4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[Ratskinner]

But I think both player and GM incorporating these sorts of story aspects is very different from the "questing" model in AD&D or BECMI, where finding your warhorse, or achieving your immortality, actually has to be played out as a part of the game with a real chance of mechanical failure for the player, and hence ingame failure for the PC.

Very true. I think I've mentioned elsewhere that one of the objections my old-school comrades have to 4e is that they like uncertainty in the direction of the story. They like to use random treasure tables and the like. They feel that things evolve "organically" or "naturally" that way. I think the protection of PC protagonism is one of the 4e objectives/themes/characteristics that gives rise to the "easy mode" complaint. (Of course, my reverse complaint to the Old-School feel is that the time to generate a complete starting character should be much less than 1/6 his expected lifetime in play.)

Personally, I'm somewhere in the middle. As a player or DM, I don't mind starting with a fairly open slate, but I don't like how the early levels of earlier editions leave so much up to the whimsy of the dice. Not having played 4e with the DMG2 available, this may be different now, but I felt it went a little too far in "protecting the PC protagonism". At times, I felt like the only things up for grabs were exactly how a fight progressed in X's and O's terms. Which, for me, isn't exactly compelling narrative. I know it is for other folks, so play what you like. All that being said, I've had fun/success running and playing every edition since 1e, so they aren't radically beyond my taste.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Very true. I think I've mentioned elsewhere that one of the objections my old-school comrades have to 4e is that they like uncertainty in the direction of the story. They like to use random treasure tables and the like. They feel that things evolve "organically" or "naturally" that way. I think the protection of PC protagonism is one of the 4e objectives/themes/characteristics that gives rise to the "easy mode" complaint. (Of course, my reverse complaint to the Old-School feel is that the time to generate a complete starting character should be much less than 1/6 his expected lifetime in play.)

Personally, I'm somewhere in the middle. As a player or DM, I don't mind starting with a fairly open slate, but I don't like how the early levels of earlier editions leave so much up to the whimsy of the dice. Not having played 4e with the DMG2 available, this may be different now, but I felt it went a little too far in "protecting the PC protagonism". At times, I felt like the only things up for grabs were exactly how a fight progressed in X's and O's terms. Which, for me, isn't exactly compelling narrative. I know it is for other folks, so play what you like. All that being said, I've had fun/success running and playing every edition since 1e, so they aren't radically beyond my taste.

I find that fights are more in doubt than that, but 4e is structured around equal level fights being basically attrition. It seems hard for a lot of people to appreciate the level +4 range of the tough single fights. Believe me, a level 1 party at grips with a full set of level 3-5 monsters are not even close to arranging X's and O's. I think sometimes tossing some dice can be fun for the DM, you can just "see what happens", but I want to be able to take it or leave it personally.

 

[billd91]

When you say "nor should they", I assume you mean something like "nor should they if they are going to yield a game that I prefer".

Because there is no objective RPG-design reason why rules should be as you characterise them ("a framework for operationalising what the character want to do based on their own internal logic"). For instance, in 4e a STR paladin can have an at-will attack called Valiant Smite. This grants a +1 to hit per adjacent enemy. And it is not simply an operationalisation of what the PC wants to do based on the PC's own internal logic: it is a metagame ability which ensures that the paladin who has it will be valiant, smiting his/her foes when they surround him/her. Inspiring Word, a Warlord power that allows an ally to spend a healing surge and thereby recover hit points, is another metagame power in 4e. And it does not simply operationalise what the warlord PC wants to do based on their own internal logic. It also allows the player of the recipient of the power to narrate his/her PC's inspired recovery from shock and pain, and resurgence into the fray!

Clearly, we have different perspectives on this matter. I see your characterization of these powers as putting the cart before the horse. The reason a paladin is valiant is because that's the life path the character chose to follow. The powers he picks for his fighting style match his forthrightedness and valor. They don't ensure he will be valiant, rather he has them because he is valiant and that's they way he learned to fight.
The warlord's inspiring word - that's the operationalization of the drill instructor exhorting the trainee to push himself, or Mickey yelling from corner to get Rocky up off the mat.

 

[pemerton]

On the whole "rogue vs undead, plants etc" issue - I pretty much agree with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION].

