Salvageable Innovations from 4e for Nonenthusiasts

[Tinker Gnome]

I like the idea of At-Wills, Minions, and Solo encounters.

Pathfinder kind of incorporated the idea of At-Wills with the various abilities that Sorcerers and Wizards get to do damage with magic in combat instead of having to pull out the crossbow.

Solo encounters would be nice as it would be cool to have the PCs be able to fight a single foe and have it be a credible threat by itself.

 

[JamesonCourage]

You're going to have to explain what you mean, I do not follow you in the slightest. How would you simulate Aragorn without putting him in a battle against orcs he can easily defeat? "Some Monsters Just Need Killing" is actually quite simulationist; there is no "need" from a gamist perspective to include creatures which are easily overcome.

I think the miscommunication arises when people say "everyone is mooks, even to first level characters."

That's when some people say "that's not as simulationist, because first level characters are obviously weak, too" and others disagree, saying "no, first level characters are better than 90% or more of the world.

Now, we have people with two legitimate takes on setting arguing over something without addressing the real issue. If 90% of the people in a given setting are really worse than first level PCs, then yeah, maybe most people are mooks. In other games where the average level might be closer to 2, 3, or 5, and the players start off at first level, this looks obviously false.

Also, people have different perceptions on how high "Aragorn" is supposed to be, ideally. Yeah, everyone is still a mook, even at 5th level, if the PCs are 20th level. However, if you expect to be Aragorn at 5th level because in your setting, orcs are 1st level, then you're still not communicating the problem.

You're saying (not you, but theoretically someone) that "in my game, orcs must be 1st level, so that Aragorn might kill them easily." Other people say, "in my game, orcs are 5th level, and Aragorn would still kill them easily."

That's because the statements aren't communicating other facts, such as average level (or hit die) in your setting, what level Aragorn is within said setting, etc.

Just my take on a possible miscommunication taking place. Maybe I'm way off base, but I think either side making assumptions might be skipping a step.

Anyways, I'm not saying either side is wrong, just trying to help out. I'm also not judging either play style. As always, play what you like

 

[Treebore]

2 things I took away from 4E. One is that classes should be capable of doing something class related every round. So rather than having clerical and mage types using crossbows, etc... I now give them a divine/arcane blast ability. Scaled to stay on par with fighter/ranger using bows, then strength adjusted, then magical strength adjusted versions.

The other things was really a reminder. Minions are minions, not to be an overly serious challenge to the party, just an opportunity to hinder and drain off resources. I don't give them just 1 HP, but I do make it to where they should be taken down in two average damage hits, or one really good damage hit.

 

[pawsplay]

It's more cinematic than simulationist (though it's more simulationist than gamist).

Which is part of why I kind of like it. If it was going to be more Sim, we'd have to give everything hit points as appropriate for their level, since their level means something, and that meaning can't change depending on their context.

That's putting the cart before the horse. Their level and their hit points and everything else depends on what you are trying to represent. Bloody-minded fidelity to game mechanical artifacts is not simulation.

 

[pawsplay]

I think the miscommunication arises when people say "everyone is mooks, even to first level characters."

That's when some people say "that's not as simulationist, because first level characters are obviously weak, too" and others disagree, saying "no, first level characters are better than 90% or more of the world.

Now, we have people with two legitimate takes on setting arguing over something without addressing the real issue. If 90% of the people in a given setting are really worse than first level PCs, then yeah, maybe most people are mooks. In other games where the average level might be closer to 2, 3, or 5, and the players start off at first level, this looks obviously false.

Also, people have different perceptions on how high "Aragorn" is supposed to be, ideally. Yeah, everyone is still a mook, even at 5th level, if the PCs are 20th level. However, if you expect to be Aragorn at 5th level because in your setting, orcs are 1st level, then you're still not communicating the problem.

You're saying (not you, but theoretically someone) that "in my game, orcs must be 1st level, so that Aragorn might kill them easily." Other people say, "in my game, orcs are 5th level, and Aragorn would still kill them easily."

That's because the statements aren't communicating other facts, such as average level (or hit die) in your setting, what level Aragorn is within said setting, etc.

Just my take on a possible miscommunication taking place. Maybe I'm way off base, but I think either side making assumptions might be skipping a step.

Anyways, I'm not saying either side is wrong, just trying to help out. I'm also not judging either play style. As always, play what you like

I don't quite get what you are saying. I am completely agnostic as to what level Aragorn should be. However, he is clearly higher than 1st level (at least in a game system where level translates to competence), and orcs are clearly much, much weaker than him. Any purportedly simulationist game that makes orcs a serious threat, individually, to Aragorn, has failed.

