D&D 4E Ron Edwards on D&D 4e

[JamesonCourage]

@pemerton @Hussar @Campbell

Whew, long nap. Okay, guys. What did I miss?

 

[pemerton]

@pemerton @Hussar @Campbell

Whew, long nap. Okay, guys. What did I miss?

Well, I've mostly been playing Classic Traveller, Prince Valiant, Cortex+ Heroic and some Burning Wheel.

My most recent session was Agon 2nd ed, using an island I wrote for chaochou's Not The Iron DM thread.

 

[darkbard]

There are interesting avenues of inquiry into 4e that are not yet fully explored. I'll suggest two:

* Is it possible to reconcile the maths of combat with the maths of skill checks? Does this require abandoning AC as a defence? (@AbdulAlhazred has done more work on this than anyone else I know; but that might be a reflection of the state of my knowledge.)​

​

* Are players able to initiate a skill challenge? Or is this solely in the domain of the GM?​

I wonder if @MwaO still visits these boards occasionally and has an opinion...

 

[MwaO]

You can combine page 42/spend powers in a skill challenge for bonuses.
Players can initiate conditions that sound like a skill challenge is the best resolution for a DM willing to go along with it.

 

[pemerton]

You can combine page 42/spend powers in a skill challenge for bonuses.

Yes. I think the use of powers in skill challenges is amply covered in the two DMGs.

But consider this:

in 4e as in other forms of D&D, I shoot an arrow at it tends to invoke the combat mechanics by default

Depends on what "it" is. If it's a monster, that invokes combat mechanics. If it's an object (a target in an archery competition, a statue to knock off a shelf, a rope to cut), then it's (part of) a skill challenge.

Because of various mechanical considerations, including but not limited to the role of enhancement bonuses, the maths for combat and the maths for skills don't match up.

A related phenomenon occurs for NPC/creature skills, which are based on stat+training+half-level bonus, rather than the per-level basis for statting out defences; which means that most NPC/creature skill bonuses trail those of stronger-end PCs.

I think this lack of uniformity across the combat and non-combat bonus-and-target frameworks is the most glaring mathematical weakness in the system. (The ad hoc patches for non-DEX-based primal classes' AC pales in comparison.) It puts an unnecessary obstacle in the way of smoothly integrating combat and non-combat resolution, and in this respect 4e compares unfavourably to (say) HeroWars/Quest or MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic.

Players can initiate conditions that sound like a skill challenge is the best resolution for a DM willing to go along with it.

I think that is different from a player declaring I shoot the Orc! I think the game is clearer in the way it permits players to transition from free narration to combat resolution than from free narration to non-combat resolution. For me, the most marked contrast here is with Burning Wheel or Prince Valiant.

Are there solution people have come up with that fall short of full system rebuilds?

 

[pemerton]

If "story before" is simply the DM having some idea of a situation in mind or even a module to work from, then "story before" was there from before the start of D&D proper. Wesley's Braunsteins and Arneson's Blackmoor game, for example. That seems like an incredibly terrible definition.

<snip>

the definition of "story before" as presented is such that literally anything with any planning, i.e. anything that's not 100% pure in the moment improv from start to finish could be called "story before".

Upthread I described "story before" in this way: story before - where someone (typically the GM or the module author) writes the story which the players play through.

Does that describe Arneson or Wesley's game? Not as best I understand them. Those games are not story before. Nor are they story now. They certainly support story after.

In my post that you replied to in your post that I'm now quoting, I said

Classic dungeon-crawling along the lines advocated by Gygax in his PHB, or Moldvay in his Basic rules, would be examples. This is very close to wargaming, and would typically be "story after". The more the GM pushes the "hook" to the fore, such that the player are following the GM's lead rather than making their own choices about exploration, the more the game shifts to "story before". In the publishing history of D&D, I think that shift begins somewhere in the early-to-mid 80s and is fully entrenched by the 2nd ed AD&D era.

So why would you think that wargamey play like Blackmoor or Braunstein is story before?

rising action => climax => resolution

that's a rather...strained and basic definition of story structure.

How is is strained? Or basic? That's what a story is: rising action driven by some sort of conflict or challenge, resulting in a climax and a moment of resolution, in which the conflict or challenge culminates and the protagonist either prevails or is defeated.

So is the entire argument about 4E being a story now game based on combat supposedly following that pattern?

No.

I played it weekly to monthly for the entire active life of the edition.

<snip>

In my experience, 4E combat was a tedious, samey slog from start to finish. The PCs would nova and focus-fire targets until they were all gone.

<snip>

It was literally the single most boring edition to actually play. Every fight was nearly identical.

I played 4e every two to four weeks for about 8 years. I did not have the experience that you describe.

