D&D 4E Is there a "Cliffs Notes" summary of the entire 4E experience?

[pemerton]

I agree 100% that one of the revolutionary things about 4e was the fact that they put storytelling right into the mechanics. They made sure that fighters had abilities that made them FEEL like a fighter every time they were used. Same with, say, tieflings.

<snip>

I personally felt this also very much applied to 4e monsters. The early monsters were knocked for just being stat-blocks, but what stat blocks!

Absolutely agreed. The first MM statblock I remember noticing was the Deathlock Wight with its Horrific Visage: blast to model a gaze, psychic damage, and push with the fear keyword. An undead that can actually make PCs recoil in fear without using the "run away for 1dN rounds" model that D&D has always adopted in the past.

 

[pemerton]

Speaking of skill challenges, that is a mighty good example where a basic concept had _horrible execution_ at the outset. Complexity 5 "talk to a baron" where intimidate auto fails anyone?

This example needed more commentary.

First, it was put forward in a 12/6 rather than 12/3 framework, so a single fail is not so severe.

Second, players can work out Intimidate will auto-fail by using Insight. So the design is an attempt to build exploration into the challenge. Whether that is good or bad design is a matter of taste, but I think it would have been useful for them to explain what they were doing, and why a GM running the system at home may or may not want to put such tweaks into a skill challenge.

 

[Nagol]

4e DMG p 72:

Is This a Challenge? It’s not a skill challenge every time you call for a skill check. When an obstacle takes only one roll to resolve, it’s not a challenge. One Diplomacy check to haggle with the merchant, one Athletics check to climb out of the pit trap, one Religion check to figure out whose sacred tome contains the parable—none of these constitutes a skill challenge.​

Page 74:

the characters’ success should have a significant impact on the story of the adventure. Additional rewards might include information, clues, and favors, as well as simply moving the adventure forward.

If the characters fail the challenge, the story still has to move forward, but in a different direction and possibly by a longer, more dangerous route.​

It's not quite Burning Wheel, but it's very different from anything in Gygax's DMG, or (as best I remember it) Monte Cook's.

I was referring to the specific example of a skill challenge provided. Here are the success/failure conditions.

Success: The NPC agrees to provide reasonable assistance to the characters. This could include treasure.
Failure: The characters are forced to act without the NPC’s assistance. They encounter more trouble, which may be sent

Not too much fail-forward here.

As for 1e, certainly it was not as codified, but the concept exists. Here is an example of a quasi-skill challenge as described in the 1e DMG: to acquire a Stone to Flesh for an unfortunate companion in an unfamiliar city.

His inquiries at a tavern meet with vague answers until several rounds of drinks have been purchased, and the proprietor generously tipped. Wending his way from tavern to wizard’s tower, Celowin is accosted by a beggar, and he is pestered unendingly until he either pays off or calls for the watch. Paying off will attract a swarm of other beggars. Calling for the watch can be nearly as dangerous, as they could resent a foreigner’s refusal to deem a native beggar worthy of a copper or two. Despite such possible misadventures, the fighter finally comes to the tower of Llewellyn ap-Owen, a wizard of high repute. However, Celowin‘s knocking is answered by a lesser person, the warlock Tregillish Mul, the wizard’s henchman. Mu1 informs the eager fighter that: ”Lofty Llewellyn is far too busy to see anyone at this time. Good day!” Unless Celowin is quick in offering some inducement, the warlock will slam the tower door and forget about the intrusion.

We can break that down in terms of a process: acquire initial intel (yes such a wizard is in town); navigate the streets (beggars) calling watch = auto-success but leads to its own trouble. Negotiate an audience.

The one main difference I see is 1e gives no guidance as to the number of troubles the PCs should face before eventual success or failure is determined: 2n successes before n failures was not codified so some groups face RBDMs that effectively stonewall any activity with continuous roadblocks.

 

[Henry]

I was referring to the specific example of a skill challenge provided. Here are the success/failure conditions.

Success: The NPC agrees to provide reasonable assistance to the characters. This could include treasure.
Failure: The characters are forced to act without the NPC’s assistance. They encounter more trouble, which may be sent

Not too much fail-forward here.

