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

[pemerton]

4e’s DC-by-level chart is far easier to use than 3e’s mess. That said, I still needed to have the chart in front of me to adjudicate skill checks in 4e

Likewise. Though sometimes I would write the relevant numbers down on my encounter notes. (Chart fragments!)

I do that so that the players can make informed decisions about their actions. They should know the potential consequences

I'm relatively casual about this. Depending on mood, details of how the action has been framed and declared, existing dynamics/trajectory of the fiction, etc, I might give a very clear account of what is at stake, or I might leave it to be implicit. The former I think of as orthodox Burning Wheel; the latter as PbtA. (Luke Crane, in his GMing advice for BW, says that he often drifts closer to the PbtA approach rather than sticking to the "official" approach.)

the way I would prefer to go about fixing this is to make magic more freeform like skills are, and to give non-magic characters more codified maneuvers they can perform, like 4e powers.

<snip>

I would prefer to reduce the contrast between in-combat adjudication and out of combat adjudication. It’s awkward that the game changes so drastically as soon as the DM says to roll initiative. PbtA games handle this much better in my opinion, where violent conflict is resolved just like any other part of the game instead of being its own siloed-off minigame.

I think there can be some tension between these two aspirations (codified manoeuvres and PbtA smooth flow of play). AD&D -style spells sort-of avoid this because they are (notionally at least) an in-fiction as well as at-the-table phenomenon. But because martial manoeuvres probably have to be understood in metagame terms, I think they push towards "minigame"-ness. I also think this is why sim-y games like BW use fate points or similar, rather than codified manoeuvres, as their metagame currency.

I think this is also related to the notion that all 4e PCs are casters.

 

[Xetheral]

I definetly think that was not a problem for most people. After all, most spells in all additions of DnD are "structurally" similiar, so daily and encounter powers being "structurally" similiar isn't a problem for most.

To clarify, I agree that spells in every edition of D&D are structurally similar. Indeed, I want them to be, because spells are similar to each other IC, and so I want them to be modeled consistently the rules. By contrast, the abilities that 4e powers represent are not similar to each other IC--they represent a much more diverse range of abilities. (Edit for further clarification: By which I primarily mean that powers include both mundane and magical abilities.) Accordingly, I see it as a downside that by modeling these disparate abilities with an identical structure the system blurs the IC distinctions.

When I say I find 4e powers "samey" I am not saying that I feel there is inadequate diversity amongst the abilities the powers are modeling. Instead, I'm saying that I dislike that such different abilities were all modeled with the same structure.

 

[Garthanos]

There are definitely ways to add IC diversity to the Encounter power model, and the ones you list seem like good ones. I'll I'm saying is that, OOC, Encounter powers are structurally identical to each other in the same way that 5e spells are structurally identical to each other. (There may be limited exceptions in each case, I'm arguing in the general case.) By contrast, in 5e Warlock spells are structurally distinct from Battlemaster manuevers.

For me in character is servant to the roleplay... and the OOC that you are reacting to is a servant to the game and the commonality of frequency of expression is of massive value to the game. In the above descriptions I show nice diversity in character where its also most valuable. A pt or a die or slot shrug really has not in game world meaning at all.
Really what is a CS die? does not matter it serves game.

How do you characterize 5e slots in character? Honestly I don't know but I do know it has mechanical value of level gating and mild despamming higher level effects. (note the CS die lacks most of that and its kind of annoying)

I realize that not everyone cares about the structural level, and if you don't my point may not be relevant to your experience.

I really see no reason why martial abilities and magical ones might not fatigue in nigh identical ways (did you know the brain uses huge amounts of our biochemical energy operating in real life imagine that on overdrive) and if using the same point system is valuable game wise then why not is my attitude. I was exposed to RuneQuest magic concurrent to that of blue book D&D and honestly theirs made more sense than amnesia (but amnesia had some ic reason inflexible slot size still really kind of didnt).

In 5e it is worse and I get no real reason why spells are the way they are in character they seem utterly arbitrary tbh. Gygax used Vancian modelling to establish an in character reason for something that really was more about game play value.

Arbitrary differences that really do not describe something coherent in game world and in character bother me far more than valuable similarities which serve to improve game experience especially like with the encounter powers it takes no real effort to present in character models that are functionally the same like I did above. (with rare exceptions the DM can adjudicate)

 

[Garthanos]

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.

I do not see mechanics as tropes themselve tbh they are servants of tropes. Advancing hit points are servants of the heroic archetype trope.
2e described some pretty awesome fictional tropes, that didnt really see mechanic expression till late 3e and 1e described some tropes that didnt get expression mechanically till 4e,. That is what I see editions present part of it often as mostly flavor or motivation a promise or goal that is a trope if you will and sometimes they get fulfilled later.

 

[pemerton]

I think the unified structure played a lot into the perception of samey-ness. But whenever I’ve said as much, people have claimed that no, the unified structure wasn’t the problem for them, it was the powers themselves.

I've never really understood the sameyness thing. In every addition of D&D I've played (B/X, AD&D, 4e) the outcome of an attack is either damage in the form of hp attrition, or condition-infliction, except for some very ad hoc exceptions like vorpal swords, swords of sharpness and withering magic.

The difference between characters, for me, is the way they can be used to affect the fiction, not the relationship between player resources, PC resources, pacing and ingame time. In Prince Valiant, Classic Traveller and Cotex+ Heroic all PCs have the same mechanical structure, but they are different characters!