For instance, Star Wars Saga edition is a poor simulationist game. Aside from numerous side details I won't go into, it's simply impossible for for Sidious to take out two 8th-10th level Jedi in two combat rounds. Whatever its merits as a system, SWSE cannot simulate a crucial scene from Revenge of the Sith. It's also improbable (though not precisely impossible, with liberal use of Destiny points) for Yoda to take out two Imperial Guards in one round. Whatever fun is to be had at SWSE, it's not going to be recreating scenes similar to what you see in the movie. (That also, incidentally, suggests it has some weaknesses as a narrativist game unless you decide to start modifying the game).

If the action being simulated has mooks, the game should have mooks, too. Not necessarily 1 hit pointers, but definitely mooks. That is the essence of the of the 1 HD AD&D orc, for instance.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I don't quite get what you are saying. I am completely agnostic as to what level Aragorn should be. However, he is clearly higher than 1st level (at least in a game system where level translates to competence), and orcs are clearly much, much weaker than him. Any purportedly simulationist game that makes orcs a serious threat, individually, to Aragorn, has failed.

For instance, Star Wars Saga edition is a poor simulationist game. Aside from numerous side details I won't go into, it's simply impossible for for Sidious to take out two 8th-10th level Jedi in two combat rounds. Whatever its merits as a system, SWSE cannot simulate a crucial scene from Revenge of the Sith. It's also improbable (though not precisely impossible, with liberal use of Destiny points) for Yoda to take out two Imperial Guards in one round. Whatever fun is to be had at SWSE, it's not going to be recreating scenes similar to what you see in the movie. (That also, incidentally, suggests it has some weaknesses as a narrativist game unless you decide to start modifying the game).

If the action being simulated has mooks, the game should have mooks, too. Not necessarily 1 hit pointers, but definitely mooks. That is the essence of the of the 1 HD AD&D orc, for instance.

I'd assume what's really getting in the way here is the action economy, not the hit points of the enemies (as you can definitely crank up damage enough to bring down 1st level characters in most systems I've seen once you've achieved a high enough "level" [whatever "level" means in games without them]).

The action economy is the real "simulation" killer for most systems. I wouldn't blame it on "mook" status. On top of that, I wouldn't say that unless you're trying to simulate film (or another medium), you probably shouldn't necessarily be using movies as a comparison.

I love Mutants and Masterminds, and I feel it simulates the feel of the superhero genre quite well. Can it do everything that happens in comics / movies / shows? I'm assuming not. But, I'd say that's more of a problem with the action economy most of the time. It's still a great game, and in my mind, it simulates the feel I want superbly.

At any rate, what I'm saying is that "mooks" is a scaling term, when you're using different comparisons. If you're comparing orcs to Aragorn, you should probably know Aragorns relative power before thinking about how the orcs fit in comparatively (as they must be significantly weaker than Aragorn). If you're comparing storm troopers in a Star Wars setting, it's going to be very different (because they get owned by everyone but rebel soldiers, it seems), as you have to compare it to an entirely new setting (and you're not comparing it to, say, Luke Skywalker).

Anyways, even though I'm not wording things well at the moment, I'm just pointing out that anyone making assumptions as to the basic power of the average individual in a particular setting is basically leaving themselves open to being disagreed with. People envision settings differently. Simulating a particular setting is a very individual thing.

I hope you know what I'm at least talking about. If not, oh well, I'm not going to go any deeper into it, as I would have failed at explaining it. But, like I said, I'm not judging anyone. Play what you like

 

[Redbadge]

If I could go back and take charge of 4e design, I would make sure to include (at least) three paragraphs for every game element, in this order:

1. Flavor: Flavor comes first, and it should be believable and make sense within the context of the world the DM and players are trying to portray, above all else.

2. Mechanics: The game element should have mechanics that actually mimic the stated flavor. I prefer if the mechanics have "gamist" elements such as recognizable headings, keywords, and consistent notations because I think it makes the game run quicker and smoother in play. For example, I think that the grey box that calls out 4e rules in the book is fine, although I acknowledge that too much of this makes the books boring to read for some.

3. Design: Afterwards, there would be a paragraph or two describing why the game element was designed this way and how the mechanics are intended to match the flavor. If you've ever read Wizards "Making Magic" article by Mark Rosewater for Magic: the Gathering, you know what I am talking about. This may be better as a seperate book or article- "Designing D&D" on the website or perhaps in the DM Guide.

It appears that 4e designers did the exact opposite with most 4e game elements, i.e. design-->mechanics-->then graft flavor onto it.

Here's an example with a simple game element, the first level fighter power (exploit) called Brute Strike (a daily attack).

