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

[catastrophic]

It's why I'm posting about this. Games die when DMs aren't having fun anymore. I like that my friends are enjoying the game, but I just don't know how long I can keep doing it without something changing. I'm just simply not enjoying the majority of my time during each session. And I think the particular features of 4E are contributing to that.

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.

 

[Steelwill]

I started playing Fourth Edition right around the time it came out and have been playing it weekly (With a few hiccups) ever since. When it first came out I was ecstatic, and loved just about everything it had to offer. It's three years later and I'm not so sure it's really as perfect as I thought it was at the time. Off the top of my head, there are a few points I can think of that have been bothering me quite a bit as of late:

- Skill Challenges. This is one of the first things that started to stick out as I played 4th Edition, and I started disliking it relatively early in my time playing the system. One of the strongest points of Tabletop RPGs is the concept of "Emergent Gameplay" - being able to solve any given problem in a potentially infinite number of ways. This can be accomplished in Tabletop RPGs (And some video games, most notably Deus Ex) due to the structureless nature of the problems given. "There's a chasm. You need to get across the chasm. GO!" Taking away this possibility and replacing it with, "Alright, if you can get 6 skill checks you can get across the chasm," ends up being harmful to the aspect of Emergent Gameplay and in turn harmful to the game's nature as a Tabletop RPG.

- Broken Math. This is another one that seems to be a fairly common complaint in that, at least at launch, the game's math simply didn't work right. This is particularly true in the paragon and epic tiers wherein monsters become nearly unhittable because of how high their defenses get. With the release of the PHB2 this problem was solved by implementing the Weapon and Implement Expertise feats, which were more-or-less required to build a relatively effective character. What this results in is essentially being required to take certain feats because if you don't, your character will probably not be effective, especially in later tiers. Granted, this is a bit less of the case with more recent content, but it's still something that bothers me.

- Option Bloat. This is a bit of a personal gripe, but in terms of feats, powers, and especially magic items, there's way too many options. It's a little disheartening to look at the character builder to choose magic items and see something like nine thousand choices. This wouldn't be so bad if 95% of the options presented weren't either terrible or intended for a very specific character type, and the other 5% being just objectively better than everything else. This sort of applies to feats and powers, too, but it's mostly a gripe with Magic Items.

- The Essentials Books Look Like They were Designed by a Team of Chimps. This is even more of a personal issue, but I cannot stand trying to read Essentials Classes. They had a very consistent layout for Fourth Edition classes that made looking up content incredibly easy and fast, and replaced it with the Esentials format wherein certain entries (Like the "Ability Scores" section under each class) are printed multiple times in a book for each class. On top of that, there's the fact that the "Core" book was split into two books, with entire chapters being reprinted between the two releases. It all seems like a feeble attempt to pad out the page count of the books without actually providing more content. It seems like a really shifty and lazy design choice, and ultimately has discouraged me from actually giving the classes a shot.

That all being said, Fourth Edition is by no means a bad system and I still love it to death. For example, I really like the more tactical approach that they took in terms of combat, along with how much easier it is to DM than, say, Third Edition. The monster format is fantastic.

I by and large agree with what is said above, but would like to add a bit. Regarding Skill Challenges and Emergent Gameplay, props to Gardukk for speaking to this issue and putting it more clearly into words than I have seen it phrased before. That said, I would like to add that combat encounters in 4E being resolvable in only one way, that being grinding down enemy hit points, I think is similarly applicable to the emergent gameplay issue. In 3.5 more options, especially through magical effects, existed for resolving combat encounters in a variety of creative ways other than simply slogging it out against a wall of monster hit points. 4E sacrificed too much in terms of emergent gameplay.

Regarding broken math, the balance being so tightly tuned in 4E contributes to this problem, because everything mathematically needs to balance out in parallels between the challenges and the PCs. The problem I found with this is that leveling up and gaining new powers no longer puts the characters ahead of the game, but just keeps them with their heads above water against an even challenge, however fails at this in the places where the math doesn't work. In 4E the leveling feels more like Elder Scrolls Oblivion, in that it can actually count against PC's if they aren't careful about how they level up and the choices they make.

