D&D 4E 4e: the new paradigm

[I'm A Banana]

No more meaning than the rest of ENWorld polls.

Yes, there is a new paradigm, the designers have admitted as much. Those who say there isn't are really ignoring the express statements of those who are making the game. I mean, I guess they could be mistaken?

The new paradigm isn't too drastically distant from the old one. They say it's on two slightly different sides of the middle ground -- 3e leaning toward consistency, 4e leaning toward "shut up and roll the dice!," both with elements of the other.

G/N/S isn't the most useful model for this.

Instead, try the Character - Narrative Continuum.

3e was interested in you playing a character. Barbarians are like this. Rangers are like that. Fighters should be able to do X, monks should be able to do Y. This evokes a character.

4e seems to be interested in you telling a story. X happens, then Y, then Z! Then, the monsters come CRASHING THROUGH THE WALL! There's danger and action an ninjae rogues around every corner! Go! Roll! Win! Or loose, hahahahahaha!

3e is based around constructing a character. Events come out of your characters.

4e seems to be based around a series of events. Characters happen around the events.

I come at D&D from an acting angle. I want to play a character. The character acts, and events happen because of the character. Because my character is X, he does Y, and this leads to Z. 4e's dominant paradigm doesn't always satisfy that, because it doesn't care what my character is, it only cares what he does. A story happens, in my model, not because it is imposed on my character, but because my character takes actions to move the story in different directions. To me, this was great, because it gave me an autonomy that movies and books lack -- I could influence the world through my character's capacity and ability.

This D&D seems to be a more narrative angle, based on movies and stories. It focuses on what your character does. There are attacks, movements, motions, defenses, auras, triggers, things that HAPPEN. In 3e, it could sometimes take a minute or two to get to what happens -- you'd have to build up the explanation, the motive, and the characters first. In 4e, you've eliminated that time. Don't bother with the explanation, the motive, or the characters: here is what happens, take it and run with it.

The elements of the game that I like and that I want to keep are the elements that let me play a character, and then cause an event. 4e, by and large, seems to be taking the position that the event defines the character. I am very unhappy with that position, but perhaps I can still find a compatible approach, if 4e truly tries to at least attempt to keep a toe on the middle ground.

 

[Cadfan]

3e is based around constructing a character. Events come out of your characters.

4e seems to be based around a series of events. Characters happen around the events.

Please point to something, anything at all, in 3e or 4e, that justifies that comparison.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

This D&D seems to be a more narrative angle, based on movies and stories. It focuses on what your character does. There are attacks, movements, motions, defenses, auras, triggers, things that HAPPEN. In 3e, it could sometimes take a minute or two to get to what happens -- you'd have to build up the explanation, the motive, and the characters first. In 4e, you've eliminated that time. Don't bother with the explanation, the motive, or the characters: here is what happens, take it and run with it.

I agree, somewhat. However, I think you are over exaggerating it.

4e doesn't prevent you from coming up with a character, a personality, motivations and the like. In even encourages that you do so.

It doesn't stop you from driving the story with your personality or motivations. It doesn't stop you from spending a couple of minutes building up the explanation and the motive first. All of those things are completely unrelated to the rules.

I admit, that based on what I've read it certainly encourages a narrative. It encourages the DM to come up with a storyline and involve the players in it rather than allowing the players to go wherever they want without a story behind it. It encourages the DM to come up with a lot of decision points - points in the story where the path the story takes is determined by the players.

 

[I'm A Banana]

4e doesn't prevent you from coming up with a character, a personality, motivations and the like. In even encourages that you do so.

I never said it did. In fact, 4e would STILL encourage you to have a character.

It just encourages your character to be defined by the things it does, rather than the things it is.

3e doesn't prevent you from having a story happen. In fact, 3e ENCOURAGES you to have a story happen.

It just encourages that story to be grounded in the whys and wherefores of it's main protagonists and antagonists.

