4e A different type of disconnect??

[Imaro]

Okay, I've been pondering on why 4e just hasn't grabbed me... and with the proclamation of my gaming group this past Sunday that they didn't really enjoy playing 4e (this came out of left field, as I thought they were enjoying it and I was "meh" about it.) and would rather me go back to running nWoD, 3.5 or Castles & Crusades I did some serious thinking. One thing I came up with was the disconnect that 4e seemed to create in both I and my players.

First... I'm not really talking about the simulationist/gamist thing though they could be related. I realize I have a disconnect as far as what this game is trying to accomplish. D&D 4e tries to meld two worlds together (highly detailed and freeform) and because of this doesn't really vibe with me and my group.

On the one hand you have the "stunting" rules and the free-formish skills and even the classes that aren't really classes. This is all great stuff until you hit combat. Suddenly you're caught in two worlds, the freeform (I can create a stunt out the blue to spin off a wall and kick a monster in the face driving him back a space)... vs. the specific (I'm a Rogue, and I grab up the fighters sword and...can't use my powers.). I think the disconnect is that a DM has to arbitrate between this two things with no logical consistency.

I mean can I perform a stunt that lets me do the same thing as my power with a greataxe? Or perform a stunt that mimics another classes abilities? If so what's the point of actually having powers...and if not... where is the limit drawn. It just feels forced and not well thought out.

I mean for me I enjoy 3.5 and I enjoy C&C. If I want a game with tight rules, specific classes and codified actions I play 3.5 and my players know what to expect, and how to play the game. If I want a more freeform game with broad class archetypes, a minimum of detailed rules, and a freeform action mechanic I play C&C...yet 4e seems to be a hybrid I just am not finding myself thrilled about, and my players are becoming frustrated with as far as the vast contrast between the numerous things with very specific limitations and rules vs. freeform and broadly encompassing things.

Any suggestions or thoughts. I really hope I didn't waste the money on this corebook set to just put it up somewhere and let it collect dust, but it's looking that way.

 

[Delta]

Interesting observation.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

To be honest, if your players have decided it's a problem, they're unlikely to come to believe otherwise, especially as you really seem to agree with them, so this may be a lost cause for you, I'm afraid.

With my group, the reaction was more or less the opposite. They always loathed 3.5E's "rules for everything, and if it's not in the rules, you can't do it!" approach, and found 4E's "here's some cinematic special abilities for you and some rules for doing whatever" approach much more to their taste.

I don't agree that it's trying to "bridge two worlds" at all. I think it's coming solidly from a "cinematic" style of gaming, but it's giving all characters a baselines set of abilities from their class, instead of forcing them to make everything up themselves. The stuff on stunts is pretty clearly laid out. The harder the stunt is to do, and the less it's possible to repeat it, the better the damage you get from it. I'm not sure how that's confusing. It's clearly not there for "mimicking other classes' abilities", and I'm not sure why you'd be trying to use it that way. It's for swinging from the chandeliers, not for to give Fighters Sneak Attack.

If your players are determined to try and ignore the cinematic intentions, and instead merely to use the stunt system to simply allow them to be all classes at once, and you're letting them, well, I can certainly see the problem there, but I'm not sure it's inherent to the game itself.

The point of actually having powers is extremely clear - you're guaranteed that they can work. If you want to do extra damage via a stunt or whatever, there's no guarantee the situation is going to work out so that what you want to do is possible, and the DM can simply say "haha no." if just ludicrous or cheap. Unless the DM is intentionally ignoring pg. 42, there's no way you can reliably replicate high-damage, or AE, or control abilities. Sometimes you may achieve something that's similar to one, but there's no guarantee, and idea is pretty much that you use both your powers and stunts as appropriate.

 

[zen_hydra]

Unfortunately I feel very much the same way that the OP does about 4E. I was all ready to jump on the 4E bandwagon, but then I read the books and played the game, and it left me with a cold empty feeling in the pit of my stomach. There are too many details to the 4E systems that jar me out of emersion and enjoyment of the game. I guess I will hold out hope that D&D will move back towards a game that is more to my taste in the future.

