D&D 4E What 5E needs to learn from 4E

[AbdulAlhazred]

Perhaps, but I don't think either Alhazred or I were talking about that.

Right. It could well be there's no particular NARRATIVE reason for an encounter. It could be purely 'color' (IE you put bad guys in an alley because its an alley in the bad part of town). You can still make that encounter INTERESTING without it seeming artificial. The thugs are beating on someone in the alley, or some other people show up to confront the thugs too, or the thugs themselves are just interesting enough to make a good story out of the encounter. Again, if they're just color and nothing is interesting about them why make them anything more than minions? If they're not, then make them interesting. Not rolling them up totally randomly insures you have some time to flesh things out a bit and make it fun.

And really, honestly, when is it NOT significant that you get jumped by some thugs? Nobody calls getting into a life-and-death fight insignificant. It would be no less significant for people in some fantasy world as it is in our own world.

 

[pemerton]

My grudge with 4E fights is that it provides a player with a very limited set of choices.

How is this at all distinct from, say, 3E combat?

I can't comment much on how this played out in 3.x as I didn't run it and have played a fairly limited amount. I can say I didn't see these things happen there, but YMMV of course. In AD&D I almost never saw this kind of thing.

Like AbdulAlhazred and PoE, I'm curious as to what your comparison class is.

4e has a pretty robust system for handling improvised actions: the DC by level table and the exepcted-damage-by-level numbers. And it has a nice suite of conditions you can use to help set stakes (eg if a stunt succeeds, some advantage is gained; if it fails, the PC grants combat advantage).

Recent improvisations I can think of include: the tiefling paladin, who - while surrounded by a hobgoblin phalanx (15th level Huge swarm) - was set on fire by being caught in an ally's fire attack, and took advantage of this to try and set the hobgoblins on fire (grant combat advantage to get bonus damage die); and the wizard, using a "remove from game and dominate" power - ie a power of bodily possession of a target - to try and read an NPC's mind for a password (the attack succeeded, I set a Hard Arcana DC for the mind reading, the check failed, so the PC didn't learn what he wanted to). 4e makes these sorts of things very easy to adjudicate, because of its clear and robust parameters for action resolution (DCs by level, damage by level, good condition list, etc).

Another consideration is how you handle failure. If failing is simply a matter of losing actions or expending some other resource HP/HS/etc then players are usually not achieving the kind of interesting novelty they seek, at least not always. OTOH fail forward (IE failure creates a more hazardous higher stakes situation) tends to make things more fun. You can also set up situations where the players can 'up the stakes' and then when they fail the hurt is somehow more satisfying, since they're the authors of their own pain.

Yes yes yes to this. I think it is hard to overestimate how important the adjudication of failure is to RPG play. The single best way to produce turtling, unadventurous players is to adjudicate failures narrowly and harshly. (I actually posted about this yesterday on another thread.)

players almost always know how their powers will work out, and it's far less risky to use a power than to use an improvised attack.

I think the key here is to dispense with the risk. That's where the robust action resolution mechanics come in. Once the players are confident that the GM will apply those mechanics to let them do interesting stuff, the risk goes away. And often it can be built on top of powers, rather than strictly alternative to them. Like the time the dwarf fighter in my game used oil to enhance his Footwork Lure: the oil had been scavenged from a ruined wrestling ring, and stuck in the backpack in case it came in handy; a little while later the PCs were fighting some big, dangerous golems, and the dwarf needed to slide one of them 2 squares to knock it prone (Polearm Momentum, I think) but could slide it only 1 square using Footwork Lure, and so used a standard action to place the oil, and thus get extra forced movement (via slippiriness) and therefore got to knock the golem prone with an action point. With a Wall of Fire in play the oil itself caught alight to deal some extra damage, and the golem being prone in the wall of fire shifted momentum the PCs way in the damage vs actions trade off.

For me, at least, opening up play in this way has been one of the strong features of 4e compared to other mainstream fantasy RPGs.

