D&D 4E 4E: DM-proofing the game

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yes, but the point is that they got it 'wrong' for 3E. They've had major experiments like 'Neverwinter Nights' to see what needs tweaking in a cRPG, and they've seen the market get apparantly stolen by WoW. 4E is intended to 'fix' what was wrong with 3E, and based on the design by that they largely mean 'things that would make translating it to a computer hard'.

Ok, just in case anyone is still not seeing it, the reason you have to have level limits on magic items is in a persistant online world, you want to have some means of limiting trickle-down buffs to low level players so that they aren't 'deprived' of the intended experience by the presence of pervasive powerful magic. Also, if powerful buffs are trickling down, those that don't get them will percieve the game as unfair and will become frustrated by 'having to do it the hard way'. In a PnP game, that's not a problem. Everyone in the game is in the same 'party'. So items have to have level limits and restrictions in 4e to ensure the math works at every stage of the game, because the goal here is to make the online experience and the PnP experience as close to the same as possible.

Once you realize that, alot of the question of 'Why are they doing THAT?!?!?' goes away.

I think you're right with the outcome, basically. The rules for 4E will probably work better for a computer game then the 3E rules. (Especially formalized Quest mechanic would be pretty useful for a game like Neverwinter Nights. The major XP income from NWN does seem Quests, not the countless monsters and NPCs you get to kill in between).

But the rules of 4E weren't designed for "computer use". They were designed for ease of use by human players (including the GM).
A computer doesn't have a problem generating a monster with 15HD (d12), 2+INT skill points per HD, good Fort, and good BAB. But a DM can easily be overwhelmed by it if he has to do it for 12 NPCs for one adventure, and he has do it every week, but works 40 hours per week and also goes to the fitness studio once per week to at least attempt reducing his body weight below the adiposis mark again. (Any similarities to existing posters are mostly superficial)
A computer doesn't have a problem tracking strength damage, the shaken condition, Inspire Courage, Bear's Endurance and a bleeding wound over 10 rounds, and his current power attack modifier in case of an AoO. But a human has.

 

[FourthBear]

Contrast this with the 3E CR system and you can see how it has changed (which is why I call the level/role/tier system the successor of the CR system, though "evolution of" is probably more accurate). A CR 3 creature is intended to be a reasonable challenge for a 3rd level party of 4.

First, I would like to note that the CR system is notorious for doing a poor job of all of this. Often because of exactly what you are touting as unpredictability in opponent statistics actually often led to poorly designed enemies that were eggshells with hammers or tanks without effective offensive options. The problem with high HD undead is particularly and systematically a problem.

Again, I disagree fundamentally that giving ranges for level-appropriate combat statistics will substantially shift towards predictability. Note that these ranges can be shifted and changed far more easily than the previous NPC leveling or monster advancement rules. Because of this, a troll bruiser could easily be a level 5, 9, 15 or 23rd level opponent far more easily than a troll in 3e could be adjusted away from its base CR. In 3e, players who have read the Monster Manual have more of an advantage, since they will know the baseline statistics for that specific monster and they know how the rules, in all their specific glory, promote advancement. Players will have less certainty as to the potency of their opponents in 4e precisely because in 3e it was more of a bother to change a baseline opponent's CR. DMs will be more likely to advance foes rather than picking out premade foes a Monster Manual because they happen to fit the CR. I am also hopeful that taking more time away from the 3e leveling and advancement rules should allow for more time for DMs to assign encounter specific and unique abilties for opponents and situations.

 

[Lizard]

Once you realize that, alot of the question of 'Why are they doing THAT?!?!?' goes away.

Yeah, that's kind of becoming my conclusion as well. It's becoming the only logical reason for many of the design decisions.

On the main point of the thread, I agree with the OP:Under 4e, the DM is little more than a Combat Adjudicator, and he exists only until he can be effectively replaced with a computer. The high level of setting fluff built into the rules, the simplification of monster tactics, the absence of tools for building non-combat NPCs or customizing monsters, etc, etc, etc. Even building encounters is now a matter of just 'buying' monsters with points, much like building an army in a miniatures game. The strict reliance on defining when encounters 'begin' and 'end' is antithetical to the kind of free-form, largely unscripted games I run; the game design for 4e presumes every fight is an FX-filled battle on Exciting Terrain (TM) with countless gewgaws and scripted events and what-not.

 

[FourthBear]

On the main point of the thread, I agree with the OP:Under 4e, the DM is little more than a Combat Adjudicator, and he exists only until he can be effectively replaced with a computer.

