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

[Balesir]

Still easy-peasy in either GURPS or Champions. Both offer an advantage (Champions calls it Variable Special Effect) that allows re-skinning on the fly (usually within a larger framework).

OK, assuming that to be so (I don't entirely agree, but no time to dive into it now), why then is this a problem when done in D&D?

 

[Manbearcat]

Since we're into the "dissociated mechanics" bit with a heaping helping of "but HP aren't dissociated so 4e is the problem, not D&D in general", I'm going to quote myself from the other thread for usage in this one. Anyone who is putting forth this position, please feel free to chime in. I'm curious.

Pretend I've got 100 HP in real life. Please relay to me how many HP, each of 1-6 has cost me:

Describing a gruesome wound using hit points defies suspension of disbelief.

Quick anecdote. I've had a pretty bad year and a half (extraordinarily bad for most people but this is just pretty bad for me) with sports related injuries. These put me on the shelf for certain activities in some way, shape, or form for 14 out of those 18 months. In order:

1) 5th metacarpal fracture with partial ligament tear of the right hand. 6 weeks, I pushed the recovery time, reinjured, then 4 more weeks.

2) Traumatic left patellar (kneecap) bone bruise. Brutal injury but only 3 weeks.

3) High grade 2 (more than partial tear - could have had surgery) left ankle sprain. 4.5 weeks. I again pushed the recovery time but both of my ankles are toast so it doesn't really matter at this point.

4) Disgusting dislocation of my index finger on my right hand. Horrible volar plate injury that will never, ever, ever be right again. The rest of my life I'm going to deal with terrible pain and some lack of grip strength, dexterity, and flexion with that finger/knuckle infrastructure. This has been a hellish injury that was ongoing for 6 months before I could do much of anything with that hand. 9 months later and I'm using it with a resignation of its diminished capacity (and terrible pain). This is the infamous "turf toe" injury (but on my hand) that has ended many a football players' career (Deion Sanders being the prime...time...example).

5) Horrible Illiac Crest (vertically ascending part of hip) bone bruise with a crushing damage to the soft tissue across the front of it. The infamous "hip pointer." This was only 2 weeks (I pushed it) but it was worse than number 2 above.

6) Weird small shoulder fracture on the stem of my left acromion bone right where it meets the clavicle. 5 weeks.


Any sort of "gruesome wound" is not remotely modeled by HPs. Not even in the same universe. Certainly none of the above would be modeled by hit points and these are probably relatively minor compared to what you have in mind. The actor's capacity isn't even remotely inhibited let alone outright nullified by any HP loss except the loss of the last one. A death spiral mechanic on top of them or some kind of condition/injury track sufficiently does the job, but those aren't terribly fun. So we have hit points. And we each do with them as we may to tell our stories as we might. So narrate the resolution of your action declarations as you will but its not very tenable to tell folks that this or that mechanic ON TOP OF or INTERFACING WITH hit points reduce your ability to model "gruesome wounds." Hit points do all the work themselves to make it problematic for you. They don't need any help. Just look at it with squinted eyes, or outright avert your eyes, the same way we've always done.

 

[I'm A Banana]

No, I'm not arguing that the two are different; I can just usually keep up the "feels" of the immersive stance even when I have to make a calculation about the game rules and where to apply them. To be fair, digressions of more than 20-30 seconds and I'll start to lose my buzz, which is why I loathe some of the old school spell descriptions.

Totally makes sense. There's definitely a lot of variance in how much tolerance folks have for doing that, and even variance in where they'll tolerate it and where they won't. Y'know, subjectivities n'all.

I'm with you. I'm certainly not defending every element of 4e. While I do defend the narrative/indie elements of 4e and I feel that they (for me) added a lot to the game, that doesn't mean I don't wish that the rollout and initial presentation hadn't been more modest and tried harder to keep interest from people. I would have loved 4e almost as much if it started out with the Essential classes and divine healing only.

This is part of why I'm being a little cautious with 5e. I can't see from here how functionally strident it'll be. Basic rules mention the multiverse and have mostly-morale HP, but what effect with that have? Hard to say right now. Maybe it'll be a light touch. Maybe that'll be fine.

