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

[Snarf Zagyg]

See, they do, if they are consistent and in line with the intended play/narrative experience. Of course, in practise, most RPG rules are utter trash, and the added minutia just detracts from the experience.

I disagree. What you mean is that if the table has agreed to limit the play/narrative experience, either through agreed table buy-in or through the table agreeing to limit it due to the adoption of a limited play experience provided by those rules, then that consistency happens.

But that's not a function of the rules qua rules. That's a function of the a priori limiting.

Put another way- running an AP is not a railroad if the table agrees to run the AP. Blades in the Dark is a great match of ruleset to fiction, but that's because everyone has already agreed to run a heist game in Duskvol.

 

[darjr]

This issue came up in 4e, and a question was asked about it of the designers. The answer that came back was (paraphrased), "Do what the rules say, and come up with an explanation for it". That's the difference to me. 4e's official stance was that the rules are more important.

Not just more important. Fiction didn’t matter.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I posit that D&D was originally directly intended to emulate Leiber, Howard, Burroughs, and Tolkien, and to facilitate dungeon exploration with multiple encounters between retreats from the dungeon. That it is intended to support a narrowly-won duel to the death followed by a chase and then another challenging battle. And that historically the rate of healing has been unable to keep up with the pace of action desired by many players and DMs, without the kludge of making piles of healing spells and magic potions available all the time so you can SKIP/circumvent the regular healing rules. And that this desire for such a faster pace of action is exactly why the healing rate has steadily accelerated in every single new edition from 1974 through today (5E took a slight step backwards from 4E, but is still much faster than 3.x).

I get that you're comfortable with 1E (well, your extensively houseruled 1E), and thus have evidently accommodated to its healing rules and come to accept them as "how D&D works". But the designers of every edition since 1974 have, in apparent response to players' desire to have the game better emulate heroic fantasy media (books as well as action fantasy movies), kept accelerating it.

A trend I will continue to see as unpalatable, no matter how many people like it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I feel like the game focus should be in the Monster Manual equally so since the MM is for the Game Master's use and not the players' leisurely reading. I need monsters stats and such to be clear and easy to read and use. I can make up my own lore for the monsters.

A huge part of the lore of the game can be found in monster books, especially lore-heavy ones like the 2e Monstrous Manual (my all-time favorite). I value that part greatly, because it is interesting and inspiring. The statblocks themselves fill a necessary function, but IMO they're not the most important part of a monster book, and we don't need to prioritize writing them like a technical manual over discussing what they are and their place in the world.

What about the DMs leisurely reading? I can't tell you how many game books I've read for pleasure.

 

[pemerton]

Not just more important. Fiction didn’t matter.

4e DMG p 66:

Usually, it doesn’t matter what kind of attack you make against an object: Damage is damage. However, there
are a few exceptions.

All objects are immune to poison damage, psychic damage, and necrotic damage.

Objects don’t have a Will defense and are immune to attacks that target Will defense.

Some unusual materials might be particularly resistant to some or all kinds of damage. In addition, you might rule that some kinds of damage are particularly effective against certain objects and grant the object vulnerability to that damage type. For example, a gauzy curtain or a pile of dry papers might have vulnerability 5 to fire because any spark is likely to destroy it.​

4e DMG pp 73-75:

When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this . . . skill play a part in the challenge, go for it. . . . Always keep in mind that players can and will come up with ways to use skills you do not expect. . . .

Sometimes, a player tells you, “I want to make a Diplomacy check to convince the duke that helping us is in his best interest.” That’s great—the player has told you what she’s doing and what skill she’s using to do it. Other times, a player will say, “I want to make a Diplomacy check.” In such a case, prompt the player to give more information about how the character is using that skill. Sometimes, characters do the opposite: “I want to scare the duke into helping us.” It’s up to you, then, to decide which skill the character is using and call for the appropriate check. . . .

In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say no. . . . This encourages players to think about the challenge in more depth and engages more players by making more skills useful.

However, it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, “Can I use Diplomacy?” you should ask what exactly the character might be doing to help the party survive in the uninhabited sandy wastes by using that skill. Don’t say no too often, but don’t say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge.​

The following two propositions are not the same:

*The GM is discouraged from using pre-conceived fiction to shut down mechanically permissible action declarations;

*The fiction doesn't matter.

 

[darjr]

4e DMG p 66:

Usually, it doesn’t matter what kind of attack you make against an object: Damage is damage. However, there
are a few exceptions.

All objects are immune to poison damage, psychic damage, and necrotic damage.

Objects don’t have a Will defense and are immune to attacks that target Will defense.

Some unusual materials might be particularly resistant to some or all kinds of damage. In addition, you might rule that some kinds of damage are particularly effective against certain objects and grant the object vulnerability to that damage type. For example, a gauzy curtain or a pile of dry papers might have vulnerability 5 to fire because any spark is likely to destroy it.​

4e DMG pp 73-75:

When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this . . . skill play a part in the challenge, go for it. . . . Always keep in mind that players can and will come up with ways to use skills you do not expect. . . .

