D&D 4E Ben Riggs' "What the Heck Happened with 4th Edition?" seminar at Gen Con 2023

[overgeeked]

See Snarf’s thread for most of this.

Comparing your first paragraph to your second paragraph, it sounds like it does depend – at least in part – on die rolls. Certainly, if you have to build the entire magic system (which can't be intuited the way a battle with swords, etc. can be), then it sounds entirely plausible that it will involve something approximating spell slots and rest/recovery systems also.

Avatar the Last Airbender and Legend of Korra. Bending is a magic system. What are the spell slots and rest/recovery rules? There aren’t any.

It sounds like, at least as far as magic goes, that works a lot better for playing in existing worlds than in original ones.

It’s about the same, honestly. As long as you have a way to onboard the player to the info, it works. You don’t keep how things work a secret unless the character wouldn’t know. How does magic work. Write it down and give it to the magic-using player.

Even then, I can see a lot of disadvantages with regard to people who know the source material better than those who don't. I don't think that "canon lawyers" are nearly as much of a thing as I've heard them made out to be on the internet, but I can see this idea leading to more instances of them. ("Actually, you might want to revise that ruling. The Human Torch did use his powers underwater in Amazing Spider-Man #362.")

Having run a heap of superhero games, yes…lore lawyers are a very real thing.

Because it's not solely a matter of trust. There's going to be areas of legitimate disagreement with regard to how things "should" work, at least when it comes to areas in which the real world doesn't have approximations to work off of.

Yes, of course. That’s why you same page in Session 0 and have actual communication during play when something is a sticking point.

Session 0 can't anticipate every situation that arises.

Of course not. That’s why you talk to each other. Please note that rule systems have the exact same problem. They cannot anticipate every situation that arises…and yet, people still manage to play.

With no objective metric (i.e. a game rule) to fall back on, these disagreements run the risk of (at the very worst) causing a falling out.

You’ve never had people at any of your tables argue over the “objective” rules of a game? How lucky. Game rules are nowhere near as objective as people think. What interrupts a long rest, how stealth works, and various other topics in 5E each have had several threads dedicated to them. We each read the rules and interpret them. Then we assume that interpretation is objective.

I want to stress that I'm not saying that I think FKR is a bad idea; I just can't help but see the potential pitfalls as not being worth the gains, at least in certain aspects of play. It doubtless works very well if you're simulating a Napoleonic battle, but I think I'd like it a whole lot less if it was used for a game of Mutants and Masterminds.

I was a freelancer for M&M. I’ve most often used FKR for superheroes. FKR works infinitely better for superheroes than M&M does.

 

[Mannahnin]

Having run a heap of superhero games, yes…lore lawyers are a very real thing.

Didn't the Marvel Superheroes game have a rule for "power stunts" where if you wanted to use your powers to do some novel thing (say Human Torch shaping a cage made of flame to contain some baddies), you could either a) spend a certain number of Karma points and make a check, and then once you had done it ten times, it became a permanent standard usage of your power, or b) reference ten instances of that hero doing that specific thing in the comics, and it was just allowed?

 

[Pedantic]

See Snarf’s thread for most of this.

Probably best to keep the FKR tangent there, as it's more applicable generally (and because I've already said everything once there).

You’ve never had people at any of your tables argue over the “objective” rules of a game? How lucky. Game rules are nowhere near as objective as people think. What interrupts a long rest, how stealth works, and various other topics in 5E each have had several threads dedicated to them. We each read the rules and interpret them. Then we assume that interpretation is objective.

This is the issue I run into the with FKR stuff. This is neither endemic nor necessary a result of design and it's teeth-grindingly frustrating to assume it is. These are unacceptable problems in other kinds of games; interpretation of rules isn't an ongoing battleground in board games, it's something you do to get to a definitive answer or to point out where additional clarity is needed from a designer or other authority. TTRPGs just aren't that special and most of what gets treated as inevitably rules confusion is simply bad or incomplete design.

 

[Nikosandros]

Well before reading anything about FKR, I've ran a ton of games using what I called free-form and it sounds quite similar. Just describe what you want to do and, when there is a doubt about the outcome, roll a die. It can be really cool.

 

[darjr]

I’ve been thinking of a FKR game but using

Probably best to keep the FKR tangent there, as it's more applicable generally (and because I've already said everything once there).