I mean, pretty much no one likes ANY edition of D&D right out of the box. Tinkering is an expected part of play, like with LEGOs. It's all about the tinkering you're comfortable with, and the tinkering the game is comfortable with. If 5e gets that tone right, it might not matter to me personally what goes on with their brand initiatives or whatever. If it's easier to work with than 4e was, and keeps some killer bones in the math, that'll probably be enough to sell me. I apparently have a high threshold for things I don't like in my RPGs. I blame the fact that I tend to think about these things in designer-ese. Even a failure is pretty interesting to me, since I like to analyze how and why.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

To answer the original post, my entire group's experience can be summed up like this:

"That's it? This is... You know, maybe we should try Shadowrun for awhile."

Then they heard of Pathfinder. Eventually, they broke up; they didn't like 4E Shadowrun, had a bad time with Savage Worlds at first, CoC didn't fill the bill for a good heroic system, and Pathfinder was too much like 3.5.

So, overall, 4E kinda ended the interest of most of them in continued gaming.

 

[Remathilis]

Power of awesome, baby! You'd let a wizard use his superpower to take over someone's mind and make them walk over, right? The fighter's superpower is that stuff just happens to him because it's SUPPOSED to.

The game isn't there to make the monsters look cool. That being said, there are plenty of monsters that can force movement.

Wizard. Magic. Does things beyond mortal ken. If you're saying that the fighter is doing it with something beyond mortal ken (the "awesome" power source) then you've conceited that the fighter is a magical class and that CaGI is magical power no different than fireball.

However works for you. Taunting, feigning weakness, positioning between them and something they want to reach, projecting a confidence that suggest that you're the threat that must be dealt with first, out-maneuvering or tricking the enemy so that you can cut them off when they try to get away... or, as suggested, just invoking a genre trope. The mooks all mob the bad-ass warrior because that's what mooks do.

If /nothing/ works for you, don't choose the power - but don't insist no one else choose it.

Monsters do have such powers.

How many wizard players like having their PCs rush into melee with such monsters because "he taunted me"? Do they really justify "You know, that creature is making a rude gesture at me. I should just blast him with a burst of magical energy, but I'm SO MAD, I'm going to dash over to him in my bathrobe and whack him with my walking stick instead!"?

However you want to imagine it happening in this particular case.

To quote your earlier post, "NoNoNoNONO!"

The orcs' action has taken place because of the actions of the fighter; because of their use of deception and/or psychological manipulation.

NPC fighters can have CaGI; as such, many skilled and experienced fighting creatures could have it.

The players don't whinge about getting forced-moved by an enemy magician's "Vision of Avarice"-type power or the undead's "cause fear" power - why should they complain about the skilled combatants' "fake out" powers?

Does the fighter have ranks in bluff/deception?

And "Vision of Avarice?" Magic. "Cause Fear"? Magic. You want to control my actions and reactions? You better have magic that does it.

As I've said, I made peace with a lot of 4e conventions. This is my bridge-too-far. Good day.

 

[Nagol]

OK, assuming that to be so (I don't entirely agree, but no time to dive into it now), why then is this a problem when done in D&D?

A few reasons.

I turn to Champions when I want the table experience of Champions. I don't think it will be controversial for me to say that Champions isn't D&D. When I want an experience I associate with D&D I don't turn to Champions.

If the powers were constructed under Champions then there would be a understood framework and design constraints applied to all the constructed abilities. In all likelihood those constraints would vary at least a little by power source. The framework means some level of consistency and power flattening would occur. For example, CaGI would not have made it out of the design stage without a form of resistance from the target. That framework and consistency is missing from 4e.

