D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[AbdulAlhazred]

One issue is that if you want a fairly complete, clear/balanced/playable sort of system, you want to focus on what the characters can accomplish (because, as a DM, you are putting challenges in their way, and because for anything you might accomplish in an RPG, there are a /lot/ of ways to accomplish it), than on the minutiae of how they might accomplish it. Skill systems by their nature, tend more on the kinds of things you can do, than what you accomplish by doing them. Rather than have hide in cover, move silently, camouflage, woodcraft, shadowing, and a variety of other skills that might help you avoid detection, you'd have a "hidden" result, and the character's details would influence /how/ he becomes hidden (hide behind something, act like he belongs there, cast an invisibility spell, flick on his SEP field). In 4e terms, "skill" might be more like a Source that applied in exploration & interaction.

So, you would what, put a 'stealthy' descriptor on the character and then open up these various talents to characters with that descriptor? So the character could elect to 'exercise stealth' in any situation and the details would depend on other descriptors the character has? Is it materially different from 4e's 'Stealth' where any of the things would be feasible to a character with a good bonus? I guess I can see arranging it a bit more firmly in the sphere of modus operandi and even less in the realm of 'things you know'.

 

[Imaro]

Its no different than the combat system, which weapon you swing is simply a detail, the weapon is the vehicle and the attack and its results are the important thing. You don't use a separate skill to attack with each weapon. At most you get a small bonus to attacks with specific weapons you are especially adept with. This is no different.

Actually the weapon does matter, in every edition a general rule is that ranged attacks are made with a different attack ability modifier than melee weapon attacks. From at least 3e and possibly earlier different weapons can also have different properties that mechanically affect the game... damage is determined in almost every edition by weapon type and so on... The weapon you are using is usually much more than a detail...

Why wouldn't you roll Diplomacy. CHA is the stat that deals with relating to other people, and this is a form of relationship to others, there's no better thing than a CHA check, and (at least in 4e) any CHA based skill is a CHA check, potentially with some modifiers. This fits with the concept that a limited skill list is a set of MOs, the character's approach to doing things, not a list of very specific knowledge.

So when I hear a song on a CD it's the charisma anc ability of the artist to relate to me personally as opposed to his actual musical talent that either does or doesn't invoke feelings from what he's performed? I find that pretty hard to believe... I think the problem with your way of it just being a Cha check is that instead of allowing the player to creatively do it his way (through the power of his music) and through that influence the mechanical representation you are dictating (or claiming it doesn't matter which is essentially in this case the same thing) the how (mechanically) something must be done... one can only influence people in this particular way (through the Cha ability)... that seems too rigid and too stifling. IMO if a character wants to use his adeptness in music to soothe the savage beast it should be based on his character's music skill and not on his Animal Handling skill... this is why for me the how does matter. I also think it's this "how doesn't matter thinking" that leads to ... I Diplomacize him because as you said the how doesn't matter... right so why do I even need to state it if it has no bearing on the actual game?

Again, these make perfectly good sense, this is what you are accomplishing. The system is about supporting characterization. Still, who better to convey threat than someone adept at making threats? It all makes perfectly good sense. I guess you could turn them all into Insight checks if you are really determined, but Charisma really IS about connecting to people. That's what it is for. Does it REALLY matter what instrument you play or how well you play it? Is there really any doubt that a proficient player will play proficiently? Its not like this is a test of whether you're good at playing or not, your character can be as good as you wish to be, it is a matter of if you are EFFECTIVE.

And in his medium he is, thus he gets to use the general intimidate skill... however you hand a threatening goon a lute who has no skill at playing and he can't even play in order to compose a scary song. Why would being intimidating auto-imply a propensity for composing good and scary songs? It actually doesn't make any sense at all... I'm not trying to be scary I am trying to create the scariest song I can, and I'm sorry but in order to do that you need musical talent.

