D&D 4E What's so bad about 4th edition? What's so good about other systems?

[Matt James]

What's wrong with combat systems that use miniatures?

 

[nnms]

What's wrong with combat systems that use miniatures?

Nothing. I love miniature wargaming and the combat system of 4E.

I'm talking about the harsh game mode transitions and the situation leading up to pre-designed set piece tactical encounters being largely irrelevant. 4E tactical combats are interesting, but generally speaking, they are going to be within certain level boundaries and xp budgets. They're going to generally involve a party of PCs in an interesting tactical situation against a small warband of monsters.

In the game mode before combat begins, the game play is going to be concerned with the content of the fiction. In exploration, there will be description and skill rolls about the different things the PCs do and the results will be described. The same thing in the dialogue/conversation mode. But then there's a harsh transition to the combat mode. And the decision making and system use ceases to be directly about the content of the fiction and becomes about squares, healing surges, encounter powers, HP, etc.,.

And if extra effort is put into connecting it to the fiction with descriptions and dialogue, it generally adds extra time to the combat without actually changing any system result. In the exploration and dialogue modes, the fictional inputs cause the system to be used which then again informs the fiction. In combat, most fictional inputs are largely colour with little or no impact on the fiction. And when they do have system impact, they're often relatively minor. Perhaps a +2 to a roll or getting combat advantage or something from p42 of the DMG.

The game handles the creative fictional input of the participants in a vastly different manner in combat mode.

The transition to combat mode is often very harsh. In many other games, combat uses a less drastically different system and often doesn't need the same level of mode change.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In the game mode before combat begins, the game play is going to be concerned with the content of the fiction. ... And the decision making and system use ceases to be directly about the content of the fiction and becomes about squares, healing surges, encounter powers, HP, etc.,.

I suppose 4e needs some sort of special labeling.

"WARNING: This game contains rules that actually work."

 

[catastrophic]

I think formalizing too many things by making them 'qualities' and 'points' and whatnot actually degrades the flexibility of the game, makes it seem even more mechanical, and adds little concrete advantage.

In general, i'd argue, how much of that flexibility is realyl useful? In human beings, flexibility is actually derived from strength, and a solid system backing up the gm is what allows them to really explore entertaining ideas.

For instance, before 4e, a DM could claim that a combat could be a straight up battle, where the dice fall where they may, if that's what they and their players are after- but they'd basically be lying, because the combat system relied on too muhc fiat to ever, really do that. Endless choised and tweaks and hand-waves went into every moment of combat, and all the conditions that led to combat. Now in 4e, you really can do a battle like that, to a much greater degree.

You can also play around with other formats as well- the system is there backing you up, sharing the load. That's the idea i'd like extended to other areas. It's not about restriction, it's about giving the GM the support to genuinly push the envelope, while still keeping the game as a GAME, with the depth and variety that offers, rather than just the gm whimming everything into form, which to be frank, is not nearly as versatile a process as we DMs would like to believe.

You don't have to 'reimagine the role of combat' to make it faster.... So even supposing all your suggestions were implemented and work fine they don't solve the issue.

I agree that the system i'm proposing would not directly hit on many of the issues with 4e combat, but it would hit on other issues with 4e combat.

I do thing that combat needs to be made a lot sleeker in any event, particularly by eliminating and cutting down a lot of key issues, like nonstandard interactions (conditional feats, ect), too much round by round book-keeping, the 4e christmas tree effect, and so on. I'm totally supportive of that kind of fix.

As an example of what i'd be after, i've had an idea for a while for a stat called 'penalty' or 'woe', which would be a standardised general abstract measure of how ed up your guy was. Somebody else mentioned an idea like this on this thread as well iirc.

It would be used instead of, or in conjunction with, a smaller set of negative effects, and most powers would not inflict such effects, but rather just inflict woe in addition to normal damage. It could be as simple as a value that ranged from 1-5, which acts as a persistant penalty to defences. This value would then act a bit like hit points, or just degrade by one point per turn.

Now there's all sorts of things a system like this could add, but the core idea is simple. Remove a lot of niggling minor effects and book-keeping, by folding them into a single semi-universal value.

And still, as far as the 'step it up' kind of things. What if I want my recurring villain to come back? If the player has a resource that says he can change that then we're into the whole DM messing with player resources etc. It may also just not make sense. I mean sure the player has to figure out how to make it make sense in the narrative, but just setting the scene properly seems to be enough to me "The bad guy runs back across the rickety bridge into the dark, do you want to follow after him?". That is the standard D&D way of doing it, which seems fine to me.

I'm not opposed to that, and i'm not saying the system would replace that. It would just make things clear, and give another option as to how to resolve scenes and the give-and-take between players and GM.