 

[Imaro]

To be honest, if your players have decided it's a problem, they're unlikely to come to believe otherwise, especially as you really seem to agree with them, so this may be a lost cause for you, I'm afraid.

Yeah, I'm kinda figuring that... I have games that do both ends of the spectrum better and don't cause a disconnect. The thing that threw me for a loop, was that my players also felt the same way. I'm considering leaving D&D alone for awhile and starting my Changeling the Lost campaign up a little early.

With my group, the reaction was more or less the opposite. They always loathed 3.5E's "rules for everything, and if it's not in the rules, you can't do it!" approach, and found 4E's "here's some cinematic special abilities for you and some rules for doing whatever" approach much more to their taste.

I don't agree that it's trying to "bridge two worlds" at all. I think it's coming solidly from a "cinematic" style of gaming, but it's giving all characters a baselines set of abilities from their class, instead of forcing them to make everything up themselves. The stuff on stunts is pretty clearly laid out. The harder the stunt is to do, and the less it's possible to repeat it, the better the damage you get from it. I'm not sure how that's confusing. It's clearly not there for "mimicking other classes' abilities", and I'm not sure why you'd be trying to use it that way. It's for swinging from the chandeliers, not for to give Fighters Sneak Attack.

That's great, though can I ask does your group only play D&D? Have they played freeform or more "cinematic" games before? I think this may be the problem with my group, we've played a variety of games and D&D's half-step approach doesn't play well for us.

We either want a set of rules that define how the game works in most situations... or a game where freeform actions and ideas are the core of the game. IMHO D&D 4e straddles the line between these two without bringing anything original or new to the arena. I guess I can understand it, since it's probably the safest thing to do... but I don't find that the game offers anything to make me want to choose it over other games that do both styles better.

If your players are determined to try and ignore the cinematic intentions, and instead merely to use the stunt system to simply allow them to be all classes at once, and you're letting them, well, I can certainly see the problem there, but I'm not sure it's inherent to the game itself.

The point of actually having powers is extremely clear - you're guaranteed that they can work. If you want to do extra damage via a stunt or whatever, there's no guarantee the situation is going to work out so that what you want to do is possible, and the DM can simply say "haha no." if just ludicrous or cheap. Unless the DM is intentionally ignoring pg. 42, there's no way you can reliably replicate high-damage, or AE, or control abilities. Sometimes you may achieve something that's similar to one, but there's no guarantee, and idea is pretty much that you use both your powers and stunts as appropriate.

You know I wonder where is the line between doing something cool and exploiting stunts. As an example, is this a cool stunt or exploit? The rogue in my campaign snuck into a room of unaware hobgoblins and poured oil onto the floor (which flowed around their feet under the table they were sitting at) using a stealth check. When the party charged in, the rogue struck a spark to the oil trail, lighting the buggers on fire. Right here he ended up doing the wizards job of an AoE attack, but it was a cool stunt to pull off too, and was definitely more damage than his regular attack would have done to that many opponents.

Your last paragraph just makes it seem like you'll be saying "No" to alot of ideas to preserve game balance. This doesn't seem very "cinematic" to me, and appears to be one of the side effects of trying to mix the freeform and very strict elements of 4e.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That's great, though can I ask does your group only play D&D? Have they played freeform or more "cinematic" games before? I think this may be the problem with my group, we've played a variety of games and D&D's half-step approach doesn't play well for us.

I can't speak for Ruin Explorer, but my group has played a lot of Torg. And I think it's one of the most cinematic games that exist.

And we definitely enjoy 4E, and are basically now converting all our 3E campaigns to it. (but we also play other games occasionally - though at the moment, the other game is Torg again...)

 

[LostSoul]

As an example, is this a cool stunt or exploit? The rogue in my campaign snuck into a room of unaware hobgoblins and poured oil onto the floor (which flowed around their feet under the table they were sitting at) using a stealth check. When the party charged in, the rogue struck a spark to the oil trail, lighting the buggers on fire.

