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

[pemerton]

I agree that PC or NPC is not a property of the character in the fiction, and yet it's treated as if it was when the PC has access to options that NPCs don't, by virtue of nothing other than the fact that they are a PC. If the NPCs are built differently, and don't have access to the same powers that the PCs have, then if we accept the premise that those powers have an in-game aspect which the characters can recognize (on some level, at least), then their being PCs is making an in-character difference...but in a way that has no aspect which is recognized in the narrative, creating a disconnect.

What is recognisable, in the fiction, is that this warrior is implacable. Why? Because they're fierce, well-trained, or whatever other backstory takes the player's fancy.

Again, it's not "trouble understanding," it's discomfort with the fact that 4E is so casual about dismissing and altering the concept of the narrative connection between the in-game results of the mechanics being used. Calling it an "imposition" strikes me as mischaracterizing the entirely reasonable expectation that such a thing would be a central conceit, if not for an RPG in general, then at least for one calling itself Dungeons & Dragons, which prior to that was entirely comfortable playing up that connection (and at least trying, in my opinion, to obfuscate instances of it not quite being able to bridge a gap between the fluff and the crunch).

The thing you're saying is a central conceit of RPGs is not a conceit of Gygax's AD&D (as per the quote upthread), nor of Tunnels & Trolls, nor of Classic Traveller. It is a conceit of Runequest, C&S and Rolemaster.

Part of what I like about 4e is that it takes Gygax's ideas and uses them to build a game which is freed of nonsense like Cure Light Wounds being able to restore the critically injured while Cure Critical Wounds cannot even restore all of a Lord's light scratches. It takes his design to it's full potential.

When I want to play a game that takes a different approach to the relationship between fiction and mechanics, I play that.

 

[pemerton]

Those are fictional characters in stories. Games are a different medium, and are under no obligation to be about telling the stories of always-hit heroes, or anyone at all, at least not as a primary goal of play.

I didn't say anything about obligation. I just said what 4e D&D does.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's your prerogative. But if you bring this house rule into 4e, you'll create absurd outcomes. So I'd advise you either not to play 4e, or if you do to drop your house rule.

I'm not aware of any such rule, and to me it seems quite unrealistic that a warrior carrying a shield would be using it to deflect/block only 1 in 10 (or thereabouts) of blows.

Other missed attacks might also be blocked by the shield. The issue is that 1 is the difference between using a shield and not using one.

 

[overgeeked]

I see no problem with explaining my opinion on why a particular game that gets a lot of discussion time on this forum doesn't work for me. I'm not being dishonest, or intentionally misrepresenting 4e or other games I don't care for. If I'm proven wrong about a statement, I'll own up to it and apologize. Heck, you called me out on my feelings being mostly, well, just that, and I agreed. Should I not express them because other people have different feelings?

I don't think 4e is a bad game. I played and ran it for well over a year before a variety of issues I and my group had with it led us to stop, and go back to our 1e game before 5e came out and we gave that a try. It wasn't for me, for specific reasons I've explained.

What you're asking for feels like wanting people who don't like what you like to stop talking about it.

Thank you for not actually answering the question. Cheers.

 

[Lanefan]

The character is not involved in a skill challenge. The players and GM are. The GM describes what the NPCs do. The GM is not at liberty to describe the players losing unless and until they have actually lost. So if the skill challenge is still on foot, the GM is not at liberty to describe someone choosing to leave.

Thus taking away the GM's agency to play the NPCs in character.

More to the point, reading that excerpt from 4e's DMGII that someone (you?) posted, it appears skill chalenges are supposed to span a period of time, during which both the GM and players can act to change the parameters.

Ending the challenge early seems like a valid change to the paramaters in some types of challenge e.g. anything diplomatic.

I don't think the DMG discusses this, and I don't remember now what later books say. My approach is influenced by discussions with @LostSoul: if the players are happy to forfeit what is at stake in the challenge, than they can abandon it (ie choose to lose).

