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

[pemerton]

The comcept of touch attacks has informally been around since forever e.g. trying to touch an unwilling recipient with a 'touch' range spell, or any attack from an incorporeal undead. All 3e did was codify some rules around them; one of its better ideas.

In AD&D, to touch someone for (eg) a Harm spell requires rolling to hit their AC. 3E fundamentally changed this which, as I said, radically changed the dynamics of certain monsters and spells.

In 1e-2e and somewhat in 5e, this is correct: you can try anything and if there's not a rule for it the DM is empowered* to make one up. In 3e-4e it isn't; the philosophy there was that the rules were the limits and if there wasn't a rule for it, you couldn't try it.

I can't comment on 3E. This is obviously false for 4e - the most well-known page in the 4e DMG is p 42, which under the (pragmatically contradictory) heading "Actions the Rules Don't Cover" sets out the rules for resolving such actions.

You're making the same mistake as [I forget who, upthread] and equating empowerment with support. They are not the same!

Says who? If you participate in a workshop for empowering people, you'll learn (if you're a student) or demonstrate and explain (if you're a teacher) tools and methods for achieving things, resisting things, ignoring things, etc. The distinction you're drawing is arbitrary and (in my view) sheds no light on my RPGIng.

Sure, 4e gives its DMs lots of support; and good on it for doing so - but it doesn't give 'em any power to go with it

The 4e PHB lists four jobs for the Dungeon Master. Two of them seem relevant here:

* Narrator: The DM sets the pace of the story and presents the various challenges and encounters the players must overcome.​

​

* Referee: When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules and adjudicate the story.​

I have no idea what lack of power you think you're pointing to.

 

[Xetheral]

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)

I'm totally fine with describing a Battlemaster who is out of superior dice as too exhausted too continue to fight in top form, and simultaneously describe a wizard who is out of spell slots as too exhausted to continue casting. But that doesn't mean I think expert fighting and spellcasting are the same thing.

To me, there is a very real difference in the game world between expertly fighting with a sword and knowing how to cast spells. In my campaign setting that difference is "coherent in the game world" (to use your terminology) and not in any way arbitrary. To help maintain that distinction I thus have a preference for game systems that model those abilities with different structures. That way the player's experience of interacting with the rules more closely mirrors the character's experience of using their abilities.

 

[pemerton]

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?

The GM calls for a Thievery check. Given the fighter's not trained, it's the same as a raw DEX check.

I don't see how this is meant to contrast with AD&D in some way favourably to the latter, given that the default answer in AD&D is you can't. Picking locks is a special ability that only thieves and assassins get.

If the AD&D referee lets the player of the fighter make a DEX check, then there is now a good chance that the fighter is better at this than the thief. (Luke Crane has posted about making this mistake in adjudicating Moldvay basic, though in the context of sneaking rather than lock picking.)

If the fighter has a X% chance that is lower than a thief with the same XP table, we now have the fighter getting the benefits of being a (lower level) multi-class thief without having had to pay the XP costs.

I don't really see how AD&D empowers the GM or the player here.

 

[pemerton]

Weird double post deleted.

 

[Maxperson]

I can't comment on 3E. This is obviously false for 4e - the most well-known page in the 4e DMG is p 42, which under the (pragmatically contradictory) heading "Actions the Rules Don't Cover" sets out the rules for resolving such actions.

Page 42 in no way shows what he said to be false. Where on page 42 does it empower the DM to completely make up a new rule? I see suggesting adding +2/-1. And I see turning it into a check of some sort. There's direction to a table for improvised damage. No empowerment to completely come up with a new rule, though.

The 4e PHB lists four jobs for the Dungeon Master. Two of them seem relevant here:

* Narrator: The DM sets the pace of the story and presents the various challenges and encounters the players must overcome.​

​

* Referee: When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules and adjudicate the story.​

I have no idea what lack of power you think you're pointing to.

