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

[Neonchameleon]

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.

I think that there's a difference in attitude here between people who regard themselves as D&D DMs and those who regard themselves as RPG DMs. For those who regard themselves as D&D DMs 5e feels like a leatherman to 4e's adjustable wrench and thus more versatile. For those who regard themselves as RPG GMs 5e feels like a leatherman when 4e is an adjustible wrench, but Fate is a screwdriver, Apocalypse World is a power chainsaw, GURPS is a hammer, etc.

 

[Lanefan]

In AD&D, to touch someone for (eg) a Harm spell requires rolling to hit their AC.

Huh - maybe what I'm thinking of is a houserule that's existed since before I started playing, but we've always had touch attacks ignore some aspects that go into one's AC.

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.

Absolutely.

And where is it again? The DMG, you say. Good place for it, I suppose, for when players decide to try something outside the box.

But the tone of the PH* - the player-side info - in both 3e and 4e is "here's what you're allowed to do, and here's where the borders are". There's no real encouragement to try anything else because it's presented as if there's a rule for everything.

The other editions aren't presented thusly; it's fairly clear that what's given is only a framework.

* - PH1 in 4e; which in tandem with a DMG1 and MM1 one in theory ought to be able to play the game from.

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.

Maybe that explains why every time I ever went to one of those things I came away feeling less empowered than when I arrived: I'd just been told how to do something I was probably already doing just fine, only now I was supposed to do it in certain ways.

Power = freedom.

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.

Narrator is more or less equivalent across all editions (though maybe not so directly spelled out).

Referee isn't. In a rules-heavier system like 3e the referee is merely enforcing what's on the page. In a rules-lighter system like 0e or a more kitbashable system like 1e, the referee also has the power to determine what those rules are. 4e, despite the above, comes across in tone of presentation more like 3e even though the system isn't quite as rules-heavy.

RE: thievery checks by Fighters

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.

It empowers the DM to make whatever ruling she wants when (not if) a player tries something off the farm, and - more important - it implicitly* empowers the player to go ahead and try stuff.

* - or even explicitly; I seem to recall a passage in the how-to-play part of the PH saying words to the effect of "Try what you want, the DM will sort it out" but don't have a page number handy.

I'll be the first to admit that 1e's RAW way of handling this specific example isn't great at all. It's the same problem that happened with climbing: before the Thief was introduced anyone could try it, but once the Thief came in then only Thieves (and Assassins, and Rangers to a point) could try it, and that's poor design.

But 1e is both malleable and forgiving when it comes to kitbashing and rulings. It's the one true advantage of what I call its underlying mechanical chaos.

We long ago ruled that in this situation a non-Thief is free to try and pick a lock, but at terrible odds (often as low as 1%) and with a much higher chance of messing it up e.g. rendering the lock unopenable even with the key. Same as anyone's free to try climbing a wall but unless you're trained in climbing the odds of reaching the top are very much not in your favour.

It's simple realism: if we had to, you or I could try picking a lock even though neither of us (I assume!) are professional lockpickers or thieves, and there's always a tiny chance we'll actually succeed along with a much greater chance we'll mess it up badly.

Giving even a raw Dex check in 4e seems on the surface much more generous.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Almost.

You're equating empowerment with freedom: the farmer has it, the horse does not.

I'm equating power with freedom - the horse has neither, the farmer has both - and defining empowerment as something that gives you power, i.e. makes you more free.

I'm not equating power with physical strength or brawn in this case; though that is of course another valid definition, it's not the one I'm using here.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But the tone of the PH* - the player-side info - in both 3e and 4e is "here's what you're allowed to do, and here's where the borders are". There's no real encouragement to try anything else because it's presented as if there's a rule for everything.

I do not know how 4e could be any more explicit that "Through your character you can interact with the game world in any way you want. The only limit is your imagination - and sometimes how high you roll on the dice." than using those exact sentences as the second and third sentences of the "How do you play" right in the introduction to the game. Except possibly to use examples of play where the players refer to what they are doing before the rules.

Oh wait. It could make a principle of "Simple rules, many exceptions" and tell you that many things break the rules in some way. Which when it is one of the core principles of the game means that 4e makes it very clear from first principles that what's given is a framework.

Or to put it simply tone is something different people take different ways and there is significant evidence that 4e is the single version of D&D that makes it easiest for the DM to improvise.

