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

[AbdulAlhazred]

Wow!! These all sound awesome.
I want to understand a bit more about how you as a GM managed the spotlight for all these storylines from a prep/procedure standpoint? Can you tell us a bit more about how many of these individual plots advanced within the same session? Was it that each session one of these threads got most of the spotlight, or did you jump around more freely? How closely did you follow the notion of "the party stays together"?

Ah! This is the dream.

Well, there was this one time when the party was getting up around Paragon and at that point IIRC another player joined and there was a Warden and a Bard, but anyway, they pissed off this dragon that was using them to collect stuff for him, just because he liked to collect stuff. So its a Mercury Dragon, which in Draconomicon2 is your basic spy type guy. That got quite mixed up in the Rogue's stuff! Then the dragon dropped them through a portal to the Feywild, so that got them tangled up in the Wizard's stuff, and so on and so forth.

That story arc was an oddball though, because I stole the description of Mithrendain, the Eladrin city, from a Dungeon adventure, and it had a bit of plot goo stuck to it involving traitors and fomorians and whatnot. So I fed them the first 2 encounters from that storyline. First was a straight up fight where the PCs drop out of a portal on top of an assassination attempt. No problem, I think I just used it as-is. The party beat up on the nasty looking assassin dudes, all is well! There was, however this horrible SC that was supposed to involve them going to a party and it was all pretty much pointless, no matter what happens they move on to whatever came after that. So I just ignored most of the blather of that and spent a half hour remaking it into a setup where they could end up allied to any of 4 different factions. It was an odd one, because you can't really 'lose', so I think I kept the "if you lose the good guy leader gets poisoned" loss condition, and basically let the PCs rack up successes against 4 different success tracks to see which faction they ended up in.

As it happens my recollection is they ended up part of the "we just want business as usual" party. Oh, and I threw in that this was actually a machination of the Wizard's family! Then the warlock wanted to find a hag because he got a clue the hag could help find his mother (but this was really the player wanting to get a 2nd pact, and he thought hags would be a cool option). So the PCs next landed at a hag lair, which was fairly tense as one of their allies got served for a snack! The warlock ended up with the hag pact, and a weird rod that had a hag eyeball fused to the end of it (I forget which item it was, a rod of something obnoxious).

I think after that they pretty much went into the "mess with the fomorians" part of the original adventure, and one of the PCs ended up plunging into the chasm in the final encounter and being swept into the Feydark by the torrent. That was the bard IIRC, and we never did discover what happened to that character. IIRC the player moved to Colorado or something and dropped out. Anyway, those last couple combat encounters I think all I did was add a few touches to the monsters, since they were older stat blocks.

But then after that adventure they went to find a vampire. Oh, no, they wanted to go vist an ancient ruined necromancer's tower, but they failed the Skill Challenge on the way there, and ended up trapped in the vampire's castle instead. That was all just made up on the spot, though the tower and existence of the vampire and some associated lore was already established in my setting. In the end they made their way to the castle basement, after the cleric got to have lots of fun blasting undead, and learned that there was an entire other nuther castle in the Shadowfell that they needed to visit, in order to get the final piece of the artifact set that the cleric needed to fulfill the prophecy. That was a whole other skill challenge to get THAT gate to work, another 'made up on the spot' thing, but it was entertaining, the players decided they needed various particular objects that had to be found in the castle to open the gate.

I think there was also a thing with the Rogue that we invented about getting some info for her family about some nefarious thing the vampires did to them way back when. Like they wanted to try to get that family kicked out of Court or something. Oh, and the wizard got inducted into the Order of the Spiral Tower IIRC and there was a whole thing about her needing to find a certain sword implement. By that point prep was pretty dead, except for making some battle maps.

So, basically, any given week's story, or month's story arc usually isn't going to engage everyone directly in their 'big things', but the warlock is always getting the creepy feeling he's being watched, and then he gets gifted with an actual eyeball, hahaha, that was funny. But his internal character was always touching his play. Can he trust anyone? He's friends with the rogue, but then someone says the wrong thing and he's back to not trusting her.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

That was a whole other skill challenge to get THAT gate to work, another 'made up on the spot' thing, but it was entertaining, the players decided they needed various particular objects that had to be found in the castle to open the gate.