Assume the following things are true of the game:

(1) Combat is a significant focus of play, in terms of time actually spent at the table engaging the action resolution mechanics;

(2) Combat is predominantly about hit point attrition;

(3) The rogue without Sneak Attack has no way of dealing much damage;​

Then every time the rogue can't deploy Sneak Attack, the player of the Rogue is having at best a very limited impact on the play of the game.

If you change one of the 3 parameters I've mentioned you can make this particular issue go away, but (in my view) its not trivial.

Start with (1). D&D has always given the most degree of detailed attention to combat, as far as its action resolution mechanics are concerned. To a significant extent, the game becomes semi-freeform once it goes non-combat, at least up until 4e and its skill challenges. (Even in 3E with its skill system, the lack of structure in resolution comparable to combat makes non-combat resolution semi-freeform.) There are pros and cons to that mode of play, but it's not obvious to me that the player of the rogue has any obvious advantages in respect of it (except perhaps compared to the player of the 3E fighter).

Turn to (2). Suggestions like Tanglefoot bags, pouches of marbles etc are, in effect, suggestions for overcoming (2). But in my view they run the danger of overreach - if pouches of marbles are really that effective, what is the point, ingame of weapons and Sneak Attack? And what is the point, at the metagame level, of all that ink spilled on the hit and damage rules? Not to mention that, as Hussar noted, the rogue has no special advantage here other than perhaps a slightly higher DEX. If the rogue is meant to be played as a (semi-)controller, I would much prefer to see that built into the class and the combat mechanics designed to handle it properly.

Finally, UMD. This can be a way of negating (2) - by improving the rogue's control - or of (3), by allowing the rogue to use damaing spells against plants and undead. But what is the point of having the rogue class play as a surrogate wizard? This is a 3E-ism only - it wasn't part of classic D&D except at very high levels in which the thief got a limited ability to use spell scrolls, which in any event couldn't generally be purchased and were very hard to scribe. I personally fail to see what it adds to the game: if the only viable rogue archetype has to be a magic-user to prosper, why not rebuild the class as a duskblade/arcane trickster sort of thing?

 

[billd91]

Turn to (2). Suggestions like Tanglefoot bags, pouches of marbles etc are, in effect, suggestions for overcoming (2). But in my view they run the danger of overreach - if pouches of marbles are really that effective, what is the point, ingame of weapons and Sneak Attack? And what is the point, at the metagame level, of all that ink spilled on the hit and damage rules? Not to mention that, as Hussar noted, the rogue has no special advantage here other than perhaps a slightly higher DEX. If the rogue is meant to be played as a (semi-)controller, I would much prefer to see that built into the class and the combat mechanics designed to handle it properly.

Finally, UMD. This can be a way of negating (2) - by improving the rogue's control - or of (3), by allowing the rogue to use damaing spells against plants and undead. But what is the point of having the rogue class play as a surrogate wizard? This is a 3E-ism only - it wasn't part of classic D&D except at very high levels in which the thief got a limited ability to use spell scrolls, which in any event couldn't generally be purchased and were very hard to scribe. I personally fail to see what it adds to the game: if the only viable rogue archetype has to be a magic-user to prosper, why not rebuild the class as a duskblade/arcane trickster sort of thing?

On the objection to using a tanglefoot bag (or other stuff that isn't explicitly rogue): It doesn't have to be roguey to be worthwhile to do. Just like I don't see anything wrong with a wizard low on spells using a crossbow, I don't see the problem with the fact that everyone can do it somehow cheapens it for any particular class or archetype. Sometimes, I think people are looking for way too much niche protection.

On UMD - I think it's an interesting balancing factor between wizards (and other primary spellcasters) and rogues/bards, particularly useful for parties short on a character type. From a design perspective, one of the reasons wizards have utility spells that hedge into rogue territory (there's that spectre of niche protection again) is so that they can double for those features, or team up with a cleric loaded with find traps, when the party doesn't have a rogue. Well, UMD allows the rogues and bards an easier time in returning the favor. I've run 3e/PF games in which that skill has been quite useful in giving non-magic heavy characters magic. Is it any worse than allowing non-caster PCs to pick up ritual casting in 4e?

