D&D 4E 4e Compared to Trad D&D; What You Lose, What You Gain

[Ratskinner]

It can be done...but your no longer playing 4e at that point. You’re playing a severely drifted, serious hack if 4e. And due to the amount of drift/hack, you can’t juat “toggle back” to all things 4e. Well, I mean you can, but the play experience would be jarringly incoherent.

I've had similar experiences when trying inject more Fate, or other "indie" rpg mechanics into D&D (any edition). Very quickly into the exercise, I get the impression that its just not worth the effort, because the real answer is just to switch the other game's randomizer to a d20.

To address to your thoughts specifically WRT 4e; I think that one of 4e's design/presentation paradoxical weaknesses was that the combat engine worked so well almost entirely independently of any of the other mechanics. I think this allowed many groups (at least the ones I know from experience) basically ignoring the rest of it. In particular, I point to the original presentation of skill challenges. I was directly involved in three separate groups immediately as 4e came out.* All three quickly abandoned skill challenges and basically ran 3e games with a 4e combat engine...and then abandoned 4e. I'm actually into tightly framed games, and it totally whiffed for me that that is what 4e was shooting for. This is one reason that I advocate that combat and non-combat scenes should resolve using symmetrical mechanics.


*My son and his friends also had a 4e group full of new teenaged players. They suffered less than the groups full of experienced players I was running with, but they to seemed to whiff on the non-combat aspects of 4e play and using them as you and the other 4dvocates around here do.

 

[Garthanos]

So in Blades in the Dark parlance that would be setting Position and Effect. 4e handles this pretty much the same way, it just doesn't explicate it like that.

So the default Position in Blades in the Dark is Risky with Controlled and Desperate being on opposite ends. The default Effect is Standard with Limited and Great being on opposite ends.

Trading Position for Effect or vice versa is orthodox Blades. Procedurally, it would be the same sort of deal in 4e.

So here, given that the mechanical state would be at 3 Successes and 1 Failure with a High DC Insight effort (as outlined above) in play to possibly cement success (but the 2nd failure would mean things are still in the balance), the barter could be spending a Surge to drop it down to the Medium DC (so turning it into vs accruing 2 Failures and bumping the Encounter Budget up by 2 levels if it fails.

The player would have to propose at the table how this might go down. Something like:

"I'm taking my time...an extended exchange through the Wizard to feel this guy out...really getting the measure of him. Maybe some back and forth to see what he knows about our exploits and seeing how he responds to us filling in the gaps. No one has to die here. We don't want to kill him and his troops. We know they're just doing their duty...but it would be so easy for he and his troops to just...disappear.

I figure there is a chance that we may be talking along enough for reinforcements from the mother ship to arrive..."

This it very much hits the spot and yes the healing surge is a possibility I was considering - it could involve a long stare where you are obviously measuring him and making him nervous as well as the more elaborate interactions (though arguably this rogue would likely have been trying to figure this guy out the moment it started becoming a negotiation could cut back time element mildly - but increased time tension due to shooting for the more awesome result is great).

One of the aspects I really like about "The Perfect Price" is how the prices can be or arguably should be just as much in terms of story as they are in terms of economy. Also I think the fact that the price you come up with is very much about giving the subject what they value makes it heroic in a way... even Loki is a hero here.

I said it earlier but I am going to double up I feel I am developing the practices because they contribute to the not entirely common language of awesome which can be achieved by paragon and epic heroics (even if like @pemerton you do not use them). Not just because they help balance the scales between casters and non-casters in out of combat situations.

 

[Garthanos]

I've had similar experiences when trying inject more Fate, or other "indie" rpg mechanics into D&D (any edition). Very quickly into the exercise, I get the impression that its just not worth the effort, because the real answer is just to switch the other game's randomizer to a d20.

I think Fate can inject into games but you have to be ummm careful about the particulars involved. For instance I think RuneQuest actually fit the bill. RuneQuest had very little broad archetype definitions ie they don't have classes (Rune Lord and Shaman I think could be subsumed by aspects). Aspects then take that role in the game and RuneQuest lacks a reliable mechanic for heroic tenacity any shot can make meat of even the very very skilled (with a good/poor skill check) And Fate Points can provide that heroic context.

