Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition

[MwaO]

Wouldnt it be nice if that was you know how the game was designed anyway instead of being something you had to muck about with bookkeeping and all that stuff get annoyed with it and eventually figure out on your own.

I think that's a low level SRD barrier thing. Claim there is XP and then just not use it. But because XP/leveling usually isn't part of the SRD, makes it difficult to print out a leveling chart.

 

[Parmandur]

I think that's a low level SRD barrier thing. Claim there is XP and then just not use it. But because XP/leveling usually isn't part of the SRD, makes it difficult to print out a leveling chart.

Probably simpler than that: enough people wanted an objective XP tracking system, so they made it: but they also make it clear it isn't necessary to the game per seem. Playing Curse of Strand with landmark leveling has been rather freeing, really.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[Manbearcat]

Originally Posted by Parmandur View Post
Well, you listed elements that sounded like they were grounded in tactical situations, like "reliable abilities"?

That literally doesn't have anything to do with tactics. At all.

@Parmandur , after witnessing your continued exchange with [MENTION=6704184]doctorbadwolf[/MENTION] (and some of your other posts that are a bit confused on how 4e comes together), I figured I'd analyze a power so you understand precisely what it makes manifest in play. @Ilbranteloth , you may find this illuminating as well (given your most recent posts).

Take the level 6 Fighter Utility below:

Strong Focus
Encounter Martial
Minor Action Personal
Effect: Until the end of your next turn, you gain a power bonus to Athletics checks and Strength ability checks equal to your Wisdom modifier.

1) 4e is a scene-based game. The (pretty much) exclusive locus of action is the encounter (combat or non-combat). The above is an Encounter power. That means it is available every scene for the Fighter who has it.

2) Its only keyword is Martial. That means this ability is born out by the Fighter's willpower, training, and dedication to honing physical prowess. That keyword says something about the character whose acumen/career is governed by it.

3) In the fiction, the effect line's mechanics means that in the crucible of conflict, the Fighter's physical capabilities will not flag due to being bulwarked by an uncommon steely will.

4) Further, note that this descriptor is basically fully open. Application isn't narrowed by a more specific fictional trigger (such as when climbing an obstacle or making an impossible leap). Consequently, this means that once every scene at the player's discretion, the Fighter is augmented with a +2 or +3 (depending on build) to an Athletics check.

5) Further, note the action economy; Minor Action. This would be the equivalent of Bonus Action in 5e.

6) Finally, consider that the vast majority of DCs at level 6 will be Medium, or DC 15.

All of the above work to provide the player of the Fighter what is called Author Stance capability. So here are the likely uses in 4e at level 6:

a) Noncombat scene resolution (the Skill Challenge). The group is scaling a treacherous cliff face. Two scenarios.

a1) It is a Complexity 1 SC (requiring only 4 Medium successes before 3 failures). Say I present the situation such that there are Perytons that nest up in these mountains (avian predators who would love a vulnerable snack, thus telegraphing the likely prospect for a sticky situation on a micro-failure). The face is crumbling significantly and nearly sheer in one section, and much more hospitable in another (the effort to navigate a narrow, but sure-footed, ridge that spirals up to a landing that is a short hand-climb from the top). However, the former is clearly the most expeditious route. I offer the PCs the prospect of a Group Athletics Check at the hard DC (23) for 3 successes (versus 2 successes if they go the other route - Medium DC Acrobatics). Decision-point for the players. The Fighter has a +14 Athletics check (+2 from Background/Race/Theme +3 level +4 Str +5 trained). Harnessing his steely will (Strong Focus Encounter Power) will grant him a further +3, bringing the necessary roll from a 9 to a 6. Now a 70 % chance to anchor the Hard Athletics check, meaning that only 1 of the other 3 characters need to achieve DC 23 to ensure they're halfway through their climb (1/2 group needs to reach the DC for success in a Group Check)! He leads the way, showing the best hand and footholds. The group follows and they're making tremendous gains...but (after which I would change the situation with some sort of complication as the scene is still in the balance).

a2) Consider that same situation, but they went the easy route. Now they're on the landing. The Dwarven Cleric says he feels the stone calling to him. He thinks there is a passage somewhere nearby that will grant them less risky ascent to the plateau's summit (removing the exposure to Peryton attack!). Alright, let's find out. He rolls his Dungeoneering + 9 (untrained, but racial + level + Wisdom). Gets a 5 or less. Failure!