How did that conversation go at the table? Were you like...
You guys want the gate to work? Ok, what do you think you need to make that happen?
Or
Here are some ideas of what would be needed to get this gate to work, you need at least 3 of the 5, the more you have the more stable the gate will operate. What do you do?
Or
Something else?

What you wrote above seems to indicate it was the first?
I have to ask - were your players coming from a 3/3.5 game? Or from some other RPG tradition?

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Like - the two D&D 5e games I am running, both groups sort of expect me to come up with the story. One is my high school group who most haven't played since our AD&D game in 1983 - not sure how they would handle things. This is the group when I say "tell me what you do to try to find the secret door" they say "I roll Investigate"

I could probably reboot the other group and toss out Tomb of Annihilation, and go full prepless GM play and build off the character backstories. They might like that tbh. Maybe I'll try that after Tomb of A, even though it might be trickier in 5e. OR - hear me out - maybe I'll ask them to play... 4e!!!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

How did that conversation go at the table? Were you like...
You guys want the gate to work? Ok, what do you think you need to make that happen?
Or
Here are some ideas of what would be needed to get this gate to work, you need at least 3 of the 5, the more you have the more stable the gate will operate. What do you do?
Or
Something else?

What you wrote above seems to indicate it was the first?
I have to ask - were your players coming from a 3/3.5 game? Or from some other RPG tradition?

Yeah, I think it was like, the players get to the basement, and one of them said something about how places like this must be closely linked to the Shadowfell, and then the wizard said something about "yeah, I thought about visiting there. Remember that holy man said something about Zorb (another Spiral Tower wizard) went the First Land (Shadowfell) with the Sword of Light." (something like that) So then the cleric used Consult Mystic Sages and learned about what had to be done (and that counted as a success).

So it was kind of the players, though to be honest the thought was lurking in my mind that this powerful vampire 'clan' must have something like that, etc. So I might have said something that started the ball rolling, but I can't remember now, this was like 2010. After they decided to try to investigate then I gave them some things they had to accomplish. They needed something like the life force of an innocent, so they spent a good while working on that one. It got them to explore all of this first castle, which was fun because it was like classic haunted house! Actually I think it was October, lol.

These players, lets see... Two spent a lot of time playing 3.5 and 2e etc. When 5e came out they ran that for a while, and then went back to 3.5, lol. OTOH one of them also ran a pretty decent Dungeon World game for a while. There was another that didn't have a huge amount of RPG experience, but he was a sharp guy and picked things up really fast. I think in some ways he was wanting a kind of Neo Trad warlock experience, but he was pretty happy with our game, he played for a couple years. I'm not sure about the other 2, I didn't know them as well, but I expect they were pretty trad D&D players. Everyone got into it pretty well. I mean, we never really sat down and worked through the theory of what we were doing. The Wizard was played by my sister, I think she's mostly just into the fantasy aspects of play, doesn't make a wide range of characters, but has a lot of experience.

 

[Manbearcat]

Involved an external conversation about the lines between Trad, NeoTrad, snd Story Now GMing. Figured I’d drop this in here as its relevant and fodder for conversation.

People have attempted to run 4e as Trad and it has significantly struggled to do so. A lot of people have run 4e as NeoTrad and it works because the transparent and enormously functional dials of 4e allow for “tuning” (GM curation of difficulty to match assurances of PC conception realization and thematic arc integrity).

But one of the primary reasons why 4e plays so nice with Narrativist and Gamism priorities is this:

I NEVER have to modulate the challenge dial to ensure the Story Now dial. I can always have the accelerator to the floor (within the bounds of system parameters) for both.

---

It can surely be a fine line. The best way to examine that line is the organizing principles of the content you’re introducing as GM. The following will all produce divergent results:

* What does my setting backstory and metaplot continuity say should happen here (?) > Introduce that content.