I admit, that based on what I've read it certainly encourages a narrative. It encourages the DM to come up with a storyline and involve the players in it rather than allowing the players to go wherever they want without a story behind it. It encourages the DM to come up with a lot of decision points - points in the story where the path the story takes is determined by the players.

Yes, I agree. 3e's "background" got in the way of some of that narrative sometimes, and it has been a major annoyance for some people ("I've gotta count out ALL THESE SKILL POINTS!!!" "How many feats does my 24 HD aberration get?!"). 4e is trimming that as fat, but, IMO, seems to be throwing out some babies with the bathwater here.

Please point to something, anything at all, in 3e or 4e, that justifies that comparison.

Well, let's take one of my favorite points of 4e, the skill system we've seen for noncombat resolution.

According to the recent blog posts, escape from sembia, et al, 4e's method has you choose a skill, explain how you would use it to accomplish the goal, and roll to accomplish it. You choose how great of a success you want -- bigger successes have greater chances of failure, but also help you get more successes down the road. As you gain more "successes," you gradually emerge from the encounter victorious.

That's action focused. Something is happening, you choose how you would try and resolve this. You choose what you're good at, presumably, and you explain how that would help you. If your explanation is valid (DM arbitration, probably with a lot of advice), you get to try it. If you get away with it, you are closer to victory, if you fail, you are farther away, but if you get away with it enough, you achieve victory.

The action comes at you, you react to it, you emerge and are ready for the next "scene."

Versus 3e's method.

At every level, you assign skill points to become good at something. The skills themselves tell you what the various DC's are for various things, so you can directly measure how good you are. 20 ranks in Climb means that you can take 10 and climb up wet vinyl (or whatever). This becomes character knowledge, it's character-focused: you can accopmlish task X, if task X ever comes up. A good DM would learn your abilities and present Task X to you in an interesting way, but even if he doesn't, you can still use your skill. You know you can climb that tall pine tree with 20 ranks and the ability to take 10. A cliffside or most castle walls aren't too hard, so if the mage flies to the top of his spire, you can either enter his trap-filled corridoor, or you can climb up the outside like a badass. This means that your character drives the story -- task X can only be accomplished by certain characters, and you happen to be one of them, so you accoplish the task and move forward with the tale.

You have an ability, and can actively "bring the action." The enemy might have to react to you. If the DM does bring the action to you, he brings it to you knowing full well how likely you are to be able to do it. Your choice isn't in how much you risk, it's in how you build your character from the beginning.

That's very character-focused. It's about what capabilities you have.

The "attention," for better or worse, in 4e, isn't on what you can do.

Take the Trip power for example. Once per encounter, you can try to trip someone. Obviously, you don't magically loose the ability to trip someone after you use the power, nor do your tripping muscles cramp up, nor does your enemy somehow gain a magic five-minute memory that renders all trip attempts ineffeicient. Even though it's a per-encounter power, in-character, you don't somehow "loose" the ability to perform a trip except for one small window in every 5-minute span. It's not about what your character can do.

It's about what your character DOES do. You only ACTUALLY trip once per encounter, regardless of how often you're actually able to in-character. The action is where the attention is -- on the fact that you DO it, not on your ability to do it (or lack thereof).

It's not a binary system, it's a continuum -- you need both to make an RPG worth playing. 4e seems to be very differently weighted on this scale than 3e was. And, rather than G/N/S, I think this is a stronger difference between the editions (since G/N/S is all but useless).

 

[TwoSix]

I never said it did. In fact, 4e would STILL encourage you to have a character.

It just encourages your character to be defined by the things it does, rather than the things it is.

3e doesn't prevent you from having a story happen. In fact, 3e ENCOURAGES you to have a story happen.

It just encourages that story to be grounded in the whys and wherefores of it's main protagonists and antagonists.

Yes, I agree. 3e's "background" got in the way of some of that narrative sometimes, and it has been a major annoyance for some people ("I've gotta count out ALL THESE SKILL POINTS!!!" "How many feats does my 24 HD aberration get?!"). 4e is trimming that as fat, but, IMO, seems to be throwing out some babies with the bathwater here.



