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

[Lanefan]

Anyway, I see now the real problem with 4e is that it doesn't implement weight rules for cubes.

So in any other edition of D&D can PCs grappled dragons (or cubes, or elephants, or . . .)? Can a dragon crush a PC to death just by landing on them?

Can't speak to rules-as-written but in my own game the answers would be "almost always no" and "very much yes".

Every time someone kills a Giant in melee we roll to see which way it falls, and any poor schlubs standing in the way of its fall have to make a Dex check or get crushed for damage (which, depending on their condition otherwise, could be deadly) and possibly pinned.

As for grappling something huge like a dragon or elephant, if a character has the strength of a Giant or Titan (usually via device) I'd give that character a small chance of being able to do something worthwhile. Otherwise, no way in hell. As for grappling a Gelatinous Cube, by all means - go ahead and try. But remember, it can paralyze you on touch; and seeing as you're voluntarily touching it to grapple it you'll need to save vs paralysis before you even start. Make that save, and then while you're trying to grapple it it'll get big bonuses to absorb you. Have fun with that.

 

[James Gasik]

Except in the example presented, how are you supposed to encourage players other than the blindingly obvious ranger to take actions?

I mean, I could see ways you could do this. For example, while the Ranger is busy scoping out a path or potential dangers, someone might accidentally touch a poisonous plant, fall into a trap, or be ambushed by a skulking predator. What was missing in the challenge as presented to me was any of that- it was simply, "hey forest bad, feel like rolling any of these skills that only one of you is any good at?".

 

[Lanefan]

He doesn't think its a non-sequitur. He thinks it is exactly how pretty much every GM in existence actually runs it, for the same reason that 4e does what it does, because it makes for a better game. 4e doesn't say that fiction has no weight. It just says "you will have a better game if you can reconcile the fiction and the game mechanics without constantly overriding the mechanics" that's all.

And that's just the problem.

The philosophy of "the fiction has to reflect the mechanics" is completely at odds with the idea that "the mechanics are there to reflect (or abstract where necessary) the fiction", and the latter has always been my take on the whole purpose of game mechanics.

But please, that the rules advise that maybe you find a way to work the fiction and depict 'I knocked an ooze prone' somehow such that the prone condition takes effect, is that really such a big ask? I mean, I ran 4e constantly for almost 10 years, it never became an issue. Ooze showed up now and then, and I ever remember one getting knocked prone at least one time (I think it was a black pudding). My brother made a joke about how it must have had a 'plasm spasm' and he was just happy he got an attack bonus on the thing on his turn.

Oozes don't often have players to stand up for them, but were I playing an ooze and someone tried to trip me I think I'd cry foul if they were given any chance to succeed.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

There were a few moments like that for us too. The monk punching a dragon out of the sky (knocking it prone while flying, if I'm remembering right) was the one that made my players all roll their eyes.

I had the opposite reaction to a similar event: Our party Rogue knocked a dragon out, which was a stellar, awesome moment that is remembered among the coolest moves ever done in any game. I think the quality of the narration is probably where the difference lies (not to disparage whatever narration there was in your game).

In mine the scenario was a desperate play, where the PCs were mostly down and the Rogue had climbed onto the dragon's back. The dragon circled around for a last strafing breath attack, and the Rogue lifted one of the scales on the back of its head (behind its horns) and struck it with the pommel of one of his daggers. The dragon lost consciousness and plummeted to its death, while the Rogue dove off into a pool. All of these things were by the book, just narrated with aplomb.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm sorry, but I can barely respond to this one. You're taking the word "trip" so extremely literally, narrowly, and specifically, that I "can't even". In particular when my whole point (and earlier post) was that much of the time, a word used to describe any given mechanic has always (in any edition) been a "best-fit" word.

"Trip" absolutely DOES mean "knock over", "flip", or "cause to stumble" or much more! It can even mean "throw" (like judo-throw, not baseball-throw). It can mean ANYTHING that involves leaving the target unable to move without first correcting its position, and unable to properly defend itself until it does.

Then they used the wrong term, and that I take the word at its meaning ain't my problem.

IMO, if it doesn't mean all those things, then that would mean that none of those things exist in the game (or at least, have no mechanical representation) and why would we want to limit the possibilities of the game to such a level?

"Knock over" in reality is a different action than "trip", requiring different movements and different abilities (strength and size instead of dexterity), and thus if it's to be mechanically represented it needs its own mechanics (I'd batch them in with "push" and similar). Sticking my foot out and tripping someone requires dexterity and a bit of stealth, while bodychecking someone to the ground just takes sheer brute force and bulk.

"Flip" or "throw" would be in the purview of Monks and others trained in such things (though a Monk ain't gonna judo-throw a Gelatinous Cube no matter how hard she tries!). "Cause to stumble" is broader and can cover many things, including telekinesing a flagstone up off the path while hiding in the bushes.