The first combat that I ran in 4e - for 1st level PCs - involved the PCs in a boat brought to a halt in a river (by a chain strung from bank to bank), being shot at by a slinger on one bank, and with enemies approaching on a raft and in the water. They did not nova, and did not focus-fire: that wasn't possible given the terrain, the disposition of enemy forces, and the PCs' own movement capabilities. Some took cover on a nearby sandbar; some took control of the raft and used that to take the fight up to the slinger.

The only way in which that and other fights was identical is that they mostly involved different considerations of movement, disposition of forces, etc. Here are some examples from mid-Heroic tier:

I've run Thunderspire in dribs and drabs, but not straight through. It has some good maps and creatures, but the plot is a bit weak and the encounters as written not always that dynamic.

<snip>

For the Chamber of Eyes I did two things. First, I joined the introductory encounter (with the hobgoblins torturing the prisoner) onto the Chamber of Eyes: (i) run the corridor in the introductory encounter onto the entryway into the foyer of the Chamber of Eyes; (ii) add a secret passage exiting the NE corner of the hobgoblin chamber via a secret door and running diagonally, with staircases, up to the balcony in the Chamber of Eyes foyer; (iii) add a spyhole/arrowslit on the E wall of the hobgoblin chamber (near the barrels) looking onto the Chamber of Eyes foyer; (iv) add a portcullis that the hobgoblins can drop in the entryway to their chamber, making the secret passage the only easy path between their chamber and the Chamber of Eyes.

Second, I was prepared to run the introductory encounter, C1, C2 and C4 as a single encounter with waves. The PCs first heard the prisoner being tortured (I made it someone they had already met earlier in the campaign who they knew had been captured by goblins/hobgoblins and were hoping to rescue) and entered that chamber. The portcullis (iv above) was dropped, trapping them in that room. As they made fairly short work of the hobgoblin soldiers the warcaster opened the secret door and fled up the passage (ii above) with half the PCs chasing him while the others finished off the soldiers. The PCs correctly feared that he was going to get reinforcements. The PCs narrowly failed to stop him on the balcony, and he went through the other door and alerted the goblins in C2. I had the bugbear engage the PCs on the upper level, while the skull cleavers came out through the main doors to make missile attacks - some of the PCs jumped down to engage them, while others fought the bugbear and one who had been left behind in the first room attacked through the spyhole (iii above). The warcaster meanwhile went on and alerted the chief, who came forward to join the skullcleavers with his wolf while the archers controlled the long-ish corridor with cover from the shrine doorway (I eliminated the second warcaster as unnecessary).

This was a very dynamic encounter, with PCs moving around through the various corridors in the entry way, going back and forth into the original room to take advantage of the arrowslit, and in the end causing the hobgoblin archers to retreat after defeating the rest of the goblins. (They then took on the archers with the rest of C3 - roused from their drunken revelling - as a separate encounter.)

I also decided that the duergar would wait and see what happened rather than joining in on the potentially losing side of a fight - the PCs discovered the duergar in their rooms as they were looking for somewhere to take their short rest and ended up negotiating a contract with them, paying 300 gp to be delivered in a months time to pay for the release of the slaves (the players preferred this to the thought of having to assault a duergar stronghold).

In the Well of Demons I also ran the gnoll encounters together as a single more dynamic encounter (again leaving the tieflings out of the equation, figuring that they would make a more interesting encounter after the gnolls had been dealt with). The interesting aspects here were (i) the players thought the first chamber with the motely crew of monsters was the more challenging encounter, and so blew quite a few resources on it and therefore were really pushed to the limits with the gnolls, (ii) the use of the connecting tunnel from the boar room to the entry chamber as a way of making the PCs fight on two fronts (and yes, enemies were pushed into the well) and (iii) replacing the barlgura demon with a naldrezu (sp?) from MM2, which is a lurker that captures a PC and teleports it away to munch on it - combined with the two-fronts aspect this introduced extra mobility and tension into the fight.

Given how large combat looms in 4e action resolution, I wouldn't have played it as often as you seemed to if I had found it a tedious slog. And I think clearly in this respect at least Ron Edwards and I are like-minded.

If that's how loosely you're applying the "story structure" no wonder it looks like 4E is a story now game. It only took a tortured use of story structure and a tortured example of 4E to get it there

I think you might be generalising from your own case here, beyond what the evidence will bear! I'm not you.

I've got dozens of 4e actual play posts on these boards. Here's one, from upper Epic tier. These will show why I regard 4e as a story now game.

not all games give players the mechanical resources to proactively engage the fiction. For instance, if you give me a 2nd ed AD&D PC sheet and frame me into an urban intrigue game, I have few or no resources to proactively engage that fiction.