Regarding Option Bloat; I can't agree more with the frustration with the magic items in 4E, for the reasons you have stated and the fact that there are too many with encounter and daily powers on them. In the 3ish years of playing 4E, I have only had one player ever use their item dailies, they get forgotten about 95% of the time, and are too tedious to keep track of compared to their general worth. My groups and I also have found them generally uninspiring in many cases, probably because their design is so overcautious about messing up the tight balance that many don't see them as being very powerful (vorpal blade 4E, or vorpal blade 3.5?).
As well, everything in the way of feats, magic items, and powers are all too specific. 4E is not a very modular system in this regard. Even before Essentials was released, which upset many people with its specific builds with limited choices, people were complaining about how choices were perceived as limited because you had too many best in slot/best at level options that made the other crap options effectively no choice at all. This I feel is a big part of what made people upset at essentials classes as it showed a shift in a design direction that made what was already a problem even worse. As well, each class basically being a completely custom class needing 300 powers each taking up 20+ pages isn't very good design either.

In conclusion, in these years of playing 4E, I have come to miss several options that existed in 3.5, but can't return to that because I have come to appreciate several just brilliant and well executed options and mechanics that 4E brought to the table. 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.

 

[catastrophic]

One of the things i'd noe about a lot of what people are saying is that there are good, later-generation design ideas that can deal with them in various prducts to date.

This is why a lot of the retrograde talk about 5e frustrates me, because I feel like the best way to deal with these issues is by moving further forward, not stepping further back. 5e needs to continue down the path 4e started- a move towards modern design philsophy backed up by proven mechanics from other sources.

One example of this. A legit 5e needs is a broad framework for dealing with victory conditions, resources, stakes, and outcomes, all in a relatively compatible way.

For instance, there's the idea of setting stakes- regardless of the situation, having the players be able to decide how important or risky a scene is, to a degree.

I could easily see this as a good trade-off between gm power and player power, without making the game completly shared narritive. Players could raise the stakes of a scene or battle, doing things like putting their pcs at risk of longer lasting wounds (or even death) in echange for a bonus in combat, or better outcomes from combat.

This could apply to noncombat scene too, and allow players to opt into such scenes better. Imagine a situation where the player of the party rogue deliberatly says something infuriating to a city guard, kicking off and entertaining chase- but in exchange for offering the complication, the rogue gets an extra Hero Point to use later.

Another option would be a sandbox game where it's accepted that sometimes the PCS wil face monsters that are more powerful than they are- but in return, from such battles they earn Hero Points or Prestige Points that they can spend on various plot and in-game effects.

The PCS accept higher risk from a scene, in return for a reward token to spend later in various ways. You could have a universal value, like a Hero Point, and then have optional rules for subdividing it into more specific resources like Wound Points, Resource Points, and Prestige Points. Mechanically, they would be comparable and act the same way, but it would be down to the campaign 'settings' as to wether various subtypes interacted or crossed over.

So in one campaign, the pcs could use Hero Points, and say, beating a big scary monster just makes you more heroic and helps with all sorts of things, in an out of combat. You gain Hero Points, which would be useable like healing surges, and action points, but also as a resource to spend on land, reputation, and other outcomes.

In another campaign, the GM could rule that big scary monsters in addition to normal damage would cost you Wound Points (a version of healing surges), while defeating it would net you Prestige Points which could help you raise an army, gain land, or become king, but won't do anything for the big bite mark on your upper body (Wound Points could only be healed through time and powerful magic).

Ideas like this are far from new, or unproven.

This could be teamed with a mechanic that would, automatically, add victory conditions to all combats, in addition to the combat slog.

This is not really far fetched. It would be really easy for the DMG to codify the fact that in every combat scene, in addition to 'killing all the monsters', there would be say, three victory conditions- two minor, and one major. These conditions might bring combat to a close faster, or offer additional outcomes from combat, or some combination of the two. A good 5e DMG could have a pretty big list of conditions like this for DMs to crib from.