All of these could have been batched together into a "stagger" mechanic, under which would be listed examples of all the above except flip or throw, which are under a different category of martial moves. Whether the victim was knocked prone would be rolled for separately.

 

[darjr]

Here is an exchange on twitter (x?!)

I think ya'll know I'm on Mike Shea's side of the skill challenge thing, at least here, I don't know if he's softened on his stance or not, I kinda have from that and am closer to Shawn.

Notice even Shawn notes that SC's in 4e were flawed "implemented poorly", ill-conceived as it were, and yet he praises one out of an adventure written by Chris Tulach. It's a good adventure and the writing in the skill challenge is amazing. But yet I look at it and see the skill challenge doing the part of the players. Spoonfeeding the DM and the players how it's supposed to go. Maybe that's just me but I've heard that complaint before.

Now Shawn praises it and said he had a great time running it but I bet, almost guarantee, he didn't run it as 4e raw. Not at least the form it was back then. And so I stand by my position that it was ill-concieved, even skill challenge fans of Shawn Merwins calibre, probably, very likely, didn't use it as it was published.

So who runs stuff as raw you say? Yea, probably nobody. sure.

 

[Lanefan]

The key to any sort of closed scene resolution is that, as GM, you are required to keep the scene alive as long as (i) the players are still committed to having their PCs get what they want out of it, and (ii) the system win/loss conditions haven't been triggered.

This requires narrating consequences of checks which (a) honour success or failure on the check, yet (b) don't close off the scene if (i) and (ii) above both hold. The best advice I know of on this is from Robin Laws in his original HeroWars rulebook.

The effect of this is that you get extended scenes of rollicking action, or intense and complex social interaction (depending on the subject matter of the skill challenge). It's quite a different approach to play from (eg) the sort of "risk mitigation" approach that is traditional in D&D dungeon-crawling.

Which sounds fine until it runs aground on the rock of interfering with what a character would otherwise do.

Here, it would seem that if, say, the PCs are negotiating with the Baron and the talks are still ongoing, the GM can't just have the Baron walk out even if it's what the Baron would do in that situation, because that would end the scene before the win-loss has been decided. Yet the players are under no such restrictions; they can have their PCs end the negotiations at any moment if they feel it's what their characters would do.

Mechanically, in a 4e skill challenge this would manifest as one side walking out having failed two rolls (where three fails loses the challenge) without allowing a chance for a third roll to fail and thus trigger a complete loss. Or it could manifest as one side, having gained an upper hand in the rolling, walking out before the scene concludes in order to prove superiority - or just to be rude, whatever.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Then they used the wrong term, and that I take the word at its meaning ain't my problem.

"Knock over" in reality is a different action than "trip", requiring different movements and different abilities (strength and size instead of dexterity), and thus if it's to be mechanically represented it needs its own mechanics (I'd batch them in with "push" and similar). Sticking my foot out and tripping someone requires dexterity and a bit of stealth, while bodychecking someone to the ground just takes sheer brute force and bulk.

"Flip" or "throw" would be in the purview of Monks and others trained in such things (though a Monk ain't gonna judo-throw a Gelatinous Cube no matter how hard she tries!). "Cause to stumble" is broader and can cover many things, including telekinesing a flagstone up off the path while hiding in the bushes.

All of these could have been batched together into a "stagger" mechanic, under which would be listed examples of all the above except flip or throw, which are under a different category of martial moves. Whether the victim was knocked prone would be rolled for separately.

You can design a game that does it this way, but D&D is not that game. Many words used as game terms only mean their literal, limited meaning much of time, but not all of the time. This is, IMO, a feature, not a flaw.

They use words that mean specific things (like "trip") over something more generic (like "destabalize") because it's more evocative, shorter, and simpler. And "trip" is likely to be the action that is happening, much of the time. This exact same phenomenon occurs with the words "hit" and "miss" (Forgive me if I assume that you don't like damage on a miss) and "damage" for that matter, and even "dying".

It's possible that 4e drew more attention this phenomenon, but I haven't played a version of D&D that doesn't do it that way.

 

[Lanefan]

That framing is also what, then draws the different players into the challenge. In a combat, we don't ask why the wizard is getting involved, dragging down the fighter - we get the wizard involved by making them the target of threats, and providing opportunities for them to do useful things.

Speak for yourself.

In a combat, if the wizard isn't involved I'm not going to go out of my way to do anything about it - it's on the wizard's player to find a way to get it involved. Or maybe it's hiding and doesn't want to be involved, and has succeeded in keeping itself unnoticed.

Same with a dumb warrior in a diplomatic scene - it's up to the warrior's player as to what it does and-or how it tries to contribute, not up to me-as-GM.

 

[Lanefan]

Except in the example presented, how are you supposed to encourage players other than the blindingly obvious ranger to take actions?

You don't. You let the Ranger shine in the situation where it's supposed to shine; and while if anyone else wants to do something they're free to do so, I don't think I should have to encourage them.