April 3rd, Rule of 3

[Crazy Jerome]

Why cut the surge from the character? 3e already has the Reserve Point option. Why not bump it up to about the 4e value and then say that all healing draws from your own pool. Run of out reserve points and (most) healis don't work. Then hand out second winds. Now you have the distributed healing, after fight rest healing, and the daily throttle.

Because the question I was addressing was how to use 4E mechanics, mostly, but make healing work largely like 3E does. But certainly, if you wanted something more in the middle, you could do any number of things.

What Hussar was referring to is that people keep objecting to healing surges on the grounds that they limit the amount of healing that the character can receive--"Why can't my guy drink a healing potion when out of surges, like in earlier versions!" Well, if that is truly ones' objection, then my answer, since oh about month one of the 4E launch, has been to make some kind of change like I have listed above. It's trivially easy and obvious for anyone that paid the slightest bit of attention to how 4E healing actually works. And unlike a ton of house rules, doing so will change the game in the expected manner, with little to no side effects. (That part might not be so obvious.)

It is, of course, possible that people have complained about this aspect of 4E when their real gripe hides elsewhere. If people don't know the system well enough to state their real gripe, there isn't much that can be done.

 

[Guest 85555]

This relates, I think, to a discussion I've been having on the WotC boards.

I think there is a fundamental divide around the point, actually - although my own preferences relate specifically to the type of game I seek from D&D, as opposed to the type of game I seek from certain other RPGs. I agree that 4e approaches powers by giving a clear, specific definition of what the power does, and a vague guideline concerning what the power looks like. I love this - I much, much prefer it to the general approach in earlier editions, which had a tendency to be the exact opposite: to give clear, precise definition of what the power (spell, feat, whatever) looked like, but only vague guidelines concerning its mechanical effects in the game.

This actually helps clarify some of my dislike of 4e. I have to admit I like having the flavor component consistent and fully explained. I think they even did a bit of this in pathfinder if I recall and it kind of rubbed me the wrong way.

 

[BryonD]

I think there is a fundamental divide around the point, actually - although my own preferences relate specifically to the type of game I seek from D&D, as opposed to the type of game I seek from certain other RPGs. I agree that 4e approaches powers by giving a clear, specific definition of what the power does, and a vague guideline concerning what the power looks like. I love this - I much, much prefer it to the general approach in earlier editions, which had a tendency to be the exact opposite: to give clear, precise definition of what the power (spell, feat, whatever) looked like, but only vague guidelines concerning its mechanical effects in the game.

Pre 4E your character is capable of being a cause and you then find out what effect is the result when that cause interacts with their surrounding.

In 4E your character is capable of producing effects and the cause is shoehorned on.

The details are more complex and it goes well beyond this but....
This description is both accurate and very much in line with the overall conclusion that 4E is highly gamist and prior versions were simulationist.


I also continue to find it amusing how it has become so in vogue with the 4E niche to praise 4E in terms of being unique and completely different than prior versions. A few short months ago any slight hint that 4E was a different game than prior versions was a mortal sin and insult of the lowest form. Now 5E is coming along with a proclaimed goal of bringing back lost fans and suddenly everyone is expected to understand the scared value of 4E being some kind of paragon of gaming evolution.
And to be clear, IMO 3E is just as different from pre-3E and 4E is from all prior editions. It isn't the reality of the distinctions that is an issue to me. A completely different game that was also great would be awesome. But the reversal from "that which may not be said" to "sacred truth" is amusing to me.

 

[Andor]

I agree that 4e approaches powers by giving a clear, specific definition of what the power does, and a vague guideline concerning what the power looks like. I love this - I much, much prefer it to the general approach in earlier editions, which had a tendency to be the exact opposite: to give clear, precise definition of what the power (spell, feat, whatever) looked like, but only vague guidelines concerning its mechanical effects in the game.

I'm trying to understand this, and not really groking it. Could you give me an example of a pre-4e action or effect where the fluff was detailed but the mechanics vague?

 

[BryonD]

I'm trying to understand this, and not really groking it. Could you give me an example of a pre-4e action or effect where the fluff was detailed but the mechanics vague?

