D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[Tony Vargas]

In the beginning, I liked the "points of light" idea; however, I didn't feel that the 4E mechanics were a good fit for the kind of story which comes to my mind when I hear "points of light" described as a concept. I had hoped 4E would turn out more like sword & sorcery; less like mythic fantasy.

I got the impression 4e could handle that range. I do think the relatively high starting power and clearly 'heroic' advantages, like healing surges, worked well for a setting in which the PCs were heroes - among relatively few such in the world, or perhaps even /the/ destined heroes of some epic story arc, if you were going to take your campaign that far - rather than just a band of adventurers among many of such bands driving up prices like prospectors in a gold rush. And, that PoL was that kind of setting, one where there would be few heroes rather than many adventurers. What really didn't work so well for that, IMHO, was the exploding prices and cycling of magic items - that, to me, points more to a very high-magic, hordes of adventurers, kind of setting. I definitely liked the inherent bonuses idea.

One of the base assumptions of 5e that I really like is that there is no wealth/level, and very little character-enhancing stuff to buy with more than starting wealth. It means you can have a campaign of hard-bitten mercenaries eking out a living, risking their lives for silver or even just provisions - or a campaign where the characters, nobles perhaps, even start out rich, or score big in an early adventure - without blowing balance to heck. You can't be as sanguine about placing magic items, but basic wealth becomes whatever the DM needs it to be to fit the tone of the campaign.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In the beginning, I liked the "points of light" idea; however, I didn't feel that the 4E mechanics were a good fit for the kind of story which comes to my mind when I hear "points of light" described as a concept. I had hoped 4E would turn out more like sword & sorcery; less like mythic fantasy.

Its an interesting question, what would be the ideal setup for a PoL campaign? Some would gravitate to grim and gritty, maybe CoC-like (the PCs are ordinary and relatively helpless against the monsters, all they can maybe hope to do is keep the darkness at arm's length today). I thought the idea of a sort of super heroic version was more interesting. In either case I never quite thought that 4e's PoL had a dark enough darkness between the points.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I got the impression 4e could handle that range. I do think the relatively high starting power and clearly 'heroic' advantages, like healing surges, worked well for a setting in which the PCs were heroes - among relatively few such in the world, or perhaps even /the/ destined heroes of some epic story arc, if you were going to take your campaign that far - rather than just a band of adventurers among many of such bands driving up prices like prospectors in a gold rush. And, that PoL was that kind of setting, one where there would be few heroes rather than many adventurers. What really didn't work so well for that, IMHO, was the exploding prices and cycling of magic items - that, to me, points more to a very high-magic, hordes of adventurers, kind of setting. I definitely liked the inherent bonuses idea.

One of the base assumptions of 5e that I really like is that there is no wealth/level, and very little character-enhancing stuff to buy with more than starting wealth. It means you can have a campaign of hard-bitten mercenaries eking out a living, risking their lives for silver or even just provisions - or a campaign where the characters, nobles perhaps, even start out rich, or score big in an early adventure - without blowing balance to heck. You can't be as sanguine about placing magic items, but basic wealth becomes whatever the DM needs it to be to fit the tone of the campaign.

I don't think wealth/treasure parcels is THAT important. Certainly if there's no need for +N items then there's little reason for the players to need any given amount of treasure. In principle if they want to make items then they need the requisite amounts of money for casting Enchant Item, but there's no strong reason to enforce that either, you can simply require them to get some unusual material or whatever such that making items isn't trivial. Really, even if you don't use inherent bonus, you're no worse off ignoring 4e's treasure rules than you'd be just playing 1e RAW where how much treasure people get and when they get it is pretty much a total unknown where you just guess based on prices what might work.

 

[Manbearcat]

Alright, on with the "how vulnerable to illusionism is this" theme. As I said upthread, I'll analyze a social action scene in my current Dungeon World game on here. I'm going to do it peace-meal because (a) I don't have time for a mega-post and (b) it might make things a little easier for any folks interested in participating. Dungeon World shares a considerable amount of overlap from agenda, to GMing principles, to genre expectations. Quick primer:

The Basic Outcome

* 10+ you succeed with little trouble

* 7-9 you succeed but with some kind of complication (a worse outcome, a cost, a hard bargain). The GM will make a soft move against you here; something without immediate, irrevocable consequences or something that can be avoided with a little ingenuity or a player move that goes well.