* How can the present situation give assured expression to the player’s conception of their PC’s thematic arc (?) > Introduce that content.

* How can the present situation test what this PC purports to be about (through their player and system) so we can discover the truth of it (?) > Introduce that content.

———

None of those give expression to Gamist priorities. That is a either a separate axis entirely to these thoughts or a coefficient attached to each.

* How can the present situation introduce a maximally compelling and consequential tactical or strategic decision-space (?) > Introduce that content.

IMO, the reason why Story Now play “plays disproportionately nice with Gamism (G)” is because (most of the time) I can integrate the answer to that challenge-centered bullet directly above with the organizing principle listed above for SN content. For the other two, there will be serious tension or competing priorities that have to be reconciled with:

Press the G button too hard and you threaten the integrity of a player’s conception of their character or threaten the expression of their thematic arc satisfactorily resolving in line with that player’s preconception.

Pressing the G button sufficiently hard to optimize compelling and consequential decision-space means going outside of metaplot continuity or setting extrapolation.

 

[heretic888]

I am really enjoying this thread

But

I played 4e, and ran a bit of it (Scales of War for my kids)... And then started to shift my attention to Dungeon World et al when tney came out... And I feel like what I read in the 4e PHB and DMG (tbh, like many, I only read the DMG for the magic items) doesn't exactly support this play.

I know I already asked about the Narrativist background text; but now I'd like to ask what 4e texts support this style of play? Hopefully they are among the texts I already have. Sadly I don't have any of the Essentials books (and probably won't seek those out...)

Kinda surprised nobody mentioned the DMG2 in response to this ..

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Kinda surprised nobody mentioned the DMG2 in response to this ..

Good call out, I should really read both 4e DMGs sounds like. My one (and only) personal flaw is that rulebooks like the DMG put me right to sleep

 

[Manbearcat]

Kinda surprised nobody mentioned the DMG2 in response to this ..

Just getting home from an extended trip abroad. I’ll get some more thoughts in here after I recover (hopefully tomorrow night) and I’ll talk DMG2, and to reference the lead post I’ll talk Acrobatics outside of SCs (as Countermeasure vs Hazards/Traps, vs Grab, Stunts, Skill Powers).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Kinda surprised nobody mentioned the DMG2 in response to this ..

You spoke! Its a good point. DMG2 certainly has a lot of stuff related to presentation of story. I'm not sure it necessarily reflects a very narrative or story now position though. Take the SC on P96 "War By Other Means", this SC doesn't just outline the goals of each side and some special mechanics, it also tries to nail down a lot of the plot elements from the start. Venna will try to bribe a character, Likewise Anders will do the same. Diplomacy - a character steps in as an advocate for one side or the other.

This is fine, but think about this challenge in a true Story Now perspective, the very FUNCTION of a challenge is different. This challenge is like a mini-game to play out on a pretty set board. Many things can happen, but if I was running it things would be much less defined. OK, the personalities of the negotiators, who the sides are, what they want, lets assume play prior to the declaration of an SC has established that. So, lets just play to see what happens. Maybe the PCs off someone, maybe they pay a bribe, maybe they demand payment from one side or the other. Heck, I have no idea, I'm just the GM, I don't make up any of the story! I can definitely use the SC mechanics to structure this encounter, but I don't need a lot of the definition, its going to fight against me. So, as a Story Now GAME DESIGNER, I'm not going to write DMG2 (at least this section) the way it is actually written.

And now, going back and reading the first couple sections of Chapter 1, it reads almost like a bit more polished version of the 2e DMG! This is pure trad! Create and relieve tension, even if you have to fudge! There is some decent advice that any GM can use. The bit on 'Decision Points' has some good bits. Its the same in the "Cooperative World Building" section, which certainly assumes that the generation of fiction belongs entirely to the GM and can only be 'loaned' to the players! Again, pure unadulterated trad straight out of AD&D!

