Beyond Old and New School - "The Secret That Was Lost"

[Mercurius]

I think this is in fact shown by the fact that you still haven't actually told me how to resolve the battle captain in a non-4e game.

Hmm. Pemerton, I told you that I haven't played pre-3e for almost two decades and 3e in like a decade, so I'm a bit rusty on the specifics. But I did tell you that the battle captain can be accomplished in any iteration of D&D, if - and it is a big if - you see the rules as guidelines rather than Absolute Laws That Must Not Be Broken.

Reading the rest of your response, and from your previous replies, I take it that you're a RAW guy. I think this goes back to [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s mention of cognitive styles. Some like to use the RAW and optimize them as much as possible without "breaking" them, while others see them as guidelines, touch-stones that give form and structure to the game narrative. Check out KAI Theory which posits two extremes on a spectrum, Adaptive and Innovative. Adaptors prefer to work within the system, to master it even, to do better and better, while Innovators like to work outside the system, to do things differently.

In that sense, you could say that there's an Adaptive and an Innovative style to approach D&D - and neither is inherently superior to the other, although both have their strengths (and weaknesses).

Here is the action the player wants to accomplish: I will charge the enemy, yelling a rousing war-cry, and when I hit it my allies, inspired by my example, will likewise charge the enemy without costing them an action in the action economy.

4e has a robust way to adjudicate such actions, via the allocation of daily powers. (Or encounter powers if it is a single ally who charges.)

The battle captain can be resolved in any number of ways. As I already said, you figure out target numbers and relevant modifiers for what the player wants to do and then you role for it. The tricky part is the second aspect - allowing your allies to charge without costing them an action. Here I'd say flexibility is required; as I said, if a player can come up with an idea they should be given a shot.

I think @ExploderWizard is correct that this is just impossible in classic D&D - to permit it would break the action economy. My feeling in relation to 3E is much the same, though my intuitive grasp of 3E is pretty limited.

I think what you're pointing at here is that 4e combat is more detailed, more granular (if I'm using the term correctly), than other forms of D&D. It isn't as much that you can do things in 4e that you can't do in other editions, its that 4e is more detailed - it gives actual rules for it, rather than guidelines.

Its like a microscope - if you look at a needle with the naked eye it looks smooth and sharp, but if you look at it under a high-powered microscope, the rough edges start showing. 4e allows for a more "scoped in" combat - with greater detail, which in turn requires more specific rules.

The problem I have with it, though, is that - like 3e, but in a different way - it puts too much emphasis on system mastery. That's fine for some, but not others. This is one of the (few) major reasons 4e lost a lot of folks, in my opinion.

The explanation is pretty clear: if your only rationing mechanic is roll vs target number then all you can trade off is likelihood vs effect, settling overall expected utilities. Whereas AEDU (or fate points, or Marvel Heroic SFX, etc) introduce other rationing devices which allow other ways of preventing breakage whilst still permitting reliable access to dramatic effects.

Yes, and I introduced a fate point system for my 4e game which gave players an undefined ("non-earmarked") resource pool that they could apply to rolls for self-generated dramatic effects. I don't have a problem with that, but the problem is the pre-determined "drop-down menu" approach that AEDU takes which ends up obfuscating more open-ended theater of mind actions.

D&D uses this too, for spell users: would the game really be better if a magic-user (from 1st level?) had in principle unlimited access to Time Stop but had to make an inordinately hard d20 roll in order to perform that particular feat of magic? I think the answer to this is "obviously not". So if I'm to be persuaded that roll vs target number should be the only mechanism for allocating effects to non-casters, some argument is going to have to be given that actually addresses these issues.

You keep on twisting what I'm saying, pemerton, and seemingly missing a lot of what I actually am saying. I am not saying "roll vs. target number should be the only mechanism for allocating effects to non-casters." I just don't like "AEDU-only." This is why I introduced the "fate pool" which allowed players to allocate resources in the form of modifiers to a dramatic action.

I don't really follow this: I don't see the comparison you're drawing between allocation of backstory authority ("Is my PC the heir to the throne?") and allocation of action resolution resources, which is what AEDU is about.

Those are two separate issues, both of which you've brought up. The backstory bit was an example of how a player doesn't (at least in my approach) have full authority over their character's backstory - in a similar sense to how you and I don't have full authority over our own biographies. We might think we know our own personal histories but might not realize what was going on "behind the scenes" or certain underlying factors, or simply not remember things correctly.

But the Christmas tree analogy was specifically about AEDU and 4e's approach in general. As I said, you have two extremes:

1) Don't ask for anything at all and be surprised by what you get (or don't get)
2) Ask for specific items and specific items only, and/or buy your own presents

It isn't black or white and few games take one or the other approach but are somewhere along the spectrum. But the point is that the first extreme has a lot of freedom, but also more room for "error" (either buying something someone doesn't want or getting something you don't want), while the second extreme is more fail-proof, but also without the element of surprise and mystery.

Let me put it this way: in the AEDU paradigm you begin every combat encounter with a list of things you can do, namely your powers. That list is more expansive, more detailed and granular in terms of rules effect, than any previous edition to D&D - including 3e (although I can't speak for Pathfinder, but I'm fairly certain that's the case)...with the possible exception of spell-casters.

