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

[Lanefan]

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.

The whole point of natural language is to use words they way they're otherwise used outside of the game, isn't it? Not doing so is a flaw, and turns those words into jargon.

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".

Hit and miss mean what they mean: you got hit or you got missed. (and your assumption is correct, damage on a miss is a complete non-starter for me). Damage means pain in some form (I have all hit points being at least a tiny bit "meat", with the meat proportion increasing as the hit point total gets lower) as well as fatigue. Dying means just that: you're very likely gonna die unless someone tends you. I've always had an issue, in every edition, with the disparity between being at 0 hit points (dead, dying, or unconscious, depending on edition) and 1 hit point (fully functional, if fragile).

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

I think you're right on the bolded, due to the greater reliance on keywords and conditions and the resultant bending of the fiction to suit them.

 

[pemerton]

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?".

So obviously that's horrible GMing leading to horrible play. We can also quote the bit of the skill challenge advice the GM has not followed (DMG p 74):

Begin by describing the situation and defining the challenge. Running the challenge itself is not all that different from running a combat encounter . . . You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results.​

The DMG2 elaborates a bit more (p 83):

Each skill check in a challenge should accomplish one of the following goals:

*Introduce a new option that the PCs can pursue, a path to success they didn't know existed.

*Change the situation, such as by sendingthe PCs to a new location, introducing a new NPC, or adding a complication.

*Grant the players a tangible consequence for the check's success or failure (as appropriate), onethat influences their subsequent decisions.​

 

[pemerton]

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.

In my experience, narration with aplomb was not necessary - when the fighter PC jumped onto a dragon's back, then pinned its wings to it side so that it crashed, riding it down until he jumped off at the last minute, this was exciting without me having to do anything other than describe in my relatively aplomb-free way what was happening. The players were pleased with their efforts!

 

[pemerton]

See, every time I read "no, you can't do that thing you want to do", I go back to the DMG (pp 73-4):

When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. . . . Always keep in mind that players can and will come up with ways to use skills you do not expect. Stay on your toes, and let whatever improvised skill uses they come up with guide the rewards and penalties you apply afterward. . . .

Characters must make a check on their turn using one of the identified primary skills . . . or they must use a different skill, if they can come up with a way to use it to contribute to the challenge.​

If people don't follow the most basic rules, it's not a surprise that they don't get good results!

 

[pemerton]

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.

There is no what a character would otherwise do. Skill challenges are a technique for working out what the character would do. Just like, in a combat, the GM can't decide that the Orc would really dodge and hence can ignore the player's roll that beats the number required to hit.

There's no "running aground" here. I know that you don't like non-combat resolution other than GM decides, but that doesn't mean that all the rest of us using different techniques are "running aground" on anything.

 

[Lanefan]

There is no what a character would otherwise do. Skill challenges are a technique for working out what the character would do. Just like, in a combat, the GM can't decide that the Orc would really dodge and hence can ignore the player's roll that beats the number required to hit.

Neither I nor the Orc, however, are committed to remaining in combat until a winner and loser has been decided. Either of us can in a variety of ways try to end the combat partway through - an Orc might not be the greatest example here, but a creature (or character!) with teleport or a similar ability could always decide to leave mid-combat rather than continue to engage.

Why can't the same sort of thing be done in a skill challenge, if it so closely maps to combat? Why can't the Baron just walk out when he realizes things aren't going his way but before he has to suffer the embarrassment of losing; or when he has the upper hand but either doesn't want to embarrass the PCs or decides they're just not worth his time?

 

[pemerton]

Neither I nor the Orc, however, are committed to remaining in combat until a winner and loser has been decided.

This is not at all clear: AD&D has rules for evasion and extracting oneself from melee; so does 5e D&D.

Why can't the same sort of thing be done in a skill challenge, if it so closely maps to combat?

The stakes of the skill challenge are (I'm assuming) can the PCs persuade the Baron? The GM is not at liberty just to declare that the players lose, any more than the GM is at liberty, when adjudicating a combat, to just decide that the Orc ducks (because that's what the Orc would really do), that the Orc runs the PC through with its spear (because that's what would really happen), etc.

