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

[Lanefan]

Lanefan, you've been enough of these conversations to know that this is just abjectly not true for 4e.

Lets you and I do an experiment.

Give me a good faith declaration in 4e D&D by (let's say) a Fighter of Paragon Tier and I'll tell you exactly how its resolved at the table. Assuming its good faith (eg not "I shoot an arrow to the moon") and not against the rules (trying to use a Ritual without the appropriate Trained Skill; Arcana, Nature, Religion),

Ah...but here you taint the question in order to get the answer you want.

the answer is pretty much always going to be "yes" or "roll the dice (and here is what you roll)."

Of course it is, because I'm limited to sticking within the rules.

So give me an example of a good faith action declaration by a Paragon Tier Fighter that you think the system can't handle, please.

Without digging out and plowing through my 4e guides (which I ain't got time for right now ) I'll have to do some speculation here. And this probably won't be a great example; please bear with me.

Paragon Fighter - let's say no magic items other than simple +x weapons-armour-shield to keep things simple, and unbuffed by anything. Feats etc. are all focused on bending the foe's nose into its face, nothing esoteric here.

Our intrepid Fighter has no skill points in, say, picking locks. Picking locks isn't something a Fighter gets trained in as a part of her class. She needs to quietly get into (or out of!) a locked room, she has no key and bashing the door down is out of the question. What result comes if her player says "I try to pick the lock"?

In editions not numbered 3 or 4, the DM can (and probably must) rule on the spot for this: rulings-not-rules overtly stated in 5e and a similar unstated philosophy in 0-1-2. What I don't remember offhand is whether 4e has specific rules for unskilled attempts at things like this; but even hypothetically if it doesn't or didn't, then what?

Regardless, (and I'm rambling here a bit, sorry) the tipping point comes earlier: does the theme or 'feel' of the game and its presentation push the player toward thinking outside the box ("I'll try to pick the lock anyway, nothing to lose") or constrain her into thinking that because she has no skill or training she can't pick the lock - or worse, isn't allowed to even make the attempt.

Bah - sorry for the incoherence in this one.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ah...but here you taint the question in order to get the answer you want.

Of course it is, because I'm limited to sticking within the rules.

Without digging out and plowing through my 4e guides (which I ain't got time for right now ) I'll have to do some speculation here. And this probably won't be a great example; please bear with me.

Paragon Fighter - let's say no magic items other than simple +x weapons-armour-shield to keep things simple, and unbuffed by anything. Feats etc. are all focused on bending the foe's nose into its face, nothing esoteric here.

Our intrepid Fighter has no skill points in, say, picking locks. Picking locks isn't something a Fighter gets trained in as a part of her class. She needs to quietly get into (or out of!) a locked room, she has no key and bashing the door down is out of the question. What result comes if her player says "I try to pick the lock"?

In editions not numbered 3 or 4, the DM can (and probably must) rule on the spot for this: rulings-not-rules overtly stated in 5e and a similar unstated philosophy in 0-1-2. What I don't remember offhand is whether 4e has specific rules for unskilled attempts at things like this; but even hypothetically if it doesn't or didn't, then what?

Regardless, (and I'm rambling here a bit, sorry) the tipping point comes earlier: does the theme or 'feel' of the game and its presentation push the player toward thinking outside the box ("I'll try to pick the lock anyway, nothing to lose") or constrain her into thinking that because she has no skill or training she can't pick the lock - or worse, isn't allowed to even make the attempt.

Bah - sorry for the incoherence in this one.

That's actually a great point. I liked 4e - but to me the powers were limiting. If I wanted to try to attack the enemy and push him back and I didn't have a power that allowed such a thing then the design pushed me to not even try.

 

[Minigiant]

I mean, I think a lot of RPGs would KILL to be held back like D&D.

Well that's the point ain't.

D&D is suffering in it's success. By being top dog so long, the audience is so wide and different that the core aspects of D&D shrink and the number of variant views of it (with that core) expand.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Minigiant]

I wouldn't call it suffering. It's just a different approach.

Things that are more appealing to the masses will almost always be different than things that are appealing to niche audiences .... by definition.

No, what I mean is that D&D started niche and went wide. And now we have this thread about how editions and subeditions and successor games are different.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah, not sure I agree with that. But that's okay.

D&D was always trying to appeal to the widest possible audience - it's just that has changed over time.

