Why Changes were made in 4e

[LostSoul]

I think it is a rules issue; however, I think it's best handled by providing DM advice and/or adventure design rules - like a 1-in-6 chance of a wandering monster encounter each turn, or "When creating a dungeon, consider how the monsters will react to PC incursions into their domain. This should include fortifying defenses, secreting away valuable treasures, co-operation between rival tribes, etc., all to make further incursions more difficult on the PCs. This will force players to carefully consider how deep to push into the enemy's domain before retreating and regrouping to a safe area."

Expecting me, as a player, to avoid choosing the smart option is like saying I have to provide my own adversity, and I personally find that boring.

 

[Raven Crowking]

True, in general, but the 15-minute adventuring day is not a rules problem.

Someone in the Boston Marathon can choose to sprint at the beginning of the race, and will then have issues finishing the race. That doesn't mean that the "rules" for running a marathon are broken. It means that the "player" managed resources poorly, by choice or in ignorance.

You can argue, if you like, that a rules system that allows someone to mismanage resources out of ignorance is a problematic rules system, but at that point the discussion will have to end. I personally appreciate that players (and their PCs) have to learn how to run a "marathon."

Please understand that I am not arguing about what is desireable in an RPG. I am discussing what we are presented.

For the 15-minute adventuring day not to be a problem, going nova must somehow make the PCs "then have issues finishing the race". If there are no consequences to nova-15, then nova-15 is not mismanaging resources. There is no player ignorance involved.

In fact, if there is no consequnce for nova-15, then nova-15 becomes the best resource management available. Rather as though you were able to spend every last dollar in your bank account, then go to sleep, and spend them all again in the morning. Not spending all the money each day becomes a waste of resources if there are no consequences to spending it, and it simply returns the next day.

For there to be no rules element to the problem, there must be a reason why nova-15 isn't the best resource management stategy. And that element is always based upon consequences for spending all of your resources too quickly. It has to be; it is tautological.


RC

 

[SSquirrel]

Most of the reasons not to are story based, not mechanics based. "Well if you go nova on this fight and don't save the princess, she will be sacrificed at midnight when the moons align and a pathway will open for the ta'naari to come thru and destroy the area. But hey, whatever works for you"

 

[billd91]

Traditional D&D combat is the easiest combat system to port to computer rpgs. What made 3e tricky was that like 4e, the combat system is discretely dvidied into specific actions. If you move, you get less attacks which is the problem NWN had to deal with...

Let's say we have a power that pushes someone 3 squares away. In a turn-based grid based game, you can use this to your advantage and setup so that the enemy pushed is in a more beneficial position. so that the NEXT character can then unleash their own attack.

In a real time system, you push a character 5 squares away, you can't setup so that the OTHER character then uses their own power since there's no delay allowing for the person to select the right ability.

Er no. The short term nature of hindering abilites doesn't make it hard to code for EITHER turn based OR real timed.



Again, you're missing the idea of CONTROL. Let's say you have an immediate reaction ability but you don't WANT it to trigger ALL the time even if the conditions are met since you only have 1 opportunity to use it. In a real time system, you would have to interrupt the event and basivally freeze the game and say "no, don't trigger now".

Worse, what if you have more than one AND one that actually allows you to basically jump in-between an attack upon a fellow party member?

Most of these objections just indicate that any 4e translation into CRPG form would be better as a turned base game. But that's pretty much true of all table-top RPGs. Real time, if you ask me, is mainly appropriate for 1st person shooter-style and general arcade games. I generally dislike real-time strategy and RP games.

It's 4e's powers, with their tightly limited scopes and effects, that have a lot to do with making it the most computer-friendly version of D&D to date. 1e-3e have more open ended spells, class features, and magical effects that require adjudication skills harder to model with a computer algorithm. Hence, the spell lists for most computerized versions of D&D are tightly limited affairs.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

For there to be no rules element to the problem, there must be a reason why nova-15 isn't the best resource management stategy. And that element is always based upon consequences for spending all of your resources too quickly. It has to be; it is tautological.