Again, DMG2 contains a lot of useful parts, and its general mechanical description of SCs and including an explicit 'advantages' system and such can be really useful for Narrative play, but whomever decided what did and didn't go in (and most of the first 2 chapters are slightly edited Dragon articles), Kim Mohan perhaps? Or Bill Slavicsek? don't seem to be interested in story now!

 

[heretic888]

You spoke! Its a good point. DMG2 certainly has a lot of stuff related to presentation of story. I'm not sure it necessarily reflects a very narrative or story now position though. Take the SC on P96 "War By Other Means", this SC doesn't just outline the goals of each side and some special mechanics, it also tries to nail down a lot of the plot elements from the start. Venna will try to bribe a character, Likewise Anders will do the same. Diplomacy - a character steps in as an advocate for one side or the other.

This is fine, but think about this challenge in a true Story Now perspective, the very FUNCTION of a challenge is different. This challenge is like a mini-game to play out on a pretty set board. Many things can happen, but if I was running it things would be much less defined. OK, the personalities of the negotiators, who the sides are, what they want, lets assume play prior to the declaration of an SC has established that. So, lets just play to see what happens. Maybe the PCs off someone, maybe they pay a bribe, maybe they demand payment from one side or the other. Heck, I have no idea, I'm just the GM, I don't make up any of the story! I can definitely use the SC mechanics to structure this encounter, but I don't need a lot of the definition, its going to fight against me. So, as a Story Now GAME DESIGNER, I'm not going to write DMG2 (at least this section) the way it is actually written.

And now, going back and reading the first couple sections of Chapter 1, it reads almost like a bit more polished version of the 2e DMG! This is pure trad! Create and relieve tension, even if you have to fudge! There is some decent advice that any GM can use. The bit on 'Decision Points' has some good bits. Its the same in the "Cooperative World Building" section, which certainly assumes that the generation of fiction belongs entirely to the GM and can only be 'loaned' to the players! Again, pure unadulterated trad straight out of AD&D!

Again, DMG2 contains a lot of useful parts, and its general mechanical description of SCs and including an explicit 'advantages' system and such can be really useful for Narrative play, but whomever decided what did and didn't go in (and most of the first 2 chapters are slightly edited Dragon articles), Kim Mohan perhaps? Or Bill Slavicsek? don't seem to be interested in story now!

While not disagreeing with anything you say here, I was specifically referring to the sections on cooperative worldbuilding, asking players questions and building upon the answers, PC relationship structures that anticipated Apocalypse World's Hx by about 2 years, terrain powers as an expansion of Rule 42, alternative rewards as an adjunct and expansion of magic item wishlists, and elaboration of using powers and rituals in skill challenges (a specific exapansion of the DMG1's Say Yes philosophy in the context of SCs). The section on re-skinning the fiction of PC build options is probably apropos here, as well.

I'd say that's quite a lot of actionable content for Story Now purposes, but perhaps you got less mileage out of it than I did.

Honestly though, I was really thinking of the section on Asking Questions primarily in my last post. It is extremely detailed and exhaustive and quite frankly puts most PbtA texts with a similar MC move to shame. Impressive considering this text predated Apocalypse World by a few years (although admittedly not the movement that led to its writing).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

While not disagreeing with anything you say here, I was specifically referring to the sections on cooperative worldbuilding, asking players questions and building upon the answers, PC relationship structures that anticipated Apocalypse World's Hx by about 2 years, terrain powers as an expansion of Rule 42, alternative rewards as an adjunct and expansion of magic item wishlists, and elaboration of using powers and rituals in skill challenges (a specific exapansion of the DMG1's Say Yes philosophy in the context of SCs). The section on re-skinning the fiction of PC build options is probably apropos here, as well.

I'd say that's quite a lot of actionable content for Story Now purposes, but perhaps you got less mileage out of it than I did.

Honestly though, I was really thinking of the section on Asking Questions primarily in my last post. It is extremely detailed and exhaustive and quite frankly puts most PbtA texts with a similar MC move to shame. Impressive considering this text predated Apocalypse World by a few years (although admittedly not the movement that led to its writing).

