D&D 4E Pemertonian Scene-Framing; A Good Approach to D&D 4e

[AbdulAlhazred]

@Libramarian , on the combat-as-sport issue, you may be underestimating the way the dynamics of a 4e combat play out.

Now admittedly as a GM I'm looking to evoke story/theme when I frame and adjudicate a combat, but I can certainly see what @S'mon and @Balesir have in mind when they talk about a "light gamism" rather than my "light narrativism": there is a lot of scope for clever, exciting and amusing play within the constraints of 4e tactical combat.

It won't be White Plume Mountain, of course. It's not about pulling out a surprising trump card. It's about expert resource management (especially encounter resources) and handling the action economy well.

I find the pigeonholing of games odd. I mean of course you can have trump cards in 4e. You just make them up. It is TRIVIAL to move the game back in that direction. In fact it is in my play a big part of things. The rules and material WotC hands you is the basic bread-n-butter stuff. When you want a BBEG that can be defeated by one clever move you just add that in as an option (and there are a billion simple ways to do it). You really don't need mechanics for "the enemy is defeated".

I find the CAS/CAW thing to be equally just a matter of choices of how you play. 4e DID neglect to make more involved lists of mundane equipment, so there are some ways it isn't as handy for something like a CAW kind of scenario, but players can certainly do it and DMs can foster it. I'd argue that the nice skill system and ritual system are pretty well suited for CAW type play if you want to do it.

 

[D'karr]

I find the pigeonholing of games odd. I mean of course you can have trump cards in 4e. You just make them up. It is TRIVIAL to move the game back in that direction. In fact it is in my play a big part of things. The rules and material WotC hands you is the basic bread-n-butter stuff. When you want a BBEG that can be defeated by one clever move you just add that in as an option (and there are a billion simple ways to do it). You really don't need mechanics for "the enemy is defeated".

I absolutely agree with this. I see no reason why we would close off a complete avenue of gaming. Players will always surprise you with some off-the-wall things. If their idea is significant enough to trump the encounter, let them. We can't become so mechanically minded that we're no bloody relevant outside of the mechanics.

I remember a skill challenge that was a part of one of the early Living Forgotten Realms adventures (Black Knight of Arabel, IIRC). In the challenge you are trying to get the cooperation of this "old lady" that has some sort of greenhouse, IIRC. There are birds in the rafters, and possibly some broken glass panes in the ceiling. One of the options was to use athletics to get to the area above to "fix" her problem and get her cooperation.

I was discussing this with another DM and he said, what if a player simply asks if there is a ladder? It was a brilliantly simple question that simply by-passes the entire skill challenge. My answer would have been exactly that, let them. In this case the player came up with something that the original designer of the skill challenge had not thought about. His idea should trump the challenge.

I find the CAS/CAW thing to be equally just a matter of choices of how you play. 4e DID neglect to make more involved lists of mundane equipment, so there are some ways it isn't as handy for something like a CAW kind of scenario, but players can certainly do it and DMs can foster it. I'd argue that the nice skill system and ritual system are pretty well suited for CAW type play if you want to do it.

Agree again. The ritual system presents many opportunities for that type of play. The robust skill system also allows for great flexibility. In addition, the base mechanics are so transparent that modification to make personal resources more "valuable" are extremely simple to implement, if that is what floats your boat. Those personal resources are a pacing tool. You can increase of decrease pacing by very simple modifications. I have done such a thing to implement long term injuries, and wounds during a particular part of my campaign.

 

[Libramarian]

I find the pigeonholing of games odd. I mean of course you can have trump cards in 4e. You just make them up. It is TRIVIAL to move the game back in that direction. In fact it is in my play a big part of things. The rules and material WotC hands you is the basic bread-n-butter stuff. When you want a BBEG that can be defeated by one clever move you just add that in as an option (and there are a billion simple ways to do it). You really don't need mechanics for "the enemy is defeated".

I find the CAS/CAW thing to be equally just a matter of choices of how you play. 4e DID neglect to make more involved lists of mundane equipment, so there are some ways it isn't as handy for something like a CAW kind of scenario, but players can certainly do it and DMs can foster it. I'd argue that the nice skill system and ritual system are pretty well suited for CAW type play if you want to do it.