Well, he finds purchase from the exposed ascent up the cliff face! A large crack in the face is nearly obscured by boulders. The Dwarf peers in. The sound of leathery wings unfolding. The thunderous roar of a lion. They've stumbled on a Manticore's lair! The beast begins its charge from the dark out to the landing!

The Fighter declares that he is sprinting up to the field of boulders in front of the den. He is going to throw everything he has into rolling it into the mouth of the lair to prevent the Manticore from attacking them on the narrow landing, so far from the ground. Very genre appropriate. I give them the option of upping the stakes a bit with another Hard DC for 2 success rather than 1. That would mean cementing the results of the scene as victory if he is successful (thus rendering the piddly hand climb to the top a triviality...we would just transition to the top afterward). The pumped Fighter player says let's do this! His Ranger buddy declares huzzah, he'll help as well! (1 Secondary Skill @ the Easy DC, 11 in this case, allowed in a C1 SC to augment a Primary Check). He runs up and throws his back into it after the Fighter leads the way. He succeeds and grants the Fighter a +2. The Fighter steels his will and summons his aptitude for exploiting leverage born on the back of endless training and focus (uses his Encounter Power Strong Focus). +19 total. Only needs a 4 or better to "win" the scene.

b) Combat Stunting. Its Indiana Jones. You're on a long, rickety rope bridge (Difficult Terrain every few squares) which spans a chasm. Enemies are coming from both sides. The Fighter wants to sway the bridge to knock his enemies prone or perhaps knock them off. He wants to try to knock them off (which would be a Slide 2 in this case). Alright, I tell him if he can pass the High DC, I'll let him have the Slide 2. Mechanically if you "Force Movement a target into Hindering Terrain (such as off a rope bridge into a deadly fall), the targets gets a Saving Throw (10+ on a d20) to be prone in the square next to the square where he would fall instead. The Fighter tells his allies to "HOLD ON" (they wrap the ropes around their arms and squat, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom style!).

Check: Athletics check (high DC) to sway the bridge.
Success: The bridge sways.
Target: Each enemy standing on the bridge.
Attack: Level + 3 vs. Reflex
Hit: Slide the target 2 squares. If the target is already prone, it falls off the bridge.

c) Various Combat Move Action Declarations such as Countermeasures (Skill Checks) to avoid Hazard effects (rushing floodwaters, quick-sand, etc), Escape a Grapple, Climb or Jump an Obstacle (etc).

---

I hope that makes clear how 4e's play principles ("say yes or roll the dice", "go to the action", "change the situation dynamically/fail forward"), resolution mechanics, and PC build architecture (the "tactical abilities"that have been alluded to) synergize to signal archetype, open up decision-point space for players in combat and noncombat scene resolution, and embolden players to actually make manifest within the fiction (by way of player author authorship) that signaled archetype.

 

[Parmandur]

@Parmandur , after witnessing your continued exchange with [MENTION=6704184]doctorbadwolf[/MENTION] (and some of your other posts that are a bit confused on how 4e comes together), I figured I'd analyze a power so you understand precisely what it makes manifest in play. @Ilbranteloth , you may find this illuminating as well (given your most recent posts).

Take the level 6 Fighter Utility below:



1) 4e is a scene-based game. The (pretty much) exclusive locus of action is the encounter (combat or non-combat). The above is an Encounter power. That means it is available every scene for the Fighter who has it.

2) Its only keyword is Martial. That means this ability is born out by the Fighter's willpower, training, and dedication to honing physical prowess. That keyword says something about the character whose acumen/career is governed by it.

