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

[Manbearcat]

So I'm thinking the next thing we'd see in the above scenario would be the following:

* The Wizard is flying up to the mother ship with Wraithform

* The Fighter and the Rogue are flying up in Hoverpods

Complication?

I'm thinking the mothership would detect the incoming and would communicate some kind of request for authentication (looking for a "call sign" equivalent) via the heads-up displays in the two Hoverpods. Crazy symbols like the Predator's wrist-pad nuke.

Flying aces have big egos, so maybe somewhere in the cockpit is a call-sign that matches up to one of the sequences of symbols flashing on the HUD?

Maybe there is some embedded logic or math in the sequence that can be deciphered via Dungeoneering or History? I think I'd let the Rogue use Secrets of the City here because of the prior exposure to and interfacing with the tech.

Regardless, I'm using the High DC for these two checks and I'm awarding 2 Successes per Success. Therefore, if both players succeed in whatever their efforts may be, that would cement victory; the landing bay doors would open and the PCs would then be in a situation where they would be dealing with infiltration and having the obstacle of whatever service personnel therein.

Either of them fail and we're dealing with a nested combat. Both of them fail and that nested combat is going to be ramped up in budget with a large proximity Hazard that includes heavy canons/turrets from the ship.

 

[pemerton]

I think the difference would be most acutely experienced if you performed the following experiment:

a) Run a 4e combat.

b) Run a follow-on noncombat scene using Dungeon World and Apocalypse World/Blades Clocks (which may be as close as you get to 4th edition noncombat conflict resolution).

Frankly, I think even running a 4e combat then a DW combat would show that players roll the dice isn't the same as only players make mechanical-type moves (I'm bracketing deal damage - I don't think that would change the outcome of the experiment).

 

[Garthanos]

Frankly, I think even running a 4e combat then a DW combat would show that players roll the dice isn't the same as only players make mechanical-type moves (I'm bracketing deal damage - I don't think that would change the outcome of the experiment).

Oh I do not think having players roll is exactly the same perhaps its just the first step... hmmm maybe I am thinking we could bring the "normal combat" much closer to a standard conflict resolution by having the DM describe enemy offense then players describe how they are dealing with it and having a set of established defense side mechanics... more elaborate and inspiring (and tactical since this is 4e) than just that make a defense roll.

I am interested in how one can achieve that idea of having the two contexts mirror one another better without tossing the starting point.

Maybe intermediate steps are not "to the point enough"

 

[Manbearcat]

Alright, a quick interlude.

So we're at the point in this adventuring day where the following is true:

* Aliens from the Far Realm are invading the material plane with their weapons, their vehicles, their tech, and their psychic attacks. The PCs are at the endgame and cutting through their forces in a direct assault upon their mother ship.

* A Fighter has single-handedly taken down and seized control of the lead "tank AT-ST" of the "armored battalion" of the alien force. He's leaped mightily upon it, torn the hatch from it, decimated the crew, and navigated the alien technology to now man the tank.

* A swashbuckling duelist Rogue has danced, parried, and riposted his way across the battlefield many times over cut down the enemy vehicle force while the Wizard and Fighter (via the lead tank) has run interference.

* A Wizard's regime of flight capabilities is not up to the task of flying the 3 PCs the 1000 feet up to the mother ship. Meanwhile, the Fighter and the Rogue (with a small assist from the Wizard; roughly 9% of an assist math-wise, but very archetype-coherently) have just performed the D&D equivalent of "hot-wiring" alien vehicles to commandeer that tech and make that significant vertical climb.


With that accounting done, what do the decisions and outputs (and obviously related resource suites and resolution mechanics) within these conflicts demonstrate about the differences of 4e and traditional D&D?

 

[Garthanos]

I think right there, we should be able to agree that 4e’s basic ethos tenets (“Go to the Action”, “Big Damn Heroes”, “The Heroic Rally”) as well as so much of its system machinery (extremely robust PCs, resource schedules and Milestones, heroic Quests as well as Monsters and Noncombat Encounters for XP, Gold/Treasure as player-facing PC build resource, etc etc) pushes back extremely hard against trying to recreate something like Moldvay Basic or Torchbearer).

In order for it to all come together, you need:

1 - Non-robust adventurers
2 - Resource refresh that is a struggle to attain
3 - Gold for XP (no Monster for XP...encounters are to be avoided)
4 - Gear loadout that is essential to success
5 - Clearly defined Exploration Speed in varying units
6 - A Wandering Monster Click that interfaces with the directly above
7 - Deadly (as in insta-gib via mass HP ablation or SoD) Traps
8 - Swingy, short Combat

To me the above pretty much put the critter to rest...

And the rest is gravy.

 

[Manbearcat]

Alright, a quick interlude.

So we're at the point in this adventuring day where the following is true:

* Aliens from the Far Realm are invading the material plane with their weapons, their vehicles, their tech, and their psychic attacks. The PCs are at the endgame and cutting through their forces in a direct assault upon their mother ship.

* A Fighter has single-handedly taken down and seized control of the lead "tank AT-ST" of the "armored battalion" of the alien force. He's leaped mightily upon it, torn the hatch from it, decimated the crew, and navigated the alien technology to now man the tank.

