• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

This mentality needs to die

Primal

First Post
I really like Chris style as a DM, but I noticed several other "mistakes".

1) No mention is made of second wind when the players ask about recovering hit points during combat.

2) He doesn't point out to the players that the bard could boost their healing surges between encounters.

3) Darkfire is a minor action, not a standard one.

4) If you ready an action, your initiative changes.

That said, I'm enjoying the videos a lot and I'd love to play at Chris' table. He might make a few mistakes on the rules, but from the videos he seems like a great DM (and I love his maps).

It's likely that he's streamlining things a bit not to overwhelm "newbies" with too much rules information -- I think this is pretty evident, as most PCs (apart from the bard and the wizard) are simply using basic attacks (as far as I can tell) most of the time. Also, the skill check DCs are surprisingly low; I'm no 4E DM, but either they've been officially revised, or Chris is just trying to keep the game flowing?

As I already said, I don't really like the map itself; it's beautifully drawn, but even the natural caverns seem a bit too "square-y" for my taste.

All in all I think Chris does a pretty good job, and the clips are (IMO) a nice way to promote D&D.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Vyvyan Basterd

Adventurer
4) If you ready an action, your initiative changes.

Are you saying that he did change the character's initiative? Because in 4E a readied action allows you to use a standard action as an immediate interrupt, your initiative does not change. Delaying your action does change your initiative.
 

ST

First Post
I think when the people who make the game play fast and loose with the rules it's just another indicator that tabletop rulesets are guidelines, not gospel.
 


Nikosandros

Golden Procrastinator
Are you saying that he did change the character's initiative? Because in 4E a readied action allows you to use a standard action as an immediate interrupt, your initiative does not change. Delaying your action does change your initiative.
Actually, it does change.

Reset Initiative: After you resolve your readied action, move your place in the initiative order to directly before the creature or the event that triggered your readied action.
 


Windjammer

Adventurer
Does he really need to go into that much detail for an intro session? Especially given that in another encounter, he lets them use powers that target creatures to target objects?

To be honest, I'm just confused by his stance, if he lets the players use powers on inanimate objects aka scenery later on. What's more though, it's not just the actual video itself, but also the concomitant director's commentary (timed link) which indicates that he's really approaching this 'can target creatures only' as RAW, not as a matter of DM discretion.

Look, I'm entirely in agreement that it was a poor explanation to give for the situation at hand and a bad example to set. But I just don't agree with or approve of using one isolated incident to try and claim that "WotC's own Creative Director doesn't" "play with errata".

Part of my phrasing (esp. when parsed as 'C.P. doesn't play with any errata') was really more aimed at rhetorical emphasis than anything else. I concur that it'd be a pretty huge inductive leap to go from one sample to a full generalization.
 

Jhaelen

First Post
To be honest, I'm just confused by his stance, if he lets the players use powers on inanimate objects aka scenery later on. What's more though, it's not just the actual video itself, but also the concomitant director's commentary (timed link) which indicates that he's really approaching this 'can target creatures only' as RAW, not as a matter of DM discretion.
FWIW, he also mentioned in the commentary that the session was recorded last year. How old are the relevant errata?

I also remember one of the game designers mentioning they're often not a good person to ask about a current ruling, since they've designed and playtested dozens of rule variants, some of which didn't make it into the game or will be released at some later date.

E.g. considering the forthcoming Rules Compendium I could imagine it will contain some rule changes nobody outside of WotC knows about yet.
 

ScottS

First Post
HeroQuest has no skill lists. PCs consist of descriptions, with numbers attached. Conflict resolution difficulty is set by the GM based on considerations of dramatic pacing. There are rules for making challenges more difficult for a PC whose skill descriptons are broad relative to the other PCs - this is (i) to maintain balance between PCs, and (ii) to encourage rich detail rather than generic blandness in PC descriptions.(...)This isn't "mother-may-I", but it's not "rules" either, in quite the way that D&D, or Runequest, or Traveller, or Rolemaster, or Ars Magica, or Hero, or etc is.

Like I said, I was sort of familiar with the way the mechanic worked. What I was looking for information to help pin down this supposed "modern trend" a bit further. I'm assuming it's possible that there are a bunch of non-rulesy-rules systems out there that I just haven't seen (the only "new" games I've played in the last 5 years have been RM, D&D4e, M&M, and oWoD VtM, or at least that's all I can recall; I do check out rules-lite pdf's and other free releases, though). On the other hand, it's also possible that calling what they did to the non-combat portions of 4e "modern design" might just be a figleaf...

So, if anyone could answer the following questions, I think it would help the conversation:

a) What are other RPGs/systems that use mechanics similar to the "mother may I" skill checks in 4e? What systems did the designers say were direct influences? (The RH interview that pemerton posted wasn't particularly helpful, since he didn't drop names, just said something at the end about "only indie games can get away with what we did". I checked another interview ,and he mentions Heroquest, Everway, Feng Shui, and Over the Edge, as well as Runequest and Champions which obviously aren't good examples... Heroquest was discussed above. Everway seems close (loosely defined traits plus tarot deck interpretation). Feng Shui has some sort of 'shtick' mechanic which I don't know the details about. Over the Edge looks like a standard trait+skill system with some form of 'hero points'. ...So are those three/four games what we're calling the "modern trend"? Is it even a trend if RPGs continue to not go in that direction, as RH admits?)

b) If 4e was supposed to be an indie/modern showcase, why did it end up in its weird hybrid final form, i.e. flimsy/non-existent out-of-combat rules, super-glued onto the back of a relatively uber-crunch minis combat system? Doesn't devoting so much page-count to the part of the game that they didn't "modernize", kind of negate whatever trendsetting they're trying to do with the "indie" parts? Sub-systems unification isn't "modern"?