When combat begins you begin allocating your resources (powers). I found that there was a basic formula: use your encounter powers first, then, if the opponent was almost defeated, finish them off with at-wills. If they're still going strong and the party is starting to lose, bring out the dailies. It was very strategic, very tactical, and generally quite fun (at least until the Grind began). But there was a certain predictability; each player had their pre-determined list of powers, which had pre-determined effects.

In my idea world, 5e would still have something akin to "powers" - or at least maneuvers - for non-spellcasters, but that there would be more emphasis placed on improvisation. Sort of like how the game Ars Magica has both formulaic spells and spontaneous casting.

All editions have both, but 4e places the emphasis on the formula in a way unlike any previous edition, and I found that - at least for my tastes - went too far and actually obfuscated spontaneity and improvisation.

Let me put it one more way. Let's say a PC wants to sprint around the opponent, climb and jump off a boulder, and attack the opponent from behind and above. This action can occur in any form of D&D. But in 4e, the default approach is to look at the list of powers and try to meld the two. Actually, I found that more often then not, players wouldn't even think about their own actions; they would look at their list of powers and pick one to use.

Now we've ranged far from the original topic, which I'm fine with, but I will relate this back to imagination and immersion. In 4e, let's say a ranger PC is fighting a group of orcs. He looks at his list of powers and says "I'll use Split the Tree." For me this approach detracts from immersion and imagination. One or two of my players found their way around this, at least when they described what they were doing - they came up with a narrative inspired by the power, and then said "using X power."

I prefer taking the approach of the player imagining themselves as the character (the ranger) and then deciding what to do based upon the mindspace. "I draw two arrows and fire them at the two orcs in front of me." If there's a power that applies, fine, but it is back to the cart-and-horse thing.

I should re-emphasize that I am not telling you which way is best for you. That would not only be arrogant but outright foolish. What I am saying beyond "what is best for me," is trying to understand what is best for most - what works as a default to the D&D game that will bring as much enjoyment to as many as possible, and especially with regards to inspiring imagination. In that regard, I think 4e missed the mark.

That said, I really hope that 5e has a "tactical combat module" that does something similar to 4e with specific resources ala powers. Even better would be if some players could play 4e-style characters at the same table as 3e-style and AD&D-style. That was the initial intention of Mearls & Co, but I don't know if they've backed off.

In other words, the absolute best case scenario is not X or Y, but both - as fits the campaign, DM, and players. I just don't think that 4e offered both, or at least the other side of the spectrum was obfuscated by AEDU.

Now I've got to re-join the family for house-cleaning! I need to re-allocate my resources

 

[pemerton]

As much as possible the link between player decisions and consequences of their actions should be visible to the players.

I think this is an interesting point.

In D&D I think establishing the link between choices and consequences relies to a significant extent on clear narration by the GM - there are no mechanics for this, beyond the resource ablation mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

I told you that I haven't played pre-3e for almost two decades and 3e in like a decade, so I'm a bit rusty on the specifics.

<snip>

The battle captain can be resolved in any number of ways. As I already said, you figure out target numbers and relevant modifiers for what the player wants to do and then you role for it. The tricky part is the second aspect - allowing your allies to charge without costing them an action. Here I'd say flexibility is required; as I said, if a player can come up with an idea they should be given a shot.

I hope you can see that, from my point of view, you haven't really told me how this might be resolved in 3E.

I introduced the "fate pool" which allowed players to allocate resources in the form of modifiers to a dramatic action.

If, by "modifiers", you mean bonuses to a d20 roll, then these fate points are not really increasing the dimensions of resolution.

The distinctive feature of action points in 4e is that they operate in a different dimension of resolution: namely, the action economy. And encounter and daily powers operate in multiple dimensions: sometimes they involve bonuses to rolls, or rerolls; sometimes they allow multi-targetting or multi-attacks, which is comparable to additional actions; sometimes they increase effectiveness; sometimes, as in the case of the battle captain, they grant additional actions.

the problem is the pre-determined "drop-down menu" approach that AEDU takes which ends up obfuscating more open-ended theater of mind actions.

<snip>

in the AEDU paradigm you begin every combat encounter with a list of things you can do, namely your powers.

<snip>

In my idea world, 5e would still have something akin to "powers" - or at least maneuvers - for non-spellcasters, but that there would be more emphasis placed on improvisation. Sort of like how the game Ars Magica has both formulaic spells and spontaneous casting.

It has always been the case that D&D spell casters begin every combat encounter with a list of things they can do, namely, their memorised spells.

Likewise, fighter and thieves have always had (different) resource lists too, such as in the case of fighters, the number of attacks per round; or in the case of thieves, the conditional set-up for a backstab.

AEDU doesn't change this basic paradigm for casters; it does tend to bring the fighters and thieves closer to the caster paradigm. Does your critique apply to casters also? (As is perhaps implied by your reference to Ars Magica.)

