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

[pemerton]

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.

The thing is, a per my post upthread - which collects some posts of mine from the first half of 2008 making the same points - it was obvious from very early on what sort of game WotC was designing, and then went on to publish.

Classic D&D was a dungeon-crawler. What's the relationship between (say) 2nd ed Planescape/Dead Gods and the game Gygax and Arneson published over 20 years earlier? The PC sheets look similar, but the game play is completely different.

4e D&D is no more different from the Gygax/Arneson game than is Dead Gods. Like Dead Gods, it has a character sheet with the same sort of stuff on it (ability scores, PC level, AC, hp, the same sorts of equipment). The differences just happen to be of a different sort.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

My three bibles for thinking about how to GM 4e D&D were 4e DMG 1, 4e DMG 2, and the 4e Dungeon Master's Kit.

 

[pemerton]

My three bibles for thinking about how to GM 4e D&D were 4e DMG 1, 4e DMG 2, and the 4e Dungeon Master's Kit.

Fair enough!

 

[Aldarc]

Fair enough!

I do think that the 4e DMGs were fairly clear about how to run 4e. IMO, the DMG 1 initially stumbled a bit with things like skill challenges, but I, nevertheless, think that these books showed a good deal of clarity and self-awareness about how to run 4e. What is also remarkable for me is how often I have seen some 5e influencers and content creators recommend the 4e DMGs as solid books with advice for running their 5e games.

I would argue here that 4e probably had a clearer grasp and articulation of the predominant contemporary play culture of D&D. However, much as @Hussar would potentially say, I think that the 5e DMG succeeds in presenting a "more familiar D&D," albeit one that does not represent how the game is played at most tables. It feels a bit more like lip service to the past.

 

[pemerton]

I do think that the 4e DMGs were fairly clear about how to run 4e. IMO, the DMG 1 initially stumbled a bit with things like skill challenges, but I, nevertheless, think that these books showed a good deal of clarity and self-awareness about how to run 4e. What is also remarkable for me is how often I have seen some 5e influencers and content creators recommend the 4e DMGs as solid books with advice for running their 5e games.

I would argue here that 4e probably had a clearer grasp and articulation of the predominant contemporary play culture of D&D.

By all accounts the 5e DMG is not that good (I've not looked at it myself), so that last point doesn't surprise me.

I'm from the school that thinks the 4e DMG is better than many RPG books, but that it could have been better. For instance, Worlds & Monsters has terrific discussions of the gameplay and thematic logic of various places and planes, of gods, and of various creatures and creature types/groups, but the 4e DMG doesn't replicate this much at all: it has first rate tactical encounter building and resolution advice, but the only bit where it talks about the fiction of the game from the meta-perspective is its (very good) discussion of languages.

Another example of what I find a bit weak: in the Rules Compendium skill challenge example, the final check fails, and thus brings an end to the skill challenge (as the third failure). The check is a Streetwise one, to identify/obtain information about an old building that is connected to a matter the PCs are investigating. The consequence of failure is that some NPCs, whom the PCs successfully brushed off earlier in the challenge (via successful Intimidation) turn up, better armed and with a tough friend, ready to beat up the PCs.

Now that's an excellent consequence, but it doesn't follow simple causal logic, in that there is no immediate causal connection between attempting to recognise a building and recall urban legends about it and your enemies turning up ready to fight. The connection is more about theme and stakes and bringing it home when the dice say that you can. But the book doesn't explain or analyse this at all: it presents it as if it's self evident. But endless threads on ENworld make it clear that it's not self-evident at all.

This is where I find my "bibles" help - they have much more overt, "meta"/process-oriented discussions of these techniques.

HeroWars/Quest and Maelstrom also talking about how to use free descriptors in resolution also helped me a lot in understanding how to use powers and gear (including magic items) in improvised actions both in combat and skill challenges. Although 4e uses keywords rather than free descriptors, I still found those discussions extremely helpful. But for them, I don't think I would have seen or been able to successfully adjudicate as much creative and imaginative stuff as happened in my 4e play.

I guess the flip side is that the more overt the 4e rulebooks, the more they frustrate/irritate some people. And I'm sure you've participated i threads where I've posted the crystal-clear stuff about player-authored quests and seen "trad"-ish interlocutors try and explain how it's nothing different from a GM-gated "sidequest"; probably any attempt by WotC to explain stakes, consequences, "make your move but misdirect", etc would have triggered similar scepticism.

But from my perspective that's WotC's commercial problem, not a problem for me as a RPGer to worry about.

 

[Aldarc]

By all accounts the 5e DMG is not that good (I've not looked at it myself), so that last point doesn't surprise me.

I'm from the school that thinks the 4e DMG is better than many RPG books, but that it could have been better. For instance, Worlds & Monsters has terrific discussions of the gameplay and thematic logic of various places and planes, of gods, and of various creatures and creature types/groups, but the 4e DMG doesn't replicate this much at all: it has first rate tactical encounter building and resolution advice, but the only bit where it talks about the fiction of the game from the meta-perspective is its (very good) discussion of languages.

This was enough to convince me to pick up a copy of Worlds & Monsters. I'm fairly certain that I had a copy somewhere, but I don't.