 

[Ratskinner]

I find that fights are more in doubt than that, but 4e is structured around equal level fights being basically attrition. It seems hard for a lot of people to appreciate the level +4 range of the tough single fights. Believe me, a level 1 party at grips with a full set of level 3-5 monsters are not even close to arranging X's and O's. I think sometimes tossing some dice can be fun for the DM, you can just "see what happens", but I want to be able to take it or leave it personally.

I think this is one of the "dials" that will be among the most difficult for the designers to install. I especially have difficulty imagining how a table would work with one PC that has the "Protagonist Glow" and another without it, so I suspect that it will be a campaign-level setting. My first thought would be to start with a solid 4e-ish system, and then add/utilize random tables to suit. However, that doesn't seem to be the feel I get from reading the rules as they have it so far. (My group has given up on the playtest.) If so, the only solution I see after that is bolting on a module like FATE's aspects. Yet another reason I'm glad not to be on the design team.

 

[pemerton]

I think the protection of PC protagonism is one of the 4e objectives/themes/characteristics that gives rise to the "easy mode" complaint.

I can see that. But I also tend to agree with [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] - more below.

Not having played 4e with the DMG2 available, this may be different now, but I felt it went a little too far in "protecting the PC protagonism". At times, I felt like the only things up for grabs were exactly how a fight progressed in X's and O's terms. Which, for me, isn't exactly compelling narrative.

Especially since low Heroic I have very rarely used a combat encounter at or less than the PCs' level - typically only if they are out of dailies, very low on surges, etc - in which case even modest encounters can matter. Otherwise I mostly use level+2 to level+5 combat encounters, with at-level skill challenges of varying degrees of complexity bridging between them.

But the moving Xs and Os is also, in my view, about the story dimension to encounters. And the only 4e book to really address that is the Worlds & Monsters preview, and there only in part (namely, story role of various monsters). It's a big gap in both DMGs (the DMG2 in particular insists that encounters, especially skill challenges, have story signficance, but says amost nothing about how to achieve this).

********

In my session last Sunday, the PCs had no daily powers left; the fighter and drow sorcerer were both on single-digit hit points with no surges; the wizard was just bloodied with 1 surge left; the paladin, the ranger-cleric and the CON elementalist sorcerer were OK on hp; but only the paladin had an action point.

They were moving through the Underdark hoping to avoid Torog crashing it down upon them (a skill challenge). I wanted a confrontation with The Cringe (18th elite brute Exarch of Torog) and some Wrackspawn minions (19th level brute minions). Because the PCs were successful on a group Stealth check moving through the Underdark after successfully taking down, rather deftly, a Wrackspawn scout, I let them get the benefit of surprise on The Cringe and entourage: they came to an escarpment and could hear, and then see when the looked over, The Cringe and 6 Wrackspawn standing at the bottom of it.

The PCs debated turning back and going down a side passage, but decided in the end to proceed ahead on The King's Highway (because Torog gave this part of the Underdark stability with his own blood, he can't just crash it down at will). So they planned a stealth assault from the lip of the escarpment.

The encounter I've described is an 18th level elite plus 6 19th level minions: 7600 XP, or level 15 for 6 PCs. The PCs themselves were 19th level. So this should have been a walkover. And in a purely mechanical sense it was, but the actual resolution was still quite interesting - because of their weakened state, so many of the PCs were no prepared to risk being attacked, and when the paladin eventually made his way down the escarpment to confront the NPCs he lost more than 100 hp in a single round and was restrained by The Cringe. If The Cringe had got another round of actions, he would have simply run away with the paladin (a special ability - drag restrained target at full speed without needing to check) - and even though it didn't actually happen, it created a tension in the situation that the players and I enjoyed. The PCs also were able to take down a fleeing Wrackspawn and thereby ensure that no messages were conveyed (manually, at least) to any other servants of Torog. More tension created and resolved.

Once they won the fight, the PCs were then able to make it safely back to the duergar hold that is their current base of operations - this required only a few minutes of narration.