BRUTE STRIKE
Flavor: Fighters have a number of exploits, talents, and maneuvers that they can call on for every fight and situation. However, occasionally the situation calls for a greater effort, luck, or martial mastery than is normally available to the fighter. In these desperate or opportune instances, the fighter can tap into his own inner reserves to unleash an attack much more powerful than the ones he normally uses. With the Brute Strike manuever, the fighter can deliver a much more powerful blow capable of rending flesh and shattering bones. This maneuver can only be used once per day by the fighter, because these opportunities very rarely present themselves and require a surge of impromptu courage or adrenaline and great expenditure of mental and physical effort (the player is assumed to have narrative control of the story once per day to demonstrate when his character is using efforts much greater than normally possible or practical). However, when the fighter needs the aid of his brute strike, he really needs it. Even if he fails to hit with his attack, the adrenaline and determination that fuels his efforts remain with him until he feels the satisfaction of his blade sinking into his foe. Outside of combat, the fighter might use this technique to quickly destroy a door or other object when really pressed for time.

Mechanics:
Brute Strike

Daily

Martial, Reliable, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage.

Design: This daily exploit is the simplest one available. It was designed as an option for players that want simpler options in combat or that are just interested in dealing a great deal of damage with a minimal of fuss. Brute Strike is not as optimal as other daily powers, so optimizers or power-gamers will want to look elsewhere. It was given reliable because dealing gauranteed damage was seen as more exciting and better for narrative control/storytelling for the target player than dealing half-damage on a miss. [Insert additional design commentary about why this power is so bad/designed poorly and exactly which players are expected to take it and why].

I think this approach may have helped 4e avoid a bit of the "gamist" critisicm, maybe.

 

[[OMENRPG]Ben]

That's all a fine idea, but how long would this book be? More than 500, 600 pages? Most of the players I know (especially the so called "expert and experienced" ones) hardly read the book as it is, and its hardly 200 pages.

 

[Redbadge]

That's all a fine idea, but how long would this book be? More than 500, 600 pages? Most of the players I know (especially the so called "expert and experienced" ones) hardly read the book as it is, and its hardly 200 pages.

Well I put more in this one example than would actually be in it. In practice it would be spread across sections (and not repeated across powers):

DAILY EXPLOITS FOR MARTIAL CHARACTERS
Flavor: Great exersion, oppurtune moments, narrative control, blah, blah, blah
Mechanics: Need to take an extended rest, choose 1 at 1st level, blah, blah, blah
Design: More stuff to do, cool stories, expected daily damage (i.e. prone = 1[w], role and power source balance, expected range of optimization (max damage, accuracy, etc.)) Once again, the actual design assumptions and expected results might feel very natural in the DM Guide. Aside: Why do they tell us the expected AC at each level, but stop there, when they could continue in a "design" paragraph and say we expect players to have this attack bonus and hit 70% of the time on average and deal 1/4 hp because this is what our playtesting has shown to be the most fun, etc. If you want quicker combat, do this. If you want greater simulation, do this.

Then, each power would follow a much more succintversion of the same design:

BRUTE STRIKE
Flavor: More powerful strike meant to rend flesh and break bone. Reserves energy until it hits. Out of combat applications, etc.
Mechanics:The stuff they actually already have in the PHB.
Design: Simple though unoptimized. Expected to bloody a standard monster, on average, in one hit. Good for players less interested in system mastery or more complex options, etc. *Honestly though, I think this power should deal 4[w] damage.

The book would still be longer, so you might have to cut classes and races, or other content, or simply offer a bigger book (or smaller font and a lot less whitespace).

Edit: Basically, all the design and edition defenses, assumptions, and "fixes" that are often cited in forums and WotC advice articles would all be built into the book.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm pretty sure the minion rules in 4e are intended to simulate the source material for D&D, such as Legolas and Gimli at the Battle for Helms Deep. Action Points in Eberron and 4e have a similar origin, I think. It's a bit weird though, because D&D wasn't intended to simulate adventure fiction originally. It started out as a wargame, a real world combat simulator (albeit emphasising playability) with fantasy elements added. 4E still isn't primarily a fiction simulator, it just has a few nods in that direction, imo.

As an aside, an alternative version of 3e would have been a rules-lite story simulator, akin to Dragonlance SAGA System, but the rules-heavy, real world sim tendencies of Skip Williams and Monte Cook won out.

It's odd to talk about hit points in the context of simulationism because hit points don't really simulate anything, fictional or real. It's a mechanic that very much emphasises playability over sim. As I understand it, the concept originally came from a naval wargame – Don't Give Up The Ship – written by Arneson, Carr and Gygax. It does make more sense when applied to ships than to human beings, as inanimate objects can be steadily degraded.

However, consistency in and of itself is a high virtue for the simulationist. It may be because consistency is certainly a feature of the real world, and is also deemed by many to be an important feature of good fiction. So even if the game system doesn't actually simulate fiction or real life, as is the case with hit points in D&D, purely by virtue of its internal consistency it will resemble a significant feature of real life and good fiction, aiding suspension of disbelief.