I prefer taking the approach of the player imagining themselves as the character (the ranger) and then deciding what to do based upon the mindspace. "I draw two arrows and fire them at the two orcs in front of me."

In 3E, wouldn't that be resolved via Manyshot (or some similar feat)? And in Moldvay Basic, how would it be resolved?

I don't think this is a particularly viable way to run a game without some broader framework around it, that relates action economy to effectiveness. Otherwise it's just an invitation to bad maths on the part of GM and/or player.

For instance, what should be the penalty for getting off two shots rather than one (given that the potential is there for double effectiveness)? Make it too low, and the player has simply upped the output of their PC. Make it too high, and the player has simply nerfed their PC. (3E two-weapon fighting is riddled with this problem.)

Marvel Heroic has a nice way of handling this, via its general rules for spending plot points to allocate additional dice to generate additional effects, plus its rules about effect stacking, plus its Area Attack SFX which allows extra dice to be allocated for free, but adds d6s to the pool - which are not very powerfule effects, and increase the likelihood of rolling 1s.

The key here is that there's a kind of unspoken agreement of trust, that the player's will trust the judgment and fairness of the DM, but also that the DM is willing to be flexible.

This particular issue - of how you resolve the battle captain in non-4e D&D, or even of how you resolve the archer wanting to shoot two arrows while spending only a single action - seems to me to have little to do with trust. Or with flexibiity. It's about the scope of the game mechanics, and the dimensions that there are to work with.

Whether or not I trust my GM, or as a GM whether or not I am willing to be flexible, Moldvay Basic simply lacks the resources to permit two arrows with a single shop as a routine option. I guess an alternative is then to allow it sometimes, but not always: but that then gets into the territory of GM authority over outcomes which is of no interest to me. At that point, why both to roll the dice at all? The GM can just narrate what happens as s/he thinks is best for the story s/he is

I take it that you're a RAW guy.

If you mean "I don't change or adapt the rules" then that's not so. A very simple recent example: when the invoker/wizard in my 4e game implanted the Eye of Vecna into his imp familiar I had to work out how to adjust the Eye's abilities to reflect that unusual situation. (They are written on the (reasonable) default assumption that the Eye's wielder has the Eye in his/her own eyesocket, and not that of a familiar.) Other simple examples include reworking themes and epic destinies to fit various players' conceptions of their PC.

If you mean "Nothing can be accomplished in the game unless there is a power on a PC sheet that specifies that as an outcome" then that's not so. To take that line would be to completely ignore p 42, plus the role of keywords in 4e powers which is brought out particularly in the DMG discussion of damaging objects, plus the skill challenge rules; and would be ridiculous in and of itself. A simple example already mentioned upthread was the invoker/wizard's use of a possession attack power to try to read the mind of a guard to extract a password (the attack succeeded; the Hard Arcana check to extract the password failed). More complex examples can be seen in these actual play posts: an Arcana check to suck chaotic energy out of bottled pure elemental fire in order to accelerate a flying carpet in an aerial chase (failed; the carpet went crashing to the ground with an explosion); a fire-resistant paladin who had been set on fire by an allies flaming arrow burst using the fire to deal additional damage to the hobgoblins he was fighting; summoning chaotic energies from a dying dragon to imbue a silvered horn with magic and turn it into a Fire Horn; using the Sceptre of Law to redirect the destination of an unstable portal to old imperial ruins (successful Religion check); not to mention the fact that 15th level PCs have a flying carpet, which is a 20th level item (and by default, treasure in 4e caps at level +4, or 19th level for 15th level characters).

If you mean "Wants the mechanics to support the game by giving solid guidelines on mechanical difficulty and mechanical effect that, when followed, will deliver satisfying play", then absolutely. In a well-designed game system I should be able to set DCs and mechanical consequences simply by reference to my charts; and the players engaging those challenges via their PCs should then produce fun play; with no need to fudge or tweak anything as the resolution unfolds. (I take this to be part of what [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] was referring to in his most recent post upthread.)

I've run systems that don't satisfy this constraint (classic D&D, particularly below level 5 or so; Traveller; RuneQuest; Rolemaster, particularly below level 7 or so), but wouldn't anymore.

 

[Mercurius]

I hope you can see that, from my point of view, you haven't really told me how this might be resolved in 3E.

Pemerton, I've already told you that I haven't played 3E in ten years. If you really want to know the specifics as per the RAW, ask someone who plays it now or look it up.

I probably can't satisfy your point of view because we're operating from differing paradigms about how to play D&D and how situations might be resolved. You seem to want very clear, very defined rules, while I'm happy to come up with rulings on the fly - target numbers, etc. To use Mearls' term, "rulings not rules."

If, by "modifiers", you mean bonuses to a d20 roll, then these fate points are not really increasing the dimensions of resolution.

I don't now what you mean by "dimensions of resolution." If you mean stepping out of the action economy, that's not the point of the fate pool. The purpose of the fate pool is that it gives the player a resource whereby they can apply bonuses to "heroic actions." So it both encourages players to improvise and gives them a means, a resource, whereby they can increase their chances of success.