Actually, to me that's pretty much textbook "fail-forward." Lack of fail-forward would be "failure means the PCs cannot accomplish the objective in any other way." However, being able to still accomplish the goal, but just making it a more difficult challenge, still works for the concept - the way forward is not blocked, but its challenge level is adjusted upward slightly. If they succeeded, you make it an easier upcoming challenge.

As another example: The PCs have a dam about to collapse, washing out a valley below and their mountain pass they were hoping to take as a shortcut.

So, 4 successes vs. 3 failures later (say, Acrobatics, Endurance, History, Nature) :

Success -- they shore up the failing dam, and save their shortcut.
Failure -- whole valley is flooded, causing an additional rock slide, totally sealing the way, and causing them to have to ford several days out of their way upstream, and maybe an extra hazardous encounter with some river trolls (Skrags).

Regardless of outcome, the game is not over, it's just added more difficulty.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You are incorrect. You do not get to inspect my rationale for legitimacy.

You would have to actually present it, of course.

I'm not saying dislike isn't real, just that the rationales for it that tended to come to light in the course of the edition war were rarely based on anything legitimate. They depended on a straw man, an outright lie, ignorance, confirmation bias and other forms of factual error or flawed critical thinking.

Hey, but your rationale might be good. If you think it might be legitimate, you could share it.

The rest is subjective and I assure you, quite legitimate

Of course, there's no arguing /subjective/ 'reasons' for not liking something new & improved. Nostalgia, for instance, is a big one (it's why I'm more likely to play a 1e AD&D game at a convention than a 2e or 3e, even though the later are better systems, technically). You can prefer something in its 'classic' form without having to mis-represent it as somehow better than in a later form. No matter how much better the new version is on any number of objective criteria, the subjective opinion stands. For the one person with that opinion, of course.

Less understandably, you can just irrationally dislike any bit or quality of a system - from something far-reaching and positive, like game balance, to an annoying little detail like one anachronistic weapon out of dozens or an 'unrealistic' result in corner-case of skill check resolution, or whatever else whinges you out - and let that spoil the whole for you.

Subjective reactions like that happen with every rev-roll, and every rev-roll does have hold-outs who just won't accept it, as a consequence.

Every rev-roll didn't give those hold-outs a Pathfinder to buy, though. Nor promise software it couldn't deliver. Nor have to pull down double the sales of the entire industry to meet the low end of it's revenue goals.

Those things are important, and so far unique, parts of the '4e experience' that the OP asked about. The obligatory nerdrage over every rev-roll is less so.

 

[Nagol]

Actually, to me that's pretty much textbook "fail-forward." Lack of fail-forward would be "failure means the PCs cannot accomplish the objective in any other way." However, being able to still accomplish the goal, but just making it a more difficult challenge, still works for the concept - the way forward is not blocked, but its challenge level is adjusted upward slightly. If they succeeded, you make it an easier upcoming challenge.

It could be a fail=forward if the challenge was about anything else, but it wasn't. Here is the original scope:

This skill challenge covers attempts to gain a favor or assistance from a local leader or other authority figure.

 

[Henry]

It could be a fail=forward if the challenge was about anything else, but it wasn't. Here is the original scope:

I've re-read the earlier posts but I'm not sure I follow -- to me, the challenge is never solely about an objective, it's about what you're trying to accomplish. The adventurers in the example aren't about just gaining a favor -- the example makes it clear (to me at least) it's to help stop a goblin incursion.

 

[Tony Vargas]

We can break that down in terms of a process: acquire initial intel (yes such a wizard is in town); navigate the streets (beggars) calling watch = auto-success but leads to its own trouble. Negotiate an audience.

The one main difference I see is 1e gives no guidance as to the number of troubles the PCs should face before eventual success or failure is determined: 2n successes before n failures was not codified so some groups face RBDMs that effectively stonewall any activity with continuous roadblocks.

No skill checks (no skills, afterall), but the passage doesn't even mention reaction rolls or anything. But, each step does come down to money. Buy rounds of drinks, toss coppers to beggars, offer some 'inducement' to the Warlock (really? 8th level? Llewellyn /is/ lofty).
So maybe that was the intended metric: wealth depletion. Bleed the PC of coin until you feel he's earned a shot.

