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

[Gammadoodler]

I don't see how this statement has anything to do with what I said.

The archer would be "throwing themselves" from a height not much taller than a single story building (with an opportunity to catch themselves btw)

But the point is that this is not a "castle wall" except in the loosest definition of the word castle.

It is a significant overexaggeration of the potential scope of the action you are describing.

 

[billd91]

Indiana Jones Trait:

* I'm in a movie (not a TTRPG) and I'm the protagonist.

or

* Immune to Melee or Ranged Forced Movement (like Swarms...which is a Trait, which are exceptions in the exception-based design engine of 4e, that you can add to whatever at your discretion).

So many ad hoc justifications to explain how someone might not go for CaGI.

* I've got a high Will defense and I rolled well enough to pass the one time this happened onscreen (and/or I've got an Immediate Action that gives me a bonus to all defenses or +4 to Will or reroll a failure or to ignore Forced Movement or whatever).

Well now, we're getting somewhere. Indy having a high enough Will defense would be totally in character and, moreover, serves as a systematic fix to that particular problem power.

We're still doing this 15 years later!

Its SOOOOOO important that 4e is dumb and terrible and nonsensical!

Well, you know, that's because for some of us it will always be that game that we thought had too many dumb and terrible and nonsensical stuff in it when we checked it out. For example, when I checked it out (and it's still true in the printing of the 4e PH I have), that Come and Get It power didn't involve overcoming a Will defense - and that was pretty much a categorical problem for me with a power like that. The fact that they later fixed it didn't really matter to me because they had already lost me with all of the annoyances they dumped on me at release. Too many fixes that might have made it suck less to me came too late.

But, you know, feel free to attack my personal experiences with 4e or bury the thread under further justifications why 4e was so much better and its critics so wrong and accept your own partial responsibility for perpetuating this conflict 15 years later.

 

[pemerton]

You could be standing at the base of a ten-foot wall, with an archer standing atop it, and when you use that power the archer, if they fail their save, basically falls off the wall on top of you so the fighter can reach him to make an attack.

For CaGI it to affect the archer, there must be a legal space adjacent for the fighter for them to be pulled to.

Assuming that's the case in your scenario, then I imagine (as I said) that the fighter leapt up and knocked them down. (Or perhaps, trying to avoid the fighter leaping up and knocking them down, the archer stumbled and fell down.)

How are they doing those things without leaving their space?

Who says they didn't leave their space?

The power doesn't include movement from their space, so I guess 4e says that.

This is why I say that it is the critics of 4e who are obsessed by mechanics, and who seem to have trouble imagining fiction for which the mechanics is just a scaffold or a decision-making framework.

From the PHB, p 282:

During a pitched battle, heroes and monsters are in constant motion. The rogue skirts the melee, looking for a chance to set up a deadly flanking attack. The wizard keeps a distance from the enemy and tries to find a position to make the best use of area attacks, while goblin archers move to get clear shots with their bows. You can increase your effectiveness in battle by learning how to use movement and position to your advantage. . . .

A creature’s space is an expression of the number of squares it occupies.​

The same page has a picture, in which a Gargantuan (4 sq x 4 sq) White Dragon has body parts (wings, neck and head, tail) that extend across a greater than 7 sq x 7 sq area.

The fact that a fighter doesn't occupy more than their single square, and doesn't move (in the technical sense) while performing CaGI, doesn't mean that they are glued to the ground. I imagine them as being in constant motion, a whirlwind of steel, similar to how REH narrates Conan.

 

[soviet]

Well, what other abilities require the player explain how the power works, in a particular use? I thought the ethos of 4E was that such explanations were not required, and the player could choose whatever interpretation they preferred. And, that ultimately, the interpretation was entirely fluff. The ability worked regardless.
Contrast, say, with, a fictitious “area burst” damaging attack ability, which left unspecified the type of damage was inflicted. I think players would be annoyed to explain the ability worked, and be subject to the GM saying, sorry, the creature is immune to your fire burst.
TomB

Well I think the expectation is that any reasonable explanation is accepted. So you're not trying to justify to the DM why it should be allowed rather than vetoed. But I think you do have an obligation to the group to describe things in a cool way.

 

[pemerton]

I'd much rather have the rules define how something happens than have the participants make something up every time.

And here we see how you appear to be focused on the mechanics to the exclusion of all else.

Whereas those of us who played 4e D&D are a freewheeling lot exercising our imaginations!

 

[pemerton]

You're asking for people to see things as parallel that they don't. Do I have to explain why this is a fool's errand?

I'm not asking people to see anything. I'm asking them to stop using the second or third person ("Your game makes no sense" or "The game makes no sense") when what they should be using is the first person ("My narration makes no sense" or "I don't care to imagine what is going on").