This would of course work better if there was a general victory/stakes system to play off it with, but the point is, these are not razy new ideas. Plenty of rpgs have been doing stuff like this for ages.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

One of the things i'd noe about a lot of what people are saying is that there are good, later-generation design ideas that can deal with them in various prducts to date.

This is why a lot of the retrograde talk about 5e frustrates me, because I feel like the best way to deal with these issues is by moving further forward, not stepping further back. 5e needs to continue down the path 4e started- a move towards modern design philsophy backed up by proven mechanics from other sources.

One example of this. A legit 5e needs is a broad framework for dealing with victory conditions, resources, stakes, and outcomes, all in a relatively compatible way.

For instance, there's the idea of setting stakes- regardless of the situation, having the players be able to decide how important or risky a scene is, to a degree.

I could easily see this as a good trade-off between gm power and player power, without making the game completly shared narritive. Players could raise the stakes of a scene or battle, doing things like putting their pcs at risk of longer lasting wounds (or even death) in echange for a bonus in combat, or better outcomes from combat.

This could apply to noncombat scene too, and allow players to opt into such scenes better. Imagine a situation where the player of the party rogue deliberatly says something infuriating to a city guard, kicking off and entertaining chase- but in exchange for offering the complication, the rogue gets an extra Hero Point to use later.

Another option would be a sandbox game where it's accepted that sometimes the PCS wil face monsters that are more powerful than they are- but in return, from such battles they earn Hero Points or Prestige Points that they can spend on various plot and in-game effects.

The PCS accept higher risk from a scene, in return for a reward token to spend later in various ways. You could have a universal value, like a Hero Point, and then have optional rules for subdividing it into more specific resources like Wound Points, Resource Points, and Prestige Points. Mechanically, they would be comparable and act the same way, but it would be down to the campaign 'settings' as to wether various subtypes interacted or crossed over.

So in one campaign, the pcs could use Hero Points, and say, beating a big scary monster just makes you more heroic and helps with all sorts of things, in an out of combat. You gain Hero Points, which would be useable like healing surges, and action points, but also as a resource to spend on land, reputation, and other outcomes.

In another campaign, the GM could rule that big scary monsters in addition to normal damage would cost you Wound Points (a version of healing surges), while defeating it would net you Prestige Points which could help you raise an army, gain land, or become king, but won't do anything for the big bite mark on your upper body (Wound Points could only be healed through time and powerful magic).

Ideas like this are far from new, or unproven.

This could be teamed with a mechanic that would, automatically, add victory conditions to all combats, in addition to the combat slog.

This is not really far fetched. It would be really easy for the DMG to codify the fact that in every combat scene, in addition to 'killing all the monsters', there would be say, three victory conditions- two minor, and one major. These conditions might bring combat to a close faster, or offer additional outcomes from combat, or some combination of the two. A good 5e DMG could have a pretty big list of conditions like this for DMs to crib from.

This would of course work better if there was a general victory/stakes system to play off it with, but the point is, these are not razy new ideas. Plenty of rpgs have been doing stuff like this for ages.

Well, I agree, some kind of 'back to the past' 5e doesn't interest me. As far as things like victory conditions I think that's an issue of the DMG pointing out the virtue of designing things so that these exist. It is something I try to do as often as possible in my own game and it works fine.

I'm not so sure about meta-game mechanics like hero points. It seems rather outside the tradition of D&D. I think these kinds of things are fine, but there are different types of games, and I'm not sure D&D needs to be that game. That doesn't mean that things like SCs can't be informed by this kind of design though. I think there are generally ways that this can be accomplished in most situations. It can range from the simple (make this DC hard and you can gain some advantage on success) to more complex situations where the PCs might bring in some new complication and up the complexity of the challenge. In between there are all the "I'll use this ritual" kinds of situations. If the situation is appropriate AP or HS can be a useful resource as well. In other words instead of putting limits on this kind of thing with a counted point value resource let it be more organic and flow out of the situation at hand. Any time you 'step up' things will get more dicey but also more rewarding. I have to admit as well that I'm just not all that enthusiastic about adding lots of other tallies that have to be book kept. Anyway, I guess it would really depend on the specific system, it would be interesting to try it out and see what happened.