D&D stated with super niche restrictions for everything with the original creator's ideas and preferences. D&D started niche and expanded in 10 different directions

It may have desire to be wide but it started niche. And as people joined, they wanted to solidify their preferences.

 

[Manbearcat]

Ah...but here you taint the question in order to get the answer you want.

Of course it is, because I'm limited to sticking within the rules.

I mean...the qualifiers I put on there are the same qualifiers for and all games and any and all D&D editions. What I was getting at was: "excluding the edition neutral issue of 'I shoot an arrow to the moon' or a non-qualifying Fighter saying 'I cast a spell' ".

I don't see how that taints anything. It just controls for edition-neutral problems.

Without digging out and plowing through my 4e guides (which I ain't got time for right now ) I'll have to do some speculation here. And this probably won't be a great example; please bear with me.

Paragon Fighter - let's say no magic items other than simple +x weapons-armour-shield to keep things simple, and unbuffed by anything. Feats etc. are all focused on bending the foe's nose into its face, nothing esoteric here.

Our intrepid Fighter has no skill points in, say, picking locks. Picking locks isn't something a Fighter gets trained in as a part of her class. She needs to quietly get into (or out of!) a locked room, she has no key and bashing the door down is out of the question. What result comes if her player says "I try to pick the lock"?

In editions not numbered 3 or 4, the DM can (and probably must) rule on the spot for this: rulings-not-rules overtly stated in 5e and a similar unstated philosophy in 0-1-2. What I don't remember offhand is whether 4e has specific rules for unskilled attempts at things like this; but even hypothetically if it doesn't or didn't, then what?

Regardless, (and I'm rambling here a bit, sorry) the tipping point comes earlier: does the theme or 'feel' of the game and its presentation push the player toward thinking outside the box ("I'll try to pick the lock anyway, nothing to lose") or constrain her into thinking that because she has no skill or training she can't pick the lock - or worse, isn't allowed to even make the attempt.

Bah - sorry for the incoherence in this one.

Alright, good choice. This one is easy. I'll fill in some blanks that you left out.

• Fighter isn't Trained in Thievery.
• I'm assuming the Fighter doesn't have a set of picks (which would give them a +2).
• Fighter is level 16 (mid-Paragon).
• Fighter doesn't have Background, Theme, Magic Items, Utilities, or Feats that augments Thievery.
• The Fighter would have ~ +10 Thievery check (8 level + 2 Dex for that level).
• Let's say its an Level + 3, complexity 1 Skill Challenge to break into a guild-master's 4th safehouse to attain an incriminating ledger. Lets say we're at 2/4 Successes, 2/3 Failures, 0/1 Secondary Checks used, All DCs would be Moderate but Level + 3 (so level 19, or DC 24).

This is how it would go down at the table.

GM: "So you've discovered the secret door to the document vault. Unsurprisingly, its secured by a complex pin and tumbler lock. As you near the door, beyond it, you can hear the sounds of pawing at the floorboards, a rattling chain, and the subtle whine of a canine."

Fighter Player: "Well, I don't have any lock-picks, but I'll slink back to the Kitchen I just came through, grab a pair of cork bottle openers and bend to "pick-ish" status."

GM: "Alright, so you're spending your 1 Secondary Skill (Athletics) @ Easy level 19 DC of 17 (the Fighter should auto-pass this) for +2 to your primary Thievery check. You accomplish it with a few moments of time and the sacrifice of some tooth enamel from your gritted teeth. +12 Thiever vs DC 24, so you need a 12 or better.

Fail and you lose the challenge (and obviously endure the story complication/loss and attendant fallout that comes with it)..."

---

That is pretty much how it would go. No problem.

 

[Imaro]

Because many D&D editions fail at providing the D&D tropes?

There are mechanical D&D tropes, narrative D&D tropes, and D&D setting tropes.

And each edition attempts them all. And they fail at many of them.

And this relates to my point...how?

 

[Minigiant]

And this relates to my point...how?

Because you question why people aren't playing other D&D games when they want other tropes.

My response is that they want D&D tropes. And D&D says they should be able to play those D&D tropes in D& then they buy one of the editions only to find out that the game fails to provide the tropes they hype.

Litteraly only 2 editions that lets you play a ranger as described in the books

OD&D's Aragorn clone
4e's Semiautomatic Bow or Tornado Sword guy

I would be stocked if the top editions for people who love D&D rangers arent these two. Because it's the only ones where you can hate Giants and really do something about it.

And that's just one trope.