Another example of what I find a bit weak: in the Rules Compendium skill challenge example, the final check fails, and thus brings an end to the skill challenge (as the third failure). The check is a Streetwise one, to identify/obtain information about an old building that is connected to a matter the PCs are investigating. The consequence of failure is that some NPCs, whom the PCs successfully brushed off earlier in the challenge (via successful Intimidation) turn up, better armed and with a tough friend, ready to beat up the PCs.

Now that's an excellent consequence, but it doesn't follow simple causal logic, in that there is no immediate causal connection between attempting to recognise a building and recall urban legends about it and your enemies turning up ready to fight. The connection is more about theme and stakes and bringing it home when the dice say that you can. But the book doesn't explain or analyse this at all: it presents it as if it's self evident. But endless threads on ENworld make it clear that it's not self-evident at all.

This is where I find my "bibles" help - they have much more overt, "meta"/process-oriented discussions of these techniques.

I would agree here. However, I don't think that advice for running 4e D&D is far more than just skill challenges, which many people would kind of agree probably needed another pass. There are other games before and since that did "skill challenges" better. For example, many game designers have since adopted Blades in the Dark's clocks to perform a similar function.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

I think that this is something that often goes unremarked.

There are many people (and we see them here) who enjoy 4e for the reason that it can strongly support a gamestyle where action declarations can affect the overall narrative (including the world and other NPCs).

That said, this idea is foreign, uncomfortable, and disliked by a number of D&D players. So this is just another way in which there is, to quote @Hussar and Cool Hand Luke, a failure to communicate. The very ways in which some people like 4e are the same ways that other people dislike 4e.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

It also doesn't make sense if you believe that players don't get to decide what characters that aren't their PC do, but I know you don't care about that. It's just a matter of playstyle preference.

 

[Voadam]

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

I am going to agree with Pemerton here. CaGI as a narrative scene is often when opponents are inclined to rush the protagonist.

Come and Get It Fighter Attack 7
You call your opponents toward you and deliver a blow they will never forget.
Encounter ✦ Martial,Weapon
Standard Action Close burst 3
Target: Each enemy in burst you can see Effect: You pull each target 2 squares to a space adjacent to you. You cannot pull a target that cannot end adjacent to you. You then make a close attack targeting each adjacent enemy.
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage.

So it can be anytime the hero gets rushed. I think of Inigo Montoya in Princess bride one shotting all the Count's minions as they rush him even though the Count gives the order to attack. More naturally to the sample description would be anytime the protagonist issues a challenge and the bad guys rush in, in response. Ash from Army of Darkness saying "Come get some."

But also as mentioned earlier in the thread there is that fight with the big bald mustached Nazi mechanic in Raiders of the Lost Ark. It has been a while but my memory is that Indy is getting beat up badly and is outmatched and gets knocked away and the guy in his boxer stance with fists up is like come back here for our boxing match where I am beating you and Indy is like OK, give me a second, then does, and gets beat up more and loses the fight until the propeller takes out the mechanic. In 4e terms I could see the mechanic as a non-minion NPC fighter with CaGI.

This could be an example of a come in and fight when you would rather not.

 

[payn]

I am going to agree with Pemerton here. CaGI as a narrative scene is often when opponents are inclined to rush the protagonist.

Come and Get It Fighter Attack 7
You call your opponents toward you and deliver a blow they will never forget.
Encounter ✦ Martial,Weapon
Standard Action Close burst 3
Target: Each enemy in burst you can see Effect: You pull each target 2 squares to a space adjacent to you. You cannot pull a target that cannot end adjacent to you. You then make a close attack targeting each adjacent enemy.
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage.

So it can be anytime the hero gets rushed. I think of Inigo Montoya in Princess bride one shotting all the Count's minions as they rush him even though the Count gives the order to attack. More naturally to the sample description would be anytime the protagonist issues a challenge and the bad guys rush in, in response. Ash from Army of Darkness saying "Come get some."

But also as mentioned earlier in the thread there is that fight with the big bald mustached Nazi mechanic in Raiders of the Lost Ark. It has been a while but my memory is that Indy is getting beat up badly and is outmatched and gets knocked away and the guy in his boxer stance with fists up is like come back here for our boxing match where I am beating you and Indy is like OK, give me a second, then does, and gets beat up more and loses the fight until the propeller takes out the mechanic. In 4e terms I could see the mechanic as a non-minion NPC fighter with CaGI.

This could be an example of a come in and fight when you would rather not.

View attachment 340796

I think the case works better when you look at it from a variety of situations. Instead of two humans, what if one is a species that doesn't speak the same language? Or a mindless undead? There are likely more, but there are two popular thoughts on this.

First is that the mechanics need to make logical sense. Is it mind effecting? Is it a feint? The rules describe when it qualifies and how it works. The second type views it purely as a mechanical rule to determine fail or success state. How it works is however they say it does in any number of situations.

For example, the first may view CAGI as a mind effecting taunt. Works against a human, but not against an undead creature. The second, would simply say its a mind effecting taunt against a human, but a clever feint against an undead.