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

[Alzrius]

If we're going to have another go-around on so-called "dissociated" mechanics, can we all at least take this thread as read?

Apparently not, since you suggest moving this topic to another thread...and then reply in this thread.

This is not correct. A blow that deal 8 hit points of damage to a fighter with 80 hit points, but who has already taken 79 hit points worth of damage, is not a deep scratch along the forearm. It is the same blow as is suffered by the commoner.

In other words, to know what it means to lose N hit points you need to know the current hit points of the character who is hit, as well as, perhaps, their total hit points. Probably also what it is that is doing the damage (a mace will tend to bruise rather than scratch, for instance). Etc.

There are game systems where this is not true - where the injury mechanics do not depend, for their interpretation, upon all these relativities. (Rolemaster is one example). But hit points do have these dependencies.

I'll grant you that, but it's only a minor change to the basic structure that I outlined above - hit point loss is still associated with physical damage, where the nature of the wound taken is not an absolute determined by how many hit points are lost.

The fact that my PC has only 2 hp left limits my ability to attempt to do something - namely, beat all the goblins single-handedly - and there is no ingame rationale for this: I fight just as well as I did when I had my 80 hp at the start of the day, my armour is still solid, my sword is still +2 of life stealing, etc.

Incorrect. Your ability to attempt to do this is unimpeded - you can attempt to fight off all of the goblins with 2 hit points or 200 hit points; that you're allowed to try is what's fundamental here. How likely you are to succeed is a completely different matter. That's different from a scenario where the rules flat-out disallow you from even trying once you fall below a certain hit point threshold.

In 3E there is a notion of Power Attack. Now I personally find this completely incoherent in an abstract combat system - given that the system has no notion of precision in respect of attack rolls, I can't see that sacrificing to hit bonus for damage is anything more than a mathematical manipulation. But a lot of people seem to think it models swinging wild but hard.

Let's allow that that is what is going on, then why can't any warrior attempt this? The limitation arises simply for a metagame reason - the player has or has not spent a PC build resource (ie a feat slot) on the Power Attack feat.

This is exactly why Sunder, Disarm, etc. made the transition from feats to combat abilities between 3.0 and 3.5.

That said, I'm not sure what your point is here, except to say that you think that some feats are dissociated. I don't disagree - exception-based game design for purely physical abilities is a tough needle to thread, insofar as trying to explain why one can't even make an attempt to do something.

That said, I feel that 4E was a far greater offender in this regard than 3.5E was, due to the limitations of class-based "encounter" and "daily" powers for physical abilities, as compared to a handful of combat-oriented feats.

If you don't like that example, how about this: my PC wants to jump the gap (but I haven't spent enough resources on jump skill) or my PC wants the gods to answer his prayer (but I haven't spent enough resources on levels in the cleric class).

These are poor examples - in both of them you can attempt to jump the gap or pray for divine intervention; it's just that you have little hope of success. You're not disallowed from even trying, which is the key.

I mean, you can come up with ex-post rationales for these if you want (my legs aren't strong enough, even though I have an 18 in STR; the gods aren't listening to me, even though I just sacrificed 1000 gp to them), but likewise for your inability to throw sand in the enemy's eyes: you missed. (Or, perhaps, you weren't able to grab any sand.)

That's a textbook example of the Rule 0 Fallacy in action. There's a difference between being allowed to try something, even when the odds of success are nil, and being disallowed from making the attempt at all. One puts the agency in the hands of the PCs, and lets them succeed or fail on their own accord, even if failure is guaranteed. The other removes the agency to even make the attempt in the first place - there's no question of success or failure if you can't try.

For any of these, ask yourself if you can attempt an action, or if the game rules flat-out disallow the action with no in-game explanation for why. If it's the latter, then it's dissociated, and that's a problem (one that leads to the Rule 0 Fallacy when you try to explain it away).

If sand is rationed on a "when the GM feels like it" basis, or even on a "when the d6 roll comes up 6" basis, that doesn't strike me as a fundamental difference from rationing it on a "once per encounter" basis. All are limitations which are generated via procedures in the real world and then all have to be read back into the shared fiction.

The difference is that one allows the character to at least try to perform the action, without looking to its efficacy. The other disallows the "procedures in the real world" entirely. They may have the same result - that being failure to perform the action - but they're not the same process.