Probably the lack of enablement to create entirely new rules. Creating new rules does not fall under either the Narrator or Referee jobs. If the other two jobs are even less applicable, then this is a lack of power that other editions grant to DMs.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Whereas to me there is nothing supernatural (and certainly nothing language related) about either of these: (i) a warrior's opponents close on him/her; (ii) a warrior uses his/her superior footwork and weapon play to wrongfoot his/her opponents.

Play a rogue and throw a single dagger that somehow hits multiple opponents and blinds them all?

Are these rules (from pp 270-71 of the PHB) relevant to this?

If you’re using a projectile weapon to make a ranged attack against multiple targets, you need one piece of ammunition for each target, and if you’re using thrown weapons, you need one for each target.

If you’re using a projectile weapon to make a close attack, you need one piece of ammunition for each target, and if you’re using thrown weapons, you need one for each target.

If you’re using a projectile weapon to make an area attack, you need one piece of ammunition for each target, and if you’re using thrown weapons, you need one for each target.​

I don't see how this is supernatural. It seems the opposite to me.

 

[Oofta]

Whereas to me there is nothing supernatural (and certainly nothing language related) about either of these: (i) a warrior's opponents close on him/her; (ii) a warrior uses his/her superior footwork and weapon play to wrongfoot his/her opponents.

Are these rules (from pp 270-71 of the PHB) relevant to this?

If you’re using a projectile weapon to make a ranged attack against multiple targets, you need one piece of ammunition for each target, and if you’re using thrown weapons, you need one for each target.​

​

If you’re using a projectile weapon to make a close attack, you need one piece of ammunition for each target, and if you’re using thrown weapons, you need one for each target.​

​

If you’re using a projectile weapon to make an area attack, you need one piece of ammunition for each target, and if you’re using thrown weapons, you need one for each target.​

I don't see how this is supernatural. It seems the opposite to me.

I'm not going to argue. You do you.

Have a good one.

 

[Manbearcat]

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?

Nossir. No clue.

Does it have heavily distinguished deck archetypes?

 

[pemerton]

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.

I think this probably bears more upon the phenomenon referred to as "GM empowerment" more than anything else that has been mentioned in this thread.

I prefer an approach in which the rules are transparent, and so either are able to be intuitively grasped (if simple - eg Prince Valiant, most of Classic Traveller, most of non-combat 4e D&D) or else are knowable by reference to the rules (Burning Wheel, Cortex+ Heroic, a lot of combat 4e D&D). So if a player wants to declare an action and the answer isn't intuitive, they can consult the rules or ask for advice - eg Which skill covers tracking aliens - Recon or Hunting? or When attacks are resolved, is it simultaneous or turn-by-turn or What is the penalty to shooting for full concealment?

Then, once the player actually puts their PC into motion, the action is resolved - which includes setting the obstacle and rolling the dice.

This is different from an approach in which the action declaration comes first and then feeds into the GM black box to feed out an obstacle which the player then responds to. That latter approach seems to make the GM a much more prominent mediator of action declarations - a rule engine as well as an adjudicator of the fiction.

 

[pemerton]

I think you are not sitting the unified mechanical structure from the rest of the game in the same place.

In magic you could create an all creature deck, an all instant deck, etc. You could mix those proportions up. That's flexibility in mechanical structure that allows for that.

You cannot do that in 4e. You get exactly the same of everything as everyone else.

I'm not sure I go all the way with @Manbearcat's M:tG analysis, but this stood out to me. In 4e I don't get exactly the same number of AoEs, close bursts, melee, push, knock-down, blinding, free movement, etc powers as everyone else. What I get in these respects is a function of class choice, power choice, feat choice etc.

The sameness in 4e is only in respect of recovery rates. In M:tG everyone has the same recovery rate (draw one card per turn) so it seems even more same-y! (Yes, there's Demonic Tutor etc; but 4e has power recovery powers also.)