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

Imaro · Dec 10, 2018

Manbearcat said:
There is a substantive difference.

However, the problem I see is the culture of D&D embracing the early 90s first principle of GMing that "there is no such thing as GM accountability for playing the world with integrity. The GM is only accountable for what they perceive will create the best story and most fun at the table."

What exactly do you mean by "integrity" here?

Manbearcat · Dec 10, 2018

Imaro said:
What exactly do you mean by "integrity" here?

I mean these people have no integrity. They're rotten to the core. They spend their mornings kicking puppies while they twirl their evil mustachios and hatch vile plots for world domination.

Ok, seriously.

I think two classic examples of not playing the world with integrity would be:

a) Post-hoc creating a block of an action declaration (maybe a spell cast or a piece of gear deployed or something else) because it negatively impacts where you (the GM) want the fiction to go or how you want the dynamics of play/conflict to work out.

b) Changing the fiction of an action resolution roll ("what should have happened" to "what has happened"...turning success into failure or vice versa) because of your idea of what creates fun/desirable story; manufacturing fictional outcomes via dice/rules manipulation.

Imaro · Dec 10, 2018

Manbearcat said:
I mean these people have no integrity. They're rotten to the core. They spend their mornings kicking puppies while they twirl their evil mustachios and hatch vile plots for world domination.

Ok, seriously.

I think two classic examples of not playing the world with integrity would be:

a) Post-hoc creating a block of an action declaration (maybe a spell cast or a piece of gear deployed or something else) because it negatively impacts where you (the GM) want the fiction to go or how you want the dynamics of play/conflict to work out.

b) Changing the fiction of an action resolution roll ("what should have happened" to "what has happened"...turning success into failure or vice versa) because of your idea of what creates fun/desirable story; manufacturing fictional outcomes via dice/rules manipulation.

Ah ok... this is what I thought you meant but I wanted to make sure before addressing your other post.

heretic888 · Dec 10, 2018

pemerton said:
Frankly, I think even running a 4e combat then a DW combat would show that players roll the dice isn't the same as only players make mechanical-type moves (I'm bracketing deal damage - I don't think that would change the outcome of the experiment).

I know I'm a little late to the party here, but I wanted to speak on this...

I think a lot of people generalize DW to the entire PbtA school of games way, way too much. There are other PbtA games, designed by Vincent Baker even, where the MC rolls dice for NPC declarations (see Freebooting Venus, among others).

Also, in Apocalypse World proper (especially 2nd edition) the battle moves are the only basic moves that don't have a "on a miss, prepare for the worst" clause (what other PbtA games sometimes call a hard move). There is a reason for that and its because every "round" you're in battle the MC is automatically making moves against you (exchanging or inflicting harm are standard MC moves and happen every time you make a battle move, not just when you roll a miss).

Here is an actual writeup Vincent did of AW combat: http://lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/thread/786 . Its not as starkly different from D&D combat if one uses group initiative and static damage (instead of damage rolls).

If I were to try to tweak 4E to play more like AW combat, this is what I'd personally do:
1a) Use group initiative, or...
1b) ... toss initiative entirely and let players go in whatever order they speak up (but only 1 turn per round). If they attack an NPC, the NPC gets to take his or her turn immediately; otherwise NPCs act at the end of the round.
2) Use average damage instead of damage rolls.
3) Use 2d10 instead of 1d20 for action resolution.
4) Have crits trigger on any roll that beats a target number by 10+.
5) I wouldn't change how misses work at all since the result of a miss in both AW combat and 4E combat is the same: a failed opportunity and you expose yourself to continued danger.

Blades in the Dark is a different kettle of fish from Apocalypse World, though. It actually does resolve all conflict through a SC-like framework.

Garthanos · Dec 11, 2018

Manbearcat said:
My opinion of this is it only works when the table is full of passive players who just want to be entertained and roll some dice.

My first attempt at GMing Dragon Quest was for a player who never decided to do anything based on dozens of differing cues to participate in the story in different ways I just started forcing him to react and he complained later about the other guys having the initiative all the time. He never took the initiative and never had a goal, passive is the worst.