The consequences for spending resources "too quickly" (which, in itself, has no objective meaning; see below) do not need to be in the rules, and, in fact, can't be, really. If the "solution" to a "rules problem" isn't addressed by the rules and can't be addressed, it's not actually a "rules problem." You can insert into D&D any "solutions" to any problems you want to insert, but if the problem isn't actually caused by the rules, those solutions are meaningless.

Occasionally, such as when you know your next fight is going to be epic, you will want to choose to cut the day short and rest for that fight. In my campaign, which is city-based, the characters tend to nova because recuperation is much easier, and because multiple encounters in one day is less likely (and easier to avoid). In turn, I make each encounter much more difficult, because I'm aware of these factors, too.

This has nothing to do with the rules. This has to do with the DM (and/or the adventure creator) and with the players.

 

[Raven Crowking]

SSquirrel, that is certainly true, and is part of my advice above. But that doesn't eliminate the rules concerns. TSR-D&D solved the rules concerns in a few ways:

1. wandering monsters
2. vulnerability/weight of spellbooks
3. attrition model (no single encounter was necessarily assumed to use 1/4 of the group's resources ala 3e; group resources were not assumed to be automatically replenished ala 4e)
4. long time required to regain higher level spells

These factors certainly helped prevent 15-nova (even where scenario design did not). The reduction/removal of these factors has certainly increased the prevelance of 15-nova.


EDIT: Jeff, I understand what you are saying, and to a degree it is true. But saying that some consequences cannot be codified in rules form doesn't mean that no consequences can be. As described above, earlier editions certainly did codify things in the rules to prevent this problem from occuring, and did so effectively for those who used those rules.

Conversely, I am not at all certain that you understand what I am saying. A problem can be solveable without resorting to rules and still be partially a rules problem.

Probably better to agree to disagree, though. (Shrug)



RC

 

[SteveC]

How different are they though, generation-wise, from the core 3e design crew? It doesn't strike me so much as a new generation with new ideas, but rather just a new crew with their own ideas for the game once the major 3e figures were no longer with WotC. Age-wise as far as I can guess, I figure most of the 4e design team started the game back in 1e, which doesn't make me assume it's a new generation moving in, just a new group of guys wanting to put their spin on the game now.

This is true to a certain extent. The big name design crew from the 3X days had left WotC by this point, and so you had both: some of the old crew were still around, but you also had Mike Mearls and Rodney Thompson coming in, who were genuinely new to full-on edition design.

There's a big difference in the ages involved here: the original designers (Gary et al) had completely different mindsets and experiences than the younger crew. Sure Mike Mearls played 1E, but he's a bit younger than me, and I was just a kid when it originally came out!

Beyond that, the designers of 4E also had freedom to kill some of the sacred cows that the 3E group wanted to but couldn't. When I think of the game designs that Robin Laws and Jonathan Tweet have been involved with outside of 3E, they're very different games which a much more "indie" feel to them. 3E wasn't the time to use a lot of that creativity, but with 4E we're seeing much of it.

When I see the current designers who are working at Wizards they're a very different group than Gary and company originally. I know that's part of the pain for a lot of the old guard: the design and vision that the original founders had is really not present in this edition.

So is it a new generation? I'd say so, even if many of them have been at WotC for a long time: they're just getting to step in and make the changes they feel are needed to keep the game current.

--Steve

 

[SteveC]

I just wanted to make one more comment on this: could we seriously kill the whole "4E is designed to make for an easy computer/console/online game" meme?

The 4E rules would be frightfully difficult to implement in any sort of MMORPG fashion without making significant changes. The interrupts system alone would be a nightmare to get anywhere close to 4E. Don't believe me? Okay, so where are the games? You have one of the largest and most successful gaming IPs out there, and we have exactly 0 4E cRPGs, 0 console games, and 0 MMORPGs. Heck, I haven't even heard of one in development.

To be perfectly honest, the game I've played most recently that would make an excellent transition to a cRPG was Hackmaster, which also goes out of its way to say that isn't one of the design goals.

So if 4E is meant for online play, where's the evidence of the games?