3) In the fiction, the effect line's mechanics means that in the crucible of conflict, the Fighter's physical capabilities will not flag due to being bulwarked by an uncommon steely will.

4) Further, note that this descriptor is basically fully open. Application isn't narrowed by a more specific fictional trigger (such as when climbing an obstacle or making an impossible leap). Consequently, this means that once every scene at the player's discretion, the Fighter is augmented with a +2 or +3 (depending on build) to an Athletics check.

5) Further, note the action economy; Minor Action. This would be the equivalent of Bonus Action in 5e.

6) Finally, consider that the vast majority of DCs at level 6 will be Medium, or DC 15.

All of the above work to provide the player of the Fighter what is called Author Stance capability. So here are the likely uses in 4e at level 6:

a) Noncombat scene resolution (the Skill Challenge). The group is scaling a treacherous cliff face. Two scenarios.

a1) It is a Complexity 1 SC (requiring only 4 Medium successes before 3 failures). Say I present the situation such that there are Perytons that nest up in these mountains (avian predators who would love a vulnerable snack, thus telegraphing the likely prospect for a sticky situation on a micro-failure). The face is crumbling significantly and nearly sheer in one section, and much more hospitable in another (the effort to navigate a narrow, but sure-footed, ridge that spirals up to a landing that is a short hand-climb from the top). However, the former is clearly the most expeditious route. I offer the PCs the prospect of a Group Athletics Check at the hard DC (23) for 3 successes (versus 2 successes if they go the other route - Medium DC Acrobatics). Decision-point for the players. The Fighter has a +14 Athletics check (+2 from Background/Race/Theme +3 level +4 Str +5 trained). Harnessing his steely will (Strong Focus Encounter Power) will grant him a further +3, bringing the necessary roll from a 9 to a 6. Now a 70 % chance to anchor the Hard Athletics check, meaning that only 1 of the other 3 characters need to achieve DC 23 to ensure they're halfway through their climb (1/2 group needs to reach the DC for success in a Group Check)! He leads the way, showing the best hand and footholds. The group follows and they're making tremendous gains...but (after which I would change the situation with some sort of complication as the scene is still in the balance).

a2) Consider that same situation, but they went the easy route. Now they're on the landing. The Dwarven Cleric says he feels the stone calling to him. He thinks there is a passage somewhere nearby that will grant them less risky ascent to the plateau's summit (removing the exposure to Peryton attack!). Alright, let's find out. He rolls his Dungeoneering + 9 (untrained, but racial + level + Wisdom). Gets a 5 or less. Failure!

Well, he finds purchase from the exposed ascent up the cliff face! A large crack in the face is nearly obscured by boulders. The Dwarf peers in. The sound of leathery wings unfolding. The thunderous roar of a lion. They've stumbled on a Manticore's lair! The beast begins its charge from the dark out to the landing!

The Fighter declares that he is sprinting up to the field of boulders in front of the den. He is going to throw everything he has into rolling it into the mouth of the lair to prevent the Manticore from attacking them on the narrow landing, so far from the ground. Very genre appropriate. I give them the option of upping the stakes a bit with another Hard DC for 2 success rather than 1. That would mean cementing the results of the scene as victory if he is successful (thus rendering the piddly hand climb to the top a triviality...we would just transition to the top afterward). The pumped Fighter player says let's do this! His Ranger buddy declares huzzah, he'll help as well! (1 Secondary Skill @ the Easy DC, 11 in this case, allowed in a C1 SC to augment a Primary Check). He runs up and throws his back into it after the Fighter leads the way. He succeeds and grants the Fighter a +2. The Fighter steels his will and summons his aptitude for exploiting leverage born on the back of endless training and focus (uses his Encounter Power Strong Focus). +19 total. Only needs a 4 or better to "win" the scene.