That said, I think there's a problem with stepping out of the action economy - getting free actions and with some of the effects of certain powers - to the degree that the "gamist" element supercedes the "simulationist-narrativist" immersion. If we go back to good old GNS Theory, 4e is far more gamist than past editions, and I think therein lies the beef many more "traditional" folks have with it. As I understand it, one of the main differences between the three categories is what is views as primary in importance. Gamism holds the rules and logic of the game system itself as primary - what makes sense within the rules of the game is what is "true." Simulationism tries to be realistic to a specific genre, venue or context. Narrativism seeks to stay true to the narrative or story.

While I'm not a huge advocate of GNS Theory, mainly because I think all three are "true but partial," our difference could be defined by me being a bit more narrativist than you, and you being a bit more gamist than me. But neither of us are probably extreme advocates of one or the other. If we have 7 parts to divvy up, I'm probably 3 parts N, and 2 parts each of G and S.

AEDU doesn't change this basic paradigm for casters; it does tend to bring the fighters and thieves closer to the caster paradigm. Does your critique apply to casters also? (As is perhaps implied by your reference to Ars Magica.)

I've never liked the fact that there's no real spontaneous casting in D&D, but that criticism applies to all editions.

But if anything, I find that 4e reduces the options for casters, both by teasing out rituals and by reducing and homogenizing spell choices. The problem I see--and we haven't even discussed this part--is that in 4e it feels that the classes are just fluffed versions of the four "real" underlying classes, which 4e calls roles. All strikers, for instance, start feeling rather similar - just with different fluff.

One of the things I like about Next, from what I can tell so far at least, is that it has re-differentiated classes, so that their distinctiveness goes beyond the surface.

I don't think this is a particularly viable way to run a game without some broader framework around it, that relates action economy to effectiveness. Otherwise it's just an invitation to bad maths on the part of GM and/or player.

Well it was viable for 34 years until 4e came along! Bad math(s) were a feature and not a flaw in the D&D game.

But to be serious, I think this highlights the difference between the two paradigms that you and I roughly adhere to. It has a lot to do with the microscope I mentioned in the previous post; you prefer more detail, more granularity - the little things (in terms of rules) really matter to you. They don't matter (as much) to me. They do matter, but are just secondary and meant to be in the service of the narrative, the story.

This is not an advocacy for a railroading story game, but that the rules (crunch) "serves" the narrative (fluff). This takes the pressure off the rules needing to be perfect.

For instance, what should be the penalty for getting off two shots rather than one (given that the potential is there for double effectiveness)? Make it too low, and the player has simply upped the output of their PC. Make it too high, and the player has simply nerfed their PC. (3E two-weapon fighting is riddled with this problem.)

The penalty depends upon numerous factors: the context, DM, PC, etc etc etc. There is no absolute law that must be adhered to. Yes, this makes it subjective. It is the DM's call. Rulings rather than rules.

Marvel Heroic has a nice way of handling this, via its general rules for spending plot points to allocate additional dice to generate additional effects, plus its rules about effect stacking, plus its Area Attack SFX which allows extra dice to be allocated for free, but adds d6s to the pool - which are not very powerfule effects, and increase the likelihood of rolling 1s.

This is the same basic idea as the fate pool, if different in details. The fate pool allows players to compensate a very difficult ("heroic") action by "tapping into fate," so to speak.

This particular issue - of how you resolve the battle captain in non-4e D&D, or even of how you resolve the archer wanting to shoot two arrows while spending only a single action - seems to me to have little to do with trust. Or with flexibiity. It's about the scope of the game mechanics, and the dimensions that there are to work with.

Whether or not I trust my GM, or as a GM whether or not I am willing to be flexible, Moldvay Basic simply lacks the resources to permit two arrows with a single shop as a routine option. I guess an alternative is then to allow it sometimes, but not always: but that then gets into the territory of GM authority over outcomes which is of no interest to me. At that point, why both to roll the dice at all? The GM can just narrate what happens as s/he thinks is best for the story s/he is

You start falling into either/or thinking here, as if either the rules offer options for every possible contingency or the GM is just telling a story.

You are right - Moldvay Basic lacks the specific rules for a two-arrow shot. But if a player wants to give it a shot, a flexible DM can give the option. The tricky part is coming up with a number that makes it worthwhile to do at times, not so much at others....that would be realistic, no?

If you mean "Wants the mechanics to support the game by giving solid guidelines on mechanical difficulty and mechanical effect that, when followed, will deliver satisfying play", then absolutely. In a well-designed game system I should be able to set DCs and mechanical consequences simply by reference to my charts; and the players engaging those challenges via their PCs should then produce fun play; with no need to fudge or tweak anything as the resolution unfolds. (I take this to be part of what @Campbell was referring to in his most recent post upthread.)

Sounds good to me! I'm not sure how what you wrote above differs from what I've been saying. I generally don't "fudge" DM die rolls unless I feel that it will improve the drama of a situation, and then I'll have no qualms about it. I'm not sure what you mean by "tweak," but I will modify DCs as I see fit, depending upon the situation.

But if we both agree on that paragraph, the difference, then, may be in what you and I see as "solid guidelines" and, perhaps, to what degree we adhere to those guidelines.

