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

[Maxperson]

Eh, some people swore by THAC0, other people swore at it. Tables were so very ur-Gygaxian, and I can't recall not seeing a game with the DM Screen.

I mean ... c'mon.... that Trampier two-piece panel. That artwork, perhaps more than anything (yes, even more than the DMG or PHB cover) instantly evokes D&D for a whole generation.

I didn't love THAC0, but it also wasn't an annoyance as it literally took 2 seconds or less to figure out.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[pemerton]

That's all saves are now. The big difference is that the target number (i.e. the save matrix) is strictly DM-side info. The player still rolls the d20 and tells me the modified total, and I look at the chart - it ain't that hard.

But this is irrelevant to @Neonchameleon's point. You can have secret DCs in a 3E-style resolution system. Unless you also think it's really important to keep the bonus secret too - but why would it be?

I've never tried kitbashing 4e or 5e but when playing 3e our DM tried some serious reworking of it, only to find that the unified mechanics (which he tried to maintain) caused far too many knock-on effects: changing something here knocked something else out of whack there and there, and fixing those caused problems elsewhere, repeat...

With freestanding sub-systems, there's no pressure to make any one element procedurally conform to any other element; it is what it is and does the job it does, and can be independently tweaked if so desired without nearly as many knock-ons.

I really don't know what sort of "kitbashing" you have in mind. But even on its own terms AD&D is highly vulnerable to breakage - eg the GM who allows ability score checks to overlap in function with thief skills; or the lack of fit between surprise resolution for monks and the rules for determining segments of surprise; or the risk of broken magic items, which Gygax repeatedly warns against in his DMG.

One point of 4e's resolution framework is that it makes many separate subsy8stems redundant. There's no need for different systems for (say) finding and disarming traps; evading pursuit in the wilderness; and befriending a NPC - these can all be resolved as skill challenges.

But if for whatever reason you want to create a separate sub-system for reaction rolls in 4e, that's not going to be any more work than it would be in AD&D. It might be desirable to consider how to factor Diplomacy skill into it; but then, in AD&D you'll need to work out how to factor CHA into such a system, so I don't see any marked difference. Or suppose you wanted resurrection survival checks, you could just copy the chart straight over from AD&D.

I guess I'm really not clear on what these "knock-on" effects are.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Neonchameleon]

So, sure, use the texts. But you can't just point to a little passage, buried at the end, and say that all things are created equal. In fact, I am fairly certain that one of the core strengths of 4e is that it, in normal play, it constrains the DM more than other versions of D&D- that's why some people love it, and why some people consider it much easier to DM.

On the contrary. One of the core strengths of 4e is that in actual play it supports the DM more and constrains them less. By constrains I mean forces them to wrestle with the rules rather than being supported by them. Here are some examples:

First, if you want constraining for the DM then go look at 3.X and the skill system for that game. For that matter if you want constraining compare the 5e monster creation rules with its 20 step process that requires you to work out the CR to work out the proficiency bonuses of a monster and you need to know the attack bonus to work out the CR to the MM3 on a business card. And there is literally a blogpost that's high up the monster design searches called "How to create a D&D monster for fifth edition in 15 minutes or less" For how constraining that looks to a 4e DM I've literally created three types of RAW monsters for a combat, each with different abilities, in the time it took to set the battlemap and roll initiative. And it was still a distinctive and successful combat.

Second one of the key things that differentiates 4e and makes it easier to DM is it works out of the box. 1e for example - how do initiative rules work? Yes, I know there's a textbook answer to that but then there are classes that make percentage change in it somewhere. If in order to make something work at all I have to kitbash it then forcing me to do something is a constraint and a far bigger one than just not explicitly telling me I can do something.

Thirdly if I need to look up anything in the course of play to run Rules as Written then that's a constraint that impacts me at the table. In 4e I might want to look up the skill challenge DCs and the improvised damage charts but this is never mandatory. In 1e I have to look up attack matrices and saving throw matrices as a matter of course. And then there's the details of how 3.X skills or 2e "Non Weapon Proficiencies" work.

Fourthly if I need to lug books around with me and use them in play or cross-reference and cross-link things that's a huge constraint that impacts me at the table. When I run monsters in other editions I need to look up their spells in other books. 4e frees me by meaning I don't need to do that. 3.X is the most constraining. 5e at least largely (as it normally does) follows in 4e's footsteps and you only need to look up actual spells. Not as unconstraining as 4e but not bad.

Fifthly even in a rules question having the rules on the character sheet is liberating while having to crack open books and search for the spells isn't. I've three or four times asked to see a character sheet and once said "we'll do it this way and look it up at the end" but don't recall ever cracking a book in play over a rules dispute in 4e. In 5e I've needed to look up spells.

Sixthly the most constraining thing of all is to be left utterly bereft of answers. 4e gives me tools to deal with daft PC plans (skill challenges) and improvised attacks in a way no other edition does. And yes, there is about an index card's worth of material I sometimes want to look up here.