b) Combat Stunting. Its Indiana Jones. You're on a long, rickety rope bridge (Difficult Terrain every few squares) which spans a chasm. Enemies are coming from both sides. The Fighter wants to sway the bridge to knock his enemies prone or perhaps knock them off. He wants to try to knock them off (which would be a Slide 2 in this case). Alright, I tell him if he can pass the High DC, I'll let him have the Slide 2. Mechanically if you "Force Movement a target into Hindering Terrain (such as off a rope bridge into a deadly fall), the targets gets a Saving Throw (10+ on a d20) to be prone in the square next to the square where he would fall instead. The Fighter tells his allies to "HOLD ON" (they wrap the ropes around their arms and squat, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom style!).



c) Various Combat Move Action Declarations such as Countermeasures (Skill Checks) to avoid Hazard effects (rushing floodwaters, quick-sand, etc), Escape a Grapple, Climb or Jump an Obstacle (etc).

---

I hope that makes clear how 4e's play principles ("say yes or roll the dice", "go to the action", "change the situation dynamically/fail forward"), resolution mechanics, and PC build architecture (the "tactical abilities"that have been alluded to) synergize to signal archetype, open up decision-point space for players in combat and noncombat scene resolution, and embolden players to actually make manifest within the fiction (by way of player author authorship) that signaled archetype.

Wow, thanks for that; that is a very through look at how the game is designed to play in action.

To be honest, if someone like yourself or one of the other experienced 4E DMs were running a game I would probably enjoy it. But all those factors seem rather difficult for most folks to keep track of? The way I am used to playing, improvising skill elements and combat on the fly with theatre of the mind while two sheets to the wind is easy...

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, all three main dudes at WotC have admitted they don't do XP in their own games, just DM fiat leveling by story dictate, as seen in the published adventures.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

Yeah, I just thought that was an interesting aspect of 4e. I mean, you probably wouldn't have done that in any earlier edition (there were at least some mechanical uses of XP in 3.x, and it was pretty ingrained into 1e. 2e sort of started to bring it into the realm of story, but you still had the complex training rules and different advancement rates, XP bonuses for high stats, etc, which kinda told us that we SHOULD use XP.

5e, I think it really is just about as 'XP optional' as 4e, but there's STILL not quite the easy measuring stick of "you did 10 encounters, that should be worth a level" that you always get with 4e. There's just something about encounters, when things are part of them, the story DRIVES forwards. I rarely get that sinking feeling I'd used to get in an AD&D game when I was GMing and the players sort of just tossed everything on me to kickstart some action and the game started to wander around in the weeds of hanging around in taverns or something droll like that (not that a good focused tavern scene isn't great, but I have little use for the "we just go into the tavern 'cuz" thing).

Now, in 4e if the PCs "go into the tavern 'cuz", its basically GOT to be an SC, so there has to be some plot and etc that will happen. Granted, there's a chance the players won't help in supplying it, but everyone kinda knows how it goes, things ARE going to move forward.

I noticed our 5e game would sometimes have this issue too (I was only playing in 5e, not DMing). All of a sudden we'd kinda be at loose ends. You could 'run out of story' and there just isn't a set way of going forward. Its actually kind of weird for a game to have a space in which no aspect of play is engaged, there are no goals, nothing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Its actually kind of weird for a game to have a space in which no aspect of play is engaged, there are no goals, nothing.

That's called 'sandboxing.'

The DMs, certainly; if the table doesn't trust the DMs call, why would they play the game...?

The other tables are full.

QUOTE=cavalier973;7034681]
I consider the Four Defenses (instead of Saving Throws) to be elegant.[/QUOTE] I can accept that - I was thinking more of character options.

Elegant *in practice* rather than in theory,

Not elegance. Also what you're alluding to is transcending the system, rather than a quality of the sysyem.

But the beauty of the system is that it allows the DM to set everything up and make common sense calls

The ugliness is that common sense is rarely held in common.

What's a common sense call?

A decision based on an uniformed, unguarded, uncritical, opinion or snap judgement?

A hypothesis formed within the confines of a putative lowest-common denominator of knowledge and experience?

Anti-intellectualism?

Not that common.

Whose common sense?

