D&D 4E Reconciling 4e's rough edges with Story Now play

andreszarta

Adventurer
Hey EnWorld!

My last dalliance with 4e was back in 2017 when I briefly ran a short campaign for a group of friends who were interested in playing the game with a more Story Now approach. Back in the day I was drawing a lot of inspiration from the discussions that were held here, in threads like Pemertonian Scene-Framing; A Good Approach to D&D 4e.

My thinking and experience with Story Now gaming wasn't nearly as mature as it is nowadays with most of my current gaming being firmly rooted in the PbtA tradition. As I am preparing to revisit 4e with the eventual intent of running it, I want to ask for your help in trying to understand and reconcile what I consider to be some of the rough edges in the system that seem to be pointing away from that particular agenda. Since I have a good number of these questions, I kind of want to go in order and explore each one deeply before moving on to the next, but I'm also very open to have the conversation move to surprising places as very often I found those to be tremendously educational and have others point me at their own points of contention. All good contributions!

Let's start with skills. Chapter 5 of the PHB1 talks about skills in a manner similar to every other edition of D&D, a general overview of what each does, its related stats and then a discussion of its associated mechanics. Each skill seems to want to focus on a series of special use cases (such as Heal's First Aid or Dungeoneering Forage) that point at the different ways these skills are meant to be invoked.

When I read these use cases, I don't know why my mind is unable to read them as, say how I would read a PbtA playbook move, and instead what I get from them is a really strong pull towards Right to Dream play were these actions can't meaningfully exist without the more naturalistic approach to exploration.

Let's look at Acrobatics, for instance:

Acrobatics (Dexterity)
Armor Check Penalty
You can perform an acrobatic stunt, keep your balance while walking on narrow or unstable surfaces, slip free of a grab or restraints, or take less damage from a fall.

Acrobatic Stunt
Make an Acrobatics check to swing from a chandelier, somersault over an opponent, slide down a staircase on your shield, or attempt any other acrobatic stunt that you can imagine and that your DM agrees to let you try. The DM sets the DC based on the complexity of the stunt and the danger of the situation. If the stunt fails, you fall prone in the square where you began the stunt (the DM might change where you land, depending on the specific stunt and situation). Your DM always has the right to say that a stunt won’t work in a particular situation or to set a high DC.

Acrobatic Stunt: Standard action or move action, depending on the stunt.
✦ DC: Base DC 15.
✦ Success: You perform an acrobatic stunt.
✦ Failure: You fail to pull off the stunt and might fall or suffer some other consequence.


Balance
Make an Acrobatics check to move across a surface less than 1 foot wide (such as a ledge or a tightrope) or across an unstable surface (such as a wind-tossed rope bridge or a rocking log).
Balance: Part of a move action.
✦ DC: See the table.
✦ Success: You can move one-half your speed across a narrow or unstable surface.
✦ Fail by 4 or Less: You stay in the square you started in and lose the rest of your move action, but you don’t fall. You can try again as part of a move action.
✦ Fail by 5 or More: You fall off the surface (see “Falling,” page 284) and lose the rest of your move action. If you are trying to move across an unstable surface that isn’t narrow, you instead fall prone in the square you started in. You can try again as part of a move action if you’re still on the surface.
✦ Grant Combat Advantage: While you are balancing, enemies have combat advantage against you.
✦ Taking Damage: If you take damage, you must make a new Acrobatics check to remain standing.


Reduce Falling Damage (Trained Only)
If you fall or jump down from a height, you can make an Acrobatics check to reduce the amount of falling damage you take.
Reduce Falling Damage: Free action if you fall or a move action if you jump down.
✦ Damage Reduced: Make an Acrobatics check, and reduce the amount of falling damage you take by one-half your check result (round down).


When I read Balance action for instance, where success means you can move one-half your speed across a narrow or unstable surface...I mean cool, that's what physically happens in the fiction but we got no meaningful output with regards to whatever conflict we are meant to be resolving. Instead we got a output that sort of demands that attention is placed in the minute details of the fiction, and leaves conflict resolution to GM Fiat.

So I guess my questions are:
  • Is it just me who is reading skills incorrectly? If so, what am I missing and how am I not seeing them in the proper light? How are these working, as written, to support Story Now? When are we supposed to be rolling them?
  • Do others see this similarly? What use are you giving skills then? I assume primarily Skill Challenges but are there other use cases?
I friendly summon @pemerton, @Campbell, @Manbearcat, @chaochou, @S'mon and any others who have experience with this style of play! At some point I want to talk about Rituals and Utility-Based Magic Items and I would really like to learn from you all, as I have done before.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


For what we use at this time, the ”balance” feature would be use only during an encounter where the move action make sense. The consequence are direct: you move or not or fall.

