D&D 4E Am I crazy? I've just gotten a hankering to play 4e again...

[Garthanos]

And yet, focusing sufficient firepower on a specific target in order to neutralize it ASAP IS a fundamental tactical concept. In the real world most weapon attacks are potentially instantly lethal (or at least 'mission kills'). So the concept does have somewhat limited applicability in real life (you can see it in ship-to-ship combat and a version of it was logically present in mass melee combat, and hence Chainmail). So it was NOT an accident of rules that put it in Chainmail, but simply a modeling of a real-world tactical law.

Umm just the act of forcing an enemy to pay part of its attention on defense in real life very much inhibits their ability to attack. If attacking targets by default reduced their chance to hit anyone... looks over at rattling effect.. well almost that requires a hit. But the threat of an attack distracting an enemy from attacking is a very real thing. It is one of the reasons deceptions are such a huge thing in tactics.

Flanking is related of course.

 

[Garthanos]

Anyway, I have no idea why realism reared its ugly head as a point of discussion in this threat at all to begin with. I suggested a more 'organic' and thus easily narrated sort of tactics. It was not my intention in any way shape or form to suggest some sort of injection of realism!!!!

Perhaps you needed to better explain what you meant by organic.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Umm just the act of forcing an enemy to pay part of its attention on defense in real life very much inhibits their ability to attack. If attacking targets by default reduced their chance to hit anyone... looks over at rattling effect.. well almost that requires a hit. But the threat of an attack distracting an enemy from attacking is a very real thing. It is one of the reasons deceptions are such a huge thing in tactics.

Flanking is related of course.

Not disagreeing. All I'm saying is that is a consequence of the potentially instant lethality of most attacks, particularly in man-to-man combat (regardless of the technology in use, sticks and rocks or assault weapons). Even if an opponent is simply trying to 'suppress' you, you cannot entirely ignore them because that would simply make you such an easy mark that an attack would land, and that's all she wrote. Even if the attacks are very cursory you must know in your mind they could be lethal and the effect is achieved. In D&D this is simply not the case. My level 6 4e fighter doesn't need to concern himself overly with every opponent, if he gets hit by an attack he'll survive and if the party spreads out its attacks, they'll likely be defeated.

I mean, maybe you can simulate the realistic scenario if you want to, but I'm not that interested in that type of realism. I was more interested in the sort of thinking that says "hey, the rogue will hide in the bushes over there and leap out to make a flank attack when the fighter pins the orcs" as opposed to "we'll use tactical power X to get the rogue a shift so he can slide in behind the orc" which is a more gamist and non-organic sort of story. Of course the 'flank attack' story can also be supported by powers and whatnot that make it work even better.

 

[Garthanos]

Not disagreeing. All I'm saying is that is a consequence of the potentially instant lethality of most attacks, particularly in man-to-man combat (regardless of the technology in use, sticks and rocks or assault weapons). Even if an opponent is simply trying to 'suppress' you, you cannot entirely ignore them because that would simply make you such an easy mark that an attack would land, and that's all she wrote. Even if the attacks are very cursory you must know in your mind they could be lethal and the effect is achieved. In D&D this is simply not the case. My level 6 4e fighter doesn't need to concern himself overly with every opponent, if he gets hit by an attack he'll survive and if the party spreads out its attacks, they'll likely be defeated.

the threat of injury is higher regardless the repercussions of a true long term may not there because the player knows he isn't lets call it out of luck yet the player is not making the small level choices we make them happen in the mechanics, and arguably the character cannot simply choose to ignore completely regardless of players broader choices unless the game makes it work that way.

I mean, maybe you can simulate the realistic scenario if you want to, but I'm not that interested in that type of realism. I was more interested in the sort of thinking that says "hey, the rogue will hide in the bushes over there and leap out to make a flank attack when the fighter pins the orcs" as opposed to "we'll use tactical power X to get the rogue a shift so he can slide in behind the orc" which is a more gamist and non-organic sort of story. Of course the 'flank attack' story can also be supported by powers and whatnot that make it work even better.

what do you think the difference is? This is what I think th e difference is a rogue shifting through a rare opening once a day to get through an enemy square to the other side and gaining combat advantage and a supersized buffed attack is the game functional thing that does not have 2 percent chance of working because the player was given authorial power to say it is happening now.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Perhaps you needed to better explain what you meant by organic.

Undoubtedly.

And obviously, this is all somewhat of a grey area in that there are certainly plenty of times when various effects of powers, or whatever, lend themselves to a pretty organic feeling narrative description. It just doesn't always happen, or people get in the habit of not bothering to do that, and then 4e can come across as very dry and gamist, more like a wargame. I think we can try to improve slightly on the formula to encourage it to move more in the 'crazy gonzo fantasy fight scene' direction. That's really what I'm trying to do, shift the emphasis from things like turn phasing and durations, and pushes and shifts, and more to unexpected attacks and naturalistic strategems.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

the threat of injury is higher regardless the repercussions of a true long term may not there because the player knows he isn't lets call it out of luck yet the player is not making the small level choices we make them happen in the mechanics, and arguably the character cannot simply choose to ignore completely regardless of players broader choices unless the game makes it work that way.