I find 4e unappealing for many reasons so what you call pigeonholing I call trying my best to look at it from a different perspective so that I can contribute something constructive rather than just bashing it all the time

 

[Balesir]

I mean of course you can have trump cards in 4e. You just make them up. It is TRIVIAL to move the game back in that direction. In fact it is in my play a big part of things. The rules and material WotC hands you is the basic bread-n-butter stuff. When you want a BBEG that can be defeated by one clever move you just add that in as an option (and there are a billion simple ways to do it). You really don't need mechanics for "the enemy is defeated".

Making up "clever" moves using 'Page 42' is certainly possible in spades, but I find it very odd that making up productive combinations of the existing powers is constantly dismissed or deprecated. I see many, many examples of players combining their characters' powers in inventive and effective ways; I'm not talking about character design or "1337 c0mb0s", here, but during actual play at the table.

One example that I found memorable was an evolution over 2 runs. It started out with the defenders getting themselves into trouble They found themselves on the far side of the encounter from the rest of the party for reasons I don't need to relate. Some could get themselves back, but the paladin found himself stuck and surrounded, so the (fey) warlock took action - a teleport swap with a willing target (the paladin), followed by Otherwind Stride (a teleport out, leaving an immobilising implosion behind). "Oh, you guys thought you had him? Huh - you guys don't even have me!" *BANG* A few encounters later, this sparked an idea:

1) Fighter rushes forward among the enemy and cries "Come and Get It!" - gets himself well and truly surrounded.

2) Warlock swap-teleports with him and Otherwind Strides out, leaving a collection of immobilised, bunched enemy ready for...

3) Wizard lands a nice, meaty party-unfriendly damaging burst on some nicely prepared, immobile targets. With a zone effect that will last until they move out - oh, right; they can't move...

I could list many more examples, but I don't have the time and it would get boring pretty fast, I imagine.

I find the CAS/CAW thing to be equally just a matter of choices of how you play. 4e DID neglect to make more involved lists of mundane equipment, so there are some ways it isn't as handy for something like a CAW kind of scenario, but players can certainly do it and DMs can foster it. I'd argue that the nice skill system and ritual system are pretty well suited for CAW type play if you want to do it.

Yeah, mundane equipment with "default use" powers attached would be nice to have. Not to mention more detail on how powers operate out of combat - a "neutral" classification to add to "ally" and "enemy" for a start and a host of other stuff would have been a real boon. But... heigh, ho.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You can increase of decrease pacing by very simple modifications. I have done such a thing to implement long term injuries, and wounds during a particular part of my campaign.

Yeah, I love the disease track, and you can fiddle with it in various ways really easily, adding different conditions and whatnot. It works for a LOT of stuff.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I find 4e unappealing for many reasons so what you call pigeonholing I call trying my best to look at it from a different perspective so that I can contribute something constructive rather than just bashing it all the time

Why, you HEATHEN!

I don't know that it matters in terms of whether people like a game or not, though it could, but we all do get stuck in certain ways of thinking about any given game. I do it too. Going to cons is good, you run into totally different ways of thinking about your favorite games.

 

[D'karr]

Yeah, I love the disease track, and you can fiddle with it in various ways really easily, adding different conditions and whatnot. It works for a LOT of stuff.

Exactly, and that is in essence what I did. At the end of an extended rest you make a save for each "wound", or "injury" that you suffered previously. Wound and Injury are defined by me based on the pacing I want. If you don't save then that becomes a "long term injury", which gets tracked in a similar track to the Disease Track. Works really well too, when I want to slow down the pacing.

 

[Manbearcat]

Yeah, I love the disease track, and you can fiddle with it in various ways really easily, adding different conditions and whatnot. It works for a LOT of stuff.

Exactly, and that is in essence what I did. At the end of an extended rest you make a save for each "wound", or "injury" that you suffered previously. Wound and Injury are defined by me based on the pacing I want. If you don't save then that becomes a "long term injury", which gets tracked in a similar track to the Disease Track. Works really well too, when I want to slow down the pacing.

Absolutely. This is a feature that easily helps in promoting all sorts of additive elements; extra-encounter attrition, horror, the desperation of being lost with no port in a storm. Its not touted nearly enough for its utility.

 

[TwoSix]

Absolutely. This is a feature that easily helps in promoting all sorts of additive elements; extra-encounter attrition, horror, the desperation of being lost with no port in a storm. Its not touted nearly enough for its utility.

To be fair, the Disease Track has absolutely nothing to do with Come and Get It, so really, why bother discussing it?

 

[D'karr]

To be fair, the Disease Track has absolutely nothing to do with Come and Get It, so really, why bother discussing it?

LOL. I forgot. All your CaGI are belong to US!!!!!!