Except your ability scores. Strength (Str) measures a character’s muscle, endurance, and stamina. Intelligence (Int) represents a character’s memory, reasoning, and learning ability, including areas outside those measured by the written word. Wisdom (Wis) describes a composite of the character’s enlightenment, judgment, guile, willpower, common sense, and intuition. Dexterity (Dex) encompasses several physical attributes including hand-eye coordination, agility, reaction speed, reflexes, and balance. A character’s Constitution (Con) score encompasses his physique, fitness, health, and physical resistance to hardship, injury, and disease. The Charisma (Cha) score measures a character’s persuasiveness, personal magnetism, and ability to lead. Then there's your race. Your class. Your kit. The languages you speak. Your alignment. Weapon proficiencies. Non-weapon proficiencies. Secondary skills. Along with your money and gear. Sure...nothing. Ability checks are detailed on page 13 of the PHB (revised black cover). They're a core mechanic for AD&D2E.

All you've pointed to here are descriptors, some of which are numerically rated. You have not pointed to any resources that will permit me to proactively engage the fiction.

Suppose, for instance, that I say I go looking for someone who has heard about what The Boss is up to. What happens next? Do I have any chance of finding out what I want to? The system offers nothing except the GM will tell you.

I am looking at p 11 of an original version 2nd ed AD&D PHB. Under the glossary entry "ability check" it says a 1d20 roll against one of your character's ability scores (modifiers may be added to or subtracted from the die roll.) A result that is equal to or less than your character's ability score indicates that the attempted action succeeds. That's not a core mechanic. It's not a mechanic at all! What actions can be attempted? Eg can I declare I pray to the gods to deliver me from my enemies and then make a check to see if my prayer is answered?

2nd ed AD&D has nothing like a skill challenge framework, or a system of player-authored quests, which allows a player to proactively engage the fiction in the way that 4e does.

If I'm a fighter, or a blaster-type MU, or a heal-y/bless-y cleric, I can do very little except say what my PC does and wonder how the GM will adjudicate it.

That's literally how D&D works. The DM describes the scene, the players describe what they want to do, then the DM adjudicates it. I'm not sure what the complaint here is. You want mechanical widgets that stop the DM from DMing?

I'm not complaining about anything. I'm observing a difference between 4e D&D and 2nd ed AD&D. In the former it's not the case that all I can do is say what my PC does and wonder how the GM will adjudicate it. The skill challenge framework establishes a systematic process for adjudication. If I succeed in my check then I know how the GM must adjudicate it - I (and the other PCs I'm acting with) advance closer to my (our) overall game.

That shows a distinct lack of imagination on that player's part. Characters have never been limited to what's on their character sheet. The sooner people realize that the better.

I don't think it's your place to be insulting someone you've almost certainly never met and moreso have never played with.

Compare an archer-ranger to a warlock. The warlock brings a patron to the table. The warlock almost certainly has condition infliction in combat. And the warlock has CHA as a good stat and hence probably is well-placed to declare social actions out of combat. The archer-ranger deals damage, perhaps has a little bit of personal mobility (enhanced, most likely, by Acrobatics) but does not bring any default thematic content to the table.

I'm frankly surprised that this is controversial.

Not according to my PHB and DMG.

"Sometimes a quest is spelled out for you at the start of an adventure. The town mayor might implore you to find the goblin raiders’ lair, or the priest of Pelor might relate the history of the Adamantine Scepter, before sending you on your quest. Other times, you figure out your quests while adventuring. Once you assemble clues you find, they might turn into new quests.

You can also, with your DM’s approval, create a quest for your character" (PHB, p258).

And after a quick search, this is the sum total of what the DMG says on the topic:

"You should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure. Evaluate the proposed quest and assign it a level. Remember to say yes as often as possible!" (DMG, p103).

Not exactly a ringing endorsement much less "put forward as the ideal" as you're claiming. You're drastically overselling player-designed quests.

The only mention of a wish list in the Treasure chapter of the DMG is this:

"A great way to make sure you give players magic items they’ll be excited about is to ask them for wish lists. At the start of each level, have each player write down a list of three to five items that they are intrigued by that are no more than four levels above their own level. You can choose treasure from those lists" (DMG, p125).

Plus the rest of the paragraph detailing how to check things off the list. Not so much with the "put forward as the ideal" you're claiming. Again, drastically overselling this

I read You should allow and even encourage and Remember to say yes as often as possible! and A great way as presenting an ideal. You read it as . . . lukewarm advocacy? (I'm not sure.)

Another quick search of the Classes book yields the word "theme" mentioned a few times in relations to characters classes (surprise), but nothing else. Care to provide a page number to point me to the actual text you're using to support this claim?

Dwarves were once slaves of giants. Tieflings are descended from the Hells. They are the remnants of an ancient empire whose rival was the Dragonborn. Eladrin are from the Feywild; Elves and Half-Elves have broken from that fey heritage in various ways and to various degrees. Clerics and paladins serve gods who (mostly - some are less interesting eg Avandra, Melora) have a history and orientation in relation to the Dawn War and the present cosmological tension and struggle. Warlocks have pacts. Warlords are directly bound up with the fate of their allies.