Sometimes, a player tells you, “I want to make a Diplomacy check to convince the duke that helping us is in his best interest.” That’s great—the player has told you what she’s doing and what skill she’s using to do it. Other times, a player will say, “I want to make a Diplomacy check.” In such a case, prompt the player to give more information about how the character is using that skill. Sometimes, characters do the opposite: “I want to scare the duke into helping us.” It’s up to you, then, to decide which skill the character is using and call for the appropriate check. . . .

In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say no. . . . This encourages players to think about the challenge in more depth and engages more players by making more skills useful.

However, it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, “Can I use Diplomacy?” you should ask what exactly the character might be doing to help the party survive in the uninhabited sandy wastes by using that skill. Don’t say no too often, but don’t say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge.​

The following two propositions are not the same:

*The GM is discouraged from using pre-conceived fiction to shut down mechanically permissible action declarations;

*The fiction doesn't matter.

I think picking skill challenges is an interesting tactic. They really were so ill conceived and it seemed they just threw there hands up before printing. It’s one of the few exceptions to the philosophy of 4e. I’ll grant you that. In part I think skill challenges were such a challenge for the 4e designers was, in part, BECAUSE it went against the philosophy of the rest of the system.

Yes, I do think that 4es philosophy at its core with powers etc means fiction doesn’t matter at the altar of the rules. And I think it was a conscious decision at some point. Lock-in was really a part of the strategy for 4e from the rules to the digital effort to the license.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Common sense says you can't trip something that's cube-shaped

Your d6's never roll over?

To me, all these restrictions on tripping a gelatinous cube people are coming with are just reasons why it should be difficult not reasons that it should be impossible. And in D&D, we roll dice to find out if our characters succeed on difficult tasks. A gelatinous cube probably isn't even trying to stop you from doing it, unlike a humanoid, for example.

I'll grant that "trip" becomes a strange word to describe it (flip, mash, discombobulate, etc. work better) but that happens all the time in D&D - rules where the game-rule word only matches the fiction most of the time and not all of the time.

I feel like D&D players can either use their imagination to imagine the fantastical, or use that same imagination to limit the possible. I'd rather do the former. Whatever edition.

But I get it, and I agree - we all have our lines to draw. I don't mean to criticize anyone here, or get your back up.

 

[CleverNickName]

Or the flip side. A book of mostly lore and you can make up the stats.

I do not really see the point of such books, I think I would be better off spending my time reading a novel/comic or watching a movie/show and stealing the lore from that.

<WhyDon'tWeHaveBoth.gif

It's not really an either/or situation for me; I tend to do both in equal measure. So I'd get the same amount of use out of a stats-heavy/lore light Monster Manual as I would a lore-heavy/stats-light Monster Manual. (shrug)

 

[billd91]

Your d6's never roll over?

They do, but, they're also not functionally amorphous like oozes are - gelatinous cubes included despite naturally being in a cubic shape. If you were small enough (or it large enough), could you trip an amoeba? Probably not in any functional way like you could anything with legs. There's no top, bottom, front, or back to them. Most people consider it to be the same with oozes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

4e DMG p 66:

Usually, it doesn’t matter what kind of attack you make against an object: Damage is damage. However, there​

are a few exceptions.​

​

All objects are immune to poison damage, psychic damage, and necrotic damage.​

​

Objects don’t have a Will defense and are immune to attacks that target Will defense.​

​

Some unusual materials might be particularly resistant to some or all kinds of damage. In addition, you might rule that some kinds of damage are particularly effective against certain objects and grant the object vulnerability to that damage type. For example, a gauzy curtain or a pile of dry papers might have vulnerability 5 to fire because any spark is likely to destroy it.​

4e DMG pp 73-75:

When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this . . . skill play a part in the challenge, go for it. . . . Always keep in mind that players can and will come up with ways to use skills you do not expect. . . .​

​

Sometimes, a player tells you, “I want to make a Diplomacy check to convince the duke that helping us is in his best interest.” That’s great—the player has told you what she’s doing and what skill she’s using to do it. Other times, a player will say, “I want to make a Diplomacy check.” In such a case, prompt the player to give more information about how the character is using that skill. Sometimes, characters do the opposite: “I want to scare the duke into helping us.” It’s up to you, then, to decide which skill the character is using and call for the appropriate check. . . .​

​

In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say no. . . . This encourages players to think about the challenge in more depth and engages more players by making more skills useful.​

​

However, it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, “Can I use Diplomacy?” you should ask what exactly the character might be doing to help the party survive in the uninhabited sandy wastes by using that skill. Don’t say no too often, but don’t say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge.​

The following two propositions are not the same:

*The GM is discouraged from using pre-conceived fiction to shut down mechanically permissible action declarations;

*The fiction doesn't matter.

Not the same perhaps, but they sure seem related to me.