Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
The Best Thing from 4E
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6564133" data-attributes="member: 6668292"><p>It's weird how experiences differ. My brother got me into TTRPGs, and he's been the GM that I've gamed the most under by a huge margin. He is extremely good as illusionism in that his players (myself and several of our mutual friends) know it's going on, but don't know exactly how, and that the game is still incredibly enjoyable. There was never a "toxic, paranoid, passive-aggressive relationship" between any of the players and the GM, even though we (as players) knew what was going on, and talked about the illusionism amongst ourselves often when my brother wasn't in the room.</p><p></p><p>Now, that's not to say that it's my preferred technique to play under. That style led to us, as players, making bigger and bigger risks, being more and more reckless and silly, because we knew, from a meta perspective, that we had an outrageous level of plot protection, and that my brother would bend over backwards to keep the campaign from collapsing. This meant that this technique, while still very enjoyable, steered those campaigns towards very meta and silly areas, rather than more immersive and emotional (the latter being my preference).</p><p></p><p>His techniques have changed over time (as have mine, and probably all GMs), and he's met somewhere in the middle. He rolls in the open (rather than behind a screen or his hand) and uses those results, but still fudges non-mechanical stuff to make things more interesting (in his mind... but to his credit, his games are still fun).</p><p></p><p>You know what's also weird about this? As clear as 4e is, I've had to ad-hoc way, way more stuff than I do with, say, my RPG. The players are constantly asking me how things work, or if they can do certain things, and I often have to remind them they can try things that aren't on their power sheets (though the Warpriest is the best about trying stuff out or asking about it).</p><p></p><p>In my experience, 4e is much more GM-empowering that my RPG, in that it requires GM feedback much more than my RPG does. My RPG still requires a lot of GM input (level of NPCs, their personalities, creation of setting... all the things GMs do), but once things are set, they're set. In 4e, I'm judging stunts on page 42, I'm deciding what skill can do what or if it's appropriate to their level / tier, I'm coming up with how skill challenges work and what the consequences of both success and failure are, etc.</p><p></p><p>Basically, there is a lot more forced GM-empowerment in 4e than I'm used to, and it's slowly taking a toll on my enjoyment of running 4e. That and the prep. I like making monsters, but I'm just done with looking at treasure every level. I can't bring myself to do it anymore. The monsters are interesting, but they usually feel a little lackluster unless I alter them to fit my campaign, and that gets a little tedious, too, even if the payoff is enjoyable.</p><p></p><p>I don't know. There are things I like about 4e. I'd never run it as my primary campaign, but it's been fun running it. The game I run is a lot more... action-oriented (I want to use the word superficial, which is accurate for my group, but I don't want to sound condescending or something towards the entire system) than what I'm used to. And much, much more prep-intensive than what I'm used to in terms of mechanical baddies (I "prep" setting in any campaign I run... I love world building).</p><p></p><p>All that being said, I did run a 3.X (3.5 for something like 99% of it) for a few years, so I get why people like the prep more. It's easier in some ways, for sure. The monsters are more predictable, the combat is still fun. The game is fun if you enjoy what it does or you can enjoy what it does (which I can). It's much more predictable than 3.X is, in my experience, and if you want that, I get why people like it.</p><p></p><p>But as far as 4e's "transparency" goes:</p><p></p><p>I just don't feel this. I feel 4e rules are much, <em>much</em>, more "unclear/incoherent/hand-wavey" than the rules in my RPG, and in many ways, 3.X. Combat powers are clear, but stunts (page 42), skill uses, skill challenges options, chances of success (Easy, Moderate, or Hard) are all GM-adjudicated, which is directly taking power away from players and putting it in the hands of the GM.</p><p></p><p>That is, if skill uses are clearly and completely spelled out, with many uses and DCs, the players can look at their bonuses, the DCs, and not only build characters in a concrete direction, ("if I get +X to Example Skill, then I'll be able to consistently do Example Action even if I roll a 1!"), but they also know their chances of success or failure without the GM coming up with whether or not it's even possible ("no, you can't throw your hands into the forge to hold down Whlem" or "yes, I think it's appropriate at your level for you to be able to, but it's a Hard DC, and your hands will burn and you'll need a ritual to heal them").</p><p></p><p>If Skill Challenges, as a system, have a formula for determining how many successes are necessary, and the players get to decide who is making the check based on fictional positioning instead of being forced to contribute by initiative, your players can come up with plans with explicit DCs, estimate their chances of success, <em>and decide to go for it or not without any GM input whatsoever</em>.