Saying "Well you can hack it and throw things on here and there" isn't freeing until after I've fought my way past the constraints the game decides to weigh me down to like a 20 step monster creation system that requires referencing itself. And yes I know Lanefan has fought his way past the constraining makework of needing to use a collection of lookup tables to see whether an attack hits and for saving throws - but I see no earthly reason that doing this would improve my game. It does however constrain me by giving me another thing to remember, to organise, and to run.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Neonchameleon]

@Neonchameleon

1. If you are going to quote me, then you should quote me.

I had no idea whether I was quoting you or someone you agreed with. Merely something relevant. If you had bothered to actually link to the post you were quoting with a context as the default quote function does then I would have quoted that.

2. You are welcome to bold and argue however you would like; that said, you are simply using different definitions of "constrain" that used. So, here's a little tip- if I am using the word in a certain way that is obvious from the full context, then it is usually considered poor form to try and use it in a completely different context.

Words do not mean what you want them to mean simply because you pay them extra. If you want to talk about constraints then talk about constraints. Talk about things that prevent you or get in the way of you doing things. Not one thing you were talking about was about "being compelled to avoid or perform a certain action". Also you specificially talked about "in normal play" - which means at the actual tabletop.

Meanwhile I gave some examples of how the compulsions are lowest and 4e is thus the least constraining. And one of its advantages, contrary to your claims, is that 4e literally constrains me less than any other edition especially in normal play.

"In normal play" also actually means in normal play - i.e. at the tabletop when the rules are working as intended. Not "sitting at home kitbashing" or even "world building before the campaign starts" - world building is a part of play but it is outside the timing of normal play.

If we use what I think you mean - other editions provide more encouragement and that outside normal play - then I'd disagree but you actually have a case to answer if you say that. When you talk about constraints, and especially constraints in normal play you are making counter-factual claims.

3. You apparently really want to argue with me instead of engage with me.

Repeating what you said on a previous occasion is not engagement. You decided to quote, I can only assume, yourself (a link again would have been nice) in the apparent belief that your post was flawless. Now as you are actually replying to my comment rather than letting off a pre-canned reply that I believe has already been rebutted engagement is practical.

4. Finally, if you've read anything I've written, ever, then you would know much better than to make points that you think are brilliant by invoking 3e. Seriously, why would you do that?

I literally invoked all major editions at different times. From 5e's monster creation to old school attack matrices to 2e's Non Weapon Proficiencies. I simply didn't leave 3.X out because 3.X is part of the D&D family. And this is a message board with multiple people involved rather than just involving you.

If I had focused exclusively on differences to 3.X rather than going everywhere then you would have a point. And I accept I should have spent time on just how much the much-hyped 2e Monstrous Manual buries its mechanics deep in the fluff text, forcing me to spend more time at the table checking I've not missed anything meaning that I can't just flip to the page in that edition and be ready to go in seconds. But when I'm comparing to almost all editions to show which end of the spectrum something is at I'm not going to miss one out.

Have you ever read a single thing I have written, ever? What, are you going to now tell me 4e is the edition for me because you can make the best Paladin in it?

I'm not telling you that 4e is the edition for you. I'm telling you that arguments about how "one of the core strengths of 4e is that it, in normal play, it constrains the DM more than other versions of D&D" are literally backwards to its strength of in normal play (i.e. at the tabletop and using the intended playstyle) being more supportive and more liberating than any other edition. I am telling you that you were making a strongly false argument. And you were doing it in a post that you thought was important enough to quote without attribution.

Also, what is up with the RANDOM EMPHASIS?

I was replying to a gratuitously quoted post with bold and underlinings.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Also, just to point this out-

This thread had ended on March 13, with people joking about Deities and Demigods stats .... and Cthulhu.

But, of course, the other thread got shut down on March 22 .... guess what.

This thread was immediately kicked off again after being dormant for nine days, but instead of arguing about Cthulhu, it went back to the topic of the closed thread.

It is very odd that it happened!

Wait, did I saw odd? I meant predictable. It is completely predictable and unsurprising.

For kicking it off again I apologise - I was away the whole of last week (worst time to take a holiday with a broken laptop ever). But when I restarted it I was replying on the subject of this thread with a part finished reply from before I went away.

As for it going back to the topic of the closed thread, I actually think that this thread was staying somewhere pretty useful until very recently.

And trying to rerail it back when it was useful:

I really don't know what sort of "kitbashing" you have in mind. But even on its own terms AD&D is highly vulnerable to breakage - eg the GM who allows ability score checks to overlap in function with thief skills; or the lack of fit between surprise resolution for monks and the rules for determining segments of surprise; or the risk of broken magic items, which Gygax repeatedly warns against in his DMG.

One point of 4e's resolution framework is that it makes many separate subsystems redundant. There's no need for different systems for (say) finding and disarming traps; evading pursuit in the wilderness; and befriending a NPC - these can all be resolved as skill challenges.

But if for whatever reason you want to create a separate sub-system for reaction rolls in 4e, that's not going to be any more work than it would be in AD&D. It might be desirable to consider how to factor Diplomacy skill into it; but then, in AD&D you'll need to work out how to factor CHA into such a system, so I don't see any marked difference. Or suppose you wanted resurrection survival checks, you could just copy the chart straight over from AD&D.

I guess I'm really not clear on what these "knock-on" effects are.

Some actual practical examples here would be useful so those of us who don't understand can see what is meant.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*