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

[MuhVerisimilitude]

On further consideration, I have to ask: What cinematic example of Come and Get It can be presented? And I don’t mean a single target taunt. I mean an example of multiple targets being brought to the attacker.

Necessary features are (1) The opponents aren’t already inclined to mass rush the attacker, and aren’t being prompted by their leader to attack. (2) The use of the weapon was necessary to bring in targets.

That means, for example, the blood shower rave in the beginning of Blade doesn’t count. Blade didn’t do anything except be there. The vampire crowd was already pumped to attack him.

There is the attack scene in the sewer at the end of Underworld, but again, she does nothing to force the attack.

Trinity kind-of achieves the effect at the beginning of The Matrix, but that is more her taking the police by surprise, and them aggressively continuing their attempt to arrest her.

A part of my problem with CaGI is that I really don’t have this as a recognized move in the movie fights that I’ve seen. Sure, there are lots of big mook rushes. None of them fit CaGI for me.

TomB

One approach is to relax the requirement that every movement needs to be motivated by a rational decision. Combat is chaotic, so people doing stupid things makes sense.

Heck you could ignore even the user of any taunt like maneuver entirely and treat it is an assertion from the player: "These characters are now going to do something stupid". The taunt ability whatever you want to call it is not something that the character does. It's something that the enemies attempt. I expect this is too "narrative" for a lot of players though.

 

[Pedantic]

Heck you could ignore even the user of any taunt like maneuver entirely and treat it is an assertion from the player: "These characters are now going to do something stupid". The taunt ability whatever you want to call it is not something that the character does. It's something that the enemies attempt. I expect this is too "narrative" for a lot of players though.

I feel like separating player/character action declarations is more of a mid 4e apologist talking point than something that people were generally reading into the game early on. Not that it did any good; I would say the idea of causally separating action declaration and effect is probably more off-putting than fighters with mind control to detractors.

 

[tomBitonti]

One approach is to relax the requirement that every movement needs to be motivated by a rational decision. Combat is chaotic, so people doing stupid things makes sense.

Heck you could ignore even the user of any taunt like maneuver entirely and treat it is an assertion from the player: "These characters are now going to do something stupid". The taunt ability whatever you want to call it is not something that the character does. It's something that the enemies attempt. I expect this is too "narrative" for a lot of players though.

I can get behind that in games with more narrated events: Then the game resources are units of narrative authority. Then player: “the fighter jumps in to the fray, ready to deliver precise takedowns to the onrushing foes.” GM: The foes rush the fighter, who lashes out as they approach. Nearly all are left bleeding on the floor. One or two get in glancing, ineffective blows.” GM: “An elite assassin takes advantage of the chaotic situation to approach the fighter undetected, then attempts a deadly, hidden strike.”

To me, that’s a whole different sort of game than D&D Is classically built to be. Most DM limit player authority to their characters.

TomB

 

[Micah Sweet]

One approach is to relax the requirement that every movement needs to be motivated by a rational decision. Combat is chaotic, so people doing stupid things makes sense.

Heck you could ignore even the user of any taunt like maneuver entirely and treat it is an assertion from the player: "These characters are now going to do something stupid". The taunt ability whatever you want to call it is not something that the character does. It's something that the enemies attempt. I expect this is too "narrative" for a lot of players though.

Agreed.

 

[Hussar]

To me, that’s a whole different sort of game than D&D Is classically built to be. Most DM limit player authority to their characters.

This is fair I think. 4e did go a long way towards borrowing this sort of thing and I totally understand why people would bounce off of it.

 

[Aldarc]

The whole "adventurable" concept was something I always found quite jarring. That, fundamentally, didn't really feel like a job of the setting to me. It is certainly interesting that you might need to go to a place made entirely of fire, and/or that Bytopia has some really weird gravity stuff going on and is mostly full of helpful gnomes, but the idea of redesigning all that in service of an adventuring party having something to do there always struck me as, I don't know, backwards? It's the job of the adventuring party to want things, to oppose the actions of some people, look for great treasure, have grand desires to change reality or whatever, and the world exists primarily as an obstacles to that; it is apathetic and uninterested in the party's wants, and thus routinely stands in their way.