* 6- Things go wrong. The GM will tell you what and you mark xp. "Things go wrong" typically, but not always (the GM can elect for a soft move if it seems fitting), means something with immediate consequences. Dealing damage, imposing a debility, escalating the conflict in a real bad way that puts the players behind the 8-ball RIGHT FRIGGING NOW are hard moves.

Here is the section on GMing. Any 4e GM should be able to recognize this stuff pretty easily. Alright, on with it (sblocked for space, etc):

[sblock]

In the antechamber I greet Saerie with a warm smile and harken back to our parting: "I promised I would find you...and so I have."

I'm quite happy to oblige them the peace-bonding of our weapons. I'm gracious for the goblins extending the trust to us in allowing us to keep them. Our people likely wouldn't be so courteous. I'll try to let the king know that if I can find the right moment.

Originally Posted by Manbearcat
The bowls must have just been served as the soup inside is piping hot with steam. "Join me for a delicacy" says the king. "Darkmantle-Wing soup. I slayed the creature's mother when it was a pup and brought the entire brood back. Within a year, this was the lone, hardy survivor of the group. He lived a good life. A noble predator. He served my kingdom well. We will honor him by ingesting his remains." He clearly doesn't look pleased that you killed his "pet" Otthor.

"Sit" he says.

I'll take my seat after Saerie, settle in and take a spoonful of the soup and a sip of the mug's drink, be it tea or spirits. I need to address what the king said straight-away because it is begging for a response to the offense he has taken. It is potential conflict I need to defuse.

"A noble predator indeed. He served you well as guardian to the back door of your domain. The vast boneyard was testament to that. I have battled more than my share of cavern stalkers who were intent on making a meal of me. He came the closest to it."

I raise my mug in a toast to salute him.

[sblock]Defy Danger (Cha)
4, 3 + 1 = 8

Success but the GM will offer you a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice.[/sblock]

Per Manbearcat

<Confirmed Binks is good with your toast. Saerie will raise her mug.>

The king and his constable raise their mugs and drink to your toast. After the king puts his mug down, he leans forward and you can see frozen air exhale from his lungs, cold enough to briefly cast a layer of frost on the steaming soup before him. "If only he would have been your better" his voice full of ice. You can hear the sound of mailed gloves clinching on polearms, the 5 elite guards sprinkled about the room, none more than three paces from the table, nerves taut.

The mood quickly lightens as the king sits back and says "but it wasn't to be. If he was to perish, it is good to know it was at the hands of a capable warrior rather than pestilence or rotten luck. A good death."

Constable Ozark quietly chimes in with "...he tastes a hell of a lot worse than he fought."

The king chuckles out of the corner of his mouth and gets right back on task. "My loremaster and shaman examined the beast you put down. It breaks down what it consumes quickly, but there were goblin bones still in its guts. They called the creature 'an aberration'. They said it 'wasn't of this world.' I don't know what to make of that. A summoned assassin from a wizard bent on claiming my head?" He says this last bit with a playfully inquisitive, but no less indicting, tone.

I'm searching my accumulated knowledge for a Far Realm creature well known in goblin history.

[sblock]Spout Lore (Int)
1, 3 + 3 = 7

the GM will only tell you something interesting—it’s on you to make it useful.[/sblock]

Per Manbearcat
Lets go with the Phaerimm and a tale of goblin genocide as an entire underdark colony was wiped out when they were used as hosts for their "Aliens-like" hatcheries. Spin a yarn.

I take another drink and regard the king. "Assassin? I don't think so. I'm sure your people are well-versed in the tale of Drikbiyet, the goblin civilization lost to the flying, magic grubs of the Far Realm?" Leading his thoughts, I say "I think the same thing is happening here..."

Per Manbearcat
The king furrows his brow, ponders a moment and looks to his flanking constable. "What do you think?"