 

[catastrophic]

Well, I agree, some kind of 'back to the past' 5e doesn't interest me. As far as things like victory conditions I think that's an issue of the DMG pointing out the virtue of designing things so that these exist. It is something I try to do as often as possible in my own game and it works fine.

MY point is that by codifying it, but leaving it flexible, it makes the game better.

Before 4e, any gm could, if properly motivated, put in a bit where a guy falls off a cliff. It would be mostly arbitary, and the players really couldn't do it much unless the DM let them. In 4e, forcedmovements means that if there's a cliff in a fight, somebody's probably going to fall off it, or end up hanging off the edge as 'prone' after making their fall save, and that is cool!

Sure, there is plenty wrong with 4e, and you don't always want people falling off cliffs, but the fact remains- codifying this stuff into a system in a good way, makes for more and better options.

Why do we construct combat as being about killing people? Why can't we have as a basic assumption that there are other options? Remember morale? Why not say to a GM, "hey if you're going to be engaging in one of our awesome (and hopefully less grindy) 5e combats, you need to look over this big list of simple mini-rules and add two minors and one major, based on what fits the encounter.

Then you can have things written up with a simple description and values, Morale, Countdown, Power Source, Optional Recurring Villain, and a whole lot more, for the GM to put those kind of cool conditions into their fights, as a matter of course, not as an option that far too many people neglect.

And yeah, for those times when it really is coming down to a stright up slugfest, you could include options like To The Death, This Ends Now, Potentially Phyric, and other takes on that idea, again, written out as little mini-rules.

4e has exception based systems- the rules are in the power. I'd suggest exception based victory conditions, a big old chapter fuill of them, with minimal but clear rules, so that each battle can have it's own unique style, while still giving the GM the support for creating that style, that a good system should offer.

I'm not so sure about meta-game mechanics like hero points. It seems rather outside the tradition of D&D. I think these kinds of things are fine, but there are different types of games, and I'm not sure D&D needs to be that game.

4e Already is that game. I started thinking about hero points for a hypothetical 5e when I realised that Action Points and Healing surges were both metagame resources that worked a lot better if you treated them as such.

5e could have a unified Hero Point mechanic that, optionally, DMs could choose to split into multiple mechanics like Action Points, Wound Points, Resource Points, and Prestige Points. This would not be more abstract, it would be less abstract, by allowing the GM to get good support from the rules, while also managing in a real sense, the different asets the players have at their disposal, and decising what those assets can be used for.

And the system could go further, taking say, wound points, and putting them into a wound system, or having Resource Points be the 'value' of various assets like land and gold. The point is that all of this would stil be governed by a strong unified mechanic, with a bunch of built in options to give GMs control of what kind of power and problems the pcs face.

In one game, Hero points could fill in for all those things. In another, each subtype might be used at reasonable death. In a third, Action and Wound Points might be unified, Prestige Points could be their own thing, while resource Points are codified fully as land, gold, livestock, ect.

In other words instead of putting limits on this kind of thing with a counted point value resource let it be more organic and flow out of the situation at hand. Any time you 'step up' things will get more dicey but also more rewarding.

If i was to propose a stakes system in full, it would e one that would be accessable at any time, so that the scenario you describe would be more than likely to occur. The kery would be figuring out how to manage the difference between player stakes, and party stakes, and that's why something like a hero point mechanic becomes very useful.

I have to admit as well that I'm just not all that enthusiastic about adding lots of other tallies that have to be book kept. Anyway, I guess it would really depend on the specific system, it would be interesting to try it out and see what happened.

Again, that's kinda my point. I do not want GMs having to deal with ideas lke land and cattle unless they want to, really want to.