I'm not claiming to speak for him.

But here is how I see it.
In 4E you can use Come and Get It.
The mindless skeleton WILL come at you.
The guard WILL come at you.
The ooze WILL come at you.

The mechanical result is set by the game system. How the character made this result happen is created after "this result happened" is a fact.

I will agree that it isn't great choice of words to suggest the "mechanics" are vague. But there isn't nearly so clear a mandate on results for many areas of 3E (or other pre-4e). You can use Bluff and there are mechanics there. You can use intimidate. You could trip. You could grapple. You could come up with some other plan. Then the DM makes some degree of judgment. Then you see how it worked out.

In pre-4e you control the narrative and find out what happens.
In 4E you control what happens and then figure out a narrative.

 

[Balesir]

Pre 4E your character is capable of being a cause and you then find out what effect is the result when that cause interacts with their surrounding.

Although this picture might be attractive aesthetically, I think it has fundamental flaws. The problem is that there is nothing for the "cause" to have effect on. The only "effect" being generated is on the minds of those playing; the effect of the pre-4e rules is that the players have a picture of what has happened supplied, but no clear idea of its implications. The 4e model, on the other hand, makes clear how the actions done have affected those in the world, and the implications of those actions for the future actions of the characters, while leaving the "picture in the head" element purely to the participants.

This works immediately for those pursuing "gamist" aims (i.e. players using their own intelligence to direct their characters in ways designed to overcome in-game challenges that are inimical or indifferent to them). It does not work so well, immediately, for those who seek more subtlety and occlusion in the implications being generated. But, then, I don't think the "paint a picture" systems did that any better - the implications were merely put into the "too difficult" tray and left as an exercise for the reader (i.e., generally, the DM). This can work out in the end if the DM can produce results that satisfy the aesthetic desires of the players - the DM as "entertainer", in effect. It can also work if the GM and the players collude (which is to say actually communicate, not have the players merely assent or dissent on the GM's decisions) to produce outcomes that suit them all. But, in no sense is there a pre-set "reality" which is being explored (a common belief, I find); if anything, what is being explored are the overlaps and dissonances in the players' imaginations.

I also continue to find it amusing how it has become so in vogue with the 4E niche to praise 4E in terms of being unique and completely different than prior versions. A few short months ago any slight hint that 4E was a different game than prior versions was a mortal sin and insult of the lowest form.

You may be right in general, but I don't think I have ever contended that 4e is "the same" as older editions. Indeed, the differences are why I much prefer it to older editions. I may have said it can do some things that fans of older editions have claimed that it can't - but I think that's rather different.

I'm trying to understand this, and not really groking it. Could you give me an example of a pre-4e action or effect where the fluff was detailed but the mechanics vague?

Sure. Take, for a start, the "Phantasmal Forces" spell in pre-4e. It gives a lovely description of what it looks like - how many humanoid figures, what volume in space and so on - but not one word about how this might affect the world or NPCs in it. Does the lack of smell and sound mean disbelief is almost a certainty? Suppose an illusionary bridge is set over a real chasm; how do creatures that know there was no bridge there last week respond? Does a creature that tries to cross the "bridge" get a reflex save to avoid the pit, much as a character might do if the floor gave way in a pit trap? None of this is even mentioned.

Example 2: Charm Person. The target "treats you as a trusted friend" - what does that mean? If you attack their other friends, does it mean they will join you in attacking them? Or will they attack you to subdue you and stop you hitting friends (as you are obviously affected by inimical magic)? And what happens after the spell ends? Does the target know it was charmed? Or does it rationalise what it did while under the effect of the spell? Again, we get a nice, evocative description of what being under a charm spell feels like, but nothing in terms of what actual effects it can have on the world.