The DM's. Which common sense the DM may not commonly have in common with the common run of players. Thus disagreements and arguments are not uncommon in such games.

And by the time I put my drink down I realised what skill challenges were for. For giving me the tools to handle complex tasks like that - a pacing tool and a tool to know when to make things more complex and what sort of overall difficulty an off the wall screwball plan like that should have. And it's something 4e handed me on a platter that literally no other RPG I'm aware of does.

Cool, almost like a 4e meet-cute.

The Feb after 4e hit the shelves, I still hadn't run it yet, and my group hadn't played yet - having finished out two 3.x campaigns in the meantime. I submitted a 4-hr 4-player 4e intro game to my local convention, and it was rejected as too short (ironically, they now have scads of 4-hr D&D slots). I'd created the 4th level pre-gens (Fourtinbrass, Fourtunata, Rochefour, and Foursaken), but not the 4-encounter dungeon I had in mind. So, I'm sitting in open gaming and a few acquaintences sit down and I tell them about it. They want to play. I have the pregens. I pull out my MM, and find there are no 4th-level-ish Elementals. Flipping through, in a matter of minutes, I re-skin Firebats, a Galeb Dur, a Black Dragon, and some spectres, as fire, earth, water and air elementals respectively. Just like that I have a game.

(BTW, Feb after 5e hit the shelves, I ran several short intro games, with pregens: Penthia, Quintus Maximus, Quintus Minimus, Sinko Bandydoe, and Fivie. Shame? No, none that I'm aware of.)

4E's beauty is (I almost wrote was!)

That would be the correct tense.

But the system also ran smoothly in 3.x

Are you sure you've played 3.x? ..

....(grappling in 3.x was fairly ridiculous)...?

Oh, OK, maybe you have.

Mine is now a DC 17 Iron Shod Door as an example of verisimilitude from the Bounded Accuracy article. Except a 16 Str PC could only open it 35% of the time and a 10 Str 20%. If the door is that stuck, such that a strong PC can only open it a 3rd of the time, a normal str person isn't opening it a fifth of the time.

When I ran In Search of the Unknown on a Monday morning at the above convention, converting it to 5e on the fly, I read the bit about opening the uniformly-stuck doors in the heavily-worked 'caverns' of unpronounceable, and decided. OK, STR 14+ you open them, otherwise roll.

Was I crazy?

(Well, obviously to be running that thing at 8 am, but I mean that specific ruling.)

Well, this isn't a 5e analysis thread, but I love it when a designer basically just punts

I can't say that's the first time I've heard "punting on the first down" in that context.

Well, beyond that they don't actually explain how they work at all, and what exactly they're good for.

They let you work. With tools. Kinda like vocational school.

I mean, you could argue that 4e Thievery covers a lot of ground and maybe it would be cool to distinguish the lock breaking expert from the pick pocket, but at least there's clearly a specific skill that covers those options

A better evolution than more skills might have been to go with the stat from column A/skill from column B (or attribute + ability, for the obvious reference) take that the playtest used for maybe 1 packet towards the end - but fewer skills.

Plus, in 4e, you have lots of options to differentiate things. You could have a power that gives you better pocket picking, or an MP that works for learning how to crack a lock, or etc.

3e & 4e were very player-option rich, yes.

The problem is, being good at exploration doesn't excuse being bad in combat. That design IMPOSES either a specific mixture of adventure elements, or making some characters just plain less important in play.

It's true that being good at exploration doesn't excuse being bad at combat: what if the game is all combat & interaction, no exploration? But that's not a problem with the concept of pillars, just with trying to balance across all of them, rather than within each.

(though in all fairness you could just use SCs verbatim out of 4e in 5e, the issue of XP costs aside).

And, in all fairness, they didn't.

I mean, what is brilliant about 4e is you can (and I do) literally run ALL OF THE GAME within encounters. There's always direction, plot, goal. Something is happening, and its bearing on things the players are choosing to engage with. Its just much harder to do that with 5e, the tools are partially missing

That's a broad definition of 'encounters' if you're including traps and skill challenges and the like. And, to be fair, it's a definition that goes back to 3e, IIRC.