You are making a number of assumptions here, likely stemming from your own naturalist preferences and philosophical approaches to setting. For example, I don't take it for granted that a place made entirely out of fire is interesting. It was not for me. So when you say that it's the job of the adventuring party to want things, I can tell you that I never wanted to go to the planes of the Great Wheel. Nothing about it was interesting. I never went to the plane of fire because no GM or player ever found the various elemental and paraelemental planes interesting enough to go there. Nothing about them particularly made me wanted to visit them with my characters. They had no pull for me. In contrast, the World Axis cosmology did have that sort of pull. The Elemental Chaos seemed interesting to me in a way that a single plane of pure fire did not. Suddenly, I was interested in the planes. I now wanted to adventure there. I now wanted to see the Feywild, the Shadowfell, the Elemental Chaos, and the Astral Sea. I now wanted to push my characters towards opportunities that let them explore these places. That's why I find it difficult to care about your very naturalistic view of setting, because ultimately, I now had fun doing so where I was not having fun before, and the adventure-focus of the World Axis cosmology's design contributed to my fun.

Coming up with ways to to circumvent and/or overcome it was the whole point of the game. The real D&D fantasy is achieving enough personal power that with a little planning and effort you can overcome all of that (well, that and a fantasy that sanctified violence can solve problems) and force reality to give way to whatever those wants are.

This feels a little too OneTrueWay for my taste, particularly this notion about "the whole point of the game" or the implication here that 4e's adventurable World Axis lies outside "the real D&D fantasy."

 

[pemerton]

Hmmm... I don't know if I can agree. 4E has narrative mechanics that resemble some narrative mechanics in HQ, but in HQ that's the core mechanic that guides every type of action; in 4E, they're given for specific non-combat, non-magical challenges only.

After further thought, I guess I can agree. Of the official D&Ds, 4E is "most similar" but it's still far removed.

Sure, but if you tried using SC in place of combat you'd get rebellion. That said, I think I remember someone coming up with a SC for a magical contest, but my 4E players didn't want to use it since, "magic is powers." So, again, I don't think it's that similar.

My three "bibles" for thinking about how to GM 4e D&D were The Burning Wheel Adventure Burner, Maelstrom Storytelling (probably the earliest game with a closed scene resolution framework base around free descriptors), and HeroWars/Quest (both the original HeroWars books, and HeroQuest Revised). Skill challenges are closed scene resolution, although unlike HeroWars/Quest don't involve opposed checks, which has some consequences for how to frame and adjudciate.

The Maelstrom Storytelling rules for "quick takes" inside a scene helped me think about how to adjudicate secondary actions within a skill challenge.

And Burning Wheel's advice on how to bring the pressure, and how to think about the way to frame and narrate consequences having regard to situation and to character, just can't be beaten.

I didn't have the experience you describe in relation to "non-magical" challenges. To add to the examples I've posted upthread, including Demon of the Red Grove and post 2982, here's an actual play account of an assault on Torog's Soul Abattoir:

Although the Soul Abattoir is described in very general terms in the Underdark book, little detail is given. I located it at the end of icy tunnels running through the Shadowdark, on the far shore of the Soul Slough into which flows Lathan, the River of Souls. The "liquid souls" flowed under the ice and stone to the icy, Vault-of-the-Drow-style cavern containing the Soul Abattoir. The Abattoir itself was a series of buildings into which souls "flowed" in a fashion analogous to rivers. Inside the buildings the streams of souls were directed through Torog's various machines, which extracted soul energy from by way of torture, converting that energy into "darkspikes" from which Torog could then draw power by driving them into his body.

The destruction of the Soul Abattoir was run mostly as a skill challenge, but with a combat a little over halfway through (and some of this is reposted from other threads):

• The entrance to the Soul Abattoir, at which the PCs had arrived, was an icy tunnel floor, ending at a cliff overlooking the cavern - the river of souls was flowing some way beneath the ice, and flowed out from the base of the entrance cliff into Torog's various machines;
  
  
• The drow sorcerer and tiefling paladin flew to the bottom of the cliff, where the paladin blew his Fire Horn to render the ice more susceptible to heat, while the drow cast Flame Spiral to melt some of the ice, and then cast Wall of Water to block the flow of souls (check-wise, this was an Arcana check by the player of the drow, with a buff from the melting of the ice and use of the wall);
  
  
• The paladin and invoker then headed to the largest building, at the other end of the cavern, while the cleric-ranger on his flying carpet provided archery cover and the sorcerer flew above them maintaining concentration on his wall spell (check-wise, this was an Acro check for the archer and the sorcerer, and an Intimidate check from the paladin assisted by the invoker to make their way through Torog's minions);
  
  
• Once they got to the far building, the paladin and invoker sought the intervention of the Raven Queen to redirect the flow of souls directly to the Shadowfell rather than via Torog's infernal machines (one failed and one successful Religion check; the failure led to damage from a combination of psychic and necrotic energies generated by the suffering souls);
  
  
• Meanwhile, with the flow of souls stopped, the fighter fought his way through the other (lesser) buildings, destroying the machinery inside them (Athletic check buffed by expenditure of a close burst encounter power to fight through the minions from building to building, and Dungeoneering to wreck the machinery);
  
