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

[pemerton]

The difference in the task resolution model, part of the gameplay is in putting together a series of tasks that will get to the dirt. Picking the right tasks (a process that should begin long before the safe, likely with some kind of research), stacking the correct advantages, weighing their cost in time and being responsive to failures so you can propose a different set of actions tactically.

If the research is resolved via task resolution, then play has the same structure as Baker described in the passage I quoted: it is the GM who decides whether or not the player succeeds in having their PC learn what they want to learn.

Let's assume instead the GM is an uninterested party who will not be making decisions about the player's success or failure, but about things like "where would this villain store their incriminating documents?"

The point is that this is the same thing. Baker is not speculating about the GM's motives, but rather is observing a feature of the game play process, and in particular who exercises control within that process. Skill challenges depart from that, as I noted in early 2008:

The notion of "the answer" here is unhelpful. A skill challenge is not about the players guessing something the GM is keeping secret (eg what skill to use). It is about the players, using their PCs as the medium, taking control of the storyline of the game.

I see the "skill challenge" model as giving the players much more scope to determine the success conditions, because (i) if we know that 6 successes are enough, whatever exactly they consist in, and (ii) the players get to choose which skills to use (provided they make a narratively plausible case as to relevance) then inventiveness and a rich player engagement with the broader context is unleashed without the players having to worry that their PCs will fall foul of the GM's predetermined matrix of possibilities.

<snip>

My feeling, however, from what I've read, is that there is intended to be a difference and that narrative control is therefore being redistributed.

That's worth doing precisely because it results in a better gameplay experience.

All this seems to be is your restatement of your preferences. For my part, I don't find jumping through endless GM hoops via task resolution to be a better play experience in a RPG.

 

[pemerton]

The 1e Greyhawk boxed set has charts for determining the weather.

So does Wilderness Survival Guide.

The OA charts are not very simulationist in my view. They don't really model anything - they're just a decision-making tool.

Contrast, for instance, the rules in Torchbearer 2e for the economic development of settlements, which factor in the amount of treasure that adventurers have spent in a settlement. Cause-and-effect.

 

[Hussar]

Snarf already did a great job breaking down the problem with this idea, so I won't go further into it except to note that this post is a not-so-subtle attempt to say that that 4E wasn't "really" rejected on its own terms, but was unfairly denigrated because people didn't understand what it was, didn't understand what it was trying to do, and didn't understand D&D as a whole.

In other words, this is more revisionist history. D&D has never been the most simulationist game out there, but earlier editions of it were, in fact, more simulationist than 4E was; people were aware of that, and weren't under any sort of mistaken impressions or mismanaged expectations when they called it out as being a break from what the game had been up until that point.

Please don’t take my argument too far.

I’m saying that this specific criticism seems so bizarre to me. I think it’s actually reversed. People had rejected 4e and then went back in order to try to justify why they did so.

Which I would understand if they continued to do so with 5e. Because it’s not like 5e is any more simulationist than 4e. So if people dropped 4e because it wasn’t sim enough, why does 5e get the pass?

 

[pemerton]

DnD rules rarely ever followed cause and effect and have always sacrificed that for story reasons.

This.

From the existence of dungeons, to the existence of classes, to the hit point and saving throw mechanics, to the selection of spells found in the rulebooks: all are about supporting the play of the game, and have no connection to in-fiction causal logic. That's all just flavour that is layered on after the event.

I mean, the fact that you need one of the most powerful magic items in the game to maim or behead an opponent with a sword says it all!

 

[Thomas Shey]

Note I would never laugh at anyone for liking simulation. Hell I do too. I will somewhat giggle at people who insist they play DnD because of the simulation tendencies.

DnD rules rarely ever followed cause and effect and have always sacrificed that for story reasons.

Actually, they've often sacrificed it for game reasons. The distinction can sometimes be muddy, though.

 

[Pedantic]

All this seems to be is your restatement of your preferences. For my part, I don't find jumping through endless GM hoops via task resolution to be a better play experience in a RPG.