Yeah, I agree, there's plenty in DMG2 that will help you a lot with Narrative and Story Now play, and some bits that seem almost tailor made for it. It is just striking the degree to which a lot of the language is couched in more traditional terms, like the part about collaborative world building. A lot of the ideas will very much benefit low myth play, but its all written as if the GM is 'god of fiction' and is merely delegating some work to the players under his supervision.

I mean, by the time DMG2 came out, we'd already pretty well worked out playing in a fairly narrativist fashion (like we'd moved from XP to basically just giving out levels and treasures as reward/consequence of fictional happenings). I really liked DMG2 though and got plenty out of it, I just largely ignored some of its point of view. It was all pretty much just advice anyway. The "Cooperative Arcs" piece and all the stuff in that 7 or 8 page section can be pretty useful though. I always just hankered to have it all revised in a really pure outright Narrativist version though, hehe.

 

[andreszarta]

@Manbearcat, I'm still very interested to hear your thoughts with regards to Objective DCs and Story Now Play. Mostly to learn because its something I'm not fully grasping yet.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat, I'm still very interested to hear your thoughts with regards to Objective DCs and Story Now Play. Mostly to learn because its something I'm not fully grasping yet.

Apologies. I’ll get something meaty up when I’ve got a chance here soon. Reacclimating to US hours has taken a toll and I’ve been really busy this last week.

I’ll try to get something consequential up this evening or tomorrow afternoon!

 

[andreszarta]

No rush! Thank you!

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm feeling left out of this conversation And have been running 4e recently or, more accurately, my retroclone that's about three parts 4e, one part Apocalypse World, one part 5e, and one part Other Stuff. (And I'm just rewriting the death rules to be more AW inspired including a rule that when you make a death save you give someone else a (standard) action and if you fail your third everyone gets one). And getting rid of the rough edges including the character builder was definitely a goal. As was the entire essay on skill challenges and explaining what they are most useful for - handling ridiculous plans.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat, I'm still very interested to hear your thoughts with regards to Objective DCs and Story Now Play. Mostly to learn because its something I'm not fully grasping yet.

Alright, I've got a small window here so I'm going to discuss Mouse Guard Mission Obstacles, "objective DCs", and holistic design.

THE DANGEROUS THEMATIC CONFLICT OF THE TERRITITORIES AND SURROUNDS AND THE DUTIES OF THE GUARD

Shortages, epidemics, minor social upheaval, outright uprisings or rebellions, war, Scent Border maintenance or problems, and the dangers of the outlands of Darkheather and Wild Country.

The typical duties of the Mouse Guard are protecting the settlements of The Territories from threats and from each other. From Lockhaven, the patrol will go on expeditions that entail the responsibilities of patrolling, path clearing, trail blazing, carrying mail, escorting, weather watching, hunting predators, maintaining the scent border, rescuing mice in distress and mediating disputes.

Now each Mission will fall under the premise of play, will then fall under the typical duties, and will then be materialize specifically as something like: SPRING: The shipment of seeds hasn't arrived yet for planting season at Ivydale. Whatever happened, its out there on the path between Ivydale and Shaleburrow. Recover the seeds before planting season or it will be a hungry winter.

THE MISSION AND THE MICE

Alright we have a Mission that engages deeply with the premise of play.

* Now players write their PC's Goals for this Mission.

* Now the GM has 4 Mission Obstacles to put in front of the patrol. They'll have a solid idea for 2 that they'll theme around weather, wilderness, animals, or mice. These 2 x Obstacles should address the premise of the Mission (which addresses the premise of play). But they also need to be situations that challenge the thematic material embedded into one or more PC mice; goal, beliefs, instincts, relationships.

* So the GM has 2 x Obstacles (of the 4) "in their back pocket." These will get purposed and themed on the fly as the situation resolves (the GM should try to bring in the other two obstacle archetypes that they haven't brought in yet while still challenging a particular mouse in some interesting way).

