D&D 5E Coming Around on the "Not D&D" D&D Next Train

[teitan]

I know it's possible with p42, but I've never seen it used in three years of gaming with 6 different DMs.

It would be one thing if it were just one DM or player saying this, but it isn't. Whether the rules allow something buried deep somewhere, or encourage its use, are two completely different things. Kind of silly to have an eight page character sheet and use a lot of improvisation.

Be honest now, what percentage of time to you think is used to improvise stuff? 5% ? That's one in twenty actions. I doubt it's even half that. That's because you're invested in your powers, you took the time to select them, to boost their efficacy. I just don't see players throwing out all that effort and ignoring the powers on their 8 page character sheets very often.

For better or worse (worse, IMO), it encourages players to draw within the lines. A one- or two-page character sheet should be sufficient for any non-spellcasting class.

Anything more is already ipso facto codifies your action selection possibilities way too much, that was not required in any other edition. You might argue that more options and more pages don't force you to play this way, but in practice is results in that style of gameplay. I.e. on rails.

Well don't say it can't be done when the RAW very clearly encourages improvisation. It is the fault of the DM for not encouraging creative role-playing in his players.

 

[teitan]

I think that the thing with balanced games like 4e, where wizards and fighters are equal in power is that you get a lot of homogenization in abilities. I've seen this in superhero rpgs with the differing attack powers just being fluff for their description. Yes superhero games allow for a greater variation and that is a benefit of point buy systems and d&d isn't a point buy system, otherwise it wouldn't resemble d&d at all. That said it is the balancing of abilities/powers/etc in 4e that creates the homogenization and really does amount to say, ranged attack in m&m being arrows, energy blasts etc all functioning off a generic power called ranged attack. It's a resounding for flavor purposes but it keep Superman and Batman on par with each other and allows them to function at the same table without allowing one to outshine the other.

People want balance but can't accept this homogenization that occurs as a result of that balance being implemented. then they complain that the fighter is weaker than the wizard ad nauseam.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think that the thing with balanced games like 4e, where wizards and fighters are equal in power is that you get a lot of homogenization in abilities. I've seen this in superhero rpgs with the differing attack powers just being fluff for their description. Yes superhero games allow for a greater variation and that is a benefit of point buy systems and d&d isn't a point buy system, otherwise it wouldn't resemble d&d at all. That said it is the balancing of abilities/powers/etc in 4e that creates the homogenization and really does amount to say, ranged attack in m&m being arrows, energy blasts etc all functioning off a generic power called ranged attack. It's a resounding for flavor purposes but it keep Superman and Batman on par with each other and allows them to function at the same table without allowing one to outshine the other.

People want balance but can't accept this homogenization that occurs as a result of that balance being implemented. then they complain that the fighter is weaker than the wizard ad nauseam.

I agree with this feeling.

I've said it many times here, that when it comes to classes I mostly care for balance on the long term. I don't need all to be equal all the time, I only need all characters be fun to play over the course of a game session, but to get the spotlight at different times feels better to me. Fighter weaker than Wizard on the long term is something I certainly don't like, but then I thought I would probably like to have a Fighter that in battle is e.g. as strong as two PCs of other classes, but then have less in the other pillars. I'm probably one-in-a-million with this preference, so it's never going to happen anyway.

There is another type of balance I care more for, and that is the balance of not having an option that is straight better than another all the time, which just feels wrong.

 

[pemerton]

I know it's possible with p42, but I've never seen it used in three years of gaming with 6 different DMs.

It would be one thing if it were just one DM or player saying this, but it isn't.

<snip>

Be honest now, what percentage of time to you think is used to improvise stuff? 5% ? That's one in twenty actions.

The player of the invoker/wizard in my game does p 42 stuff all the time. The paladin, sorcerer and fighter players next most, the ranger player probably the least. (Twin Strike tends to trump all else.)

A lot of other 4e posters on this board seem to use improvised actions too.

I only find this to be the case if you ignore or don't consider the fact that a power, ritual, etc. is an expenditure of a player resource in order for said player's character to be able to perform a particular action

<snip>

I actually think 4e's improvisation through page 42 and the power structure of the game don't match up very well when it comes to setting player expectations for the game.

In my own approach, I do this via circumstances - improv requires the right fictional positioning, powers/feats bring their own fictional positioning with them - and via stakes - failed improv inflicts damage or other disadvantage.

 

[Manbearcat]

A lot of other 4e posters on this board seem to use improvised actions too.

