D&D 4E Throwing ideas, seeing what sticks (and what stinks)

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, the monsters were much easier to create than in 3.5, and easier to run than any other prior ed (one thing 5e has retained, outside of spellcasting monsters). But the system also played well 'above board.' In any other version of D&D, I'd have a DM screen hiding rolls, keep all the monster's stats hidden and obfuscate them as much as possible, and depend on player reactions to guide how things unfolded (You didn't ask specifically about whether the base of the statue was worn, you're surprised by the Golem). In 4e you had enough adventuring-relevant task-resolution to not need to pull old-school tricks like that. You didn't even have to 'call for perception checks,' because you had passive perception.

I guess DMing 4e didn't suffer from that "it's lonely at the top" syndrome so much. Another player could help you puzzle out what a rule meant without undermining you as an effective DM. You can't get away with that sort of thing so easily in other eds.

 

[MwaO]

I guess DMing 4e didn't suffer from that "it's lonely at the top" syndrome so much. Another player could help you puzzle out what a rule meant without undermining you as an effective DM. You can't get away with that sort of thing so easily in other eds.

Yeah, 4e approaches DM'ing in the right way - you have ultimate power, but games survive a lot longer if you get your table to buy-in on your rules changes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No wrong way - I'm running both 4e & 5e atm, and the difference in what the system needs from you is extreme, but I can still take some of the style I'm getting back into running 5e when I run 4e. I'm doing a little more improv (I've always done a lot), and I'm more open to throwaway little combats, which one or two of my players actually seem to like. Last Wed, it was one round of combat as an enemy fled to a functionally-invulnerable planar vessel. Before getting back into the old-school swing, I'd've hand-waved it. Instead I let everyone who beat the enemy's initiative resolve an attack against her. It didn't mean anything, she'll be healed up before they meet again, and they only expended encounter powers, but it felt like something.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah - most monsters are 'at-will, 2nd at-will, encounter, cool special effect' - even ridiculously over leveled Wizard is still only about 8 powers instead of 30 choices. I spent hours writing up a couple of 3.5 Archmages for a mod and I can spit out a high level Wizard NPC in 10 minutes without even thinking hard.

Mainly because the general assumption in 4e is that NPCs aren't really going to survive much longer than 5 rounds and giving them 30 abilities is just a waste.

Beyond that it is HARD to stick to a tight memorable theme with an NPC that has to be larded with a spell list 25 or 30 items long. Most of that stuff won't even make sense to caste, and there's just not that much to recommend fireball over some other similar fire spell thematically from a player perspective. You can quite adequately cover the 'blasty fire wizard' meme with a Burning Hands, a Fire Bolt, and a Fireball, with 'dagger' as a fallback option for OAs, and maybe some sort of fire aura and some other tricky fire-themed reaction or something that lets the bad guy unexpectedly pull off something fun.

IF the bad guy survives you can always rewrite his stat block to represent some other mix of powers he decides to employ next time.

 

[Manbearcat]

Porting the below post over here from the Failed Forward thread in general because it is relevant. 4e engine-wise is beautifully constructed. From a chassis perspective, I would change vanishingly few things if I were rewriting it (I've written about those things plenty of times). Where 4e needs to be shored up is on explicit instruction with respect to the game's overall agenda, the intent of the various system components, and the GMing techniques and principles required to produce the high-octane, action-adventure, "play to find out what happens" table experience inherent to it.

Properly (fully and transparently) canvassing the discrete functionality of the resolution mechanics and the nature and role of Fail Forward in noncombat conflict resolution is central. To this very day (preeeeetty late in the game!) we have people who love 4e yet literally have no idea how to frame, run, and resolve genre-coherent, dynamic, "Story Now" (not preconceived) noncombat scenes using 4e's conflict resolution mechanics (Skill Challenges, PC resources that play into them, and the GMing techniques and principles that underwrite them). I flinch every time I read an advocate saying something along the lines of "Skill Challenges were a great attempt but...meh". Understanding the centrality of "stakes transparency" to the macro-conflict and the GMing technique of Fail Forward (what - the intent:task relationship - and how - using 1st order or 2nd order fallout when a micro-failure occurs) is utterly key to GMing 4e.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] already answered this one but I'm just going to add a bit.