Ah - I wouldn't necessarily see abandoning the challenge as choosing to lose, however; it could also be a matter of putting the challenge in abeyance until a later time when different circumstances may be present:

"Yeah, we ain't getting through this forest today but we've made some progress. Let's hole up until tomorrow and hope the weather clears, it'll be way easier to find our way if we can see the sun!" (mechanically the party are one success short of making it but also one failure short of blowing it, and both in and out of character want to mitigate the odds on that last roll)

"I'm disinclined to listen any further. Good day." The Baron then has his operatives quietly check up on the party and see if they're legit; if yes he might invite them back tomorrow to pick up negotiations where they left off, but if no then the PCs ain't gonna see him again. (mechanically the skill challenge is underway, the party is losing but hasn't lost yet, but the Baron isn't sure just what he's dealing with and wants more info)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Thank you for not actually answering the question. Cheers.

Ok, then I don't understand the question.

 

[pemerton]

I wouldn't necessarily see abandoning the challenge as choosing to lose, however; it could also be a matter of putting the challenge in abeyance until a later time when different circumstances may be present:

"Yeah, we ain't getting through this forest today but we've made some progress. Let's hole up until tomorrow and hope the weather clears, it'll be way easier to find our way if we can see the sun!" (mechanically the party are one success short of making it but also one failure short of blowing it, and both in and out of character want to mitigate the odds on that last roll)

"I'm disinclined to listen any further. Good day." The Baron then has his operatives quietly check up on the party and see if they're legit; if yes he might invite them back tomorrow to pick up negotiations where they left off, but if no then the PCs ain't gonna see him again. (mechanically the skill challenge is underway, the party is losing but hasn't lost yet, but the Baron isn't sure just what he's dealing with and wants more info)

These aren't descriptions of someone abandoning a skill challenge. They are things that might occur during a skill challenge, as part of its resolution.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I'm all for mechanically complex fighters. All my games have them.

If memory serves, don't you play Level Up, produced by the owner of this very website?

Would you say that the additional options it provides makes it the compromise without sacrifice that will make all gamers happy? How it has the traditional flavor of D&D but also the mechanical heft that system thinkers also enjoy? Why I bet playing Level Up would be something we all agree on!

 

[Micah Sweet]

If memory serves, don't you play Level Up, produced by the owner of this very website?

Would you say that the additional options it provides makes it the compromise without sacrifice that will make all gamers happy? How it has the traditional flavor of D&D but also the mechanical heft that system thinkers also enjoy? Why I bet playing Level Up would be something we all agree on!

I would say that, yes, although it's certainly not the only way it can be done. It is the best way I've seen it done for 5e, however.

 

[Alzrius]

What is recognisable, in the fiction, is that this warrior is implacable. Why? Because they're fierce, well-trained, or whatever other backstory takes the player's fancy.

And yet no one else in the entire game world has those traits? Has a comparable backstory? No one else is capable of those feats or abilities? What makes that warrior special, from an in-game standpoint? The answer is that the game doesn't answer this as a default; it's something the player(s) and GM must bring to the table. Which is fine, but represents a disconnect in the narrative that they then have to bridge, as opposed to the game doing that on its own.

The thing you're saying is a central conceit of RPGs is not a conceit of Gygax's AD&D (as per the quote upthread), nor of Tunnels & Trolls, nor of Classic Traveller. It is a conceit of Runequest, C&S and Rolemaster.

Part of what I like about 4e is that it takes Gygax's ideas and uses them to build a game which is freed of nonsense like Cure Light Wounds being able to restore the critically injured while Cure Critical Wounds cannot even restore all of a Lord's light scratches. It takes his design to it's full potential.

When I want to play a game that takes a different approach to the relationship between fiction and mechanics, I play that.

I disagree strongly. One of the things I dislike about 4E is that it inverts Gygax's ideas and moves further away from them, as per the same quote upthread. Gary never envisioned PCs spontaneously regaining large fractions of their hit points through a non-magical "second wind," and his one-minute combat round where the entire interplay of attack rolls were abstracted is not at all comparable to the "damage on a miss" idea of 4E, since in 1E a character that failed all of their attack rolls would in no way result in an opponent losing hit points.

And really, that's why the idea of "the narrative and the mechanics will (try to) work together" is indeed the central conceit of so many TTRPGs, especially D&D; that by modeling what you're attempting, the rules intuitively help to flesh out both what's happening and the game world around you, rather than being something where they generate a result and then you need to figure out how it works from an in-character standpoint.