 

[pemerton]

First of all many of us can wing that

<snip>

For that matter the 10x less time I have to spend preparing other stuff in 4e gives me PLENTY of time to do up interesting unrelated encounters on the side if I wish. Heck, generate them off some tables with dice if you feel compelled, but there's no difference between doing that beforehand and doing it at the table.

<snip>

We won't even get into the whole question of why you would think random wandering monsters are needed to make the world come alive.

Agreed. Randomness of encounters is not necessary for a living world. And having some "living world" or "colour" encounters prepared can help with the living world, by allowing you to bring them out when they'll have maximum "living world" impact.

some people's world, namely mine, work as close to the real world as possible where you randomly have encounters for no other reason than being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I think the point where I don't follow you is why random on-the-fly encounters are needed to do this. From the player's perspective there's no difference between some random thugs you rolled up and some thugs you put together as an encounter that would happen (or might happen) if the PCs went to place X. Either way the world is equally depicted.

Agreed again. Encounters, to be "random" from the point of view of the PCs, don't have to be random from the point of view of the GM. All you have to do is to prepare and then place encounters that aren't connected to whatever it is that the PCs (and the players?) are interested in.

It's a further question about whether mere "colour" encounters are a good or a bad thing form the point of view of various desired play experiences, but that question doesn't depend upon determining them randomly.

I see the whole DDN exercise as a huge waste of WotC's time and energy. They should be spending it on good adventures and good setting material. Essentials in particular was a giant boondoggle.

Agreed about Essentials as a whole - although the MV and the RC are both good products.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Recent improvisations I can think of include: the tiefling paladin, who - while surrounded by a hobgoblin phalanx (15th level Huge swarm) - was set on fire by being caught in an ally's fire attack, and took advantage of this to try and set the hobgoblins on fire (grant combat advantage to get bonus damage die); and the wizard, using a "remove from game and dominate" power - ie a power of bodily possession of a target - to try and read an NPC's mind for a password (the attack succeeded, I set a Hard Arcana DC for the mind reading, the check failed, so the PC didn't learn what he wanted to). 4e makes these sorts of things very easy to adjudicate, because of its clear and robust parameters for action resolution (DCs by level, damage by level, good condition list, etc).

I think the key here is to dispense with the risk. That's where the robust action resolution mechanics come in. Once the players are confident that the GM will apply those mechanics to let them do interesting stuff, the risk goes away. And often it can be built on top of powers, rather than strictly alternative to them. Like the time the dwarf fighter in my game used oil to enhance his Footwork Lure: the oil had been scavenged from a ruined wrestling ring, and stuck in the backpack in case it came in handy; a little while later the PCs were fighting some big, dangerous golems, and the dwarf needed to slide one of them 2 squares to knock it prone (Polearm Momentum, I think) but could slide it only 1 square using Footwork Lure, and so used a standard action to place the oil, and thus get extra forced movement (via slippiriness) and therefore got to knock the golem prone with an action point. With a Wall of Fire in play the oil itself caught alight to deal some extra damage, and the golem being prone in the wall of fire shifted momentum the PCs way in the damage vs actions trade off.

Both of these examples tell me that you have creative players and that you are a good DM who knows how to adjudicate these situations. I really don't believe either of the above are unique to 4E. They are just as improvisable in 3E or previous editions.

 

[pemerton]

Both of these examples tell me that you have creative players and that you are a good DM who knows how to adjudicate these situations.

That's nice of you to say so - thanks.

I really don't believe either of the above are unique to 4E. They are just as improvisable in 3E or previous editions.

I would agree that they are not unique to 4e. But I think 4e helps with both.

In the paladin example, 4e helps because it has a clear damage curve, which makes it easier to adjudicate bonus damage that is meaningful but not game breaking. It also has a nice suite of conditions which interact with fairly predictable maths, which makes trade-offs (like bonus damage for swinging wildly and on fire, thereby also granting combat advantage) easier to adjudicate.

In the wizard example, 4e helps because it has a DC-by-level chart. I don't have to try to come up with an "objective" DC that reflects the ingame difficulty of mind reading using a bodily possession spell.

