D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[Quickleaf]

The game mechanics for the conditions work almost like building blocks. Each progressive condition gets a better payoff for the attacker and a worse penalty for the target.

I believe [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] even modified the pg. 42 table to include conditions on it. Using it you could ad-hoc those effects as part of an improvised attack. This goes a long way in demonstrating the flexibility and robustness of the base system.

Yes I did indeed; it's the DM Cheat Sheet below in my sig.

One thing nice about 5e is the Exhaustion track which sort of takes the dazed condition and some of the others from 4e that were less "self-standing concepts" and incorporates them into a track. A lot of us 4e kit-bashers often commented online that if we were to do an OGL compliant rework of 4e we'd include something like a condition track. 5e strikes a nice balance IMO with both unique conditions, an exhaustion track, and some exceptions-based design.

I agree that 4e is a very robust system. For example, folks often comment it is bad for emulating old school dungeon crawl explorations (the "heart" of D&D) because the combats take too long and don't present the opportunity for player ingenuity to overcome great odds. My experience running Dragon Mountain - and that is one old school mega dungeon - was that there are strategies a DM can use (without breaking the rules, in fact using them fully & favoring certain encounter design) to get an awesome old school vibe with 4e.

However, I would say the 4e system's strength is a more cinematic style of play, which makes sense considering Star Wars SAGA was where the designers explored several ideas that made it into 4e.

My only complaint about the system is the combat complexity that was built into the classes and the "sameness" of many powers. Greatest time drags at my table always came on the player end, usually picking powers in the "right" combo.

If I were to redesign the 4e system I would deemphasize combat as the sole thing encompassed by character class, freeing up room to make powers more unique, and focus my efforts on the player end of things.

As a DM I found 4e just awesome. I've gotten pretty good at creating 5e monsters but 4e monster creation is still a breeze comparatively...5e monster design is more complicated, mainly due to DPR calculations and spell selection for casters, but also because of the fiddly bumps to offense CR / defense CR calculations based on Attack, AC, and feature multipliers.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

More immediately, though, the claim is that the player is being "clever". Really? What have they actually achieved? Have they solved some objectively difficult puzzle? Have they grappled with a genuine mathematical or scientific problem the solution to which has eluded great minds for years? Or have they struck on some particular fant'sy that one individual (the GM) finds entertaining, convincing or cool?

PCs are rarely confronted with mathematical or scientific problems. PCs are routinely tasked with solving problems like "save the princess" or "stop the opposing army". Being clever, in this sort of situation, generally involves finding a solution that is less than obvious. Instead of navigating through the spooky woods and sneaking past the army to confront the Big Bad, the clever player might go in the opposite direction to seek the aid of a powerful water spirit, to flood the plains and drown the army. Or convert the stone under 70% of the general's tower to mud, such that it collapses under its own weight.

The DM is a neutral arbiter. Convincing the DM that something is entertaining or cool would be a pointless endeavor, unless you're playing some sort of the game where the DM isn't trying to be neutral (in which case, good luck with that, and I have nothing further to say on the topic). The player need only convince the DM that the solution should work, based on the established actions and natural laws, and the knowledge of known and unknown variables. If it doesn't work, then the player (or PC) has committed an error, or one of the known unknowns (or unknown unknowns) is something other than what the player thinks it is; this is a failure to be sufficiently clever. There might be some element of gambling here, but the risk should generally be much lower than what would be faced with the straightforward solution.

A roleplaying game without any conflict - just like any story without any conflict - would be a nonentity. The reason we only tell stories that involve conflict is that conflict is what engages our minds; it is, psychologically, what makes us tick.

I didn't say that conflict was unavoidable. I said that it should be avoided.

An idealized game of Dungeons & Dragons might involve four individuals-of-disparate-skill-set wandering into an abandoned ruin, where they analyze the clues at hand, prevent traps from going off, and run away before monsters spot them. Alternatively, they might leave their own traps for the monsters to encounter, or set up an ambush where they can kill the monsters without fear of repercussion.

Where conflict exists, it should be minimized.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I appreciated that with 4e they were willing to explore all the various permutations of things instead of AD&D's attitude of "Nope, we decided that D&D has this particular flavor in which dwarves never use magic!" I got it, and tossing out those sorts of rules wasn't all that hard, but it still violated my sense of game-as-toolbox.

Um. I think 4e is still obviously limited in the types of flavor it allows. Which, presumably, is what it wants to do (that's what most non-point-buy, non-toolbox games want to do). It limits what you can do, what you can use, etc., rather than leaving it up to you.

For example, my RPG has no races at its core, but it has rules on making them; this allows for whatever you want to make using the rules. It's a true toolbox. Same thing goes for games like Hero or Mutants and Masterminds or whatever. But games like D&D -which have a particular flavor with a particular sort of setting in mind- must necessarily place limits on things in order to achieve the flavor they want. In my opinion, D&D isn't really meant to be a game-as-toolbox. I maybe thought 3.X was meant that way at one point, years and years ago, but after using my system, M&M, etc., I just can't reasonably hold that position anymore.

Limiting flavor isn't in any way inherently bad. I'm just pointing out that 4e does it constantly, just as prior editions did. And, to the original point that spawned this little diversion, me codifying Epic-abilities would necessarily limit flavor, yes. But that's something that nearly all RPGs strive for, because it defines setting and produces a particular kind of game. So I'm okay with the hypothetical Epic-level RPG of mine doing exactly that.