Well, let's take one of my favorite points of 4e, the skill system we've seen for noncombat resolution.

According to the recent blog posts, escape from sembia, et al, 4e's method has you choose a skill, explain how you would use it to accomplish the goal, and roll to accomplish it. You choose how great of a success you want -- bigger successes have greater chances of failure, but also help you get more successes down the road. As you gain more "successes," you gradually emerge from the encounter victorious.

That's action focused. Something is happening, you choose how you would try and resolve this. You choose what you're good at, presumably, and you explain how that would help you. If your explanation is valid (DM arbitration, probably with a lot of advice), you get to try it. If you get away with it, you are closer to victory, if you fail, you are farther away, but if you get away with it enough, you achieve victory.

The action comes at you, you react to it, you emerge and are ready for the next "scene."

Versus 3e's method.

At every level, you assign skill points to become good at something. The skills themselves tell you what the various DC's are for various things, so you can directly measure how good you are. 20 ranks in Climb means that you can take 10 and climb up wet vinyl (or whatever). This becomes character knowledge, it's character-focused: you can accopmlish task X, if task X ever comes up. A good DM would learn your abilities and present Task X to you in an interesting way, but even if he doesn't, you can still use your skill. You know you can climb that tall pine tree with 20 ranks and the ability to take 10. A cliffside or most castle walls aren't too hard, so if the mage flies to the top of his spire, you can either enter his trap-filled corridoor, or you can climb up the outside like a badass. This means that your character drives the story -- task X can only be accomplished by certain characters, and you happen to be one of them, so you accoplish the task and move forward with the tale.

You have an ability, and can actively "bring the action." The enemy might have to react to you. If the DM does bring the action to you, he brings it to you knowing full well how likely you are to be able to do it. Your choice isn't in how much you risk, it's in how you build your character from the beginning.

That's very character-focused. It's about what capabilities you have.

The "attention," for better or worse, in 4e, isn't on what you can do.

Take the Trip power for example. Once per encounter, you can try to trip someone. Obviously, you don't magically loose the ability to trip someone after you use the power, nor do your tripping muscles cramp up, nor does your enemy somehow gain a magic five-minute memory that renders all trip attempts ineffeicient. Even though it's a per-encounter power, in-character, you don't somehow "loose" the ability to perform a trip except for one small window in every 5-minute span. It's not about what your character can do.

It's about what your character DOES do. You only ACTUALLY trip once per encounter, regardless of how often you're actually able to in-character. The action is where the attention is -- on the fact that you DO it, not on your ability to do it (or lack thereof).

It's not a binary system, it's a continuum -- you need both to make an RPG worth playing. 4e seems to be very differently weighted on this scale than 3e was. And, rather than G/N/S, I think this is a stronger difference between the editions (since G/N/S is all but useless).

Excellent post, I completely agree.

It just encourages your character to be defined by the things it does, rather than the things it is.

A question: Why define what a character IS if not to allow determination of what it DOES?

 

[I'm A Banana]

A question: Why define what a character IS if not to allow determination of what it DOES?

Well, that is why.

3e vaguely says: "This is who I am. Therefore, I do that." Build a character, take an action.

4e vaguely seems to say: "I do that. That must mean I am this." Take an action, resolve it in-character.

Aside from 4e seeming backwards to me, I do think the weight is a bit off. Coming at D&D from an acting background, it's very, very important for me to have a believable character to play. That's a good portion of the FUN in D&D for me. 4e's weight being more on what happens than who it happens to seems to be removing some of that fun in the hopes that more people will have fun doing things than being things, without getting rid of being things but perhaps having some blocks in the way for those eager to be things (just as 3e didn't get rid of doing things, but perhaps had some blocks in the way).

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Well, that is why.

3e vaguely says: "This is who I am. Therefore, I do that." Build a character, take an action.

4e vaguely seems to say: "I do that. That must mean I am this." Take an action, resolve it in-character.