And I think this is a difference in how we read things; you see a collection of mechanics and think that rules are hard-coded. I see clear and obvious exception based design for everything presented and think that the game is therefore about exceptions.

The other editions aren't presented thusly; it's fairly clear that what's given is only a framework.

While in 4e it's clear that just about everything the PCs do is an exception to the core framework. Therefore I get the impression that the game is about exceptions and that it is both easy and encouraged to add more.

Then we turn to page 42 in the DMG which, as far as I know, is the only part of the DMG in any edition to give clear and consistant guidance in how you are supposed to start making exceptions. And then I get clear and easy to use monster creation rules that don't just make my monsters mechanically almost interchangeable other than the numbers are slightly different.

Which means that to me the tone of 4e is that you, as DM, are supposed to be tinkering with it. And you're given a toolkit to do so rather than just told to make random rulings.

Maybe that explains why every time I ever went to one of those things I came away feeling less empowered than when I arrived: I'd just been told how to do something I was probably already doing just fine, only now I was supposed to do it in certain ways.

Whereas I come out more empowered as I come out with good ways to do things.

Power = freedom.

Only if you're a supervillain and don't care about whether you break anything or anyone. Below (I hope) is Superman's classic "World Made of Cardboard" speech about how all his power means that it's impossible for him to cut loose.

To quote another classic Superhero line "With great power comes great responsibility" - and that's the way it works for a lot of people. But as a DM I consider the powers of the DM also come with the responsibility of providing an experience where everyone will have a good time.

And for that, especially as a new GM, I want guidance in how this contraption of a game is supposed to work and what sort of bounds I should stick to most of the time because they won't break people.

I'm pretty sure you've internalised such rules yourself as you aren't actually a supervillain. And where you are having problems is that the rules you should normally stick to for DMing 4e aren't the ones you are used to. For me the rules I should normally stick to for 4e aren't the ones for oD&D, aren't the ones for Fate, aren't the ones for Apocalypse World, aren't the ones for Marvel Heroic Roleplaying. And I consider this a good thing because the experiences are different and that leads me and leads the group to different highs.

It empowers the DM to make whatever ruling she wants when (not if) a player tries something off the farm, and - more important - it implicitly* empowers the player to go ahead and try stuff.

It also empowers the DM to have guidance in how to make those rulings, especially when they are starting out. And it empowers the players to have some expectation of what those rulings are going to be as that leads to clearer understanding of the world.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I think the most apt metaphor I can make is that 5E is Calvinball.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

I think the apt MTG analogy would be -

You only get a single mana each turn. Every card costs 1 mana. Honestly if you set these parameters then MTG does start to look very similar to 4e. Most of the 1 mana cards are similar - 1/1 with small ability - 1/2 or 2/1 possibly. 2-3 direct damage from an instant. Instant for 1 damage to all creatures or all enemy creatures. Enchantments that give 0/2 , 1/1 or 2/0.

Heck, throw in a restriction of no duplicates of a specific rare (equating to daily powers) and you basically have 4e in MTG terms.

But MTG is not nearly as samey because it doesn't stop at 1 mana cards and as cards become more expensive in mana cost they start to have stronger effects that differentiate even more toward their particular colors theme.

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.)

The Sameness in 4e is also around what the powers do. It'd be a lot like playing a MTG game where 90% of all everyone did was summon 2/2 creatures.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The Sameness in 4e is also around what the powers do. It'd be a lot like playing a MTG game where 90% of all everyone did was summon 2/2 creatures.

I've taken that to another thread. And the idea that 4e powers are samey compared to the wall of spam martial characters get in other editions is IMO completely risible. For that matter, as mentioned, if 4e is all similar in that it's AEDU that makes almost everything pre-4e either AAAAAAA!!!! or DDDDDDD:

 

[FrogReaver]

I've taken that to another thread. And the idea that 4e powers are samey compared to the wall of spam martial characters get in other editions is IMO completely risible. For that matter, as mentioned, if 4e is all similar in that it's AEDU that makes almost everything pre-4e either AAAAAAA!!!! or DDDDDDD:

No you didn't.

 

[Neonchameleon]

No you didn't.

No I didn't what?

 

[FrogReaver]

No I didn't what?

"I've taken that to another thread"
"No you didn't"