D&D 4E Pemertonian Scene-Framing; A Good Approach to D&D 4e

innerdude said:

In general, I don't find 4e's "thematic archetyping" to be a particularly compelling "feature" of the system. The original PHB goes out of its way to explain to players, "Play this class if you want to be X." I.e., if you want to be a sneaky, resourceful type, play a rogue; if you want to play a sword and shield basher, play a figher, etc.

But I never approach my characters' "inner persona" from that angle. A character's particular features for handling combat don't reflect his or her conception of "who I am as a person, and where I stand in the world."

I get that for some players, particularly beginning players, having a "shorthand" for a "thematic archetype" makes it easier to make decisions about "what kind of character I want to be." I just think 4e would've been better served by decoupling powers from classes entirely. A "class" basically becomes a core set of skills, weapon proficiencies, and maybe determines a baseline selection of feats. That way, if I want to play a "valiant" rogue, I can do that. If I want to play a "sneaky, tricksy fighter," I can do that too.

If the primary consideration is "thematic" play, then why straitjacket players into a "role" where powers selections determine the theme?

Click to expand...

You can do that fine with 4e though, your "valiant rogue" is a Cavalier with a few points shifted into DEX, the Stealth skill (maybe from a background, there are various ways), and perhaps even an MC into rogue to get Thievery if you want. He can wear hide armor, etc. This sort of thing works pretty darn well in 4e generally. There are a few minor missteps, like the way rangers are focused too much on dual wielding, which means some odd associations come up (all beast masters are either dual wielders or archers, you won't find one that is a great weapon user). Still, with themes fully realized even those little oddities are gone (your great weapon beastmaster can now be an Avenger with a Fey Beast Master theme and a little fluff for instance).

Its possible that 5e's pushing all skills and such into themes and backgrounds may work out OK too. 4e is not so systematic about it, but if anything 4e proves that you don't have to be perfectly consistent to

@Imaro I was just seeking clarification. I thought my first post was the critique you were outlining. I misunderstood. I didn't willfully mischaracterize. You clarified. All good. This is internet messageboard land. I thought this was what we did Question and clarify and respond, etc. It wasn't bad faith on my end.

No, I have experience with it. I have lots and lots of experience with it from 2e (with NWP and kits) and 3e (1e never really supported much inter-class diversity so it wasn't an issue...there wasn't much thematic loadout to build into...and we just played classic dungeoncrawling with it). Our creative agenda drifted back then and while I was still concerned with thematic/genre coherency, it manifested much more loosely due to intra-group variance. For the most part, my games have always been run as a democracy rather than a republic with me the duly elected representative for the groups' collective interest. As such, petty squabbling (many times passive aggressive) from genre and thematic tastes to system tastes could manifest until I put an end to it. But my tastes, and those of close friend with whom I still play have narrowed intensely. We play specific systems to specific tastes and we all like specific genre conventions and thematic coherency. So we don't run into those issues. But this doesn't tell you anything about 4e (nor does S'mon's intragroup dynamics). Its just a testimonial.

But after I erroneously thought you were invoking the rigidity of thematic coherency/association as a fault (when the usual take is the dissoaciation of certain powers is the issue), you asked how I would (have) handled such a scenario and would it "deprotagonize" a character. I answered it the best I could. I wouldn't (and have never) dictated PC build schemes but, even if I would have, the ruling can't deprotagonize what has already been willful, self-inflicted deprotagonization. If you claim thematic coherency and you build something thematically incoherent and then further drift it in its actualization in the gameworld...you aren't a "thematic" protagonist...and you probably don't have a table agenda that cares much about such notions (you're either just having a laugh or you're optimizing some deranged amalgamation for a step on up game).

For instance -

Character A has these beliefs:

- I failed once to save my beloved. Forevermore, it will be my blood spilled in the stead of my allies.
- As I am besieged on all sides by my enemies, my faith will not waver...it will strengthen.
- I will die in battle, protecting those who cannot protect themselves in the service of my God, and my example will give heart to the spiritually undone.

Character A has these instincts:

- When patrolling dangerous areas, I will lead.
- When exhausted from a long days march, I will take first and second watch.
- If a threat of violence upon the meek or upon an ally is uttered in my presence, it will be answered in kind...with steel.