 

[Parmandur]

I play with family and friends, so a common sense is shared in regards to such matters; I have zero experience of OP, but would be curious how the different editions play out in that context in real experiential terms?

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, I just thought that was an interesting aspect of 4e. I mean, you probably wouldn't have done that in any earlier edition (there were at least some mechanical uses of XP in 3.x, and it was pretty ingrained into 1e. 2e sort of started to bring it into the realm of story, but you still had the complex training rules and different advancement rates, XP bonuses for high stats, etc, which kinda told us that we SHOULD use XP.

5e, I think it really is just about as 'XP optional' as 4e, but there's STILL not quite the easy measuring stick of "you did 10 encounters, that should be worth a level" that you always get with 4e. There's just something about encounters, when things are part of them, the story DRIVES forwards. I rarely get that sinking feeling I'd used to get in an AD&D game when I was GMing and the players sort of just tossed everything on me to kickstart some action and the game started to wander around in the weeds of hanging around in taverns or something droll like that (not that a good focused tavern scene isn't great, but I have little use for the "we just go into the tavern 'cuz" thing).

Now, in 4e if the PCs "go into the tavern 'cuz", its basically GOT to be an SC, so there has to be some plot and etc that will happen. Granted, there's a chance the players won't help in supplying it, but everyone kinda knows how it goes, things ARE going to move forward.

I noticed our 5e game would sometimes have this issue too (I was only playing in 5e, not DMing). All of a sudden we'd kinda be at loose ends. You could 'run out of story' and there just isn't a set way of going forward. Its actually kind of weird for a game to have a space in which no aspect of play is engaged, there are no goals, nothing.

My favorite experiences with D&D are when those wheels are spinning, and all involved have had a bit to drink: that can be a fruitful play experience.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[Neonchameleon]

The DMs, certainly; if the table doesn't trust the DMs call, why would they play the game...?

I am frequently the DM. And I've made more than enough bone-headed calls in my time. I think I make right calls for the flow of the game but my worldbuilding is far from perfect. With the range of experiences in my regular group they are all going to know more about a range of things things than I am and are going to ask about it (the latest was panic buying in a city on the edge of revolution). And I'm going to know about things they don't.

Also I like it when newbies try to DM. And I have never had a DM, new or veteran, who hasn't done some things better than I do. And I've never had a DM, new or veteran, that hasn't at some point made me think I could do things better. We all have different skills in different areas.

This above all else is why I can't stand pure DM fiat; I find the game works better and is more realistic and immersive when it's a synthesis of the table (and if it's meant to be pure DM fiat I wonder what I'm paying for - what I want is a robust system that helps me do better than I would if there weren't rules and helps bring us to the same page without worrying about different people at the table having different angles in a bad way).

Oh, and [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION], yup, Drago's great!

 

[Parmandur]

I am frequently the DM. And I've made more than enough bone-headed calls in my time. I think I make right calls for the flow of the game but my worldbuilding is far from perfect. With the range of experiences in my regular group they are all going to know more about a range of things things than I am and are going to ask about it (the latest was panic buying in a city on the edge of revolution). And I'm going to know about things they don't.

Also I like it when newbies try to DM. And I have never had a DM, new or veteran, who hasn't done some things better than I do. And I've never had a DM, new or veteran, that hasn't at some point made me think I could do things better. We all have different skills in different areas.

This above all else is why I can't stand pure DM fiat; I find the game works better and is more realistic and immersive when it's a synthesis of the table (and if it's meant to be pure DM fiat I wonder what I'm paying for - what I want is a robust system that helps me do better than I would if there weren't rules and helps bring us to the same page without worrying about different people at the table having different angles in a bad way).

Oh, and [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION], yup, Drago's great!

Calls don't have to be perfect, just work well enough to play.

Mainly, I pay for pretty pictures and maps, not rules?

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app