I don't really see these as modern approaches to design. They are at least as old as Rolemaster, which is to say close to 30 years old (ie when D&D was itself less than 10 years old)(...)
That said, 4e does have a system for non-combat degrees of success, but rather than linked to invidual skill checks it is linked to the number of failures accumulated over the course of a skill challenge, or the number of successes accumulated before reaching 3 failures (as per the DMG2 and some of the examples therein). This is also an appraoch which draws on the indie RPG ideas exemplified by HeroQuest.

(Just as a side note, skill challenges don't count as a degree-of-success mechanic. They're still pass/fail... They don't even count as a "group skill check" in most cases, because the players are invited to BS their way into using non-relevant skills in the test. They wind up being something close to a "everybody-use-their-best-skills-and-make-up-a-narrative-to-justify-it" check and as a result don't test anything specific about the characters. Kinda like an "average level check" to defeat the encounter's "SR"...)
 
Last edited:

pemerton

Legend
if anyone could answer the following questions, I think it would help the conversation:

a) What are other RPGs/systems that use mechanics similar to the "mother may I" skill checks in 4e?

<snip>

(Just as a side note, skill challenges don't count as a degree-of-success mechanic. They're still pass/fail... They don't even count as a "group skill check" in most cases, because the players are invited to BS their way into using non-relevant skills in the test. They wind up being something close to a "everybody-use-their-best-skills-and-make-up-a-narrative-to-justify-it" check and as a result don't test anything specific about the characters. Kinda like an "average level check" to defeat the encounter's "SR"...)
Skill challenges are pass/fail on the individual chekcs, but give degrees of success for the overall challenge based on number of failures accrued when success occurs, or vice versa - see the examples in DMG 2.

As to "everybody-use-their-best-skills-and-make-up-a-narrative" - that's roughly what I meant by referring to a modern trend in RPG design. In practice, the pre-existing narrative is likely to place constraints on what can be added on, which then means that the best skill may not always be useable. But the notion of reasonably broad skills/attributes, and of players contributing to the ingame reality in a way that frames their skill use and thus helps determine the consequences of success or failure, is what 4e seems to me to be about. It's quite different from an approach in which the player roles a skill check, gets a result, and then hands all narrative power to the GM to decide what that result actually means in the gameworld.

Other games that work more-or-less like this would include The Dying Earth (which is also Robin Laws, I think), Sorcerer and (I think) Burning Wheel, as well as more avant-garde games like My Life With Master or Nicotine Girls.

b) If 4e was supposed to be an indie/modern showcase, why did it end up in its weird hybrid final form, i.e. flimsy/non-existent out-of-combat rules, super-glued onto the back of a relatively uber-crunch minis combat system? Doesn't devoting so much page-count to the part of the game that they didn't "modernize", kind of negate whatever trendsetting they're trying to do with the "indie" parts?
I agree that there is a tension between these two parts of the game (skill challenges and combat resolution) but I don't think that what you've said quite captures it.

Like skill challenges, the combat mechanics assume that players will be working with the GM to frame the narrative and the stakes and then uses their powers within that context - otherwise, powers like Come and Get It make no sense (ie it's not literally the case that, in the gameworld, the fighter makes all his enemies charge him once per encounter - rather, by using this power the player of the fighter is entitled to explain, in the narrative, what happens such that all his enemies close in) and nor do a lot of interrupts. Nor, for that matter, do hit points and healing surges, which can't possibly be treated as physical damage a la Runequest or Rolemaster or (some people's readings of) 3rd ed D&D.

Where the incongruity occurs, at least in my experience, is that there is only very patchy guidance for the GM (none in the DMG, a little bit in DMG2) on how to integrate the two sorts of resolution systems together. For example, a skill challenge I am likely to be running in my next session involves finding a goblin stronghold in a hidden valley and sneaking into it. As part of that challenge, it would makes sense for the ranger to try and pick off lone sentries with bow fire. But the rules are extremely vague on how this should be resolved within the mechanical context of the challenge - ie can an attack be made in lieu of a skill check, and if it's a success then the sentry is dead, but if it's a failure then the sentry notices and begins to raise the alarm? Or is the attack an attempt to aid another at stealth? The DMG2 is very sketchy on this, but (given the intricate mechanical balance of 4e) it would be nice to be given much more concrete advice on how to run it. (I'm taking it for granted that this is not something that one would want to resolve using the actual combat mechanics - those are for serious fights, not picking off lone sentries. In this respect there is at least a degree of resemblance to the distinction, in HeroQuest, between simple and extended contests.)
 

Remove ads

Top