To elaborate: in D&D combat, the GM is not at liberty to decide that really the Orc would have ducked even though the to hit die shows that the Orc was struck. Rather, the dice tell us whether or not the Orc is able to duck.

In a skill challenge, the GM is not at liberty to decide that the Baron would really walk away from the PCs who are trying to extract a concession from him, even though the players have not yet failed the skill challenge. Rather, the dice tell us whether or not the Baron has the will and/or inclination to walk away.

Any given person may or may not wish to adjudicate combat in that fashion, or to adjudicate interpersonal interactions in that fashion, but the way in which they work and the way in which they generate shared fiction is not mysterious, in either case.

Why can't the Baron just walk out when he realizes things aren't going his way but before he has to suffer the embarrassment of losing; or when he has the upper hand but either doesn't want to embarrass the PCs or decides they're just not worth his time?

Are you asking about the fiction? That's part of what the GM has to do in narrating the skill challenge.

Are you asking about the mechanics? For the reasons I just stated: the GM doesn't have unilateral power to decide that the players lose.

 

[James Gasik]

The whole point of natural language is to use words they way they're otherwise used outside of the game, isn't it? Not doing so is a flaw, and turns those words into jargon.

Hit and miss mean what they mean: you got hit or you got missed. (and your assumption is correct, damage on a miss is a complete non-starter for me). Damage means pain in some form (I have all hit points being at least a tiny bit "meat", with the meat proportion increasing as the hit point total gets lower) as well as fatigue. Dying means just that: you're very likely gonna die unless someone tends you. I've always had an issue, in every edition, with the disparity between being at 0 hit points (dead, dying, or unconscious, depending on edition) and 1 hit point (fully functional, if fragile).

I think you're right on the bolded, due to the greater reliance on keywords and conditions and the resultant bending of the fiction to suit them.

Just curious about something. I've often encountered people who feel "damage on a miss" makes no sense. But how is that different from "half damage on a save"?

 

[Mannahnin]

Getting back to the pacing/healing rate question for a minute, though I recognize the discussion has moved on a bit since yesterday.

I guess my broader point is that when designers listen to the players the end result is often a worse game, because players are always going to agitate for whatever makes the game easier and in order to keep the game challenging the designers have to (but too often don't) push back hard against that. The most obvious example of that in D&D design is the evolution of spellcasting over the editions and corresponding increase in complaints that casters are too powerful.

Natural healing in 1e was too slow as written, I won't argue that. By 3e it had become too fast, however, and 4e-5e are ridiculous.

This mostly reads as personal preference, to me.

I do tend to concur that relaxing restrictions and limitations on spellcasters from AD&D to 3E did result in some issues. AD&D had its own issues, with M-Us tending to suck at low levels (or suck in inverse proportion to DMs' generosity with scrolls and other magic items they could use) and then get pretty absurd at higher levels. 4E took big steps to rein the 3E caster issues in and balance everyone, and then 5E went back more toward the earlier state, as it did in a lot of areas of the rules.

Whether the healing rate in any given edition is too slow, just about right, or too fast is really a question of personal preference and what kind of game you want to run/fictional world you want to simulate. IME AD&D always ran into the issue of people wanting to play scenarios and games full of Heroic Fantasy Action but the system's healing and recovery rates not being designed for that.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Just curious about something. I've often encountered people who feel "damage on a miss" makes no sense. But how is that different from "half damage on a save"?

Different purpose.

D&D 5E - A Brief History of Saving Throws, the Original Plot Armor

There has been a recent thread discussing the original (1e, OD&D) saving throws, and I thought it would be helpful to examine the ways in which saving throws (and the conception of saving throws) have changed over time. As a general concept, I would say that the original conception of saving...

www.enworld.org

TLDR; the saving throw used to be explicitly a form of "plot armor." Now, it's more of an active defense and part of the regular balancing of the game.

Hit points, on the other hand, are passive defense. While hit points are an abstraction, they have always represented the defender's ability to turn a hit into a glancing blow, etc. as they gain in expertise.

So while a lot of people talk about how it "feels wrong" in terms of the idea of "meat hit points," the discomfort is often a manifestation of the idea that hit points are a defense against attacks that hit the person, and the reason it feels wrong is that you aren't supposed to lose hit points when an attack misses you.