Sometimes I keep the DC secret

I always say what has to be rolled. In my post to @Charlaquin I was focusing on whether or not takebacks are allowed.

This is from the BW Adventure Burner, p 248:

In Mouse Guard, we wrote a rule called No Weasels. It says that once a GM sets an obstacle, you must engage it. This rule isn't entirely applicable in Burning Wheel, but it's a good guideline. Once you've stated your intent and task, once your character is in motion and the obstacle has been presented, you're expected to roll the dice. Even if it's too hard! . . .

Any questions about rules clarifications and obstacles should be handled before you get to the intent stage. You can ask questions about rules and look stuff up in the rule books. We want you to be informed when you boldly declare your action. We don't want you fishing. "What's the obstacle to convince him? That's too high. What if I intimidate him? What if I use a wise to know what he knows?"

An obstacle isn't a physical thing. It's a metaphor. Once it's presented, you need to confront it!​

I like it.

There is something to be said for having combat play like everything else, but there's also something to be said for having it play differently. Among other things, combat is (rarely) decided by a single roll--those games where that can routinely happen end up with a reputation for lethality. Having, e.g., an interrogation play out like a combat as far as the mechanics go can work, but I think that plays better as an exception than as an expectation. Obviously, YMMV.

This is a case where MMDV. Systems I know of and run that use one-roll combat resolution include Burning Wheel and Prince Valiant, and neither is particularly lethal. (The Prince Valiant rules state that PC death is not normally a thing in the game.)

And I don't really see why arguing and fighting need to be different. One of the more memorable extended contests in our Prince Valiant game was the minstrel/herald PC persuading a NPC noble to surrender. (Now I think about it, the same player has played out memorable social encounters in 4e and Traveller as well.)

I don't see any real connection between simple or extended resolution, whether it's talking or fighting (or running, or . . .), and whether the consequences are lethal or something else.

 

[pemerton]

Basically the whole at-will and cool-down powers with everyone having what I would consider supernatural abilities.

As far as supernatural ... I don't want to argue about that any more. Let's just say that to me the only options were kind of over-the-top cartoon or MMO characters. There's nothing wrong with that, just not my preference.

Not by way of argument but by way of stating my own perceptions: I personally don't see shield rushes, shooting arrows, knocking people down with deft use of a polearm, or the other sorts of things that warriors do in 4e, as supernatural. Or particularly over-the-top.

 

[Minigiant]

I do not see mechanics as tropes themselve tbh they are servants of tropes. Advancing hit points are servants of the heroic archetype trope.
2e described some pretty awesome fictional tropes, that didnt really see mechanic expression till late 3e and 1e described some tropes that didnt get expression mechanically till 4e,. That is what I see editions present part of it often as mostly flavor or motivation a promise or goal that is a trope if you will and sometimes they get fulfilled later.

That's what I meant. D&D would describe something in one editions book but you could not mechanically do in in that edition. Then later in another edition, a designer would make sure that edition can mechanical do what a previous edition narrated.

 

[Charlaquin]

I always say what has to be rolled. In my post to @Charlaquin I was focusing on whether or not takebacks are allowed.

This is from the BW Adventure Burner, p 248:

In Mouse Guard, we wrote a rule called No Weasels. It says that once a GM sets an obstacle, you must engage it. This rule isn't entirely applicable in Burning Wheel, but it's a good guideline. Once you've stated your intent and task, once your character is in motion and the obstacle has been presented, you're expected to roll the dice. Even if it's too hard! . . .​

​

Any questions about rules clarifications and obstacles should be handled before you get to the intent stage. You can ask questions about rules and look stuff up in the rule books. We want you to be informed when you boldly declare your action. We don't want you fishing. "What's the obstacle to convince him? That's too high. What if I intimidate him? What if I use a wise to know what he knows?"​

​

An obstacle isn't a physical thing. It's a metaphor. Once it's presented, you need to confront it!​

I like it.

This sounds like the opposite of what I would prefer. Asking a bunch of questions and looking up rules at the table are things I actively try to avoid because they bring the action to a halt. I would much rather the player declare an action and change their mind if the risk of failure is greater than they anticipated, rather than play 20 questions and look up rules for several minutes before any actual actions get declared.

 

[Oofta]

Not by way of argument but by way of stating my own perceptions: I personally don't see shield rushes, shooting arrows, knocking people down with deft use of a polearm, or the other sorts of things that warriors do in 4e, as supernatural. Or particularly over-the-top.

There were some powers that were not supernatural. But others? Pull all creatures to you so you can smack them? Whether they can understand your language or not. An aura of weapon damage? Being able to "distract" opponents an avoid opportunity attacks? That was just my fighter. Play a rogue and throw a single dagger that somehow hits multiple opponents and blinds them all?

The list goes on. Add in the cooldown periods and structure similar to vancian casting. I mean if I could hit someone hard enough to stun them, why couldn't I do it again?

 

[Maxperson]

That is interesting, never knew that (bold emphasis) and the fact that your players identified some sort of relationship between the two speaks volumes. I played V:tes. supposedly a different game to MtG (never played this) but I never drew any parallels between V:tes and 4e. Are you familiar with V:tes?

The game formerly known as Jihad. It was amazing. 1 on 1 it stank. 3 player it was bad. 4 player it was good. 5+ players and it blew magic out of the water. Of course it also took forever to play, but it was a great game with enough players.