4e's noncombat resolution mechanics have three discrete functions in the game:

1) To interface coherently with the combat engine to facilitate precise and balanced adjudication of movement within the square-based paradigm.

2) To facilitate the resolution of player action declarations related to Stunting/Terrain Powers and Countermeasures (within the Trap/Hazard system).

3) To facilitate the abstract conflict resolution system of Skill Challenges.

Pulling this kind of triple duty means that the system and its attendant instruction needs to be robust such that the table can pivot/toggle intuitively and somewhat nimbly. There is disagreement on how well the designers accomplished this. I think there is room for some "fair grumbling" on this in the core books (I would have written them a bit differently or at least I wouldn't have had different people writing different chapters or I would have had a unified editorial influence to confirm the message coheres and is utterly transparent throughout - consider the difference between the 13th Age book with Heinsoo and Tweet. Further consider how easy writing "every moment of play should be about conflict and action" vs "skip the guards and get to the fun" is.). However, once we get into the extremely informative and "on-message" Dungeon articles, DMG2, Dark Sun, Neverwinter Campaign Setting, that "fair grumbling" vanishes fairly quickly.

On "fail forward", 3 is where you will find it in 4e. 4e Skills/deployable resources (as inputs to resolution) are extremely broad (by design intent). PC action declarations are meant to follow suit. In 3 (Skill Challenges), those inputs are meant to broaden further still (like 13th Age Backgrounds) with the outcomes (outputs to resolution) broadening in lockstep. If I'm facing several different varying levels of adversity (visual field issues, dealing with incoming artillery, riding horseback in a high-speed chase) concurrent with a primary PC action declaration that is about navigation (Nature), we're going to "say yes" to the PCs handling those secondary issues (unless the GM demands the players make a preemptive Group Check as part of the challenge...which s/he may very well do) and focus on the question of navigation. If successful, then the PCs get what they want and the fiction moves forward in a way as if they had earned the insurance of a Burning Wheel Instinct (I can't reframe the situation to bring about new adversity based on a navigation gaffe). If they fail, then my job is to change the situation dynamically (forward unless this is the final failure of the challenge). I may hone in on the 1st order input of navigation and create a like 1st order complication/cost/hard choice output for the PCs to deal with/endure; missing the trail "turn-off" and being cornered by Schrodinger's Gorge. Or I may nab a 2nd order complication due to the intensive focus on navigation (yielding an issue with one of the things we're "saying yes" on). Perhaps they find their way but a horse is lamed due to artillery finding home. How do they manage to evade the fast-charging pursuit now?

I've written it many times; Skill Challenges fundamentally do not work without deft GMing of the technique of "fail forward" and interesting/dynamic change to the situation on a micro-success. Every micro-failure must be forward while every micro-success must come with a new avenue of adversity that interposes itself between the PCs and their macro goal. This must continue until hard success or hard failure is ultimately cemented (which the system's framework does). When deft GMing is applied (assuming the players understand their role and the stakes) the abstract conflict resolution system of SCs is robust, coherent, and versatile. When it is not applied, or it is applied clumsily, things don't go well and the table is frustrated and/or bored. When it is not, you get a stagnant, unchanging fiction that yields PC action declarations in-kind ("he doesn't believe/like you"..."well then I Bluff/Diplomance MOAR/HARDER!").

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Porting the below post over here from the Failed Forward thread in general because it is relevant. 4e engine-wise is beautifully constructed. From a chassis perspective, I would change vanishingly few things if I were rewriting it (I've written about those things plenty of times). Where 4e needs to be shored up is on explicit instruction with respect to the game's overall agenda, the intent of the various system components, and the GMing techniques and principles required to produce the high-octane, action-adventure, "play to find out what happens" table experience inherent to it.