* A swashbuckling duelist Rogue has danced, parried, and riposted his way across the battlefield many times over cut down the enemy vehicle force while the Wizard and Fighter (via the lead tank) has run interference.

* A Wizard's regime of flight capabilities is not up to the task of flying the 3 PCs the 1000 feet up to the mother ship. Meanwhile, the Fighter and the Rogue (with a small assist from the Wizard; roughly 9% of an assist math-wise, but very archetype-coherently) have just performed the D&D equivalent of "hot-wiring" alien vehicles to commandeer that tech and make that significant vertical climb.


With that accounting done, what do the decisions and outputs (and obviously related resource suites and resolution mechanics) within these conflicts demonstrate about the differences of 4e and traditional D&D?

Quoting myself right quick (weird) and I'll answer the immediately above question.

1) Fighters are significantly more capable, and significantly more capable of mythical feats, out of combat than their traditional D&D counterparts.

2) Rogues (in particular, the swashbuckler/duelist archetype) are significantly more capable in combat than their traditional D&D counterparts.

3) Wizard's "win condition" fiat abilities don't exist in the same scope/breadth/potency (therefore they don't dominate the trajectory of play) as the players of such aren't sitting with a handful of trump cards that will win "hands" (noncombat obstacles/conflicts). Their combat and non-combat resources now help move "team PC" toward victory over obstacles/within conflicts (in a genre coherent fashion), but they don't outright obviate obstacles and assure victory.

 

[Manbearcat]

So in the above complication (mothership would detect the incoming and would communicate some kind of request for authentication (looking for a "call sign" equivalent) via the heads-up displays in the two Hoverpods), the odds that one of them succeeds is probably in the vicinity of 33 %. The odds that both succeed is pretty remote.

As such, we would be looking at a combat nested in the SC with a budget dependent on whether 1 or 0 succeeded; probably L+1 on 1 success and L+2 on 0 successes.

Regardless, the goal of the challenge would be victory before round 5. At round 5, a failure is accrued which would probably mean (a) a small wave of reinforcements (+1 to budget) and the follow-on DC to whatever obstacle I put in front of them after they deal with the wave would be increased to High (as the mother-ship "battens down the hatches").

If that failure is the final failure in the challenge, I'd change the situation pretty radically.

Perhaps the Time Reaper opens a temporal rift briefly sucks the 3 PCs in, putting them in the middle of a conflict at the heart of the Dawn War (maybe a Primordial is being bound deep in the earth, but their sudden presence has thrown the ritual off and the Primordial is suddenly loose with a possible timeline-altering cataclysm in the balance!)? Or maybe I throw them back in time right as Asmodeus is about to betray his god; maybe the PC's stop him or learn the Truename of He Who Was and this somehow affects the future? Something relevant to one (or more) of the PCs' Epic Destinies or Paragon Paths. There is enough meat on the bones of those that something relevant back in time could be conjured that would have impact on their present situation after they deal with the conflict and get sucked back through the rift.

Upon return, the mother ship would be gone with evidence left behind that they gated back to the Far Realm with thousands of the material plane's members (which they need to perpetuate their race). The PCs would have to go to the Far Realm to confront them and get these hostages back.

 

[Garthanos]

If that failure is the final failure in the challenge, I'd change the situation pretty radically.

Perhaps the Time Reaper opens a temporal rift briefly sucks the 3 PCs in, putting them in the middle of a conflict at the heart of the Dawn War (maybe a Primordial is being bound deep in the earth, but their sudden presence has thrown the ritual off and the Primordial is suddenly loose with a possible timeline-altering cataclysm in the balance!)? Or maybe I throw them back in time right as Asmodeus is about to betray his god; maybe the PC's stop him or learn the Truename of He Who Was and this somehow affects the future? Something relevant to one (or more) of the PCs' Epic Destinies or Paragon Paths. There is enough meat on the bones of those that something relevant back in time could be conjured that would have impact on their present situation after they deal with the conflict and get sucked back through the rift.

Upon return, the mother ship would be gone with evidence left behind that they gated back to the Far Realm with thousands of the material plane's members (which they need to perpetuate their race). The PCs would have to go to the Far Realm to confront them and get these hostages back.

Oh I love some of them failures...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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..."

RC grade SCs certainly have all this down cold, you can burn advantages and the DM can toss obstacles at you as needed to shift things around. They never QUITE explicated like that, but it works fine. Of course you may have to go beyond that level of resources in some cases (IE if someone wants to take a HUGE risk, but you already covered that as "2 successes in one" also).

 

[Manbearcat]

Oh I love some of them failures...

Coming up with applicable, interesting failure outcomes is top 3 on the list of things GMs should constantly be working to improve.

RC grade SCs certainly have all this down cold, you can burn advantages and the DM can toss obstacles at you as needed to shift things around. They never QUITE explicated like that, but it works fine. Of course you may have to go beyond that level of resources in some cases (IE if someone wants to take a HUGE risk, but you already covered that as "2 successes in one" also).

Yup. That’s spot on. That is pretty much exactly what Advantages are; player-facing currency to barter (4e’s equivalent of) Position down or Effect up.