While the more generic acrobatic skill would be use in skill challenge where time is more elastic and DC are either succeed or failed. In a skill challenge a check can cover multiple “acrobatic” move, over a variable period of time. When all the rolls are done the DM wrap up the resolution and describe the overall failure or success of the challenge.

After that it was the DM fiat to adjust the next encounter or skill challenge based on the result of the skill challenge.
 


Hi @andreszarta . I was notified about your thread by another party who pointed out another thread where some folks used it to passive aggressively, sneakily-yet-publically, simultaneously edition war and take shots at myself and a few others (which is apparently the point of the thread! What an excellent idea for a thread that is, right?). That reality is pretty dispiriting, tiresome, creepy (how old is this game? 15 years and this is still happening), and would make me disinclined to engage with your post to produce content for that embarrassing, cowardly thread…but I’m not the cowardly type so I’ll go ahead and engage! They’ll almost surely report this offering in the same embarrassing way they used your post as a springboard for sneaky, alt-channel sniping (its crazy that such a thing is allowed on the forum)! So this might be my last help for you! So be it! Don’t care!

I’m out of country for 2 weeks and change, but its late and folks are in bed so I’ll try to briefly contribute. Regarding skills and 4e and it’s idiosyncratic engine and play paradigm:

As I’ve written and said many, many times, 4e had a lot of cooks in the kitchen and clearly editorial voices that were at odds with one another. That is how you end up with the bold, inflammatory aggression of the 4e primer Worlds and Monsters, “skip the gate guards and get to the fun” (or “cut to the action”), making the game as encoded and player-facing as a game can be, defanging GM authority (with how player-facing it is, with magic item usage, with its advocating “say yes…or roll the dice”, with it giving expression to player-authored kickers in the form of players authoring quests that impel the trajectory of play, with Fail Forward + Change the Situation + codified noncombat conflict resolution, with Theme/Path/Destiny as premise, with its rejiggering setting/cosmology as broad brushstroke but conflict-rife as the default mileu for play) but simultaneously end up with a vehicle that can still support Trad and Neo-Trad play if you just use whats there (like objective Skill DCs), ignore that stuff above and maintain default authority distribution while obscuring the player-facing, encoded, “player entitlement” (as was the epithet that was routinely employed against the game) nature of the game.

So, regarding skills specifically:

* You can absolutely find support for an objective DC, not-Fail-Forward, “say no”, Sim-indexing architecture for scaffolding a Traditional orientation to play within DMG1 and PHB1. That isn’t an accident or incidental. It’s absolutely intentional design to make the play space amenable to that play (and surely to try to head-off the S-storm that they all knew was coming for them due to the radical redesign and approach…nice try but, as we now know…LAWL at that).

* However, consider that the Burning Wheel family of games (along with Mouse Guard and Torchbearer) have their game engine designed around objective DCs. Story Now games are quite diverse, so dice pool conflict resolution and/or snowballing fiction/gamestate via a “subjective” core move resolution isn’t the only way to skin that particular cat!




What might be helpful to you is taking a look at some PBPs I’ve GMed on here (and one that I’m currently GMing. I’ll also tag @darkbard and @Nephis as they’re the players in the current one.

Here , solo game with my partner here , DW game that had a brief 4e remap interlude for funsies here, current game here .

What also might help you is if I ran a brief 4e PBP solo game for you on here? Maybe enough content to resolve like 2 x Minor Quests and 1 x Major Quest at one of the three Tiers? I can do that for you when I return if you’d like?
 
Last edited:

pemerton

Legend
Hi @andreszarta, I agree with @S'mon about a degree of incoherence in 4e - that gets tightened up a bit over time (ie in subsequent publications) but still lingers on. @AbdulAlhazred and I were discussing some aspects of this with some other posters recently in this thread: D&D General - How would you redo 4e?

I also agree with @Krachek that the stuff about balance and movement rates is for use in combat encounters (or other encounters - eg complex traps/tricks - that are being resolved using the tactical encounter system). It's best seen as a particular expression of the general rules on difficult terrain and challenging/hindering terrain.

But in a non-combat context, Acrobatics will generally contribute in the same way that any skill does ie via declaration of an appropriate check, and then resolution of that check, in a skill challenge.

The DC 15 Acrobatic stunt stuff I think is best seen as completely overtaken by the discussion of skill improvisation in the Rules Compendium. If you look at the RC entry, you'll see it doesn't mention that at all, and it expresses the Balance rule in terms of the DC-by-level table, which is consistent with the GM-side presentation of the terrain rules.
 