The thematic elements are (in my view) obvious across the game.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Dwarves were once slaves of giants. Tieflings are descended from the Hells. They are the remnants of an ancient empire whose rival was the Dragonborn. Eladrin are from the Feywild; Elves and Half-Elves have broken from that fey heritage in various ways and to various degrees. Clerics and paladins serve gods who (mostly - some are less interesting eg Avandra, Melora) have a history and orientation in relation to the Dawn War and the present cosmological tension and struggle. Warlocks have pacts. Warlords are directly bound up with the fate of their allies.

The thematic elements are (in my view) obvious across the game.

In regards to theme, I have a serious question (and I might have missed it if you've already addressed it), but how much do you think this holds true if you sit down with the rules and homebrew a setting? I'm asking as that's not an uncommon occurrence in D&D. Heck, I did it in my 4e campaign.

I think certain things still shine through (Warlock pacts and Cleric gods, for example). But I'm curious on your thoughts on what you think of just using the rules, without the implied (or directly given) setting?

Also, if you think Edwards touches on this fairly directly (with an example, maybe?), I'll go search the videos for it.

Also, last note, I know it's been four and a half years or so, but I'm not coming into this looking for a fight. I've been running my RPG games this whole time, but my break from this site was a nice one. I'm not looking to edition war.

 

[pemerton]

In regards to theme, I have a serious question (and I might have missed it if you've already addressed it), but how much do you think this holds true if you sit down with the rules and homebrew a setting? I'm asking as that's not an uncommon occurrence in D&D. Heck, I did it in my 4e campaign.

I think certain things still shine through (Warlock pacts and Cleric gods, for example). But I'm curious on your thoughts on what you think of just using the rules, without the implied (or directly given) setting?

Also, if you think Edwards touches on this fairly directly (with an example, maybe?), I'll go search the videos for it.

Also, last note, I know it's been four and a half years or so, but I'm not coming into this looking for a fight. I've been running my RPG games this whole time, but my break from this site was a nice one. I'm not looking to edition war.

If you read his campaign document (linked upthread by someone - that's how I found it!) or watch the video, you can see that he ignored the core themes and made up his own. He deliberately wanted to set aside D&D-isms.

What I like about the core/default 4e fiction is that it embraces D&Disms but melds them into a (more-or-less) coherent whole.

However one sets it up, I think the key thing is potential for conflict which can then precipitate action. Warlocks and Clerics probably bring that by default because of their allegiances to cosmic forces.

 

[Aldarc]

If you read his campaign document (linked upthread by someone - that's how I found it!) or watch the video, you can see that he ignored the core themes and made up his own. He deliberately wanted to set aside D&D-isms.

What I like about the core/default 4e fiction is that it embraces D&Disms but melds them into a (more-or-less) coherent whole.

However one sets it up, I think the key thing is potential for conflict which can then precipitate action. Warlocks and Clerics probably bring that by default because of their allegiances to cosmic forces.

Indeed, what I liked about the World Axis cosmology or the core/default 4e fiction was that it was intentionally designed to be both thematically coherent and a source of PCs' conflict and adventure. Even if one mostly ignored the core setting (i.e., Nentir Vale, etc.) a lot of the core themes would come through simply playing the game with the classes, races, monsters, etc.

Along with Eberron, it's probably one of my favorite D&D settings due to how those themes are coherently constructed in and through the fiction.

 

[JamesonCourage]

If you read his campaign document (linked upthread by someone - that's how I found it!) or watch the video, you can see that he ignored the core themes and made up his own. He deliberately wanted to set aside D&D-isms.

What I like about the core/default 4e fiction is that it embraces D&Disms but melds them into a (more-or-less) coherent whole.

However one sets it up, I think the key thing is potential for conflict which can then precipitate action. Warlocks and Clerics probably bring that by default because of their allegiances to cosmic forces.

Thanks for the reply. This is kind of how I feel things go for all editions -some naturally stir up more conflict (Cleric, Paladin, Warlock, Tiefling, Aasimar) compared to others (Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Human, Halfling). I'm not sure that 4e mechanically brings anymore to the table on this front compared to other editions (not that 4e didn't, I'm just talking about the mechanics - I think the story they brought with it incorporated a lot of the heavy lifting for the other races and classes).

However, I do feel like the Background / Paragon / Epic stuff encourages a natural use of themes a lot easier, and that's not something that other editions really had, to my knowledge (3e had Prestige Classes, the older editions gave wizard towers and keeps). But that's my take on it, from my somewhat limited experience (I ran a game 1-11 or 1-12, I forget, and I've never run anything before 3e, though I owned the books).