I just don't see that this is any different. It is entirely how you view it. It works the other way around as well:

3e: I can cast fireballs, so I must be a wizard.
4e: I am a warlord and a leader so I can give people tactical options.

It's true that in 4e, they attempt to make the options unique to the classes so you no longer have a situation where you have a list of options: Fireballs, Trips, Sneak Attacks, and so on and a list of classes that have one of more of these abilities: I'm a Spellthief so I can cast spells and have sneak attack.

Aside from 4e seeming backwards to me, I do think the weight is a bit off. Coming at D&D from an acting background, it's very, very important for me to have a believable character to play. That's a good portion of the FUN in D&D for me. 4e's weight being more on what happens than who it happens to seems to be removing some of that fun in the hopes that more people will have fun doing things than being things, without getting rid of being things but perhaps having some blocks in the way for those eager to be things (just as 3e didn't get rid of doing things, but perhaps had some blocks in the way).

I think this weight is entirely put on the game by the players, not the game system.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I just don't see that this is any different. It is entirely how you view it.

It's not just a perception. 3e says: "20 ranks in Climb lets you do all these things!". 4e says "If you want to try and escape the city by climbing the walls, that sounds good, do you want an easy, medium, or hard difficulty?"

3e says "Tripping can't be 'used up,' so do it whenever you want." 4e says "Tripping can't be 'used up,' really, but you can only do it once per encounter, however you want to make sense of that."

It's true that in 4e, they attempt to make the options unique to the classes so you no longer have a situation where you have a list of options: Fireballs, Trips, Sneak Attacks, and so on and a list of classes that have one of more of these abilities: I'm a Spellthief so I can cast spells and have sneak attack.

I don't see how 4e is doing anything that any other class-based system hasn't already done, here.

3e's classes have unique options. 4e's classes will, too. 2e's classes did. 1e's classes did. And the unique options have nothing, AFAICT, to do with where each game's rules system focuses.

I think this weight is entirely put on the game by the players, not the game system.

I'm not sure how you can look at the RULES for Trip (for instance) that we know and tell me that 4e cares what your character is literally capable of as much as it cares about what your character functionally does.

That's the heart of what I'm saying. 3e's rules revolved strongly around building a character. 4e's rules revolve more strongly around building a scene. You can't have a scene without some characters, and you can't have characters without some sort of scene for them to be in, but the focus is a bit different, in the rules.

 

[Pbartender]

3e vaguely says: "This is who I am. Therefore, I do that." Build a character, take an action.

4e vaguely seems to say: "I do that. That must mean I am this." Take an action, resolve it in-character.

It kind of depends on your point of view... I see both as a sort of feedback loop.

"This is who I am. Therefore, I do that. That must mean I am a little bit more like this. There fore, I do that..." etc. The difference is where you start.

Do you build the stat block of your character and then explain where the abilities come from afterwards? Or do you fill out the history and personality of the character first, and then choose classes, feats and skills to match? I've both in 3.5, and don't see any reason why you couldn't build characters either way in 4E either. It's like MO says, I think that's a player-driven weight, not a game-driven weight.

If anything, for my group, the suggestion that 4E is action oriented would be a benefit. my players often have a tendency to create "believable characters", which once the game starts take actions that are completely uninformed by the framework of personality they built... By and large, they end up being the stereotypical paranoid-mercenary-adventurer. Or, the character's action are so thoroughly constrained by who they are, the character never "grows". I know I've fallen in the same ruts more than once.

Anyway, there are particular details that my players or I aren't completely happy with in 4E, but for the most part, the slight paradigm shift seems to better suit our play style, whether my players are willing to admit it or not...

 

[Pbartender]

It's not just a perception. 3e says: "20 ranks in Climb lets you do all these things!". 4e says "If you want to try and escape the city by climbing the walls, that sounds good, do you want an easy, medium, or hard difficulty?"

By the same respect, 3E often says something like, "Unless you have 20 ranks in Climb, you can't do it." Whereas, 4E, at least as far as skills are concerned, says, "Give it a try, you can do it slow and safe, or fast and risky."