There are other ways to support creative play and improvisation. Burning Wheel, for example, posits more narrative power to players (so a PC can make a Perception check in combat to try to find a kettle on the stove, even if the GM hasn't described any such thing); and it also allows a player to scrounge for one advantage die, via creative engagement with the fiction, each time a check is made - but part of the control on this is that you don't always want to roll with the maximum number of dice, because advancing your PC requires making some checks that are hard relative to the number of dice you get to roll.

I'm sure that improvisation in 3E would be possible, too. But from reading through the books I don't get a sense of how to do it, mostly because I am not given a clear sense of the action resolution framework and expectations. Whereas in 4e I am. To me, that is the difference. For others, though, perhaps 3E was intuitive. I can only speak to my own experience.

 

[pemerton]

My objection to 4E rituals is that they are essentially self-serving money drains.

<snip>

The problem being that with the ritual you get to spend the players' cash resource (which is primarily in 4E a gamist resource for combat enhancements) on story elements (which primarily do not affect combat unless the DM makes significant effort to entangle the results).

<snip>

The problem in my eyes is resource contention by re-using gold for two diverging purposes. If rituals drew on some other resource, or gold was a story resource and not primarily for combat bolt-ons, then I think 4E's rituals would be sitting pretty.

We've had different experiences here, because items in my game aren't for combat only. The first two items made by PCs, I think, were a Polyglot Gem and a Basket of Everlasting Provisions.

I think this is because what [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] said about the balance beteen items and money has turned out to be true in my game.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Agreed about Essentials as a whole - although the MV and the RC are both good products.

I actually like most of the Essentials classes - mostly because they open the game up to players who aren't that mechanically adept and just want to hit stuff or fireball it without having to track half a dozen spells. One of my players is notably happier with a slayer than a PHB fighter. Also the Thief is an utter gem of a class. The double-buying the rules on the other hand is not something I'm happy about.

I don't see Essentials as much more than good splatbooks, but I'll take good splatbooks that make people who weren't catered to well by 4e much happier.

Both of these examples tell me that you have creative players and that you are a good DM who knows how to adjudicate these situations. I really don't believe either of the above are unique to 4E. They are just as improvisable in 3E or previous editions.

Both 3e and 4e have their own factors that limit improvisation. 3e is the most simulationist edition of D&D - and with slightly gritty simulation comes a risk of failure and a complexity of rules that slows things down. 4e, improvisation is what you use when you don't have the right tool for the job. 4e non-casters are much more likely to have good tools than in prior editions - and more to the point are much much more likely to have cool tools.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, I don't think Essentials is a BAD product. In fact the e-classes are perfectly reasonable, they just don't bring a vast amount more to the game. I think Essentials was just the wrong product at the wrong time. Instead of WotC maintaining confidence in their core product design decisions and spending their time studying what people were doing with 4e and what that told them about the strengths of the product, and then playing to those strengths, instead they lost their nerve. They stopped believing in the underlying quality of the product and wasted their time making a whole bunch of already-existing classes in a way that was contrary to the original concept. Having duplicates of existing classes was at best marginally useful, and confusing people with a whole alternate set of core books was just dumb.

The sad part in my mind is that they've drawn all the wrong conclusions from their 4e experience. Where's the confidence in the product now? Where's the innovation and will to make a better product? No, now we have a rehash of yesteryear that can't even decide what it is trying to be and is loaded down with "the edition for everyone" nonsense.

Look at the hilarity of the whole 'wizard debate'. They pump out a pretty much bog standard Vancian wizard. Predictably a lot of people roll their eyes and complain about it. Next they pump out 2 more caster classes that are non-Vancian and tell everyone "well, if you don't like Vancian play these!". Well, now, after 2 weeks of people raising a big stink they're back to "Oh, well, we'll make a non-Vancian wizard option." Which is it? I mean there's listening to your customers and then there's not having a clue and not having the nuts to do something and live by it.

All I can see is a WotC and a DDN that is nothing but endless recapitulations of the Essentials mistake. Meanwhile they're chasing PF's taillights with a core game design that is a 20 year step back from what they just gave up on. Yeah, that will really work. Damn, I want Rob Heinsoo back. At least he had the balls to do something and believe in it.

