D&D General How would you redo 4e?

[James Gasik]

I find it's less the fault of casual players and more about the disrespect the culture has for causals an newbies.

People say newbies don't have the smarts to operate a Barbarian, so fighters have to be boring and casuals can't handle abilities, but then turn around and make DMing a Rorschach test.

I know a guy who is an EMT and good at his job; obviously not an idiot. But I've also watched this same guy who has played TTRPG's since high school fumble at figuring out if he hit or not on his Fighter (as well as calculating his damage) when he's had the same modifiers for four game sessions!

So there is something to be said about some people needing simple options.

 

[Pedantic]

I know a guy who is an EMT and good at his job; obviously not an idiot. But I've also watched this same guy who has played TTRPG's since high school fumble at figuring out if he hit or not on his Fighter (as well as calculating his damage) when he's had the same modifiers for four game sessions!

So there is something to be said about some people needing simple options.

I actually think a lot of this is struggling to index the "dice+mod" system, and then do the necessary math quickly, rather than action paralysis. When you break it down, it's actually a fairly involved multi-step process, particularly if you're not confident enough to turn "my attack roll is +6" into a heuristic.

Digital play, or some kind of self calculating die ,(or die reading system that can put out final numbers) would probably do more for that player than simple options.

 

[Voidmoji]

Unfortunately, D&D is the "big tent" game, so WotC can claim the largest possible market share. So that means even if we don't "think of the casuals", you can bet they will.

As the biggest, most well known RPG by a long shot, it makes sense to me that D&D would have options that cater to people who either prefer simple options, or are new to RPGs in general. And, perhaps 4e could have used some of that in the core rules, rather than the Essentials. I am really not a fan of Essentials, but after seeing someone have fun with a Slayer in a game in which I was a player, it is hard for me to argue that Essentials had no use. From what I understand, there are a couple of classes that are pretty good at being solid, yet simple options, such as the Elementalist. I should go back and reread them.

Rounding back to the original topic, the 4e-inspired game I am working on doesn't have such options fleshed out at the moment. I am not making it to publish (yet...), just for myself, and whomever else might be interested. I am not designing it to cater to a broad audience, or to beginners. And so I don't need to worry about such things.

 

[Voidmoji]

I find it's less the fault of casual players and more about the disrespect the culture has for causals an newbies.

People say newbies don't have the smarts to operate a Barbarian, so fighters have to be boring and casuals can't handle abilities, but then turn around and make DMing a Rorschach test.

As a counter to what I wrote above about simple options in the 800 Pound Gorilla RPG, above, I also agree with this. Some people do need simple options, such as the EMT example above. And, some newbies work best with simple options.

But, it is not a given that newbs need simple options, depending on their background. For example, my girlfriend has never played an RPG, but she has been playing boardgames with me for the last seven years, so she has a fair amount of game experience. And, while I am the first to say that the idea that 4e ripped off WoW is silly, there is no doubt in my mind that my GF who has also been playing WoW through the majority of its content, with multiple character classes, is more prepared to learn 4e-style RPGs than not.

And so, when the day comes that I teach her RPGs, I can safely use my 4e-inspired RPG for her first experience. I would still give her something more on the simple side, but I know that she would likely get very bored with something like the Slayer.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Another point of praise for 4e design. Got decision paralysis? The game tells you what build it recommends, but lets you mix and match if you want.

From level 1.

Instead of making you pick a set once and locking you in... after you wait three levels unless you're playing one of the classes the game cares about.

 

[MwaO]

Sometimes I wonder why it's necessary to limit a player's ability to do "cool fun things" in the first place. Would it get boring to see a Fighter perform "Sweet Sword Strike" every combat? Every turn?

Does it really matter if a Wizard can throw out Magic Missile turn after turn?

If every option is at-will, balancing is much harder. Dishearten is famous for this in 4e —in Epic, a PC could legitimately use that power Augmented 2 every round of most combats, imposing penalties of 7-9 to hit or so. By forcing choice, it allows more choice that then stays within the balance design goals.

Is Shield in 5e a really great spell? Sure. What if you could just cast it max of once a combat? Think about how that swings the balance of 5e games where Shield is considered overpowered.

 

[Undrave]

Because people thirty years ago got it in their heads that resource management is the fun part of the game where you pretend to be a little man who gets real angry and buzzsaws his way through a giant frog with his twin timber axes. And the game has been shackled by that ever since.

Of course, I immediately see the downside. I know some players who can barely manage doing the same thing turn after turn, lol. Decision paralysis is a thing.

Would it be too abstract for people if you just couldn't use your combat maneuvers before using all the other ones? Hmm...

In my home brew I have been playing with the idea of resource tokens that you get per round (Hello Triangle Strategy!), where every round you get a new "Focus Token" and your abilities cost Focus Tokens. So in the fight, you are deciding do I cache my token and use a less effective ability and save up for a 3 Token move, or do I funnel that in to moderate ability?

Ah! Final Fantasy: Four Heroes of Light also has a similar system! You start a battle with 1 AP (Action Point) and gain 1 at the start of every turn. Attacking with your weapon costs 1 AP (I think using items too but I haven't played in a while), Defending is 0 AP, and the various special skills or spells you get have different costs, up to the full 4 AP so you might have to defend for a couple turn.

To add to this, however, is the fact that if you want to cast a spell (like Cura or Firaga) you need to actually carry the spell book that contains the spell! Which takes up an inventory slot. And in Four Heroes of Light you only have 15 of those per character. That's 15 slots for everything: Weapons, armors, shield, healing items (those stacks though) and key items you might need for your quests. So if you want to have a varied collection of spells, you'll need to budget your inventory space.

There's also a fun second order question there around strategic positioning, where you try to determine what kind of decisions you'll be making on your next action as a result of your current choice. Will spending a resource in this moment increase or decrease your optionality in the future?

What if your fancy moves come with exposing a specific weakness? Like 'if you use this special battle technique, you get a penalty to your reflex until the end of your next turn' so you have to make sure not to play into the strengths of your opponent. A system like that could be developed even further, like 'using this move makes you easier to hit with a downward slash type attack' or a 'quick stab type attack' etc.

 

[Voadam]

What if your fancy moves come with exposing a specific weakness? Like 'if you use this special battle technique, you get a penalty to your reflex until the end of your next turn' so you have to make sure not to play into the strengths of your opponent. A system like that could be developed even further, like 'using this move makes you easier to hit with a downward slash type attack' or a 'quick stab type attack' etc.

Like 5e's barbarian reckless abandon ability to give the barbarian advantage on attacks for a round while granting advantage on all attacks against himself.

This is a nice way to give more reasons to switch between multiple at will choices as you consider both advantages and disadvantages of the power and how they apply in the situation.

 

[Laurefindel]

What if your fancy moves come with exposing a specific weakness? Like 'if you use this special battle technique, you get a penalty to your reflex until the end of your next turn' so you have to make sure not to play into the strengths of your opponent. A system like that could be developed even further, like 'using this move makes you easier to hit with a downward slash type attack' or a 'quick stab type attack' etc.

I’m a big fan of these in RPG. Similarly, I also like special techniques that play into the weaknesses of your opponents, so not all of your abilities have the same return in every combats.

Add both together and you could do X to incite your opponent to do Y, setting you up for attack Z which is strong in reaction to Y.

It’d probably be a nightmare of game design however.

 

[James Gasik]

Would it be too abstract for people if you just couldn't use your combat maneuvers before using all the other ones? Hmm...

Tome of Battle did this with the Crusader, if memory serves.