Something that 4e's designers overlooked? -aka is KM correct?

[pemerton]

I think the difference is that in 4e you either succeed or fail. In previous editions there were other options that had to do with how you behaved with your PC in respect with the others.

How much 4e play experience is this remark based on?

In 4e play (both combats and skill challenges) there are degrees of success or failure, ranging from healing surges consumed to foes defeated vs foes escaped to less mechanically defined changes in the gameworld situation (eg we won the combat but it took too long and now the prisoners have all been killed).

In 4e play there is also a lot of interaction between PCs, such that it matters how your PC behaves in respct of others. Tactical positioning in combat, using immediate actions sensibly, in a skill challenge using one skill to set up another, etc.

As a player, playing your PC was mostly on about influencing party decisions -or to be more precise "decisions of party members"- rather than if your party won the encounter or not.

I don't really know what you mean by this. In AD&D, for example, combat encounters were mostly about winning (by inflicting hit point damage or by getting the foes to fail saving throws). I don't recall it being primarily about influencing the decisions of party members, unless you mean advising the player of the magic-user as to which spells to use.

If your game engine is based on "daily resources" roles -instead of encounter roles- , resources that are expandable or risked at different ways, I can see dungeon options having a point. One player may want to risk in way A while another player may risk in way B -depending on their characters. Negotiating through this is what I am talking about. It is not about winning a specific combat or encounter: it is most generic dealing with players' place and position within a dungeon or adventure. Encounters just make part of it. Now, if you separate encounters from this, to say that in each encounter everyone is supposed to contribute in a balanced way, so as encounters have equal costs and risks for each player, this negotiation is lost.

Again, is this based on play experience with 4e? If so, tell us more about the actual play stuff.

If it's just theory, then in my opinion it's wrong. It's not borne out by my own experience with 4e. First, crucial resources in 4e are not per-encounter (healing surges, daily powers). Second, even when encounters don't turn on the use of these daily resources (because good play by the players allows them to avoid consuming many of them in the course of an encounter), the encounter can still affect the overall game situation in various ways (enemies escape, hostages are freed, etc).

 

[pemerton]

Odhanan, thanks for the reply upthread.

I'm curious, though, which game are you talking about in this post:

It is part of my way of running the game to challenge the players' wits and smarts instead of rolling dice for everything.

What you've described reminds me of craps. If I had to think of an RPG that fits that description, Tunnels and Trolls played a certain way would be the closest. Certainly not 4e.

 

[Odhanan]

Odhanan, thanks for the reply upthread.

I'm curious, though, which game are you talking about in this post:

It is part of my way of running the game to challenge the players' wits and smarts instead of rolling dice for everything.

What you've described reminds me of craps. If I had to think of an RPG that fits that description, Tunnels and Trolls played a certain way would be the closest. Certainly not 4e.

I was talking of my way of running OD&D (1974), as a matter of fact.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But how can the two be compatible? If your game engine is based on "daily resources" roles -instead of encounter roles- , resources that are expandable or risked at different ways, I can see dungeon options having a point. One player may want to risk in way A while another player may risk in way B -depending on their characters. Negotiating through this is what I am talking about. It is not about winning a specific combat or encounter: it is most generic dealing with players' place and position within a dungeon or adventure. Encounters just make part of it. Now, if you separate encounters from this, to say that in each encounter everyone is supposed to contribute in a balanced way, so as encounters have equal costs and risks for each player, this negotiation is lost.

Talking in the abstract, I think it's possible to have both "combat encounter roles," as well as other kinds of roles (such as "exploration roles" or "social roles") depending on the challenges encountered over the course of the dungeon or adventure. Combat encounters are, after all, part of the overall dungeon, each one draining some long-term resources, even in 4e (healing surges). They are self-contained scenes within the ongoing dungeon, and they have a beginning, and end in a different place. From that ending (and the costs involved in ending it), the party decides where to go. If the ending cost the wizard most of his spells, or the fighter most of his hp, or the rogue most of his chutzpah (or whatever long-term resource is used), they might decide to rest. Or if only one of those was consumed, they might choose a different option (so the wizard's spells are gone, so we avoid the elderitch-looking corridor, and go down this trapped corridor, since the Rogue still has most of her resources).

Encounters are still an integral part of dungeons, but more attention should, I think, be paid to how they affect each other as a whole over the course of the entire adventure, than just the narrow verdict of "Win this fight or die."