It's unfortunate that people assume that 4e had limits on the attempt of any action, simply by dint of the granted powers. What people often fail to grasp about 4e powers is that they aren't a description of character abilities, they're a grant of player-controlled authority over the narrative. Anything outside of the powers is always allowable, and resolved by use of skills or attributes (and usually adjudicated by the "page 42" guidelines for stunting.

That's why the "I can only trip once an encounter!" meme is so continually annoying. The encounter power merely lets you, as a player, definitively get to try to trip once, without needing narrative affirmation from the DM. Any other attempt to trip would be subject to a narrative agreement between the player and DM ("I attempt to knock him down!" "Ok, make an Athletics check, and he'll fall prone if you succeed, but no damage").

Now, what is "dissociative" (for those who care) is that the powers grant results, not capabilities. A trip encounter power gives the player free narration over the actions of a NPC, stating that the enemy opens herself up to be tripped. The infamous "Come and Get It" (pre-errata) allows the player to narrate the approach of several enemies, for no reason that derived from the character taking an action to force that outcome. For some players who wish their narrative reach to be limited to the tips of the character's fingers, that's a real problem.

That view of things largely strikes me as redundant. Players already have the ability to narratively attempt anything with regards to their characters - there's simply no guarantee that the results will be successful. In your example, the player is trying to trip an enemy - they have that agency whether they do so via a special power, or whether they do so via a skill/attribute check. If that's the case, why bother making it a special power at all, let alone one that can only be used once per encounter?

The powers, from what I've seen of them, don't necessarily grant results; they grant the ability to try, which PCs already have anyway. You're not stating that the enemy is necessarily open to a trip attempt, just that you're making the attempt. Likewise, if you can draw your enemies towards you as an instance of being able to co-opt what the NPCs do, then why tie this to a character-specific ability at all, which requires an action and is tied to a particular class (if not level)? It's better to divorce that entirely from character properties, instead of sending what could charitably be described as a mixed message.

 

[Nagol]

That's because of the following (at least to me);

1) Hit points are not dissociative. Rather, hit point loss equals physical damage. Note that this is not the same thing as "hit points as meat," which sounds the same but introduces subtle errors into the idea (such as the idea that as you gain hit points, you somehow gain more physical mass). Moreover, there are two corollaries to this:

1a) An instance of hit point loss does not represent an absolute, in terms of the narrative wound dealt. Rather, the damage is scaled relative to the character's total hit points. So a blow that deals 8 hit points of damage to a commoner with 8 hit points is an instantly-lethal blow (e.g. being skewered through the heart), whereas a blow that deals 8 hit points of damage to a fighter with 80 hit points represents, say, a deep scratch along the forearm. This is not a dissociation; the metagame action is still tied to the narrative result (e.g. a wound is dealt when hit points are lost).

1b) The game doesn't try to model the physical deterioration that accompanies greater amounts of physical wounding as a gamist concession, rather than a simulationist failure. While D&D has the ability to model conditions of physical inability (e.g. taking penalties to attacking, conditions for fatigue, etc.), it deliberately chooses not to impose them on ordinary combat wounds in the name of keeping the game moving. This is also not a dissociation, as associated mechanics do not require fidelity to the real world. This brings us to...

2) Dissociated mechanics are only an issue when they limit the characters' ability to attempt to do something without an in-game rationale for it. Jon Peterson, in his book, said that the fundamental nature of what makes RPGs different from other games is that "anything can be attempted." Dissociated mechanics are only problematic when they interfere with that core concept of an RPG - if you want to undertake an action, such as throwing sand in your enemy's eyes, and the game's only rationale for disallowing this is because of a metagame construct that says you can only do this once per "encounter," then the dissociation has become problematic.

A dissociated mechanic in an area of the game that isn't tied to a character attempting an action is far less problematic, because it doesn't interfere with the immersive nature of role-playing a character.

The only area you didn't address that I think should be is where the player has the ability to force action inside the game where the character does not. For example, in FATE (Strands of FATE is the specific game I'm referencing in case there are variations within the family) there is the concept of declarations. The player of any character who is deemed an authority in an area can declare a new fact to be in existence inside that area. One of the examples given is the following:

The crew of the Star Police cruiser Adamant is in hot pursuit of a smuggler ship. It has just entered the atmosphere of a desert planet. One of the players who plays the astrogator makes a declaration that he thinks the planet suffers from having an Aspect of Violent Sandstorms.

