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

[pemerton]

And it would have kept it all contained in one, nice bannable class.

It's easier to ban a class than two powers (CaGI and Warrior's Urging, which is the higher-level version)?

 

[pemerton]

Your response to this is that these attempts aren't restricted, but rather that these are limitations on how often you can use mechanics X to pull off these abilities, and the rest of the time use mechanics Y. I don't particularly agree that that's what the rules are trying to do, and find that to be a fairly unintuitive design anyway, particularly since that interpretation doesn't seem to be a common one that I've seen.

<snip>

The paradigm that you're suggesting - that you can attempt anything, and the encounter and daily restrictions are purely about what mechanics you use - is something that is, at best, presented in a highly unintuitive manner. I'm honestly not sure that it's actually presented in the rules at all.

Well, that is what the rules are trying to do - page 42 of the DMG says as much.

There's no particular guideline on how else to mechanically resolve an attempt to use the same power beyond the encounter or daily restrictions, and nothing that says that such an attempt should be more difficult and less effective.

Actually a whole page of the DMG is devoted to this, suggesting appropriate DCs and damage ranges. When it comes to imposing conditions, WotC initially left this up to GM intuition, but later published a web column on the topic (authored by [MENTION=64825]wrecan[/MENTION]).

for a lot of people this variance is undercut if it's enforced by an artificial set of restrictions on what can be attempted.

The whole action economy is an "artificial set of restrictions" - it is a product of human artifice, for resolving turns in a game. It does not correspond to anything in the imagined reality of the gameworld.

By artificial, you mean not flowing from the setting's physics, correct? There's no explicit "fatigue" or "divine providence" explanation for why the effects occur with the frequency they do?

<snip>

I don't think the character has any indication he can do three things in a turn, and he has a limited selection of options for each one. I think from the character's perspective, he just acts.

Actions are very much character resources; that's why we refer to what you can do in a round as "economy of actions." That doesn't imply anything about the characters knowing they function according to turn-based combat - they just know there's only so much they can do in a set period of time.

For me, this is as absurd as the high level fighter having more physical robustness than an ancient dragon, simply because his/her hp total is higher.

The idea that the action economy is a reality of the gameworld is just too silly for me to contemplate. It implies that the whole world is a stop-motion one, like the set of a Wallace and Gromit movie. It implies that peasant rail guns are actually possible in the gameworld. It implies that initiative, and the boundary between rounds, is a measurable natural phenomenon as opposed to part of the real-world rationing devices used to make the game play work.

Night and day are natural realities. The seasons are a natural reality. The six-second interval by which we measure the passage of time in combat, however, is mere artifice. It's a device. The characters in the gameworld have no conception of it. As TwoSix says, they just act.

A gameplay experience needs to deliver on its core aesthetics, and the core aesthetics of storytelling or running a narrative are not the same as the core aesthetics of role-playing or pretending to be another person, and they are mutually exclusive

It's not necessarily hard to swap between the two quickly, moment-to-moment, but they don't happen at the same time. Let me put it this way: When you control the story itself (like, you decide as a player what treasure you find in the dungeon, a la 4e wishlists) you are necessarily thinking out-of-character, because people don't control the events around them, they only control their own actions (that character doesn't decide what treasure is there).

These are empirical psychological conjectures. My own experience leads me to believe that they are, in general, false. Perhaps there are individuals for whom they are true; perhaps you are one of them; but they are not universally true.

Imagine an unmusical person, for instance, who says: it is possible to think of only one note at a time. You might switch back-and-forth very rapidly between thinking of one note and thinking of another, but no one can actually imagine a harmony. I reply: I can imagine two and even three part harmonies, and I have no doubt that Mozart and Wagner could imagine with crystal clarity harmonies that I can't even discern when actually hearing them played on instruments.

Here is one simple example, that I have observed at the game table, of thinking in character and storytelling: a player knows that (by dint of the mechanics) his PC has turned from a toad back to a person; the player is immersed in his character, who is devoutly religious; the player therefore, speaking in character, replies to an enemy's taunt "Look, I just turned you into a toad" with "Yes, but my mistress turned me back"; the player, thereby, makes it true in the fiction that his character was returned to human form from toad form in dint of the intervention of the Raven Queen.

It is only if someone has a very thin conception of who and what their character is - one, for instance, that involves no connections to other people and places in the gameworld - the by pretending to be his/her PC s/he doesn't also generate consequences for other elements in the gameworld. Those elements won't always necessarily form part of a story, but if the game is well-designed - for instance, by making sure that those connections to other people and places are dramatically loaded connections - then it probably will.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Can't help but admit - those are much more thorough definitions.

I think the level of hostility towards the Alexandrian is somewhat unwarranted - when I read the article, I saw a writer attempting to explain what he didn't like about a particular system; expressing his preference, as it were.