Last edited:


niklinna

satisfied?
Hi @andreszarta . I was notified about your thread by another party who pointed out another thread where some folks used it to passive aggressively, sneakily-yet-publically, simultaneously edition war and take shots at myself and a few others (which is apparently the point of the thread! What an excellent idea for a thread that is, right?). That reality is pretty dispiriting, tiresome, creepy (how old is this game? 15 years and this is still happening), and would make me disinclined to engage with your post to produce content for that embarrassing, cowardly thread…but I’m not the cowardly type so I’ll go ahead and engage! They’ll almost surely report this offering in the same embarrassing way they used your post as a springboard for sneaky, alt-channel sniping (its crazy that such a thing is allowed on the forum)! So this might be my last help for you! So be it! Don’t care!
Dnd Warrior GIF by Dungeons & Dragons


Great stuff
 

andreszarta

Adventurer
For what we use at this time, the ”balance” feature would be use only during an encounter where the move action make sense. The consequence are direct: you move or not or fall.
Ah! This clarifies things a bit. Seems its like we can deploy them inside encounters as little bits of task resolution, where those tasks meaningfully contribute to the overall resolution of the conflict/encounter given the inherent structural pressures (turns) of said encounters.
Perhaps you will find useful reading through how we deploy skills (and other items on your agenda) in This current Play by Post 4E game, in which I am a participant.
Can you point me to any that don't exist within a larger Skill Challenge context?
...it expresses the Balance rule in terms of the DC-by-level table, which is consistent with the GM-side presentation of the terrain rules
As in "this is the flip side of the coin/the player facing mechanics for dealing with difficult terrain"?
But all of this is fixable, in the reality of play, either by ignoring and/or editing-on-the-run, or by obvious just-in-time fixes. (Eg just houserule to solve the barbarian AC problem).
Very similar approach to how Vincent Baker plays games like Pendragon and Ars Magica. I just wish I was confident enough to know that I'll be able to do editing-on-the-run. Like, I know my story now principles and agenda well...but well enough to recognize when the system is pulling towards trad gaming and I need change something then? Any tips?
In short, the rules entries on skills include some specific instantiations of use but are no more limiting than, say, Dungeon World's Basic Moves, just expanded from 12 to 17.
Can you expand on this? Like it would seem to me that DW's moves are way more generalizable (and thus useful) than the specific use cases of skills.
* However, consider that the Burning Wheel family of games (along with Mouse Guard and Torchbearer) have their game engine designed around objective DCs. Story Now games are quite diverse, so dice pool conflict resolution and/or snowballing fiction/gamestate via a “subjective” core move resolution isn’t the only way to skin that particular cat!
Uhhh! I think understanding this is key in me being able to bridge my current gap in seeing objective DC as viable for SN Gaming. I'll give BW a read soon to see what I can glean from it. In the mean time I'll patiently wait until you return, and if you are not too turned off by that other thread, I would like to understand what do you find objective DCs qualitatively add to the experience.

To summarize, when looking at skills for a future Story Now 4e game:
1. Use the rules for specific task resolution when they meaningfully contribute within the larger structure of an encounter (combat, traps).
2. Use the discussion of skill improvisation in the Rules Compendium as a conceptual starting point for skills that later fits into the resolution mechanics of Skill Challenges.
3. Some other use (which I'm in the process of understanding) where rolling against an objective DC is, in itself, a viable conflict resolution mechanism just like dice pools/snowballing moves is in contemporary games.

Am I missing something? Take 10, Passives?

Let's talk Rituals! Eye of Alarm, for instance. Same deal right? It totally makes sense in a naturalistic, dungeon crawling context with a persistent world. In a scene-framing game though?
 

pemerton

Legend
To summarize, when looking at skills for a future Story Now 4e game:
1. Use the rules for specific task resolution when they meaningfully contribute within the larger structure of an encounter (combat, traps).
2. Use the discussion of skill improvisation in the Rules Compendium as a conceptual starting point for skills that later fits into the resolution mechanics of Skill Challenges.
3. Some other use (which I'm in the process of understanding) where rolling against an objective DC is, in itself, a viable conflict resolution mechanism just like dice pools/snowballing moves is in contemporary games.
For my part, I do 1 and 2 but not much of 3 - I guess 3 comes up only incidentally, in that (as an example) even at paragon tier there might be (say) a 10' ledge which it is trivial for the fighter and ranger to drop down, but if the wizard has to do it then the objective DC still creates a chance of failure, with possible comedic results.

Am I missing something? Take 10, Passives?
I don't recall much or any take 10 other than passive perception, which I think would mostly come up in the context of invisible creatures in a combat. My memory is a bit hazy, but in itself I think that counts as evidence that it has not been a big part of my play.

Let's talk Rituals! Eye of Alarm, for instance. Same deal right? It totally makes sense in a naturalistic, dungeon crawling context with a persistent world. In a scene-framing game though?
I don't think Eye of Alarm has ever been used in my game, so I don't know how I would do it.

The PCs did use a warding effect at epic tier - Magic Circle around the Mausoleum of the Raven Queen (details here: Session report - the Mausoleum of the Raven Queen). I think the significance of that is that unless something significantly changes as a result of play, the Mausoleum is "out of bounds" as far as GM-established consequences are concerned.
 

Remove ads

Top