In this respect, see my reply just above to @Micah Sweet.

 

[soviet]

For CaGI it to affect the archer, there must be a legal space adjacent for the fighter for them to be pulled to.

Assuming that's the case in your scenario, then I imagine (as I said) that the fighter leapt up and knocked them down. (Or perhaps, trying to avoid the fighter leaping up and knocking them down, the archer stumbled and fell down.)



This is why I say that it is the critics of 4e who are obsessed by mechanics, and who seem to have trouble imagining fiction for which the mechanics is just a scaffold or a decision-making framework.

From the PHB, p 282:

During a pitched battle, heroes and monsters are in constant motion. The rogue skirts the melee, looking for a chance to set up a deadly flanking attack. The wizard keeps a distance from the enemy and tries to find a position to make the best use of area attacks, while goblin archers move to get clear shots with their bows. You can increase your effectiveness in battle by learning how to use movement and position to your advantage. . . .​

​

A creature’s space is an expression of the number of squares it occupies.​

The same page has a picture, in which a Gargantuan (4 sq x 4 sq) White Dragon has body parts (wings, neck and head, tail) that extend across a greater than 7 sq x 7 sq area.

The fact that a fighter doesn't occupy more than their single square, and doesn't move (in the technical sense) while performing CaGI, doesn't mean that they are glued to the ground. I imagine them as being in constant motion, a whirlwind of steel, similar to how REH narrates Conan.

Utterly wrong. Attack actions do not include any movement at all. You must adopt a fixed position in your move action and then hold it in your attack action. At best under a lenient DM you can put into motion some sort of slow topple forwards beforehand.

;-)

 

[Voadam]

View attachment 340562
Indiana Jones does NOT "Come and Get It"

No, he demonstrates the fantastic nature of the minion rules! A rogue with no sneak attack situation one shotting a dangerous looking swordsman!

Come and Get It is a PC power, and much like in action movies, most villains do not have the same powers as the heroes.

 

[soviet]

And here we see how you appear to be focused on the mechanics to the exclusion of all else.

Whereas those of us who played 4e D&D are a freewheeling lot exercising our imaginations!

Yes, on the one hand it's rubbish because it's very preloaded and boardgamey and on the other hand it's rubbish because you have to keep improvising and using your imagination.

 

[pemerton]

Describing what you do when you engage the rules widget is definitional to playing an RPG though.

If your players don't care whether describing what they do makes any sense unless they have to, and even then they won't put much effort into it, I suggest to you that the problem is not with the rules.

When I started playing 4e D&D, in Jan 2009, I sent the following message to my players (some of whom had recently been playing RM, some of whom had recently been playing 3E D&D, one of whom had recently been playing both):

Relationship Between Game Mechanics and Gameworld​

Unlike 3E or Rolemaster, a lot of the 4e mechanics work best if they are not treated as a literal model of what is going on in the gameworld. So keep in mind that the main thing the mechanics tell you is what, mechanically, you can have your PC do. What your PC’s actions actually mean in the gameworld is up to you to decide (in collaboration with the GM and the other players at the table).

Some corollaries of this:

Character Levels​

Levels for PCs, for NPCs and for monsters set the mechanical parameters for encounters. They don’t necessarily have any determinate meaning in the gameworld (eg in some encounters a given NPC might be implemented as an elite monster, and in other encounters – when the PCs are higher level – as a minion). As your PC gains levels, you certainly open up more character build space (more options for powers, more feats, etc). The only definite effect in the gameworld, however, is taking your paragon path and realising your epic destiny. How to handle the rest of it – is your PC becoming tougher, or more lucky, or not changing much at all in power level relative to the rest of the gameworld – is something that will have to come out in the course of play as the story of your PC unfolds.

PC Rebuilding​

The rules for retraining, swapping in new powers, background feats etc, don’t have to be interpreted as literally meaning that your PC has forgotten how to do things or suddenly learned something new. Feel free to treat this as just emphasising a different aspect of your PC that was always there, but hadn’t yet come up in the course of play.

Skill Checks and Power Usage​

When you make a skill check (especially in a skill challenge), use a feature or power, take the second wind action, etc, the onus is on you to explain how what you are attempting works in the gameworld. (Where a feature or power has flavour text you may use that flavour text or come up with your own.) Feel free to be dramatic.

Inadequate explanation which leaves everyone at the table scratching their heads as to what is going on in the gameworld may lead to a -2 penalty, or even automatic failure of the attempted action, depending on the circumstances.​

As it turned out, we never had trouble imagining what was going on. Which I regard as a sign of thoughtful design of the game!