Hence, a unified, simplified Resource Point mechanic, where they can just mark how many ReP they have, and flavour it in RP however they want. And potentially, letting the GM simplify things further, and fold ReP and the otehr points into a single, unified Hero Point mechanic that governs everything from extra actions, to wounds, to browbeating the king into rallying his armies.

 

[Dragon Sin-Camealot]

>> It's impossible to satisfy everyone.

If it's that bad does that mean it's going to be canceled? It really means the story isn't believable/likeable enough.

The purpose of this forum is to generate ideas on why. Since it's fiction it means you can believe whatever you want about it. If you get your imagination to work you may obtain a fan base.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/gamers-seeking-gamers/307651-fictions-upper-limit-3d-world.html

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

MY point is that by codifying it, but leaving it flexible, it makes the game better.

Before 4e, any gm could, if properly motivated, put in a bit where a guy falls off a cliff. It would be mostly arbitary, and the players really couldn't do it much unless the DM let them. In 4e, forcedmovements means that if there's a cliff in a fight, somebody's probably going to fall off it, or end up hanging off the edge as 'prone' after making their fall save, and that is cool!

Exactly, and that's why it will be cool to keep the nice tactical options of 4e.

Sure, there is plenty wrong with 4e, and you don't always want people falling off cliffs, but the fact remains- codifying this stuff into a system in a good way, makes for more and better options.

Why do we construct combat as being about killing people? Why can't we have as a basic assumption that there are other options? Remember morale? Why not say to a GM, "hey if you're going to be engaging in one of our awesome (and hopefully less grindy) 5e combats, you need to look over this big list of simple mini-rules and add two minors and one major, based on what fits the encounter.

Sure, but you can also do the same thing in 4e, we don't need a new edition to get that kind of thing. I mean 4e doesn't cover everything, there's no specific 'morale system' but with just discussion of those options and a page or two of crunch you have all of that stuff. 4e crunch is good, a little bit goes a long ways.

Then you can have things written up with a simple description and values, Morale, Countdown, Power Source, Optional Recurring Villain, and a whole lot more, for the GM to put those kind of cool conditions into their fights, as a matter of course, not as an option that far too many people neglect.

And yeah, for those times when it really is coming down to a stright up slugfest, you could include options like To The Death, This Ends Now, Potentially Phyric, and other takes on that idea, again, written out as little mini-rules.

They are now, they are basically just the content of the encounter. I agree that an encounter building book (probably adventure building handbook) would be nice.

4e has exception based systems- the rules are in the power. I'd suggest exception based victory conditions, a big old chapter fuill of them, with minimal but clear rules, so that each battle can have it's own unique style, while still giving the GM the support for creating that style, that a good system should offer.

I don't think you really need rules for these things. You just need ideas for what situations will be fun and some guidelines on how they've been done in the past and can be accomplished in the future. Things like terrain powers, traps, etc already provide a lot of options. Story related options, really part of the story. It is a 'capture' scenario if you have a thing the PCs need to get, etc. Actually I don't think any version of D&D has really discussed these things. Again, it is good to do that. Not sure there'd need to be any appreciable amount of rules involved.

4e Already is that game. I started thinking about hero points for a hypothetical 5e when I realised that Action Points and Healing surges were both metagame resources that worked a lot better if you treated them as such.

5e could have a unified Hero Point mechanic that, optionally, DMs could choose to split into multiple mechanics like Action Points, Wound Points, Resource Points, and Prestige Points. This would not be more abstract, it would be less abstract, by allowing the GM to get good support from the rules, while also managing in a real sense, the different asets the players have at their disposal, and decising what those assets can be used for.

And the system could go further, taking say, wound points, and putting them into a wound system, or having Resource Points be the 'value' of various assets like land and gold. The point is that all of this would stil be governed by a strong unified mechanic, with a bunch of built in options to give GMs control of what kind of power and problems the pcs face.

In one game, Hero points could fill in for all those things. In another, each subtype might be used at reasonable death. In a third, Action and Wound Points might be unified, Prestige Points could be their own thing, while resource Points are codified fully as land, gold, livestock, ect.

