D&D 4E Presentation vs design... vs philosophy

[Aldarc]

Does a version qualify as rules light if the rules aren't coherent or complete enough to run strictly out of the box?

That's a good question. How do you feel about it?

 

[Oofta]

That's a good question. How do you feel about it?

Well, that's why I was asking. I mean, I don't know anyone that really played the first couple of editions of D&D as written. I was wondering what other people thought that have played those editions more recently than I.

When we played we didn't even call it "house rules" it was just "yeah, how do we handle that".

 

[Lanefan]

Does a version qualify as rules light if the rules aren't coherent or complete enough to run strictly out of the box?

Yes, but the rule lights are all different colours and...wow, man, trippy...what was I saying...yeah, look at all the pretty lights...

 

[Oofta]

Yes, but the rule lights are all different colours and...wow, man, trippy...what was I saying...yeah, look at all the pretty lights...

It was ... like ... the 70s man.

 

[pemerton]

The problem isn't so much in the middle of the range as at the end. If I want to reduce the odds of something from 5% (the lowest possible on a d20) to 2% or 1%, then a d20 just doesn't do the job.

This isn't true.

In AD&D, to hit rolls are resolved on d20. But the chance of a 1st level fighter defeating a storm giant in hand-to-hand combat are below 5%.

In AD&D, a 1st level human thief has an 85% chance to climb walls. This could be represented on a d20. According to the DMG (p 19), a check must be made very round - which means every 9' climbing a typical slightly slippery dungeon wall. The slight slipperiness also doubles the chance of slipping and falling, ie to 30%. If the wall the thief is trying to climb is more than 72 feet high, the chance of success is less than 5% - eg a little over 4% if the wall is no more than 81 feet high.

That's another peculiarity of AD&D that reduces its flexibility - some actions are resolved with a single die roll (eg opening a lock, searching for a secret door), others are resolved with multiple rolls (eg combat, climbing certain distances), others allow retries (eg forcing open ordinary doors; listening at doors) - with no apparent rhyme or reason.

Whereas there are plenty of systems with unified resolution systems that also allow single roll or multiple roll resolution depending on what would suit the action, pacing etc - HeroWars/Quest, Prince Valiant, and to a significant extent Burning Wheel. Those systems are to my mind clearly more flexible.

 

[Lanefan]

This isn't true.

In AD&D, to hit rolls are resolved on d20. But the chance of a 1st level fighter defeating a storm giant in hand-to-hand combat are below 5%.

Apples and oranges.

The chance of a 1st-level fighter defeating a storm giant is extremely close to zero. But, the chance of that 1st level fighter hitting that giant on any one particular roll, while not great, are far enough away from zero to make the roll worthwhile.

In AD&D, a 1st level human thief has an 85% chance to climb walls. This could be represented on a d20.

It could; 85% is very neatly represented by 17 or less on a d20.

But what if the chance is 98%? That's not representable on a d20 yet is still most certainly not a guaranteed success...says he, who has had characters fail resurrection on odds like this more times than I care to think of.

According to the DMG (p 19), a check must be made very round - which means every 9' climbing a typical slightly slippery dungeon wall. The slight slipperiness also doubles the chance of slipping and falling, ie to 30%. If the wall the thief is trying to climb is more than 72 feet high, the chance of success is less than 5% - eg a little over 4% if the wall is no more than 81 feet high.

I long ago streamlined this by concatenating it all into a roll or two: the first to succeed against the rough overall odds of success (e.g. let's say 4% for the 80' slippery wall in your example), and a second to gauge roughly how far you'd got before failure if the first roll does not show success. The second roll is weighted toward failing early; as most often if you're gonna blow it, or realize you're not gonna make it, it'll happen shortly after leaving the ground.

That's another peculiarity of AD&D that reduces its flexibility - some actions are resolved with a single die roll (eg opening a lock, searching for a secret door), others are resolved with multiple rolls (eg combat, climbing certain distances), others allow retries (eg forcing open ordinary doors; listening at doors) - with no apparent rhyme or reason.

To me, forcing open a door* comes under the same category as picking a lock; your roll represents your best shot at it and you don't get another until-unless something materially changes. In the door example this material change might be as simple as getting a second party member to help you.

* - actually, this is much more akin to bend bars-lift gates, which are specifically called out by example as only getting one roll (or only one roll for each if trying to get through a barred gate) without material change.

As for listening at a door, the material change here that allows another attempt is simply the passage of time; the PCs have no way of knowing whether something has materially changed beyond the door that might produce a different result than before.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Here's where 4e and PF2 feel the same to me - they both offer a lot of choices that have very little individual impact. 5e isn't that way at all. In 4e that's powers. In PF2 that's feats.

A few other similarities - multiclassing in PF2 and 4e works the same. Hybrid character rules fixed that for 4e eventually though.

Other than that and a few other things - 4e and PF2 are very different games. But they still feel similar to me because of their vast choices that give little impact.

When I opened another thread to challenge an assertion like this about 4e it ran for 61 pages in two weeks before it was quite understandably locked. I think we can therefore say that claiming that your choice of 4e powers has very little individual impact is a highly controversial statement. And both that your mileage may vary and that it is not something found by most 4e fans.

This isn't worth re-litigating now, but it does lead to an actual issue with this thread that is leading to it going nowhere. Is there anyone who likes Pathfinder 2e in this thread? Because what people like about something is frequently not at all what those who dislike it find it to be.

I think it's pretty clear from this thread that no one who likes 4e thinks that Pathfinder 2e has anything to do with it that resembles the starting post. But I'm curious what a Pathfinder 2e fan actually thinks the game is like and whether there's a resemblance there. And especially what a fan of both systems (if there are any) thinks.

 

[FrogReaver]

When I opened another thread to challenge an assertion like this about 4e it ran for 61 pages in two weeks before it was quite understandably locked. I think we can therefore say that claiming that your choice of 4e powers has very little individual impact is a highly controversial statement. And both that your mileage may vary and that it is not something found by most 4e fans.

It really shouldn't be.

This isn't worth re-litigating now, but it does lead to an actual issue with this thread that is leading to it going nowhere. Is there anyone who likes Pathfinder 2e in this thread? Because what people like about something is frequently not at all what those who dislike it find it to be.

Just cause you scream about something doesn't mean you have a good point.

I think it's pretty clear from this thread that no one who likes 4e thinks that Pathfinder 2e has anything to do with it that resembles the starting post. But I'm curious what a Pathfinder 2e fan actually thinks the game is like and whether there's a resemblance there. And especially what a fan of both systems (if there are any) thinks.

I think it also matters what the people who disliked 4e thought.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It really shouldn't be.

Indeed. Claiming that the choice of 4e powers have very little impact should be a statement that gets the person who made it laughed out of the room..

Just cause you scream about something doesn't mean you have a good point.

And just because you think Commander's Strike, which gives your ally an attack and means that you don't attack at all is like Brash Assault which is a reckless attack that your target may take a free swing in retalliation doesn't mean you have a good point.

I think it also matters what the people who disliked 4e thought.

To an extent. As long as they can base it on facts.

 

[FrogReaver]

And just because you think Commander's Strike, which gives your ally an attack and means that you don't attack at all is like Brash Assault which is a reckless attack that your target may take a free swing in retalliation doesn't mean you have a good point.

more strawmen?