I agree with your last sentence it is about whether you're effective or not... are you able to play effectively enough to accomplish what you want or are you just not good enough... and no being proficient in an instrument does not auto-imply that you are that good at playing it... IMO that is what we are trying to see when a character tries to use the playing of an instrument to try and accomplish something, that is his challenge... does he play well enough this time for the music to have the desired effect he wants.

Yes, to be successful you have to have good Charisma. Is that really not logical? What other characteristic of your character would be tied to success in a social endeavor?

When did invoking feelings through music become a "social endeavor"? In our current age a digital download can do this with no social interaction from the artist whatsoever...

4e allows you to construct 5 background elements from different categories for your character. Its an open-ended list, you can add anything you want, and the official background elements include plenty that reasonably allow for playing an instrument (including things like profession: musician). I'm not as familiar with the 5e backgrounds, but surely some of them now grant 'tool proficiency: instrument' do they not? How else do you get that?

Okay a Background is a specific thing in both 4e and 5e and in neither one is there a "fidler" background which was what you asserted... but let's say there was... in 5e it would give you prof when playing the fiddle... what skill would it give you a +2 for in 4e?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So, in my game, the players couldn't have made meaningful decisions that result in them being too late. (Short of saying "Well, bugger the prisoners - we'll go and do something else.") There's no illusionism in framing them into the climax of the sacrifice - because there is no prior engagement with the mechanics or the fiction whose significance and outcome are being covertly manipulated.

I know that 4E has very short rests, explicitly so that characters won't have to worry about whether there's time to rest or not. What about ... enchanting an item, or something? I seem to recall that making a magic item takes about an hour.

If the party needed to get there tonight, because the sacrifice was going to take place tonight, would an hour-long break for enchantment constitute abandonment of the quest? Or would they still show up right in time for it to be dramatically appropriate?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Illusionism will always matter or not depending on agenda (this being the type of meaningful decisions you want), it seems to me. If the first agenda is not important to you but the second is, then the "turn left/right" illusion won't bother you at all, but one concerning a plot twist will. If, on the other hand, the first agenda is really your main focus but the second is really not why you play, then the left/right illusion will screw with your head, whereas a pre-scripted plot twist will not - it will just be part of the interesting, intricate "thing" you explore, and then get to admire afterwards.

First off, really good post. Worthy of XP.

Second, I think I don't want "illusionism" in either case, in so much as I can avoid it. I think I'm probably more extreme than many others on this front, though.

Third, great post. Worth repeating

 

[JamesonCourage]

Heh. If that's a simple concept, that sure wasn't a simple way of describing it. Maybe:

"If the DM assures the player that they'll be playing by the rules, but ignores the rules, having everything happen just the way he intended beforehand, /and/ gets away with the deception, that's 'Illusionism?'" Close, Manbearcat?

Not what I thought he was getting at, before, though. Just fudging a roll now and then, or ruling that a player can(not) do something that the rules fail to cover, wouldn't fit that definition.

That isn't what I thought he was getting at before, either. And I really, really don't like limiting illusionism to rules-only interactions. There are many other things that the rules don't necessarily cover where I think illusionism shines best.

I am curious what [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s thought on this is, though.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, it IS in a club by itself when it comes to clarity of the skill system, certainly for D&D.

When it comes to clarity in general, though, so that's not really saying a whole lot.

Its quite precise when it comes to doing things 'in action'. There's a specific skill which is almost always clearly indicated which will apply, a designated way to calculate a DC, and modifiers which indicate the most likely adjustments to that DC, plus precise rules for things like conditions and effects which would likely supply other modifiers, assistance from others, etc.

The way it seems to me is that the 4e designers took the universe of 'things a character in an heroic fantasy story might do, that might actually accomplish something heroic' and cut it up into what they hoped might be not-too-unequal pieces, and called each wedge a skill. It gets vague when an action is close to the border-line between wedges, or not quite in the imagined universe of heroic (or, at least, adventuring) things.

IMHO, it might be improved if they started with the second half, 'things you might accomplish,' and let the how slide with the individual character concept....