To that, the constable says "I'm interested in what she thinks" as he points across the table to Saerie. "She said neither of them are from this world. That they're just here to stop such a threat from the Far Realm that he is talking about. But our spies have long since learned of a female elven ranger protecting Giliad's Rest, the human settlement at the base of the mountain. World's End is peopled with the same folk. Just so happens that we've got two of them, 6 months slave labor, for breaking the law..."

The king looks from the constable to Saerie "that is interesting..."

You're up Binks (I give up on mention tags...they don't bloody work).

[/sblock]

Real low resolution backstory to this situation. The 2 PCs and their hirelings are on their way to Earthmaw (this goblin kingdom) to look for refugees and hopefully gain audience with the dragon that sponsors the kingdom. The Scout role of their Undertake a Perilous Journey fails leading to an encounter with a glacial crevasse that didn't go so well for Otthor. The sleds barely make it out before they fall in...but Otthor is consumed by the deep dark, splashes down in an icey underground river and spills out in the basement of Earthmaw. The other PC (the DW version of Saerie) and the hirelings, having successfully made it to Earthmaw, take the front door. Otthor barely survives an encounter with the guardians and the trash-monsters of Earthmaw (a Darkmantle and a Roper) but having done that, he discovers that immature Aboleths are hunting the Earthmaw residents (Aliens-style). He slays one of them, saves some goblins, audience with the king ensues.

So then. I frame them into the scene and immediately set about doing my job, going on the offensive. I make a move which fills their lives with adventure, portrays a fantastic world, and allows us to "find out what happens" with an immediate potential escalation of the situation and a PC decision-point. As you can see with the GMing, principles, a lot are present with this opening move. The king raised the Darkmantle from a pup and was clearly proud of the creature's contributions to the security of his kingdom (and now they're eating him). As far as the move itself, its basically a combo soft move of "Reveal an Unwelcome Truth" and "Put Someone in a Spot."

So how does the PC respond? He immediately sets about trying to diffuse the potentially volatile situation with a Defy Danger (Charisma) parry:

"A noble predator indeed. He served you well as guardian to the back door of your domain. The vast boneyard was testament to that. I have battled more than my share of cavern stalkers who were intent on making a meal of me. He came the closest to it."

I raise my mug in a toast to salute him.

He rolls a 7-9 which is a success with a complication. So I make a soft move. I "Show Signs of an Approaching Threat." The king states flatly that he wishes Otthor would have died instead, he literally exhales such (obviously supernatural) coldness that it frosts the liquid of his soup, the elite guards are on edge/nerves taut/trigger-happy, and he not so subtly implies that his shamans councilled him that the otherworldly creature was likely summoned by a wizard assassin intent on killing the king...and Otthor is an elven magic-user.

Otthor then "searches his accumulated knowledge for a Far Realm creature well known in goblin history." He makes Spout Lore move but only gets a 7-9. He gets some info but it is on him to make it useful. On a 10 + I'll outright give him some useful info he can use to facilitate his sought end.

I go with "the Phaerimm and a tale of goblin genocide as an entire underdark colony was wiped out when they were used as hosts for their "Aliens-like" hatcheries." He proceeds to make something up about that (establishing world backstory) and attempts to use it to his advantage:

I take another drink and regard the king. "Assassin? I don't think so. I'm sure your people are well-versed in the tale of Drikbiyet, the goblin civilization lost to the flying, magic grubs of the Far Realm?" Leading his thoughts, I say "I think the same thing is happening here..."

So now he is getting somewhere. His intent (really THE intent in a DW social action scene) is to establish leverage on his adversary and make a successful Parley (you know the deal - Diplomacy, Intimidate, et al) move with it. So that is what he is attempting to set up. However, there are some loose ends that need to be addressed that follow from the fiction of the prior scene with Saerie:

Per Manbearcat
The king furrows his brow, ponders a moment and looks to his flanking constable. "What do you think?"

To that, the constable says "I'm interested in what she thinks" as he points across the table to Saerie. "She said neither of them are from this world. That they're just here to stop such a threat from the Far Realm that he is talking about. But our spies have long since learned of a female elven ranger protecting Giliad's Rest, the human settlement at the base of the mountain. World's End is peopled with the same folk. Just so happens that we've got two of them, 6 months slave labor, for breaking the law..."

The king looks from the constable to Saerie "that is interesting..."