Imagine if you were eating something that you and your friends were unfamiliar with, and you didn't like it. You had to come up with a word to describe a particular taste you disliked, say, "disasalty-ated". But your friends liked the taste.

You didn't call the flavor "disasalty-ated" as an insult or a dismissal - you were labeling something you disliked. Just because your friends liked it, doesn't mean it's not "disasalty-ated".

So, I think it's fine to say "I don't think that (what you call) 'disassociated mechanics' are a problem - in fact, they benefit the game."
I think it's fine to say "I think your definition of 'disassociated mechanics' is flawed because X - example, example, example."
I think it's fine to say "But by your own definition this is NOT a 'disassociated mechanic' because of pg Y rule Z."
But it's not helpful to discussion to say "When you say 'disassociated mechanic' you're really just saying Q, and that's just because you don't like it and are being insulting."

If you don't like the tone of someone else's article, it's best to raise the tone yourself when debating it. Sorry if you feel dragged into a side argument, but I just see so much of that around here.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Never mind the fact that we have far less loaded terminology which can communicate the same sentiments with far less value judgement.

While I agree that the article in question is, shall we say, critical of your playing style - I don't think his limited definition implies the level of condescension or hatred you seem to be inferring. Your own responses seem to "load" the terminology with value judgement more than he did.

Saying "I know some people are down on what he calls 'disassociated mechanics', but they are wrong because X" should be sufficient for debate without impugning motives.

 

[pemerton]

Instead of detailing the outcomes, stun for 1 round, move an enemy 2 squares and so on, the rules describe the tools. Make someone hallucinate for 6 seconds, make yourself look more imposing, etc. In the latter case some guidelines about what results actions can have in the world are also required, but you would not have a "If X Y happens" or even "You can do Y, no matter the X" relation. Instead you have "You can do Y which might result in X or Z or something else depending on the situation".

To my mind this just reinforces [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]'s point. Who gets to decide what results from Y, given the situation? The typical answer is the GM, as influenced by the suggestions and reasoning of the other players. Which is to say, exactly the negotiation that Balesir described.

 

[pemerton]

By the time 3e came out, you already had Rolemaster which had been doing 3e for darn near a decade already.

Actually for nearly 2 decades. RM predates 2nd ed AD&D - it dates from 1982. It's second edition (which was basically a layout/compilation cleanup of the original) came out in 1986, and then was re-released in 1989 (this 1989 imprint is the version that I got into in 1990).

As someone who had been playing RM for more than 10 years when 3E came out, I was excited to see what Monte Cook would do, but disappointed in the outcome. Hit points still didn't make sense (eg a Light Wound can kill a commoner while a Critical Wound might barely scratch a high level fighter). And the mixing of somewhat gritty skill and combat-manoeuvre resolution with hit-point based combat and open-ended DCs didn't look very stable to me.

 

[pemerton]

We have a dozen different powers that "stun" a foe. Couldn't there have just been one that let the PC define how he did it?

In some cases there is arguably needless duplication (eg there are two powers, I think - an Avenger one and a Swordmage one - which are identical to, or very nearly identical to, the fighter power Footwork Lure). But in general, the gameplay reason for different powers is the same as the reason for different classes: to ensure diversity of approaches to the game.

(There is also the marketing reason noted by [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION], and I think also [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] further upthread.)

What you just described is the textbook "reaction" power: a foe does something and the player/character responds.

"Reactions" and "actions" are metagame notions - devices for regulating turns in the action economy of the game. They don't correspond, except very loosely, to distinct categories of events in the gameworld. [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] has already made this point in relation to melee exchanges. It can also be applied to OAs: one natural way to understand OAs vs archers and casters is that, when fighting a foe who isn't fighting or parrying back, you get more chances to hurt them. Instead of upping the rate of attacks, though (which can happen in AD&D when very fast weapons are used vs very ponderous weapons), we grant opportunity attacks.

In the actual gameworld, the fighter is just attacking - there is no ingame distinction between the action, the immediate action and the opportunity action.

Technically, the opponents can't do anything once they get in range until their turn.

This seems like another example of reading the action economy rules back into the gameworld in an unhelpful, stop-motion way. Pleading is an "action" in the ordinary English sense, but I don't think it's an "action" in the action economy sense. No game rule is violated by saying that the victims of CaGI have hurled themselves at the feet of the fighter and are begging for mercy.

It's the idea of archers or spellcasters charging heedlessly into melee that really got old fast.

So you can't conceive of a character motivation or situation that would prevent a rational being from charging forward and engaging in melee?

CaGI only works if (i) the target is within 3 sq of the fighter, and (ii) can end his/her move adjacent to the fighter. The distance, therefore between the fighter and target may be as little as 10' (if we assume that each is at the nearest edge of his/her square), and between the target and the fighter's weapon the distance might be as little as half that (depending on reach).