If i was to propose a stakes system in full, it would e one that would be accessable at any time, so that the scenario you describe would be more than likely to occur. The kery would be figuring out how to manage the difference between player stakes, and party stakes, and that's why something like a hero point mechanic becomes very useful.

Eh, I think in terms of the 4e paradigm you don't need to really distinguish the two. Let the players 'step up' any time they want. I never saw the logic of a counter you needed in order to do that. The player just says he's going to do some awesome thing and said thing is naturally hazardous or otherwise raises the stakes. Even if they're personal stakes I don't know what needs to be counted. There can be one crazy player that does it all the time and another that doesn't. Actually I find it pretty much works like that in my games. Just never really saw what the need for book keeping there was, unless you're putting the players in the position of changing the actual situation in the narrative.

I don't see AP and HP/HS as meta-game resources is the thing. They are things that actually belong to the character. They may be ABSTRACT, but they aren't 'meta'. Hero Points that let you change the narrative are a whole different thing, and I still say they're rather outside the tradition of D&D.

Again, that's kinda my point. I do not want GMs having to deal with ideas lke land and cattle unless they want to, really want to.

Hence, a unified, simplified Resource Point mechanic, where they can just mark how many ReP they have, and flavour it in RP however they want. And potentially, letting the GM simplify things further, and fold ReP and the otehr points into a single, unified Hero Point mechanic that governs everything from extra actions, to wounds, to browbeating the king into rallying his armies.

Eh, I think that kind of thing is really more a genre thing. If you want to play the type of genre where those things are best done in an abstract fashion then you can do that. GP are really perfectly fine abstract resource points already. Just say "I've got an estate worth 50,000 gp". GP just needs to be freed up from the shackles of the parcel system, since basically items aren't craftable anymore unless the DM says they are. Even if the PCs can easily make +N basic items pretty much willy nilly it doesn't do much for them, unless they're particularly badly equipped or lost their stuff.

 

[catastrophic]

Sure, but you can also do the same thing in 4e, we don't need a new edition to get that kind of thing. I mean 4e doesn't cover everything, there's no specific 'morale system' but with just discussion of those options and a page or two of crunch you have all of that stuff. 4e crunch is good, a little bit goes a long ways.

What i'm talking about is a little bit, but a little bit that goes a long way to make fights a lot better. And i'm not talking about a whole system for morale- i'm talking about a system for all sorts of extranious issues in combat and action, which leverages 4e's exception based approach.

So you would have the standard rules for combat goals, a standard combat layout that included, along with it's level apropriate monsters and such, the stipulation that you define 3 Qualities for the battle. Just, put it right there in the system, and in doing so, make combats better.

Then, you'd have a bunch of Qualities laid out, each like a power is laid out in the PHB. For instance(these are mock-sups, but they show the idea):

Low Morale
Major Quality
Combatants
Effect: Each time you kill an enemy, you can make an intimidate check. When the successes from these checks reach 10, the enemy flees from the battle, with each creature retreating to the edge of the map, if they are able to do so without suffering injury from OAs and/or zones.

Forced to Fight
Major Quality
Combatants
Effect: Each time you reduce an enemy to 0 hit points, if you choose to subdue them without killing them, you can make a Bluff or Dimplomacy roll. When the successes from these checks reach 10, the enemy ceases combat and disengages, if the pcs allow them to do so.

Unstable Ground
Major Quality
Terrain
Effect: Each time a burst or blast spell is used, or a creature of larger than medium size of knocked prone, add one damage point to your notes. When you reach 10 damage points, the room begins to collapse, and combatants must clear the room by the exits, or suffer the falling rocks hazard (see page xx) for each round they remain in the room.