In 4E RAW there are rewards and elements that are cross-encounter. And, again, my players really have these sorts of discussions (and rituals are not superflous).

There are some (dailies, healing surges, milestones). I didn't say 4e completely lacked them. I don't think they're nearly as common, as interesting, or as well-thought-out as they could be. There's a continuum here, it's not a binary do they/don't they thing. I think it's analogous to 4e's work on noncombat encounters: not nearly as interesting, common, or as well-thought-out as they could be.

Admittedly, individual DM's can always compensate for the failings of any given system, and not all groups even see these things as failings. What I'm arguing is more a social science position than a mathematical science position. I acknowledge exceptions, but those exceptions do not necessarily invalidate the conclusion.

You were saying earlier that you saw "a lot of people confusing that whole farmer brown thing with every possible starting character". What I am seeing, personally, is a lot of people who are taking things WAY too literally.

I do think the "what about wizards?!" comments are too literal. The spirit of your position, if I'm not mischaraterizing it, was that characters in earlier editions were only slightly above average, just beginning to be different and heroic, but still on the same continuum as mere mortals, yes?

I still think that 4e characters aren't inherently any different from that.

I think the big distinction is that low-level 4e characters are more survivable, not that they're more heroic. They have more room for failure than a wizard with 3 hp did. I don't thinks this makes them any more inherently heroic, though I do think it makes them less likely to die a horrible early death. Which some would say is a bad thing, though I'd disagree.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I do think the "what about wizards?!" comments are too literal. The spirit of your position, if I'm not mischaraterizing it, was that characters in earlier editions were only slightly above average, just beginning to be different and heroic, but still on the same continuum as mere mortals, yes?

I still think that 4e characters aren't inherently any different from that.

I think the big distinction is that low-level 4e characters are more survivable, not that they're more heroic. They have more room for failure than a wizard with 3 hp did. I don't thinks this makes them any more inherently heroic, though I do think it makes them less likely to die a horrible early death. Which some would say is a bad thing, though I'd disagree.

They end up being more heroic because they're more survivable. A Wizard with 3hp is going to be much less likely to take risks and put himself in harms way. Its hard to be heroic when you live in abject fear of your own mortality. Heroism is about the brave and the bold.

 

[FireLance]

Now that I've thought about this issue some more, I would say that the key factors that influenced the perceived and actual levels of risk between editions are as follows:

1. PC hit points are higher relative to expected monster damage: If the average character rolls 1d6 for hit points, the average monster rolls 1d6 for damage, and death occurs at 0 hp, there is a good chance that a single hit from an average monster will kill an average character. While both PC hit points and average monster damage have tended to increase with editions, the increase in PC hit points seems to have outstripped the increase in average monster damage, to the extent that even a character with fairly low hit points relative to the rest of the party is able to withstand two or three hits before he is in danger of death. This does not necessarily mean that combats become relatively easier for the PCs, especially if average monster hit points also increase by about the same proportion relative to average PC damage, but it does lead to the next point.

2. The outcome of combat is less variable: In earlier editions, especially at lower levels, a single lucky hit on the part of the monsters could result in PC death. Since later editions require on average more hits for the monsters to kill the PCs, a single lucky roll (from the perspective of the monsters anyway) has less impact overall. While it is always possible for a string of lucky (or unlucky) die rolls to kill a PC, the likelihood of such an event becomes less probable. Overall, this means that luck plays less of a factor in the resolution of combat, and the actual relative strengths of the PCs and the monsters plays a more important role. Which brings me to the next point.

3. The PCs generally face inferior opponents: It is probably an open secret that in later editions, the PCs are expected to win a standard encounter. The PCs will usually have the edge either in terms of numbers or strength. To facilitate the latter, the later editions have introduced more types of opponents who are designed to be inferior to the PCs, e.g. opponents with NPC classes or minions.

So, it seems to me that if you want a riskier game, the last point is probably the easiest to tinker with. Just ensure that the PCs usually encounter opponents who are equal to them in strength (i.e. running higher "level" encounters). Or, if you are playing a more sandbox style game, ensure that a significant proportion of the potential encounters are equal or greater in strength to the PCs.

In addition, if you want to increase the impact of lucky hits on the overall flow of combat, you could further tinker with the system by halving the number of hit points for both monsters and PCs.

