D&D 4E 4e Compared to Trad D&D; What You Lose, What You Gain

Manbearcat said:

However, the initial framing of situation by the GM would be extremely relevant here as it would narrow or broaden prospective action declarations for the PCs. Note, that, unlike classic D&D where the GM rolls a Reaction Roll for the PCs, 5e handles this initial framing in the same way as 4e does; GM determines initial attitude and framing.

This is a significant deviation from classic D&D. But more on that tomorrow and then we'll move through the possible initial framing and action declarations (tired, going to bed).

Click to expand...

Alright, continuing on.

I'm going to extend this little bit of a digression to talk about Trad D&D (for this, I'm using Basic and 1e) vs 4e, 5e, and Torchbearer.

One of the primary pieces of machinery in Trad D&D is Monster Reaction Rolls/Table. When the PCs encounter a Wandering Monster or a Random Encounter, the disposition of a creature is often unfixed (except for things like Oozes, Zombies, Golems et al). 1e and Basic handle this slightly differently, but philosophically, its the same. If the PCs want to talk (and can) and the creature is capable of functional parley, roll Monster Reaction and we find out where that takes us (with the result + context of the dungeon setting guiding the GM in their further handling of the encounter).

What did 4e, 5e, and Torchbearer do? No more Monster Reaction Rolls.

Torchbearer and 5e have some similarities in NPC machinery. Torchbearer Monsters have an Instinct and Descriptors that the GM will use to frame conflict/parley with NPCs. 5e has Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws that will be doing much the same work.

4e doesn't have that kind of machinery, but the GM is advised to play NPCs as obstacles that engage with (perhaps interpose themselves between) PC thematic goals (Quests, Themes, Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies).

So the latter 3 systems have GMs directly framing NPCs (with cues) without the emergent system input of Monster Reaction Rolls.

What is the difference in play?

The nature of refereeing changes in this component. The former has an "objective refereeing" paradigm where action declaration (PCs talk to a Wandering Monster) meets chance determines disposition (rolling on a table) to find out what happens. Its essential for a pure "dungeon simulator" type of feel, where the exclusive goal is to defeat an environment of obstacles (defeat in this case meaning "get as much treasure out without needless setbacks and risks that may confound the whole operation"), that the GM is playing "neutrally."

The latter 3 games aren't refereed "objectively" or "neutrally" in the same sense as those former 2 games. That isn't to say that those games prescribe adversarial GMing. It is to say that the GM has different play priorities (and the GM in each system has slightly different play priorities, but there is some overlap in a Venn Diagram that features the 3 systems...they also each have different machinery that hooks into their play priorities). This is also because the goals of play for each of these 3 systems are different than those former 2 systems (though 5e and Torchbearer certainly have some instances of overlap with 1e and Basic, with Torchbearer having much, much more).

Challenge their thematic portfolio, goals, and skill at overcoming obstacles as you move through the hierarchy of D&D tropes.
Be master of rules, master of adventure, and lead storyteller in a tale that hooks into PC background, ideals, bonds, flaws.
Test their nature and belief in unforgiving, desperate circumstances where the light is always dying.

Those latter three don't entail "objective" or "neutral" refereeing. The point of refereeing is that you're supposed to be doing stuff that isn't neutral!

Manbearcat said:

Challenge their thematic portfolio, goals, and skill at overcoming obstacles as you move through the hierarchy of D&D tropes.
Be master of rules, master of adventure, and lead storyteller in a tale that hooks into PC background, ideals, bonds, flaws.
Test their nature and belief in unforgiving, desperate circumstances where the light is always dying.

Those latter three don't entail "objective" or "neutral" refereeing. The point of refereeing is that you're supposed to be doing stuff that isn't neutral!

Click to expand...

This is such an instructive post! It gets straight to the heart of the design premises of the respective games and how those premises define different roles for the GM.

I think so much confusion in play across systems came about by trying to fit square pegs into round holes, as it were, where the system mechanics facilitate some (but not all) roles for its participants and push hard against others.