</p><p></p><p>If there is a stunt system in-place in the system that the players can access (with rules laid out for them to use), they can access these stunts without checking with the GM to see if it's even possible. They can say "I'm going to kick off the wall and come down from the side with more force than a normal swing, giving me a +1 on my attack" instead of leaving the authority completely in the hands of the GM.</p><p></p><p>If there was a formula by level or by tier to determine Easy/Moderate/Hard DCs for skill uses (broken down by skill use), then the players wouldn't have to rely on question-and-answer time when making plans with the GM ("what DC would it be to do Example Action?") many times per session (at least, in my sessions, where skill uses come up often). They could just look it up, check the DC / see if it's possible, and then make a player-empowered decision to pursue that course of action (or not).</p><p></p><p>What we have instead is a system where these things (and others, but this is already a very long post) are all explicitly given to the GM to control. Some people might give players control of outcomes, but I think it's the very niche group where the GM asks the player "and what DC is it?" when the player declares an action in-game. Sure, that group might be out there, but I don't think 4e text really supports it, nor was it intended that way (though it'd work with the right mix of players, I think).</p><p></p><p>Anyway, I just wanted to chime in on this "transparency" thing, and how it relates to play. This:</p><p></p><p></p><p>This was just not my experience at all. In practice, 4e pushed a lot of rules onto me, forcing me to make way more rulings than I'd like to in any given session. Having played 3.X for years, I can kind of see where people are coming from, but I just don't think it's nearly as clean or clear or player-empowered as I hear its fans call it.</p><p></p><p>But that's just my experience. And I don't mean to go off on an anti-4e rant in a pro-4e thread. I have a long thread about my sessions running a 4e campaign on this site that I've maintained for a while now (coming up on two years this September: <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340726-JamesonCourage-s-First-4e-Session&p=6180484#post6180484" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340726-JamesonCourage-s-First-4e-Session&p=6180484#post6180484</a>).</p><p></p><p>I've had a lot of fun with 4e. But I'm still a little baffled by the claims to wonderful player-empowerment. I get the transparency, but player-empowerment seemed quite intertwined in Manbearcat's definition, and that just doesn't ring true to me.</p><p></p><p>But the reason I bring this up is to not only share my experience, but also to get some perspective on it from outside my own. Anyone have any thoughts to my entire-too-long post? Am I missing something? Am I wrong? Maybe. And I'm open to finding out.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JamesonCourage, post: 6564133, member: 6668292"] It's weird how experiences differ. My brother got me into TTRPGs, and he's been the GM that I've gamed the most under by a huge margin. He is extremely good as illusionism in that his players (myself and several of our mutual friends) know it's going on, but don't know exactly how, and that the game is still incredibly enjoyable. There was never a "toxic, paranoid, passive-aggressive relationship" between any of the players and the GM, even though we (as players) knew what was going on, and talked about the illusionism amongst ourselves often when my brother wasn't in the room. Now, that's not to say that it's my preferred technique to play under. That style led to us, as players, making bigger and bigger risks, being more and more reckless and silly, because we knew, from a meta perspective, that we had an outrageous level of plot protection, and that my brother would bend over backwards to keep the campaign from collapsing. This meant that this technique, while still very enjoyable, steered those campaigns towards very meta and silly areas, rather than more immersive and emotional (the latter being my preference). His techniques have changed over time (as have mine, and probably all GMs), and he's met somewhere in the middle. He rolls in the open (rather than behind a screen or his hand) and uses those results, but still fudges non-mechanical stuff to make things more interesting (in his mind... but to his credit, his games are still fun). You know what's also weird about this? As clear as 4e is, I've had to ad-hoc way, way more stuff than I do with, say, my RPG. The players are constantly asking me how things work, or if they can do certain things, and I often have to remind them they can try things that aren't on their power sheets (though the Warpriest is the best about trying stuff out or asking about it). In my experience, 4e is much more GM-empowering that my RPG, in that it requires GM feedback much more than my RPG does. My RPG still requires a lot of GM input (level of NPCs, their personalities, creation of setting... all the things GMs do), but once things are set, they're set. In 4e, I'm judging stunts on page 42, I'm deciding what skill can do what or if it's appropriate to their level / tier, I'm coming up with how skill challenges work and what the consequences of both success and failure are, etc. Basically, there is a lot more forced GM-empowerment in 4e than I'm used to, and it's slowly taking a toll on my enjoyment of