 

[pemerton]

I don't now what you mean by "dimensions of resolution."

I mean having more considerations relevant to action resolution than simply the roll of a die.

Examples of mono-dimensional action resolution system: 3E skill checks or classic D&D ability checks; or saving throws in any edition. Resolution depends upon nothing but the result of a modified die roll.

Examples of multi-dimensional action resolution in any edition of D&D: an attack, which invovles both an attack roll and, on a hit, a damage roll, the effect of which is itself depend upon another factor, namely, the enemy's remaining hit points.

And in most D&D combats a single attack does not resolve the overall challenge, either because there are multiple enemies or enemies whose hit points cannot all be ablated with a single attack. So as well as to hit roll and damage roll we also have the action economy in play, which is basically a mechanical system for determining the relative frequency of attack rolls. And the outcome of the combat is a result of the interaction of all these rolls. Debuffs, forced movement and the like introduce further dimensions into action resolution, particulary (in 4e, at least) combat resolution.

The reason I am focusing on the battle captain who grants his/her allies free attacks is because this is an example which doesn't deal with modifying a particular die roll - which is a fairly straightforward matter - but rather with the action economy - which all editions of D&D intend (whether or not they succeed) to balance fairly tightly. This is as true of D&Dnext as it is of any other version of D&D - look at the design around multiple attacks, and the care with which these are treated in the multi-class rules. (The analogue for spellcasters is spell damage scaling - which increases output by increasing effectiveness rather than granting multiple actions - which is also treated carefully in the spell descriptions and then in the spells by level charts for various classes and multi-classes.)

When you look at 4e you can see that it has multiple dimensions of player resource interacting with the multiple dimensions of combat resolution: for example, some encounter powers increase effectiveness (damage rolls and/or debuffs). Others confer benefits in the action economy (eg a warlord power that, on a hit, lets an ally make an attack). If the whole resolution of the game is reduced to making d20 attack rolls with modifiers all this mechanical space is collapsed, and certain archetypes can no longer be expressed (the battle captain among them).

D&Dnext uses differing degrees of rationing for casters - with its cantrips, its daily-use spells, its short-rest recovery options for certain spells, etc.

The notion that a D&Dnext GM will allow the battle captain archetype simply by requiring (say) a CHA check against a certain DC I find bizarre: "Make a DC 17 CHA check as you attack, and if you succeed all your friends can attack too, for free." Wouldn't that break the game, and make something of a mockery of the Haste spell? But if this sort of ability isn't allowed, then we have no battle captain. The problem is the lack of other rationing schemes for this sort of messing with the action economy.

If you mean stepping out of the action economy, that's not the point of the fate pool. The purpose of the fate pool is that it gives the player a resource whereby they can apply bonuses to "heroic actions." So it both encourages players to improvise and gives them a means, a resource, whereby they can increase their chances of success.

<snip>

This is the same basic idea as the fate pool, if different in details.

As you describe it, your fate pool seems to grant a bonus to dice rolls made for certain sorts of actions, and is rationed in some way. (Presumably the fate pool recharges at some rate, either per session or per heroic victory or something similar.) I don't see any resemblance between that sort of mechanic and Marvel Heroic RPs rules for affecting multiple targets, which depend entirely on the fact that resolution in MHRP is not based on a simple die roll, but on relatively complex dice pool manipulation. (And that certain characters have abilities - rules, not rulings - that permit their players to change the composition of their dice pools in ways that open up certain opportunities but also increase certain risks.)

I probably can't satisfy your point of view because we're operating from differing paradigms about how to play D&D and how situations might be resolved. You seem to want very clear, very defined rules, while I'm happy to come up with rulings on the fly - target numbers, etc.

<snip>

The penalty depends upon numerous factors: the context, DM, PC, etc etc etc. There is no absolute law that must be adhered to. Yes, this makes it subjective. It is the DM's call. Rulings rather than rules.

<snip>

You are right - Moldvay Basic lacks the specific rules for a two-arrow shot. But if a player wants to give it a shot, a flexible DM can give the option. The tricky part is coming up with a number that makes it worthwhile to do at times, not so much at others

What I am asking for has nothing in particular to do with very clear, very defined rules. It is to do with the scope of particular mechanics.

Allowing a player to make two attack rolls rather than one (whether by wielding two weapons, or shooting two arrows at two oncoming orcs) is - everything else being equal - doubling that player's effective output. It is like letting them take two turns. Every edition of D&D since AD&D has treated this as a matter to be addressed in a careful fashion - AD&D fighters get multiple attacks, 3E PCs get multiple attacks based on BAB and feats, 4e PCs get multiple attacks based on powers used.

If you allow this sort of change to the action economy to be introduced simply via a penalty to a die roll - eg take -2 to hit in order to make two attacks - you are inviting the game to break, either by setting the penalty so high that the player is nerfed, or by setting the penalty so low that the option becomes overpowered. It's a bit like the "take a -4 penalty to chop of the enemy's head" option: against a foe who would require more than two hits to kill, this option is just superior to making a normal attack, as in two attack rolls at -4 you are more likely to land your killing blow than you are to kill the enemy by making two unmodified attacks for normal damage.