You could easily for instance, signal that you're not going to catch this guy this time BUT- that alone is an opportunity. In other games, you can actually OFFER the players a bonus in exchange for that sort of thing- the villain getting away, or the heroes being captured, is the kind of thing a GM might offer a hero point for. Players can also VOLUNTARILY offer these complications in return for such points, giving them a way to hang their hyjinks on the story without being concerned that they're derailing the game.

And sure again, the GM is the final arbiter, but systems like this work really well. And it actually makes it easier for the GM to set up situations like, say, the villain escaping. Rather than having to manipulate the combat in order to make sure the guy gets away, AND probably deny players the full use of their powers in the process ("You immobilised him? Heh, well, good thing he has ANOTHING free saving thrown encounter power!") The GM can just be up front and say "the villain hurls a smoke bomb and dashes away, leaping onto a waiting griffon and soaring into the sky. You each recieve one hero point as you vow to hunt him down!"

And yeah, if the PCs save those hero points and make very clear they're going to spend them in the next fight with the villain, to get them the extra attacks and moves they need to bring him down? Well you as the GM should recognise the clear message your players are sending.

And again, on the flipside, if that's where they want to spend their resources, then it's good they have a clear, functional system to make those decisions. To decide what kind of impact they want to have on the world. This leads back to the idea of a points system, and how points can be used.

Perhaps I've become set in my ways, but it has worked pretty well for all these years, lol.

I hear you, but there is a lot to be gained from innovative design.

 

[nnms]

I suppose 4e needs some sort of special labeling.

"WARNING: This game contains rules that actually work."

I guess you haven't been reading my posts.

Of course it works.

How many times did I say that all of the downsides are things that are actually features/strengths that I simply am not enjoying any more? Or that doesn't produce the play experience that I want?

I find the transitions between combat mode and the other game modes to be too harsh. And that the connection between the rules and the shared fiction at the table becomes less direct during combat.

Let me know if you have anything to discuss about what I'm actually saying.

 

[Matt James]

I find the transitions between combat mode and the other game modes to be too harsh. And that the connection between the rules and the shared fiction at the table becomes less direct during combat.

This quote is where my disconnect from your message is. It doesn't mean you are wrong at all and I want to learn more about it. I've never experienced this in my campaigns. Are you experiencing this through organized public play games (like LFR)?

Transitioning is a part of the game. The degree of rigidness comes from the storyteller--not the game. Just as the game cannot force roleplaying, it cannot govern the phenomenon you are describing.

 

[Scribble]

This quote is where my disconnect from your message is. It doesn't mean you are wrong at all and I want to learn more about it. I've never experienced this in my campaigns. Are you experiencing this through organized public play games (like LFR)?

Transitioning is a part of the game. The degree of rigidness comes from the storyteller--not the game. Just as the game cannot force roleplaying, it cannot govern the phenomenon you are describing.

I can understand a little bit of what he's saying.

Most of the other parts of the game exist solely withing your head-space; something happens, and maybe there's a die roll or something, or maybe a small picture is drawn to clarify something, but for the most part, something is described, and then the action and resolutions are described in turn, and we continue as we go.

Mini combat generally involves more "pause" time, especially with the more elaborate setups. The game is "paused" the setup takes place, and then a lot of the action takes place on the battle mat.

For some it's jarring- especially if the "scene in their head" doesn't quite match the one on the board. (And I don't know about you, but minis almost never perfectly match what I'm seeing in my head as to how characters look...)

In a way it's kind of like reading a book for one chapter, then popping in the DVD for the next, then going back to the book.

This doesn't make it bad, or wrong, nor is it an issue everyone has.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I know I already used this line, but this really sounds like burnout to me. A change may be as good as a holiday: or you might just need a long holiday from GMing.

Having read the thread, I have to agree. A clear case of burnout. nnms, I'd suggest taking a few months off from DMing (with the ease of DMing 4th it's not as if most groups are short of DMs) and play. Or do something else. You really need the break.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

He could be burned out on the game period. I wouldn't short change the fact that the person might be tired of 4th edition and wants something new. If he is genuinely tired of 4th edition and nothing else then taking a break isn't going to change that.

Putting the blame on the person or dismissing it as burnout isn't always the case. If someone says they are tired of RPG's in general then that sounds more like burnout period.

I love my BMW when I first bought it and it has been a great car, but now I want another one because I'm getting tired of the one I have.

 

[Mr. Patient]

So I am of the mind that the perfect, at least for me, fantasy rpg system would have to be one that is a hybrid of whats good from 4E coupled with what I miss from 3.5. I don't find Pathfinder to be this, as it is mostly just 3.5 extended and not enough of 4E. So if WoTC is reading this, or some budding RPG designer, there is the need identified, the demand without a supply at the moment. My 2 cents.

Trailblazer may be what you're looking for. It includes a number of 4eish mechanics on top of a 3.5 base, including things like recharges after short rests, elites and solos, and action points (in a somewhat different form).

Bad Axe Games