In other words, those who are getting drawn in by CaGI are already in fighting distance of the fighter. (In AD&D, striking distance was 10'. It is only 3E and 4e that reduce default reach to 5'.) They are hardly "charging heedless into melee". At least, there is no need at all to narrate it that way.

It forces the orcs to charge. It takes the agency away from the character's controller (the DM in this case). It doesn't require the foe to enter to activate, it MAKES THEM MOVE THERE to do it. You can move 6 squares, activate CaGI, and force a foe that was 40 feat away to now engage the fighter in melee

As I already posted, I don't feel the outrage. Since OD&D players have had the ability to impose the "dead" status on those orcs. Why is it more outrageous to impose the "moved from there to here" status?

there are certain things that should be the pervue of magic: controlling other creature's minds is one of them.

If you're saying that the fighter is doing it with something beyond mortal ken

I have no powers beyond mortal ken. Yet I control others' minds ever day. I extend my hand to shake theirs, thereby prompting them to move their arms. I speak words to them in languages they understand, thereby causing them to have thoughts. Etc etc. In the real world, a person's exercise of agency is constantly shaped by the actions of others. (Those who are enlightened in the technical Buddhist sense are arguably exceptions. I don't think there are many such people around, however. They are certainly not the norm.)

When it comes to gameplay, the question becomes "Who gets to decide what impact the agency of PC X has on the agency of PC Y?"

Should it not be the pervue of the DM to decide if the orcs want to flip out and charge? Isn't that what the DM is there for?

CaGI breaks the game assumptions by overriding the DMs control of his NPCs

There is no such assumption made by the game. It doesn't assume that only the GM can decide when an NPC is dead. Nor does it assume that only the GM can decide when an NPC's location changes.

B/X and 1st ed AD&D had both reaction and morale rules. In OA, samuarai and kensai could cause fear. 3E has Diplomacy rules. 4e has social skill challenges. I don't know 2nd ed AD&D well enough, but no other edition has assumed that all decisions about NPC behaviour are matters of GM fiat. Nor has any other edition of D&D taken the view that things outside GM control must depend on dice rolls (eg the classic Sleep spell; magic missile; fireball vs an opponent with only 1 or 2 hp; etc). CaGI it combines past elements of D&D in a new way - a player determines certain NPC actions without the intermediation of a dice roll - but none of the elements is new.

 

[pemerton]

Can't help but admit - those are much more thorough definitions.

Thank you. They are mostly borrowed from Ron Edwards' Forge essays.

I think the level of hostility towards the Alexandrian is somewhat unwarranted - when I read the article, I saw a writer attempting to explain what he didn't like about a particular system; expressing his preference, as it were.

While I agree that the article in question is, shall we say, critical of your playing style - I don't think his limited definition implies the level of condescension or hatred you seem to be inferring.

I think it doesn't get more dismissive, in this context, then to tell a poster to an RPG message board, who is wanting to discuss experiences of playing RPGs, that s/he is not actually playing an RPG at all.

As I've said upthread, I don't care about others' preferences, nor about the circumstances in which they can or cannot immerse. It is when they start telling me what I am, and can do, and start telling me about my play experience, that I respond.

Justin Alexander can, in addition, reasonably be held to a higher standard than any old poster. He presents himself as something of an industry expert, and clearly enjoys the cachet that comes with that. He is obviously familiar with Wushu, and presumably he is familiar with other well-known RPGs (eg HeroWars/Quest, Fate) that are entirely metagame, or almost so, in their resolution systems. That simply makes the claims that 4e is not an RPG, and that those who play it are not RPGing ("At that point, however, you’re no longer playing a roleplaying game"), all the more dismissive.

 

[Jhaelen]

This thread is long. That is all.

 

[Hussar]

Just curious for clarification....

Are you saying 3E was or was not a cleaned up version of the last edition? At first you say it was 4E was "the first that wasn't". But then you change the point. I thought we were in agreement that 3E was a substantial departure. I agree strongly with your second point. To me it was GURPS, but "HEROfication" of D&D was the term that seemed to have the most traction in the 2000 - 2001 timeframe.

I also see bits of newer games in 5E. (Gumshoe and MnM, among others)

Yes and no. 3e mechanically is a very large departure from adnd. They are very different games. So, in that sense 3e wasn't trying to sell me stuff I already bought.

But the boatload of 3e offerings which were basically warmed over material from earlier editions certainly was. How many "Return To" modules did we get? There were so many "update" products that I got very turned off from wotc. Otoh there were lots of 3pp that were more interesting to me.

I think it's telling that the only 3.5 wotc books I bought were Tome of Magic and Bo9S, both lead in products for 4e.