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

[pemerton]

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.


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.

@Maxperson, I'm not sure what you mean here by new rule. (And I don't think that's what @Lanefan was asking about. He didn't use that phrase in the post I responded to.)

The default modes of non-combat resolution in 4e are either make a single check to see if you succeed at what you want to achieve or have the GM frame you into a skill challenge and then declare actions - mostly checks - within that framework. There's typically not any need for new rules like, say, are found in the Wilderness Survival Guide discussion of climbing (with separate rules for roping together, hammering in pitons, etc, etc).

The default mode of combat resolution in 4e, implicit in the powers and spelled out on p 42, is make a check to see if you inflict damage and/or a condition. So again there's not typically any need for new rules like, say, those for grappling and pummelling found in the AD&D DMG or in the Unearthed Arcana appendix.

That said, p 189 of the DMG is entitled "Creating House Rules", and opens thus:

As Dungeon Master, you wear several hats: storyteller, rules arbiter, actor, adventure designer, and writer. Some DMs like to add a sixth hat to that stack: rules designer. House rules are variants on the basic rules designed specifically for a particular DM’s campaign. They add fun to your D&D game by making it unique, reflecting specific traits of your world.

A house rule also serves as a handy “patch” for a game feature that your group dislikes. The D&D rules cannot possibly account for the variety of campaigns and play styles of every group. If you disagree with how the rules handle something, changing them is within your rights.

This advice can’t turn you into an expert game designer—we’d need more than a page for that. Instead, this is a basic introduction to the concepts behind rules design. Once you’ve become familiar with these ideas, the best way to learn more about game design is to play, see what’s fun and what’s not, and use your discoveries to guide your own work.
​

It then goes on to give some general advice on rules design - eg be clear what you want your rule to achieve; pay attention to how your rule actually works in play, and revise it if necessary - before giving a couple of examples (combat fumbles, and critical success/failure rules for skill checks) with some discussion of how they will change play and what the pros and cons might be of adopting them.

Is this the thing that you're saying 4e doesn't have, or are you talking about something else?

 

[Manbearcat]

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.)

That is basically where I stand.

If you strip out everything that is native to specific cards and to specific deck build archetypes (which is the analog I'm drawing to specific powers and specific character build archetypes) from magic, you're left with the unified framework of the rules (I mentioned these things in full upthread) which includes a unified framework for everything (including hand recharge rate as you mention) except ratio of Lands, Spells, etc. However, as I mentioned upthread as well, the way I look at the "freedom" of the ratio of Lands is that its basically an illusion. If you want to have a functional deck (meaning you can play it and have a fair chance to win over a series of games), you're going to have to have a specific number of lands (whether you're Aggro or not).

So if we're solely talking about the freedom of building to archetype, I don't think I feel like MtG has the upper hand on 4e to any significant degree (particularly when you include the Land requirements for functional archetypes). By level 7 alone, I've chosen:

Background

Race

Class

Theme

Class sub-feature build

Race sub-feature build

2 At Wills

4 Feats (which are hugely impactful choices in terms of broadening or focusing; a simple decision like
choosing the Skill Power Mighty Sprint vs a Skill reroll Skill Power or a combat build synergizer like + Forced Movement or Shift or + hit MBA)

3 Encounter Attack Powers

2 Daily Attach Powers

2 Utility Powers (which can be AW, E, or D)

Multiple magic items

If Quests are included in build (because they control the trajectory of play), then you'll have chosen and resolved perhaps 10 Minor/Major Quests by level 7.


++++++++++

That is a ton (some would say too many) of build decisions that work in concert to diversify what the actual decision-tree that you'll be working with in play looks like (and the thematics that emerge from those inputs and their outputs).

 

[Manbearcat]

I haven't weighed in on this part of the thread, but I have strong feelings on it and I typically do.

Concerning the historical prejudicial approach to martial action resolution (both in design and in adjudication) in D&D.

How many folks in this thread are aware what the pinnacle is for human excellence on speed climbing a 15 meter vertical wall with holds constituting a difficulty that your average human couldn't hope to climb at all?

Under 5.5 seconds.

My guess is most people have never, ever even dreamed of that possibility or ever seen the freakish clip of it here:


My thoughts on this are as they always are.

This is only the pinnacle now. In 10 years, we'll probably see a full second shaved off of that. Human physical excellence is extraordinary and mostly untapped, because it lies in leveraging the hugely untapped potential of our neurological systems.

Reza Alipour, as amazingly athletic/technical/capable as he is, would be immediately turned to cinders or crushed or eviscerated by an Ancient Red Dragon. Same goes for all of our apex athletes on planet earth. Despite the capability of pulling off the freakish feat captured above (climbing an extremely difficult, 15 meter, 5.10 graded wall in under 5.5 seconds), that honed athleticism could never, ever hope to transfer to surviving (let along defeating) an entanglement with an Ancient Red Dragons in melee combat (not if they trained all their days and had modern, carbon fibre armor and melee weaponry)...

So some kind of otherworldly freakish athleticism and deployment of neurological system is happening when a Swashbuckling Epic Level Duelist Rogue, equipped only with an enchanted rapier and studded leather is dancing away from their blasts of fire, from their burning inferno aura, and from tail swipes and bites that would total a 5000 lb car...and ultimately felling the beast with dozens of perfectly placed swipes and thrusts. Some kind of otherworldly freakish athleticism and deployment of neurological system that a complete Earthly freak like Reza Alipour could never dream to aspire to.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

OMG yes! This! This is exactly what I’ve been trying to express when I contrast 5e’s approach to skill checks with 4e’s as an example of 5e’s form of DM empowerment. Thank you for finding a more eloquent way to phrase it.