There's a thread in the General Forum right now about "difficulty" in encounters (you know, of course, since you've posted there), and I feel like some of what you write here would probably be a novel perspective for some posters therein, who have only experienced one prism of play dynamics and try to apply that to all games, regardless of system mechanics and design goals!

Manbearcat said:

One of the primary pieces of machinery in Trad D&D is Monster Reaction Rolls/Table.

<snip>

What did 4e, 5e, and Torchbearer do? No more Monster Reaction Rolls.

<snip>

What is the difference in play?

The nature of refereeing changes in this component.

<snip>

The latter 3 games aren't refereed "objectively" or "neutrally" in the same sense as those former 2 games. That isn't to say that those games prescribe adversarial GMing. It is to say that the GM has different play priorities

<snip>

Those latter three don't entail "objective" or "neutral" refereeing. The point of refereeing is that you're supposed to be doing stuff that isn't neutral!

Click to expand...

I enjoyed your post.

Classic Traveller has a reaction roll system. Two comments on it:

(1) In this thread from around a year ago, discussing options for the PCs in my Traveller game, an approach to GMing was being articulated by one poster which is neither of the two you describe. That approach was clearly averse to using reaction rolls to determine how NPCs respond to player/PC gambits, but equally it did not rely on GM pressure against player agenda.

Rather, on the approach being articulated, the GM is already meant to have an idea of how the NPCs will respond, and the job of the players is to learn what that is (by "gathering information" ie engaging in play which will trigger the GM to tell them what the GM's ideas are about the NPCs). I think that any discussion of RPGing, including contemporary D&D play, can't ignore this approach, which seems very popular.

(2) In my Classic Traveller game, I let the players make the reaction rolls, which makes them closer to a social resolution mechanic. The rules as written already contemplate that reaction rolls will be used to determine NPC responses to PC proposals, and so putting a more contemporary "stakes" perspective on this is not drifting things very far.

That said, Classic Traveller is a very dice-driven game, so this change doesn't suddenly make it play like Burning Wheel!

darkbard said:

I think so much confusion in play across systems came about by trying to fit square pegs into round holes, as it were, where the system mechanics facilitate some (but not all) roles for its participants and push hard against others.

Click to expand...

I definitely agree with this. I think the matter is made worse (a) when folks are averse to playing different kind of games (doesn't even have to be TTRPGs...could be Eurogames) and (b) when a culture becomes insular and averse to self-reflection/analysis.

And that can be any culture. Its not great when players of rules-lite systems don't understand the mental framework that responds to a rules-heavy simulationist system just like its not great in reverse (or any of the many conflicts over play priorities).

pemerton said:

(1) In this thread from around a year ago, discussing options for the PCs in my Traveller game, an approach to GMing was being articulated by one poster which is neither of the two you describe. That approach was clearly averse to using reaction rolls to determine how NPCs respond to player/PC gambits, but equally it did not rely on GM pressure against player agenda.

Rather, on the approach being articulated, the GM is already meant to have an idea of how the NPCs will respond, and the job of the players is to learn what that is (by "gathering information" ie engaging in play which will trigger the GM to tell them what the GM's ideas are about the NPCs). I think that any discussion of RPGing, including contemporary D&D play, can't ignore this approach, which seems very popular.

Click to expand...

Extremely popular. I think a strong line of evidence for that is that 5e has some solid Social Interaction Conflict Resolution mechanics (which enable robust, yet unfixed NPCs and GM pressure on player agenda). However, it seems that most players ignore these rules (and the approach they engender) for the 2e approach you've outlined above.

(2) In my Classic Traveller game, I let the players make the reaction rolls, which makes them closer to a social resolution mechanic. The rules as written already contemplate that reaction rolls will be used to determine NPC responses to PC proposals, and so putting a more contemporary "stakes" perspective on this is not drifting things very far.

That said, Classic Traveller is a very dice-driven game, so this change doesn't suddenly make it play like Burning Wheel!

Click to expand...

Agreed on both. I think the Torchbearer > Moldvay Basic is apropos in the same way. Taking out Monster Descriptors and Instincts from Torchbearer and inserting Monster Reaction Rolls would drift things a wee bit, but it wouldn't remotely suddenly make it play like Basic!