The power effects are still interpreted by the GM to determine if the situation calls for a small alteration in the outcome. The power is built to a norm, but situational modifiers can adjust the power -- apply a small area effect bonus to sonic attacks while underwater, for example. So the player may say CaGI is being skinned this way, but the GM determines if this way should apply a situational effect. That is missing from 4e.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

I think a lot of issues with 4e derives from the unfortunate reality that a lot of folks don't have an understanding of the 4e stunting system. So much of these conversations (such as the BUTBUTBUT YOU CAN'T EVEN ATTEMPT TO DO STUFF...because neither myself nor my GM understand the very important stunting rules) would be head off at the pass if folks were more familiar with what they're disparaging (not you and not in this post...just in general). It is entirely predicated upon (1) keywords, (2) genre expectations (that tie into many things including PC build descriptors), and (3) the resolution system itself. For instance, take the below recent situation by a (seemingly) new 4e GM and my advice to him after he flat said "no" to the below proposition. What I say is precisely how it would have been handled at my table and objectively, by the GMing principles of the system and its advice, how it should have been handled:

Originally Posted by the GM in question
The wizard tried to use burning hands to weld the vault door shut, which I said would not work, though I let it deal half damage to the wyrmlings as they came through.

I'll let others reply to your question outlined in the initial post. I'd like to focus on this bit here. Is there a specific reason you didn't either say yes here or allow the PC to roll the dice and make p42 improv effort to weld the door shut with the fire spell? That seems to be precisely the type of thing you want to be encouraging. It fits the genre and it's quick thinking by your player. And it's fun!

If you felt it needed to be hard, all you needed do was (a) make the of-level DC for the Arcana check high. If he passes, (b) let him roll attack vs Fort vs standard, of-level NAD and boom, the metal hinges of the door are slag and it's impassable (save ends)

I recommend that approach in future circumstances.

 

[TwoSix]

Wizard. Magic. Does things beyond mortal ken. If you're saying that the fighter is doing it with something beyond mortal ken (the "awesome" power source) then you've conceited that the fighter is a magical class and that CaGI is magical power no different than fireball.

Works for me. Magical world and all. The gonzo is in effect.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Wizard. Magic. Does things beyond mortal ken. If you're saying that the fighter is doing it with something beyond mortal ken (the "awesome" power source) then you've conceited that the fighter is a magical class and that CaGI is magical power no different than fireball.

Demand for caster supremacy noted.

How many wizard players like having their PCs rush into melee with such monsters because "he taunted me"?

Probably about as many as like having their fearless fighter recoil out of reach because a creature just snarls at them. But, hey, it hit your will, so come up with a rationale. Maybe the wizard was shoved ahead of another PC, maybe the fighter is only backing off out of concern for an affected ally. Honest. Or, y'know, maybe they're both just (insert imperfect sentient race).

Does the fighter have ranks in bluff/deception?

If he did he could /also/ use a Standard Action to taunt enemies. You could probably make a case for Intimidate, too. Anyway, not all the rationales turn on social-interaction forms of deception. So if he does have 'em, yeah, lean heavily on the 'I tricked you' visualizations. If not, use others. Whatever makes sense to you.

And "Vision of Avarice?" Magic.

Waitaminit. 2nd demand for Caster Supremacy aside, like Phantom Chasm and CaGI, this one has a real issue with how the description matches up with the mechanics. Mindless Zombies and Monks with vows of poverty are not going to be drawn irresistibly to an illusory pile of gold, no matter how convinced they are that it's real. The answer is to tweak the illusion. For the zombies you create a terrified victim with tasty brains, for the monk, a mysterious mandala that promises ineffable enlightenment.

You want to control my actions and reactions? You better have magic that does it.

3rd demand for Caster Supremacy noted.

 

[Nagol]

I think a lot of issues with 4e derives from the unfortunate reality that a lot of folks don't have an understanding of the 4e stunting system. So much of these conversations (such as the BUTBUTBUT YOU CAN'T EVEN ATTEMPT TO DO STUFF...because neither myself nor my GM understand the very important stunting rules) would be head off at the pass if folks were more familiar with what they're disparaging (not you and not in this post...just in general). It is entirely predicated upon (1) keywords, (2) genre expectations (that tie into many things including PC build descriptors), and (3) the resolution system itself. For instance, take the below recent situation by a (seemingly) new 4e GM and my advice to him after he flat said "no" to the below proposition. What I say is precisely how it would have been handled at my table and objectively, by the GMing principles of the system and its advice, how it should have been handled:

Easier to adjudicate than that though using the rules. The hinges are small tiny metal therefore have 15 hp. Hit the AC 8 10 and if you do 15 hp, the hinge is slag.