Hidden Clue
Minor Quallity
Story
Effect: There is a small, fragile clue located in one square of the battlefield, like a set of tracks, a letter written on parchment, or the traces of a magical spell. Designate the square in the middle or main area of the map, and do not reveal it, although marking it with a feature like a table works well. If a pc passes through the square or a square adjacent to it, they can roll a perception check, or a knowlege check of an apropriate kind (nature of tracks, for instance). On a successful check, the clue is located and will give the party +1 victory point.

And so on, with heaps of options. Now, this might seem like codification for no reason, but it's not, any more than it was pointless to codify forced movement, or character balance. The system is meant to be there to help the GM, and focusing the GM on ensuring that fights are more than a slugfest is imo a really positive goal.

I agree that an encounter building book (probably adventure building handbook) would be nice.

I certainly think that just straight advice is a great thing to have in games, and the 4e DMGs are pretty solid in that respect. But there's also a point at which the system should offer more support. 3e works on the assumption that DMs will make fun combats. 4e gives DMs the tools to make that happen. 5e, should do even better.

I don't think you really need rules for these things. You just need ideas for what situations will be fun and some guidelines on how they've been done in the past and can be accomplished in the future. Things like terrain powers, traps, etc already provide a lot of options. Story related options, really part of the story. It is a 'capture' scenario if you have a thing the PCs need to get, etc. Actually I don't think any version of D&D has really discussed these things. Again, it is good to do that. Not sure there'd need to be any appreciable amount of rules involved.

I don't really think we're going to really make progress on, for instance, the grind, unless we re-think what combat is, and what goal it serves, in terms of the system. 4e combat is great, but it's a starting point.

We need system support for concepts like stakes, scene goals, and variable outcomes for combat. Otherwise it's just again, a think the DM is expected to do, without giving them any really solid support for doing it.

Eh, I think in terms of the 4e paradigm you don't need to really distinguish the two. Let the players 'step up' any time they want. I never saw the logic of a counter you needed in order to do that. The player just says he's going to do some awesome thing and said thing is naturally hazardous or otherwise raises the stakes. Even if they're personal stakes I don't know what needs to be counted. There can be one crazy player that does it all the time and another that doesn't. Actually I find it pretty much works like that in my games. Just never really saw what the need for book keeping there was, unless you're putting the players in the position of changing the actual situation in the narrative.

That's pretty much what i'm after. Players should be able to do crazy(er) things, even if the GM doesn't plan for it.

There should be more leeway there, not to re-write the story, but for instance, for players to decide wether they're really going to let that recurring villain get away. In a situation like that, I want a system front and centre which allows the players to say "we want to take more risks in this bit, but that should mean something".

The thing is, if it's all just down to DM handwaving, the risks aren't really that substantial. Unless they're taking damage, even if they do, the adventure is going on either way. And ending the advanture, or adding unfun complications isn't really and effective balance, either. With proper system support, players and the DM have meaningful currencies they can exchange in such situations.

I'll give you an example. The recurring villain is escaping via an airship, and the pcs are racing up to the airship dock to chase him. Now, it's basically GM fiat as to wether he gets away or not. Even if say, the DM allows an athletics check to leap onto the airship, with a failure leading to a nasty fall, it's still a very DM centric situation.

What I want is for the players to say "No we really want to catch this guy, and we're offering to spend Hero Points (or whatever) to ensure that it happens." Sure, the GM still makes the call, and there are guidelines, ect, but the point is that the exchange is clear, open, and works within the broader context of the campaign.

And the thing is, this is again just a way to make lucid what we already do as GMs. After all, healing surges and action points already play that role- but only in a very restruicted sense. I want the pcs to be able to risk resources, and prestige, and have other options, and I want all those risks and rewards and gabits and stakes to be up front, and clearly defined and functional.

That's what 4e is about. We don't houserule to get class balance, that's the designers job. We don't have to do monster analisis to see if it's CR is actually what it should be, because we have functional monster balance. I'm after the same sort of system for other approaches. Sure, it won't be perfect, but it can be a lot better than the de facto methods we use now.

I don't see AP and HP/HS as meta-game resources is the thing. They are things that actually belong to the character. They may be ABSTRACT, but they aren't 'meta'. Hero Points that let you change the narrative are a whole different thing, and I still say they're rather outside the tradition of D&D.