If the player succeeds with the declaration (a die roll is involved) then the planet suffers from violent sandstorms.

 

[Alzrius]

The only area you didn't address that I think should be is where the player has the ability to force action inside the game where the character does not. For example, in FATE (Strands of FATE is the specific game I'm referencing in case there are variations within the family) there is the concept of declarations. The player of any character who is deemed an authority in an area can declare a new fact to be in existence inside that area. One of the examples given is the following:

If the player succeeds with the declaration (a die roll is involved) then the planet suffers from violent sandstorms.

Well, I didn't address that because it's entirely outside of the realm of dissociated mechanics with regards to character actions, which was the issue I was addressing.

Honestly, there's nothing wrong with rules such as what you describe; the problems arise when you start tying them to character actions and abilities - that's not the same as the rule you mentioned, because that rule is assigning the player narrative abilities, which just happen to correspond to what their character does. Players having a mechanism to do something like make NPCs charge their character isn't a big deal - saying that this is something that the character is able to make those NPCs do, and he can only do this once per "encounter" is where things become problematic.

 

[TwoSix]

That view of things largely strikes me as redundant. Players already have the ability to narratively attempt anything with regards to their characters - there's simply no guarantee that the results will be successful. In your example, the player is trying to trip an enemy - they have that agency whether they do so via a special power, or whether they do so via a skill/attribute check. If that's the case, why bother making it a special power at all, let alone one that can only be used once per encounter?

Simple. The power grants them authority to say the attempt will do X amount of damage and also trip them. It also moves the ability from the realm of negotiation. One problem people have, or can have, with freeform description is that it turns every action into a description and negotiation. 4e powers (or any player granted resource, generally) neatly sidestep the need and make description/negotiation a secondary consideration.

Also, you make it a limited resource to turn its use into both a strategic (character build) and tactical (only once per fight) resource. 4e is unapologetically focused on making combat a game!

The powers, from what I've seen of them, don't necessarily grant results; they grant the ability to try, which PCs already have anyway. You're not stating that the enemy is necessarily open to a trip attempt, just that you're making the attempt. Likewise, if you can draw your enemies towards you as an instance of being able to co-opt what the NPCs do, then why tie this to a character-specific ability at all, which requires an action and is tied to a particular class (if not level)? It's better to divorce that entirely from character properties, instead of sending what could charitably be described as a mixed message.

Some do, although most require a roll. But making rolls to determine success/failure is a characteristic feature of D&D. And they grant the PC an ability to try things that may be beyond the bounds of stunting. (To be fair, the limitation of any stunt is a factor of what the character resources allow you to do. It makes little sense to have limited resources that let you accomplish less than a generic skill roll would allow.)

You'd also have to explain your reasoning on divorcing character-specific abilities from character class and level. I'm unclear as to what mixed message is being presented.

 

[TwoSix]

Honestly, there's nothing wrong with rules such as what you describe; the problems arise when you start tying them to character actions and abilities - that's not the same as the rule you mentioned, because that rule is assigning the player narrative abilities, which just happen to correspond to what their character does. Players having a mechanism to do something like make NPCs charge their character isn't a big deal - saying that this is something that the character is able to make those NPCs do, and he can only do this once per "encounter" is where things become problematic.

But no one is saying that, that I see.

Spending a character resource does not mean the character knows about or has access to the "Ability".

 

[Ratskinner]

Just because the HP system is a stick in my craw.

I'll grant you that, but it's only a minor change to the basic structure that I outlined above - hit point loss is still associated with physical damage, where the nature of the wound taken is not an absolute determined by how many hit points are lost.

Until you need or get healing, then even/especially the older editions go all weird. When you bring the peasant back from the death's inbox with Cure Light Wounds, but heal the fighter's bruised elbow with Cure Critical Wounds...suddenly the nature of the wound is important....unless, and I've seen this argued, the spells themselves as we see them don't exist within the world, and the caster is unaware of them.* So something is dissociative, either spells or HP, take your pick.

*I do not personally subscribe to this theory.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Spending a character resource does not mean the character knows about or has access to the "Ability".

That's really the concept in a nutshell as I understand it: interacting with the game mechanics outside of the abilities of your avatar. Metagame. Not associated with things that the character controls in the fiction.

It can be a Big Deal for folks. It's kind of a big deal for me. It can negatively impact role-playing. It doesn't have to, but it can.