So now Saerie is "Put in a Spot" (the spot she created from the prior scene) and we will find where this goes and if the PCs can gain the leverage they're seeking or just flat out ingratiate themselves to the king (eg - "say yes").

---

Alright, clear and transparent play procedures, clear and cogent GMing advice. Anyone who is interested...how vulnerable to illusionism?

 

[S'mon]

D&D started out being neutral (all stats were rolled 3d6), in 1st ed AD&d was non-neutral (there were different rules for generating NPC and PC stats), returned to neutrality in the 2nd ed AD&D and 3E eras (though not fully neutral in 3E, because all PCs are "elite" or some similar notion for points-buy purposes), and then returned to the 1st ed AD&D orientation in 4e.

D&D PCs until 3e were always different from the vast majority of NPCs, who had stat lines like "Normal Man hp 3", a small number of classed NPC individuals would get full stat blocks. I'm not sure that NPC stat gen methods (rarely used in practice) are a significant difference between pre-3e editions.

I think 4e goes much much further than any other edition to treating PCs entirely differently than NPCs, to the extent that 4e NPC stats are only meaningful in relation to the PCs. In pre-4e NPC stats can reasonably be used for NPC/NPC interactions, at least for combat; this generally works poorly in 4e because the stats are
not intended for that purpose. Eg I tried running a 4e mass combat using Minions vs Minions, it created ridiculous effects - because the orc minions for instance got a free attack on death the dwarf minions were deterred from attacking them, and everyone died far too quickly. Conversely a 4e dragon solo vs dragon solo battle is interminable and boring. In pre-4e (or 5e, I think) the monster stats work decently for monster-vs-monster battles.

 

[pemerton]

4e NPC stats are only meaningful in relation to the PCs.

Sometimes not even that. Suppose an NPC, in 4e, has a +10 Intimidate or Diplomacy bonus, what is that meant to mean? At least as the skill challenge rules are written, there is no provision for resolving actions declared for NPCs, so this sort of stat isn't really much more than flavour text.

When I ran a skill challenge involving a Pact Hag, I performed a fairly hard move: at a certain point (maybe in response to a failed check? I can't remember now) I simply told the player of the dwarf that, in response to the hag's instructions, he moved in the room from point A to point B (the reason being that the other hag could then pull the rope that opened the trapdoor the dwarf was now standing on).

I guess some NPC skills could be used to suggest that sort of flavour for non-combat narration.

 

[Manbearcat]

Oh and this thread is rather illuminating as to the pervasiveness of "illusionism as virtue". Well, at least on these boards.

Again, I had long seen the writing on the wall with the new ruleset; (a) the pushback against 4e for its metagame transparency, (b) the 5e designers' advocacy for metagame opacity and "natural language" in their articles/podcasts/etc (then rules), (c) the championing of GM force/illusionism as a technique making a comeback with 5e's playtest (advocated for by players and at least tacitly by designers), (d) the GM as the burgeoning ruleset's primary (not exclusive but very, very much primary) driver of play, (e) which all added up to its look of AD&D3e. I remember calling it the AD&D evolution that many players would have loved in the stead of 3e/4e many a times and getting admonished for it. Now that moniker is used as a term of endearment all over the place and the same people admonishing my (and I think a few others because it is pretty damn obvious) encapsulation of 5e with the descriptor are either perfectly fine with it or silently indifferent (or perhaps silently fist-pumping!).

Just an amusing aside. Carry on.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sometimes not even that. Suppose an NPC, in 4e, has a +10 Intimidate or Diplomacy bonus, what is that meant to mean? At least as the skill challenge rules are written, there is no provision for resolving actions declared for NPCs, so this sort of stat isn't really much more than flavour text.

When I ran a skill challenge involving a Pact Hag, I performed a fairly hard move: at a certain point (maybe in response to a failed check? I can't remember now) I simply told the player of the dwarf that, in response to the hag's instructions, he moved in the room from point A to point B (the reason being that the other hag could then pull the rope that opened the trapdoor the dwarf was now standing on).

I guess some NPC skills could be used to suggest that sort of flavour for non-combat narration.