Alright, so we've gone over Monster Reaction Rolls vs intentional GM pressure on thematic portfolio.

Let us get back to how this may work out in 4e. To recap:

* Skill Challenge Level + 2 Complexity 1; parley

This would be a failed parley leading into a combat with enemy vehicles. This and the next encounter I did not GM, but I roughly know of what happened in the preceding 5e session and can easily sort out what that may look like in 4e.

Situation:

The PCs have arrived at the nexus of the alien apocalypse. They are below the Far Realm "Mother Ship" which is hovering some 1000 feet up. They begin to to feel the local temporal distortion, courtesy of The Time Reaper onboard the Mother Ship (5e this was Disadvantage on attacks, ability checks, saves).

They are greeted by a series of shock troops piloting hoverpods and some AT-ST-like ground support vehicles which includes the leader of this crew manning the lead vehicle. They attempt to parley with him. It doesn't work.

Let us assume the 4e PCs (Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) are level 23 in this scenario. The Wizard has the Comprehend Languages Ritual active.

Level +2 Complexity 1 Parley would mean the following. 4 (typically) moderate DC successes before 3 failures w/ 1 Secondary Skill available (typically an easy to moderate DC check to augment a primary check). DCs would be 21, 29, and 38.

Click to expand...

Quite clearly, we have a Star Wars like situation where a group of NPCs in vehicles are threatening the PCs. The Wizard begins with a request for parley in their Far Realm language. The commander probably opens and peers out of the hatch of an AT-ST esque vehicle and presents an offer from his superiors. Maybe one of (or more) of the thematic interests of the PCs' will be spared if they cease with their disruption of operations.

Naturally, the Wizard opens with a Suggestion (from NCS) that pushes the envelope; bartering for some further concession. Arcana would be +25ish, so DC 29 would likely be passed.

The alien agrees to present this further concession to his leadership, but only if the PCs' gift him n Residuum (equal to 1/10 of an of-level, 23, magic item), half of which he'll take for his troubles and the other half he'll present to his leadership for as a token of good faith.

Mechanically, the above would basically open up that offer as an automatic success or failure if they insult him by declining.

So the Wizard explains the offer to the the Fighter and Rogue. They aren't having it. The Fighter asks the Wizard how to say "you'll take this offer back to your leadership or I'll take n Residuum out of your ass."

As he's saying it, he cleaves the earth with his Greatsword and a crease in the earth zig zags from the feet of the Fighter to the "feet" of the AT-AT like vehicle.

Mechanically, this would be the Fighter deploying Athletics as the lone Secondary Skill to augment his Primary Check of Intimidate (with Steely Persuasion being a +3 Prof +5 Enc buff to Intimidate). The Fighter's Athletics check would be similar to the Arcana for the Wizard so it would automatically pass the Easy DC for a +2 to the Primary Intimidate. That would be a +10 buff. A Fighter being trained in Intimidate (the Fighter in my 1-30 game was and also had Steely Persuasion) is likely so it would probably be something like +21 unbuffed so +31 for this check. Leaning on the Wizard's ability to speak the language, I'll give him the Medium DC, so that would be Success 2 with the accrued failure simultaneously for insulting the alien by denying his offer (in the fiction a greased palm and token of good faith, mechanically 1/10 the value of a level 23 magic item).

So here we would be 2 Successes and 1 Failure.

I think for this insult and threat, I would likely have the Alien commander blanch with a mix of fearful trepidation and simmering annoyance. The latter gets the better of him and he issues a command to his infantry forces to "fire a warning laser into his chest." Something to reassert dominance of position in this social transaction.

Now the Wizard maybe has some kind of Immediate Action "force-field" that he could deploy to intercept this laser beam. However, mechanically, that would be at the High DC as Arcana has already been used. That would mean something like a 14ish roll would be required. If its an Encounter Power, I'd give him +2 for the clever use, but those still aren't great odds. If he had a Daily to deploy, I'd give him an auto-success.