--Steve

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Not Ariosto, but anyway: if you get in the habit of responding to encounters with appropriate force, rather than paving over everything with your highest-level spells as soon as it appears, you won't be screwed when the plot actually instructs you to endure through multiple fights, and there are a lot of reasons that this would happen, from wanting to avoid resting in a dungeon to ambushes to being on the defensive to time limits, only some of which are really avoidable.

The thing is, smart play only suggests that meeting everything with maximum force and then napping is the best course of action when you know you can take a nap afterwards. You don't usually know the story ahead of time in D&D because there's no way to save and reload and reading the module is generally frowned upon, so you really just have your best guess to go on.
<snip>

Also not Ariosto, but here's another voice saying that "Nova-15" is only smart play when the DM lets it be smart play. I have a great love for the humble magic-user/wizard at low levels, and when playing that part my largest contribution to many encounters is advice and tactics (i.e., the same thing Gandalf provided most often).

When appropriate, the spells come out (and I make sure that divination spells get used, as they are the most powerful in the game.....knowledge is very often superior to firepower when overcoming threats).

If I am out of spells, it's back to advice and tactics, and the occasional staff or dagger attack when needed.
<snip>

1. You could always take a page from the classic modules. Poison gas that slowly disables you while you try to find a way out of the ruins. The Ghost Tower of Inverness appears for only one night -- you need to do all you are going to do by dawn.

2. Less fantastically, the world continues to move while you nap.
<snip>
Basically, if the PCs nova everything in their path, then rest, the remainder simply vanish, taking their loot with them. After all, it is obvious how powerful the PCs are. If the PCs seem beatable, but are reliant on magic in repeated encounters, the opponents will negate that magic if they can.

Resting gives the monsters a chance to learn from their defeats, and take appropriate actions.

3. "Real Life". <snip>Keeping a calendar, and allowing events to happen while the PCs are away -- events that the PCs might want to engage in -- prevents too much time-wasting during adventures.

4. Wandering Monsters. Leaving enough oomph for one encounter won't help you if, over the course of 8 hours, you have six encounters. Stop to rest only where you are secure.

5. Rest Isn't Bad Per Se. There is nothing wrong with resting from time to time. But part of the fun of the game is weighing the benefits of resting against the costs.<snip>

And the chorus sings on...

Jeff Wilder
Someone in the Boston Marathon can choose to sprint at the beginning of the race, and will then have issues finishing the race. That doesn't mean that the "rules" for running a marathon are broken. It means that the "player" managed resources poorly, by choice or in ignorance.
<snip>

I personally appreciate that players (and their PCs) have to learn how to run a "marathon."

I like the "marathon" analogy. Well put.

Dannyalcatraz: Would I be correct if I said that you rested only when needed, and avoiding having to rest by making smart choices during (and before!) combat?

Were there (generally) external pressures keeping you from resting? Time pressures, NPC actions, etc.?

As a rule, our groups rest only when absolutely needed AND when it was permitted by campaign circumstances. Sometimes, parties even had to flee foes we'd normally wipe out because they were running on empty. (Which, BTW, led to all kinds of interesting role-play scenarios.)

External pressure was exerted- as others have stated, things like time pressures, wandering monsters, no defensible campgrounds and intelligent foes who leave, reposition, reinforce or would otherwise adapt to our tactics ensured we couldn't camp at will. (If it helps, think of it like certain computer games in which you can only save your game at certain spots- if you die having completed 99% of the journey from Save Point A to Save Point B, you're respawning at Save Point A.)

For instance, when one party used a Rope Trick to evade foes and rest up- of course, they came out refreshed and recharged. It worked just as well the second and third times. The fourth time, however, while the party was resting, the space had been surrounded by a cylindrical wall of force (terminating at the ceiling and the floor), which was then filled with water by an opposing mage.

It was almost a TPK- the party survived because the rogue used the (unconscious) wizard's Rod of Cancellation...which he had to find first...and the opposing mage making the classic Bond villain mistake of assuming his deathtrap had worked.

 

[LostSoul]

Very cool.

There are a lot of good examples of exerting pressure on the PC's ability to rest and recover here!