 

[Nagol]

You would have to actually present it, of course.

I'm not saying dislike isn't real, just that the rationales for it that tended to come to light in the course of the edition war were rarely based on anything legitimate. They depended on a straw man, an outright lie, ignorance, confirmation bias and other forms of factual error or flawed critical thinking.

Hey, but your rationale might be good. If you think it might be legitimate, you could share it.

Of course, there's no arguing /subjective/ 'reasons' for not liking something new & improved. Nostalgia, for instance, is a big one (it's why I'm more likely to play a 1e AD&D game at a convention than a 2e or 3e, even though the later are better systems, technically). You can prefer something in its 'classic' form without having to mis-represent it as somehow better than in a later form. No matter how much better the new version is on any number of objective criteria, the subjective opinion stands. For the one person with that opinion, of course.

Less understandably, you can just irrationally dislike any bit or quality of a system - from something far-reaching and positive, like game balance, to an annoying little detail like one anachronistic weapon out of dozens or an 'unrealistic' result in corner-case of skill check resolution, or whatever else whinges you out - and let that spoil the whole for you.

Subjective reactions like that happen with every rev-roll, and every rev-roll does have hold-outs who just won't accept it, as a consequence.

Every rev-roll didn't give those hold-outs a Pathfinder to buy, though. Nor promise software it couldn't deliver. Nor have to pull down double the sales of the entire industry to meet the low end of it's revenue goals.

Those things are important, and so far unique, parts of the '4e experience' that the OP asked about. The obligatory nerdrage over every rev-roll is less so.

Fine. In no particular order, my less petty reasons for disliking 4e are as follows (my petty reasons include I don't think the hypotenuse should be considered the same length as a side of a square):

As a player, I prefer to stay in actor stance. The dissociative mechanics are something I dislike in 4e (or FATE which I like to run, but won't play). As a player, if my character isn't making a choice I don't want to make a choice. If I want that sort of play, I GM.
I dislike the reversal of cause->effect the power structure imposes without an equal in-game imposition ("Why didn't you try to trip him? Because I tripped someone else earlier today, he presented no opening." and "Gee it was a good thing you tripped him! Yes that's why I avoided tripping anything earlier today. The Conservation of Martial Action theorem dictates I only get one possible success a day").
I dislike the way the dying condition is presented -- either the wounds were grievous enough to kill or they were only flesh wounds a la the last scene in The Last Action Hero).
I dislike the math presented around skill challenges (the probabilities were not only quite borked, the fact they were borked is hard to see because the math is very opaque). Further, I think skills challenges as presented suffer from having all successes/failures come from PC action. I've devised/stolen similar structures from other games that can include opposition action and choice as well for chases, "submarine hunts", and other such situations.
I dislike having my will suborned by other players without an external effect that can be pointed at (warlord using his turn to move my character. I hear that was 'clarified' in later books so the original player can refuse, but that wasn't the original rule).
I dislike fiddly positional combat both as a DM and as a player. I much prefer FATE's zones to a grid. I use at most a whiteboard/chalkboard for current character positioning and generally rely on TofM.
I dislike the removal of long-term strategic resource/play. I like the original quasi-vancian spell selection in 1e as a player, for example.
I dislike long combat of any sort -- for me, D&D is much more about exploration and combat avoidance than combat. I have other games I lean on for stronger heavy combat style games like Hero.

 

[Nagol]

I've re-read the earlier posts but I'm not sure I follow -- to me, the challenge is never solely about an objective, it's about what you're trying to accomplish. The adventurers in the example aren't about just gaining a favor -- the example makes it clear (to me at least) it's to help stop a goblin incursion.

I don't think we're writing the same language -- an objective is what you're trying to accomplish.

The objective of the skill challenge was "to gain a favor or assistance from a local leader". If successful, the favour is gained. If it failed, it wasn't and we're done.

A fail-forward would be more like "you have failed to impress the local leader, but if you do this he must accord you honour" or "as you leave without the help you sought, a merchant gives you a cryptic whisper on the way out 'Toberic can help with what you seek. Tell no one'". Or anything else that keeps the narrative moving and provides enough additional input for the players to make another meaningful choice.