My 3 players use it a fair stretch, primarily for these reasons (when out of the scope of their suite of powers). My guess is that these are all pretty orthodox usage for the groups who use it regularly:

- to create difficult terrain.

- to move creatures into existing difficult terrain and create the catch-22 of the movement portion of Combat Challenge (shift - move in this case - and suffer an OA). The two melee characters do this a lot when they're facing opponents that might be interested in shifting for flanking and CA.

- to create hindering terrain.

- to move creatures into existing hindering terrain or have them be prone just outside of it.

- to use their move actions in a special way; eg (1) an Acrobatic stunt to run across a banister and avoid OAs while getting across the room, (2) an Athletics check to pick up a table and use it as a shield so you can then rush across the room and pin someone cloaked in fire against a wall (and not eat damage from the Aura 1 fire effect), or (3) a carpentry check to identify a load bearing wall for a follow-up attempt to collapse a structure.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My 3 players use it a fair stretch, primarily for these reasons (when out of the scope of their suite of powers). My guess is that these are all pretty orthodox usage for the groups who use it regularly:

- to create difficult terrain.

- to move creatures into existing difficult terrain and create the catch-22 of the movement portion of Combat Challenge (shift - move in this case - and suffer an OA). The two melee characters do this a lot when they're facing opponents that might be interested in shifting for flanking and CA.

- to create hindering terrain.

- to move creatures into existing hindering terrain or have them be prone just outside of it.

- to use their move actions in a special way; eg (1) an Acrobatic stunt to run across a banister and avoid OAs while getting across the room, (2) an Athletics check to pick up a table and use it as a shield so you can then rush across the room and pin someone cloaked in fire against a wall (and not eat damage from the Aura 1 fire effect), or (3) a carpentry check to identify a load bearing wall for a follow-up attempt to collapse a structure.

Yeah, I think that brings me back to a thought I didn't complete the other day, which is that it is HARD to say what is and isn't improv in 4e games (at least in mine). Often a player will try to have his character use a power in a new or different way that is related to how it normally works, but not identical. Is this improv, or just using your power in more creative ways? Sometimes I ask for extra checks, and maybe in return you get a bit better or different result, but a lot of times its just "OK, sure, make an attack roll". OTOH its VERY hard to separate skill use from improv, in fact the two things really aren't separable except maybe to say most skill uses don't do damage directly, whereas page 42 clearly is oriented towards improvised ATTACKS. In any case, improv isn't some sort of separate category of thing within the 4e rules.

Personally I find that the players I play with just do stuff. Naturally on most rounds in a fight when they're faced with a simple "kill that guy in front of me" situation they resort to straight up power use. OTOH as soon as they have some other goal or a less straightforward situation then they just do something and checks get made as needed. I can't tell you that is a lot or a little 'improv', all I can tell you is that when the goliath barbarian wanted to get down to the lower floor level and attack he just said "I'm charging" and leaped down and made an attack (I asked for an Acrobatics check for this to work, is that improv or what?). This happens all the time. Sometimes a specific situation has a rule covering it, so when the minotaur shield rushes the skeleton and knocks it off the ledge we have a bull rush rule for that, but if we didn't we would still do pretty much the same thing (Str vs Fort, right).

Anyway, I think DDN is running into a couple issues here, but it amounts to the skill system is complicated with extra dice and etc that get in the way. I don't think that stuff is adding a lot of value. It reminds me of lots of weird 2e stuff, combat doesn't work like skills, etc. If I could tell the DDN team to do something that would sell me it would be to take all the good ideas they've got and apply them to 4e instead of attempting the quixotic task of making a 21st Century retread of a game that was obsolete 25 years ago.

 

[teitan]

Yes that is improv

 

[Manbearcat]

@AbdulAlhazred If I'm reading you correctly, then I would say improv and that it is the strength of the Exception-Based Design of 4e. The transparency of the math aids in the adjudication of such things. This is the primary reason why I'm strongly of the opinion that 4e GMs should have an intimate understanding of the available powers out there and those powers interfacing with the action economy, particularly with respect to their individual power level. 4e GMs will be most well-equipped to adjudicate p42 improv actions of their breadth of knowledge in this area is deep. Case-in-point:

The Rogue/Ranger in my game has the below Streetwise Skill Encounter Power:

WotC 4e Skill Power
Slow PursuitYou knock over obstacles, take difficult paths, drop rubbish, and do anything else you can think of to slow your enemies’ pursuit.
Encounter
Move Action Personal
Requirement: You must be in an urban environment
Effect: You move your speed. At one point during the movement, you create an area of difficult terrain in a close blast 3. The difficult terrain lasts until the end of the encounter.