That is a cool stunt.

How much damage did you figure? I would have said low normal damage - 1d6+3 at level 1-3. If it was only against one target (soaking him in oil), I'd say low limited, 3d6+3.

What did he roll against? I probably would have said Stealth vs. Passive Perception. I might give them a +2 because it could take a while for the oil to collect.

 

[MrGrenadine]

With my group, the reaction was more or less the opposite. They always loathed 3.5E's "rules for everything, and if it's not in the rules, you can't do it!" approach, and found 4E's "here's some cinematic special abilities for you and some rules for doing whatever" approach much more to their taste.

I am NOT trying to start an edition war here--but I have a completely different take on the 2 systems:

I would actually describe 3.5 as "rules for almost everything, and if there's no rule, then decide on a modifier and roll a d20", and 4E as "here are some cinematic abilities for you and some rules, but don't forget that sometimes you won't be able to use your abilities for no reason except we said so."

YES 3.5 was rules-bloated after years for tinkering and 3rd party support. This was fixed in my games by just playing Core, or Core+, but thats neither here nor there.

The issue is that at its heart, D&D is a game of shared, on-the-fly storytelling. The rules should provide a framework for whatever the players can think up, and help adjudicate the success or failure of the task. The rules should never just put arbitrary limits on player's actions.

In other words, don't tell me my rogue can't tumble more than once an encounter!

I don't mind a rule saying that he can tumble once per encounter with full benefits, and then every attempt after that suffers a cumulative penalty to the check, and/or the distance tumbled. But don't tell me "no".

D&D should be a game of "yes". Or more specifically, "yes, and...", or "yes, but...". And 3.5E, for all its faults, is way better suited to that than 4E's At-Will/ Encounter/ Daily system.

 

[Jasperak]

I am NOT trying to start an edition war here--but I have a completely different take on the 2 systems:

I would actually describe 3.5 as "rules for almost everything, and if there's no rule, then decide on a modifier and roll a d20", and 4E as "here are some cinematic abilities for you and some rules, but don't forget that sometimes you won't be able to use your abilities for no reason except we said so."

YES 3.5 was rules-bloated after years for tinkering and 3rd party support. This was fixed in my games by just playing Core, or Core+, but thats neither here nor there.

The issue is that at its heart, D&D is a game of shared, on-the-fly storytelling. The rules should provide a framework for whatever the players can think up, and help adjudicate the success or failure of the task. The rules should never just put arbitrary limits on player's actions.

In other words, don't tell me my rogue can't tumble more than once an encounter!

I don't mind a rule saying that he can tumble once per encounter with full benefits, and then every attempt after that suffers a cumulative penalty to the check, and/or the distance tumbled. But don't tell me "no".

D&D should be a game of "yes". Or more specifically, "yes, and...", or "yes, but...". And 3.5E, for all its faults, is way better suited to that than 4E's At-Will/ Encounter/ Daily system.

Exactly!

Tumbling once per encounter is a failure of 4e. So is not being able to trip someone until 18th-level.

I think the big problem that we are going to see with 4e as it grows is that every possible action in combat will eventually have a power associated with it, which IMO is the very antithesis of what 4e was supposed to be.

"Your imagination limited only by your chosen powers"

 

[Scribble]

You know I wonder where is the line between doing something cool and exploiting stunts. As an example, is this a cool stunt or exploit? The rogue in my campaign snuck into a room of unaware hobgoblins and poured oil onto the floor (which flowed around their feet under the table they were sitting at) using a stealth check. When the party charged in, the rogue struck a spark to the oil trail, lighting the buggers on fire. Right here he ended up doing the wizards job of an AoE attack, but it was a cool stunt to pull off too, and was definitely more damage than his regular attack would have done to that many opponents.

That's neither.

The thief created a hazzard zone, and then took advantage of it.

Hazzards and terrain exist independantly of powers.