Properly (fully and transparently) canvassing the discrete functionality of the resolution mechanics and the nature and role of Fail Forward in noncombat conflict resolution is central. To this very day (preeeeetty late in the game!) we have people who love 4e yet literally have no idea how to frame, run, and resolve genre-coherent, dynamic, "Story Now" (not preconceived) noncombat scenes using 4e's conflict resolution mechanics (Skill Challenges, PC resources that play into them, and the GMing techniques and principles that underwrite them). I flinch every time I read an advocate saying something along the lines of "Skill Challenges were a great attempt but...meh". Understanding the centrality of "stakes transparency" to the macro-conflict and the GMing technique of Fail Forward (what - the intent:task relationship - and how - using 1st order or 2nd order fallout when a micro-failure occurs) is utterly key to GMing 4e.

You can also look at the SC framework as a 'measuring tool' for the kind of scenario you are discussing. You could do it in say 2e AD&D, but you have no framework to tell you when 'enough is enough', the GM simply has to throw whatever amount of adversity at the PCs he feels like and then decide "well, that's enough, they earned success", which of course is exceedingly different from situation 1, combat, where success and failure are meted out in a very precisely defined way. In fact, generally speaking, AD&D was pretty careful about telling you how that worked in exploration as well, up to a certain point at least.

This is why I've really emphasized the overarching and overriding nature of 'challenges' in my own notes on how to describe play. You are ALWAYS engaged in some sort of challenge, or else operating in a 'reframing period' where the players are initiating a new 'move' (to bring back DW terminology) that should assert some sort of new hard or soft response by the GM, creating the next challenge. This is quite consonant with the action/adventure genre concept where everything is either the characters being challenged, or an 'establishing shot' which reframes the story. Some scenes may of course do double duty, and that's often the case with pure SCs.

Overarching SCs could also work a lot like DW 'fronts', providing higher level story arc shaping decisions.

 

[Manbearcat]

You are ALWAYS engaged in some sort of challenge, or else operating in a 'reframing period' <snip>

Yup. Cortex + would call this Action Scenes and Transition Scenes. 4e is driven by the skillful framing and resolution of the "closed scene", having that resolution inform the story/character fallout, and having that fallout inform the framing of the follow-up "closed scene". Keeping with classic D&D jargon, the designers of course call these "encounters."

I often invoke MHRP and DW (and to a lesser extent, Baker's Dogs - "at every moment, push play towards conflict") when talking about 4e because there is some important overlap in system tech, similar genre notes, similar pacing expectations, similar player expectations, and the GMing techniques and principles that move units in those two systems are the same ones that should be informing 4e GMs.

No D&D system comes close to allowing free-form, ad lib your a** off, "play to find out what happens", while never having to resort to GM Force to produce awesome, genre coherent, relentless action (story) like 4e.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yup. Cortex + would call this Action Scenes and Transition Scenes. 4e is driven by the skillful framing and resolution of the "closed scene", having that resolution inform the story/character fallout, and having that fallout inform the framing of the follow-up "closed scene". Keeping with classic D&D jargon, the designers of course call these "encounters."

I often invoke MHRP and DW (and to a lesser extent, Baker's Dogs - "at every moment, push play towards conflict") when talking about 4e because there is some important overlap in system tech, similar genre notes, similar pacing expectations, similar player expectations, and the GMing techniques and principles that move units in those two systems are the same ones that should be informing 4e GMs.

No D&D system comes close to allowing free-form, ad lib your a** off, "play to find out what happens", while never having to resort to GM Force to produce awesome, genre coherent, relentless action (story) like 4e.