They can be used to set DCs in certain corner-case situations, like suppose the Goblin King is negotiating with you, but the Ogre Chieftain is sitting at the other end of the table looking intimidating, you could use his skill bonus to set a DC required to portray yourself as the worse of two evils. Mostly though I agree, NPCs rarely get to make skill checks and 'soft' skills (ones that have no obvious combat use) don't really have a strong mechanical reason to exist.

Its kind of interesting that AD&D, which reasonably could have used ability scores for monsters in various ways, had no such thing, but 4e, where they are fairly redundant, has them. I think the difference is more style of presentation than agenda. AD&D codified the game, but it paid a lot of attention to complexity reduction in terms of things like stats and tracking stuff. 4e is rather the opposite, it is profligate in its willingness to make you record things.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh and this thread is rather illuminating as to the pervasiveness of "illusionism as virtue". Well, at least on these boards.

Again, I had long seen the writing on the wall with the new ruleset; (a) the pushback against 4e for its metagame transparency, (b) the 5e designers' advocacy for metagame opacity and "natural language" in their articles/podcasts/etc (then rules), (c) the championing of GM force/illusionism as a technique making a comeback with 5e's playtest (advocated for by players and at least tacitly by designers), (d) the GM as the burgeoning ruleset's primary (not exclusive but very, very much primary) driver of play, (e) which all added up to its look of AD&D3e. I remember calling it the AD&D evolution that many players would have loved in the stead of 3e/4e many a times and getting admonished for it. Now that moniker is used as a term of endearment all over the place and the same people admonishing my (and I think a few others because it is pretty damn obvious) encapsulation of 5e with the descriptor are either perfectly fine with it or silently indifferent (or perhaps silently fist-pumping!).

Just an amusing aside. Carry on.

Absolutely! I said it too, and was greeted on the WotC boards with an offal storm of vituperation. Had 5e been released in 1999 it would have met with universal praise on all sides, and it very well might still be the current edition of the game 15 years later. It really is a pretty clean game. There are a few issues, the skill system is in every way the worse for deviating from 4e's example, but it cleans up and restructures AD&D in a way that avoids many of the pitfalls of 3e. It certainly preserves much of the 'Illusionism' of 2e as you all have aptly put it. In fact it absolutely did it on purpose given that the actual core mechanics are quite well-structured and nailed down, they had to literally go back and unclarify the rules deliberately in order to achieve this feat. I'm not rewarding them for this with purchasing a copy...

 

[Manbearcat]

Absolutely! I said it too, and was greeted on the WotC boards with an offal storm of vituperation. Had 5e been released in 1999 it would have met with universal praise on all sides, and it very well might still be the current edition of the game 15 years later. It really is a pretty clean game. There are a few issues, the skill system is in every way the worse for deviating from 4e's example, but it cleans up and restructures AD&D in a way that avoids many of the pitfalls of 3e. It certainly preserves much of the 'Illusionism' of 2e as you all have aptly put it. In fact it absolutely did it on purpose given that the actual core mechanics are quite well-structured and nailed down, they had to literally go back and unclarify the rules deliberately in order to achieve this feat. I'm not rewarding them for this with purchasing a copy...

I very much agree with all of that. I'm curious what you think about something. Why exactly did people (especially folks who were clearly AD&D fans) work so hard to dissuade the notion that 5e was a modernized extension of the AD&D line?

Part of me sort of looks at the playtest through the prism that it was, in many ways, just a competing effort of various preferences/cultures to control messaging to the designers/the narrative of the playtest such that the "core" (presumably "the spirit of D&D) was theirs. The big tent thing and the bringing all of the D&D cultures together was front and center, full-court-press at the advent of the playtest. So when one group would seem like they were getting catered to specifically, that group would work breathlessly to obfuscate or outright denounce that narrative. You were either wrong or your playstyle/preferences would easily be attainable via the deep stock of robust modules that would be just around the bend in post-core releases....so stop being a chicken little, whiny crybaby!

Call me a cynic, but it looked like OH GOD NO DON'T EXPOSE THE AD&DNESS OF THIS RULESET bunker mentality (for fear that it would be overturned via a cascade of complaints/revolt) during the playtest...and now that its over its more like HELL YEAH AD&D3E (!) or <sheepish, quiet brofist, tee-hee>