The fact that many RPG players aren't particularly good at mental arithmetic around probabilities just increases the issues here. What you call "the tricky part" is, from my point of view, the only part, and in a system where the only dimension of resolution in play is bonuses and penalties to dice rolls then there is no solution. (As I already mentioned, 3E's two weapon combat rules provide ample evidence for this, were it needed.)

To say that the option is switched on or off at the will of the GM - which some parts of your post seem to imply - is simply to add GM control over outcomes to broken mechanics, which - for me at least - is the worst of the 2nd ed AD&D experience. Why bother to have mechanics at all, as opposed to free narration of outcomes negotiated between players and GM?

This is not an advocacy for a railroading story game

I'm not really seeing how it's not. If options that significantly change the players' mechanical effectiveness are to be toggled on or off at the will of the GM rather than by reference to "objective" conditions - either metagame conditions or PC fictional positioning - then I don't see how it's not a railroad.

If we go back to good old GNS Theory, 4e is far more gamist than past editions, and I think therein lies the beef many more "traditional" folks have with it. As I understand it, one of the main differences between the three categories is what is views as primary in importance. Gamism holds the rules and logic of the game system itself as primary - what makes sense within the rules of the game is what is "true." Simulationism tries to be realistic to a specific genre, venue or context. Narrativism seeks to stay true to the narrative or story.

While I'm not a huge advocate of GNS Theory, mainly because I think all three are "true but partial," our difference could be defined by me being a bit more narrativist than you, and you being a bit more gamist than me.

It's something of a tangent, but what you describe here is not a very apt summary of Ron Edwards's analysis of RPGing agendas.

The most gamist version of D&D is classic D&D. Re-read the last few pages (before the appendices) of Gygax's PHB, and reread his many references to "skilled play" in his DMG: the whole point of Gygaxian D&D is for the players to "step on up" and show that they have what it takes to beat the GM's dungeon. Earning treasure and XP is not an inherent part of playing the game, but an accomplishment to which skilled players aspire. Hence, character level is something of a proxy for player skill.

4e is not at all well-suited for Gyaxian gamism, because it takes for granted that treasure and XP will be "earned" simply for turning up and playing the game. The whole of the XP system in 4e is simply a pacing mechanism for escalating the story scope of the campaign: gaining levels doesn't make the PC more mechanically effective in play, as enemies also scale up, but does make the PC more narratively significant within the fiction (as s/he develops from a heroic character beating up kobolds to an epic character beating up archdevils). And treasure is accrued, in accordance with the parcel system, simply as a side effect of collecting XP by engaging encounters.

4e can be played in a very different gamist style, which is all about showing off your mastery of your PC's moves to your fellow players (@Balesir on these boards is the main proponent I know of for this style of 4e play). Played in this mode, level gain in 4e does support gamist play to this extent: higher level PCs have more intricate ability suites, and therefore have greater scope for showing off clever (or bumbling) play.

4e obviously is not a process simulation game (but no version of D&D is, although 3E has a thin veneer of this). But it can be played in a high concept sim style. Played in this fashion, I don't think 4e play would differ very much from mainstream PF adventure path play, except that the resolution mechanics being used are a little bit different. But in either style all the real authority is with the GM, and the only contribution the players make is to determine some of the micro-details of combat outcomes, or to determine whether certain NPCs like them or dislike them based on playing out some social encounters (all the really important social relations, like who betrays whom and who is whose nemesis will have been specified in advance by the adventure path writer).

Narrativist play, in Edwards's sense, is also called "story now". The whole point of Forge-ist narrativist play is to avoid the sort of GM force that you are advocating for in this thread. Of all versions of D&D, 4e is I think best suited to narrativist play (though 13th Age is now offering another option along somewhat similar lines). This is not a coincidence - as Rob Heinsoo said before it was released, 4e was influenced in its design by indie RPGs, which is where most of the narrativist action is to be found.

The features of 4e that support narrativist play are many. Perhaps the single most important two are (i) its focus on the encounter as the locus of play, in everything from action resolution to resource recovery, which means that play doesn't get distracted by or bogged down into exploratory details that are irrelevant to the dramatic stakes of conflict, and (ii) its provision of a suite of tools to the GM that allow challenges to be mechanically framed by reference to metagame concerns like pacing and challenge rather than ingame fictional terms. For a fuller discussion of playing narrativist D&D, this thread is helpful - in post 21 I spell out some of my own ideas. Given that the OP in that thread found my presentation of GMing techniques to be a more accessible version (for D&D, at least) of Ron Edwards's techniques (not a coincidence - I've read Edwards pretty closely and have been influenced by him in developing my approach to GMing, although I started on my current path much earlier, GMing Oriental Adventures in 1986/87), and given that you seem comfortable with GM force whereas I am highly averse to it except in certain very well-confined pockets (like scene-framing and certain elements of backstory) I suspect that I am more narrativistically inclined then you are.

Well it was viable for 34 years until 4e came along

<snip>

I'm not sure how what you wrote above differs from what I've been saying. I generally don't "fudge" DM die rolls unless I feel that it will improve the drama of a situation, and then I'll have no qualms about it.

