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

[Umbran]

Ignore your lying minds folks.

Do you not see your own words here?

Mod Note:
Um, dude? When you accuse folks of having "lying minds", you probably need to watch your own words too.

Folks, let us not have an escalation of rhetoric. Thanks.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Kevin Crawford's OSR game Worlds Without Number works similarly to this, except minimum damage is also gated by the specific weapon and the opponent's AC. So certain weapons will always do a minimum amount of "Shock damage" even if they miss and if the target's AC is a certain value or less. So a Long Sword does 2/AC 13. So even if I do not land solid hit by beating the opponent's AC 12, my Long Sword will inflict 2 + Strength modifier in damage.


You mean like casting a spell and the target spends one of their limited healing surges allowing them to regain one-quarter of their total HP value plus the amount specified in the spell? Sounds like a great idea.


You keep using that term. But I don't think that that term means what you think it means.

Now please enjoy this light-hearted meme that I made for you.

View attachment 292801

I don't think that labeling everything that you dislike as a "narrative mechanic" is a particularly meaningful, insightful, or accurate definition, and it will likely involve many non-narrative mechanics getting called "narrative mechanics" simply on the basis of your idiomatic preferences (as per the above).

First of all, I'm going to assume that the meme is meant as gently ribbing and isn't mean-spirited (since I've explained how I feel about memes). Secondly, that rule is designed to, among other things, increase dramatic tension as the fight goes on, leading to a climax. It IS a narrative mechanic. That doesn't make it bad by any means, and it has practical use as well in play. But it is intended to influence the narrative through mechanical force. Regardless of anything else, that makes it a narrative mechanic.

Feel free to stop being personal at your earliest convenience.

Oh, and I already commented that the healing idea I favor is one of the things from 4e that I like and would like to transfer to other games.

 

[Micah Sweet]

He's not, or at least he shouldn't be. I already posted upthread that 4e is the only version of D&D to solve the problem that Cure Light Wounds can heal a near-death commoner to full, whereas Cure Critical Wounds can't heal Conan of his scratches.

For some reason I've never seen articulated, the rest of D&D gets a free pass on this one.

I've said earlier that I don't give it one.

 

[Aldarc]

Secondly, that rule is designed to, among other things, increase dramatic tension as the fight goes on, leading to a climax. It IS a narrative mechanic. That doesn't make it bad by any means, and it has practical use as well in play. But it is intended to influence the narrative through mechanical force. Regardless of anything else, that makes it a narrative mechanic.

The rule is designed to speed combat up. That doesn't make it a narrative mechanic anymore than losing HP increases dramatic tension makes that HP a narrative mechanic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In this context, the "free pass" is given every time someone posts that 4e is getting more or problematically abstract. Whereas in fact it solves this outstanding problem completely smoothly.

I certainly don't find that part of 4e (specifically the percentage of max hp healing concept) as problematically abstract. I reserve the right to feel differently about other aspects of the game, from a personal standpoint.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The rule is designed to speed combat up. That doesn't make it a narrative mechanic anymore than losing HP increases dramatic tension makes that HP a narrative mechanic.

I disagree, obviously. It speeds up combat in a way that has much more to do with drama than it does with how a battle would go in any realistic way.

 

[Aldarc]

I disagree, obviously.

You're welcome to be wrong, obviously.

 

[Mannahnin]

For me the compelling use case would be to play them. You can't really go zero-to-hero without starting at the zero end, and a 1st-level character in 4e is a fair way along from zero.

As I recall Gary Gygax's preference for casual pick up games was to have the players use 3rd level PCs.

He talks about this in the 1E DMG, too, that experienced players can certainly be permitted to start above 1st level, particularly if they're joining an existing campaign, but that he advises it's best for newbies to start from zero because the experience will be invaluable.

Zero to hero is a preference. AD&D characters start out tougher than OD&D characters, as a rule. Generally speaking, every edition has had characters start out a bit stronger (2E is kind of an exception, but by 1989 I think tables NOT using the Death's Door dead at -10 rule were pretty rare, so maybe not entirely an exception).

 

[Micah Sweet]

You're welcome to be wrong, obviously.

Show me how this isn't just a difference of opinion then. How am I just "wrong"?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Is there a reason you can't just play 4e if you want to?

I do, but what does that have to do with the behavior of other people and whether or not it was considerate or appropriate (which it largely was not IME)?