The roots of 4e exposed?

MwaO · Jul 17, 2018

Manbearcat said:
@MwaO

I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing with in my post. Can you hone in on the aspect you’re disagreeing with?

Manbearcat said:
4e...more kindred with Dogs, Fate, Cortex+ in that (a) the resolution of scenes gets cemented in mechanically and (b) an aspect of the mental overhead that players must assimilate is how their action declarations map to the mechanics and how the fiction and the scene’s resolution (both current and the finality) orbit around those declared actions and attendant mechanics.

Scenes do not necessarily have to be cemented in mechanically. I wrote in a no-mechanics role-playing encounter into a 4e LFR mod where the PCs talked with various NPCs, there were no relevant skill rolls or powers to use, and the outcome of the player decisions drove the LFR campaign direction for year 5. And players were really invested in their decisions, too.

Manbearcat · Jul 17, 2018

MwaO said:
Scenes do not necessarily have to be cemented in mechanically.

I definitely agree.

Take Blades in the Dark, for example. It’s has 3 phases of play:

Free Play
Score
Downtime

Each of those are effectively “scenes” or multiple scenes. However, only in certain cases (eg the GM deployment of a Clock or Opposing Clocks - very much kindred to 4e) will scene resolution be cemented in mechanically (rather than “organically”).

But we’re talking about 4e D&D noncombat conflict resolution whereby mechanical architecture is used (as it is in Cortex+, Fate, Dogs, or Blades when a GM uses Opposing Clocks) to determine (a) the dramatic pacing of a scene (while allowing players considerable agency in the mechanical goings-on of the evolving narrative...thereby considerable agency in that emergent fiction and in the manifestation of their PC archetype) and (b) when finality of resolution occurs (rather than GM discretion or table consensus).

Shasarak · Jul 17, 2018

pemerton said:
I think players need to know they're in a skill challenge if they're going to make reasoned choices about what resources to use (eg powers, action points, equipment, etc). In that respect I think the comparison to combat is apt.

I don't see resolution as something separate from the "real" game.

I guess in the real game you dont need to know you are in a Skill Challenge to have your character make reasoned choices about what resources to use. Like in the Dire Bear example, do I need to know that I am in a skill challenge to recognise that the Ranger using Nature skill is probably the optimal strategy to use?

Your approach definitely makes sense if you are jumping the game from Scene to Scene though.

Shasarak · Jul 18, 2018

pemerton said:
Those daily abilities don't have to be hoarded/preserved., though. The "adventuring day" might involve one encounter, or a dozen, and it makes no difference to game balance. If the players all nova in the first encounter of the day, this doesn't allow wizards to outshine fighters. It's purely about pacing.

So again, how is that any different from any version of DnD other then making Fighters use the exact same mechanics as Wizards? How is everyone novaing on the first (and only) encounter of the day not going to affect game balance? How is that not going to affect pacing?

Whereas other editions (and 13th Age) depend for balance upon an "adventuring day" that has enough encounters, or the threat of them, to balance wizards and other casters against fighters and thieves/rogues. 13th Age formalises this into a rule of "one full rest after four encounters". 5e relies on the GM ensuring an "adventuring day" of the right length. Which then generates a pressure towards GM managed ficiton and story, rather than playing more spontaneously from one encounter to the next.

The lack of asymmetric resource suites makes a huge difference in this respect.

I dont really know enough about 13th age to be able to comment on how much like DnD it is. Basing the recharge system on four encounters seems pretty arbitrary to me but I guess some people must enjoy it.

Well, in classic dungeoneering the players scout out the dungeon and choose which room they engage. So the GM provides the "menu", but the players choose from it.

It certainly helps if the rooms on the menu are interesting! But players are also expected to bring their own desire for gold and magic loot, and their planning and decisions about how to tackle the rooms are meant to provide a significant part of the play experience.

It's a different dynamic from scene-framed play.

OK so if I am understanding this correctly then in a Narrative game you do not have an Exploration aspect? You dont have a map to explore?

AbdulAlhazred · Jul 18, 2018

pemerton said:
For me, "linear adventures"/railroading are fun when the characters are fairly vibrant (and so there is fun to be had bringing my character to life as part of play, given the other main bit of play - making choices that shape the fiction - is not really happening) and the GM/module is providing an engaging story that the vibrant characters fit into well.