I think I lost the thread a bit here, but backstory has been quite strong for us in 4e. In fact much more so than in previous days. 1e was especially dry in my experience. 2e not quite so much as often you kinda had to knit its crazy borked mechanics together with SOMETHING, but 4e backstory has been gold. I've had 2 players write 1000's of words on their characters backstory, and it was GOOD!

One factor may be that a more fully realized concept supports more backstory. If you're an old-school 1st level 'veteran,' your backstory can't exactly involve many battles (or you'd be higher level - or dead), if your concept won't be realized until 6th level, then level 1-5 are going to end up being your backstory (and may not suggest your build or concept, at all, assuming you even stuck to it).

So, you would what, put a 'stealthy' descriptor on the character and then open up these various talents to characters with that descriptor? So the character could elect to 'exercise stealth' in any situation and the details would depend on other descriptors the character has? Is it materially different from 4e's 'Stealth' where any of the things would be feasible to a character with a good bonus? I guess I can see arranging it a bit more firmly in the sphere of modus operandi and even less in the realm of 'things you know'.

Maybe. I'm thinking more like how powers work in Hero. Could be a bad example, because it's too much like invisibility. Maybe what I'm really saying is games shouldn't have skill systems at all. That there are things anyone can do - lots of the, including most things encompassed by most 'skill systems' - and things that are more unique that PCs can make choices to gain for their characters. When you make something as everyman as a skill like 'stealth' into one of the latter, you make everyone who doesn't take it bad at stealth.

 

[Manbearcat]

You're going to have to speak to me like I'm twelve, or I'm not going to be able to respond to this as well as I'd like to.

GIRLS! VIDEO GAMES! PUBERTY OH NO!

Let me try again down below going back to examples.

Heh. If that's a simple concept, that sure wasn't a simple way of describing it. Maybe:

"If the DM assures the player that they'll be playing by the rules, but ignores the rules, having everything happen just the way he intended beforehand, /and/ gets away with the deception, that's 'Illusionism?'" Close, Manbearcat?

Yeah, unfortunately I don't possess the brilliance of Feynman. My ability to capture difficult concepts in a few words is quite limited. I do my best but I usually turn into King Caveat, trying to foresee possible misunderstandings three conversations down the line. Oh well.

The above is pretty good. But I would sub rules (because it sort of implies just PC build + resolution mechanics) for system. That would encapsulate techniques (fudging or using fail-forward when the system doesn't advocate for it or expressly forbids it) and agenda (play to find out what happens vs run through the metaplot of an AP) along with rules. If rules means all of those things to you though, then rules is good to go. It just needs to be broad enough.

And all that stuff needs to mesh coherently. For instance, you can't cite player agency or "play to find out what happens" as imperatives of your play agenda when you deploy duplicitous techniques which clash with, or outright upend, those tenets.

On with that example. Ok, let us go back to AD&D again and the Find Natural Shelter mechanics. When I was young, I liked to sit in on various GMs' games to observe their craft (rather than play) so I can "learn from the pros" and hone my own craft. This is my best recollection (should be spot on) of one of those anecdotes. Hopefully it highlights illusionism.

Players collectively: "Oh man, the ruins have to be somewhere on this mountain. I've still got most of my HPs. Lets push on and can camp inside there. There should be less chance of random encounters, we can have a defensible camp and get out of this downpour."

"But I've burned almost all of my spells at this point. That last combat with those wyverns ate up 2 of my last 4! If we don't find it real soon, we'll be in trouble!"

<More deliberating over pushing on or seeking a shelter for the night to rest and recover. The Fighter loses the argument and the players decide seek shelter and declare that action to the GM.>

GM: Alright, it will take 3 turns to try to find shelter, but you've got a pretty good chance. <reveals to them it is 40 %> There aren't a whole lot of monsters left on this mountain...but remember the legend that this place is founded upon? The cabal of wizards whose ruins you're seeking trapped this mountain with all kinds or protective glyphs...and their "twisted experiments" were set free in the cataclysm that claimed them. You haven't run into either of those yet!

