherently and elegantly, how is it that there is some "aesthetic/form" to them that is, in some nebulous way, either additive or subtractive to the fiction?

<snip>

Why is "5/2, THAC0 7, 1d8 + 7" good to go for "oh yeah, that totally makes sense for a martial attack scheme" but the Keywords "Martial" and "Weapon" somehow provoke this deep cognitive dissonance? Then, why do "Arcane" and "Implement" somehow provoke "What? That isn't magical?" I do not understand this at all. I am not trying to be willfully obtuse. I literally have absolutely 0, zilch, nada understanding of this paradigm.

I added the underlined part above and took out a few things that were unnecessary for the purposes of this post.

I've read everyones' responses and they're all quite good and well considered. Unfortunately, I cannot xp anyone on this. I have a long post prepared to further clarify my own thoughts on these things but I think I'd first like some responses to the below as this anecdote is something that occurred mid-2e and began my consideration of the effect of RPG rituals (dice rolling and its various eccentric iterations, use of TotM vs Grid, various mechanical resolution tools, various class resource schemes, reading the books themselves, etc) on the fiction and feel produced at the table. I'm not going to comment on my thoughts on the below anecdote (I have specific thoughts on it) as of yet, but I will just say that I believe that it is closely related to what we are discussing here.

So, then. Back in 2e, I met a friend (no more) who loved playing wizards. He specifically loved playing evokers. I played with him through the beginning of 3e where he, again, played a wizard. Being a good RPG nerd he came with various eccentricities and gaming rituals and props. One in particular stuck out and was completely "wizard-centric" in its aesthetic. He had tons of dice (I believe a complete set for each color). For his fire spells he used red dice, ice-blue, earth/rock-green, necro-black, radiant/sun-yellow, lightning-white and for any d100s required he used clear/sparkly dice (presumably for crystal ball/chance/staring into the ether, etc). One day he forgot his dice at home. He lived 45 minutes one way. We averaged about 4-5 hours per session. This would cut our session down by 1/3. Of no surprise to anyone, we cut our session down by 1/3 that night.

Any thoughts on this and how it may pertain to the question I posed above?

GreyICE · Oct 4, 2012

Imaro said:
First, there are definitely combat spells in Exalted... don't have my books with me right now but I remember a spell that caused razor (butterflies) I think... or something like that to shoot out and slice enemies down. Second, the fact remains that Exalted still keeps spellcasting seperate from everything else and uses different mechanics for it. You seem to be purposefully ignoring that fact.

Second, it's all about preference. My players don't like Heroquest because in our last game (Nameless Streets) they felt that there was no mechanical difference in anything the different characters did.... it was always narrate whatever you want and roll d20. You might not see the "problem" but again, it's a matter of preference and I think more people prefer mechanically distinct systems for magic and the mundane than want them to be the same or similar.

Honestly, and especially with the last line you posted, I believe that you have no real interest in trying to see where others are coming from (since you've already decided it's mental gymnastics instead of taking it at face value, even with the examples of games provided).

Yes, and given the spell mechanics of Exalted, it'll be used exactly never. Trust me, they're way too unwieldy to use in combat, they are out-of-combat only. Exalted has no in-combat spells.

Plus it's a system where your "martial characters" create a legion of blurred duplicates of themselves, fly across the battlefield, easily attack everything near them, and can BLOCK A NUCLEAR BOMB WITH THEIR FACE.

Note: Blocking the nuke with their face is a martial power. Nuclear bombs have zero chance of hurting most combat Exalted. This is intentional.

Anyway, back on subject, I'd say the idea that magic is special having to have a mechanical significance really dissociates me from the game. It makes me step back and take a look at what's happening from a metagame perspective. "Oh, magic is special, because it's got different mechanics that I have to learn." When the mechanics do very little to get in the way of the game, it makes things work a lot better for me. I can focus on what's actually happening in the world with no mechanical subsystems dissociating me from the experience.

Manbearcat · Oct 4, 2012

GreyICE said:
<snip>

Anyway, back on subject, I'd say the idea that magic is special having to have a mechanical significance really dissociates me from the game. It makes me step back and take a look at what's happening from a metagame perspective. "Oh, magic is special, because it's got different mechanics that I have to learn." When the mechanics do very little to get in the way of the game, it makes things work a lot better for me. I can focus on what's actually happening in the world with no mechanical subsystems dissociating me from the experience.

I see what you did there.

Hussar · Oct 4, 2012

As far as complexity of options I really can't get behind the argument. My 6 and 8 year old daughters both like Pokemon and the cards. They are both perfectly capable of reading, understanding and creating Pokemon decks out of the hundreds of cards they own. IOW, they can take the time to sit down, read the cards, understand how they synergise and build a deck.

So, I'm really having a difficult time thinking that a college age person cannot figure out the dozen or so ability cards that his character has. Or, to put it another way, it doesn't matter how simple you make the system, for someone to actually refuse to learn the rules, it's not going to change anything.

pemerton · Oct 4, 2012

Iosue said:
Consider the AD&D sleep spell. Mechanically, it's only difference from a regular to-hit roll is that the DM is rolling it instead of the player. (In some early games, even this is not different, as DMs rolled all dice.) The mechanic didn't create the feel of magic -- the players and DMs created that by describing the narrative. How they imagined it was different.