 

[innerdude]

I guess that does suggest a 'favorite thing about 4e' that's also a mixed blessing: I like that it was robust enough that I could run sessions, scenarios, or even campaigns that:

- featured only 1 encounter per literal day, and not every day
- were decidedly 'low' magic, whether low-magic-item, or genuinely low magic
- features a party all using the same source, even all-martial
- let players choose the character concept they want rather than the one the party 'needed'
- keep everyone participating in both combat and non-combat
- featured challenging, playable battles with anything from a single, vastly superior foe, to hordes of lesser ones

Funny enough, I gravitated to a system that does those exact same things, only I no longer have to put up with the restrictions of class- and level-based advancement, the wonkiness of Vancian magic, or the aggravation of hit point tracking, all without having to deal with the vast majority of 4e's process sim/verisimilitude/dissociation problems.

Savage Worlds FTW.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Limiting flavor isn't in any way inherently bad. I'm just pointing out that 4e does it constantly, just as prior editions did.

Sure, D&D has always been a fantasy game. It's just gone from fantasy game of crawling through dungeons evading traps, killing monsters, and jockeying for the best loot, to emphasizing various fantasy settings, to competitive meta-game of fantasy character builds, to heroic fantasy, to well, whatever 5e shapes up to be.

d20, OTOH, was more genric.
It would've been nice to see what could have been done with 4e if it had been as open.

Funny enough, I gravitated to a system that does those exact same things, only I no longer have to put up with the restrictions of class- and level-based advancement, the wonkiness of Vancian magic, or the aggravation of hit point tracking, all without having to deal with the vast majority of 4e's process sim/verisimilitude/dissociation problems.

Savage Worlds FTW.

I've tried Savage Worlds. It's, well, fine as far as it goes. Very rules lite.

I didn't notice it being as free of balance, abstraction, and playability as the process sim/verisimilitude/DS crowd typically seem to demand, though.

 

[Balesir]

The DM is a neutral arbiter.

That is not something that a human being can achieve, when it comes to the workings of the real world, never mind a world conceived in the fancy of that same "neutral arbiter". If you want evidence of this I can quote references, but I'm not sure I want to spend the time on it. Just start with Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow" and work out to some perceptual mechanisms stuff and Elizabeth Loftus on memory. There are several "popular science" books and a plethora of academic papers you could read to get the basic grounding (Edit: as well as at least one TED talk).

Convincing the DM that something is entertaining or cool would be a pointless endeavor, unless you're playing some sort of the game where the DM isn't trying to be neutral (in which case, good luck with that, and I have nothing further to say on the topic). The player need only convince the DM that the solution should work

You can't convince someone they are entertained or find something cool - what I meant was that you need to do one of three things:

1) entertain the GM,

2) describe something the GM finds cool, or

3) convince the GM that the plan absolutely is realistic and would work.

Achieving this last one has little to no correlation with whether the thing actually is realistic or practical. You don't have to actually do it, you just have to convince the GM that your character(s) could do it. That's a social endeavour, not a mental or problem-solving one. The judgement is one in the nature of an art contest or pet show, not an objective determination of whether or not the plan will work. Nothing wrong with that as a game process, but I think it's better if we are honest about its nature.

 

[Balesir]

An idealized game of Dungeons & Dragons might involve four individuals-of-disparate-skill-set wandering into an abandoned ruin, where they analyze the clues at hand, prevent traps from going off, and run away before monsters spot them. Alternatively, they might leave their own traps for the monsters to encounter, or set up an ambush where they can kill the monsters without fear of repercussion.

That sounds like a situation stuffed full of conflict, to me! Analysing clues is a conflict; so is finding and neutralising traps, spotting "monsters" before they get you and running away. Trap setting and ambushes speak for themselves, I think...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That is not something that a human being can achieve, when it comes to the workings of the real world, never mind a world conceived in the fancy of that same "neutral arbiter".

Like I said before, nobody is perfect. As long as the DM is trying, and is aware of probable biases, then the end result will be good enough.

Achieving this last one has little to no correlation with whether the thing actually is realistic or practical. You don't have to actually do it, you just have to convince the GM that your character(s) could do it. That's a social endeavour, not a mental or problem-solving one.

You are factually incorrect on this point. It is way easier to convince the DM of something that is actually practical than to convince the DM of something that is completely unrealistic. It's easier to convince the DM that I can run a mile in ten minutes, than that I can jump to the Moon.

Assuming basic competence on the part of all parties, then as long as you aren't trying to deceive the DM into believing something which you believe to be un-true, then the endeavor is more of a problem-solving one than a social one. It might not be perfectly true within our own reality, whose physical laws we have not entirely finished documenting, but it's a legitimate problem-solving effort as defined within the work-space model defined by the DM.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That sounds like a situation stuffed full of conflict, to me! Analysing clues is a conflict; so is finding and neutralising traps, spotting "monsters" before they get you and running away. Trap setting and ambushes speak for themselves, I think...

Fair enough. I should have said "dramatic conflict" should be avoided. As others were saying, the rules of 4E are designed to create dramatic conflict with uncertain results. Meanwhile, players should avoid any sort of dramatic conflict which might lead to uncertainty.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Meanwhile, players should avoid any sort of dramatic conflict which might lead to uncertainty.

So, they shouldn't roll up adventurers?