And while late 4e shied away from it, early 4e embraced it big time.

Until you need or get healing, then even/especially the older editions go all weird. When you bring the peasant back from the death's inbox with Cure Light Wounds, but heal the fighter's bruised elbow with Cure Critical Wounds...suddenly the nature of the wound is important

I've always just imagined that the descriptor ("Light", "Serious," "Critical") is pretty unimportant, like most spell names.

5e applies that solution, too: it's all just Cure Wounds.

 

[Alzrius]

Simple. The power grants them authority to say the attempt will do X amount of damage and also trip them.

You're saying that this grants narrative authority in that the results of a successful attempt are already codified. But that's not a question of the PC having special authority - the codification of the results of certain actions is inherent in having rules written in the game book. That's no different than the authority of how the trip rules worked in 3.5, where they were combat actions that anyone could attempt at any time.

It also moves the ability from the realm of negotiation. One problem people have, or can have, with freeform description is that it turns every action into a description and negotiation. 4e powers (or any player granted resource, generally) neatly sidestep the need and make description/negotiation a secondary consideration.

I don't see this as being inherent to 4E powers - I see that as being an issue with game rules versus adjudication in general. Greater codification of what mechanical actions have what results (on a success) aren't an issue of associating those with an in-character action. The trip rules were black and white in 3.5 and 3E; so why move them to being a once-per-fight mechanic in 4E?

Also, you make it a limited resource to turn its use into both a strategic (character build) and tactical (only once per fight) resource. 4e is unapologetically focused on making combat a game!

Sure, and issues of managing limited resources are a fun way to put tactics into combat. It's just wonky to me when the resources being so limited are physical character actions, particularly with no explanation for how that works from an in-game standpoint.

Some do, although most require a roll. But making rolls to determine success/failure is a characteristic feature of D&D. And they grant the PC an ability to try things that may be beyond the bounds of stunting. (To be fair, the limitation of any stunt is a factor of what the character resources allow you to do. It makes little sense to have limited resources that let you accomplish less than a generic skill roll would allow.)

PCs already have the ability to try anything though; that's implicit in playing an RPG. Likewise, rolls to determine success or failure aren't the issue, so much as it is an issue of why characters can only make certain attempts to perform something a limited number of times per day. It's unintuitive to say that a physical ability is limited because of metagame rules.

You'd also have to explain your reasoning on divorcing character-specific abilities from character class and level. I'm unclear as to what mixed message is being presented.

I'm not talking about divorcing character-specific abilities from character classes/levels. I'm talking about divorcing areas of player narrative control from character-based mechanics, which are presumed to be associated. Nagol's post, above, is a good example of this - the player can write areas of the narrative, completely apart from something their character can do, with the only metagame limitation (though I'm sure there's a limit on how often a player can do this) being that it's related to their character's area of expertise - but that's a metagame limitation on a metagame power, rather than a metagame limitation on a character ability.

 

[TwoSix]

That's really the concept in a nutshell as I understand it: interacting with the game mechanics outside of the abilities of your avatar. Metagame. Not associated with things that the character controls in the fiction.

It can be a Big Deal for folks. It's kind of a big deal for me. It can negatively impact role-playing. It doesn't have to, but it can.

And while late 4e shied away from it, early 4e embraced it big time.

I agree 100%. It IS a big deal. Personally, I think it's great for roleplaying, because it lets me shape the situation around my character in a way to make it more interesting to interact with. But I know a lot of people lose immersion when they do this.

I just feel kind of bad for them, because I find roleplaying to be most exciting when you switch from stance to stance, and I guess a lot of people can't do that seamlessly.

 

[Ratskinner]

Exactly this. In 4e terms, you'd invoke your class or your race or a paragon path whenever you tried to use a skill or an attack, explain why it's relevant to the narration ("I'm a Wizard, I gain bonuses whenever I use Arcana to conjure fire"), expend currency (maybe a surge?), and be granted a bonus or additional descriptors to the resolution of the attack or skill.

That sounds more like PDQ, Fate, or Fate Accelerated. To my eye, you've pretty much left the D&D playground at that point. Stripped as far as you suggest, there's just no need for all those other fiddly bits (HP, AC, Saving throws, Ability Scores, Powers, Spells, etc.) at all. They would all be wrapped into the descriptors.