 

[pemerton]

I actually like most of the Essentials classes - mostly because they open the game up to players who aren't that mechanically adept and just want to hit stuff or fireball it without having to track half a dozen spells. One of my players is notably happier with a slayer than a PHB fighter. Also the Thief is an utter gem of a class. The double-buying the rules on the other hand is not something I'm happy about.

I don't object to the Essentials classes - my comment is about the product. It's poorly compiled, with ridiculously excessive, repetitive and sometimes incoherent favour text, and needless duplication of rules content.

 

[Manbearcat]

Like AbdulAlhazred and PoE, I'm curious as to what your comparison class is.

4e has a pretty robust system for handling improvised actions: the DC by level table and the exepcted-damage-by-level numbers. And it has a nice suite of conditions you can use to help set stakes (eg if a stunt succeeds, some advantage is gained; if it fails, the PC grants combat advantage).

Recent improvisations I can think of include <snip>

For me, at least, opening up play in this way has been one of the strong features of 4e compared to other mainstream fantasy RPGs.

I too am baffled every time I hear this. I've DMed all prior editions (and 8 years of 3.x) and none of them have provided the richness, coherent format and "ease of adjudication" within the stunt system...none of them have provided the dynamism of 4es terrain and hazard system and its entrenched tactical mobility. Because of these things my players are MORE inclined than ever before to attempt stunts.

One such occurrence that comes to mind is a scene in an isolated Inn in a windswept pass at the top of the mountain. The PCs had tracked a pair of antagonists (who were slave-trading, drug-smuggling gang rivals) there knowing that they were going to be there on neutral territory to broker a deal to end hostilities and divvy up territory. The PCs thought that they had numbers in their favor as they had intelligence on both gangs' numbers. Unfortunately, the Skill Challenge to gain the "intelligence" was failed and the PCs didn't realize that both gangs put out misinformation on the numbers/resources they would be bringing. Instead of a small force, each gang had brought large numbers and were planning to attempt to assassinate their rivals' guildmaster and high ranking lieutenants. Needless to say, this situation turned hairy quickly as the PCs attempted to "ambush" the rival guildmasters during their negotiations in the cordoned common room. They were outgunned dramatically and reinforcements kept coming. It was going to be a catastrophe...a TPK. However, I put in several means by which the PCs could turn the situation into an impenetrable veil of chaos and turn the tide (or escape if needed).

- The large common room had 2 huge firepits (3 * 3 zone fire damage and ongoing - save ends) cut into the middle of the room.

- The vaulted ceiling housed a massive candelabra (5 * 5 blast - heavy damage, restrained - save ends and difficult terrain afterwards) supported by multiple chains...but on one main load-bearing truss (40 damage, DR 5).

- The hardwood floor was covered wall-to-wall in finely spun (flammable) area rugs. Oil lanterns adorned the walls and sat on endtables and roundtables throughout the large common room. Burning rugs (2 * 2 zone fire damage and ongoing - save ends) would spread in a 2 * 2 each round. The windows were open and the chamber was reasonably vented but when 20 squares are filled with fire, everyone at ground level has minor concealment.

- The room was littered with furniture and area rugs to be yanked. Large picture windows with heavy drapes adorned the walls.

This truly epic combat was about 12 rounds (45 minutes for us...most of our combats are typically 4-6 rounds and are 15 minutes). That puts it somewhere around 36 PC turns. I suspect that at least half of those turns involved environment manipulation and stunts. It was absolutely awesome. I could have never pulled this off in prior editions (due to lack of ease of use, clear adjudication and PC expectation of adjudication and enough "punch/effectiveness per stunt" so the PCs would be inclined toward trying them)...and believe me I tried a thousand times over. The combat was not winnable so after enough carnage was administered, an opening emerged while the inn was threatening to come down, so the PCs took advantage and beat a hasty retreat...after both guildmasters and a great many lieutenants lay dead. We had an intense (successful) Skill Challenge to get the Innkeep and his family out of the Inn and slip away from the scene under the cover of night to avoid pursuit from the recovering gangs. This was one of our early games. I loved 4e before this but I would say that this was my group's seminal moment.