He uses this to great effect in taverns, alleys, cobblestone roadways, etc. This is a power that he has purchased with PC build currency and deploys it as a stock PC build tool. Clearly, this is not improv.

However, he also has the Nature Skill and he has, on more than one occasion, attempted to mimic something similiar in a wilderness environment. However, he has not purchased any such power with PC build currency. As such, it is "off the grid" and improv. Allowing him to do this exact power with all of its powerful components (full move + 9 contiguous squares of difficult terrain + full encounter duration of the DT) with a Nature check from the p42 medium DCs + 5 would be a bit too much. So we scale it down a bit and give him a minor, short term penalty for failure; blast 2 (4 contiguous squares) instead of blast 3 (9 contiguous squares) and gives up CA until the end of his next turn on a failure (that is the usual penalty we use for most things of this sort). If he offered up blast 3, and CA UEoYNT + maybe prone in one of the difficult terrain squares (which he has done) then I would allow him to attempt it at a Hard DC rather than Medium. I'd allow him to create 1 square of difficult terrain at an Easy DC (which happens regularly). Any of those things would clearly be p42 improv.

Those sorts of things happen at our table regularly.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@AbdulAlhazred If I'm reading you correctly, then I would say improv and that it is the strength of the Exception-Based Design of 4e. The transparency of the math aids in the adjudication of such things. This is the primary reason why I'm strongly of the opinion that 4e GMs should have an intimate understanding of the available powers out there and those powers interfacing with the action economy, particularly with respect to their individual power level. 4e GMs will be most well-equipped to adjudicate p42 improv actions of their breadth of knowledge in this area is deep. Case-in-point:

The Rogue/Ranger in my game has the below Streetwise Skill Encounter Power:




He uses this to great effect in taverns, alleys, cobblestone roadways, etc. This is a power that he has purchased with PC build currency and deploys it as a stock PC build tool. Clearly, this is not improv.

However, he also has the Nature Skill and he has, on more than one occasion, attempted to mimic something similiar in a wilderness environment. However, he has not purchased any such power with PC build currency. As such, it is "off the grid" and improv. Allowing him to do this exact power with all of its powerful components (full move + 9 contiguous squares of difficult terrain + full encounter duration of the DT) with a Nature check from the p42 medium DCs + 5 would be a bit too much. So we scale it down a bit and give him a minor, short term penalty for failure; blast 2 (4 contiguous squares) instead of blast 3 (9 contiguous squares) and gives up CA until the end of his next turn on a failure (that is the usual penalty we use for most things of this sort). If he offered up blast 3, and CA UEoYNT + maybe prone in one of the difficult terrain squares (which he has done) then I would allow him to attempt it at a Hard DC rather than Medium. I'd allow him to create 1 square of difficult terrain at an Easy DC (which happens regularly). Any of those things would clearly be p42 improv.

Those sorts of things happen at our table regularly.

Another way to look at this is from the standpoint of 'plot coupon', so ANYONE can run down an alley, take an existing barrel or whatnot and create a minor obstacle with it. At most a check of some sort might be used to see how effective this is, but its probably an easy check. HOWEVER the guy with Slow Pursuit doesn't need any existing material to do this. He can expend his power and by the virtue of giving up that resource the player is empowered to write something into the narrative. In other words he can say "I see a bunch of goats in a cart off to the side, and I tip over the cart!" or something like that. I'd note as well that no check is required to use Slow Pursuit, so it is pretty likely to be mechanically better than a skill use even if the DM doesn't grant you a 'coupon' its still a useful power.

I do get what you mean though, the more familiar you are with the system the better things like that will work. I think even inexperienced DMs can have good results though.

 

[Manbearcat]

@AbdulAlhazred Yup. Spot on. That is precisely what I meant. The guy with Slow Pursuit has "player fiat" (as @Obryn 's designation) or "plot coupon". He has the right to say "this happens now". The guy without it (or the same guy attempting to use its analog in a natural environment via the Nature Skill) says "I want this to happen now...let's see if it does"; improv via the mechanical resolution rules and GM arbitration.

And I agree with you that inexperienced GMs can have good results. I don't think good results are difficult to pull off. Its just that "consistently great and efficiently resolved" results require practice and deeper understanding (as with everything else in life).