Well, one observation I would make is that we could make 4e combat even SLIGHTLY more abstract. In fact this would be in keeping with the way I think Gary intended AD&D combat to be narrated. That is to say that all these various minor 'harassing' attacks and such EXIST, but they aren't particularly reflected in any specific element in the mechanics of combat. When your fighter rushes up to the orcs and swings away, surely he avoids a couple of perfunctory 'attacks', and you can assume the ranger is chucking an arrow or two at the enemy artillery, even if his real combat focus is that brute over there.

Of course, we could invent powers which make this stuff more explicit. A 'suppressing fire' power wouldn't be a hard thing to put in the game. The thing is, it needs to provide enough benefit to be attractive to use in a decent variety of situations. Still, it might be a good way to fill a second at-will slot, especially for a class like Ranger which otherwise just twin strikes all day. It won't be used all the time, but it could easily have some nice situational utility. Maybe putting these things on controllers would be even better.

what do you think the difference is? This is what I think th e difference is a rogue shifting through a rare opening once a day to get through an enemy square to the other side and gaining combat advantage is the game functional thing that does not have 2 percent chance of working because the player was given authorial power to say it is happening now.

Right, and there's nothing bad about that, but in a 4e fight there's pretty close to zero chance of the 'leap out of the bushes and gain the advantage' tactic even being tried. Particularly if it dents your action economy to any degree at all. I think 4e could easily do what I am talking about, with powers designed a bit more around that idea, but it just didn't do much of it (there are a few examples of course).

 

[Garthanos]

Of course, we could invent powers which make this stuff more explicit. A 'suppressing fire' power wouldn't be a hard thing to put in the game. The thing is, it needs to provide enough benefit to be attractive to use in a decent variety of situations. Still, it might be a good way to fill a second at-will slot, especially for a class like Ranger which otherwise just twin strikes all day. It won't be used all the time, but it could easily have some nice situational utility.

I will say I want more powerfully situational differences at the at-will level (maybe ever level) ... and I want those to not be optimized out of so easily. If you have an at-will that knocks someone down you end up headsman's strike and various other elements to the degree other options situational value becomes innadequate their appeal vanishes. I would like 4 or 5 to be reasonable even ;p. Perhaps feats could enhance more than one at-will like fighting styles do (but all within a class).

 

[Garthanos]

Well, one observation I would make is that we could make 4e combat even SLIGHTLY more abstract. In fact this would be in keeping with the way I think Gary intended AD&D combat to be narrated. k 4e could easily do what I am talking about, with powers designed a bit more around that idea, but it just didn't do much of it (there are a few examples of course).

Meh that always kept the effect of fighters as virtually non-tactical with casters getting all the interesting toys. If you want abstract I think Fate or similar is more par and it treats everything with equity.

 

[pemerton]

I was more interested in the sort of thinking that says "hey, the rogue will hide in the bushes over there and leap out to make a flank attack when the fighter pins the orcs" as opposed to "we'll use tactical power X to get the rogue a shift so he can slide in behind the orc" which is a more gamist and non-organic sort of story. Of course the 'flank attack' story can also be supported by powers and whatnot that make it work even better.

in a 4e fight there's pretty close to zero chance of the 'leap out of the bushes and gain the advantage' tactic even being tried. Particularly if it dents your action economy to any degree at all. I think 4e could easily do what I am talking about, with powers designed a bit more around that idea, but it just didn't do much of it (there are a few examples of course).

As I read it, you're saying that you want the mechanics to more richly reflect prior fictional positioning, rather than having fictional positioning being "read off" the mechanics as an afterthought.

I remember a discussion about that in @innerdude's epic "Dissociated Mechanics" thread - here're two posts that are relevant:

This thread has gotten too big for me to catch up.

So I don't know if anyone has posted a link to this:

anyway: 3 Resolution Systems

And the entire series:

anyway: The Dice & Clouds series from 2009

As I understand it, this is the issue that motivates [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]'s 4e hack - he wants more "rightward arrows" (from the clouds (=fiction) to the boxes (=mechanical gamestate(?))) than he finds in 4e as published.

I think that skill challenge resolution, as written, requires rightward arrows - the GM has to frame the initial situation, and then reframe as part of each new skill roll (PHB p 259; DMG p 74):

Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you [the player] face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks . . .

You [the GM] describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results.​

I interpret the plurals here as distributed, not collective - ie after each description a player responds, makes a check, and a result is narrated which provides the new environment to which a player then responds - because the other reading - describe the environment, let the players make X checks without any connection to the fiction, then narrate the overall outcome of the challenge, (i) seems to produce a crappy game and (ii) is at odds with the examples of play that are found in the DMG and RC.