  
• When the PCs had all regrouped at the furthest (and most important) building resolution then switched from skill challenge mode to tactical combat mode, as they stormed the building and fought with Torog's shrivers plus a death titan;
  
  
• After the (very challenging) fight, during which the last machine was turned off by the sorcerer (the player made a successful Thievery check as a standard action once the PCs had finally fought their way along the central gantry that ran above the pool of souls), the skill challenge then resumed as the Soul Abattoir itself started to collapse;
  
  
• The ranger and sorcerer flew out of the cavern (successful Acro checks) while the paladin ran out beneath them, but was struck by falling rocks (failed Aths check, making the 3-person group check a success altogether as a majority succeeded, but costing the paladin damage for the failure);
  
  
• The fighter shielded the invoker (Endurance check) as the latter held off the powerful soul energy while the others made their escape (Religion check);
  
  
• The invoker noticed that Vecna was trying to take control of the soul energy via the invoker's imp familiar that has the Eye of Vecna implanted in it (as GM, I had decided that this was the moment when Vecna would try and steal the souls for himself; mechanically I asked the player to make an Insight check, which was successful);
  
  
• The invoker, having to choose between two of his patrons (he is a very pluralist divine PC) stopped Vecna redirecting the souls away from the Raven Queen, making sure that they flowed to her instead (in play, at this point I asked the player whether his PC - who at this point still had the erupting soul energy under his mystical control - whether he was going to let the souls flow to Vecna, or rather direct them to the Raven Queen; the player though for probably about 20 seconds, and then replied "The Raven Queen"; I decided that, on the basis of the earlier Religion check with no further check required, and I also decided that Vecna in anger shut down the offending imp via his Eye);
  
  
• The invoker and fighter then ran out of the collapsing cavern behind their companions, the invoker being shielded from falling rocks by the burly dwarf fighter (Athletics checks, with the fighter doing well enough to grant an "aid another" bonus to the invoker, so from memory neither took any damage).

As per the advice in the DMG and DMG2, the players in my game used their powers to enhance/shape actions in skill challenges, and we did not have any strong magical/non-magical divide.

 

[pemerton]

On further consideration, I have to ask: What cinematic example of Come and Get It can be presented? And I don’t mean a single target taunt. I mean an example of multiple targets being brought to the attacker.

Necessary features are (1) The opponents aren’t already inclined to mass rush the attacker, and aren’t being prompted by their leader to attack. (2) The use of the weapon was necessary to bring in targets.

Neither (1) nor (2) is necessary.

In fact CaGI makes a lot of sense if the opponents are already inclined to mass rush the attacker! It reflects the timing of the skilled warrior, who is able to attack them all as they rush.

And the weapon is not necessary to bring in the targets. It is necessary to make the attack.

That means, for example, the blood shower rave in the beginning of Blade doesn’t count. Blade didn’t do anything except be there. The vampire crowd was already pumped to attack him.

There is the attack scene in the sewer at the end of Underworld, but again, she does nothing to force the attack.

You are imposing something onto the fiction that is not part of the 4e power.

 

[pemerton]

One approach is to relax the requirement that every movement needs to be motivated by a rational decision. Combat is chaotic, so people doing stupid things makes sense.

Heck you could ignore even the user of any taunt like maneuver entirely and treat it is an assertion from the player: "These characters are now going to do something stupid". The taunt ability whatever you want to call it is not something that the character does. It's something that the enemies attempt. I expect this is too "narrative" for a lot of players though.

CaGI it is "narrative" in the sense that the player of the fighter gets to dictate that now, in this scene, these NPCs close with me. Why that is, in the fiction, is up for grabs. It may be something the warrior does. It may be something else - as I believe I already posted upthread, the first time that CaGI was used at my table the PC had rushed across a hall using Mighty Sprint, to attack some goblins who were fleeing down a staircase. I narrated that some of the goblins - the ones at the back, and so not yet down the stairs - anxious about this attacking Dwarf, turned back to see what was happening. And then had the misfortune to be cut down by the attacker!

It only "doesn't make sense" if one assumes that the fiction is stop-motion puppetry. But part of the beauty of 4e D&D is that, although resolution is turned based, the resolution produces an ongoing sense of dynamism in the fiction and an absence of stop-motion. The scene I've just described is an example.

 

[pemerton]

I feel like separating player/character action declarations is more of a mid 4e apologist talking point than something that people were generally reading into the game early on.

I'm not sure how many people you need to count as people. It was obvious to me as soon as WotC started telling us about how this game would work, as per this post upthread: https://www.enworld.org/threads/ben...n-seminar-at-gen-con-2023.699181/post-9213313