Manbearcat · Dec 11, 2018

Alright, back to the primary topic in the lead post. In 4e, I would probably handle the two Hoverpods as follows:

HP 212; Bloodied 106 Initiative +21
AC 37, Fortitude 34, Reflex 35, Will 32
Speed 0, fly 8 (hover)

Lasers At-Will
Attack: Ranged 10 (one creature); +25 vs. Ref
Hit: 2d8 + 7 damage.

Afterburner Assault At-Will
Effect: The Hoverpod flies its speed. At any point during its movement, the Hoverpod can uses Lasers twice. The Hoverpod gains +2 to Fly Speed UtEoYNT.

Shields - Immediate Interrupt (Recharge 6)
Trigger: You're hit by an attack that targets AC or Reflex
Effect: Gain +2 to AC and Reflex UtEoYNT.

Covering Fire - Immediate Reaction (Recharge 6)
Trigger: An Ally within 10 squares is attacked.
Effect: The target takes -2 penalty to hit.

I think it should be a pretty reasonable chance to defeat the Minions in the time frame allotted for Success. It really just depends upon (a) if the Trap can take out one of the PCs (if they lose Flying and drop as far as they would drop, that would significantly damage the overall team action economy as they attempt to recover and fly back into the fight), (b) if APs are available and deployed, and (c) if the Wizard has multi-attack options in their suite of control Spells (AoE bursts aren't going to be particularly helpful in this 3d scenario full of flyers).

If team PC does a good job here, they could be looking at getting inside the hangar with each Hoverpod having a decent chunk of HPs left (and therefore using them for the fight in the hangar).

Manbearcat · Dec 12, 2018

Forgot to handle this.

In 4e, I would handle the localized Temporal issues caused by the Time Reaper with the Disease/Condition Track:

Temporal Anomaly
Attack: +25 vs Will when first entering the localized effect.
Stage 0: The target recovers.
Stage 1: The target's speed is no longer reduced and its penalty to defenses is -1 instead of -2.
Stage 2: Initial Effect: The target's speed is reduced by 1 and it takes a -2 penalty to defenses.
Stage 3: Each time the target becomes bloodied, it is slowed (save ends). If the target is slowed because of Temporal Anomaly and is reduced to 0 hit points, the target is lost in time.
Stage 4: Final State: Each time the target takes damage, it is slowed (save ends). If the target is slowed because of this disease effect and is reduced to 0 hit points, the target is lost in time.
Check: At the end of each short rest, the target makes a Dungeoneering or Endurance check if it is at stage 1, 2, or 3.
19 or lower: The stage of the Temporal Anomaly increases by one.
20-27: No Change
28 or higher: The stage of the Temporal Anomaly decreases by one.

Garthanos · Dec 12, 2018

When interacting with temporal effects I tend to think of History skills to represent how well one is seated and aware of the "now" vs the "then" ,

Manbearcat · Dec 12, 2018

Garthanos said:
When interacting with temporal effects I tend to think of History skills to represent how well one is seated and aware of the "now" vs the "then" ,

That makes sense to me. I'd throw History in there with Dungeoneering and Endurance.

AbdulAlhazred · Dec 13, 2018

I wouldn't even consider these hoverpods a threat, given their damage output, at this level. 2d8+7, twice per round, meh. Ignore them! Or just pick them up in area fire and eventually they'll be crisped. They seem kinda uninteresting really.

This is something that I have a problem with in some 4e monster design:

Lasers - too weak to make an impression at this level, the actual damage expression is applicable to mid-paragon.

Shields - so what?

Covering Fire - Still really too trivial to make much impression. I mean, yes, it may possibly cause something to happen, but is that something INTERESTING enough to be worth dealing with a recharge ability on 3 combatants?

I'm not saying this monster is not suitable, just that it isn't INTERESTING, at all. They will be like some flies buzzing around. You could just turn this into an aura that does 5 damage per round to anyone within 10 squares of a hovertank or something, simpler, and no less dramatic!