running 4e. That and the prep. I like making monsters, but I'm just done with looking at treasure every level. I can't bring myself to do it anymore. The monsters are interesting, but they usually feel a little lackluster unless I alter them to fit my campaign, and that gets a little tedious, too, even if the payoff is enjoyable. I don't know. There are things I like about 4e. I'd never run it as my primary campaign, but it's been fun running it. The game I run is a lot more... action-oriented (I want to use the word superficial, which is accurate for my group, but I don't want to sound condescending or something towards the entire system) than what I'm used to. And much, much more prep-intensive than what I'm used to in terms of mechanical baddies (I "prep" setting in any campaign I run... I love world building). All that being said, I did run a 3.X (3.5 for something like 99% of it) for a few years, so I get why people like the prep more. It's easier in some ways, for sure. The monsters are more predictable, the combat is still fun. The game is fun if you enjoy what it does or you can enjoy what it does (which I can). It's much more predictable than 3.X is, in my experience, and if you want that, I get why people like it. But as far as 4e's "transparency" goes: I just don't feel this. I feel 4e rules are much, [I]much[/I], more "unclear/incoherent/hand-wavey" than the rules in my RPG, and in many ways, 3.X. Combat powers are clear, but stunts (page 42), skill uses, skill challenges options, chances of success (Easy, Moderate, or Hard) are all GM-adjudicated, which is directly taking power away from players and putting it in the hands of the GM. That is, if skill uses are clearly and completely spelled out, with many uses and DCs, the players can look at their bonuses, the DCs, and not only build characters in a concrete direction, ("if I get +X to Example Skill, then I'll be able to consistently do Example Action even if I roll a 1!"), but they also know their chances of success or failure without the GM coming up with whether or not it's even possible ("no, you can't throw your hands into the forge to hold down Whlem" or "yes, I think it's appropriate at your level for you to be able to, but it's a Hard DC, and your hands will burn and you'll need a ritual to heal them"). If Skill Challenges, as a system, have a formula for determining how many successes are necessary, and the players get to decide who is making the check based on fictional positioning instead of being forced to contribute by initiative, your players can come up with plans with explicit DCs, estimate their chances of success, [I]and decide to go for it or not without any GM input whatsoever[/I]. If there is a stunt system in-place in the system that the players can access (with rules laid out for them to use), they can access these stunts without checking with the GM to see if it's even possible. They can say "I'm going to kick off the wall and come down from the side with more force than a normal swing, giving me a +1 on my attack" instead of leaving the authority completely in the hands of the GM. If there was a formula by level or by tier to determine Easy/Moderate/Hard DCs for skill uses (broken down by skill use), then the players wouldn't have to rely on question-and-answer time when making plans with the GM ("what DC would it be to do Example Action?") many times per session (at least, in my sessions, where skill uses come up often). They could just look it up, check the DC / see if it's possible, and then make a player-empowered decision to pursue that course of action (or not). What we have instead is a system where these things (and others, but this is already a very long post) are all explicitly given to the GM to control. Some people might give players control of outcomes, but I think it's the very niche group where the GM asks the player "and what DC is it?" when the player declares an action in-game. Sure, that group might be out there, but I don't think 4e text really supports it, nor was it intended that way (though it'd work with the right mix of players, I think). Anyway, I just wanted to chime in on this "transparency" thing, and how it relates to play. This: This was just not my experience at all. In practice, 4e pushed a lot of rules onto me, forcing me to make way more rulings than I'd like to in any given session. Having played 3.X for years, I can kind of see where people are coming from, but I just don't think it's nearly as clean or clear or player-empowered as I hear its fans call it. But that's just my experience. And I don't mean to go off on an anti-4e rant in a pro-4e thread. I have a long thread about my sessions running a 4e campaign on this site that I've maintained for a while now (coming up on two years this September: [url]http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340726-JamesonCourage-s-First-4e-Session&p=6180484#post6180484[/url]). I've had a lot of fun with 4e. But I'm still a little baffled by the claims to wonderful player-empowerment. I get the transparency, but player-empowerment seemed quite intertwined in Manbearcat's definition, and that just doesn't ring true to me. But the reason I bring this up is to not only share my experience, but also to get some perspective on it from outside my own. Anyone have any thoughts to my entire-too-long post? Am I missing something? Am I wrong? Maybe. And I'm open to finding out. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
The Best Thing from 4E
Top