This is the issue I run into the with FKR stuff. This is neither endemic nor necessary a result of design and it's teeth-grindingly frustrating to assume it is. These are unacceptable problems in other kinds of games; interpretation of rules isn't an ongoing battleground in board games, it's something you do to get to a definitive answer or to point out where additional clarity is needed from a designer or other authority. TTRPGs just aren't that special and most of what gets treated as inevitably rules confusion is simply bad or incomplete design.

You’ve never had anyone try to explain how to play monopoly to you? Ever?

Sorry, I couldn’t resist. I do see how monopoly falls into “bad game design”

 

[Zeromaru X]

The people who liked 4e lost the war, not to the other side, but to the almighty dollar. And so it's become our Lost Cause.

To the almighty dollar and the ultra high expectations of the powers that be...

 

[overgeeked]

Didn't the Marvel Superheroes game have a rule for "power stunts" where if you wanted to use your powers to do some novel thing (say Human Torch shaping a cage made of flame to contain some baddies), you could either a) spend a certain number of Karma points and make a check, and then once you had done it ten times, it became a permanent standard usage of your power, or b) reference ten instances of that hero doing that specific thing in the comics, and it was just allowed?

Something like that, yes. You spend 100 karma to do a stunt. The color result you need for it to work is determined by how many times the character has done it, including referencing the comics. If you do it ten times, no karma or roll to try the stunt. Marvel Super-Heroes is a great system.

 

[Pedantic]

You’ve never had anyone try to explain how to play monopoly to you? Ever?

Sorry, I couldn’t resist. I do see how monopoly falls into “bad game design”

If I had been coerced into playing a game of monopoly somehow (and it would require coercion), at the very least I'd be the player at the table insisting we use the actual auction rules and demanding no one do anything special with free parking.

 

[billd91]

Didn't the Marvel Superheroes game have a rule for "power stunts" where if you wanted to use your powers to do some novel thing (say Human Torch shaping a cage made of flame to contain some baddies), you could either a) spend a certain number of Karma points and make a check, and then once you had done it ten times, it became a permanent standard usage of your power, or b) reference ten instances of that hero doing that specific thing in the comics, and it was just allowed?

It sure wasn't cheap. And that made it hard to do from a narrative sense with any frequency Marvel characters tend to do those sorts of things in the comics.
By comparison, Mutants and Masterminds does it a lot easier by doing it as extra effort. It may cause fatigue which can negated by spending a hero point or resting. In any event, since it's generally cheaper, it's easier to deploy when it narratively makes sense to do so. You don't need to husband a reserve of karma points to do it.

 

[overgeeked]

This is the issue I run into the with FKR stuff. This is neither endemic nor necessary a result of design and it's teeth-grindingly frustrating to assume it is.

It’s a result of poorly written rules, rules that don’t properly cover the potential actions, and honest misinterpretation of those rules.

These are unacceptable problems in other kinds of games; interpretation of rules isn't an ongoing battleground in board games, it's something you do to get to a definitive answer or to point out where additional clarity is needed from a designer or other authority.

What happens when people disagree about the rules in a board game or wargame? They argue, read the rules again, and/or table it and roll dice to see which interpretation they will go with for now and look it up later. Happens all the time. To the point where some board games and wargames have that rolling to decide who's right for now as part of the rules, see Warhammer.

Two things. One, the mention of authority is key. You only need an authority to make the call. Whether that's a rulebook or the referee sitting at the table or the dice, it doesn't actually matter.

Two, importantly, board games are not RPGs. Board games are incredibly limited compared to RPGs. You do not have tactical infinity, the ability to try anything, in a board game. You do in RPGs. So the rules of RPGs are inherently under far more pressure than the rules of a board game. Their boundaries and limits are constantly tested and stretched and broken. Shenanigans is seen as a pillar of play by some.

TTRPGs just aren't that special and most of what gets treated as inevitably rules confusion is simply bad or incomplete design.

Bad design, yes. But no design for an RPG can be complete if it's trying to cover all the weirdness players will inevitably get up to with specific rules for everything. At least no game with any real mechanical crunch will ever be "complete" in that regard. Fate games are complete because they have a few rules that cover everything. PbtA games are complete because they are thematically focused and only have rules to cover that focus. Things like D&D? Nope. When you can do anything you either need infinite rules (incredibly bad idea and impossible) or you need focused rules that cover what the game is actually about (if that's where you think D&D is, then D&D is only a monster fighting game), or you toss it all and just trust the players at the table and have a good time.