I don't have any strong views on the rest of your interesting post - 4e is the first game I've played using tactical maps (hand drawn) and tokens (collected from old board games), as opposed to "theatre of the mind" and the occasional scrawled map on a bit of scrap paper, and I don't have any well-formed view on how it's changed my play experience - but I agree that the difference between magic and mundane in AD&D comes not from the mechanics but from the shared understanding of the fiction.

B.T. said:
Because people expect magic to be different.

But as [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] said, they expect it to be different in the fiction. That doesn't explain why it needs to be different in the mechanics.

Neonchameleon said:
I disagree emphatically that most people expect it to be different. In most games I can think of off the top of my head, it's only different where the outcomes are different.

Rolemaster is another game where there is not the sort of difference being talked about here: spells are learned as skills, just like weapons, and attack spells have attack tables just like weapons, while "effect" spells have descriptions of failed save consequences just as do poisons, traps or pieces of dodgy masonry that might fall on you. There is no sense that the "magicalness" of magic depends upon a particular sort of formatting; and all actual casting is resolved using the same d100 mechanic that Rolemaster uses for everything else.

Neonchameleon said:
The argument is that it makes no sense for a specific type of simmilarity to be different. The argument isn't that Scry should behave the same way as stabbing someone with your sword. It's that shooting someone with a bow and shooting someone with a ray are comparable actions and should therefore be handled in a comparable manner. The different action resolution mechanic should reflect what you are doing.

<snip>

You note what you list as differences. Differences in the fiction. Which I don't think anyone disputes should be resolved differently. The magical connection is an inherent part of the fiction. The dice resolution mechanic is the same. I'm counting this as the same. The magic resolution system is the same. The difference comes from what you are resolving. Which is as it should be.

Yes to all this.

Imaro said:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it's because almost every description of casting magic in the majority of fiction is nothing like shooting an arrow or swinging a sword... and that's where most peoples expectations are going to come from.

This is about differences in the fiction, not differences in the resolution mechanic or the resource structure.

Imaro said:
They expect a different mechanic because, IMO, for most people it is the mechanics that impart a particular "feel" regardless of what form of fiction they try and lather across it. Again, IMO... it creates dissonance for many when the mechanics are the same or very similar between magic and mundane because this is not how most fiction (which are their reference points) describes them.

In Rolemaster, there is no difference between the formatting of the Lightning Bolt attack table and the Longbow attack table. Nor is there any difference in the resolution: roll the d100, add your skill, look up the table, resolve the outcome.

MERP and HARP, as Rolemaster cousins, are essentially the same.

HERO and GURPS don't use table look-ups for attack resolution, but I imagine that they would handle all attacks - whether bow or energy bolt - in the same way.

This becomes even more probable in a science-fantasy game: firearms, including lasers, are likely to be handled in the same way as archery, and magical or psionic energy blasts are likely to be handled in the same way as lasers and blasters.

But I've never heard it suggested that in Rolemaster, or these other games, there is no difference between magical attacks and archery. The view seems unique to D&D, and in deed unique to criticisms of 4e. I mean, action resolution for Melf's Acid Arrow in the current playtest is no different from action resolution for ordinary archery. Where are all the threads decrying the "sameness" and arguing that the magic has been leached out of that iconic spell?

Manbearcat said:
Back in 2e, I met a friend (no more) who loved playing wizards. He specifically loved playing evokers. I played with him through the beginning of 3e where he, again, played a wizard. Being a good RPG nerd he came with various eccentricities and gaming rituals and props. One in particular stuck out and was completely "wizard-centric" in its aesthetic. He had tons of dice (I believe a complete set for each color). For his fire spells he used red dice, ice-blue, earth/rock-green, necro-black, radiant/sun-yellow, lightning-white and for any d100s required he used clear/sparkly dice (presumably for crystal ball/chance/staring into the ether, etc). One day he forgot his dice at home. He lived 45 minutes one way. We averaged about 4-5 hours per session. This would cut our session down by 1/3. Of no surprise to anyone, we cut our session down by 1/3 that night.

Any thoughts on this and how it may pertain to the question I posed above?

I love the story. I don't really know how to interpret it. But the colour-to-effect connection is reasonably self-evident, I think - whereas (to hark back to your earlier post) I don't see how "5/2, THAC0 7, 1d8 + 7" is in anway evocative of swordfighting, and "Level: 3, Range: 12", Effect: 20' R burst of fire for d6 per level, save vs spells for half damage" evocative of magic. And even in D&D, grenades and the like have traditionally been statted up like spells, and no one (to my knowledge) has ever complained that this renders them non-mundane. Whereas the attacks of a ghost or wight have traditionally been statted up like your weapon example, and I've never seen anyone complain that this makes them too mundane.

Much like Melf's Acid Arrow in the playtest.

Which, for me at least, reinforces my view that this a particular complaint about 4e, as opposed to some general theory about the design of PC resources and action resolution mechanics.

Imaro said:
it's all about preference. My players don't like Heroquest because in our last game (Nameless Streets) they felt that there was no mechanical difference in anything the different characters did.... it was always narrate whatever you want and roll d20.

Imaro said:
Spirit of the Century... I'll give you this one... but then it's one of those games, like Heroquest that purposefully goes for making EVERYTHING the exact same mechanic.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person to have noticed some resemblances between 4e and a certain sort of indie RPG design!