I think the difference can be seen in the other extracts from your post that I quote here. What I described - mechanics to support the game by giving solid guidelines on mechanical difficulty and mechanical effect that, when followed, will deliver satisfying play - differs from what we had for 34 years prior, as soon as "satisfactory play" is allowed to range over preferences other than Gygaxian play in dungeon environments. You seem to concede this when you talk about "fudging" die rolls to improve the drama of a situation - this is a flat-out acknowledgement that the mechanics, when followed, don't deliver satisfying play. If they did, the fudging in the interest of drama would be unnecessary, because followig the mechanics would in and of itself produce drama!

4e is certainly not perfect - for instance, it skill challenge rules, in part because they lack mechanically active opposition, rely heavily upon the GM's narration in order to maintain pressure and ensure good dramatic pacing. But for non-Gygaxian play that is, in its fictional content, recognisably D&D, it offers a pretty robust mechanical framework. And at least in my experience it encourages and rewards imaginative play.

My personal experience is that reducing mechanical robustness (which needn't equate to mechanical "weight" - MHRP is mechanically robust, but it's rules can fit onto a single A4 page) does not increase imaginative play. If the players don't have a good sense of what their PCs can accomplish in the gameworld, and also have a sense that the GM is running a Gygaxian-style game or an even higher degree of adversarial GMing, then in my experience "rulings not rulse" tends to foster player turtling. If the players don't have a good sense of what their PCs can accomplish in the gameworld, but know that the GM has a clear conception of "the story", then rather than turtling the result in my experience tends to be a type of solipsistic play: the players leave all the "big picture" stuff to the GM, and focus on a type of self-cultivation of their PCs, both in "roleplaying" terms (what sort of hat does my guy wear, what is the name of his fencing style, etc) and in manoevre terms (various sorts of improvised flourishes and actions, like the two-arrow short agaist the orc, which express the personality of the character). But because the GM is ultimately determining how things unfold, these manoeuvres, even if resolved in mechanical terms, ultimately have little bearing on the unfolding of the game.

The second style of play that I have described is the "illusionist" play that I associate with the heyday of AD&D 2nd ed, and which I see hints of in D&Dnext. It is basically the antithesis of what makes RPGing appealling to me as a leisure activity.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I mean having more considerations relevant to action resolution than simply the roll of a die.

There is plenty of that available in classic D&D. In some cases, the dice only get rolled when there is some significant level of doubt. Some plans of action simply succeed based on their own merits, and some are so full of fail there would be no point in rolling.

It is both 3E and 4E which feature little in the way of meaningful resolution without making a roll. Are there other dimensions besides a single die roll with modifiers? Absolutely yes. Is there a way to ultimately accomplish anything when all is said and done without a die roll factoring in? No.

Allowing a player to make two attack rolls rather than one (whether by wielding two weapons, or shooting two arrows at two oncoming orcs) is - everything else being equal - doubling that player's effective output. It is like letting them take two turns. Every edition of D&D since AD&D has treated this as a matter to be addressed in a careful fashion - AD&D fighters get multiple attacks, 3E PCs get multiple attacks based on BAB and feats, 4e PCs get multiple attacks based on powers used.

If you allow this sort of change to the action economy to be introduced simply via a penalty to a die roll - eg take -2 to hit in order to make two attacks - you are inviting the game to break, either by setting the penalty so high that the player is nerfed, or by setting the penalty so low that the option becomes overpowered. It's a bit like the "take a -4 penalty to chop of the enemy's head" option: against a foe who would require more than two hits to kill, this option is just superior to making a normal attack, as in two attack rolls at -4 you are more likely to land your killing blow than you are to kill the enemy by making two unmodified attacks for normal damage.

The fact that many RPG players aren't particularly good at mental arithmetic around probabilities just increases the issues here. What you call "the tricky part" is, from my point of view, the only part, and in a system where the only dimension of resolution in play is bonuses and penalties to dice rolls then there is no solution. (As I already mentioned, 3E's two weapon combat rules provide ample evidence for this, were it needed.)

The action economy doesn't need to be so tricky ( its not like rockin a rhyme after all). The "trick" so to speak is to examine the abstraction level of the game you are playing and scale everything appropriately. When you realize that D&D combat was developed as an abstract exercise and an "attack roll" doesn't map to a single sword thrust and that a "damage roll" represents not a wound delivered in a single hit but the amount of wear and tear inflicted over the course of a round its easy to rule on action economy matters. If your attack roll represents a "best effort" for the round, then doubling that because you are holding a second weapon is a bit silly.

Therefore in my OD&D campaign, any fighting man or cleric with a 13 or greater DEX can choose to use a second weapon instead of a shield or two-handed weapon. This grants a +1 on the "to hit" roll for the round, increasing the chance of inflicting damage. This provides a tangible benefit while maintaining the abstraction of the action economy. Likewise, monsters with multiple attacks (against higher than 1HD opponents) are fairly rare. Everything moves fast and is quickly resolved as intended.