 

[xechnao]

Encounters are still an integral part of dungeons, but more attention should, I think, be paid to how they affect each other as a whole over the course of the entire adventure, than just the narrow verdict of "Win this fight or die."
...

There's a continuum here, it's not a binary do they/don't they thing. I think it's analogous to 4e's work on noncombat encounters: not nearly as interesting, common, or as well-thought-out as they could be.

Agreed. In fact this is what I am thinking but spelled out in a more diplomatic way. To me it was kind of obvious but based on the thread responses it seems I should have spelled it out like this. Glad you did it.

So, let me be try again to settle down some arguments of this discussion. Yes, the core of the problem is not the existence of encounter roles but the way encounter roles are designed to be balanced. It seems, in 4e are balanced in a discrete way regarding the encounter and out of the encounter. Possibly as you say, this distinction may mostly be a matter of quantity. But in the end, even if it is just a matter of quantity (encounter options vs non-encounter options) the overall game will function as if the distinction was a matter of quality. Why? Because the game is a guiding machine. It needs to guide you to the continuum you are talking about. If there is too much of something on one end, it may be impossible due to game design reasons to achieve said continuum. You could end up needing so much guidance of anything that said guidance comes at controversies and breaks, thus failing the game. Or so much strict that leaves no space for anything but just a single course of action.

Regarding encounters, in previous editions players where negotiating on three fronts at the same time: whether to risk having an encounter, what encounter and what happens within the encounter. What the warrior wanted could be at odds at some points or elements (again not on an either-or ground- more likely on a social or set theory ground ) with what the mage wanted. This is where the negotiation took place and made the warrior feel like a warrior and the mage like a mage. In 4e, a warrior mostly feels a warrior by playing out the defender role in an encounter and the mage by playing out the controller role within the encounter. This ingredient also existed in previous editions but at a different relative dose in the final recipe and thus the cake was of a different taste. Set theory, social science and stuff, I think sometimes cooking is the better way to talk and think about games. Mmm...

 

[D'karr]

Regarding encounters, in previous editions players where negotiating on three fronts at the same time: whether to risk having an encounter, what encounter and what happens within the encounter. What the warrior wanted could be at odds at some points or elements (again not on an either-or ground- more likely on a social or set theory ground ) with what the mage wanted. This is where the negotiation took place and made the warrior feel like a warrior and the mage like a mage. In 4e, a warrior mostly feels a warrior by playing out the defender role in an encounter and the mage by playing out the controller role within the encounter.

I would like to know how 4e eliminated or reduced these interactions because I don't see it. As a matter of fact I find that some of the mechanics in 4e foment the out of combat interaction with the environment. For example rituals. The roleplaying for the warrior out of combat doesn't have to come from his defender "role" in combat, the same with all the other classes.

As a matter of fact the Fighter and the Warden, both defenders, can be played in and out of combat in very different ways from each other, even though both have the same in-combat role. So if the in-combat role is not a determinant for classes that have the same role, I can't even begin to see how the classes that don't have the same roles would have interactions as you are trying to assert.

 

[xechnao]

I would like to know how 4e eliminated or reduced these interactions because I don't see it. As a matter of fact I find that some of the mechanics in 4e foment the out of combat interaction with the environment. For example rituals. The role playing for the warrior out of combat doesn't have to come from his defender "role" in combat, the same with all the other classes.

I said that in previous editions resource management was on all three fronts AT THE SAME TIME. Sorry for the caps but I want to emphasize this. This means that their boundaries were blurry or that the three fronts were pretty much like one larger front. With 4e, as you say it there is the encounter and the out of the encounter interaction. In combat and out of combat. I am talking about the problem that this seems to create, the fact that all classes are balanced against each other within each separate boundary. It overlooks the meaning of struggling against one encompassing front.

As a matter of fact the Fighter and the Warden, both defenders, can be played in and out of combat in very different ways from each other, even though both have the same in-combat role. So if the in-combat role is not a determinant for classes that have the same role, I can't even begin to see how the classes that don't have the same roles would have interactions as you are trying to assert.

The point is not that all the defenders or strikers or what have you are identical within 4e, aka upon the gameplay grounds that 4e is about. The point has to do with these proper grounds.

 

[Nightson]

I think the biggest change was with regard to items. With items with charges, scrolls, and uses per day items gone it reduces that resource management.