I also like the description of DM as a rules engine. That’s kinda what I’ve been trying to get at when I talk about 5e feeling like “my game” in a way 4e didn’t, or about DMing 4e feeling like conducting a train. In 5e, I am the game’s engine and the rules are my tools. In 4e, the rules are the game’s engine and I am their executor.

 

[pemerton]

@Manbearcat - putting to one side the issue of fighting dragons in melee, and just focusing on climbing:

The fighter in my 4e game can use Might Sprint (6th level skill power) to go from speed 5 (dwarf) to speed 9, with a +5 on the climbing check and then follow up with a normal non-boosted move.

With successful checks that's 14 squares halved (for climbing) = 35', or a bit over 10 metres, in 6 seconds. So quick for a fully-armoured person, but not supernatural.

A Nimble Climb human rogue with successful checks can do 12 squares (full speed because of the power) = 60', is around 18 metres, in 6 seconds. That's not bad - a bit beyond the record in the clip you posted.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat - putting to one side the issue of fighting dragons in melee, and just focusing on climbing:

The fighter in my 4e game can use Might Sprint (6th level skill power) to go from speed 5 (dwarf) to speed 9, with a +5 on the climbing check and then follow up with a normal non-boosted move.

With successful checks that's 14 squares halved (for climbing) = 35', or a bit over 10 metres, in 6 seconds. So quick for a fully-armoured person, but not supernatural.

A Nimble Climb human rogue with successful checks can do 12 squares (full speed because of the power) = 60', is around 18 metres, in 6 seconds. That's not bad - a bit beyond the record in the clip you posted.

Pretty damn impressive indeed.

Especially when you consider the Dwarf is carrying probably 85 lbs of gear and the Rogue maybe 15-20 (the climbers in the clip are wearing a net few lbs).

EDIT - The Rogue can actually do more than that. If its Elf (7 movement) and has feats/features (without a deep investment or real shenanigans) to augment their movement rate, they should be able to pull off around 22 squares or around 33 meters (a 7+ story building!) in those 6 seconds. So you're talking about pulling off the above feet, with about 20 lbs of gear, in about 2.5 seconds!.

In relation to the thread's premise. Anyone who has built one know whether an epic level PF2 Rogue is capable of that kind of mundane climbing? That would be a line of evidence that the game is 4e inspired.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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

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, when compared to 1e-2e-5e.

You ain't gonna like this, but GM Force is power; and a system that allows or even encourages it is thus by definition more empowering than one which doesn't. Rulings-not-rules is power, ditto.

A system that smoothly runs itself may or may not be empowering to its GMs, depending on what that system does while running smoothly.

Ah NOW I understand. You are making the mistake of confusing power with empowerment. The draft horse is almost certainly the most physically powerful animal on the farm. But the most empowered animal on the farm is the farmer. And me, I'm far more empowered by not having to wear bridle and tack and being able to climb trees when I want rather than made to pull a plough than I would be if I were forced to pull a plough. Even if I might get stronger by being forced to take excercise.

I should have realised when you claimed that driving over artificially flattened prarie rather than roads was empowering that you wanted a specific feeling of power.

Me? I consider it more empowering to not be called dobbin.

 

[Sadras]

Nossir. No clue.
Does it have heavily distinguished deck archetypes?

Yes it does.
So you either played a clan (vampire clan) deck which shared specific clan cards and disciplines (Animalism, Protean, Obfuscation...etc) or you played a themed deck (far-range gun deck, retainer/ally deck, bleed deck, reactionary deck).

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.

*Jyhad. Yes it was a marvellous game with much table politicking and manuevering and from what I heard about Vtes players who also played MtG - they preferred Vtes. I still have my cards. I lost interest after a few of the later expansions and the hunter decks were very OP.

 

[Aldarc]

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?

For the Ritual Warrior (designed by Mike Mearls) in Arcana Evolved - a place where you can see kernels of 4e and 5e design - it meant that you were out of Combat Rites. Likewise, in 5e it means that the Battlemaster is out of Maneuver dice. This is what I find so odd at times. There are so many people who do not bat an eyelash at the Battlemaster's resources but it's probably one of the closest class-subclasses to 4E encounter-based powers. But you don't actually get more interesting maneuvers or encounter powers as you level, you actually get less interesting ones, since you tend to pick the best ones early on.

 

[Sadras]

How many folks in this thread are aware what the pinnacle is for human excellence on speed climbing a 15 meter vertical wall with holds constituting a difficulty that your average human couldn't hope to climb at all?
Under 5.5 seconds.

15 meters = 49.2 feet
In the video clip (1) the two were not encumbered and (2) there were easily identifiable hand/footholds on (3) a wall they have practised on many times.

Generally most PCs are encumbered (armour, weapons and equipment) but based on posters here many DMs ignore encumbrance. So the std human PC moves 30 feet in 6 seconds and in 5e with the Dash action the movement rate is doubled = 60 feet. Climbing is generally considered difficult terrain which reduces the movement to 30 feet.

The Rogue class may use their Bonus Action to Dash (again, that is another 30 feet) so we are up to climbing 45 feet in 6 seconds while carrying gear with no easily identifiable hand/footholds as reflected in this video. Add Second Storey Work from the Thief Archetype and you're climbing 90 feet in 6 seconds while carrying gear on a wall you haven't practised on with no easily identifiable hand/footholds.

To be clear I'm not disputing that martials might get short-changed compared to real life, I just wouldnt have used climbing as the first or best example. I would have gone on something simple like running.