For me, what is missing - and what will always be supplied in some form - is a model that describes how the effects described in the spells (and it is, almost always, spells) play out in the world. One poster on WotC's forum, for example, has experience with hypnotherapy. When DMing, they use their experience there as a model for what Charm Person will do. All DMs who have the spell turn up in their game will, necessarily, come up with some sort of model - be it detailed and carefully thought out or rough and quickly thrown together. If subtle and occluded implications are to be a part of the game, I would much rather see these models actually detailed (or at least discussed) in the system document. Leaving them up to the GM is, to me, just lazy design - putting it into the "too difficult" tray. In the earliest editions, this is forgivable - the authors themselves were only just exploring the ground - but in a modern ruleset it's just shoddy, in my view.

 

[Guest 85555]

Example 2: Charm Person. The target "treats you as a trusted friend" - what does that mean? If you attack their other friends, does it mean they will join you in attacking them? Or will they attack you to subdue you and stop you hitting friends (as you are obviously affected by inimical magic)? And what happens after the spell ends? Does the target know it was charmed? Or does it rationalise what it did while under the effect of the spell? Again, we get a nice, evocative description of what being under a charm spell feels like, but nothing in terms of what actual effects it can have on the world.
view.

For me (both as player and as Gm the charm person entry gives just enough. It makes clear the person isn't under the users comman, but simply views the person as a trusted ally. What that translates into will be highly situationally dependant and dependant on the NpC's personality. This is exaclty the kind of spell you want in the GM's court for interpetation and i don't think additional mechanica (beyond those described for the saving through) would be helpful. The only part I agree with here is some additional description of what the after effects may be would be helpful (but that isn't strictly mechanical).

More info can be good. What I don't want is turning a highly open ended spell like charm person into something with highky specific mechanical effects that end up confining the spell to a bonus on the battlefield or something that doesn't really follow from the concept itself but is just created to establish a consistent combat use.

The other half of this is too much info is equally bad because you need to read a page of spell description before casting anything (as a Gm this can be a pain until you have memorized the spells).

Don't take this as a snipe or anything Belasir, I am just curious, but this seems like an odd criticism of pre 4e editions. Since those had pretty robust descriptions of what the spells did flavorwise, whereas 4e had much shorter entries that usually supplies highly specific mechanical effects. It sounds like you are just asking for a more comprehension explanation of the spell, and if anything, 4e leaves a lot of that for the Gm and largely limits itself to the combat grid effect (not entirely but that appears to be the focus of spells under the character power entries). Pre 4e spells could be anywhere from half a column to a page or so.

 

[Andor]

Sure. Take, for a start, the "Phantasmal Forces" spell in pre-4e. It gives a lovely description of what it looks like - how many humanoid figures, what volume in space and so on - but not one word about how this might affect the world or NPCs in it. Does the lack of smell and sound mean disbelief is almost a certainty? Suppose an illusionary bridge is set over a real chasm; how do creatures that know there was no bridge there last week respond? Does a creature that tries to cross the "bridge" get a reflex save to avoid the pit, much as a character might do if the floor gave way in a pit trap? None of this is even mentioned.

Example 2: Charm Person. The target "treats you as a trusted friend" - what does that mean? If you attack their other friends, does it mean they will join you in attacking them? Or will they attack you to subdue you and stop you hitting friends (as you are obviously affected by inimical magic)? And what happens after the spell ends? Does the target know it was charmed? Or does it rationalise what it did while under the effect of the spell? Again, we get a nice, evocative description of what being under a charm spell feels like, but nothing in terms of what actual effects it can have on the world.

For me, what is missing - and what will always be supplied in some form - is a model that describes how the effects described in the spells (and it is, almost always, spells) play out in the world. One poster on WotC's forum, for example, has experience with hypnotherapy. When DMing, they use their experience there as a model for what Charm Person will do. All DMs who have the spell turn up in their game will, necessarily, come up with some sort of model - be it detailed and carefully thought out or rough and quickly thrown together. If subtle and occluded implications are to be a part of the game, I would much rather see these models actually detailed (or at least discussed) in the system document. Leaving them up to the GM is, to me, just lazy design - putting it into the "too difficult" tray. In the earliest editions, this is forgivable - the authors themselves were only just exploring the ground - but in a modern ruleset it's just shoddy, in my view.