 

[Aldarc]

I think Fate can inject into games but you have to be ummm careful about the particulars involved. For instance I think RuneQuest actually fit the bill. RuneQuest had very little broad archetype definitions ie they don't have classes (Rune Lord and Shaman I think could be subsumed by aspects). Aspects then take that role in the game and RuneQuest lacks a reliable mechanic for heroic tenacity any shot can make meat of even the very very skilled (with a good/poor skill check) And Fate Points can provide that heroic context.

I would look into the magic of Dresden Files Accelerated as well. Some of the powerful Rune magic, for example, may require rituals or other powerful effects can only be used so many times before requiring a Terms and Conditions service performed for the appropriate patron/deity. That seems like it would be fairly easy to hack for RuneQuest.

 

[Garthanos]

I would look into the magic of Dresden Files Accelerated as well. Some of the powerful Rune magic, for example, may require rituals or other powerful effects can only be used so many times before requiring a Terms and Conditions service performed for the appropriate patron/deity. That seems like it would be fairly easy to hack for RuneQuest.

Oh it is entirely possible other elements could be leveraged, RQ seemed like a solid base platform lacking grand sense of heroic scale which was promised by D&D (and sometimes/eventually delivered) and Fate has the potential to Model that without getting too gritty or complex about

But RQ also lacked them battlefield roles which I have come to love - And I think introducing fighting styles based around that with the sense of richness I get in 4e D&D might be a much larger task. Aspects might do some of that in broad terms but.. And then there is the heroic turn around fight pacing model.

 

[Manbearcat]

This is one reason that I advocate that combat and non-combat scenes should resolve using symmetrical mechanics.

Yup. I absolutely agree.

With 4e, this could have been accomplished via the Dungeon Worlding of resolution. It would have fit well with the system. Strike! (4e hack) goes this route and pulls it off pretty damn well.

 

[darkbard]

Yup. I absolutely agree.

With 4e, this could have been accomplished via the Dungeon Worlding of resolution. It would have fit well with the system. Strike! (4e hack) goes this route and pulls it off pretty damn well.

Wouldn't mind hearing more about this.

 

[Manbearcat]

Alright, so I think we can at this point see how the opening framed situation (mechancially, Skill Challenge Level + 2 Complexity 1; parley) could snowball into the follow-on combat as a consequence of failure: Level + 5 (failure at end of SC leading to +2 buff to Encounter Budget) Combat (arising from failure above).

Level 28 Combat @ 13000 * 3 PCs = 39000 XP budget

I would probably break it out something like:

1) Commander's Tank = Level 22 Controller (Leader) Elite @ 8300 XP

- Action Recovery
- Aura to help allies
- CB3 AoE that damages/Pushes/Immobilizes
- Ranged 10 that damages/Force Move + Restrained
- Ranged 10 Repair Vehicle move.

2) AT-ST Vehicles * 2 = Level 22 Skirmisher @ 4150 * 2 = 8300

- Move + Attack + Move grants no OA and Grabs
- Any OA against does half its damage to Grabbed enemy
- Recharge 5/6 vs Fort w/ Slow/Can't Shift/15 OG (Save Ends).

3) Hoverpods * 3 = Level 22 Artillery Standard @ 4150 * 3 = 12450

- Flight/Hover
- Ranged 20 (2 targets) that does damage + Immobilized
- Ranged 20 that puts AoE burst on target with Immobilized or Restrained
- Shield Encounter Power.

4) 1 level 22 Minion Skirmisher emerges from each of the Hoverpods and 2 apiece from AT-STs when they're destroyed @ 1038 * 7

5) Area featured a huge battle that was recently lost by a large contingent of (demi)humanity's defenders. Combat would feature:

- Challenging Terrain in the way of deep pits from artillery blasts
- Hindering Terrain in the way of leftover mines that immobilize + 15 Psychic if you start and end turn there (aliens immune)
- DT in the way of stacks of bodies
- Blocking Terrain in the way of damaged alien vehicles.

 

[Manbearcat]

Wouldn't mind hearing more about this.

Sure mate. I'll get a post up either tonight or tomorrow about Strike!'s action resolution and how 4e could crib it.

 

[Garthanos]

Yup. I absolutely agree.

With 4e, this could have been accomplished via the Dungeon Worlding of resolution. It would have fit well with the system. Strike! (4e hack) goes this route and pulls it off pretty damn well.

How did I miss that one.... scramble scramble

https://www.strikerpg.com