 

[pemerton]

The action economy doesn't need to be so tricky ( its not like rockin a rhyme after all). The "trick" so to speak is to examine the abstraction level of the game you are playing and scale everything appropriately. When you realize that D&D combat was developed as an abstract exercise and an "attack roll" doesn't map to a single sword thrust and that a "damage roll" represents not a wound delivered in a single hit but the amount of wear and tear inflicted over the course of a round its easy to rule on action economy matters. If your attack roll represents a "best effort" for the round, then doubling that because you are holding a second weapon is a bit silly.

I agree, although I think there is a degree of tension between this abstract approach to the combat round, and the existence (in AD&D) of multiple attacks for fighters.

Therefore in my OD&D campaign, any fighting man or cleric with a 13 or greater DEX can choose to use a second weapon instead of a shield or two-handed weapon. This grants a +1 on the "to hit" roll for the round, increasing the chance of inflicting damage. This provides a tangible benefit while maintaining the abstraction of the action economy. Likewise, monsters with multiple attacks (against higher than 1HD opponents) are fairly rare.

I think your approach to 2 weapon fighting here is much better than the approach in Gygax's DMG. And reducing the number of multiple attack monsters (especially the ubiquitous claw/claw/bite) also strikes me as an improvement.

EDIT: Out of curiosity, do you use the AD&D rates of fire for ranged attacks, or the Moldvay Basic-style of one attack per round for all weapons.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I agree, although I think there is a degree of tension between this abstract approach to the combat round, and the existence (in AD&D) of multiple attacks for fighters.

I think your approach to 2 weapon fighting here is much better than the approach in Gygax's DMG. And reducing the number of multiple attack monsters (especially the ubiquitous claw/claw/bite) also strikes me as an improvement.

EDIT: Out of curiosity, do you use the AD&D rates of fire for ranged attacks, or the Moldvay Basic-style of one attack per round for all weapons.

I still use multiple attacks for fighters (and monsters) vs 1 HD or less creatures to reflect their deadliness against regular folk (which includes 1st level adventurers other than fighting men). For example , a hill giant fighting a heroic fighter would attack once for 2 dice of damage. Against normal men it would get 8 attacks at 1 die each. Thus the deadliness of "monsters" against normal troops without needing such a huge pile of hit points. A hill giant will have 28 hit points on average, which is plenty scary to a normal man who needs a 15+ to hit and do only 1d6 damage on a hit.

Ranged attacks fire once per round indoors. Bows may fire twice outdoors if encounter distance permits. It pays to be aware of your enemy at great distances and armed with bows.

 

[pemerton]

I still use multiple attacks for fighters (and monsters) vs 1 HD or less creatures to reflect their deadliness against regular folk

In AD&D this benefit is for fighters, paladins and rangers but not monsters. Is applying it to monsters part of the OD&D rules, or your own innovation?

 

[Ratskinner]

The notion that a D&Dnext GM will allow the battle captain archetype simply by requiring (say) a CHA check against a certain DC I find bizarre: "Make a DC 17 CHA check as you attack, and if you succeed all your friends can attack too, for free." Wouldn't that break the game, and make something of a mockery of the Haste spell? But if this sort of ability isn't allowed, then we have no battle captain. The problem is the lack of other rationing schemes for this sort of messing with the action economy.

I tend to agree with you here, but I don't think the action economy is necessarily the best place to attack the problem. Having Fate as a reference point, I see the problem not in terms of action economy, but as a lack of any tangible mechanical effect whatever. That is, most checks in traditional D&D only affect fictional positioning, but unless that happens to feed into the relevant list of combat modifiers for the edition played, it has no mechanical impact other than the DM's whim. I think it would be acceptable if (as in Fate) the battle captain (or anyone, really) could create an Emboldened by the Battle Captain aspect that could be used by anyone to yield a bonus. (detailed rules governing how much and how many times could be hashed out.) Fate and MHRP both demonstrate that this can be handled effectively in a freeform manner which, IMO, would greatly enhance the "squishy" side of play. Of course, the systems I know of that successfully handle such things also have a "metagame" economy (Fate points or something) that would have some folks screaming.

One fairly common criticism of 4e's combat is that it bogs down, and I have often seen 4e's experts indicate that this is due to things like interrupts and extra actions. IME, systems that muck with action economies tend to either bog down or get very imbalanced in terms of player participation (as 2e and 3e's multiple attacks often did, IME.) Simple, stable, quick action economies seem to be necessary for fast play, AFAICT.

My personal experience is that reducing mechanical robustness (which needn't equate to mechanical "weight" - MHRP is mechanically robust, but it's rules can fit onto a single A4 page) does not increase imaginative play.

To quibble, the player's rules for MHRP fit easily onto a page. The GM needs two. Otherwise, I must wholeheartedly sound agreement. In my personal experiences with introducing Fate, MHRP, and D&D to new players, robust-but-simple mechanics really help people get involved in the creative aspect of the game. Recently I've even had the opportunity to show my OSR friends how that can work, and it met with a (surprising to me) very good response. D&DNext marks the third time that I've been disappointed that D&D will not take any sort of similar tack.