The original poster said nothing of the sort. This is an extremely tendentious view that I do not believe is any more supported than all of the previous, identical claims during the roll out of 3e. Again, you are completely ignoring those announcements that contradict this view, such that social encounters will be given more support in the DMG. Your claims as to the absence of tools for the creation of non-combat NPCs and the customization of monster are both simply unsupportable. They've already noted that monsters will be able to be customized on the fly, so that's outright false. And non-combat NPCs have been noted in playing blogs lots of times, so that's wrong as well.

 

[Lizard]

The original poster said nothing of the sort. This is an extremely tendentious view that I do not believe is any more supported than all of the previous, identical claims during the roll out of 3e. Again, you are completely ignoring those announcements that contradict this view, such that social encounters will be given more support in the DMG. Your claims as to the absence of tools for the creation of non-combat NPCs and the customization of monster are both simply unsupportable. They've already noted that monsters will be able to be customized on the fly, so that's outright false. And non-combat NPCs have been noted in playing blogs lots of times, so that's wrong as well.

We've been told about social encounters, but we've seen nothing of them, mechanically.

Non-combat skills are non-existent -- no craft, profession, perform. Knowledge skills are seriously reduced/compressed. I have heard NPC classes are gone, so are we back to "Everyone is 0 level" ala 1e? This is what I mean by the lack of tools for making NPCs.

I have heard nothing about "on the fly" customization. Source? Since monsters now have neither feats nor skill points, it is much harder to 'flavor' a monster by swapping those picks from the default.

 

[pemerton]

Does that really empower the player? In games without skill systems like B/X it could be a lot easier for a player to decide his character is, say, a good fisherman. In 3e if my PC has a Wis of 6 and no skill points free, that would be much harder.
Whether demons and devils look different or similar is inconsequential, what matters is whether the players can work out a monster's powers from its appearance. Which they have always been able to do in every edition of D&D unless the monsters are disguised or the DM changes the description.
But instead hostage to the DM's decision about when an encounter ends. The only change here is that the DM's decision is easier. There's no increase in player power.

Doug, you make some interesting points, and with timezone differences it's late here and I don't have time to read the rest of the page, so I might be a bit behind.

But in general I think character build rules empower players to determine what resources their PCs have access to - whereas 1st ed DMG secondary skill rules (1) are largely irrelevant to adventuring, and (2) are expressly a DM-regulated option.

Hence, in my view, the many complaints about splatbooks leading to uppity players.

I think the encounter design and magic item rules do the same - they enhance predictability for the players by taking the GM out of the equation (at least if the book rules are followed - people are always free to play a house-ruled variant).

Hope that helps.

 

[FourthBear]

We've been told about social encounters, but we've seen nothing of them, mechanically.

Non-combat skills are non-existent -- no craft, profession, perform. Knowledge skills are seriously reduced/compressed. I have heard NPC classes are gone, so are we back to "Everyone is 0 level" ala 1e? This is what I mean by the lack of tools for making NPCs.

I have heard nothing about "on the fly" customization. Source? Since monsters now have neither feats nor skill points, it is much harder to 'flavor' a monster by swapping those picks from the default.

I find it remarkable then, that having seen so little of the system that you feel free to engage in broadside, insulting claims that monster customization will be not be supported, that non-combat NPCs will have no tools for creation and that the DM's role will be reduced to that of a combat adjudicator. How quickly this tune changes to "how can we know, we haven't seen enough."

You knew about the claims for social encounters, so you know that there *will* be such support in the game. We also know that the social encounters will involve team based efforts and will not be reduced to single Diplomacy checks.

As to the non-combat skills, it is also untrue. We know that skills that are not frequently used in resolving common conflicts during adventuring will not be listed. This does not reduce to "no non-combat skills". We have been told that there will be a Thievery skill with applications for pick-pocketing, sleight-of-hand and similar abilities that are primarily useful out of combat. There will also be a Persuasion or Diplomacy skill, again contradicting your flat claim. How does this affect the creation of non-combat NPCs, which you claimed was unsupported? Was it impossible to generate a baker in D&D before the creation of the Profession: Baker skill?

As to your new claims that monsters and NPCs will not have skills, please see the latest Pit Fiend stats for direct evidence contradicting this. Yes, monster and NPCs will have skills, characteristics and whatever abilities that the designer feels are needed for a good encounter. The reason that feats will likely be less frequently noted in monsters, is that with the new philosophy why do you need them? Feats are there for PCs to keep track and balanced in terms of the options they have chosen. There is no need for our pit fiend to pick out five feats for Weapon Focus (Mace), the designer simply decides what attack bonus would be appropriate instead of trying to jury-ring or post-rationalize the creature's statistics through a PC-like engineering process.