<Now he doesn't tell them the frequency with which he is checking for random encounters, but I know. It is once every 3 turns.>

Fighter Player: Hey, I've got mountaineering. That should help us Find a Natural Shelter, shouldn't it?

<Now the rules are utterly silent on when/how/and to what effect the Mountaineering skill might interface with the Find Natural Shelter conflict resolution mechanics. However, after some negotiation between player and GM, it is agreed that if he rolls a success, the GM will add an extra 10 % to the chance, taking it to 50 %. It was negotiated to be Wisdom - 1, or something, because mountaineering doesn't have a check/AS associated with it. Up to this point, this all seemed to be sensible to me and was obviously above board.>

Fighter rolls below his Wisdom - 1. So now Find Natural Shelter is a 50 % chance....allegedly.

GM: Rolls behind the screen for a random encounter for the 3 turns of exploration. Now he rolls behind the screen for Find Natural Shelter. The percentile dice came up as 42 (pretty sure...it was in the 40s so it doesn't much matter). That should mean that they have now Found Natural Shelter and can rest and recover with no further exploration and a massively reduced random encounter threat.

Except no. He narrates the resolution pretty well and portends some ominous signs of lurking abominations...but also no secured shelter.

Players: Bummed but decide to give it a go again. This time the Fighter fails his mountaineering check, a saving throw versus petrification is made for loosed rocks during an ascent. Fighter actually fails and loses a few HPs for his trouble.

GM: Now it is time to check for the 1 in 3 turn random encounter. Rolls behind screen. Again, this fails to yield a random encounter. Except no. GM ignores the dice again and fakes rolling on his random table and goes straight to this abomination encounter that he had planned with the aforementioned twisted experiments.

He then fudged rolls (and probably HPs...I couldn't keep track of that...but it seemed like it) on the encounter with the abominations in order to avoid a TPK.

When I asked him about this after the session, he came up with classic illusionism justification (his idea of what would be fun and what would keep his players fearful, paranoid, and on the edge of their seats)...and then told me not to tell his players.

Player agency has been subordinated entirely to covert GM force. There are several issues at work here:

* Because the rules are silent on mountaineering's impact on the conflict resolution mechanics of Find a Natural Shelter (incoherent with the system's own resolution mechanics which they should interface directly with...AD&D was rife with this), we've got a negotiated roll for mountaineering's effect. Except there is no effect because the GM doesn't honor one or both of the Find a Natural Shelter resolution mechanics or the Fighter's well earned augment.

* Worse yet, we find out that there is actually ONLY a penalty for the Fighter player declaring an action to augment the FaNS check. When he fails the second time around, he actually loses HPs.

* Finally, the GM fudges the 2nd random encounter roll, then determines via fiat (rather than resolving on the table) that it is going to be this uber nasty encounter with these arcane abominations from the wizard cabal ruins.

This is all with a group (1) already on the ropes resource-wise, (2) who have declared an action to FaNS rather than push on for the ruins, (3) who have risked fallout (and taken it) from an impromptu "ruling" that turns out to be all cost no benefit, (4) and then rightfully won an opportunity to FaNS again without another (any...but especially not a nasty one) encounter...but faced one, and a nasty one. The agency that the players thought they actually had to propel the fiction by the merits of their decision-making (and that decision-making interfacing with the fair application of the resolution mechanics) was utterly illusory.

Because the GM thought it would be fun and would keep his players fearful, paranoid, and on the edge of their seats.

Hopefully that helps.

 

[Manbearcat]

That isn't what I thought he was getting at before, either. And I really, really don't like limiting illusionism to rules-only interactions. There are many other things that the rules don't necessarily cover where I think illusionism shines best.

I am curious what [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s thought on this is, though.