I've enjoyed CoC played in this style, and also Pendragon - using pregens to ensure vibrant characters that fit into the story. I personally don't like it so much for "rootless wanderer"-type D&D, as the story in that sort of RPGing tends to be pretty thin.

Right, I agree with you there. It can work reasonably well for CoC or other very 'tight-genre' type games where you want a specific sort of experience. I mean, CoC is pretty much the poster child since the end result is ALWAYS "you're brain was melted by horrors from beyond" or at best that you narrowly avoided the funny farm THIS time, but now that your SAN is down to 12... (yeah, I had a character with a 12 SAN once, it was pretty funny, I think I actually played all the way down to 2 SAN and then it kind of imploded).

Ted Serious · Jul 18, 2018

pemerton said:
And 4e/WotC did?

Yes. They drove their fans away.
Paizo does not want to do that with Pathfinder 2. They will not make the mistakes WotC did with 4e.

Charlaquin · Jul 18, 2018

Ted Serious said:
Yes. They drove their fans away.
Paizo does not want to do that with Pathfinder 2. They will not make the mistakes WotC did with 4e.

You said "Paizo isn't trying to drive their fans away." WotC didn't try to drive their fans away with 4e either.

Ted Serious · Jul 18, 2018

Charlaquin said:
You said "Paizo isn't trying to drive their fans away." WotC didn't try to drive their fans away with 4e either.

Obviously.

But they succeeded.

They were trying so hard for new MMO fans they drove away the D&D fans they had.

AbdulAlhazred · Jul 18, 2018

Shasarak said:
I really dont see that 4e does not rely on the adventuring day. Everyone has Daily abilities, they all get a certain number of Healing surges per day with Action points that reset every day and items that also have Daily abilities. At high levels you get abiltiies like: "Once per day, when you die....". 4e is full of the normal DnD resources that need to be carefully hoarded and preserved. It kind of detracts from your main points to be honest.

But 4e is MUCH less a per-day gated game, and much more a per-encounter gated one than other editions of D&D. 'classic D&D' doesn't really have per-encounter resources at all. The main party resource, spells, are always per-day, as are hit points (essentially). I can't think of a good example of a per-encounter resource in AD&D at all, beyond maybe "thieves can only backstab once per encounter", but even that's not a hard rule, just an expected fictional limitation.

In 4e you can certainly continue to operate, even with many resources largely depleted. You get your encounter powers back, you have milestones which allow recouping of APs, and many item powers/properties are usable on either a continuous, at-will, or encounter basis. Its true, HS puts a cap on your day, eventually, but the limit is generally high enough that its more a question of management vs continuing until its expended.

If the DM is presenting or "framing" a room in a Gygaxian dungeon, and I must admit that some of those rooms can be very interesting indeed, how is that not meeting your first premise?

And then if the Players engage with that scenario then that must meet your second requirement as well.

Sorry I am still having trouble differentiating exactly what you mean.

Scene framing in Story Now is a process of reacting to player cues to produce a situation which challenges their character's beliefs/interests/genre-based questions. Gygaxian dungeon encounters are puzzle/challenge elements which are, by intention, unrelated to player/character choices, which are supposed to be made as part of a 'game of skill' intended to allow the player to showcase his expertise in overcoming the GM's diabolical schemes and monsters. One HUGE difference is that, by definition, dungeon encounters are set-piece things created ahead of time, while Story Now encounters are ideally created on the fly in a sort of feedback loop with the players. Obviously neither of these ideals is usually fully realized, but they exist.

AbdulAlhazred · Jul 18, 2018

Shasarak said:
Ok, thats alright. I have found that in most scenarios it is hard to fit one or two of the PCs in like maybe the Fighter in this Bear scenario, while the Ranger is in his element. Obviously it depends on your character abilities so maybe the Sorcerer can pull off Intimidate but if the Wizard had to do it then it would be basically an impossible roll.

I was asking about about whether you let the Players know they are in a Skill Challenge with number of successes or not because for me it always seems to make it into a kind of mini game. It feels very much like when Combat starts and the Minis come out and now the real game is on hold while we resolve this seperate part. I have seen a few people suggesting to not let the Players know and others who take the opposite tact.

4e seems to be all-in for transparency in combat, though there have been discussions around things like "are minions declared as such or just described and its left to the players to figure it out" or "do you tell the players the monster's hit point totals" etc. The same question of course can be asked about SCs. My opinion is that the players are collaborators and its fruitless to keep things from them unless there's a really interesting reason to do so.