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

[Kraztur]

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.

So 4E rules prescribe what the player can do?

And 5E rules describe what the character can do or what is happening to the character?

You can finetune the wording as applicable but something like that?

Perhaps the Cliffnotes should include that some players did not feel incentivized or empowered by the written rules and/or game table dynamics to roleplay their character in ways beyond what is prescribed for the player (for example, to use page 42 to trip again, to use a spell in-combat or out-of-combat beyond the given spell parameters, etc.)

And as per Kamikaze Midget, perhaps 4E would have been a greater success if there were extra rules that provide guidelines and incentives for negotiating player actions beyond what was prescribed in the core rules.

What do you think?

 

[Nagol]

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.

I'm one of the players you feel bad for. I can switch stance seamlessly -- I need to do it all the time when I GM. I just don't want to when I get to play.

 

[Imaro]

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.

Don't... for some people it's not that they can't do it... it's that they don't enjoy the experience/results. This is very similar to the whole push for players to be co-authors with the DM when it comes to setting details... that's great if that's what your players are looking for, but there are players who truly have no interest in co-authoring the setting and it in fact actively diminishes their fun in the game (and no it wasn't caused by the trauma of a bad DM, they really don't find the experience itself enjoyable).

 

[Minigiant]

I think the bigger line in the 4e Cliff Notes was that early 4e was hard to customize due to extreme unfamiliarity and WOTC content control.

Pre4e had extremely simple mechanics so changing stuff was easy and transparent. Power attack without a feat is easy for newish DMs to do. The hard part has using multiple mechanics or the complex ones like spells.

4e came from the other end. So many DMs were very very hesitant to house rule powers or adjust the power structure or do anything not in the books. So it made association and adjustment of raw mechanics rare until a couple years past release.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Yes, but the design of 3.5 made it so that a character designed to trip succeeded most of the time, and a character who wasn't failed most of the time. That wasn't the sort of play that 4e wanted to support. 4e made it so the optimal play was to trip once in a while. A character who wants to trip a lot can choose more than one trip power, or use the stunting rules.

Also, codification of results is inherent in the rules, but codification of narrative is not. Results is "get a +2 bonus to your next roll", narrative is "I struggle mightily and free myself from the dragon's jaws."

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?

Because you don't want people to trip each other all the time? It's about the rules supporting the end result you want to see, not about supporting the process that produces the results.

Plus, "trip is now an encounter power" is incorrect anyway. There is no "trip", there's a simply putting the prone condition on the target. And that can be accomplished by stunts, at-will powers, encounter powers, or daily powers.

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.

But your actions are NEVER limited, which is the point I keep trying to make. You can do your Spinning Hurricane Slash every round if you want. But only once during the fight is it going to have the special effect described in the power. Every other time, the attempt's resolution will be controlled by the stunt rules and DM negotiation.

Quite simply, you can do whatever you want, but you only have the power to dictate the resolution method if you've expended character resources to do so.

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.

Once you no longer conflate "character resource" with "an ability to narrate an attempt", it's all fairly intuitive. But, as KM pointed out above, it's an aesthetic that many players don't wish to embrace.

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.

Yes, but they're connected by the fact that they are both metagame powers to bolster the character's story. Nagol's example can describe a planet because his character is supposed to know about planets, and being able to assert a fact about the planet directly supports that story.
A fighter with "Come and Get It" is a exceptional warrior, who attracts attention from other combatants so that the warrior can prove his superiority. The player is using the power so that the character can have a scene that showcases his character concept. (Plus the tactical implications, of course.)

 

[Alzrius]

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".

I think that some people are saying that.

Likewise, the issue of "character resources" as dissociated isn't so much an issue of them knowing about it or accessing it, as them wanting to be able to do something and finding out that they can't due to metagame reasons.

That's separate from the issue of players having narrative abilities beyond what their character can attempt to do. In that case, it's an issue of things such as why that's tied to an in-character progression system or how it requires the character to expend an action, etc.

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.

Strictly speaking, that's not an issue of dissociation per se - dissociation is an issue of a metagame function (particularly where it applies to a character) having no corresponding in-game element.

That said, you're right that the issue with spells becoming less effective as characters gain more hit points is problematic. However, I personally don't see that as being problematic enough to undercut the entire system; certainly I don't see it as being nearly as problematic as dissociating hit point loss from physical damage.

The reason for this (and this is my personal reasoning) is that the issue with spell effectiveness is far less intrusive. That issue is one that doesn't come up very often that I've seen; most players don't seem to notice this, and it doesn't seem to break their immersion very much when they do. The issue with hit point loss as an abstraction, on the other hand, is one that - if you don't subscribe to it - comes up constantly.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Yea, you're absolutely, which is why I wouldn't play 4e that way. More of a thought experiment. The fiddly parts are a big part of what make D&D fun for me.

 

[TwoSix]

So 4E rules prescribe what the player can do?

And 5E rules describe what the character can do or what is happening to the character?

You can finetune the wording as applicable but something like that?

Perhaps the Cliffnotes should include that some players did not feel incentivized or empowered by the written rules and/or game table dynamics to roleplay their character in ways beyond what is prescribed for the player (for example, to use page 42 to trip again, to use a spell in-combat or out-of-combat beyond the given spell parameters, etc.)

And as per Kamikaze Midget, perhaps 4E would have been a greater success if there were extra rules that provide guidelines and incentives for negotiating player actions beyond what was prescribed in the core rules.

What do you think?

In a very broad nutshell, yes. It's always worthwhile to keep in mind that 4e wasn't trying to serve any one agenda, it certainly has legacy elements that don't fit into the conditions I'm describing. And that every edition has had their own "dissociative" elements.

4e would have been more successful if it had been upfront that it wanted to play differently, and here's what you would have to do to adjust. Or if it had simply been more traditional.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Perhaps the Cliffnotes should include that some players did not feel incentivized or empowered by the written rules and/or game table dynamics to roleplay their character in ways beyond what is prescribed for the player (for example, to use page 42 to trip again, to use a spell in-combat or out-of-combat beyond the given spell parameters, etc.)

I think that'd also need to note that this was completely inconsistent, and some players actually felt empowered, because that's my direct experience, and I'm not the only one.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm one of the players you feel bad for. I can switch stance seamlessly -- I need to do it all the time when I GM. I just don't want to when I get to play.

Which, of course, is perfectly fine. I just don't get it.