Yes, so what really ARE the flaws in the RC-era SC rules? Some presentation shortfalls IMHO where its just not made clear enough (and the issue goes beyond the SC chapter, the rules really SHOULD be organized AROUND the concept). Mechanically the only bit of dissatisfaction I have is maybe that resources aren't a bit more unified. Like I've got what were strictly 'Healing Surges' now driving things like reuse of Daily powers, action points, and they could also potentially drive your SC advantages. In fact it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to simply have an 'HS' be expendable to produce a better result on a check (which implies maybe some elaboration of levels of success and failure vs simply having failure/success/critical hit (and criticals technically only apply to attacks in 4e). It may be a bit trickier than DW, where you have a bell curve, since if you were to say "OK, in 4e a check that fails by 5 or more points introduces a consequence" then if you need a 7 for success or you need a 12 for success, there's still just as much of the probability distribution that is in the "failure without consequence" zone, whereas in DW it doesn't work that way, a bonus doesn't just make success more likely, it makes "total success" more likely, AND reduces the chances of only 'limited' success (and failure also). Plus I'm still not 100% sure what would be the most appropriate categorization. DW's failure/limited success/total success works for that game. I'm not SURE what the breakdown for 4e would be.

EDIT: Oh, and how that would integrate with SCs, another open question.

 

[MoutonRustique]

THINGS ARE COALESCING! YES... KOOOOA LESSSSSSSS INNNGG! *small shudder*
[SBLOCK]
Proficiency - [prof]
- will be the main tool of advancement
- defined as a die value (upgrades to dice values at paragon+)
- progression as follows : 1d4 (base), 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 1d12, 1d12+1d4, 1d12+1d6, etc
- progression rate is : increase by one increment every even level
- used as bonus to d20 on : skills, attacks, damage rolls when the character has the relevant trait, training, tool or competence
- lots of design space around manipulating this value (i.e. grant/force reroll, double, remove, increase/reduce one step, etc) - this should be the default "modified thing"

Traits
- a characteristic of the character such as : strong, brilliant, perceptive, etc.
- base : add prof to relevant checks (~skills) and 1/scene gain advantage on relevant use
- work as requirement barrier for classes (on multiclassing)
- work as requirement for gear (in addition to training and such)
Gaining Traits
- possible sequence : choice, time*, partial benefit, time*, full benefit
- the [partial benefit] should probably be dropped during initial design phase...
- choices constrained by story or party composition (analog to multiclassing)
- *time is measured in levels (possibly 4 - to keep to tradition)
- there is a window of time to change the initial choice based upon the story events (in truth, there is no real need to make the choice early, but I feel it helps to sell the ~feel~ desired)
List of Traits
- ... to be compiled ...
Negative Traits
- ... for later development ...

Baseline assumptions
- desired average combat length : 6 rounds
- characters succeed 60%
- monsters succeed 60%
- monsters require 4 hits
- characters require 5 hits
- combat encounter character-monster ratio is 1:1
- damage progression : +1/level from [prof] +X/level from [other]*
- basic damage expression : [w/i]+[p] (w=weapon, i=implement, p=proficiency)
- basic attack expression : d20+[p]
- basic "skill check" expression : d20+[p]
- default damage die is [d8]
- armour as DR (base values up to 4)
- all damage has at least one type

Things to keep in mind
- remove as much as possible accuracy optimization
- speed of execution
- no multi-attacks
- ONE damage instance per turn per character (this is important)
- gage things in terms of [prof] values
- when offering bonuses or penalties, play with [prof] as the default option
- wherever possible eliminate the [die + mod] structure in favour of either : [dice] or [static value]
- the names of things: think long and hard about the "final" [labels] for the different variables (these things are a pain to change)

Damage types
- all damage has at least one type
- Probable : Fire, Cold, Lightning, Force*, Slashing, Necrotic, Radiant, Bludgeoning, Psychic, Poison, Acid
- Possible alternates : Toxic, Corrosion, Morale, Frost, Crushing, Edged, Cutting, Mental, ...
- *Force : will often be paired with either [Slashing] or [Bludgeoning]
- 11 seems fairly exhaustive...
- to be refined (if possible)

"Disease" Track
Things that will use this mechanic:
- slow/long acting poisons
- diseases (obviously)
- curses
- long term exhaustion
- long term wounds
- long term mental injuries
- pretty much all long term stuff basically...