NATURAL ORDER, OBJECTIVE DCS, TWISTS, FAIL FORWARD, AND ADVANCEMENT

* Natural Order is a hierarchy that indexes naturalistic relationships ranking based on the ability to prey upon one another. This ranking has a mechanical effect when it comes to the ability of one ranked creature to kill, capture, injure, or drive off another rank. This will look like "objective DC" relationship maps.

* Obs are set up as 1 (easy), 2 (medium), 3 (challenging), 4 (hard), 5 (very difficult). 6+ might occur very, very infrequently, and when they do, they're always going to be extremely threatening (virtually impossible to overcome without a deep marshaling of resources + some luck).

* You "Factor" (add up the threats/hardships/details/circumstances the obstacle/situation entails) in order to derive the total Obs # (the rating of the obstacle to surmount via successes with your dice pool). This will look like "objective DC" handling.

* Handling Failure. Failure happens in the form of either (a) Twists which represents an escalation of situation/a new obstacle which makes things more threatening and interesting if you're a player (or "worse" if you're an actual mouse in The Guard) or (b) the prior obstacle is resolved but one or more mice (depending upon Help) suffers a condition.

* You need both successes and failures for the Advancement of your Skills and Abilities.

PLAY EVOLVES ORGANICALLY FROM THERE

* The accreting fiction of Missions generates more fiction and more Missions. The mice of The Guard change with the crises and rallies and lessons of the Missions, the changing of Seasons, and the reflection come Winter (a particular phase of the game).

---

Ok, so we've got Natural Order and we've got "Objective DC" handling for our obstacles/situations. Despite this:

* Why does Mouse Guard not turn into a game undergirded by the feel of process simulation; of intense scrutiny/belaboring of internal causality?

* Why does the game not turn into a turtle-fest where conflict is to be hedged against and avoided?

* Why does the game not become an experience that is decoupled from player protagonism and PC dramatic need?


The answers are above in the "what" each aspect of play/game engine prioritizes and accomplishes, and in the "how" it does so via the way each aspect interacts with and interlocks with the other. Hopefully folks can tease that out based on the abstract I've written above. And then, hopefully, folks can examine how that intersects with the way 4e "does what it does" up to and including the question "are 4e's DCs subjective/objective/both(?)" and "how much does that matter given the holistic design of the game engine of 4e?"

I'll leave those answers as an exercise for readers and I'll get back into the thread at some point in the future if this particular conversation angle has any purchase.

 

[andreszarta]

* Why does Mouse Guard not turn into a game undergirded by the feel of process simulation; of intense scrutiny/belaboring of internal causality?

* Why does the game not turn into a turtle-fest where conflict is to be hedged against and avoided?

* Why does the game not become an experience that is decoupled from player protagonism and PC dramatic need?

I'm gonna gather my thoughts about this and respond this weekend!

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm gonna gather my thoughts about this and respond this weekend!

Hopefully its clear, but the exercise I'm inviting folks to engage with is:

1) Identify what is the prerequisite substrate of the agenda of Story Now play.

2) How does a particular instantiation of interconnectedness (incentive structures, premise clarity, transparency in procedures and authority distribution and particularly "who gets to decide what play is about") within system/game engine facilitate that play agenda despite the idea that one component of system/engine may seem to on its surface discretely defy that agenda?

 

[Manbearcat]

Alright, so a quick post on Acrobatics in 4e in Combat that give expression to Story Now play. Skill Challenges have been covered to death (by myself and others) so hopefully that is enough out there that this isn't necessary. But if its requested, I'll make a post on Acrobatics and Skill Challenges.

I'm going to include two play excerpts (as best as I can remember them...this was over a decade ago now!) for a swashbuckley Eladrin Bladesinger PC in my last 1-30 campaign.

Within the combat engine, there are two ways that Story Now priorities can be made manifest:

TERRAIN STUNTS

See page 42. These have been talked to death. The principle of "Say yes or roll the dice" governs this play. An easy genre credibility test then resolve it mechanically via system architecture. One moment of this that I can recall in Paragon Tier (I want to say it was around level 16 so lets go with that) was when they were fighting on the ramparts of a ruined castle.