Ahh. I see what you mean, but I disagree with you about cause and effect. 4e did not solve the issue of vagueness that you dislike by providing specific, concrete instructions, it did it by excluding most of the effects in the first place. Now admittedly I am only working from the PHB here, as I own no other 4e books, but I'll note that neither of the spells you mentioned are in it, although they have been in the PHB of every previous edition as best I can recall. Now you do have a couple of Rituals that perform much the same function as Phantasmal Forces, but they also provide exactly zero explanation for how a person should react when seeing a bridge appear overnight.

Furthermore I don't see the same perfect clarity you see, instead I note that the Insight skill gives you a chance to notice illusory effects, but doesn't tell you what that means. Individual illusion effects might tell you what happens if someone makes his Insight check but not all do. Mirror Image for example is an illusion, but provides no guidence for what happens if you spot the illusion. Worse (from my point of view) are powers which claim to be illusory in the fluff, but do not use the keyword, apparently because it would be too difficult to explain what the effect of an Insight check would be. (I'm looking at "Crown of Madness" on p[age 134.)

So I don't think what you're seeing is a virtue of superior design, but the laziness of game designers who don't want to make GMs have to make judgement calls and so skirt the issue entirely. (Or tried to, but failed in my examples.)

What you see as a weakness, I see as a strength in earlier editions. "Charm Person" is vague because it covers an impossibly broad range of options, people and situations. Cast "Charm Person" on a friendless street kid and he'll follow you to the ends of the Earth like 'Short-Round' tagging along with Indiana Jones, cast it on a Paladin guarding a sacred artifact and he might feel sad as he strikes you down, but mere friendship will not sway him from the demands of duty. It's roleplaying, and it's why I came to the table in the first place.

 

[Guest 85555]

So I don't think what you're seeing is a virtue of superior design, but the laziness of game designers who don't want to make GMs have to make judgement calls and so skirt the issue entirely. (Or tried to, but failed in my examples.)

What you see as a weakness, I see as a strength in earlier editions. "Charm Person" is vague because it covers an impossibly broad range of options, people and situations. Cast "Charm Person" on a friendless street kid and he'll follow you to the ends of the Earth like 'Short-Round' tagging along with Indiana Jones, cast it on a Paladin guarding a sacred artifact and he might feel sad as he strikes you down, but mere friendship will not sway him from the demands of duty. It's roleplaying, and it's why I came to the table in the first place.

Have to spread xp around so can't give you any for this (i think I will give it to Belasir since he is so darn consistent even if I disagree with him on most things). But this is exaclty how I feel.

Edit: Apparently I can't give XP to Belasir either.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

In pre-4e you control the narrative and find out what happens.
In 4E you control what happens and then figure out a narrative.

I disagree with this.

In pre-4e, you are controlled by a pre-defined narrative that you, as a player, are not permitted to change. The DM can change it, of course, but, the player's actions are pre-defined and the player cannot vary that definition on his own.

In 4e, you control what happens and then figure out a narrative.

What you see as a weakness, I see as a strength in earlier editions. "Charm Person" is vague because it covers an impossibly broad range of options, people and situations. Cast "Charm Person" on a friendless street kid and he'll follow you to the ends of the Earth like 'Short-Round' tagging along with Indiana Jones, cast it on a Paladin guarding a sacred artifact and he might feel sad as he strikes you down, but mere friendship will not sway him from the demands of duty. It's roleplaying, and it's why I came to the table in the first place.

Well, its a strength depending on what you're playing. If you're playing at an organized play table where you don't know the Dm or the players, then this degree of vagueness is very, very bad. One table might agree with you, the next might not. There's no consistency.

Now, if I, as DM, interpret Charm person in a way that you disagree with, what recourse do you have? I know what has happened at every table I've ever seen - the game grinds to a halt as the DM and the player hash things out and try to find a solution to the vagueness.

While I realize this is a preference thing, I much, much prefer to have things defined in a way that prevents games coming to a crashing halt. If that means that Phantasmal Force goes away, so be it. The game running smoothly is far more important to me than playing amateur game designer.