That creates a clear, thematic baseline from which to build Character A; shame driving honor, faith bulwarking courage, self-sacrifice over self-interest, martyrdom, lead from the front, be an example to those who have lost hope, man of action.

If the table and Player A are interested in thematic depth/coherency, the Player A will (i) pick a build profile for Character A that reinforces the above with mechanical support and (ii) will roleplay the character accordingly and deploy those resources as such. That is the player's means of protagonizing; having absolute authority to express the thematic depth of his character via deoployable resources that are not arbitrated or bartered for. That is the medium. If the player does not deliver (by making build choices that emphasize optimization over thematic expression or by roleplaying wildly outside of that sphere), then the GM cannot "deprotagonize" the player...because the player has already done that to themselves...so its irrelevant. Maybe they just want to kill monsters and take their stuff? Ok. Express that thematically or the table needs to revise its creative agenda (to step on up) or the player may be at the wrong table.

AbdulAlhazred said:

You can do that fine with 4e though, your "valiant rogue" is a Cavalier with a few points shifted into DEX, the Stealth skill (maybe from a background, there are various ways), and perhaps even an MC into rogue to get Thievery if you want. He can wear hide armor, etc. This sort of thing works pretty darn well in 4e generally. There are a few minor missteps, like the way rangers are focused too much on dual wielding, which means some odd associations come up (all beast masters are either dual wielders or archers, you won't find one that is a great weapon user). Still, with themes fully realized even those little oddities are gone (your great weapon beastmaster can now be an Avenger with a Fey Beast Master theme and a little fluff for instance).

Its possible that 5e's pushing all skills and such into themes and backgrounds may work out OK too. 4e is not so systematic about it, but if anything 4e proves that you don't have to be perfectly consistent to

Click to expand...

This response is fairly consistent with those brought up in other forums when I've presented a case of a "mix-mashed" character type that doesn't fall quite exactly within the parameters of a set class. I'm not saying it's not an appropriate, logical response . . . but it's also interesting to me that I've had two conflicting stories from 4e "regulars" about how powers and class relate to character concept. I've had at least 6-8 players at various times, both in person and in forums like this one, state that "Your class doesn't matter, it's just a collection of combat powers, pick the one that you think makes you fight the way you want." Yet Manbearcat and permerton are discussing 4e classes (and their associated powers) as being part and parcel with a "thematic archetype," something which allows players to build on a very specific kind of narrative play.

To me, it's once again the same kind of "incoherence" Manbearcat talked about in the other forum, because frankly, the "thematic archetype" association makes a lot more sense, if you think of a "class" in terms of "a type of person, inhabiting a somewhat narrow narrative niche, with particular themes attached." However, once again, the 4e "core three" make very little real association between this type of "formalized" narrativism---where a rogue character explores themes of loyalty vs. betrayal, personal honor vs. personal gain; a fighter explores themes of fighting to protect others vs. fighting for personal gain; a wizard explores themes of delving into old arcane lore for the advancement of society vs. hoarding knowledge for personal gain.

If a class is truly nothing more than a collection of "combat styles, pick the one that fits," then it essentially obviates the need for class-based powers altogether.

S'mon said:

Sounds a lot like Jaryn, the emo Fallen Paladin of Bane (ex Pelor) at the end of Dungeon 155's Heathen. My players really enjoyed killing that guy.

Click to expand...

OK. My players talked him down - skill challenge (combing elements of the suggestions in Heathen plus the suggestion in the MV module "Cairn of the Winter King"). At the very end, havig realised his own fall, he pulled out his Naarash talisman intending to kill himself in atonement, but the paladin PC used an immediate reaction to blast the talisman and block its destructive effect. After fighting their way out past phalanxes of hobgoblins, the PCs took Jaryn home as a hero.

innerdude said:

In general, I don't find 4e's "thematic archetyping" to be a particularly compelling "feature" of the system.

<snip>

A character's particular features for handling combat don't reflect his or her conception of "who I am as a person, and where I stand in the world."

<snip>

If the primary consideration is "thematic" play, then why straitjacket players into a "role" where powers selections determine the theme?

Click to expand...

I think you're being a little misled by "role" here, for the reasons [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] has explained.