1) The player of the Bladesinger asked whether the parapet of the ramparts they were fighting on could be sufficiently failing/crumbling so he could dash across them and trigger a Terrain Stunt via a CB3 attack vs Fort centered from an adjacent parapet square after he dashed across. I said "of course."

2) He made his Move Action w/ an Acrobatics check vs the unstable ground (looking at his level 21 sheet and reverse engineering, it appears he had like a +19 Acrobatics w/ 2d20 for Acro/Ath for Agile Athlete so nearing auto-success vs Medium DC 22) to get to where he needed to be to balance on the parapet and trigger the collapse of the ruined section.

3) Now we had to formulate the level 16, Terrain Stunt. Pretty sure it looked something like this:

Ruined Parapet Topple
Standard Action
Requirement: You must be on the parapet, adjacent to the origin square, and succeed at Acrobatic check (DC 22) or Slide 1 square toward the effect area and fall prone.
Attack: Close blast 3 (creatures in the blast); +19 vs. Reflex
Hit: 2d8 + 5 damage, and the target is knocked prone.
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: The area becomes difficult terrain.

He easily made the Acro check, killed a Minion, damaged a Standard and knocked it prone/put it in DT all around (so it couldn't Shift from him, thereby confirming an OA if it wanted to pursue an NPC they were protecting in the combat...and this character was punishing with OAs/MBAs).

HAZARD/TRAP COUNTERMEASURES

This piece doesn't get as many headlines, but its a big part of dealing with Hazards/Traps (particularly at the table where the conversation is vigorous around these things). Hazard/Trap Countermeasures can entail Skill Challenges (where Acrobatics can be deployed), but the primary way they're used is to either (a) reactively Immediate Action mitigate/evade the effects (or the worst of them) or proactively turn them off UtEoYNT or otherwise deal with them via Minor/Move/Standard Action depending.

Because this isn't spoken on a ton, I'm going to include the actual DMG1 text on this specifically (and, as always, this should be integrated with all of the rest of the rules text):

4e DMG1 p86

WINGING IT​

​

There is always more than one way to approach a trap or hazard. Even the best designed traps feature potential design holes that a player might exploit to counter a trap. Sometimes the best or the most fun ideas for countering a trap or hazard come as a flash of inspiration during play. ​

​

Remember the first rule of improvisation: Try not to say no. When a player suggests a plausible countermeasure for a trap, even if that possibility isn’t included in the trap’s presentation, figure out the best way to resolve that using the rules: a skill check or ability check against an appropriate DC, an attack, or the use of a power. You can always use the DCs that are included in the trap’s description as example DCs for using other skills and abilities.​

​

In short, always find ways to reward quick thinking and fun when it comes to traps and hazards. Outsmarting traps, hazards, and villains (and even the DM) is fun for players, and first and foremost, your game should be fun.​

So the same ethos and procedure that informs Terrain Stunting, but for Countermeasures vs Hazards/Traps. At Epic Tier the same character was adjacent to a large pool of Demonic Slime in the Abyss. One of the other PCs was in there and they were going to take a bunch of damage and another control effect at the start of their turn unless someone intervened. They asked if they could spend a Move Action vs High DC Acrobatics to like Legolas across a small section (I think it was 2 x 2 or 4 squares) to render it "parted" UtEoYNT as a Countermeasure. Failure would mean the Eladrin Bladesinger was now in a square of the Demonic Slime Hazard (therefore suffering the Hazard's triggered attack). Success would get their buddy out of their dire peril for the moment.

I want to say they needed a 13 and had 2d20 to hit it. They barely got it. It was a cool, thematic moment in an extremely dangerous and pivotal combat at Epic Tier.

---

So...yeah. Acrobatics, Terrain Stunts, Hazard/Trap Countermeasures, Story Now priorities and execution.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I don’t have much to add other than this attempted summation: The skills/DC framework plus some intuition about how to create stunts or ad-hoc powers makes 4e as good as any other story game that does those things. But 4e ALSO has a full on tactical combat game in it, which typically overshadows the other elements.