Yeah, this is the same detante as usual. You'd prefer not to play a game, or to play a bad one because the technology that allows for more involved decision is imperfect.

 

[Hussar]

Actually, they've often sacrificed it for game reasons. The distinction can sometimes be muddy, though.

That’s the point though. If they are sacrificing the causal chain for game reasons then the game is by definition not simulating anything in either the jargon sense or in the plain language one.

Sacrificing anything for game play is the definition of gamist.

Again there’s no value judgement here. It’s a perfectly understandable thing to do. We could delve deep into making the mechanics follow cause and effect. But DnD has never really been interested in doing that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That’s the point though. If they are sacrificing the causal chain for game reasons then the game is by definition not simulating anything in either the jargon sense or in the plain language one.

That's an overly broad statement. Its not simulating anything in that spot and that way. It says nothing about what the game is doing as a whole.

(Not that I disagree with the general point that D&D isn't nearly the last place I'd start with an RPG to scratch a simulationist (in either sense) itch. But a game doesn't have to be doing only one thing in intention, even if some people act like it should).

 

[Kannik]

The primary thing skill challenges did was remove the design incentive to write an action complete skill system. Instead of expecting the rules to lay out a procedure for all the actions a party might take when trying to get in to a castle, they offered a framework all action declarations could be fed into. If you strip them of their narrative context, skill challenges are a terrible game; select your highest skill and try to roll well. If the GM is completely transparent, you might be able to make a calculation that a skill other than your highest skill offers more success.

I'm not sure I get what you're describing by "action complete skill system", or what aspects of D&D skill systems are lacking, irrespective of Skill Challenges. 4e has a list of skills covering adventuring (including those required to break into a castle), and lists some rules for specific uses of them, same as with the prior and succeeding editions. This sounds like you're not happy with the D&D skill system as a whole. What would you consider an action complete skill system? (I am genuinely curious.) One that lists every possible use for each skill (and no other uses are available), with equally specifically quantified outcomes for each result?

As for SC's, they're not intended to be run in a vacuum as a series of blank skill checks where a PC can roll whatever they choose. Those skill rolls function the same as any other skill roll -- there's a situation, and the player says what action they're taking, and the DM may call for a skill test, and there's a success or failure. If the action is not possible, or wouldn't help the task at hand, then the DM will likely not allow or count it, or ask for further clarification.

Given their mushy introduction, I could see cases of SC's being used situations that are not quite appropriate or what they were likely intended for. Single-point-of-success/failure tasks or even single-path tasks would not be not be a great use case. Using the example above of getting into the castle, a path could be sneak/climb over walls, another path could be bluff guards/walk in, another path could be swim moat/open locks on underwater gate/swim some more; those I wouldn't use an SC for. Something more dynamic and or extended, such as a chase, dealing with a crowd, stopping mind controlled villagers from walking into the nearby lake, perilous journeys, work much better under the SC guidelines.

I think the best and most interesting game skills (and frankly, all non-combat options) should offer is in setting a goal, and then picking from a list of available actions what will most readily achieve it, with an option to tactically reassess as the situation changes round by round.

The first part of this does sound like a typical (D&D included) skill system: PC has a goal, there's a number of ways they can achieve it so they describe what they do, which (likely) equals a skill test, which creates a result, play continues. Are you more in favor of a PbtA type game, with a limited set of specific moves that begin with "when you do X"?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Please don’t take my argument too far.

I’m saying that this specific criticism seems so bizarre to me. I think it’s actually reversed. People had rejected 4e and then went back in order to try to justify why they did so.

Which I would understand if they continued to do so with 5e. Because it’s not like 5e is any more simulationist than 4e. So if people dropped 4e because it wasn’t sim enough, why does 5e get the pass?

4e made a point of saying that the rules were more important than the fiction; ie, "bend the fiction to make the rules work". That alone was enough to put me off it, and it wasn't alone. I can't speak for others, but I'm not making up anything after the fact.