But putting that to one side, you are correct that 4e links PC theme quite tightly (in my view not exclusively, though) to combat ability. While 4e has, in my view, the best support for non-combat action resolution of any edition of D&D, there is no doubt that it is designed to make combat the pre-eminent site of conflict resolution.

In the real world, there is no doubt that (to pick a non-combat example) fire fighters and (at least some) paramedics are very valiant. But in 4e that sort of civilian "adventuring" is not made the focus of play. It's a romantic (and potentially gonzo) high fantasy game that prioritises combat - between mortals, and between immortals - as the ultimate way of settling disuptes and determing destinies.

Neonchameleon said:

combat really is where the rubber meets the road, especially in a high action game.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this, but in 4e I think it goes further - it's an aesthetic choice by the designers (and consistent with the source material) to make combat pre-eminent. (But not exclusive. And not for its own sake. Both are common criticisms of 4e that in my view are based on a misunderstanding of what the game is trying to do.)

AbdulAlhazred said:

Was it in the other 4e thread where we hit on this? I know you mentioned something about Valiant Strike there.

Click to expand...

S'mon said:

I don't have to resort to metagaming for Valiant Strike. Clearly his god smiles on the valour of the outnumbered paladin, empowering him according to the weight of his foes!

Click to expand...

These two posts give me a better handle, I think, on what AbdulAlhazred had in mind.

Yes, I'm a big fan of the game taking steps to correct for the dice in the thematically appropriate, romantic/heroic fantasy direction. When it comes to framing, I do this by choosing encounters rather than rolling on a random table (which takes us all the way back to S'mon's OP). When it comes to resolution I want to see it in the mechanics rather than rely on player or GM fudging in the interests of "the story", "the theme". I find fudging unhappy just because it puts a limit on how hard you push things, and I really like how 4e lets me push: when I tell a player "You're hit", and then roll 6 d10s out on the table, it has a viscerality that is hard to beat! (Assuming you're not going to involve real viscera!)

innerdude said:

I've had at least 6-8 players at various times, both in person and in forums like this one, state that "Your class doesn't matter, it's just a collection of combat powers, pick the one that you think makes you fight the way you want."

Click to expand...

Mostly you'll get that when you see someone say "I want to be a fighter with a bow". (At least, that's my experience.)

innerdude said:

Yet Manbearcat and permerton are discussing 4e classes (and their associated powers) as being part and parcel with a "thematic archetype," something which allows players to build on a very specific kind of narrative play.

Click to expand...

I've talked in the first instance about a single power - Valiant Strike - that engenders valiant behaviour on the part of the PC whose power it is - because otherwise the power is no good.

Generalising this to a whole class is a different matter. It is mostly true for the paladin, in my view (and if we bracket the blackguard), just because of the powers that have been published for that class.

For a class like wizard, or fighter, or warlord, or even rogue, the variety of powers is far greater, and the likelihood that narrative weight will follow from class alone is correspondingly reduced. But the powers you choose will still determine how you engage the game (particularly, but not exclusively, in combat). And this will have implications for the theme you end up expressing - deliberate or, sometimes, accidental.

An instance of (semi-)accidental theme is the drow sorcerer in my party. Although a fairly squishy ranged striker - just like the archer-ranger - he ends up in the thick of melee quite a bit - because of his love of Flame Spiral (a close burst that he can use multiple times per encounter), or because he manoeuvres in a way to drop his cloud of darkness without hurting the other PCs too badly, or just because he is proud and overconfident! And over time this has led the player to build in features of the PC to help make him a bit more resilient, which then encourages a bit more rash positioning, etc.

More than in other mainstream fantasy RPGs that I'm familiar with (though Rolemaster can come close), the PC build has enough detail that interacts significantly with the action resolution to mean that building your PC is choosing not just a mechanical path but a story path. Very different from classic D&D, where a fighter choosing to use a polearm, or a two-handed sword, or a sword-and-shield, has comparatively little impact on the ensuing story.

Imaro said:

But nothing inherent in 4e prevents you from taking that power and playing a cowardly, self-serving paladin.

Click to expand...

I'm missing one thing here - how and why would you do this?

I mean, if you're cowardly and self-serving you're not going to get yourself surrounded by foes if you can help it - which is the only time this power is particularly special. (Against a single foe it's just a basic attack with +1 to hit, nothing very special for an at-will.)