This is the same query [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] posed above. [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] addresses this nicely. Again, illusionism is a diverse practice in GMing that is really contingent upon system (which is why I like that better than rules) and that system's play agenda. In an exploration/sim based system (with all that agenda entails), covertly/opaquely rendering impotent player strategic decision-making because it doesn't fit the GM's own mental model (even if that mental model is flat wrong and the player is correct) is illusion. The same goes for when the GM covertly subordinates the resolution mechanics (that result from declared player action and/or resource expenditure) because they think they have a better idea of how things should go. The two cases are rarely in a vacuum in such games as things tend to snowball; eg once one case of illusionism occurs, another is likely to occur thereafter (either to perpetuate the situation or to equilibrate it bake if things go really haywire).

The only real way I can think of illusionism happening in a Story Now engine (without the mechanics being consulted) is if the GM repeatedly uses the offscreen to put a very specific thing at stake (that isn't the premise of the game) that the player has already rightly won the security of (maybe more than once). An example of this might be an NPC who does or does not count as a resource/asset die for the player's character. If it does not have anything to do with the mechanics (eg the NPC isn't a mechanical resource to be leveraged), it may just be the GM trying to clumsily force emotion upon the player. In this case the illusionism is brought bear by the GM's purview over the offscreen and scene framing and the player's agency stolen because they can never ensure security of this important NPC. Again though, this sort of GMing would be so ham-handed and clumsy...so bloody obvious and ineffectual (in terms of engaging in the point of play and anything resembling fun)...they would be roundly derided (and rightly so) to the point that they would shut it down or learn how to friggin properly GM a Story Now game.

However, if testing this thing is the actual premise of the game, then the GM is supposed to be repeatedly either creating situations where this at stake or making offers to the player to possibly stake it themselves. This might be humanity, sanity, reputation, the fate of the flock, or your very life. That can never be illusionism.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The above is pretty good. But I would sub rules (because it sort of implies just PC build + resolution mechanics) for system. That would encapsulate techniques (fudging or using fail-forward when the system doesn't advocate for it or expressly forbids it) and agenda (play to find out what happens vs run through the metaplot of an AP) along with rules. If rules means all of those things to you though, then rules is good to go. It just needs to be broad enough.

'System,' sure, is more inclusive of everything the game presents. I tend to think of 'agenda' more as something players (including DMs) bring to the table than something that the a given system necessarily forces or blocks.

It's starting to sound pretty close to just "DM being a jerk" and I can see how maybe making that a little harder on the jerk DM (more evident to the players) would be something you'd like about 4e.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So, in my game, the players couldn't have made meaningful decisions that result in them being too late. (Short of saying "Well, bugger the prisoners - we'll go and do something else.") There's no illusionism in framing them into the climax of the sacrifice - because there is no prior engagement with the mechanics or the fiction whose significance and outcome are being covertly manipulated.

Again, what is the illusion?

I think what they're calling an 'illusion' is the entire plotline of your story arc. Its an 'illusion' that there is going to be a sacrifice and the arrival of the PCs at the critical juncture is the DM fiat, do you see? If the PCs were to say flog their horses to death (or whatever) in order arrive at the temple sooner would you change the situation when they got there? It sounds like the answer is no, at least not unless the players explicitly expressed that they were intent on arriving with extra time to spare. Even then you might still simply have that time be 'the nick of time'. To YOU its all meaningful in terms of the players directing the plot and you managing the pacing and tension, but to the simulationist mindset its all illusionary hokum, there's no 'real world', no objective time lines and whatnot written down.

Of course not even Gygax really did that, much. If you read all the old classic AD&D modules they're almost always arranged so that each room of any plot significance is described as being at a point of maximum drama. You arrive at the Suderholm arena just in time for the big fight, the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief just as the big banquet is getting going, etc. There's no provision in any of these materials for an advancing plot. A few places have timers, a few may have a note about revisiting or visiting at a very different point in time, but fundamentally you always get to a place and its description matches the current situation unless things have changed radically and then its up to the DM to decide on the spot.

Anyway, I'm just noting how in a simulationist agenda there are quite a few more ways to 'cheat' than you would account. Much of what you do is anathema to them.