Anyway, this is a pretty simple example, but I'm using it to try and illustrate (i) how even very simple story elements matter to an encounter - in this case, its place in the culmination of the skill challenge and hence the attemt to get home safely; and (ii) how even a very low level encounter (4 levels below the party!) can, in the right circumstances, pose a challenge.

 

[LostSoul]

"De-protagonism" shouldn't be seen in terms of "I have a rogue and he can't use sneak attack against constructs, therefore the game is broken." It's more like: "I made an assassin-type character in order to deal with the theme of "the cheap price of life" in the game, which is what we talked about before play, but in play I keep getting into situations where that theme never comes up/I have no way to address it (because the only antagonists the DM presents are constructs)."

There are other examples: "I wanted to play Star Wars because I don't agree with what Lucas had to say about anger and healthy ways to deal with it, but every time I try to express that point of view, I get a Dark Side Point and run the risk of losing my PC."

Anyway, it's specific to narrativism. I think 4E does a decent job of avoiding the de-protagonism issue because it doesn't make any specific sort of action-resolution method (from the PC's point of view) invalid. In a step-on-up game, you want/expect the system to provide all sorts of situations where any specific sort of action-resolution method becomes invalid, because then the player needs to come up with the solution.

Though I have to say that I'm not completely sold on the idea that 4E avoids de-protagonism. I think it's because I believe that you need to face desperate thematic choices in order to really be a compelling protagonist. If choice X is as good as choice Y, is it really a choice? I guess so, if the difference is a big moral choice... but I think the choice has a lot more weight if you're forced to think, "Well, I could do X, but I'm probably not going to get what I want; I could do Y, and most likely get what I want, but Y is horrible; so is what I want worth doing something horrible for?" I don't think 4E forces you to ask those questions.

 

[Ratskinner]

Start with (1). D&D has always given the most degree of detailed attention to combat, as far as its action resolution mechanics are concerned. To a significant extent, the game becomes semi-freeform once it goes non-combat, at least up until 4e and its skill challenges. (Even in 3E with its skill system, the lack of structure in resolution comparable to combat makes non-combat resolution semi-freeform.) There are pros and cons to that mode of play, but it's not obvious to me that the player of the rogue has any obvious advantages in respect of it (except perhaps compared to the player of the 3E fighter).

I think I'd quibble with this a little bit. Combat pre-WotC was fairly abstract, even if reasonably codified, and went significantly faster which greatly reduced the amount of table-time that any given character was sidelined. Additionally, some of those editions, if played RAW, had fairly extensive subsystems covering all the "exploration" aspects of dungeon-crawling. (Sometimes even more than one, depending on if you were a Halfling, Thief, Elf, etc.) In this way, thieves could feel a little more important, sometimes vital, without having to engage constantly in fighting toe-to-toe. Even my Wizard will occasionally "sit out" a fight if he thinks his spells will do more good later. If you have 6 fights a session, with several exploration and interaction encounters/scenes as well, this isn't a big deal.

The WotC editions, IMO, have taken the direction of abandoning abstraction and simplicity in combat for ever more detailed and codified tactical movement and conditions. Choosing, or being forced, to sit out a fight can often mean sitting out a third or more of a session. For that matter, I've seen 3e fights take up the entire session! I've heard similar complaints about 4e. (and both have their defenders saying "you're just doing it wrong.") That can lead to the nonsensical situation where a DM is trying to avoid his heroes getting into a fight! This, I think, more than anything else, destroys the parity between the pillars and locks them into this "everyone must be equally good at fighting" thing....and that infringes on the class identities of fighter(s) and everyone else.

Okay, maybe that was more than a little quibble....

and maybe it wasn't directly related to argument at hand...

but I feel better having typed it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Re: fire, tanglefoot, etc:

That's stuff I thought of off the top of my head- there's probably more in the game- and they're not necessarily that effective.

But more to the point, I don't care. Mummies and other magical foes are- surprise- usually best dealt with by magic. In D&D and in the genre fiction that inspired it, fighting most such foes is usually done either with magic or knowing/figuring out their precise weakness, breaking a curse, or reversing a series of actions.

Besides, it doesn't matter at all how many foes in the game as a whole are immune to SA or a given class' special abilities, what matters is (again) how many times such foes show up in the individual campaign.