Because of the role of the battlemat and tokens/minis, I think that the role of the fiction in 4e combat is more contested. Some people think that the map and tokens are a represenation of the cloud. But obviously they are also part of the mechanical gamestate, and so are boxes.

I think how 4e combat is experienced may depend a lot on whether, for any given group, the stuff that is drawn on the battlemap is first and foremost fictional stuff - trees, rubble, fog, walls with doors and windows, etc - or first and foremost mechanical stuff - cover, difficult terrain, obscuring terrain etc. Perhaps in part because my maps are fairly sketchy and my group uses board game tokens rather than miniatures or even WotC's picture tokens, I think that the fictional stuff prevails. And this is reinforced by the resolution of interactions with it that involve rightward arrows and not just manipulating the map - like climbing walls, overturning furniture, opening or closing doors and shutters, etc.

This in part relates to Vincent Baker's comment #4 on the blog you linked to:

There are a couple of places in the game where there are supposed to be rightward-pointing arrows, but they're functionally optional. I assert them, but then the game's architecture doesn't make them real. So it takes an act of unrewarded, unrequired discipline to use them. I suspect that the people who have the most fun with the Wicked Age have that discipline as a practice or a habit, having learned it from other games.​

To an extent, my group has habits developed playing other games (mostly D&D and Rolemaster). But there are also aspects of the 4e architecture that generate rightward arrows - the rules on damaging objects, for example, make it clear that keywords (like fire, ice, teleportation etc) have fictional signficance. A tree can be set alight, for instance, but a stone pillar can't - so here we have a rightward pointing arrow, from fiction to mechanics, that is not just boxes (in the form of a cover symbol on a map) to boxes. Icy terrain can be used to cross a river, whereas a grasping vines spell that also creates difficult terrain probably can't. And so on.

[MENTION=6679265]Yesway Jose[/MENTION] is suggesting that this sort of approach to the game is not common. I don't know whether or not that is true, but I think approaching the game as a purely boxes-to-boxes exercise, or boxes-to-clouds plus a bit of clouds-to-clouds ("improv drama linking the tactical skirmishes") requiers ignoring things like the signficance of keywords + fiction to action resolution that are expressly called out in the game rules.

Anyway, I'm not sure how (if at all) this relates dissociation, but I do think it's an important issue in game design.

There's also this old thread of mine which discusses the issue in relation to some aspects of D&D combat: D&D 5E - Clouds, cubes, and "hitting"

Anyway, as per those old threads my view is that 4e makes some fictional positioning relevant - eg location/position; materials of targets (water can be frozen; paper can be burned; etc) relative to available attacks; the shape of furniture (can I duck behind it and take cover, etc) - but some is - eg facing most of the time, whether there is grass underfoot.

Your stealth + flanking example seems supported by rogue abilities that improve action economy and fictional positioning requirements for hiding. Maybe those are a place to build from? One thought - if you introduce "death from above" as a type of charge that allows free movement (ie gravity does the work!) perhaps at the cost of taking damage oneself, then powers that allow climbing or jumping, and that enhance charge attacks, would feed into "organic" tactics of the sort you're describing.

Another example might be a defensive bonus that comes from having one's back to the wall (I think there's a pargaon tier feat like this, isn't there? I've never seen it in play).

Etc (= I've run out of ideas just at the moment)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As I read it, you're saying that you want the mechanics to more richly reflect prior fictional positioning, rather than having fictional positioning being "read off" the mechanics as an afterthought.

I remember a discussion about that in @innerdude's epic "Dissociated Mechanics" thread - here're two posts that are relevant:




There's also this old thread of mine which discusses the issue in relation to some aspects of D&D combat: D&D 5E - Clouds, cubes, and "hitting"

Anyway, as per those old threads my view is that 4e makes some fictional positioning relevant - eg location/position; materials of targets (water can be frozen; paper can be burned; etc) relative to available attacks; the shape of furniture (can I duck behind it and take cover, etc) - but some is - eg facing most of the time, whether there is grass underfoot.

Your stealth + flanking example seems supported by rogue abilities that improve action economy and fictional positioning requirements for hiding. Maybe those are a place to build from? One thought - if you introduce "death from above" as a type of charge that allows free movement (ie gravity does the work!) perhaps at the cost of taking damage oneself, then powers that allow climbing or jumping, and that enhance charge attacks, would feed into "organic" tactics of the sort you're describing.

Another example might be a defensive bonus that comes from having one's back to the wall (I think there's a pargaon tier feat like this, isn't there? I've never seen it in play).

Etc (= I've run out of ideas just at the moment)

Right, I have to look at those threads some more, some of them I read years ago. But my initial feeling is that this is pretty accurate. I think a LOT of 4e powers and combat rules work fine, but they do tend to be designed to showcase things the players choose to do (IE the 'moves' they make) vs the circumstances they choose to act in. This could be a deep topic, it probably deserves a thread!