 

[Jhulae]

Oh, yawn.

Early RPGs, like the much touted 1st Edition, were nothing more than 'combat simulators' as 4th Edition is so called. Look at most of the rules of 1st Edition and what do they deal with? Social encounters? World Building? Storytelling? Hardly. Combat and placing monsters in hallways to initiate combats and maybe a trap or two between combats.

Yet, the DM was always there to *gasp* flesh things out... to make a believable world and create engaging adventures.

Guess what? None of that has changed in 4th Edition. If *anything*, 4th Edition seems to be trying to bring back a BECMI feel, the one D&D rule system that seems to be the *most* highly regarded by most people (myself included). And, honestly, how much in *that* system wasn't geared toward combat? Yet, again, people had adventures beyond combats there too, and the DM was an integral part of it. I don't see any of that changing.

I don't want to be dismissive of these so called 'concerns' about the DM's place, but... I really can't find a way to finish that sentence.

 

[Lizard]

I find it remarkable then, that having seen so little of the system that you feel free to engage in broadside, insulting claims that monster customization will be not be supported, that non-combat NPCs will have no tools for creation and that the DM's role will be reduced to that of a combat adjudicator. How quickly this tune changes to "how can we know, we haven't seen enough."

You knew about the claims for social encounters, so you know that there *will* be such support in the game. We also know that the social encounters will involve team based efforts and will not be reduced to single Diplomacy checks.

Actually, I *don't* know this, since it's never been discussed in playtest, and in many projects of this nature, promised features are dropped or moved to later releases.

How does this affect the creation of non-combat NPCs, which you claimed was unsupported? Was it impossible to generate a baker in D&D before the creation of the Profession: Baker skill?

Pretty much. Mechanically, everyone was a "0 level non combatant" with no means of modeling their actual skills or abilities. I pretty much avoided D&D from when I outgrew 1e to when 3e came out, precisely because it lacked any tools to model skills in the kind of depth I liked in games like Hero and GURPS. 3e brought me back to the D&D fold; 4e seems bound and determined to kick me away again.

As to your new claims that monsters and NPCs will not have skills, please see the latest Pit Fiend stats for direct evidence contradicting this.

I believe I said "Skill POINTS".

Yes, monster and NPCs will have skills, characteristics and whatever abilities that the designer feels are needed for a good encounter.

Precisely. A good *encounter*. Not a good *character*. If you don't see the difference, we're working on such different levels that I don't think meaningful communication is possible.

The reason that feats will likely be less frequently noted in monsters, is that with the new philosophy why do you need them?

Uhm...I *like* them? I like to be able to take a monster of middling level and make him more of a diplomat and less of a fighter by swapping some feats? I like to give different monsters different strengths, such as giving some orcs with bows point-blank shot and some orcs with axes Weapon Focus?

Feats are there for PCs to keep track and balanced in terms of the options they have chosen. There is no need for our pit fiend to pick out five feats for Weapon Focus (Mace), the designer simply decides what attack bonus would be appropriate instead of trying to jury-ring or post-rationalize the creature's statistics through a PC-like engineering process.

And I consider this a step backwards. My favorite systems are those which don't distinguish between PC and NPC mechanically -- GURPS, Hero, BESM, for example. D&D 3e was borderlineish, but was close enough to a unified mechanic that I liked it. 4e is moving in what I consider to be the wholly wrong direction.

 

[Spell]

Really? I don't remember it that way at all.

to each his own, i guess.

In fact, what's "freeform" about every elf having to be both a wizard and fighter?

the fact that the combat is much less rule free and quick?

it's funny that when people talk about "freeform" they mention character creation, when instead they should be talking about the actual mechanics of the game.
AD&D was more combat heavy. AD&D got also core rules for Non weapon proficiencies with 2nd edition... and most people were using them well before that time. AD&D has many more spells than D&D.

besides, there's not much "freeform" into every elf having to be both a wizard and a fighter because D&D (and, similarly, AD&D, to a lesser extent) were games aimed to reproduce a particular kind of fantasy experience.

DnD actually had rules for running a barony and fighting a large battle

i can't remember those for the baronies, but i do remember that the large battle ones were quite abstract. no room for tactics. and no room for the players, too, which were meant to do some "heroic action" while the battle was underway.

whereas the core of the ADnD rules really only had guidelines at best.

i beg to differ. the battlesystem books are hardly "guidelines" at best.