The Fighter could just accept the blow, trusting his armor and his fortitude to do the heavy lifting. Endurance would almost surely be trained and would probably be something like a +22ish unbuffed, so only a 7 required.

What do folks think the Rogue might offer here to deal with this (I can think of a few, but I'm curious what others might come up with) and at what modifier?

I just remembered deciding using a reaction check for any pre-planned significant npc didnt much make sense somewhere around 1980 or so LOL. note I that sentence indicates I was already deciding some NPCs were significant and others weren't so thee you have it

Manbearcat said:

What do folks think the Rogue might offer here to deal with this (I can think of a few, but I'm curious what others might come up with) and at what modifier?

Click to expand...

OK I will bite I have been working on a Practice that has a very LOKI feel to it basically the character can figure out The Perfect Price for a subject its a Insight Based item... the effect is it allows you to effectively barter down the price of just such a situation. (So if the rest of the party goes with it then its rather designed just for this) normally it takes time to perform as one has to go and gather what the subject wants more than just popping out the gold so in the end the party has spent from 1/2 to 1/5th the amount on that bribe ie 1/20th to 1/50th but the party on the other end is nice and happy it sometimes can take considerable time to do story might preclude it in a time intensive situation.

If one didnt have the practice but was still trained in Insight it might somewhat be achievable but the die roll would be just to find success and it might only be 1/2 price at best. Say actually giving them a magic item of lower level... one he knows will make his boss happy with him perhaps.

Trying to wear a DMs and Players hat at the same time with my usually game hacker hat getting mixed in LOL.

Making NPC happy by figuring that out might be able to remove the effect of the Insult as well.

This flavor of Rogue might also have "Just the Equipment they need" - batman style *its might be a karma cost but again might be worth spending both at that high of level the 30 + roll is probably likely this could be leveraged as a way that involves no time.. and still less costly than the 1/10th. Just as rituals are massively cheaper than 1/10 almost always.

The Loki Style Rogue ought to be able to Steal the Show in some sense.

All that jibber jabber to have the rogue roll insight figuring out a better bribe than just money maybe using bluff to present a magic item as more valuable than it seems.

Like all encounter level systems, 4e's is part science and part art. Certainly 4e monsters with their actually prescribed numbers lend themselves more to 'level' being an actually meaningful term, but as pointed out, who's to say a Solo level 30 monster is equivalent to two level 28 monsters, when compared to a level 23 party? Nobody knows. It depends too much on how good the monster designers were, how optimized the PCs are, and how good the DM is at adjusting on the fly.

This is why you playtest, as an adventure author.

This is also why you offer a lot of levers in a published adventure to make the encounter harder / easier / faster / etc.

Of course for a home-play group's DM, you effectively bake in a lot of the 'playtest' results to just... the way you run the game... especially if you've been DM-ing them since level 1.

= = =

Regarding the skill challenge, this is a perfect illustration of the flaws of skill challenges. The rogue should contribute whatever the rogue wants to contribute, but in actual practice he'll try to shoehorn something into Thievery, Acrobatics, Bluff (if Cha secondary), or perhaps Athletics (if Str secondary).

Then you get situations like... "I'll use Thievery to know and expose a flaw in the Far Realms vehicle, that the party can exploit if things come to blows." Some DMs will interpret this as Intimidate and unfairly assign it a higher DC than they would to Diplomacy or Bluff (or Thievery, for that matter).

Garthanos said:

Making NPC happy by figuring that out might be able to remove the effect of the Insult as well.

This flavor of Rogue might also have "Just the Equipment they need" - batman style *its might be a karma cost but again might be worth spending both at that high of level the 30 + roll is probably likely this could be leveraged as a way that involves no time.. and still less costly than the 1/10th. Just as rituals are massively cheaper than 1/10 almost always.

The Loki Style Rogue ought to be able to Steal the Show in some sense.

Click to expand...

Note both of the practices mentioned could be seen as enablers for a Wisdom build Rogue (insight to pick out The Perfect Price) and similarly the Batman like enabler to have what you need. It makes the archetype more flexible. Without changing other mechanics.