Options / Undecideds
Damage die
- class alone (DW)
- weapon alone (D&D)
- class and weapon combination (13th Age)
- other?
Weapon and Implements = ?
- change the [w] or to simply [t] (for [tool])
- or simply [d] (for [damage])
- or ???
- I find the discrepancy a bit annoying, but it has it's uses... so, keep it? Writing [w/i] isn't that big a deal in a design document... Come one dude! This isn't an important issue! Ah... just forget it for now.
Acid damage
- I dislike [acid] as a damage type. It hurts my suspension of disbelief.
- Fold it with [poison] into [toxic] ?

[/SBLOCK]
... to be continued.

Note: I know there's a great deal of overlap here with older blocks but this is how I'm doing things - completely haphazardly. Also, I really should have used the "blog"/page - but then I don't imagine I'd get you guys' opinions as quickly. So I'm kind of sorry to misuse these forums - but not enough to stop... so, yeah.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Misuse? Meh, as you say, nobody pays attention to the blogs, and I don't see where they give a superior sort of discussion format. Blogs are great for publishing an article "Here's how to do X" or whatever. Pretty much useless for "lets brainstorm". Frankly nothing is perfect. I've used google docs with comments and group editing, various wikis, etc. Nothing has really yet killed the basic forum. Wave kinda ALMOST got there, but they focused on the wrong things and blew it up.

Anyway:

I note that your d20+NdX is really QUITE different, as its a bell curve. You might really be just better off using a 3d6+N format, or Nd6. (IE, embrace the curve!). 2d6 at level 1 for instance, with another d6 at 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, etc. Or if you like using different die sizes, you could simply use 3dX and progress X from d4 to d20 (thought he jump from d12 to d20 is rather large). Its simpler to roll one type of die, and the big advantage is that the curve stays roughly the same shape, it just gets broader and its average goes up a bit. With the jumps at 3 level increments you have 3d4 at level 1, 3d6 at level 4, 3d8 at level 7, 3d10 at level 10, and 3d12 at level 13. Then you run into the rough patch where there aren't d14s, 16s, or 18s, but you COULD start adding more dice at this point instead, going to 4d8 from 3d12 would work, etc. It isn't perfect, but it avoids some weirdness perhaps?

Here's a thought. I have 3 base classes, so if you divided all attacks into one of those three, say 'force', 'deception', and 'ensorcelment' then you could give each base class different effect die sizes for each type of attack. Now, if you acquire 'boons' that provide you with attacks that are related to your weak dice, they're not so effective. Of course it may still make sense to do so, given that each one may be more or less effective in different situations. A fighter might have d8 force dice, d6 deception dice, and d4 ensorcelment dice. He can club you with a melee weapon quite well, and might even be fairly adept at certain uses of magic, if he can acquire them (say something like using a Spiritual Weapon or somesuch). He'd be rather mediocre at tossing sand in the other guy's face, and downright poor at turning the bad guy into a pigeon or whatever.

I don't know that I follow your thoughts on traits. Why would Characters gain or lose these kinds of traits? If you're 'strong', or 'determined', or 'analytical' or whatever isn't that really a very basic part of your makeup? I mean there may be traits that can be gained or improved over time, sure, practice is a wonderful thing, but most of them are pretty core, and you probably don't WANT to keep reworking the character's personalities (not that they can't evolve, but I'd prefer an organic process for that, not a level-based "oh, you just acquired a new aspect to your character", which seems forced to me).

In terms of damage, what's the difference between 'force' and 'bludgeoning'? Aren't they the same thing? Frankly I'd just make all weapon damage 'force' and have done with it. Yeah, some weapons cut you, some don't, some pierce, but big deal. This is a heroic action game, KISS, and just provide a hook for weapon damage so it doesn't fall into the bizarre 'untyped' realm that it did before. Now it can have resistance applied to it, etc.