As I understand it, this is [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s point in this and the other thread - to build your PC with this power is to build a PC who will play as valiant, provided you actually want to use your PC as statted up.

In other words, this:

Manbearcat said:

Regarding "deprotagonization", I'm not sure it could be any more "protagonizing". You are brave. This fluff says so and here are mechanics to abstract it. This is your resource to deploy at your discretion and it will always be thus. No measure of DM fiat or player protest can change its deployment or what it says about you. If you do not want to be brave, bold, valiant...don't pick this power?

Click to expand...

Imaro said:

(S'mon said he disallows powers if he feels you aren't living up to the archetype of valiant, so for him it is not a table or group decision.)?

Click to expand...

No, you don't get it. I've never banned a 4e PC taking powers for this reason (or any other reason - though I have nerfed Moment of Glory). It never comes up, because nearly all players act in good faith to play the PC they've chosen to play. There is no mechanical advantage in 4e to being a passive aggressive jerk and choosing "You are brave" powers then acting cowardly while whining about protagonism, so even pawn-stance players don't do this.

Imaro said:

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] ... So you have no experience with the situation postulated by S'mon.

Click to expand...

But I play with strangers all the time. If I run 1e, there is the problem that playing an (eg) Cavalier the way UA fluff/instructions says to do so is literally suicidal. Players are incenivised to work around the restrictions of Paladin, Druid etc. Whereas with 4e the powers mechanically support the thematics of the class. There is no incentive to playing against type - your cowardy self-serving paladin with Virtue of Valour will be mechanically weaker than a paladin played according to the thematics of his powers. Same for Rogues etc.

So the situation you posit, common in 1e-3e, just doesn't come up in practice. The player would have to be actively hostile to the GM, to the game table, to his own PC - willing to give up power in order to not play the character he chose to play via class power selection.

pemerton said:

OK. My players talked him down - skill challenge (combing elements of the suggestions in Heathen plus the suggestion in the MV module "Cairn of the Winter King"). At the very end, havig realised his own fall, he pulled out his Naarash talisman intending to kill himself in atonement, but the paladin PC used an immediate reaction to blast the talisman and block its destructive effect. After fighting their way out past phalanxes of hobgoblins, the PCs took Jaryn home as a hero.

Click to expand...

Mine spoke to him, got riled up by his "Amaunator is dead... there is only Bane..." speech, established that he didn't seem to be under any kind of direct charm/mind control effect, and so happily fought and killed him.

pemerton said:

I'm missing one thing here - how and why would you do this?

I mean, if you're cowardly and self-serving you're not going to get yourself surrounded by foes if you can help it - which is the only time this power is particularly special. (Against a single foe it's just a basic attack with +1 to hit, nothing very special for an at-will.)

As I understand it, this is @Manbearcat 's point in this and the other thread - to build your PC with this power is to build a PC who will play as valiant, provided you actually want to use your PC as statted up.

In other words, this:

Click to expand...

Because you want a power that will help you in case you are surrounded... I'm asking these questions because my thoughts are along the same lines as innerdude. I have had a ton of 4e fans claim that the classes, powers, etc. are basically generic because they are effect based. Yet there is another contingent of 4e fans who claim there are thematic elements tightly tied to the classes, powers, etc. Well I'm curious to find out if these thematic elements are inherent to the game or more based upon dm/player agreement to a certain style, "being on the same page" with a group, etc.

That is why I am discussing valiant strike, and the paladin class... do either really push my character to act a certain way... or is being valiant just the thematic element that some choose to enact when selecting the power. I don't know if it's in this thread or the other one (I'm actually starting to get a little confused since it's the same discussion) but there was an example of a "emo-berserker" paladin that would use valiant strike, there's nothing valiant about this guy but S'mon said he would be cool with that in his game. So I'm trying to figure out who decides what is and isn't an appropriate thematic archetype for specific powers... and whether these thematic elements are really baked in any moreso that 3.5's feats or Rule Cyclopedia's Weapon Mastery rules.

S'mon said:

The player would have to be actively hostile to the GM, to the game table, to his own PC - willing to give up power in order to not play the character he chose to play via class power selection.

Click to expand...

I don't believe this is true... The player would just have to have different ideas from the DM about what themes certain powers could fit.