I can see what you mean, but if somebody does something crazy, the risk you're likley to attach to it is that they take damage, ie burn through surges. If somebody REALLLY wants to his a dude, they'll burn an ap to make a second attack.

Powers, items, consumables, you can argue that there's some kind of versilimitude to these qualties, but the give and take underlying them is ultimately about the narritive, and about changing it- hence, they are meta-narritive tools. After all, you choose when to use an AP, or spend a surge, or use a daily item. The player chooses when, based on the outcome they want to create.

Eh, I think that kind of thing is really more a genre thing. If you want to play the type of genre where those things are best done in an abstract fashion then you can do that. GP are really perfectly fine abstract resource points already. Just say "I've got an estate worth 50,000 gp".

I;m not really after abstract systems, i'm after us being honest about the abstract underpinnings of the game. You know as well as I do that that 50,000 GP estate is a hand-wave. Can they get that money back? Can they use it? Would it be better for them to spend all that money on archers or flaming oil? It's all down to the handwave.

I'd rather lay it out in a system, because the players and the GM can decide what type of assets the pcs really have, and how tehy can be used.

GP just needs to be freed up from the shackles of the parcel system, since basically items aren't craftable anymore unless the DM says they are. Even if the PCs can easily make +N basic items pretty much willy nilly it doesn't do much for them, unless they're particularly badly equipped or lost their stuff.

I agree that items should be split from gold, but that's the kind of reform i'm talking about. In no way, shape or form, is your ability to get a magic sword based on your willingness to say, sell your manor.

Much better then, to figure out what kind of game we're playing, enough that for instance, a GM can figure out what role owning a manor- or owning a magic sword- really plays in their game.

 

[nnms]

A thirteenth feature of 4E that I used to love but now see as a negative:

13) Hard definitions of modes of play and the transition between those modes.

The DMG defines a few different modes of play. Including setup, exploration, conversation, encounter and passing time. While the DMG says that the transitions will be smooth and not very noticeable, that's rarely the case in practice.

It can be very jarring to enter combat after conversation. Often the table will be cleared and a map or tiles will be put down. You'll go through the rituals of initiative and setting up the position of creatures on the map.

With 4E the situation prior to the change of mode is often irrelevant. The DM is going to run a set piece tactical encounter. The situation is just a setup for the encounter mode.

Compare this to other games where you use the continual description of PC actions and use the system as needed to resolve what comes up. There doesn't have to be a harsh shift where the participants change how they resolve things and stop thinking about things in terms of resolving questions in the fiction and start thinking about squares of movement, tactical moves, healing surges, etc.,.

So how does Savage Worlds stack up? Poorly. It too has very miniature focused combat rules (everything is given in inches) with a set combat mode. But at the very least, it's very, very easy to run the game with entirely descriptive combats compared to 4E.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What i'm talking about is a little bit, but a little bit that goes a long way to make fights a lot better.

Eh, suffice it to say we have fundamentally different philosophies about how a game should work. 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.

You don't have to 'reimagine the role of combat' to make it faster. You simply need to make it go faster. If it takes less hits to kill an enemy, there are less things to track, and there are clearer powers and less powers that are used more easily then it WILL be faster. Pure and simple. Yes, you can make combat faster by stating that "the enemy will retreat or surrender under conditions X, Y, or Z" but not every combat has secondary goals or such conditions and just an arbitrary statement that such should be so doesn't make those combats fit into the narrative or make sense to the players at the table. OFTEN the situation will be fight to the death, and FTTD needs to go fast and smooth too. So even supposing all your suggestions were implemented and work fine they don't solve the issue.

I think the DMG could have a decent sized section about how to create interesting varieties of encounters in terms of how the encounter fits into the adventure etc, which would include a discussion of the things you're talking about, how to mechanically represent low morale, etc. It can provide several little sections, some of which can specify a few DCs like you've done, which is great. I'm all for that.

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.

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